Loading...
1993 11 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order nt 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilmnn Wing, Councilwoman Dockendm~, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilmnn b~tson moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Agenda with the following additions under Council Pr~entntiom: Councilmnn ]Vfnson wanted to ~ !-nke- Susan Hills 9th Addition; Counc~ Senn wanted to discuss the gllmblin~ ordinnm~e amel~lm, east, the Slate response on TH 101, and response on Bill Hickey's Visitor Presenm~on from the previous meefin.q; and Councilman Wing wanted to discuss the I-~tghwny 5 Task Force. AH voted in favor nnd the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. PRESENTATION OF PAYMENT TO THE GIRL SCOUTS FOR PAINTING NOTICES ON CATCH BASINS FOR THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if I could, I'd like to have the Girl Scouts come forward und stand fight around that podium. I'd like to recognize them ns well ns their leaders. Look at ali those nice ~miles. Isn't it fun to be here tonight? With this, many things have taken place where the city has gone through some processing with the Surface Water Management ~ and we know that in doing that there w~ many things that had to be takell c, nre of in r~gard to markings of these locations and what could go and what couldn't go. It was the Offl Scoul~ that grabbed onto the project and moved forward with it. Tiffs saved the public works ~t a lot of time. A lot of money and we certainly npigedate the fact of extending your time in helping us in the city and trm_idng it a little more environmentally safe. And that's really great bec, nnse it's something that we look forward to. We try to cover and we try to have help and we certainly got it. And I'd like to say ~nks to the lendn~ that. are here this evening. Vicky Goers, we found that local I~rl scout troops were willing tO help. Troop~ #1134 under the leadership of Sally Johnson. #1101 under Nancy Everson. ~)36 under Linda Mndy and #1594 under Katie Trent. And #2146 under Judy Sones and ~"~i5 und~ Vicky Goers. They comp~ much of that work.What I'd like to do now at this time, on behaff of the city of Chnnhn~en, I would lilm to give you a che~ of $250.00 for assisting us in this pltrtiofiar ~. ~ yOU. ~ therg aliyoll~ of th~ leaders that would like to say something or any of the scouts? Scout Lender:. We just npprecia~ being able to help out the city. That's pm't of our or~ni~m is doing service for the city, which is our city ns well. Thnnk yOU. Mayor Chmicl: Thank you very much. Let's give them another round of applause. These ~ some of the fun things that we get to do hem at the Council. Some of the other decisica makings isn't quite ns much fun but it's something we have to come up with. B. ACCEPT ~1,000.00 DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB, PROCEEDS, ED GINSBACH. Mayor Chmi¢l: I see Om-y is reac. Jfiug into the puc. k~ City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Gary: I'm really not Don. I thought you were going to give us a check right now...On behalf of the Lions Club of Chanhassen, we'd like to award you with a check for $1,000.00 m assist in covering expenses for Septemberfest. It kind of comes and goes. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to read something. I think it's something should be noted in regard to them. That although their gross proceeds were $1,600.00, and were down from the previous year, the Lions elected to pledge $1,000.00 back to the city to help cover expenses of the festival and I think it's really a great effort on their part to provide us back these dollars and we ~ly appreciate it. I can't hold onto that too long. I'll pass it onto Don. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mnson moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution ~3-109: Accept Utility Improvements in Willow Ridge 2nd Addition, Project 93-4. b. Resolution #93.110: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 3rd Addition, Project 93-13. d. City Council Minutes dated October 25, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 1993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 28, 1993 h. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Section 20-57, Regarding Expiration of Patting Variances, First Reading. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: With that number would you consider a motion to move this to item 12(a)? Mayor Chmiel: All except, is there anyone else that had any of these items that are pulled that would like discussion at this time, other than Mr. Klingelhutz? Councilman Mason: Well I think item (i) maybe. That's going to take 30 seconds. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: The same with mine. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Should we just breeze th-ough them7 Councilman Wing: Yeah, let's just go through them. Mayor Chmiel: Airight. C. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS, Councilman Senn: I wanted to pull one item over on page 7. Second item. $1,500.00 to Hammel Green. Service fees for something referenced to City Hall expansion. 2 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: My ~ding of.our new procedure is we don't do that, You just pull the item and we'll follow up on it afterwards? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can follow up on the back part of ~h~t, Unless someone else hsd some I~gti~-tm' conce~$. Councilman Wing: No. Unless staff knows cxa~y wha~ it is and can give us a good ~phnafion. Councilman Senn: Well Don, if you're going to do th~ I'll ten you what my problem is I guess. I see $1,500.00 item for City Hsll expansion. I'm not aware ~h~ this Council's ever addressed a discussion or authm-ized a study or any city hsll expansion yet all of a sudden I see we hav~ a consultant. We'r~ paying one and that disturbs me. And likewise it distribs me in light of the State Auditor's recent r~n:n't about cities and consulting conuac~ which don't go out for competitive bids and all of a sudden here we have another consulting conlra:t and never secfl it befflr~. Don Ashworth: You'll see tha~ as pm~ of your work session this nex~ Monday night and I'll f~llow thst with a formal response as well. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other items? Councilman Senn: No. That was the only one. Mayor Chmiel: With that, we'll move. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn: Except that item. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll see that back on our agenda for Monday at the work session. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Accounts Payable with the exception of Check 4~)53146 in the mount of $1,.q)0.00 to Hammd Green. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. E. FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2t BLOCK It OUTLOTS C AND Dt BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTSt LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET~ EAST OF MAIHCET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARDt LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES. Councilman Senn: This didn't really get referenced last meefi_'n5 when this came up for prolimi~ but if I'm understanding the drawing which we now have, it would appear as though we're replatting ~ that the uppli~t doesn't own. Is that coo~ or.incorrect? City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Kate Aanenson: ...would be Ouflot E, Ouflot D and C and parts of Block 1...northerly portions. This is where the hotel exists now. What we're re, platting is fight in this area here. This would be, we'd recommend approval of the variances to, where we don't have the 100 foot width. $o it's just this area fight in here that we're replatting. Councilman Senn: ...the solid line along the bottom appears to go into the bowling center la'operty and the other neighboring property. Kate Aanenson: Right. That was one of the conditions we brought up. That in the...~ line through an existing building, and put a condition on it that they must meet the em'rent building codes in order to do that. But yes, it was put through a building. Councilman Senn: Okay, and that's where you lose me. Doesn't the bowling center people own the property? Kate Aanenson: No. This is still Bloomberg's property. Councilman Senn: Okay, so part of the bowling center is on Bloomberg's ~ and part of it's on their own property? Kate Aanenson: No, this is all Bloomberg's property. It's the Instant Webb building that we're talking about. Councilman Senn: Isn't that the bowling here? I mean otherwise this graphic's...so maybe that's the problem. Maybe the graphic's in error. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, this is the correct subdivision lot fight here. Councilman Senn: But that doesn't have the buildings on it. I understood from our packet this is the document we're being asked to approve. Kate Aanenson: These are the two lots fight here. This is the hotel expansion. Councilman Senn: Can you outline where we're replatting then? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, one other thing just to piggy back on that Mark is that, what we have is a preliminary plat as labeled. That should be shown as a final plat. Get that correction on it Kate. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then the only other comment I had is I'm still not comfortable with the parking situation on this, as I stated last time. So that will laobably lake into my vote at least Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to move that? Councilman Senn: No, I don't want to move it. Councilman Mason: I'I1 move approval of item l(e). Councilwoman Doekendorf: Second. City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Final Plat m replat Lot 2, Block 1, ,uti, ts C and D, Bioomberg Addition into 3 lots for Lotus Realty Services and BIoomberg Companies as proposed. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. F, AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XXV OF THE Z~NIN(~ ORDINANCE, LAND~C PIN(~ AND TREE REMOVAL~ FINAL READING~ AND APPROVAL OF SI~I~fARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSF.~. Councilman Wing: With all the good questions Mark's hriugiug up, thig is rmflly mnnd~ ne.. I .bnost ~ I hadn't said anything here. lust on the cedinatr, e that we're passing. I pulled it the week ~ and ff the Council went to page 3 of the ordinance itself. If Kate will just bear with me. What we're trying to do'here is make sure that we cut down on the heat islnnd effect. The pollution. Just landscape parking lois and I guess whenever staff gives us these things, especiany on the consent agenda, that there'd be a lot of graphics with it and I thought we should have had some graphics. And they did bring in some graphics, But I would just challenege the Council on page 3, as it refers to parking lots, to explnln to me what we're pa~ing. 5o before I embarrass you and go any ft~er, you reach a point where you have to ~ust staff, and in ~i, case I trust staff because I was in on the writing of this. But it's confusing and I really think ~is ordinan~ ought to have graphics with it to kind of have a picta'ial view of what we're trying to say hea'e. Basically this says that a Imrking lot has to have Irees and landing and so many tnirking lois have to have so much of this and so much of square feet has to have this and on the Tree Board that did this, we had all the ~ and the overlays and so on and so f~th. It was really easy to see what we're doing. So staff has done a good job on this but I thought we should have included the graphics and I wish the graphics _had gone a little bit mine than the pencil graph we had here. That's my only comment. I would move approval of this with that ~xl~a/llellt. Councilman Senn: Kate, before you do. Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me Mark. You hsd this one also. Councilman Senn: On page, well basically the first page of the caxlinanc~ item 2. I called to Paul's atten~ at the last meeting about that 2 does not conform to the re. srminir~g city, or othea' city ordinanc~ 811d he WaS going to bring it into compliance with the city ordinances.. But I think with the busy week thnt'S kind of fallen through the cracks so I'd like to propose a change to 2 before we pass this which does bring it into complinnce .with city ordinances. And if you would go to the last part of 2, which following the word ~r, wttich says within 8 feec Just strike the rest of that and substitute instead of ct, utilize. Or how would you say it. Or utility and drainage easements or sight distance triangles. Mc~ or less what that does is it keeps, treats these the same as fences and keeps them out of utility and drainage easements and out of sight distances which we've set up through our sign ordinance. Or not our sign ordinance but our fence ordimnce. And the 8 foot is incorre~ anyway because thc ordinance tv, quires 10. So that change, and I talt-~ to Kate about it hcre and that's going to bring it into compliance. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. What you're saying, basically within 10 feet or utilize utility sight and drainage easements? Councilman Senn: Well Kate and I were mnfinE about and we didn't feel that mentioning the 10 fe~t was really necessary as long as we just said, or utility and draina~.oe easements or sight ~ wiangle~ City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Is that easy to deal with? There'd be no question to that wording7 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Wing: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, would that put a clarification on it? Roger Knutson: Just fine, sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, you made the motion. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Amendment to Article XXV of the Zoning Ordinance, Landscaping and Tree Removal, Final Reading as amended to include the wording" or utility and drainage easements or sight distance triangles"; and approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LYMAN BOULEVARD STREET! STQRM SEWER AND TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS! PROJECT 93-3:2. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Klingelhutz wanted to discuss this a little bit. Al. Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I guess I have some questions and I talked to the City Engineer this moming...this evening. In looking at the feasibility study I guess I would have to agree with Mark in that I know that people that planning on hiring are a very respected firm and everything so I don't have a big problem with giving him the project without it going out to bids. I think after reading in the paper some of Mark Dayton's statements about bidding all projects in the city and thinking...follow that rule. I don't want to give you any information but I probably wouldn't have brought this up if Mark hadn't mentioned it. I guess my concern was the feasibility study is for the total improvement of Lyman Blvd and it looks like everybody in the area is going to be assessed according to the number of acres they have in their property for that feasibility study on that road. Well Lyman Blvd. is a quarter section away from any land that I own and I just don't feel that being assessed for that portion of the feasibility study is quite proper because it is not a benefit to my property. I can understand that TH 101 or 86th Street...feasibility study. I guess I would...that it does benefit my property but Lyman Blvd which is completely a quarter, over a quarter section away from any of my property I don't feel I would benefit, or my land would benefit from it. You've also got 17.18 of acm on here which belongs to Keith Parks who lives down in Kentucky and I do represent him on his property. We have never signed a statement about going into any sort of feasibility study for his propmy. Kc/th called me and talked to me about that today and he said be sure and bring that up. It could cause problems in the future to go ahead with this and slap an assessment on his property and I think his property is included in my assessment of $8,300.00 for this feasibility study. I don't know. It's shaded in dark here but there's nothing in the study showing that there's anything against his pro~. That's another thing I wanted to make you aware of. Now you get a northwest comer of my prope~, I have had sewer to my farmhouse for many years and I se~ that's included in the feasibility study. The sewer line comes across Highway 101 and already sea'vices that proIxa'ty in the northwest comer. And the fact that...litfle white ~ on the north side of TH 101, that's not an acm of land in there but the sewer line, I did get an easement there for a dollar to bring it ac, ross the mad. $o I think when City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 you come to the assessment hearinis, I wnnt_..thnt some of these thin/s should not be included in the assessment on my propew~. I don't know if anyone is here from bfission I-mia ~onight but th~ ~ is still pretty much in abeyance as far as the purchase of it. I do have a tmrchase agree~ on it. It was supposed to close August 1st and there's never been an extension granted or anything on it at this time. So beware. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any way you can add anbnhing to th.t David7 Dave Hempel: Maybe I can shed a little more light on it. The area that's shaded on the report is where improvements, water main as well as sewer are going to...Lyman Blvd. The map on the report is su/ctly showing the land owners tl~ signed a petition the city received. The exact assessment methodology and so forth will be spelled out in the feasi~ study which would be brought back to the City Council. Al Klingelhutz: Could I ask a question7 Did you get a signed statement from Ke/th Patios? Dave I-Iempel: The report would indicate that no, we have not. Acca'ding to thi, retx~ Councilman Senn: Don, I have a question. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Dave, as I talk to a number, or got sev~tl calls from people out in this area, there appe~ to be still quite a great deal of controversy over road alignments and ext~y how thi~ is going to lay out and from what I understood there's still a good number of meetings going on about that Isn't it in ~sr_ case kind of premature for a feasibility study for public improvements which are going to be pretty much dependent upon where those roads and that son of thing 807 Or do we get into a si~on here where we do a feasibilily study and it's going to address a whole ton of alternatives or it's not going to address a ton of alummtives and we end up back with upteem change arders or whatever because we haven't got street alignment set or what? Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn, we've h~! the concept plan ~ fnxn ~fission Hill, develolxnent which is over Mr. Klingelhutz' ~. With that concept we've lind a cotrid~ of about 200 foot wide set aside for the future alignment of Trunk Highwayl01 through these properties. There's been significant studies with the Fred Hoisington Group with the alignment~ of Trunk I-l~hway 101 and then staff believes thai the right- of-way or the area being left set aside for future TH 101 is sufficient to address different alternative alignments which are being pursued. Councilman Senn: I thought there were s~me real quesfitms over what stree~ were going to hook through. Not hook through. Cul-de-sac. Not cul-de-sac. Not pertaining to the glingelhutz lxoperty _nece__-ssafily but pertaining to some of the other properties mentioned here. I think the Roger's property and it's effect on the sux~ The existing street system that exists over ou late Riley Blvd and how ltmt conneas through. Dave Hempel was over at the overheads and not 81}e-n_idng directly into a micwphone. 'l'ne~fore his comments were not picked up on the tape. Councilman Senn: So thi, feasibility ~ndy wouldn't have anything to do with...is ~h~ what you're saying? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 7 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: So it ties only in with the TH 101 part of it and that's it. Dave I-Iempel: Again, this is strictly for the extension of trunk utility improvements through this area... Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion7 I gu~s I was just sort of curious to know, normally at the beginning of the year we go through the process of putting out and getting several different bidders to come in for projects as such. Looking for feasibility studies. And of course this has come back into the back part of the year rig~. t now but we did go through that process and I'm not sure, was Orr-Schelen the ones that had that original one? Dave Hempel: That's correct Mr. Mayor. OSM, Orr-Schelen did have the previous feasibility study when this was first reviewed... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and they were the successful bidder for that part of it7 Dave Hempel: I'm not sure of that Mayor. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: One of the things that the City has tried to do is diversify the number of fa'ms that we use on different projects. The actual choosing of like a consulting engineering £u'm, it's not mandatory that you go with the low bid. Generally we try to keep them in a certain range. 5% to 6% area and again this past year x0e used Engelhardt and Associates on Minnewashta Parkway. Slxgar-Roseoe on 78th Street. OSM previous did this feasibility study and it's the reason we're going back to them at this point in time. I'm trying to think of some of the other firms that we have used. But again, we felt that one of the ways we can protect dollars associated with the city is to ensure that we didn't just keep giving projects to one particular fuxn. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was part of our concern back at that particular time as well. Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Chmiel: So I just wanted to just address that part of it. Is there any other discussion? Councilwoman Deckendorf: Well I'm concerned that we're, I understand we're not asses~g the property as is now but aren't we assessing the feasibility study? And if Mr. Klingelhutz disagrees with that assessment, and in fact says that someone else owns part of the land that he's being assessed for, I'm not sure that we're ready to approve this. I'm not sure I'm ready to approve this. Roger Knutson: If I can just address that for a second. This is not, nothing in here assesses the cost of the feasibility report. You're asking to come up with the cash and to voluntarily pay for it. ff they don't sign, the agreement doesn't happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: So this doesn't proceed if they don't nigh? Roger Knutson: That's fight. Councilman Wing: I think Al was just waving a red flag stating that, use cantion. A1 Klingelhutz: I was just kind of warning you tha~_ one person has not signed it. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's a good thing to tn'lng out. Okay, with ti~t_ _ is there a motion to proceed? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move approve. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Sure,. SeconcL Resolution $93.111: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize a feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard street, stoma sewer and trunk utility improvemenia, Project 93-32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF 1~}00 CUBIC YARDS), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREEt BI~;I'WEK~ KI~RBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULE¥~, T.F. J~ COMPANY. Councilman Masom My only concern is I noticed that for the tracks will be going down West 78th and Ka'b~ when they're hauling soil and bm,ling what not in and out. I'm wonde~ng if Powers does in fact, and we're all going to be nice to whatever powers that be so the weather will ~ so Powers will in fact be done in a week. if most of that can be done on Powers. Dave Hempel: One of the conditions in the report was to aPlnOVe a tmu! mute... Councilman Mason: Right. and it was Powers and ~ and I'm wondering, just because of all the stress that's been on Kerber because Powers has been shut, ff most of that will ead up going down Powe~ or we have no control over that or? Dave Hempel: I guess it depends on where it's kx:afion would be going to. Which ronte...We'd certainly direct it to Powers if it's available... Mayor Chmiel: One of the other questions on this is when is this going to start? What's their anticipat~l start date? Dave Hem : I don't know if thc applicant is here tonighL Maybe he could address Don Aahworth: I think Mr. James is present. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a start date on this that you're going to start thc gr~___i~g and moving om thc, ff you'd like to come up here Cbarlic. We'd like to see you on ~levision. Being that you're all dresm~ up with a tie City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 and slxirt. Charlie James: I was Todd's date for lunch today. He wouldn't take me unless I dressed... We would like to start ASAP. We have a contractor who has use for the dirt to build levies down in Chaska. So I believe in the original application there was a provision for stocking the dirt and if we're able to, we've got somebody to step forward and say look it, ff you can give us this dirt right away, we have a huge contract to build storm levies in Chaska and this is exactly the material we need. So it will all be going down TH 41 to Chaaka. So evea'ything's lined up. The money's lined up. Everything's ready to go. All we have to do is...so I would anticipate we'd begin... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion7 Councilman Senn: Dave, what I was trying to figure out from the staff report. You talk about 100,000 yards excavation and 40,000 of stockpiling. Does that mean 60,000's being removed from the site or does that mean that they're simply excavating 100,000 or stockpiling 40 on the site? Dave Hempel: Those numbers were to us by the applicant. I can only assume they were going to export. Charlie James: They're the cut and fill so the total volume that's being cut is 100,000 yards and then there's 60,000 yards of f'fll. So basically what we're going to do is from Kerber to Powers we're going to grade the entire site in conformity with the surrounding roads and right now the west end of the site needs to come up and the east end needs to come down. Councilman Senn: So you're only removing 40,000? Charlie James: Yes. Councilman Senn: Total. Okay, and that's what was going to be stockpiled or whatever on the site? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's what it says on the interim use permit. On the summary. Councilman Senn: Dave, I saw back under the conditions here that the applicant may be required to stick the retaining wall in. I mean how can you cut that hill away, as is being suggestion, and just leave it the way it is? I don't understand that. Dave Hempel: Well it depends on their end use I guess. The final site plan will dictate how that. Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but what happens in the meantime when you have a big, you know basically. Dave Hempel: I think the timing on this site, the applicant is ready for site plan approval and developing the site with the grading operation. Most likely there will be retaining walls built... Councilman Senn: But if not, you have the power t~ require the retaining wall? Dave Hempel: With the site plan and the review process... 10 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: Shouldn't we make that part of this in case the site plan doesn't proceed? Dave I-Iempel: We could amend it to, in case...finisbed off no deeper th~n 2:1 slopes or some2hing like that. The site plan... Councilman Senn: I'd really like to see some protection in there. That ff it doenm't proceed, then we have some basis to require the condition not to continue so to Dave I-Iempel: If I recall, there are retaining walls lXOposed on ~is grtuting plan... Even if nothing did Ia'oceed with the site development. Councilman Senn: Well that's where I got ccafused because in your approvals it says you may require those. It's not requiring. Dave Hempel: It requires building permits for those retaining walls. I _thinir ~at's what the Collditioll refers to. Condition number 7. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain b~fildi~'n~ permits f~ the retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the ~... Councilman Senn: Okay. $o the walls themselves will be required, okay. Last question was, ca the bond le~l I was really curious. You know it just seemed like a really low bond level at $32,000.00. I mean if there's 40,000 yards of dirt on that pile and you're talking about a number many, many times that to remove the dirt should that situation arise, I mean it just seems to me that the bonding's not even ccming close to covering anything. Dave Hempel: The bond...security is demanded to insure erosion control measures are maintained on the site and the site is restored with topsoil and seed. It's not for the actual trucking of material. If they wanl~l to stockpile material there on the site, as long as it was topsoiled and seeded...~, that's basically our requirements at this time. Councilman Senn: So we could allow the cut of the hill. They could pile up to 40,000 and just leave it there tn~'manently? Dave Hempel: In the stockpile area, that's cotrea. That happens when you have p/rose type projects when you have need for din later on... Mayor Chmiel: I think if there's more discussion needed to be done with this, I think we should address it probably prior to this because there are a lot of questions here that you have that probably could have been answered before hand. Michael, would you like to move thi,? Councilman Mason: Sure. I'd move approval of item L Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Interim Use Permit to grade for site pFeparation (in excess of I~M0 cubic yards), located on the north side of West 78th Street between KerbeF and Powers Boulevard, T.F. Jmes Company as proposed. Ail voted in favGr, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote or 4 to 1. 11 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: What's the reason for your abstention? Councilman Senn: I didn't abstain. I voted no. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Who abstained? Mayor Chmiel: I meant, I corrected myself. I said abstention instead of no. Councilman Wing: What was your reason for the no? Councilman Senn: Not comfortable with all the basically the cutting into the hill and stockpiling of 40,000 on the site and actually no provisions to deal with it later. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I think all those were probably addressed. We'll move on visitor presentation. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A WINE AND BEER LICENSE~ PRAIRIE HOUSE RESTAURANT, $01 WEST 79TH STREET~ TED KORZENOWSKI. Mayor Chmiel: Don, are you going to do this7 Don Ashworth: I had anticipated that probably Scott would but that's fine. The application has been made. We have gone through the typical background checks. Karen has noted the items that he has submitted or will be required to submit prior to the issuance of that license and staff is recommending approval. Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. If there's any comments that you'd like to make at this time, is your opportunity. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue7 If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing7 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for acceptance or is there any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the request for an on-sale beer and wine license, Prairie House Restaurant, $01 West 7~}th Street with contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a $~,000.00 surety bond that expires on April 30, 1994. 2. Submittal of a Certificate of Liquor Liability Insurance meeting the minimum State requirements that expires on April 30, 1994. 12 r City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 3. Submittal of the $270.00 license fee. All voted in Favor and the motion carried unn~y. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENT OF NATOLE PROPERTY ON TETON LANE. Dave I-lempel: We're putting forward the vacation of an easement gnm~ a couple of years ago when there were city barricades placed on Teton Lane just north of the Curry Farms developm~t. The city ob*niru~d a 12 foot by 20 foot wide easement over a driveway at 62~ 1 Teton Lane, the Natole residence. The ptffIs)se of this easement was to allow the city snow removal equipment to be able to turn around when plowing _ro~k when it was a dead end segment. Recent roadway and utility imlxovements to Teton lame has removed the barricade on Teton Lane and the city no longer needs this easement for turn around ~. As such thc lXOperty owners Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time7 This is a public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to ctose the public hearing. All voted in Favor and the motion carried. The public hearin8 was closed. May~ Chmiel: Any discussion? If not, can I have a motion fcn' thc vacation of easement7 Resolution #93-112: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a resolution vacating the public easement over the Natole driveway as contained in Easement Document No. and described in the attachment. All voted in Favor and the motion carried unanlm~y. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.S9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND PUD FOR A 232 UNIT ~ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10, OR 12 UNITS EACH, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD~ GAIAqN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPO~TION~ BETTY O'SHAUGHNF~SY. Public Present: Name Address 7640 ~ Way Kate Aanenson: ..Jocatcd on the southwest corner of TH 5 and Galpin BoulevarcL The ~ is approximately 90 acres in size. 2/3 of this is wetland which m_.~.~ it a very unique site to develop. The comprehensive plan guides this for low density developmcm and we're putting a collector road...connect to the school site on the other side of Galpin and tring it all thc way across into thc Opus pr~...Tbere's a vm'y narrow window of getting this road across between Galpin into the Gateway property based on the fact thnt there is a large DNR protected wetl~ncL It ~ the property, Ihelefore...A~ you ~ see it'8 ]aid out, we're m~idqg it very small. The largest one being only 12 acres. Staff ~ the mcommeva,tion for the PUD and the multi- family. There are several issues that need m be looked ac One is the Pm~ Commissiou was looking at putting a park on this site or on the CraLeway property but upon investig~on and ws~g the site, it was determined_ that 13 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 part of this property is maybe unbuildable or unsuitable for development...where the road is going to cross so further investigation needs to be made of that issue. As far as a larger issue, this .is one of the first projects going through the city that we've looked at under the new Highway $ guidelines and we certainly want to give it critical review of the standards that we put together for that Highway 5. We asked, this is conceptual and I think at this point what they're looking at is getting some direction, a feeling as far as... This lot is similar to the one that they have in Eden Prairie...what the view would be from Highway 5. There will be garage doors facing, a lot of garage doors facing that view and they are proposing some berming and some retaining w_u~lls. The information that we don't have at this time and...would be the amount of impervious surface and parking appears to meet the standards but we want more detail on lighting and also the environmental issues. As far as wetlands, there will be some mitigation of the wetlands. That probably can all be worked out as far as mitigation. Again as we stated, we do have some questions as far as what the buildable area is on that so they may not be able to get that number of units as proposed, 232 units. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well, I was going to mention that the Planning Commission did have some concerns similar to...as far as...up against the new Highway 5 slmndards so at this point what we'd recommend is that you do give them conceptual approval. At least that they come forward with more specifics in respect to building materials and...Highway 5 development standards...recommend conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant hem? Is there anything you'd like to address regarding this? Maybe if you could just put that directly in front of the podium. The camera can pick it up then. Dan Blake: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. My name is Dan Blake. I work for Centex Real Estate Corporation. We're here before you to, as Kate said, get a little direction. This project's had a lot of un'owns with the park and the road connection across to the Opus parcel. We felt it was important to get a concept plan and get that direction from the city. That was the only way I could firm it up. Just quickly, a little bit of the. information about the site again. This being north to Highway 5. There's 4 parcels generally...through the middle. There's a piece of high ground down here that the Park Commission has, I believe pretty much committed to acquiring for part of their passive park area. And then this area what's being called the questionable area. We have done a soils investigation at that location and it's our opinion that it's buildable. It's a question of what cost and we're not sure yet. We're not even really ready to make that decision but we think it makes sense. There's so little of the site that's really useable. Just quickly again...picture what the building looks like. It's a 12, 10 or 8 unit building. This is one side of the 12 unit building. It shows 6 units. We do have garage doors but they are broken up. Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask you to just put that in front of the podium? The camera's not picking that up. Sorry, we lose it. I guess maybe if you could just hold that in front of the podium there so we can. Turn it around. However, so it can be televised as well. Dan Blake: So generally a two story building. Each unit is two stories. We've got brick on the lower areas and the...roof line which I think should generally meet some of the concerns of the Highway 5 corridor study. Quickly again I'm going to show you, ff you can see this on the camera. Kind of a cross section coming to the site standing on Highway 5. Generally, you can see Galpin and a building. Then an open space, then a building and a space and a building and then the wide open space is the wetland. Trying to give you an idea of the percentage of the site covered with buildings. And this is to scale. It becomes out of scale because of it's smallness but that's generally the percentage of the site...obviously it's representing the landscaping... Really ! 14 City Council Mex~g - November 8, 1993 guess other than that I can answer any questions anybody would have. A?in; we're just looking for some direction here as far as the general density. The clarification of the guide plan. What'was medium densfly. What was low density and what direct do we need to go to go towards medinm..~s far as the Council's concerned. Mayor Chrniel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this at this time? Okay. I see some of the things that concern me in just looking at t_h~t particn~m' parcel. There's 23:2 units. I think it just doesn't fit in to that particular area. I have some concerns because of all the wetland that is them. I think we have other concerns as far as our Highway 5 development, and you're right. With some of the designs as you have them, landscaping may do some of the things but I'm not going to say it's going to totally take care of it. I did a few calculations hem and I had come up with a lot less than 232 units. I have some re, al concerns. What's the spacing? Do you have any idea what your spacing's going to be between those buildings? Dan Blake: The spacing in the front situation lilm this. We use about a 64 foot minimum, which would be 20 feet from the building to the curb. 24 foot roadway and then another 20 feet from the building to the curb on these courtyard areas. Spacing end to end vary from 20 to 30 fe~t to more, 100 and more feet depemling on the orientation. Generally that 64 feet is the minimum which allows for tho driv~waye to be...se, t back a little bit so the unit driveway length is between 22 and 26 feet long in front of the garage Igoviding full parking space in front of each individual garage. Mayor Chmiel: Dave. In looking at that Is there, what is our, for our collector road, what are we looking at for width? Dave Hempel: Right-of-way width. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Dave Hempel: Or street width? Right-of-way width, 80 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And you're looking at what size road then? Dave Hempel: Anywhere from a 36 foot wide to 44 foot wide. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well, I don't want to sit here and just keep tarring. I'm going to go to Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess L..wanted to address this tonighL..I think the Council made it ~ cie, ar some months ago that we had a priority in the city and the decision the~ was the Highway 5 corridor. The taak force. The completion of tha~ issue and get that on line ~M stuff was told that th~ may have to take a m~ c~ some of these developments and..~way ~ c,~vidor study has been to the Plapnin~o Commi~io[i at least twice that I'm aware of and both times has been shoved to the back of the meeting and just hasn't been dealt with_ And there's an enormous educational process that Ires to occur at the Plnn~ing Commission before it even gm to the Council with...,o on nnd ~o forth. The T-j?~ghway 5 tnsk force has their rcpon...with nnother group of de~ out on the ,outhenst corner the~. They cnn't come brick until we ~ thi,~ comple~...we'H have issues of and nrchitecturnl stnndnrds and setbncks nnd...~ghwny 5 I~i~ bnt we don't know what tbey nre. not established yet. We haven't gone through the proces~..and it's a stand over ~...becomes the priority here. That these developments are put on hold and every time this comes up we talk mora~'ium and ev~y time we say we don't want a moratorium but we're not.Clearly the Planning Commi~on htui not addressed it 15 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Clearly staff has not pushed it and we've lost site of our priorities. They have been buried in all the developments and we're looking at one or two of them tonight and...staff could not possibly have had time to look at these and have completed that study so that's my position. So I'd like to ask the Council's hacking on insla'ucting staff once again to give the Highway 5 corridor study top priority. That development be put behind us temporarily and if a moratorium is necessary, then we ought to move on it tonight to get the pressu.~ off staff's back. They have a right to develop their property. We have to react, what is it 120 days I believe? Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Wing: Well, staff has to reaet...Highway $ is off limits to development until this study is completed. And then I understand that the developers will come in and help get this thing going. The Planning Commission has only one job to do, in my opinion, and that's to deal with the Highway 5 cxnfidor study and get it complete. They have a lot of work to do and a lot of education ahead of them and it's been fluffed off so I guess I'I1 leave it at that. I'm not willing to address this tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I full support Richard in all of his comments. I realize that this is just concept approval but I think, if we're at that stage yet, I still have many, many questions about what this is going to look like. Whether it's even appropriate for this area. Realizing that it is highway frontage, it may be an appropriate use but there are too many outstanding issues here to even give it concept approval this evening. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Where does this stand with, not this in particula~ but Kate, with the Highway 5 plan. Stand with the Planning Commission fight now. Kate Aanenson: We have a Saturday meeting, a special meeting scheduled for December 5th. We tentatively set the second Planning Commission meeting in January as a public hearing. So we're hoping to hold the second meeting... Councilman Mason: I support what Councilman Wing is saying. Conceptually I think this probably will end up fitting in on that comer but I do concur that this is perhaps putting, I can never remember, is it the horse before the cart or the cart before the horse? Whichever one of those...I see something like this definitely fitting in there but I'm worried that some of the other pieces of the puzzle aren't in place yet. So I guess I would support what Councilman Wing is saying. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: I asked for I guess such a consideration almost 9 months ago. I guess my only question Dick is this. What portion of Highway 5 are we talking about, because in the past it's been very selective. I mean we don't want to talk about a moratorium or you don't want to milt about the Highway 5 study and how it relates to on certain parts of Highway 5. Now we do want to talk about a moratorium on other parts of Highway 5 and that just, that really bugs me. What it really comes down to is it seems like everybody really cares about what's going to happen on the west part of Highway 5 but absolutely nobody cares what's going to happen on the east part of Highway 5. 16 City Council Meeting - November g, 1993 Councilman Mason: I need some clarification there. What did you just say7 Councilman Senn: What I'm saying, what I just said was that it seemed like nobody cared much about what was happening on the east end of Highway 5 when we had nil these nuto related uses with gnrnge doors nmi everything else facing the highway. Right there in fi~nt of us before us nmi nobody cnred about it nnd now all. of a sudden we're out on the west side of Highway 5 nad geez, we're nH concerned about it in a ~ceptual plan level. Councilman Mason: Well, I very strongly dt~oree with the fact that nobody on thi,~ Council cared about what's going on on the east end of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: I'll let the Minutes and the voting record show Councilman Mason: That sounds very good to me. I guess I'd like to see that. To say the Council doesn't care what's going on on Highway 5 I think is a disservice to the rest of us here. Councilman Senn: I didn't say that. Councilman Mason: Well, that's what I heard. Councilman Senn: On the east end. Councilman Mason: East end, fine. Councilman Wing; But let's clnrify, the corridor study isn't selective. It runs fi'om the east bercle~ to the west border and there's going to be a bicycle ride in December. What's the chile? Satnday the 4th? Or th~ 5th. And you talk about lack of interest and lnck of people getting on the band wagon, Nobody showed up for the last one. They had to cancel it. Well I'm going to be there on the Sth. I'm going to mnke. everybody that's in thi, process that isn't there accountable so we can go out and look at this. But it runs from Eden Prairie to Victoria.. The Highway 5 corridor task force and study, it envelopes the entire city but the downtown is specialized and Mark has...points and I think we have dealt with those but it was very clear by the ~y ~ those proposals were again, the cart ahead of the horse. They we~ there. They existed. We couldn't stop them or chn_nge them. None of us liked them. The issue with Mark maybe was the moratorium and if this is going to continue in this direction, that's not a dirty wcmd anymore. We're just ~imply not getting thi, done. Mayor Chmieh Yeah, and I agree with that. With that position as well bec__~n_~e the~ was llothing wo gould do as far as the eastern portion was concerned and I don't lt'ko disgeminntinE ono from the oth~. I think it's all ltmt we have to be concerned with and I think we should address that according. So with that. Councilman Wing: Who has the floor right now~ I cut somebody mt hem. Who was speaking? I just wanted to know if it's appropriate at this time, if it's the right _mvl_~ Robert's Rules, if I could make a re, solution inslructing staff to once again, from the City Manager down, to priodtize the comI~tion of the rusk force study. The Highway 5 corridor overlay. The PUD districting, if that's what occurs. Which is nH encompassing. Highway 5, and Mark's issues nre eqlmlly as vnlid and nre going to be discussed in iL Land use nnd what we're going to do with whatever's left there. Clearly those nm issues. Mayor Chmieh Yeah, but just a motion rather than a ... 17 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Okay, the problem with the...resolution is that we still have State law that requires us to react to people that want to develop. A moratorium puts stop on it and staff no longer has to deal with the phone. They simply can go 100% on this ctm'idor study and get it completed once and for all and then let development come but then we have the rules and the overlay and the PUD in place. I'm not so sure that staff can do both, and I'll leave that up to Mr. Ashworth to make that decision. But I would like to make a motion prioritizing this. Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that, let's get a, give us a little input Don. Don Ashworth: Well it should be responded to by Roger but I might say that, if you want to give a priority, a motion would accomplish that. If you want to ensure that om' hands are fly, ed up and that we're really not working on other development proposals, then the motion should be one of directing the City Attorney's office to prepare a moratorium resolution, or? Roger Knutson: It'd be an ordinance. Don Ashworth: Ordinance. Councilman Senn: Well we already did that once I thought and I thought you came back and said we could do a moratorium and then I thought staff spoke against the moratorium. Paul specifically. I don't see what's different then than what's now. I mean if that issue needs to be revisited, then I think we ought to revisit the entire issue. But again, I was real concerend about that 9 months ago. I continue to be concerned. We should have put a moratorium on it 9 months ago but you know, I don't see the big difference between tonight. Councilman Wing: The reason I didn't support you then is because staff said we can get this done and we're rolling. We'll clean it up. Well, I see that not happening. Councilman Mason: Aren't we just heating that they're hoping for public hearings in January on this? So there clearly is direction and it clearly is moving. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And there's no doubt about that but it will lake time once it goes through Planning Commission. Even on Council's going to take some time to discuss it so we're really looking at spring before we get anything said and done. So I think it's time to really look at it again. Can we dispense with this one and then maybe discuss that issue? Or should we do it within the context of. Mayor Chmiel: Well, whatever Council's pleasure is. What would you like? Would you like to dispense with this now? Councilman Senn: We do have a motion on the table. Mayor Chmiel: There was a motion on the table. It wasn't seconded. Councilman Wing: The motion was that the City Manager, working with staff, make this top priority of the planning department and city staff and I would go along with that tonight but then I would ~ the moratorium issue on the next agenda for formal discussion and action. Councilman Senn: Second. 18 City Council Meeting - November 8. 1993 Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any otber discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeab. Roger, do we lmve to, since Cenlex ~ come ~ the doc~' with tht,, do we have to deal with it within a ~ time period7 Roger Knutson: This is for. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Concept approval Roger Knul~on: Right. This doe~ not include a preliminary plat with if? Kate Aanenson: Not at this point. It's a rezonlng. Mayor Chrniel: Yeah, it's re, zoning from A2 ~o PUD. Roger Knutson: ...plats. Not the rezonin~. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Roger Knutson: So, not to put words in your mouth. But if the direction you're going is ID adopt a m~um and you want Io put this on hold and you're going to consider the moratorium with your next meeting, then the direction you want to do is table this until that time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Table it at ~ paniculm' time and then discuss it with,.. Roger Knulson: ...pass the moratorium, then it will be tabled for however the mormm'ium goes. Councilman Wing: Well, the motion is to instruct staff in their priorilies but I would add to that then, at the same time to table this in one motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acceptable? Councilman Senn: Sure. Councilwoman Docke~: Then I'd further comment to the applicant th~t~ not speaking for ~ blit I certainly agree with Mr. Mason that conce~. ~nlly this i~ probably what will happen in that corn~. We're just not ready to say you know...tonight. Mayor Chrniel: Okay. Any other discussions7 Councilman Senn: One thing Don. if I could, for whatov~ it's worth. ~ as far as under your recommendntions go. I jus~ w~nu~l to ~ee that one changed on the. let's see number 4. Changed so it was required, not should be considered. That maybe ju~ elimirmt~ the question in the futur~ Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion7 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make it clear. Councilman Senn I'm not...react like Mike did init_i_a!ly but I support Mark's comments and concerns su'ongly and I think I intend to look at the east end every bit as heavily as the west end. I think it's synonymous. I don't think they're independent. Mayor Chmiel: I think we clarified that in earlier discussions as well. So with that I'll call the question. Councilman Mason: What exactly is the motil~n now? There are two things going on here? Mayor Chmieh The motion is to basically table and also to direct suffl' to 8o through the process as Richard has indicated and then to bring this back for a moratorium in 2 weeks, is my understanding. Is that ~t Roger? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Actually it's a two part motion as I understand it. One, table this request and put it on your next agenda. And two, preceding this item will be consideration of a moratorium on all development activity or all preliminary plats and rezonings within the Highway 5. Councilman Wing: ...but the initial discussion of the motion was, that staff be inslructed that this will become a priority item and get that back on the agenda. That was the motion originally. Mayor Chmiel: Is that clear?. Councilman Mason: No. Councilman Wing: It also will instruct staff to prioritize this. Table and bring back a moratorium for the next agenda. Mark, are you still with me? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: In 2 weeks what we're bringing back is a discussion for consideration. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other discussion7 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council instruct staff to put theHighway 5 corridor plan as a top priority and to draft n moratorium ordinance to be brought back to the next City Council meeting, and to table action on the concept plan for a PUD at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway $ and Galpin Boulevard for Centex Homes until the next meeting. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: And I think you've, would you like to clarify? Councilman Mason: Well, because I think we're going to __ml_ k about a moratorium again in 2 weeks and I think we'll decide that's not the best way to go because the process that's in place now seems to be working fairly well and I see it as something we don't need to deal with right now. Councilman Wing: So the priority is okay. 20 City Council Meegng - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: Oh I don't have any u~uble with the lxiorily at all. It's the moa~m:a'ium that I. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because we have controls with PUD's and others? Councilman Mason: That's my feeling exactly. Councilman Wing: And if I could take just a quick second. My opinion, in talking to staff today, thru they'ro buried and the only way they're going to be freed up is ff we put a stop on the Highway ~ activity. But we'll leave tim Io staff. Councilman Mason: Sounds sood. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have moved on. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE ~6~023 SQ. FT. LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN QUTLOT TO BE COMBINI~ WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHQREWOOD~ ,JEAN ADDmON~ 6200 CHASKA ROAD~ FRANK I~EI~qE. Mayor Chmieh Yes, we tabled it at the last meeling. Kate Aanenson: What you did is ask us to look al alltmmlives. Slatf still suplxa'ls the rucommeudation as we proposed last time with...outlot. Al~ain, Mr. Re, ese who owns this property here wanted to split ggs off in cs'der to provide one building lot and keep this as part of his buffer so to speak. 'Fnere is a large wetland here. It probably wouldn't be buildable. In addition Mr. Reese has a driveway going across that property. It's kind ~ unlikely, he's lived there for 20 some years, that he would give thru prupetly up. It could happen. So the other option would be to require that he get a subdivision approval with the lot he~ and malo~ that one lot. I guess the thing there would be that he'd have to go to the city of Shorewood and get approval of that to be Lot 2 of thai plat. The Jean Addition. So we'd have two lots in the addition. This as an ouflot We'd have Lot 1, which would be this lot. And then Lot 2 would be this porliou provided with his existing lot would be the other option. So whatever proposal you would recommelld, the original wotlld be all outloL Or maybe with two lots, we would still have the same condition of approval as provided in the st~ ~ Mayor Chmiel: Has slaff had any discussion with the city of Shoruwood ru~arding this? Kate Aanenson: We sent them a copy of the ~ and haven't heard anything. Mayor Cluniel: Okay. Is there any discussion in regsrd to this? MichaeA. Councilman ~n: I'll ~ suplz~ Altem~v~ #1. I de~'t deay ~ Alternmive g2 gives us ultimate protection. I think that the chances of anything going wrong with Altev~v~ #1 m so mininml tl~t I dm't think we need to put Mr. Reese thruu~ the hassle of Altmmlive ~ So I support Almnative #1. Maym Chmieh Okay. Thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: Question. Basically ff you do your allgmmfiv~ and you hav~ a lot that's' in Chanlmssen and I guess this is an outcrop of some questioning last wee~ Or I shouldn't say last week but at the last meeting but I mean, does the Shorewood prolxmy owner, because part of his 1o~ is in ~ and fronts on a 21 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Chanhassen street, is he then required, I mean does he have an obligation to pay assessments or anything like that towards the street improvements or anything like that? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: He has a separate tax ID number for...Chanhassen and one for Hennepin County in Shorewood. They're split based on the parcel size and the assessment. He's doing that now. Councilman Senn: So even though the dwelling isn't there, it doesn't make any difference? Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Senn: Because some people had asked about that on the Minnewashta when I saw them. Kate Aanenson: He currently has two different jurisdictions right now. He's taxed separately. Councilman Wing: Kate, where's the house? Kate Aanenson: Mr. Reese's home? It's right here. Councilman Wing: Is that the 6:200 number7 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I was out there today and. Kate Aanenson: It looks closer. Councilman Wing: Yeah, okay. So the house is sitting, okay. I understand. Kate Aanenson: And his driveway does come across from the Chanhassen point. Councilman Wing: Alright. I got it. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And based on the topography of that ouflot there's really nothing you can do with it. Kate Aanenson: It's wet. It's only 8,000 square feet and at least 1/3 of it's wetland .... that did come up last time...Mr. Swearingen had an issue about the trees and most of the trees were again on a portion adjacent to this...to ensure that the most possible ~ get saved. Councilwoman Doekendoff: And the Council won't see that, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct... Mayor Chmiel: And I think I agree with Mici'mel that Alternative #1 is I think the way to go and it does eliminate all that hassel as far as it's concerned with Mr. Reese and I don't see any real given problem with it. 22 C"'ity Council Meeting - November 8, Councilman Senn: I guess I'm the one who raised a lot of questions over it and I gue~ I still have problem~ creating that kind of a splinter parcel. I agree, I mean #1 is a solutim, fi2 is the right ~olution that ~olve, s it for all time and makes it a non-issue in thc future. But I know that's a little more work for somebody to go through but I think it will save the city a lot of work la~ if ~me, body co~es in when Mr. Reese is not the~ an~ Mayo~ Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll make thc motion to approve ~lcan Addition SUB #93-19, Atlemative #1. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockmdorf seconded to approve the request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Subdivision #93-19 to create a 27,7~0 square foot lot and an 8,7~0 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to emurc minimel ucc loss. A buffer strip of $ to 10 feet down from the house is requh~ since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with thc area of greatest potential of rtmoff from lawn area fcrfi_'liTers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. 4. The house type may be limited to a split-entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for thc lower level 5. The applicant is responsible for the nl~ connection hook-up charges nt the time of building permit issuance for connection to city sewer and water. 6. The applicant convey a 20 foot wide dl'ninnge and utility easement centcizzl on thc commoll lot linc between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. 7. Park and lmil fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees ' are currently S600.00 and park and S200.00 for uniL AU voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 23 City Council Meeting - November g, 1993 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT ORGANIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE CITY. Public Present: Name Address Dale Lewis Oary Lano Paul Smith Mike Be&opec Uli Saechet Dean Johnson Steve Midthun Ed Battani Chris Boatwright Nancy Lee Patrick Blood 1020 Lake Susan Hills Drive 731 Victoria Drive, Chaska Metro Council, St. Paul Waste Management 8071 Hidden Circle Resource Strategies 6510 Fox Path 6547 Gray Fox Curve Aagard West Admiral Waste Mgmt Admiral Waste Mgmt Kate Aanenson: ...needs to be is clear is why the study was initiated by the city. It came out of a discussion when we looked at road restrictions in the spring. The weight. At that time the Council decided to...the Recycling Committee to look at that issue. What's been done so far is look at Phase 1 and what they're asking.., look at the needing for Phase 2. I did pass out to you a letter...There was a lot of discussion about it at the last meeting... Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that I would just like to address something that was sent out by, I believe Aagard West and I'd like to just read it. It says last chance for Chanhassen residents. In a packed public hearing on October 25th, Chanhassen residents voiced overwhelming opposition to the proposed organized hauling plan. I don't know if he was sitting at the same meeting that I was. I believe we had the haulers do the discussion. We had about 4 or 5 citizens do the discussion. Of it being packed wasn't for this particular reason. It entailed other items on the agenda that were public hearings as well. So I'd just like to just make a clarification here. The City Council ignored their concerns and tried to approve the second phase of the process and another $15,000.00 of your money spent on something you said you don't want. The one that we have here is one that was sent hack from one of the residents that have Aagard West as their hauler. He doesn't feel that that's the lamicular case. This says don't let the organized garbage lobby bully you. He said what's here is not right. I tabled this item bemuse I thought there were some other reasoning that we could come up with in regard to this. Some of the concerns that we had were of course the heavy trucks and there are a lot of concerns by the Sheriff's Department as well as the city in trying to determine where these people are at. All we'd have to do is increase next spring and have the Sheriff all over the city, and we'd have to hire that done but I think we could probably pick up those fees with the overloads as what they had. The main concern the city had was the fact that if in the event we were to have to replace those streets within the city, and as I mentioned before. We have roughly about 106 miles of streets and 93 miles that being also city streets but the other balance of that is State Aid. The cost to replace those streets would run roughly $10 million. That bothers me because of the fact that we will have to go back to the constituents within the city and have them pay for that additional mount. Another thing, if you take one of the garbage trucks and in talking with the Sheriff's Department, unloaded they're over weight and when they start filling they are way over weight. And that's what really breaks up the streets. There's no question in my mind. Some this past spring had taken the position of taking smaller trucks within 24 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 the city streets and alleviated that problem. And I'd almost like to go back to the haulers right now and say, you take the problem. You come back to us and give us a solution then if you don't think we're going in the right direction. Michael...agree or disagree. That's your position...but thst_ 's at least where I'm coming from. Councilman Mason: I'd also like to comment on this notice from .As..onrd. I believe thc sense is the Mayor tabled the decision until the November 8th Coundl meeting, not a public besting. The public hearing, ff I'm not mistaken, was never closed on this. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct Councilman Mason: And I'm, you know we have other lmnlers like Mr. Loma and Mr. Berkopec that are talking about, they certninly have their very strong opinions and I don't blame them for thnt but I'm nlso hearing from some of the bn_~lers a williugness to work and see if we can come up with fl solution as opposed to some of this rhetoric that's been discussed from other haulers. And I quite honestly, those are the people I want to work with and, this notice limt came out quite honestly, well I was very disaplX~ted. There's so much misinformation in here, it's almost to laugh. Unfortnnat~ly when residents read something like this, they take it for face value. So my comment to that is, I think the other haulers _fl~st_ I've already mentioned are showing the willingness to work with the city on this and I guess if Aagm~ West doesn't want to work with the city, they don't have to and maybe we should just concern ourselves with the haulers that are trying to slay open minded about this, like I'm assuming all the Council members are staying open minded about it. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right I don't think we've come to any conclusions. It's still a discussionary thing and I'm not sure myseff where this is going to go. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Right, and I don't want to say we don't like this hauler and we coly want to deal with the other ones. This is a very important issue to the hnulers obviously, it's their bn~iness. But let's be cooperative with one another and that's what I found on the ~Bcy¢lin_.o commi~ is that the majar~ of the haulers are very coopemive. Very he~ with their ioformation and I'd like to keep it along that tone if we choose to continue with the study. Councilman Senn: I got. Mayor Chmieh Okay. Just one other thing Mm'k, I was just going to mention. There is a video thnt we have here on the affecm of su~ets with hauling of garbage and I'd like to have us show that as ~oon as Mark ires a comment to make. When he gems done with ~ maybe we can show it at ttmt time. Councilman Senn: I had about 20 calls...not because of the An_E ~nrd letlm' but because of the BFI letter. It also arrived I guess at numerous households today and all the calls we~ that they wanted to keep an open system and there's no way they wanted one trash hauler for the city, which is the BFI letter stated is what we were going to do. To me there's a lot of rumor going around and an awful lot of mi,information. I tried to call bsck every one of these people and maybe got a little over halfway there in the short I/me to come before tonight bat when you simply explain to them what the city is con~leri~. Underline considering. In some form. Underline some form of collection or organized collections of the city, and we're doing th~ for what I think, and I thinlr most of the Council shares in that feeling, several good reasons and those good reasons ate safety on our neighborhood streets, because if you only have Iruc~ coming in one day a week, that's a lot better thn_n ne/ghlxwhoo~ especially with a lot of these young children, thnn UUC~ coming in 6 days or 5 days a week and multiple haulers on some days even. And as Don mentioned earlier, the savinl/s in terms of road mnintenance and _thi.~ City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 has been an issue every spring with road and mad restrictions, etc. As soon as you bring those issues up, they say well geez, those sounds like real valid issues. And we haven't def'med the level that we're talking about in terms of organized collection. Then we're going to have collection level maybe by neighborhood for all we know. Or it may be by full city. I kind of doubt that but you know. Everybody just kind of tums around says you know, yeah. We should really look at that. We should really do that. And so I'm getting real tired of, you know whether it's BFI's letter or Aagard's letter or I think last week it was I think a couple of other leuem. The haulers just seem to, or I should say, some of the haulers seem to just really be bent on putting out the misinformation in some kind of an effort to e*en kill discussion on it or looking at the issue. I would like to, I guess I'd back up a sec because I do agree with one thing. I guess the people that called and said they thought it was ridiculous that we're spending $30,000.00 to study this, I guess I kind of have to half agree with th~m on that and I'd really like to see Council at this point, you know we've taken a fair mount of Input on this. I mean we had a public hearing last week. We're kind of at a half stage right now of kind of deciding where we're going to go and how we're going to 8o and to me it really makes sense to me at this point for Council to really sit back. Look at this in a work session and establish some direction rather than go out and ask a. consultant to establish direction for us. Or rather than ask haulers to 8o out and establish direction for us. They seem to be willing to do that in letters anyway and stuff and I think a majority of the haulers would welcome at least some specifics and a little bit out of fairness to the haulers and I don't want to chit too long on this but you know, you look at the report that's come out of the committee and I mean there's a lot of conclusions you can jump to as a result of that. But at the same time most of the conclusions that are being jumped to are a little far fetched or ridiculous and that's why I think it really would help at this point if Council really looked at this and provided some more definitive direction on it before it went anywhere forward or even into, you know maybe there isn't a Phase 2 study that's needed. Maybe what there is is some direction needed and then some direction to implement something. I don't know but I mean I think we should really take a hard look at that and go forward. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, could I speak before you get to your film as well? I don't want...and I find myself in the unique position of defending haulers tonight, that they spread all thb misinformation. Unfortunately the way the last meeting worked, we took public comment and we didn't have a chance to respond to those issues and the article in the newspaper came out and it did seem, only because that was the only side of the issue addressed that evening, that's what the newspaper article presented and that formed opinions in a lot of people's mind so I won't say it's just the haulers that spread misinformation. The second thing you said about the Council providing direction. I'm not sure ff we need a work session. I guess that was my intention tonight was to give some parameters for what the Recycling Committee should look at next. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's why I was trying to hold off until once we saw what the f'flrn was and then proceed with that particular direction. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know. Mayor Chmiel: But Richard, go ahead. Councilman Wing: I've just got to make a mundane comment here because, as I've listened to all these comments and the people with all theft anger, we're not unusual. We're not up here sitting here as little penguins that are going to cram it down their throat again. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I have the same problems, the same questions, the same concerns. I like my hauler. I'm worried about this. I'm worried about that. I want my choice. The only difference between me and everybody else that's been putting the pressure on is I've got the vote but I'm trying with my vote to be very cautious. Look very long term and be visionary way 26 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 down the road for the city and if in ~ process my opinion doesn't agree with some olhers, like Mike often says, we've got to do our job. But we're here as residonls and dmt's wha~ I want to remind ev~ly is we're dealing with the same issues and we're just trying to do what's best lon~ term. Short/mm is going to be painful. Mayor Chmicl: Thank you. And now thc movie. Don Ashworth: I would agree with all the comments tlmt Imv~ ~ mad~ We really don't know the solution. Under State law we have to go through this process to come back with a solutica but one thin~ we do knOW, there is a probl~ and I lhink thsl this video really does 8how whm ~ proble~ is. (A short video was shown at this point on the ~ of frock u'nfFtc on rondwnys.) Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'm sure ev~'yone was paying real good alumtion to the sound. Anyway, Colleen we'll get back now to you for additional discussion that you have. Or that you'd ~i~ to have. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I just thought, I mean the purpose tonight is to say let's look st it. We agree that they have some problems and let's go ahead and look at some possible solutions and those wR1 nm the /arnmet from well I think we're going to exclude having one h~nler do the city or have it city ov2.nni=~l. But it zones and I think wire Mark said was correct in that we need to ~ some direction wnight as ~ to jus~ saying, okay let's go ahead and look at some other issues. Let's say okay, let's go ahead and look ~ some solutions and these are the criteria for those solutions. I'm prepared to do ~h~! toni/hr. I don't know ff the rest of the Council wants to do tha~ tonight or in a work session. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other council have any comments? To thnt suggestion. Councilman Mason: Can we stop the, if we go the work session mute, we could just stop the process now if we wanted to? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No reason why we couldn't. There's no final de~ision being made. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: Co~. Councilman Mason: Whatever we choose tonight, I am in strong support of nnything we do for the haulem to be able to remain competitive in this city. And ~hat's, I see that as a psramomt issue. I personally thing some chnnges need to occur but I would r~lly look long and hard nt dumges ff the Council dele~nined that the competitive edge would be lost. Councilwoman Dockendod: And that's the kind of parameters I'm looking f~. I mean issue number one, let's make sure that there's some fcrm of customer feedbnck nnd that there is compe~fion mninlain~L If I could just suggest a few others. From the surveys, 64% of the people felt that the service level was very importnnt so we'd hnve to determine n schedule where people cnn ~ have their 30 gallon can. 'l'ney can sRll get gnrnge pick up. Things like that. One of my issues is to have minimnl city involvemeilL That is that the airy will not be doing the billing. The city will not be halvli_ in.,o cllstomer complaints. That'd still be handled through the haulers. Issues like that that we can kind of set thc param~ so the Recycling cowmi~ can So back and know what we're looking for in specific recomm~~. City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think all the phone calls I have received have all, well even I think most the public comment dealt with choice. Everybody wants choice. I think that's all I really, the feedback I really had was we want choice. The only humorous element that one fellow today was adamant that the city doesn't get involved. He doesn't want a bunch of city paid G-men running around. He kept referring to the word G-men. I think he's got some validity there. He's worried about the bureaucracy and of course I think we all are. But the only issue that I guess I'm really concerned about is choice. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's an interesting issue because when you ask people if they've ever switched haulers, the vast majority, they've never switched a hauler unless they've moved. So people want that option and yet they never exercise that option. Or very rarely exercise that option. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's true. I had...on Saturday and had a few people in to talk about that. But one of the reasons this individual indicated that he wanted to keep his hauler was for the mere fact thai he does go to the garage and take it out for them. As he's not able to do that because of his back and a back problem. There's a lot of pros and cons to the issues and people wanting and then you get some people who say, maybe this is the best way to go as well. I'm not sure this is the best way to go and trying to eliminate the major problem that we have is back to the roads you know. Who's going to pay for this? The constituency in the city. How can we eliminate it? Maybe smaller trucks like was implemented before could be one of the things. Whatever. There's a whole host of different things that can be done. Mark? Councilman Senn: ...the place we got out of the gates here on a bad footing I think is, I think was referred to in the last meeting, this term that's been attached to this report called Managed Competition. And I have, personally I have a real problem with that and I think whatever system we set up is going to need to rely on free enterprise and hoping competition. Not managed competition. I'm against city collection. I'm against one contract. I'm against governing how many haulers, except I think they should all be licensed. I'm against the city managing it. I'm against more staff to manage it. I'm against organizing commercial hauling. Underlining commercial meaning if you're talking about business, downtown area. That type of thing. I don't think that's an area that's a major concern because that has a road system in place that's built to handle it and that sort of thing and the safety issues aren't as paramount. I'm going to say, given today now, I mean I've mlke~ to probably you know well over I'm not going to say in the short period of time over the last month, you know probably with 20 a day has to be over 120 people on this issue and it re, ally comes back to, you know again understanding the issues and understanding safety is an issue and understanding road repair and maintenance is an issue and I think there's ways to organize a system and I think there's a role for the city in helping to lay the framework for that but personally I'd really like to see us lean towards very small neighborhood or small service districts and I think every hauler should have the right to bid every one of those and every hauler should have the right to be held accountable for the service in that area. And if they're not, that area should be able to get a new hauler. I think things like that can be accomplished within an established framework and I'd really like to see us work towards developing that type of a framework and I just think it'd be a lot easier to do that. I thin we kind of sit back and throw some ideas up on the board in a less formal setting and you know. I think there's a lot of good ideas that could probably come out of the group but maybe we could start focusing on something that would make some sense to proceed with from the Council's standpoint and, you know I think that's basically where we could get as far as providing some direction. Again, I really don't think we need more study of this thing. I think we need more direction. 28 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Maycr Chmieh Okay. So we're '_talking potm~ally having a work session to come up with some of the conclusions as Colleen had indicated and giving the committee a sense of direction as to what we're really looking at and then proceeding from there. Councilwoman Dockendarf: Can we move approval of the findings and recomm__and,tinns this evenin~ and then plan a work schedule, or work session? And if so, I'd like to pull recommer~t~ion number 2. Mayor Clmtiei: Well we have two things here. This is an tmflniahod bo_~negs. The hearing was still left open. So we have not yet closed the public heating. Councilman Senn: Don, could I make the same suggestion I made l~t wed and Colleen, in deference to what you're saying but couldn't we simply close the public hearing. Vote to receive the report I Mink if we get into a discussion over the recommendations tonight, I think we're going to end up in a lot of debale. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with a lot of them. But receive the report and agree that tnmically what we're going to do is set up a work session to discuss where we go from here and provide some direc~ on ff there is going to be a Phase 2 or if there's some steps we're going to take towards either implementation or not implementation of any organized collection. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. A legal imerpmtation. Roger Knutson: One_to that. You can do that Cotmcilraember but what you should do, or what I would recommend doing. If you don't want to adopt the findings or the resolution thnt's been ~ you should table that item to a specific Council meeting because under the Statulory process you have to adopt this idud of resolution if you want to end up with any or~mized collection. So f~ example tonight, if the motion was made to adopt this and the motion were to fail, then you went to your work session and you decided huh. On reflection we want to do something with organized collection. You'd have to start the whole darn process over again. Councilman Senn: Okay, I don't have a problem with the resolution except in the last pntagmph it says, adopt the ~gs of the recommendation. Is that a requirement? I mean otherwise the resolution kind of just like you say, keeps the process going. I think by sticking thnt in the~ you're kind of asking Council to make some decisions right now as it relates to those findings and recomm~ons and I'm not sure ff I'm prepm'ed to do Roger Knutson: I'm not asking. Councilman Senn: No, but I'm just saying. Roger Knulson: You need some factual findings to support ~ resolution. Whether these an: ~ or not, I'll leave that up to yotir judgment. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I think Omt's, I agree with tint. Councilman Senn: So then tabling becomes the thing? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 29 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: Could we vote to accept the report, table the item pending a Council work session7 Roger Knutson: Certainly. Councilman Senn: And then bring it back on a Council agenda following the work session? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Or do we need to set a date certain? Roger Knutson: No, you can do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we can do that but I think what we'd like to do is try to set up a work session date fa'st and then once that work session date is done, we may want to have an additional one. And I don't want to establish a date...so. Could I have a motion to table and accept the findings as indicated with the setting up of a work session for, and I have to try to find one of those. It would be rather difficult. Maybe Monday, November 29th? That'd be the following meeting after our Council meeting. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Don't we have, our off Mondays are all budget discussions? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we're. Councilman Mason: We're done hopefully by then. Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully after this coming Monday, we should be done until probably sometime in December correct? Don Ashworth: Well, December 2nd is the hearing itseff and that's the reason that. We did, left November 29th as an alternative but it's not ready one since it's so close to the hearing itserf that you can't. Councilman Mason: The hearing's the 30th right?. Don Ashworth: I thought i't was December 2nd. It's an off night. It's not a Monday night. Mayor Chmiel: It would have to be a Thursday evening, December 2nd. Don Ashworth: Well it surely isn't a Friday so I think that is correct. Councilman Senn: So the 29th? Mayor Chmiel: So the 29th would be an awil~hle work session time frame. Councilman Senn: Okay I'll move, oh go ahead. Councilman Mason: Before we get a motion on that. Where do we stand with the public hearing tonight? Mayor Chmiel: We don't close it yet. We're just tabling it. 3O City Council Meetin~ - November' 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: Okay. And is it worth getting any more comment tonight or not? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so because nothing has really changed until once we come up with some kind of an idea and concept. Councilman Senn: Roger, can we close the public hearing and simply able the action? Roger Knutson: You can do that if you wish. Mayor Cluniel: You can. You can do that but. Councilman Mason: But we'll want to reopen it. Mayor Chmiel: But I would just as soon keep it open. I would just as soon keep it ope~ with the tabling Councilman Senn: Doesn't the process still allow fcr numerous points ff public input? Roger Knutson: You can allow anyone to _m__n~ whether it's a public hearing ~r not. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I like with a public hearing to still keep it open. Councilman Senn: So then basically we move, okay. We make a motion to table the item and receive the report from the committee and schedule a Council work session on the 2~th c~ November to further discuss. Mayor Chmiel: $:00 or 5:00 p.m.? Let's' get a lime frame. Is 5:30 better? Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5:30's better. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: In the history of the w~ld this is not going to get honcmflfle mention. If I cannot make that meeting, can I just say that ff you choose to go with somebody that's not my present tmuler, I will survive and I will get used to it. So don't let me interfere. Councilwoman Dockendoff: But I think the point is that. Mayor Chmiel: I think everything you've said, everybody on the Council feels the same way Riclmrd. There's no question. Councilwoman Dockendc~: Well people resist change and I think we need to be innovslm~ here and we need to lead the city and let's not back away from it becanse we're going to get public flack over ii. Councilman Mason: Has a motion be~m made yet? May~ Chmiel: A motion has been made. We're looking fro' a second. 31 City Council Meeting - November g. 1993 Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councliman Mason seconded to receive the report from the Recycling Committee and to table action concering a resolution of intent for the proposed establl~hrnent of organized collection of solid waste in the city until after the City Council discusses the issue at a work session on November 29, 1993. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. · Mayor Chmiel: That meeting will be held upstairs I would imagine in the. Don Ashworth: Probably the courtyard as a work session. Councilman Mason: Anyone's invited right? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Anyone who'd like to come, be my guest. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSyED BY THE CITY. Councilman Senn: I think I pulled that last week. Last time, or whatever. It's hard to diffe, rentiate the weeks anymore. Don isn't, I think in last month's there was an Exhibit A attached. Or at last meeting there was an Exhibit A attached. Mayor Chmiel: I don't recall. Don Ashworth: I don't recall either. Do you think you know what that may have Councilman Senn: Well all through, I mean if you read basically through the resolution. The resolution continually keeps referring to Exhibit A. Don Ashworth: Okay, why don't you go ahead and table again. Remember this is the one that MacCrillavray had brought out during the sale basically. We're going to have to follow this by a thing that requires federal. This is mandated by the federal government. It's really stupid but it's required. $o if you'd like to table and I'll find out whether or not there was an Exhibit A. Councilman Senn: Well there was. I mean you don't have to table. There was an Exhibit A attached which effectively was the $5.630 general obligation tax increment bond series information. And then the actual statement of the refinancing that occurred. Don Ashworth: That should have been on the GO. That should have spelled out the three. Councilman Senn: Yeah, the general obligation. Don Ashworth: The three GO projects that we did which was 78th Street realignment, the Lilac and Upper Bluff Creek. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's one of the problems. It didn't. It doesn't lay any of that out. It basically just 32 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 says that there's a 5.630 and those three l~ojects are Imrt of the $d$3~ Don Ashwarth: Right. It was the ones, as we sat in the conference room, I showed you the one sheet that encompassed the GO projects. If the Council would lilm to pass this with the ~ that staff would in fa~t atlaeh that. which will show those 3 ar 4 specific projects, we can do thaL Or we can bring it lmck. Either way. Councilman Senn: No, no. I don't care if you bring it bac~ I just want to make clear _that all we're deatling with is the 5.630. I mean that night we dealt with a numbea' of bond issues other than that, okay. And but when this a~nion came in last week, I mean it ~ to that but then the~'s no attachment on Exhibit A that bac~ that up. And all I'm trying to do is clarif3t ~r make sure that we're d~aling with the GO bond issue at the 5.630 and I don't have a problem with that. But if it d~tls with all the other bond issues we de~lt with that night, which were I think 2 ar 3. Well, 3 othe~ bond issues, then I think thO~ ~ to bO.,, how wotild I my, made lmrt of this and specifically called out. Don Ashworth: In that instance I would prefer tabling because L what this resolution says is that any cost associated with any of the projects. We knew in advance that we were going to do those projects and that as a part of the bonding, we're going to try to re, coup any costs that we had incurred priar to the time we actn_ ally sold the bonds as a part of that project, And very truthfully, I'm trying to go through in my own mind. We sold $ bond issues that night and I can't sit hem tonight _and tell you that it only deal with tho GO one. I'm just not sure. Councilman Senn: Well the 5.630 that's attached h~'e as Exhibit A is only the GO one? If that's all it is, then as far as I'm concerned, we can go ahead and pass on it. But like you say, that's ~ I ~ ~ m ~ Don Ashworth: Then if that's thc case, I would suggest that the Council approv~ this with a condition that the only thing this is applying to is the $5.6 million unless staff finds that that is not correct, in which case we will bring it back to you. Councilman Senn: $o moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason secrmded to approve the resolution dechrinlg the ofllchl intent of the city of Chunhmsen to reimburse certain ezpenditures from the proceeds of bonds issued to the city in the amount of $S.6 million. If surf deter~t~es that this is not correct, the mutter will be brought back before the City Council. AH voted in favm' and the motion carried unanimously. {Whe Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) 33 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 REZONING FROM RR~ RURAL RESIDEN~L TO PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTi PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTSI WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT~ LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY $~ SONG-CARLSON PROPERTY] LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord Jerome Carlson David Stockdale Ron Roeser Fred Berg Jim Manders 935 East Wayzata Blvd. 6950 Galpin Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. 222 Chart View 6910 Chaparral Lane 6791 Chaparral Lane Kate Aanenson: As you see. Lundgren Bros is requesting preliminary PUD approval and as a part of that there's also a wetland alteration permit. Just to get your beatings on this. It's adjacent to Galpin, just south of Lake Lucy Road and north of Highway 5. As you recall the applicant's also have preliminary plat approval to what was called the Rogers Dolejsi property. This site is developed. There will be a collector that ties those two so between TH 41 and Galpin there will be a collector road that ties that together. The staff did support the PUD based on the fact that there's substantial wetlands on the site...This is a very beautiful site. It's got varied topography with 60 feet difference in elevation. As we mentioned before there's wetlands...identified. There's also heavily forested areas. We're recommending the PUD and they meet the standards of the PUD as we put together on the residential and minimum lot sizes being 11,000 for the smallest. These lots averaged over 27,000 square feet. We did recommend some variation from the PUD standards as far as setbacks fi'om front yards and side yards...One of the big issues between the staff and the developer was, for the Planning Commission...spent numerous hours as you can see by the Minutes that were attached trying to resolve some of these issues. One of the major ones was right-of-way for that collector road. Staff wanted 60 feet and that's what we're still recommending. Some of the other issues as far as trees, the three recommendations that the staff had as far as the tree issues and..2UD that we feel that the tree...The tree conservation as propo~ by the applicant, we wanted to...lot by lot basis and that's why we recommended that there be a flexibility as far as the side yard and not hold them hard and fast to 10 feet on either side but allowing to have some flexibility. And again as proposed in the PUD ordinance that there be 2 trees per lot. One of the big issues, other big issues as far as...of this proposed PUD was the park recommendation. It was before the Park Board numerous times. As you can see through the staff report there was updates numerous times of recomme~ons from the applicant. The final resolution from the Park Board is that the applicant will provide a private park. The Park Commission did recommend that...a larger field in the park. In addition, they're requiring park fees and trail fees. There will be approximately 115 lots on the site again. They range within the PUD standards...the staff would recommend approval based on the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. There are several alterations as you can see that from the Planning Commission. The motion starts actually on page 37. Final conditions of approval... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Todd. Do you have anything to add? 34 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Todd Hoffman: Mayor and members of the City Council. Kate had indicated the Park and Recreation Commission's conditions of approval in regards to parks. In tv4mxls to trails we talked e~t~mively about the trail on Galpin Boulevard and how that would be accommodated. It was concluded through neg,,ticks with Carver County and then back...engineering depmlment, that that trail could be eomm-~ct~d in the right-of-way at a future date. It will cema_inly be an important link in tbe very near future with the proximity of ~ ~ to the new elementary school south of Highway $ once ~st..That was the trails. Issue number a. Number b, that the Dolejsi-Tumer property. That Kate referenced earlier, and ~ this condition is a direct result of an offer made this year at a Park and Recreation Comrni~on meeting. So at _that meeting, at the applicant's request, the item was tabled...idea. That idea was the development of this wail corridor. An initial offer was ~ at that time to identify the corridor and build the trail. Subsequently I received a call frotn the applicamt saying they would not build the trail due to financial implications. However thro~sh discussions...that Wail construction as a part of the constmction...Conversations at that time ind~ the fact, as we call know, if the wail does not go in, when that is where the problems begin to arise lmween what was intended by the offer by the applicant and what was interlxetted by the Park and ~n Commission and I &m't think t_~t's the last... Furth~ that a connection should be made between the street plan of Jolmson-Dolejsi-Turner. You want to get the residents - think will be very nice fur the city and for the residents in that area. Staff iden~ that lmween Lot 16 and l?, Block 2 where there can be another similar suitable location...All of these recomme~aAfions that came forth from the Park and Recreation Commission are contingent upon the city requiring a portion of the Stoc .kdale property for park p~s. A~iu that was based out of the concern, very sine, are concern by the Pa~ Commission, that the association, the private park does take care of the park needs of the...itsdf enabling residents over in neighborhood that will not have access to it...cross boundaries to play. The Park Conunission really wanted to see some public pa& space in tim are~ I was uncomfm'table making that type of contingent arrangement. However at the applicant's consent, ths~ part of the condition was made. Mr. Stockdale is in the audience this evening. Per approval by the Council, we have forwsrded the negotiations for pmchase of just over 6 acres of Mr. Stockdale's ~ and those negoti~nns are underway at this time. An offer...Mr. Stockdale. Currently, alter the last review by the Park Commission, it was at the October meeting, there was kind of an update of the status of the project in regards to parks and trails. Points which.., which I still recognized is this in regards to parks. The city is requiring a 250 x 250 open playfield with a maximum of 4% slope. I had recommended to the Park and Recreation Commiss~ to comprtmfise at 180 x 250. They did not see that compromise as a wise decision for the city so they want to stand pat at 250 x 250. The applicant would- like to see that size reduced to 180 x 180. The other point of conteation as I mentioned earlier, is in regards to trails. That would be the construction of the trail along the Jobnson-Dolejsi-Tumer IgOtmly on the southern border. It is now the request of the applicant that they be paid dollar for dollar for that. I said we would certainly like to work with them and make it both econ~y sound for their company to make that investment in their neighborhood but not to hinder their development My offer entailed, it was always thought that that trail would be bituminous, which is obviously more expmsive. I believe...gravel ~ which would be very conducive to the type of tmiL..Those are my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just one quick question. What I had read was on page 33 tim the change dimension of that open playfield was to be constructed in the association park from 250 x ~ and you said to 180 rather than it is shown here as 250, 180 x 250? 35 City Council Meeting. November 8, 1993 Todd Hoffman: That was my recommendation to the Park Commission. They did not see that that change needed to be made so they wanted to stand f'n'm at 250 x 250, Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But is it correct, 180 x 250 or 180 x 1807 Todd Hoffman: The applicant is at 180 x 180. My compromise position was 180 x 250. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And the records on page 33 it shows it, okay. Let's see. Dave, do you have anything too? Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Staff has worked with the applicant in resolving a few of the issues stated in the staff report starting at page 33...One of the conditions that is still in contention I guess is the private driveway access to the future Song residence that is on Lot 9...couldn't find any viable reason why.., subdivide down further f rom the County Road. Street right-of-way widths throughout the development. The city has made an exception on the street width on cul-de-sacs H and I. The area which is heavily wooded and has steep terrain. A compromise by allowing retaining walls to be built...to help limit the width of destruction and grading...retaining wall will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. We reduced the normal standard street width...right-of-way down to 50 feet in this area. However the remaining street section...further discussions on that. The sue, et width itself, as far as the collector road, Street A. Staff has decided that a 7 ton design at this stage would be acceptable due to the localized residential traffic. It's not being considered a heavy truck traffic route. And if in the future we review...State Aid standards to a 9 ton road design simiply by adding an overlay of about an inch, inch and a half paved section to utiliTe State Aid dollars for that, Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I looked at that meeting that was there, there were approximately 36,000 words on the Planning Commission which was a long time and a lot to read and a lot to go on. So what I'd like to do is ask the applicant to come forward and if there's something new and different than what was already discussed or said, I would appreciate that position. So at that time, is there anyone wishing to address some of the concerns that you may still have that have not been discussion. Is there something new or something different? Terry Forbord: Excuse me you Honor. Were you asking if we had anything to say? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Terry Forbord: Sorry, I'm hard of hearing. Mayor Chmiel: That was my question. Terry Forbord: There's really, actually I think everything has been covered and the only two points I think that we would like to discuss with the Council this evening are clarification on the park issues and the item that was already mentioned by Mr. Hempel, and I'd like to just very briefly just explain both of those to you. Here's a couple of exhibits. I apologize that I can't...This is a rendering of that illustrates what the Song neighborhood community will look like. It's approximately 112 acres. 100 acres of which is part of the Lundgren Bros neighborhood community and the remainder of that would be this exception parcel which is in fact from 10 to 12 acres that's being retained by Mr. and Mrs. Song for their furore home. They presently live in a home right here right now. They have an estate driveway and they enjoy this entire parcel solely to themselves at this time. And their dream has always been that at some point in time in the future, they would sell their land and subdivide it 36 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 and build a new home and let development occur on the balance of that Just to give you a very quick overview of where it is and adjacent to...that you've seen before. North being up. Oaipin Bird and Highway 41. This is what is commonly known as the John~on-Dolejsi-TRrner ~, v/high was before yell ]list yollr. ~ ~ p~s~s are being prepared to be submitted to the city in tho very near future. And ~ ~ ~ ~ would be immediately to the east of that. As part of this pmpom~ Lundgr~n Bros is, and also on the Johnsnn-Dol~jsi- Turner property but as well as on the Song property, I've ~ something t_hag__ really is somewhat unique or new to Chanhassen. It wouldn't be fair to say that...out in the metropolitan area. What we've found thrtmgh our travels. We travel every year, 3 or 4 times a year to vatio~ parts of the United States to find out what is new and exciting for home buyers and what cities _aM developers that are bigger ami better at what they do than we are, what are they doing. And one of the things that we've discovered, due to some of the presmm~ being put on municipalities and their budgets, and from the demands of home buyers, is that they would like to see some amenities within their neighborhood that often times city budgets don't allow anymore. Those are things like tennis courts, children playground equipment, heavily ~ areas, gazebo sitting areas, etc. And so we, over the last 4 years have built 3 neighborhood communities like that and we have 2 in the works. 3 being called the Song property. And it becomes the focal point of the-neighborhood community and we have found through surveys that buyer profile, the home buyers by Lundgren homes, the type of amenities that they would really like ~o have are things like these totlots and you've seen thig high tech playground equipment in many of the schools now. Some of them are plastic. Heavy PVC type of material Some of them happen to be a timber type. The plastic variety or PVC type seem to be the most popu~ because they last longer. And then the tennis courts, etc. And as you folks know, all municipalities are wrestling with those types of amenities in small neighborhood parks. They're having a hard time providing those types of things. So what we have found is that many cities are realizing that really the way to Ixovide these services today and certainly in the future is more of a public/private ~ve effort with the developer. They come forth. They provide the land. They put in the improvements at their expense and try to do the things that the cities .unfct~_~nme_-ly aren't able to ira)vide at that level any more. Our initial proposal to the city was to do that and to also provide a full park and trail fees. There's been some confusion. ~ts~~g. I won't get into any of that tonight, unless somebody would like me to, because I think at this point in time the most important thing is the pwject and what benefit it will be tO the city. So our proposal is that along the c. ollector road, Street A. In thig genea~ area, the~ will be an association park. And there are a number of reasons why we have located it there. One of the terms in selling this ~ for the people who own the land, the Song's, was they had this dream of thig future home. Also, there was a neighboring property owner, Mr. C. adson who became a third party to the conUact because he lives here. He was very concerned what type of development was going to occur in this ares. What imposition would it pose on him and he was prepared to buy the property himseff if it was going to be a n~ative impact to him. In working with the Song's, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Song, they found a developer tl~t could meet all of their needs and develop something that they would all be proud of and not be fearful of. That development could occur and we were blessed that they selected our firm to be the devekger ami we entered inw an agreement. And we worked very closely in designing a neighborhood conununity that would not have a imposition on either one of those people but hopefully would still meet the needs of the city and the future residen~ flint live ~ and be economically feam'ble. We spent a lot of time getting to that point. So the park was decided to put here in order to buffer the development from the future home of the Song's and from the Carlson residence. In addition to that we're building berms and landscaping to additionally screen that because the wl)ogmphy, we have to do certain things to make sure that the impact of the development is not felt by them in a ne?tire manner. Those became the driving forces of why we ended up designing it the way we did around that partio~l~r area. As I said, our proposal was to build this association park. It's going to cost us somewhet~ between $225,000.00 to $3$0,000.00 to do that. And as I said, we had offered to pay park ~nd lrail fees. Forvuriousreas/msth~ proposal did not fly and we set about trying to find another opportunity to provide the city that the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission and the City Council ultimately would say well, this is something we :-s 37 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 can live with. So the idea was, and it just came to me while I was sitting in a meeting. Because the debate seemed to be centering around providing some public opportunity is that there's a very large wetland complex that separates the $ohnson-Dolejsi-Turner property from what is called the 1995 study area. You can see that here in this kind of beigish coloring. And I thought well what ff somehow there could be some kind of, I was thinking along a public trail that would allow the general public to connect with what I knew already was planned a public Irail along TH 41 and I knew there was a plan for a public trail along Oalpin Blvd. And I talked to the Parks Director and he said he was willing to consider that and we decided to go out and look out in the field what that would be like. And I hadn't been out there in probably 3 years from the time I had...but it didn't take either one of us very long in walking out there we recognized this would really be a neat plato for a public trail. So it was agreed that we would submit that as a proposal to the city. To the Parks Commission to see ff that would be enough that they would say okay. In consideration for that...association park. And at that time I said to Todd, and I've always qualified everything that I've said in relation to this, every statement that ff it's economically feasible. Because when you're just dealing with .things on a preliminary basis like this and they're just ideas, it's not unlike the idea~ that any of you have as Councilmembers. You have an idea but you always want to make sure that it's going to be economically feasible...concopt stages and we're'throwing out ideas, obviously none of us have any idea how much it's going to cost or what the reality of that is going to be. But I was open to any suggestion as long as it was economically feasible and as long as the city would f'md some benefit and it wouldn't...the development. Well, it certainly was agreed upon that that would be a benefit to the general public. The only concern that I had was how would it be paid for. We were willing to grant the easements and we are willing to do the consu'uction. We always have been willing to do the construction and we would do it as the road was built. The lot adjacent to it and we've never been opposed to that. The only issue here is cost. And so I also knew, after we took that to the Parks Commission, without getting into all the details because again I think that those details may be irrelevant at this point in time, a trail corridor was planned to be graded here and there was the suggestion that ff the city did acquire this portion of the Stockdale prg. petty, that Lundgren would grade that. $o Lundgren was to grade this corridor. They were to grade this park. We were to build the association park and we were to build this trail and dedicate the land for the easements. And to this day I still don't have a hard time or a bad time with any of those ideas. I think they're great ideas. The bottom line though is it economically feasible and what is fair for us to pay. If you're willing to build this park and dedicate the land to the homeowners association, and build that park at the numbers that I was suggesting earlier and we were willing to pay the park and trail dedication fee, I believe that around the fa'st of the year the u'ail fee goes to $600.007 Excuse me, the parks fee is at $600.00? Todd Hoffman: It's currently $600.00 for park fees and $200.00 for trail fees. Terry Forbord: Okay, so there's $800.00 per unit. By unit I mean house. And there's 234 homes here so the way I look at it, we'll build this at our cxpense...we'll donate the land for this public trail and we'll donate the land or the easement for this public trail and we'll agree to pay $800.00 x 234 units. That's the dollar amount that can be spent to either grade this or build this, build this, whatever. I'm open with whatever the Parks Commission deems that is the highest and the best use of those dollars. And what I can't do, and I wish I could accommodate it because a lot of controversy would not have ensued. What I can't afford to do is to do this and pay for this and pay for this and pay for this. There's just not enough money. It's not economically feasible. So I think that's the bottom line issue when it comes to the park and the amount of money that's available for park fees. And then our proposal. And the last issue about the parks, John maybe if you could just use the overhead. Todd had a really good idea. I can't remember if it was the first or second...I can't remember which park commission meeting it was but in the staff report he recommended that we should provide an area for some, I'm not quoting him but I would describe as some low intensity active play area. Kite flying. Frisbe~ throwing. Those type of things could take place. I thought that was a good idea and I think in our original 38 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 proposal we had like a 100 x 100 or 80 foot x 80 foot area where that could occur. And when he brought that up and after wc looked at it, wc thought that's a good iclca. Now on thc other hand, one of thc .things wc don't want to have happen in here, is we don't want them to be an area where tlm'c is ~ planned or?ni~,od intense activities. Where a lot of people misht show up. 'l'ncre might be a fi~irly intense pick-up ~me of either we've done this. This is re, ally kind of 8e, m~ for thc family. This is ~y where you'll SO for a walk and take your kids down there. Maybe you'll play some Immis and they'll be playing o~ thc play stracmres and there will be some other architeclmal fe.~mn'es built here. Lots of landacap~ and benches and it's more, it's intended to be more of a low intensity use. And exactly what we don't want to occur here, where there's planned orianized activities or even like thc posm'bility of somebody tningins a kcs or some beer mid tmnS out. They want to...more of an intense use. That is exactly what we don't want to happen. And ff you provide too biS of an area, we think it's so/ns to be encouraging. So what we decided to, __s~T came back with an idea of 250 x 2~0 and 250 x 250 is actually larEer than a National Football Lea~c playin8 field. I mean mst is a big, John maybe you can put up. I mean here's an NH, football field and the actual square footase, including the end zones of a National Foothall League is 5?,600 square feet. Now mat's a bis area and alain, I thini~ it's a sood idea to be able to throw the frisbee and fly a kite. l~ven if yon have half a dozen guys and you want to play a little quick game of wuch football and mess around, I think that's a stoat idea. But havinS something that's bigger than a professional football field soes way beyond what we would like to see as a low intense family use of it. So we had pwpim~ and to be honest with you, we'd like to see it even smaller than 180 x 180. 180 x 180 is 56% of the size of an NNL football field. So it's even tmlf the size. If you took half of a football field. How many families, I mean how msuy of any of us if we just wanted to get together and play touch football same, I'm sure a half of a football field, we'd be able to have a pretty sood time and accommodate all of you. Now to kind of put this in some other perspective. We meastm~ the [mddni lot out hcre..~nost of you park out here all the time and come to City Hall and on the overtw~ here you'll sec what the parkins lot is. Now I...and in just one of those parking lots you could have a pick-up touch football game. But if you take both of them, which we did to show the illustration, that's kind of about the area of what we're proposing and that's a bis area. You could easily have a low intensity active area at mis... ~me_ in thi.~ area. We would really hate to see it set much bigier thsn tlmt; Some of the other things rlmt happens if it does. To make that area bigger, then you're puttins the focus on that area and ~S it away from the landscaping. You're talkins it away from the bermins. I mean scme~hins's Sot to give and you want to just expand the flat, I mean somethini's Sot to So and so we ask ~d~t_ you look at from thc lmrspec~ivc of a more low intensity neighborhood park. If you were soin/down there your~v~ and you wanted to relax and enjoy yourself and you were fcadul of a more intense, or/anizcd activity and then also decide well iccz, 180 x 180. That's half of a football field as far as square footage. Is that enough to accommodate that? We think it really is. It's not going to be a place where you can have a lot of, a lot of activity. That isn't what our intent is and that's why we proposed it. The last issue has to do s?in with the Sons's driveway. This is an aerial photograph of the Sons property and this area right in here represents the exception parcel that Mr. and Mrs. Song have always dreamed of someday being able to build their dream home. They did build a very nice home when they built this home down here but they always had in the back of their mind tl~t someday, if economic situations winked out, that they would build their dream home. And if any of you have lived in the conrm~ or on an estate of any kind, one of the things that sets the tone for that from thc very first thins is the entrance. 'l'ne entrance to your home, which in other wards would be the driveway. Now as you can sec, this area wlmre they have planned for their dream home is pwbably about halfway. Tile location where they would put their home would be generally right in this vicinity. As you can sec, right hem ac.u~lly what's tsirins place on mis day, this is a ground heakinS ceremony I think on Mr. Carlson's lXOlmrty. That's the date that this photo ~ to be talom. The Sons's would like to have their entrance come in fiiht around this edic of ~ wetland. This is upland area and 39 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 come in and follow the slope through these u'ees to the residence. It would certainly give them the feeling of their estate. Sets the tone. A point of arrival. A point of entry. And what is being proposed was suggested by, and the Planning Commission approved the Song's request on a 3-2 vote. It was conlroversial. The staff is proposing that the Song's would enter through this cul-de-sac and run down one of these lot lines to their home, which would certainly take away their ambience and the feel of what certainly they've always have attempted to do. Now the Song's could have, if they would have known that this was going to be a problem, they could have just come in without a developer...subdivide their land. They could have just come in and said, we want to subdivide our land. lust this 10 acre parcel here and I'm going to build a home on it and have the driveway here. And really the city, they meet all the tests of the city ordinances. They could have done that and this driveway, private driveway already is down there on their other home. And the County, in our conversation with them and staff's conversation with them, is not opposed to that enmmce. So what's really happening here is that through our proposal the one private driveway that goes to their present home is being eliminated from Galpin. From now on this will access on a city street. So all we're doing is miring one private driveway here and we're putting up on the new home here. And those are really the only points that we have...this evening. The rest of everything else, we've worked a long time with staff on. Our consultants are here if you have any questions related to engineering or planning... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions7 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Terry, before you sit down I have a question about whether the two items, the two first items you addressed are related. Are you saying if we reduce the private park to 180 x 180, then you would be able to afford to do the trails and the park as well7 I mean is that. Terry Forbord: The 180 x 180 we are suggesting purely as a practical matter and aesthetics. It's not, it will really take away from the feeling of that park if you put a playfield in this area. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it's not related to whether you can afford to do the. Terry Forbord: That's correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Terry Forbord: I don't know if I would be able to provide, I don't think that we'll be able to do the benning that is required of me, what we promised all along from the very beginning with the Song's and the Cat'lron's when we expand that area because there's only so much room. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: I'd like to know what the rationale is for, we've heard what the rationale is for 180 x 180. What's Park and Rec rationale for 250 x 2~07 Todd Hoffman: We have three of our Park Commissioners here that will be able to answer questions as we go along as well as far as what was represented at the Park and am~at~on Commission. The 280 x 250 was originally arrived at as to allow a large enough open play area for rome pick up games. Now I'm not insinnuating that the applicant that this would encourage organized league games. It was never intended to do that. We just wanted sufficient open fields to allow for...Agaln, I recommended a compromise position and the Park and Recreation Commission did not see fit in going along with that so I wouki defer to them for further Civ] Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 clarification. Mayor Chmiel: Does Park and Rec have anything to addresz that with7 Any members. Okay. lerome. Serome Carlson: Tbunk you. On that specifw subject I have 3 poin~ I'd l~e. to touch Mayor Chmiel: If you could just, for fl~e record so. Jerome Carlson: Oh, Jerome Carlson. 6950 Gall)in Bird, Excehim'. Mayor Chmiel: Soon to be Chanhassen. Jerome Carlson: I hope so. The park. When we spent 6 months wm'idng, I'm here repre~ating Charles and Irene Song as well as Linda and myself. That's the way it has been from the be~nning. Charles and Irene have relied upon me to assist them in the process of the document which was executed with the Lundlpv~ Bros sometime a~o now but that was about 6 menths in the making. One of the concerns that we h~! ~ and is in our document. We are very much opposed at having a park t_h~t~ encourages a lot of folks, parficp _lm'ly if the size of that is going to creat~ a lack of berming. We were gongemed about the noise. We were gongem~ about the privacy issue and tl~'s when we, we neg~ with Lundgren Bros it was to keep that neigh~ park small. Sufficient. We underslood the need for it. We undemood their expi~n,fi~ and their ~g but we absolutely are opposed to a large park in that location. To funhe~ my request of the city to build a smaller park it seems to me that if in fact the contingency of the Stockdale ~, 6+ ac~s being coo~ into a public park, remains as a part of the approval, then is that not enough7 Why is ~ ~ so impommt a~ d~t point? And I think that, I would ask on behalf of the Song's, and on behalf of the Carlson's, and appeal to you for our original agreement which still is in effect. To keep tha~ to a minimum, parfiod~'ly if in fact the~'s going to be an adjacent park on the other side of the ~me ~, which clearly would have the acreage sufficient for a lot of organized or pick-up games. I believe that's fair. That is our feeling on the park. The 180 x 180 for those reasons. May I touch on the other two ~ubjects or would you 1~ ~o fini~ this one Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to jus~ fini~ the one that w¢'ro on right now, ou~fl~ Okay. Michael, did you have any~ing more7 Councilman Mason: On this partiguhr issue'/ Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Ma~on: I kind of like Todd's idea Io tell you the Iru~ It sounds like a compromise. And I, maybe this, I don't know if this is the time to go into my personal feelings about neighborhood assodafiea parks or not. Is now the time for that cr not? Mayor Chmiel: You can mention it right now if you care. Councilman Ma~n: Well I don't like them. I think they tend to be elitist. And Fm not saying that's thc intent of anybody but you know, are there signs that go up flint say this i~ for this neighlx~rhood only~ Are time signs? How are they mainminod? WhO maintsins tholll? I know if any~in~ CV~' ~ alld il'-golne~ back to the city. then the city maintains them, which we need parks. I don't deny trust but I, my penonal feeling is, is that that situation tends to intcrpali,¢ the neighborhoods and maybe we want thaL I don't know. But I see 41 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 neighborhoods turning in then instead of turning out and I basically, that's my own philosophical bent. I'm not saying I'm bent on destroying this concept or anything like that. I'm not. But that's what my feeling is on that. So I guess at this point I support Todd's compromise but I'm not saying that's definite yet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: I'd have to say this was one of the more interesting puzzles in om' packet I wish we could have had the presentation first because it took me about 2 hours to figure what he just told us in 30 minutes. I guess I, personally I'd like to really applaud the developer because I think this is one of the best plans I've ever seen in terms of a neighborhood. I think, I can even go back to my old city planning days and I've never seen anything to parallel this. I think it's fantastic. Very responsible in just about every way, shape and form. I don't see any real issues. Major planning issues coming out of it. I think mainly what it came down to was some economic issues, predominantly related to the parks and trails. I guess I have to say that after reading through all the developer's discussion, reading through all the commission stuff and everything, that I started to, I guess have to say sympathize a little bit with the developer because I kept adding this up in my head and started to figure, I don't think anybody on this earth could afford it but. You know looking at the park and the trail issues, I don't have any problem at all with these neighborhood or association parks. Maybe my bias is there because I come from a neighborhood with one and I think they're Lantastie. It provides a focal point to the neighborhood. It takes a lot of pressure off the city operated and maintained parks. At the same time it serves really in my mind a whole different function you know than a city park does. If more neighborhoods of this size throughout the city had these parks, then I think we could concentrate on larger sealed activity or youth athletics and bigger types of parks within the city. I have no problems with the 180 x 180 playing field that the developer has suggested. I think it's very adequate for what's being suggested. Loo~g at the park and the trail issues, I think the idea of the trail around the wetland is just great. I mean that's something that probably normally we could never hope to achieve and I look at that and I say I know there's a cost to that and it seems to me that if the developer's willing to grade the trail along Gaipin and also provide the, what I guess I call the internal trail, it seems to me that beyond that there shouldn't really be any trail fees. And it also seems to me in looking through all of these numbers and that sort of thing, I mean there's got to be some cost protection there to the developer because ff I calculated this right, there's trail foes coming on this close to $50,000.00. And to me the developer should have to spend that $50,000.00 on those, both that internal and that Galpin trail and then beyond that I think, then I think part of it becomes our responsibility. But at the same time I turn around and I say, I think the developer should pay the park fees. So I don't like to Mind of mix those two or balance them out. To me they're doing a great job on trails and if we decide to go ahead on the trails and the trails cost. $75,000.00 instead of $50,000.00, I think we should pick up the $25,000.00. But at the same time I think the developer should be contributing the $600.00 pet house, hold for park fees because ~ain, going back to the concept where I think this neighborhood park services one function and there's still another function and I think ff the people who live here are going to be putting pressure in other fashions on city parks, ballfields, soccer fields, you know a lot of other uses so I think that's still aopropr~ that that charge go in there and that the developer pay it. The other issue I became over hearing was this, oh I forget the, what was it. Stockdale. The StockdoVe property. After reading through this stuff I didn't really feel it was really appro~ or fair to be requiring this developer to really do anything with that prope~. It's not his and he's not buying it. I don't really see his role in it. As far as the driveway issue goes, I didn't see any problem with that one at all. I think the Song's should be able to have that driveway and I think that'd be a real amenity to that propexty and I think the development and the Song property then end up both to be better off as a result of that driveway and enuance. I think the driveway coming in throu~ the development itself, I don't think we lose a plus to the overall plan. I think it's a negative instead so I guess that pretty much covers all the issues that. 42 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmieh And just one quick question I have, Is _this, in your opinion, still benefitting the city or would this be benefining the developer? Councilman Senn: In terms of? Mayor Chmiel: Of your positioning on the different things that you had said. Councilman Senn: Well Don if you look at it purely economically. Mayor Chmiel: And the other point being, are we eslabli.~hlng some kind of precedent with _thin and I don't know that either, and I can n.~k Todd that when yon get done. Councilman Senn: You know, that's something that I was going to come around to at the end because I don't know if we've ever done this type of, excuse me, b~laqcing act before but at the same time I don't think we've looked at a development before tl~ comes in with this exteasive a trail system for example within it. And Itmt sort of thing. One of the problem is here, at thi~ early point you don't have any dollar mounts or nnmbers attached to most of these things. Ail you can do is look at it and say, from an income standpoint we know what our park fees are and we know what our trail fees are and I look at this sad say, wen. We're expecting roughly $50,000.00 in trail fees and we're expecting roughly $150,000.00 in park fees. So I start with _thst as the base economics and I go into this and say, well geez. The developer should then, between the imemal trail and thc external trail, provide $50,000.00 worth of trails. I think that's his responsibility. Beyoud that, I don't think it's his responsibility. $o I mean th~'s kind of like one ledger sheet over here. The other ledger sheet I pull out and say, geez. They're providing this wonderful neighborhood park but R~nin I look at the use of thst neighborhood park as being self serving in a way but I still think it's Igv. at to see. In looking at the overan project and the plan, I think it fits great and it's beautiful and it will be a big amenity to the city and the neighborhood. But then at the same time I sit there and say, but I don't think that should impact them paying S600.00 per household in park fee~ because we still have t_hst_ ~ going oa overall city parks and the neighborhood park I look at as being as much a benefit to the neighborhood as it is to us. Wen more of a benefit to thc neighborhood than it is to us. I think there's some benefit to us because again it takes some pressure off of city parks. $o I look at this not reany as just one big b~lanee sheet but I think each one of them becomes a balance sheet and I can't tell you where the numbe~ come out because I don't know what the beck the trails cost. There's nothing in here to tell us that one way ct the other. I don't know if we're talking about 100 grand in trails. You know 70 grand. $0 grand. Less _th~m 50 grand. I mean I have no idea. I'm just assuming since you're bordering a wetland and Galpin with the topography along Galpin there, my guess is you're not looking at inexpe~ve tr~il.~ to develop but thRt'S just purely a guess. Mayor Chmieh Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess I'm going m...hcre becansc I just, I agree with Mark. Evcryflfing he was saying I had written down here. I guess I'd just to quote Colleen, I'll say ditto. I'd like to...this neighborhood park concept for these type of closed neighborhoods and in regards to that park, I'd like to have Ln_nd2nm Bros and Teary simply go ahead and develop their neigh~ park the way they want to do it to meet their needs and then separate that issue out. I don' t want to hear about iL I don' t want to discuss it. Icouldcnreless. 'I'nat 180 x 180 is fine with me. My thoughts am not on their neighbodmod park. I'm wiHiug to give Terry total control and direction ca that. It's not a city Imrk. So L..Mark's discussion of the trail fees and the park fees and that's the money we have to spend. Now what nre we going to do with it. And this Stockade profm'ty. Now it's my undcrstnnding that these lXU-k nmi trail fees to buy that ~ would be totally used up, is _thn_ t_ 43 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. On the park fees to purchase the Stockdale property. Councilman Wing: Every dime would go? Todd Hoffman: Every dime for both the Song and the Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner. ! Councilman Wing: Okay. I guess I would set a priority here and with that wetland and the amenities out there, having walked that area. I'd like to get that trail as my personal priority here. Is that we get that trail and how can we realize this issue. How can we go for this trail and drop the other issues? I mean Lundgren Bros can take their neighborhood park. I don't want to talk about it any more. So we've got the...park fees that are going to go to pick up the 6 acres and now you've got roughly $50,000.00 for trail fees and is a trail going to be doable for $50,000.007 Now what can we do to work with Lundgren Bros to realize that trail and what will they participate maybe above and beyond so I guess my feeling is to go along with Mark's comments totally to prioritize the trail and that trail issue. I mean to go out and buy a chunk of land and pay the money, that's an obvious thing but this trail, we don't have the dollar amounts and I think the greatest asset to this community long term is going to be that trail going around that wetland. We'll never get it if we don't do it now. So that would be my priority for this project on the park issue. Is to establish that trail and realize that trail being built. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jerome. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I say something? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Thanks. I haven't had a chance to address this yet and just sticking to the trail issue. I guess I see the neighborhood park as a purely marketing asset to the development and since we're getting park fees in lieu of. Well, since we are getting park fees, it's a non issue. As far as the trails, I concur completely that they need to be done and whatever we can work out with Lundgren to get them built is a priority. I've got some other issues but they're not park and trail related so. Councilman Wing: I think at this point, if we've discussed the park issue, I think we all have on the record and have our opinions and the Mayor will be back vea-y shortly. In the meanwhile, maybe ff Jerome could come up and address the other two issues that you had. At least subject wise for this project. Jerome Carlson: I'd be happy to. The driveway for the Song's, since I'm represen~g the Song's. They would greatly appreciate their own driveway. That came to somewhat of a shock to them when they heard that there was a possibility they wouldn't have their own driveway. They frankly had never thought of that possibility and so providing that for them on a 10 acre piece does not seem unreasonable. I hope you will agree. The road width that was altered, H and I, I think it was. I want to support that as strongly as I can because of the size of the maple and oak trees up there and the steep IFades. Let's not take any more trees than we really have to. I related this to the Planning Commission. Cedar Lake Parkway. Linda and I actually went down and measured it. We were driving around Cedar Lake enjoying Minneapolis with a friend and Linda carries tape measurers in her purse. So we stopped the car and we measured Cedar Lake Parkway in Minneapolis. From the outside of the curb to the outside of the curb is 26 feet. Perfectly f'me parkway. Handles more cars on a Sunday afternoon than that little road up there will handle in a decade and it does just fine. What's being propo~ here on a City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 smaller basis is somewhat larger than that... Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor...Song's had their own driveway and the width of...whieh is item 11 remaining at 50 feet. Councilman Senn: Which staff is suplxming7 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Councilman Wing: And if I still was chairing this tem~y, I guess thc question I would have. Fd turn it back to you. The question I would have on the trail is, if Terry Porbc~ could discuss that trail issue around _that wetland or what they might, what they can or can't do or will or won't do. Assuming that Mark Senn and myself prevailed on allowing you to have your neighborhood park to your own design, No city inteffereaxce on that, how would we best _re~ii~e the trail that's been discussed and what role might you play in that? Terry Forbord: Your Honor, do you want me to address that right now7 Mayor Chmiel: Right now. Terry Forbord: Tent Forbord from Lundgren Bros, The trail mat yon're spea_~king of is ~i~ trail7 Councilman Wing: That's correct. Terry Forbord: One thing tlmt I neglected to point out is th~a~ also is a trail along !h{, collector ~ as a condition of approv~ I believe, is that corral? Dave Hempel: A sidewalk. Terry Forbord: There is a sidewalk that goes from here to here that we also are putting in, I did not teA1 you that but I thought now would be a good lime to do that, Again, this is purely an economic issue for me. Believe me. I would much rather...just said we will do whatevca' you want and thete'd be no conlrovcwsy. The trail fees. There is genca'ated $52,800.00 1 believe in trail fees for both of these communities. The trails that are being asked of us are this trail. The grading of this trail. The road bed. The trail bed. And then a link somewhere between one of these lot lines from this neighberhood down to hea~ And the only problem that I have with any of it is the dollar amount. And staff has always recommended _that at least, I think it's always been recommended that they recommended a waiver of u'ail fees as our partici~ in th~ One of the thin~ and I think Counciler Senn eluded to it is, is nobody knows what the cost is right now. And the condition of aPl~rO~ actually states that the trail will be designed per saws specification tmiod. I don't even know what that means. So what happens ff we have $52,800.00 to spend on trails, and we're wining to do the consuuction as a part of our phasing. Our guys are there. We'll get mc~ bang for the buck and the staff report ac~_ s~y eludes to that too. That the city will get more bang ~ their buck ff ~ trail is built while_ the developer's subcontractors are there doing the wo~ rather than doing them separate~. But what _.hsppeas if this roms out to be $80,000.00'/ Or if it's $100,000.007 I mean there's an increment ~ that I can't afford to. nm~ up and I'm willing to weak with the city staff to what~ver degree is necessary to try to help get to that point. Now, Counciler Wing suggested that the park fees would go exclusively to buying the psd~ and I don't know if that's always been the plan but if in it's wisdom if the city decided that they rather would have this trail complete and have it blacktopped so people could mllerblade on it or whal~ver, and they have decided to lake wail and park 45 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 fees in order to accomplish that, that would be fine with me as well. I think the city should decide how they want to spend those total sum of those fees. But I hope I'm answering the question. We're willing to work with the city in any way we can to help bring that in cheaper. One of the things that we need to recognize. I know Todd knows this because we were down there. Because this is on the edge of a wetland, is what really makes it neat but it's also what's going to make it expensive. We're at the toe of the slope. It's wooded down there. We're going to have to be very careful in the construction of it and erosion control and all the kind of things that add to the construction costs. It still can be done but I think I agree with what everyone says so far about that trail. The experience of this type of trail is entirely different than the experience of a trail along Galpin Boulevard. I mean this is a utilitarian type trail. This is an experience and I think all of you recognize that so we think it's a good idea and... Councilman Senn: I just had a question. In terms of the trail foes we were talking about. I mean this is really I think a different situation I think than normal because I mean there's another factor I think we're not considering. The other factor we're not considering is, we're going to say if you put the full $$0,000.00 in trails fees that you in, at the same time they're donating all the land for the frails. I mean isn't that normally part of that whole equation of what goes into a trail? I mean isn't land dedication part of in lieu of or whatever usually? Todd Hoffman: The applicant would have to clarify but at this point I'm assuming there would be a trail easement along the back side. $o it's not a, easements are not credit for trail fees. Easements are taken as part of the responsibility of the particular development... Mayor Chmiel: That's what it's been right along. Todd Hoffman: The applicant has made one clarification in that the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that trail fee credit be given for that construction and we are at the conceptual stage but if these type of deals have been struck up before, the PUD at Lake Susan Hills, which is now probably 7, 8 years old. They agreed to build a whole lot of trails because they saw a value in those trail systems to their development to the city. Plus they agreed to pay 50% of their trail fees as part of that development. So sometimes you take a run at the dark like that and it's a benefit to the community. It's a benefit to the neighbrghood. That trail is going to sell houses to those people. I've always said, I'm going to start a scrapbook one day because people say, trails devalue households. They devalue neighborhoods but everytime I see a real estate ad, trails nearby. Trails close by. Parks close by. $o I'm hearing two things. The other clarification we need to relate is that both, it was stated that trail grading would be utldng place up and down Galpin. That was originally put in as a condition when a full 20 foot easement would have been taken up and down Oalpin. That is no longer the case. The condition now reads that within 200 feet of st~v,,et intersections there would be additional easements so you can get these turn lanes in. And as the condition now reads, those would be the only areas under the jurisdiction of the applicant which would be graded. So not the entire land is being graded. And in speaking to Mr. Hempel. at the point when Galpin is upgraded and he's got the road project 8oing on, then we would go ahead and grade the trail bed and put the trail in at that time. So that's just a clarification. Councilman Wing: I sure hope I don't run into any of the Park and Rec members in the dark. Or ac~Ally even during the day...mentioned to Todd and I'd like to pursue here is the rethinking of the fees used. It's nice to have park dedication fees and trail dedication fees but I get tried of miring the dedication fees and they always go to buy ballfields and put in a tennis court and that's wonderful and that's great but what's...more into the passive type parks. I'd like to see those dedication fees 8o someplace else and in lieu of the Stockdale ~ and the park, I'd like to see us rethink the use of this to complete the trail around that wetland and establish that 46 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 once and for all for the city becat~se that's what I'm going to use and that's what my interest and what my family's interested in. It gives me access to that PrOlxaW. We're not going to come from anywhere to come over here and use that 6 acres. That's wtmdetfitl ft~ the group but the neighborhood's got it's pa~ I'm not going to deny the use of a park in ~hat area or that we want it ~ need ~. But I thinir this is a case ~hat there's such an environmentally sensitive piece of land that we can rethink thc use of those fees and Ina'haps put it to go to insure that this trail goes in at this point...tmil around the entire we31snd. What I'm seeing on the nmp. Terry's only talking about the north. Todd Hoffman: ...concept sure. The other part currently is being used and thin ia the ~ al:gl would have to be incorporated into the City's comprehensive trail plan for future development Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm hearing economically feasible, and I ceanainly don't dispme that. Ten'y, how m~ny acres or home many homes will Lundgrcn Bros have in thc city of C~hs~en? I mean all totalled. In the whole city. I mean just real bal ,i?rir_ Terry Forbord: You mean since we first came to the city? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Ten'y Forlx~: Oh, I'm going to guess over 10 years it's probably been 200. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and that's obvimaaly continuing to grow. Terry Forbord: Well our company ia growing. Councilman Mason: Right. Okay. And I hear this economically feasible and I hear that and I do undersmui that but I'm also a little curious to know just how much money Ltmdgmn Bros has ureas, working in Cbanlma~en- too. And I know you folks have yom' bottom line. I mean I don't know that I ever need to get into thnt argument but if this is a matter of give and take here, I think the city does have a vary good relnti_onnh'.m with Lundgren Bros and obviously I think they're a qnality prod~t bIR, I guess I get, I'm a little concm~ when I keep hearing economically feasible. Yet they can spend a quarto' of a million dollars on a park for their development but these other ihings seem to be a major Ilroblem for them. And maybe that's somethin~o to think about. I may in fact be out of line. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're trying to say is it gets lumped into the cost of the house and it's part of the total value. Councilman Mason: Well, yeah. So I don't know where flt~__t stands in this whole picture either I guess. This is a real complicated one, I don't deny it. Terry Forbord: You know a lot of focus keeps being on what this pm'k does for Iamdgren Bros. I think that's a natural thing for anybody to do and if I was in your position I'd be saying, well what is the city g~ing, is this just for Lundgren Bros. And one thing that nobody has ever henmt from at any of these kind of meetings ar~ the people who aren't there yet. People who will be your constituents and will be paying the taxes in the community. And when you have a chance to visit those people in 5 or 10 years, they'n be saying. Boy, this is 47 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 a great community. I'm really glad that the city has worked to allow these type of...I mean those people aren't here now and they can't speak for themselves but those people will be citizens and Counciler Senn is absolutely correct. This does take the impact off some of the other city facilities and to be honest with you, every city we've ever proposed these to, they have never, ever had the controversy that we've had here. And I think mainly it's because those cities are a little more developed ux~ and this is new. Usually they're saying, you're willing to do this and pay for park and trail fees, and that's always been our position. I mean there is a provision in the city ordinance of Chanhassen that if we propose an association park, you have the fight, it's a provision in the ordinance, to waive the park and trail fees if we agree to build an association park but we've never asked for that. So I think it's also fair to say, it's our attempt to, and I can't prove this to you until I'm done but I feel very confident that it will be proven. That this will be one of the nicest neighborhoods in. Chanhassen because of the things that we're going to do and that is a benefit to the city. That is a direct benefit to the community as a whole. Councilman Mason: Well, that raises a whole nother issue Terry and I don't know if we want to get into what's nicest. I mean is that dollar value? Is that affordable? Is that upper level? I mean, you just opened a whole nother can of worms as far as I'm concerned and I'd be happy to get into that one too tonight. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, please don't. Councilman Mason: Well, it's coming up. One way or the other, affordable housing is an issue here but I think Fred wanted to say something. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Fred. would you like to come up? One of the other thing before you come here Fred. Kate, with the total number of homes that we're putting on this 112 acres, have we looked at what we're taidng back out of there for roads and everything else and what are those lot sizes eventn_a_lly going to be with the size of homes that are going to be on them? Kate Aanenson: Yes. When we do the PUD for the density, we take out roads right-of-way and...So if you look at the gross and the net, that would be reflected as part of the wetlands...So 1.7 is pretty accurate... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Fred. Fred Berg: Thank you. ~ Berg, Park and Rec Commission. I just had a couple of things I wanted to say and hearing about benefits to the city sort of caught my attention a little bit more. I'm hard pressed to see 'a lot of benefit to the city as a whole. Number one, this is a nice neighborhood park yet it's going to have signs on both sides saying it's exclusively for this neighborhood. Period. As far as helping the other people in that area, it's not going to be an accessible park at all. The second thing is, while these people are coming in and they have the fight to do that certainly, they are going to be using the other city parks as well. They're not going to be able to play softball in this park. They're not going to be playing hockey. They're not going to be doing any of the other activities that require larger play areas. To be perfectly honest with you, as far as the 250 x 250 and some of the other issues, I haven't felt comfortable coming up and _ruling to you about them because I'm so confused about what's going on and I've been sitting on the commission listening to the presentations fa. 2 or 3 times anyway and it seems every time things are changing that I'm not aware of. All of a sudden I'm coming to another meeting and things have changed again because there was a misunderstanding as to what one person meant and what one person said. It's a very confusing issue. I know you see that when you're looking at your own packet but as far as the benefit to the city, I guess I don't see it as being as strong as the applicant might be saying. 48 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Okay. Any ~ discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have one comment. We have to keep in mind that this is a PUD and that does allow you know some, a lot of leeway on the Council's part to request things from thc applicant that normally we don't have to. Or we can't. Mayor Chmiel: And you can also look for the other things that were discussed s~nd are indi~. Thai those things arc probably unaffordable and I don't like getting hung out on a linc on that part cith~. Just not knowing whether this would be done or whether it won't be done. But the PUD does give us that leeway of saying these arc the areas that we want and they're the areas that We basically need and wc go either with dmt position or another position that has been brought up. Does Council fed comfortable with this parti~d~ project and with that arc you at a point where you feel you would like to move on this? Councilman W'mg: Are we still on park and trails or ate we di?essing now? Mayor Chmiel: To anything or everything that's involved with iL Councilman Wing: Well I'll support thc private driveway. I definitdy want to support the road width remnining at the 50 feet. I have no problem with this neighborhood. But there I have 2 other additions that I mentioned to Terry that I wanted to add that I think Plapning missed or stated they wished they had added. There's a draft ordinance for boulevard planting in the city coming from the Tree Board. I think today is lime time to start. We have a collector road. Road A going from TH 41 to Oalpin, and although it is in a way kind of a neighborhood street. There's two additional conditions we'd like to add. The planting of boulevard trues on that partic, dsr road. Road Number A...stsff's specifications and I know what those are. We had x feet within the easement area. X trees per footage. I don't know if it was 60 feet or 100 feet. Anyway the frees, there is a definition of boulevard trees and boulevard plantings so I'd like to add ~_~_: And there would be,..Iree prme/~ilion landscaping, item f. They're requiring Iree, or boulevard uees per the draft ordinance in the slaff recommendation. And then under item number 31, the addition of street lighls. Decorative slreet lighls. Minnewashta Parkway is a good example. Very non-oblrusive. Low light levels but some lighting. Sctzni¢ lighting. Appropriate lighting along that same road. Collector Road A so item number 31' would be the _,_~kl__ition of street lights. Take that Council. Councilman Mason: With thc selling, thc Song's get their road, and I certainly don't fault them for wanting that. What's to prevent any other home along Galpin Blvd to having a direct access to Oalpin Bird? Mayor Chmicl: I think there's a provision within the Council as to total distances from one driveway to the next. But if it meets that criteria, then of course they probably would have ,trot_ Dave Hcmpel: Mr. Mayor, maybe I could ~___t~e~s that a little bit. AcV_,_,dly our dry ordinance has pwvisions for that and that is a condition which is in the staff report We're not disputing ~_hot exua driveway through the collector for thc 10 acre parcel for the Sons residence... We've had this come up in ~ instances where the Planning Commission wanted us to justify whether to allow it or not to allow it. ]~ch _'_=!O__mfi'~ is..,so to set a policy would be really kind of diffiafll to apply...The County has jufisdi~ on all the access poinls along their right-of-way here and...If it did subdivide in the future_fie into ~ Carlson paw. el at some future date. Not to say thai the cul-de-sac... 49 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: We've got one of those driveways in our neighborhood where they ran a driveway down the lot lines. What a nuisance. Maintenance and who plows what and where does the snow they plow go and it's really unsightly· I'd hate to see a neighborhood that's being developed at this level to suddenly have those type of interferences, Purely aesthetic. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. · Councilman Senn: It's getting late and I guess this is complicated but I guess I'd like to attempt a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I've got just a couple issues if I could before you do Mark. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And more of them are just questions or issues. I have some concerns about the landscaping around Galpin, and I don't see clearly what's going on there. Todd, if you could jt~st give me an explanation, or Kate, to what exactly that's going to look like. Or the developer. Somebody give me an explanation of what's going to go on there. John U-ban: My name is John Uban. Landscape architect and planner for the city. Or for the applicant. Also a consultant to other communities. Wear too many hats sometimes. We've provided a landscape plan along Galpin that indicates a variety of plants and it will consist of overstory, some understory or ornamental trees and some evergreens. And right now they'll generally be mixed with a variety of things to take on a more rural, natural look rather than a regimented son of urban street planting. And it's to be planted in combination with berming. On the grading plan which we don't have, we're trying to get berming where we have the horn.es the closest and in some areas where we have a wetland, there's actually a depression so it drops away and we don't want to build a berm and fill wetlands so there will be some areas where there will aotually be some views into the site itself. So that way it's broken up a little bit and then it's more intense where the homes are close and ' we can do some benning and then there's some open pockets where we're protecting the natural wetland and the view into the wetland. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. And my other question or issue is for Dave. You know we've got Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge and maybe the townhouses and the school site and we've got the Rottlund subdivision up there and now we've got this. What are we going to do and when are we going to put traffic lights on TH 5 and CR 1177 Mayor Chmiel: That's coming eventually. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well eventually is here. It has to be now. Mayor Chmiel: That's with the Highway Department to make that final determination. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So it's the Highway Department that determines that? Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we don't order traffic studies or? 50 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: No. Well. go ahead Don. Don Ashworth: On your agenda, and in fact I hoped to have it on this one but the Cohnty has proceeded in making an application for traffic signals. You will have em your agenda 2 weeks from today a resolution supporting that application. Hopefully we'll be able to _tsire the signals, the tempmm'y signals _that_ cun'ently exist down here by the clock tower, because those are on loan, and ac0mlly move those out there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good answer. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Somebody's day was just made. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, it is suicidal miring a left turn there. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right but unfor0mme!y you know how the Highway judges when a stop and go light is put in. After so many deaths and thst's a shame but thal's the way it goes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well there have been several there so. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Mark, you were going to. Councilman Senn: Give it a try. Mayor Chmiel: Give it a shot. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I would move approval accaniing to staff's recomm~aations with the . following additions and changes and deletions. How's that? The neighborhood park field area be nppmv~ nt 180 x 180. That the applicant be required to pay full park and trail fees, as well as provide the neighborhood park and as well as providing nppropriale easements for all trail systems occurring within the development. And let's see here. And that the applicant would not have any direct ~ility in relntion~hil2 to the 5tockdale property. And that Song's be able to have the driveway off of Galpin. And that we add them additional conditions. Installation of boulevard trees and the decorative street lights that Dick suggested. And I think that covered everything bex, ause staff's recommendation already had the trail along the wetland and nil that other stuff in there. So thai was fine. Councilman Wing: I'll second that for discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Could we clarify that 60 to 507 Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's in there. Mayor Chmiel: It's there but it has a 60 foot wide on 11. Councilman Senn: Oh yeah. Staff's recommendation was 50 there so I didn't address that. I mstuned that was okay. Mayor Chmiel: Just a clarifw, ation. Okay, is there a second? 51 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: I se, conded that. Todd Hoffman: Clarification on whether the motion was made to accept full park and wail fees and trail easements, There's no mention of construction of the trail. Councilman Senn: That was in your recommendation that they should do the construction. I assumed that meant the construction. I'm saying their cost responsibility is limited to our policy which is full parks and dedication fees. So what I'm saying is, they pay what they're supposed to pay on park fees and they pay what they're supposed to pay on trail fees. Plus they're supplying the neighborhood park plus they're providing the easements. Todd Hoffman: Do you want the applicant then to bill us for what their material costs would be for our review and then we reduce those fees accordingly? Councilman Senn: Well I would assume you do that how you would normally do it. I don't know if that's your normal way of doing it but. Todd Hoffman: Sure. Councilman Senn: You know and I would assume that you guys would probably keep a pretty close eye on what those overall costs were and bids and all that sort of thing. Or at least subcontractor bids and stuff. Is that fair? Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I seconded that but this trail issue's still haunting me then. The $300,000.00 for the neighborhood park, God bless Lundgren Bros. That's their problem. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and that's basically what the motion says. We're out ot' it other than that. Councilman Wing: Okay but now, how can we, ifs a PUD and as part of approving this whole process how can we get this trail and how can they contribute and we talked about phases. I don't want to drop the trail issue. Councilman Senn: But Dick, in the motion. If I'm hearing wrong, but in the motion we're taking in effect, as I understand it, approximately $200,000.00 from them to mm around and pump back in to those trails and to me that ought to be a pretty accomplishable number. Again, without numbers in front of me I can't tell you but I'm saying there's $200,000.00 coming in that can go back to those trails. I'm agreeing with what you said earlier. I don't think the Stockdale property is their problem and I think we should capture whatever, if it's $100,000.00 hopefully for the trails, then $100,000.00 goes into doing those trails and the other $100,000.00 goes over to help pay towards other things or whatever. Or the gtoekdale property if that's what you still want to do or whatever. Councilman Wing: The question is, what will you do with the dedication fees. Will they go into the trail or will they go to buy the 6 acres of the Stoekdale. Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission and City Council have authorized negotiations to purchase the Stockdale property. We're moving forward in good faith with that. Total dollars genetateM for park fees are about 52 City Council ~g - November 8, 1993 $120,000.00 and total dollars for trail are aplav',,imately $45,000.00 so we're at about S16:5,000.00. And the motion put forth by the Park Commission which is included in your recommendsti,m tonight is to have Lundgren build the trail which again as both the applicant and staff have stated tonight., has Bot beelL Originally it was identified as a standard city trail which is 6 inches of crushed and 3 inches of blacktop. But again, if you diminish the cost to make this thing maybe a little bit more conducive to the natm'aL passive type park...crashed rock. I think if you waived $45,000.00 worth of park fees, or exctme me, trail fees and asked the applicant to build that segment of trail in a crushed rock manner, I don't have the dollar figures either but it sounds like...equitable to me. Councilman Wing: That would be my friendly amendment. That would resolve my problem !bm_ he be given credit for that but be charged with building thst trail as described. And it may cs' may not cost more. It's true, it may but we are going with the crushed rock too so ths,'s clearly lifting a burden and a compromise. Councilman Senn: So what you're ~iriug is am, he be required to build and pay fur the entire trail through plus pay the trail fees? Councilman Wing: No, no. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, waive the trail fees. Councilman Wing: Waive the trail fees. Councilman Senn: Waive the trail fees. Build the trail through. Pay the pa& fees. Councilman Wing: And then have his way with the city park which I think we agree on. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that but I mean at the same time, until we know that number I guess I'd like to. Well I guess let's go with it that way but I want to leave the door ~en because if that trail number comes in at something that's just, $300,000.00 or something, I think tho developer ought to have the right to come back in and say whoops. You know this number. We can't afford this because n?iu I get real uneasy when you're talidng about grojects that have absolutely no dollar amount attached to them. $o I have no problem with ih_at_ going forward bat leaving the dom' open for the developer to come back if that cost is proven to be prohibitive. Todd, is that fail? lVlayor Chmiel: The project could be unacceptable thru. Councilman Senn: I think thc city staff, our consultant and the developer I think should work very quickly to establish a cost. Todd Hoffman: ...cost is grubbing, clearing and grubbing and for insmnminu of rock. Resumlfiou. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acce~ with that as a second? To the motion. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: So, you're asking me to my I don't ca~ about that neightmdmod pail: so we can got that trail in there? Councilman Wing: I'm offering my opinion. I heard you loud and clear. I don't necessarily disagree with you 53 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mike. I'm personally discounting it. We're picking up the Stockdale park and we're picking up the trail and that to me is a big issue. What Terry does with his neighborhood is not a big issue. Councilman Mason: Well but, that neighborhood is in our city so I do see it as an issue and I don't like the idea of having signs up saying, you don't live here. You can't come in here. Mayor Chmiel: Well they're going to be there. Councilman Senn: We've got them all over the city already. Councilman Wing: I'm going to sneak in there anyway. I wait until Jerome and his wife leave and then I go ph~t hunting in his back yard. Jerome C~rison: I count them every marring. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion7 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary PUD #93.3 of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accesst~y stxuctures. The~e must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 2½" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2½ diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. ! Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents ~ould clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 5. Ouflot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the 54 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 e consl~'uction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial 8um~mtees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street 'A" as listed on the preliminary plat." Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buff~ areas are to have native wetlznd vegetation e~lblishecL This insmll~finl~ ltha]] be c,o[llpleted with 8i1~ wol:k Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall dctemlin¢ what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed, This monumentafion shall be ingmlled with initial site development and i~ to be covered by sufficient financial ~uamntees, Wetland buff~ dime~ions and setbacks ar~ established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wOlsnd dwn~e caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E sUeem should be wovided and ~ into the development contract Provide protective conservation easements over all we_tlsnds idgnfified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mifi'"'"'"'"'"'~on meets 1:1 ratio. At thi,~ time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mifi'"'"'"'"'"'~on for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail consuuction adjacent to the site. The Ci~ will assume responm~ for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. b. Detailed plans for the Cralpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming Whe~ feasible). This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhea~ in thi.~ reptm. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more ~-o~-hit~y designed dusters around the plat, additional trees must be ~_ded to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetmion elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in Oty Code and be selected frown the ~ tree list that is being prepatecl by the Tree Board. d. Landscap~g to be covered by satisfactory financ~ guarantees. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactory marked and an erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city befcre undermiring any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree com~'ralion areas as recommended by staff. e L Planting of boulevard trees aa Street A per city specifications. Park and Trails: Parks City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 10. 11. 12. The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 180 feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferr~ to the city for public park purposes, Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. · c. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. Trails It is intended that the Oalpin trail be consu'ucted in the street fight-of-way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion bf the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail consu'ucfion along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment g4. The applicant shall map and consu'uct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specif'mations and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song proper~ and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or .a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. The final plat shall be amended to include revised suv.,et right-of-ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60-foot wide fight-of-way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard su~,,et section. The applicant was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the ROW of streets H and I to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public fight-of-ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an imta'oved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles, Access may be coveted with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff. 56 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The applicant shall receive and comply with all tnminent agency Ixmnits, i.e. W~ District, Health Depamnent, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DN1L Army Corps of Engineers. Storm sewer calc, lations for a 10-year stm'm event along with pond stm'age calc. l~ti~ns for stm~e of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitl~ t~ the City F, ngine~r for review and approval prior to finnl platting. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shah be cons~ on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. Thc applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway I~ent, and staff' shall review wammts for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the in~ of A SUe, eL Fire hydrants shall be placed appro:dma_m_-ly 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in w. cordn__ _nc-e with the Fire Marshal's recommendsrion. All distmbeA areas shall be immedime_Jy rcstmv~ with seed and disc-mulched or provided with a wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading ~r before Nov. 15 each constmc~n season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur throu~t the year arc excepted as is construction m indivi&ml home sites when building permits have been ism]cd and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to thc restoration _~___m_ if weather conditions permiL AH distm'bed re'cas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Manag~t Practices Handbook. The developer shall construct ali utility and street improvements in accordance with thc City's latest edition of Standard Specifkations and Detail Plates and ~ final c, mmru~n plans and specificafi~ms for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the develolm' insmH.~ trunk sewer and water improvements which is congdered anything over an 8-inch pipe dismetm', a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watcrmain mink improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be de~-mined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and thc proposed trunk improvement. As a condition of final plat approval thc applicant will bc required m enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with thc conditions of approval of f'mal platting. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Thc Song homcstcad shall gain access via a direct connection to *B" Street. 21. Street nnmes submitted with the final plat m'e snbject to staff approvaL Thc site grndcs adjaccm to Oalpin Boulevard shall bc revised to bc compatible with the future upgnldc of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no bcrming or drains? facilities will bc allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard risht-of-way. Wetland basin O shall be relocated and m~ to be contnined within the devest to avoid its being impacted by street and trail conspire. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block I off of B St~ct. 57 City Council Meeting - November R, 1993 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton design. 26. The final plat shaii be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsi/~umer property immediately to the west. 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Oalpin Boulevard and A and E slxee, ts, and the proposed cul-de-sac islands, are to be ailowed subject to incorporation of modffications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnarotmd and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the futtne." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be conslructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. 31. Decorative street lighting be installed along the collector Street A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously, Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Council. I'd like to thank all of you. I'd like...just a couple closing commen~. This has been a real difficult process for me personally working with staff...lf it wasn't for the Mayor and Don Ashworth, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss being resilient and me trying to be resilient, we wouldn't have gotten to this point. But I want to thank all of you. This has been the hardest project on me personally that I've ever had to work on. Not because people didn't care but just because it's been a sensitive issue. And all the people... deserve a lot of cr~t because they put a lot more work in here than meets the eye. And I forgot to mention Dave. Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate that. Terry Forbord: ...and I haven't been the easi~t fellow to work with. I apologize for that and I appreciate alL.. Thank you very much. COUNCIL P .RESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Fences are being moved. They're grading at 1:00 in the morning. Trees are getting cut down that aren't supposed to be. Do we know what's going on there Kate? I know Paul isn't here tonight. I think it's been his, Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There was a meeting held with thcm...with the deveioper... 58 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Dave Hempel: Staff tms...applicant's tree landscaper that's doing the trimming and so fc~h and apparently there were additional trees that were removed...The City's contention is, _stuff should have been notified...~ is yet to be resolved with the applicanL We are meeting with him...individual Wn___u~_ ~ ~ extend into the property...some of them were not put back up immedintely. However w~'ve been out to get those areas m- established and it's my unde~tanding thru as of today thi, whole area has been...so we am working with the applicant. His contentiou ig that it's extremely dit~ult, the volume of gr~diqg and filling and the m~?itude of the project... Kale Aanenson: ...there were some roots that were damn~ and...some things that we're going to ID' to do to restore that. But you have to remember, this is the first tree preservation you've done of thi~ type and we put a lot of stuff down on paper that we thought would work and we're finding out in the field, our expeclnfions far exceeded what really works in the field. And while we're having a lot of tnoblems, it's also a good learning experience. We put a condition on there that said 1 1/2 times the drip line and when you get out the~e, t~sically we've made lots unbuildable. I think our e0rpectations were really somewhat tmrealisfic. And we've tried to draw some conclusions on how we can resolve this. While ho is, there'S problems out there. I think some of it is our problem in the fact that we need to be out there on top of it a little bit more and I think our expect~____'nns just cnn't be met so. We're trying to rt~olve that in the next project you're going to see with tree ~on easements. I think that's why...stny with the clustering...This, Lake Susan ~ and Trotters Ridge were the two that we did uniquely with specific tree IXeServntions nnd we found thnt we mnde. some lots ~ unbuildnble... Councilman Mason: Well I'm not knocking, I want to mnire it clem'. I'm not imoeidng anything the city's doing on this. That's not my intent but how is Joe l~f. dler Homes being held accountable? I mean if. Kate Aanenson: We are documenting all the Irees thnt are out the~ and we've got a letter documenting... It's being documented. Dave Hempel: We're also looking at extending the wmranty period for the resulting loss of ~ trees 2 to 3 years down the road. The developer's co--on is...if damsge is done now, it won't show up until 2 to 3 years but if damage is not done now and the homeowner during construction...so there's some different scenarios that . are being... Councilman Mason: Well and that's, I mean the learning curve, you know. That's fine. I mean I can live with that and as long as we're learning from it and the next process will be bet~, I think thnt'S good. I guess my imm~iste concern is, I mean it sounds to me like Joe lVF_Rler has been fin?nnfly violating some conditions we have set forth. And that's something I ~ink we need to address. Mayor Chmiel: Is it Joe himseff or is it his subconmicun~? Dave Hcmpcl: That's what I want to clarify. It's his subcontractors which he's ultimately responsible for. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Dave Hempel: As part of thc construction process...~ tmsis, The problem with the contractor is it's rush, rush, rush. Low priority. Without us being out the~ policing it 8 to 10 hours a day and wnwRting it. Councilman binson: You know right, and that, you know, did we mlir? And I know it was just talk stage but 59 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 didn't we talk at some point about having, particularly with large development, some kind of contractor, subcontractor meetings with city conditions and things like that. Kate Aanenson: We do. Dave Hempol: We've had periodic meetings with the applicant and involvement on the tree issue. And site grading. And construction hours bemuse they have been violating. A waming's a warning and it doesn't do it for the contractor unless the ordinance...but our restriction is we put a development contract basically to shut them down for that...so he starts complying but then Saturday he works late and Monday he doesn't work late. Mayor Chmiel: Then the next one shut him down. Dave Hempel: Well how long do you shut him down for is .the question...slap on the hand or how far do we go? Mayor Chmiel: Well the only way they understand is when they are shut down, unfortunately. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and that is too bad but it seems to me if they're playing that kind of game with us, then we have to play that kind of game with them, and I know that puts you folks in a real hard spot too. But come on. Dave Hempel: We've set the stage. We've set the rules up front and the same old story. Once they get their approval they try to manipulate staff. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could we get a report back in several weeks or several months, whenever they're done grading and fred out and just discuss what the city is getting back for their. Like what they're going to replace on caliper inch. Kate Aanenson: ...so far on... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Being you waited this long, I'll give you that opportunity. If you'd just state your name and your address. Robert Smithburg: Okay. Robert Smithburg. 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I've been involved in ~he Lake Susan Hills project as you know and I've talked with a few of you about this. I've been able to make a light accusation, where you're hedging on a number I know. There's 17 Ixees that have been taken down illegally and all along the proposed park trail it's an atrocity. They have hacked and it's about 15-20 feet wide. I guess as a citizen of Chanhassen and my taxes are going for your salaries and contractual work, I want the contract upheld. I can't break my conu'aets. Northwest Airlines can't go out and say, break contracts. I'm sorry I'm addressing you. I get angry in these situations but I feel that the contract has to be upheld. Everyone here, the Planning Commission, everyone...went through hours of...hard work to make this thing restrictive and "the best", how can I say this. Environmental project say for construction and be a leader and this guy comes in. I live right across from the project. I watch. I see it. They drive over the fences. They have heavy equipment and they're not supposed to do it. They flagrantly violate it all the time. $o I'm asking as a citizen that, I mean maybe the city should take a stand for once and you wouldn't have these problems in the future. Possibly. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it would be well worth while to call Joe Miller in and let him know where we're at and 6O City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 the position that we will be taking, ff he doesn't straighten om his contractors, then we ~ what we have to do. Councilman Mason: I'd be happy to be there. Rob~'t Smithburg: ...and I understand that but there are enough am:rncys around and ttm~ are ~nough engineers that they can look at this and say, hey. If it was bad, why didn't...Yon don't have to sign things _thst arc bad. I mean for years I've fought for conwacts that are worst. Sometimes you take it in the nose and scm~imes we don't. You have to abide by what you sign. That's the rules of the ?me so. Mayor Chmiel: Good. We'll address it. Th-nh fc~ coming in. Dave Hempel: I'd like to address two issues that he spoke of. The disruption to the trail anm down by the lake, the 15 to 20 foot wide area there. That is where the sanitary sewer was hronght in to the development It's virtually impossible to go in there with a ~ and dozer equipment to dig in a sewer line and back fill and to disrupt less area than that. The applicant was ~g initially to wipe out all th~ tr~es and to grade those back yards...The trees there are oak and ash and a variety of si~t tr~es. We did save, preserve th.t whole area of the tree conservation easement so we did go a little bit beyond some of the areas that. ~ is some havoc. There is some disruption as a result of the sewer line but that's also... We view the'tree removal and the grading limits on paper and ac_umlly when it comes down to s~icing it in the field, the conslruction..:mi~oht be off 5 or 10 feet which throws a wrench into saving the trees at 1 1/2 times the drip line. Some of these trees... A good example of what we need to use as... Kate Aanenson: ...basically what we have to do, every time...we physically have to go out to the site with them and we just don't have the...Unfommately what happened on this one, it was our first one and we were learning. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Kate. Mazk, Rather quickly. Can yon hit each one that you want to ,sm about. Councilman Senn: Yeah, quickly Don. The gaming ordipsnve. I'd really like to sec that put back on Council as an action item for consideration: Gaming ordinance amendment. Councilwoman Doekendorf: Just to let yon know, I don't know if you've ~ with Scott. Yon did? Okay. He is looking into it this week but I think it's app/'opri~ to Ina. rig it back. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to bring it back. And let's see here. Mayor Chmiel: State r~ponsibility on TH 101. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Where are we7 I mean we met almost 6 months ago and absolu~y n~hing's happened. I mcan the State was SUl~ to come back to us with scme simple answers and go from there. V,q~-rc arc we? I mcan it's...going absolutely nowhere Don Ashwonh: I met with Roger Gumfson on Friday. If you recall, he was the one who was going to lake a leadrolcin thisthing. I-Ie promised me be'd pick the ball baek up. l-Ie would gtve me a call tbe first part of this week as to when we would be looking to a next meeting. And I guess that's an I can respond to. The bsll has been dropped. Councilman Senn: Well I thonght, Gustafson said he was going to take the lead role if we decided to address all City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 of TH 101 and stuff. I mean in the meeting. The State said they were going to go back and look definitively at the north section of TH 101 and tell us how a trail you know design could potentially impact long term, or if long term construction could potential impact the trail even though they sat in the meeting and said it was going to be outside of 30 years before they ever thought of doing something with TH 101. I mean that's a separate element from what the County is talking about. I mean if we have to wait 6 months you know to take minm' steps in this thing, I mean we may as well go back and tell the people they're never going to have a trail. This is ridiculous. Don Ashworth: Well. Councilman Senn: I mean wouldn't you agree that 6 months of absolutely nothing happening is kind of silly on this issue? Don Ashworth: But I'm not sure that's the case. My recollection was, is Roger was going to take the lead agency role but MnDot would take the plans that had been prepared by BRW and tell us how much of that trail system would in fact be destroyed if we just built the trail outside of the right-of-way limits as currently proposed. Councilman Senn: Or within. I mean they were going to look at it both ways and give us back an answer. Just north of TH 101. Don Ashworth: And ua the best of my knowledge, well I do not know if anyone has recontacted the State and said, where are you. And that was the reason for me meeting with Roger on Friday was to, let's get this group back in and let's find out what has or hasn't been done and I really had hoped that by, well in fact today. because he promised me he'd call me back. Although he said early part of the week. I guess Tuesday is still an early part of the week but. Councilman Senn: Well, I'd like to see us take more of the interest on it. Gustafson made it r~l cie, ar in the meeting he had no interest or desire to do anything on TH 101 from a county level unless it was going to be TH 101 from 212 up to Wayzata or whatever it was, and that we're looking at an upgrade or whatever to the road' and that's not the issue we're dealing with in the meeting. The issue was, can we do something on a trail system and what's the State's future plan for TH 101, which they clearly said in the meeting there were none for 30 years. And they offered the services back to us in terms of design and everything else. I mean to me again, I mean zap. It's now 6 months later. It's absolutely nowhere. Don Ashworth: Why don't I put this item onto our next agenda and hopefully by that point in lime we will have at least set a meeting date, etc. Councilman Senn: Okay, last one real quick. Bill I4_ickey called today. Councilman Wing: Before we get on that. Todd Hoffman: Clarify. We've gone 3 months since that meeting and Charles Folch just sent out, he sent a letter to MnDot that day asking for a determination on what portion of the trail would be destroyed if they came in and updated TH 101. We have not heard a response back. I've asked Charles for the past couple of weeks where that's at and... 62 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: It was 3 months since the MnDot meeting and 6 months since we met with the neighborhood out there. Yeah. Last one was Bill l-Iickey had called today and just said he hadn't received a response hagk yet on his request and ! had a.qtgd that a rept~ come back to Coungil on it. Nothing was therein the agenda so I assume we just don't have the answer yet or~ Don Ashworth: No. I just got through pa~ng it out to yon. Mark and I talked mid-week and I had a fax s~ thai time of this document. For whatever reason, I didn't get the original until Friday and the letter will be sent out to I-lickey tomorrow with this as an enclosure and again I apologize for not getting it into your paci~t lint a~sJn I didn't get it until Friday. Councilman'Senn: Okay. I'!1 read it later. Mayor Chmiel: Well basically it says that it's permitted under State law. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: That was resolved on the Centex issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Don. How fast can you mllr on cable television? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CABLE TELEVISION UPDATEI CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: What I started to do is include in the Adrninigtrative Section. We have started a meeting, the Mayca' and I are meeting on a regular basis now with the cable company and with an attorney basically specializing in that area who represents us. As you have issues present~ to you, ff you would pass those back along to the Mayor and I and we will address those in those meetings that we're having with the cable company. Councilman Senn: Who is the cable committ~... Don Ashworth: Don and I. Todd usually ~dts in on that. Our nttomey. Their attorney and the cable operatom. Councilman Senn: How was that established or whatever? Don Ashworth: We just established the thing as means by which w~ could start to address some of these issues that have been brought up to Council members. I'm handling it in a Sil~ilar fashion as I would any other type of area that I saw we were having a partioo~ problem in. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I guess I'd like to be involved in that more. I'd really like lo look at us maybe even getting some citizen involvement on, ff we're going to have a cable committee. I'd like to get some of the people involved that seem to care a lot about cable and I think it would be nice to hav~ fi'mt kind of input Mayor Chmich Well I think that's something we can talk about and see if that's a necessary requimme~ and proceed from there. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmlel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted h Favor and the motion carrie& The meeting was adjourned at ll:S0 p~n. 63 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim