Loading...
1987 07 20CMANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Coucnilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Lori Sietseaa APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the ager~ta as presentmd with the additic~ by Mayor Hamilton of discussing the National League of Cities Conference and the Minnesote League of Cities Conference. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motfon carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the' following consent agenda it~ns pursuant to ~ City Manager's recomner~atiosn: a. Final Plat Approval, Curry Farms, Phase I. Resolution 987-68: Acceptance of Chanhassem Lakes Business Park 5th Addition Improvements, Project 85-13. e. Approval of Accounts dated July 20, 1987. f. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Burdick 2nd Addition, Burdick. ge City Council Minutes dated July 29, 1987 Planning Ommission Minutes dated July 8, 1987 Public Safety Omn~ission Minutes dated JUne 25, 1987 Park and Recreation fk~mission Minutes dated Jur~ 16, 1987 Park and Recreation Cc~mission Minutes dated June 30, 1987 h. Approval of Saddlebrook Develolx~ent Contract. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: UNITED ~%Y OF MINNEAPOLIS, PEGGY GILLIGAN. Peggy Gilligan from the United Way was present at the meeting asking that the city Council pass a proclamation to support the United Way for the community campaign that will be conducted in Chanhassen. Resolution ~87-69: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to recognize the United Wal~s community campaign during the week of August 12th in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and motion carried. 54 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND APPLICATION, BUILDING BLOCK NURSERY SCHOOL AND DA~. Don Ashworth: We have received an application. It is for an IRB financing for this type of facility. Ir~dustrial Revenue Bor~ financing for the most part is no longer a viable form of financing. Almost every form of commercial and industrial IRB that we've previously looked at no longer is eligible under current legislation. One exception is daycare centers. We have processed this application in a similar fashion to that which you have previously looked at. It is a private placement. There really is no jeopardy position to the City. For the applicant to make the IRB work they're looking for a joint application. In other words, it would be a multiple city application. Staff is recommending approval. Mayor Hamilton: They are a 501C Non-Profit Organization. They've spent quite a bit of time making sure that they're doing this whole process right and there have been a lot of people involved in the process so I guess it's been well taken care of. Any questions? Councilman Geving: Has anyone on the Staff met with any of officers of this organization called the Building Block Nursery School and Daycare Incorporated or whatever they are? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Geving: Would you describe to me, have you been to one of their locations and talked to any of their officers? Don Ashworth: No, I did not visit one of their sites. Barbara or Jo Ann, did you do anything more as far as looking at any of their other facilities? Barbara Dacy: No sir. Councilman Geving: If this goes ahead I would recommend that we do that. I would like to see what kind of facility we're talking about adding to our community. I'm very familiar with 501C Non-Profit Corporations. I'm the manager of one myself and I always want to know who the principle managers of the Board of Directors of these organizations are. Have you met with any of the Board Do~ and are you convinced in your mind that none of the charter members or officers of this organization have anything to do with the downtown redevelopment proposal? Could you state that for the record? Don Ashworth: I did not make a verification into the ownership in comparison to CHADDA. All of the documents that I looked at did not show any relationship but I did not do a police type of background check. If the Council, in considering this item would like to see that as a condition I would carry out that instruction. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this question, are you familiar with Mr. William Dunkley or Jay Bennett who appear here on the application. I assume that they are officers in this particular non-profit organization, is that correct? City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Brian Carey is here, perhaps Brian could answer. Brian are you prepared to answer some of these questions Mr. (~vir~3 is asking? Brian Carey: I can sure try. Councilman Geving: How long has your organization been in existence? Brian Carey: Building Block has ~ in existence since 197L I believe it's May of 1971. Councilman Geving: Could you, for the record, state who the current Board of Directors is of this organization? Brian Carey: No, I can not but I know that Nola can. NOla is here and she could sta~e those officers. Councilman Geving: I'm not so concerned about that. Oould you present to us your 1986 financial records that you produced ar~ sent to the IRS showin~ the Board of Directors and the fees that were paid to those Board of Directors? That also appears in that particular document. What I~ concerned about here is that there might, and we don't want this to happen, but there could be an involvement of any of these officers in our potential downtown redevelopment program. I want those individuals to be named and identified in case they should come up in some future transaction so I~ asking you to produce for us a copy of, and I think that is very appropriate, it was asked for in previous conversation and I believe it is said here that it would he made available to the Council your Articles of Incorporation and also your, I'm not asking for your 5 year profit/loss stat~nent but just last year and produce that for our manager. Brian Carey: That is a very appropriate request. I can not provide that right now but I can sure provide it. Mayor Hamilton: Could you or Nola address the question of is anybody who is involved with CHA[DA on the Board of Directors or involved with your project in any way? Brian Carey: There is absolutely no involvement in the Building Block organization which is also involved with the CHAEDA orgranizatioru There is no cor_nection whatsoever. Councilman (~eving: For the record I wanted to hear that. Then I just had one other question I guess of Do~ or whoever, in the event that this particular proposal is built and is built to the current specifications for a daycare center and subsequently goes out of business let's say s(~netime down the road, how would we reuse that building for another downtown facility so it fits into our overall downtown redevelopment scheme? Is this being t~ht of? Barbara [lacy: Yes, we looked at that as part of the Site Plan Beview phase. The size of the building which is about 5,9~ square feet could easily be converted into a retail or office use. As a matter of fact we kind of looked at that analysis of t/~ parking situatio~ It is a free star~]ing building. City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 The exterior is intended to be designed so it's consistent with the exterior of the Retail West buildirg but it's size and shape and so on, it can be converted into a retail or an office. M~st likely an office building. Councilman Geving: The reason for my questioning there is that the dissolution of a non-profit organization is far easier than a partnership or business for profit type enterprise and we want to make sure that our downtown stays intact if this business were to be dissolved. And it can be dissolved. · The 501C non-profit organization can be dissolved just by a membership vote and the dissolution of the assets of the corporation. Councilman Boyt: Have we contacted the State Board of ~ducation? Do we have any background from them on Building Block? Barbara Dacy: No, we haven't. The Staff has not contacted the State Board of ~ducation. CounciLman Boyt: Have we done any kind of background search? Barbara Dacy: Not that I'm aware of. Mayor Hamilton: Don, have there been any? Don Ashworth: I'm unaware of any. The City Council has approved six to seven IRB applications previously. We have not done similar type of background reviews in those instances. I apologize if the Council would want that in this instance. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it's the Board of ~ucation that licenses this. Wouldn't it be another agency? Isn't there a specific agency that licenses daycare centers? Barbara Dacy: Yes, the Carver County and State would have to license the facility. One of the conditions on the site plan approval is that they receive a certification prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Mayor Hamilton: Whoever deals with daycare centers in Carver County has seen this proposal. Councilman Bolt: I guess Tom, am I right in my impression that you're also affiliated with New Horizon Daycare? That's kind of one in the same? Brian Carey: I wouldn't say one in the same. New Horizon will be managing the Building Block Daycare Center. They are two separate entities. Councilman Bolt: Is New Horizon also a non-profit? Brian Carey: No, New Horizon is not a non-profit. New Horizon has ~--n in business for 17 years or 19 years and has 17 daycare centers around the area. Councilman Boyt: I apologize for being new to this. Maybe you can help educate me. We are approving a grant or the application for a grant to a non- City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 profit ~ho is then going to turn the building over to a for profit operation? Brian Carey: No sir. They will not be turning the building. It will be run as the Building Block Daycare Center ar~ there will be a management contract, a 5 year management contract with New Horizons that will be terminable after 3 years if for some reason the manag~uent is not appropriate. Councilman Boyt: The reason I would persue this at all is I think the City is one responding to a ~. ~here definitely is a ~. The other thing we're doing by asking for this grant application is we're saying we think this is a good way to meet that ~. In the process here we really know next to nothing about this group other than t~ have an interest. Before we say this is a good place and we're willing to use the City's opportunity to e~lcourage then to cane, I would like to know more about their backgrour~. Mayor Hamilton: That could be a condition of approval. Whatever information you want. Brian Carey: I would be happy to make that a condition of approval. We do have a letter from Sally Goldberg who is in the Department of Human Services. She has since then retired but she's been involved in licensing daycare centers for 18 years in the State of Minnesota ar~ has writt~ us a strong letter of recommendation. I would be happy to provide that for you or introduce you to whoever you might want to discuss the matter with. Councilman Boyt: Well, that's helpful. I guess I just see once we pass this, what do I gain out of a review then? Mayor Hamilton: If it's a condition of approval. Councilman Boyt: Then I would like to have as a contingency on tl~ approval that we get basically a clean slate as we look at the backgrour~. I assume we're going to but I would just like to have that. Mayor Hamilton: Jay, any questions? Councilman Johnson: I think Bill and Dale covered it pretty well there. I'm in agrccment with them. There is a definite lack of information here. I would like to see more information, whether it's a condition of approval or we say we'll put it on a future consent ager~a or sc~ething after we see this information. Either way sounds good to me. I think we do ~ this in town. Mayor Hamilton: I agre~ We can approve this with the cor~itions that we see their financial statement for 1986. Also a list of the Board of Directors which I understar~ is included in your financial statenents. Councilman Geving: Tom, I think more important would be the Articles of Incorporation because that tells you how they dissolve the corporatio~ if it were to be terminated. Mayor Hamilton: (kay, Articles of Incorporation and information from the licensing authorities. k City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I would like to see a review of their program. Someone I'm sure has reviewed your program and has said yes, what you're doing is the right sort of thing and I would like to see t_hat. Some sort of idea of what your program is. Brian Carey: I'm sure we can provide you that. Councilman Johnson: You have two other of these facilities? Brian Carey: Apple Valley and St. Louis Park. Resolution #87-70: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Commercial Development Revenue Bond application for Building Block Nursery School and Daycare contingent upon the requested information of 1986 financial statement, Articles of Incorporation, information from the licensing authorities ar~ a review of the daycare program. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who abstained and motion carried. GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR. Resolution %87-71: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to award the bid for the Ground Water Storage Reservoir Project %86-3 to the Hydrostorage, Inc. for $612,150.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. FRONT YARD SERBACKVARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES. Councilman Geving: Tnis particular item was denied. It was the feeling of the Board that this lot was altered by tt~ developer. This is a new development and the site is a buildable site. A different home style or possibly a different setback could work on the site being proposed and we denied this on that basis that the builder set the house that he's proposing to build or devise a different kind of building and set it on the lot as proposed so we saw no reason for a variance. There's really no hardship in this case. Jo Ann Olsen: Tae applicant is here. Councilman Geving: Maybe you could read it for us. I think it would be better if we could hear the Staff Report. Jo Ann Olsen: Tb~ applicant is requesting to locate a home 10 1/2 feet from a cul-de-sac and the setback would be 25 feet. This shows where the setbacks are and Staff felt that the house could be set back and be within the setbacks. The 10.5 feet was too close to the cul-de-sac. The style of the house is long and doesn't really fit with the site. It will require additional grading to move the house back but the site has already been altered, cleared trees off so we're not really opposed to further alteration of the site. We feel the setbacks should be maintained. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to address the Council? You're representing Sandcon? City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Laun Sanderson: Yes, I'm Laun Sanderson and there is no doubt the lot can be built on as it is but we're left with the extremes in elevations which is a variation of over 2~ feet from the lowest to the highest comer. In order to leave a star~ of trees in the back of tl~ lot and it varies 21 feet frc~ one corner to the other corner. In addition to that the lot is the narrowest lot in tl~ whole project and we feel this is subject basically to the same setback restrictions as a corner lot which normally is left wider to allow for that because of the cul-de-sac curvirg back along the side. I guess I designed the house that I proposed putting on there to fit the lot. It fits it very well on the fact that it's a very narrow lot ar~ it's requiring that double setback of 25 feet from the cul-de-sac and the front is a hardship. Councilman Boyt: As I roughly sketched this out, 17% of the house is inside the 25 foot setback which is already 5 feet closer to the curb than we would normally, recomm~ a~d I wasn't here for the earlier meetirg but I guess I would have to agree with them. I don't see anything other than the building style that dictates this Personally I wouldn't want to live in that part of the house lq feet from a road. Laun Sanderson: I guess if you look at the whole house, this is the corner. It's a cul-de-sac with three houses on it. Th~ nearest or~ is some distance away. ~his part of the cul-de-sac isn't going to have a lot of traffic. Councilman Horn: Just a response to the comment, it would appear to me that if you try to design the residence to match a lot you would try to match the length and width dimensions proportionally. It appears to me that this is absolutely the wrong kir~ of a home to put on this shape lot. I've seen many hemes 25 feet back which were arrarged better. Councilman Geving: We could see granting a variance of that magnitude on the front yard. I don't believe 14.5 foot varianoe leaving 18.5 feet from the corner of that lot to the cul-de-sac makes any sense whatsoever. That just is not goirg to happs~ in this city agairu We did that one time on Carver Beach Road and we reduced the front yard setback and it's very noticeable if you drive down that road ar~ there's one house that stands out. I think that's where the Board is coming from. That you could build a proper home on the lot. It just the style home that you've selected that's dictating the variance request. Councilman Johnson: I believe this is just totally self created hardship. Mayor Hamil ton: I feel tt~ same. Councilman Coving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to deny the front yard setback variance request for Lot 18, Block 1 Triple Crown Estates based on the fact that all of the analysis items for granting a variance have not ~ met. All voted in favor and motion carried. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCERf~3EST, 90~5 LAKE RILEY BLVD., DALE BOYER. Councilman Gevirg: On this particular item we did pass this unanimously with two conditions. T~e first cor~ition is that the drainage must drain to the City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 north and to the east and secondly, any future building can not extend beyond the 57 foot setback to the lake side. That's the only two conditions. It was passed unanimously. CounciLman Boyt: I have a comment. In reading this I had a very serious concern that we were willing to accept a 10,800 foot lot as a buildable lot when our ordinance indicates in Section 3.5.2 Subsection under 5 that provided that the width and area measurements are at least 75% of the minimum requirements of this ordinance which is 20,000 square feet and if it's not, it's deemed not a buildable lot so that's just my comment. I think it should have been denied. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Boyt has raised a concern. What I would like to do is perhaps ask the City Attorney on a future agenda either speak to this item or to write a short description of his interpretation. We'll also be discussing this item also in the item about the tax forfeiture of land sales but I think it does deserve future discussion. CounciLman Geving: I think the thing also in this particular case that was confusing, there apparently is a lot difference here. There is a survey difference between those two lots and that is in dispute at this time. So the lot is actually larger and that was shown to us. REVIEW RIME PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, AL KLINGELHUTZ. Barbara Dacy: I'll just briefly run through this history. In 1984 the Council approved the creation of this 14 acre lot. Originally the property was part of the original Lake Susan West PUD as part of the Curry property. The restriction passed on the subdivision approval was that the lot was not buildable until the property could be served by a public street. The representative of the applicant is here tonight requesting that the Council authorize an amendment to the development contract listing that building restriction. Also in your packet there is provided a copy of the current PUD proposal which shows the subject parcel in relation to it. If the subdivision came through, when through our current process now, with a private drive it could be a buildable lot. However, Staff is recommending that because of it's location directly adjacent to a proposed park site that we're recommending that the Park and Recreation Commission evaluate it for possible land acquisition. They are to meet July 28th so I think that could be in keeping with the applicant's timing schedule for the sale of the property. Then we've got three additional conditions that if the Council is to approve the amendment of the development contract that a soil boring have a site survey and an easement 60 feet in width and constructed to our typical construction standards for a private drive be provided. A1 Klingelhutz: This plat of Lake Susan Hills West looks to me like it's taking up the recorded easement of 66 feet that goes out to Audubon Road. Now you look at this map, there is the 66 foot recorded easement that goes out to Audubon Road through this property. I can't understand quite how that happened. I didn't realize that until I got the letter from Bob and Barb and we had a little discussion on it. I didn't talk to Don Patton this afternoon City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 and he was supposed to get back to me and he didn't get back to me. Actually, Mr. ar~ Mrs. Rime already have entered into a purchase agreement with the Gores who have property directly to the south of this property. It is a valid purchase agreement. The only hold-up on the property was that they did not have an eligible building site. Mr. Gore, I was just talking to Mr. Gore here ar~ he feels that it probably will be 4 or 5 years before he will he doits3 anything to the property as far as putting a house on it, getting a building permit ar~ the only thirg he's concerned about ar~ would like to have taken care of tonight is the fact that the development contract that was written in 1984 betw~ the ~{mes ar~ myself says there was not an eligible building site on the property because it did not have road frontage and I believe at that time there was no building allowed in the unsewered area of Chanhasse~ because of the interpretation of the ordinance. Since that time the ordinance has changecL Building sites.., with a private easement to a piece of property if it passes the soil borings and percolation tests. The thing ISn a little bit concerned about in Barb's statement ar~ I may go over this with Barb, is the fact that she's asking for soil borings, percolation tests at this time in the possibility that no building permit will be requested for a 5 year period. I think, and I talked to Mr. Gore about this, he said that if the building eligibility was removed at the time that he was asked for a buildirg permit, he would provide that information and if they did not pass it at that time then he wouldn't have a buildirg permit so actually, I don't know what you'll do about it. I just feel the uneligibility should be removed from the property ar~ when the new owner applies for a buildirg permit on the property, the new owner shall provide the physical required septic system soil data to confirm that the property is ineligible for a building. Any questions? I know it would make a nice piece of parklar~ but there is a bonafide purchase agreement which I did not have anything to do wit/L Mr. Gore ar~ Mr. Rime did this prior to my knowledge. Councilman Geving: I would have to ask two questions. One of Barbara, is the requirement for the soil borings necessary? Is that s~methirg that we require everyone? As far as I know w~ have. Barbara Dacy: Yes, it is necessary. I could check with the Attorney but we could draft the development contract in the fashion that if t~ can't provide valid soil boring tests a~d so on then obviously the parcel is unbuildable and a building permit could not be issued so the development contract could be phrased so that these conditions are met. Councilman Geving: So we could get around that requirenent if necessary. Barbara Dacy: I would want to double check with the Attorneys to make sure. Councilman Geving: Then the second one Al, if the Park and Rec Commission recommends it to us that we pick up a piece of that property, is it possible that we could buy a piece of it to add onto the Lake Susan Hills? Al Klingelhutz: I talked to Mr. Gore about that and being he has a valid purchase agreement, I don't think Mr. Rime could sell it to the City at this time. City Oouncil Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Geving: No, but if w~ could buy it from Mr. Gore. A1Klingelhutz: You could deal with Mr. Gore and he is sitting right here. Mr. Gore: I don't have any probl~ns with that at all. Councilman Geving: I know it's preliminary. Tree Park and Rec people haven't met and this is the first time they've even bc-~n_ exposed to this. You haven't been brought up to date on this at all have you Lori? Lori Sietsema: Barb has talked to me a little bit about it. Councilman Geving: Is it sc~ing you will put on the 28th agenda? Lori Siets~na: Yes. Al Klingelhutz: A~tually the mortgage on his house came through and he's going to pay cash for this property and it will be all set to be closed sometime towards the end of this week but Mr. Gore is willing to negotiate with the City on the sale of all or part of the property. Councilman Horn: Just a comment, I would hate to see us find out that we could go ahead and issue this without the soil borings and the~ at the time that the applicant came in for a building permit find out that he doesn't meet the criteria and he would say why did we allow this to happen. I've heard that in so many cases. I would hate to gcc that happen. Cbviously people forget about why we do things when we do them. It seems to me we're deviating a little from the standard policy. Councilman Boyt: I think all we're really saying here is A1 asked for an opportunity or give him more security on a Contract for Deed by declaring it non-buildable and now we have a request from the person who picked up that contract to say I would like you to remove that constraint. I don't know that we're declaring buildable by removing that constraint are we? We're just simply taking off what' s there. Barbara Dacy: Yes, I would tend to agree with that. What's going to determine if it's buildable or not is whether or not there are two adequate septic system sites. I think we can work with the Attorney to try and address the applicant's concern and what Staff can do is ask the Attorney to draw up that contract and bring it back on a future agenda so that the Council can approve that amended contract. Councilman Boyt: So it would seem to me that Mr. Gore is accepting a risk. If he closes on this property without soil borings that that's just a risk he's taking like anyone buying any other piece of property. As far as the park situation, I don't know if this has ever ~_n planned for a park in this particular location aside from what Lake Susan West is proposed. Is this a long standing co,migent to put a park in this spot? Lori Sietsema: No. 10 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Not that you're familiar with. Well, as much as I like to see park space, I think all we're beirg asked to do is take s~mething off that we were asked to put on and I have no difficulty with it. Councilman Johnson: I think this is a case of where I think the buyer is aware. ~bviously he's sitting there listening to us ar~ he's at risk here. If he buys the property ar~ there's no place to put a septic system he has to wait for sewer and water, ghat could be a long wait. A very long wait and I guess what we're doing is to remove Section 4 her~ I guess we could replace Section 4 that prior to building permit being issued that adequate soil borings be installecL Talk to the Attorney, I don't know how. Is that part of the ordinance anyway for down in that part of town that you have to have that before the building permit is going bo be issued so we've already got it in our ordinance that this place isn't buildable until he does that. I don't really have a probl~n. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill made a good point when he said, by removing what's ~ put on there we're not saying the lot is buildable ar~ as long as the applicant understands that ar~ the future property owner understands that then I don't have any problen either. We're not saying that the lar~ is buildable until we get the perc test we won' t know. Councilman Johnson: Are you placing any of the cor~itions that Staff r~s? Mayor Hamilton: ~hel~re going to have to meet those conditions anyway if they cu~e in to try ar~ build on it. Thel~re going to have to go through the process. We're not doing anything other than taking a condition off from a develo~xnent contract that's ~ created. Barbara Dacy: I think the contract should be clear though to state that the soil boring data should be provided ar~ secor~ of all, did you want the Park and Rec Ommission to evaluate this? Councilman Geving: That's up. to Park and Rec. Mayor Hamilton: I would think when the applicant comes in, if he ever does, isn't that the time when they have to do soil borings? Cour~ilman Geving: I think we kind of clouded that issue. The Park and Rec thing is a separate thing and let's stay with just the building restriction. Barbara Dacy: (kay, so there's no specific direction as to whether or not you want the Park ar~ Rec Ommission to look at it. Mayor Hamilton: No, there will be nothing stated: Now address the other issue. Why do you think that it needs to be addressed? Barbara Dacy: Just to protect the City from one standpoint that yes, we are saying that we are authorizing the creation of this 14 acre pieoe but just make sure that there would be no claims back to the City saying you created 11 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 this, it should be a buildable lot. A~3ain, Roger can prepare the document and we can bring it back. Mayor Hamilton: If the Attorney prepares the document then the document should state that anyone who builds on this particular parcel is going to have to ~t all city ordinance requirements like they do any other piece. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to remove the building restriction placed on the 14 acre parcel of the Rime Property Development Contract betw~n the Rimes and A1 Klingelhutz executed in 1984. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton left the meeting during the Downtown Redevelopment Project items and Councilman Geving chaired the meeting. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO CREATE STORMW-ATER RETENTION FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOCATED AT THE~]ND OF WEST 79TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, CITY OF (~4ANHASS~EN.- Barbara Dacy: Tae Planning Commission at their June 24, 1987 meeting recommended approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit based on Staff's conditions with the one correction in condition 2 that an additional two recommendations from Dr. Rockwell's report be included in the specifications of the pond. Basically the Commission wanted the Council to consider to look at creating more of the wetland rather than a mini-lake type of appearance for t_he stormwater retention pond. Also, the Council should be aware that there are a number of concerns that were brought up by Mr. Clayton Johnson representative of the Bloomberg Companies regarding the wetland on the north side of the railroad tracks. The Council should be aware that in the future the Council should expect a Wetland Alteration permit from both the City and the Bloomberg Companies for their commercial development plans that would possibly relocate this wetland area over to the west more and the parking area would occur in this vicinity. But that item is not part of this request tonight but would be a future application. Other than that, Gary ~hret from BRW is here to respond to any detailed questions. Councilman Geving: So the action tonight is just for the permit request to create the ponding area, not necessarily the location of the pond? Is that what you're telling us? Barbara Dacy: Yes. ~ne request tonight is merely to allow the city to create the stormwater pond that you see on that exhibit there in relation to the downtown stormwater management plan. Councilman Gaving: Okay, let's hear from the developer on this. You said someone from ~ is here. Gary ~hret: The Council is aware that as a part of the downtown redevelopment project a large stormwater management plan is being incorporated to handle 12 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 future run-off from the downtown area ar~ as a part of that plan is a creation of a proposed pond irg area on the southwest corner of the downtown to handle the run-off. The specific reasons for that pond, as the Council may recall, were a part of tl~ Bart Ergir.~rirg study which essentially said that downstream storm sewer facilities are currently inadequate to handle future run-off generated by the downtown. Thus, the proposed por~irg area to handle that run-off in the southwest corner. Those ponds do fall in an area that are currently designated wetlar~s. To create these ponds for tt~ purpose of storm water management we do have to go through the wetland alteration proceedings ar~ on behalf of the City as your consultirg ergir~ we have filed for that permit. Councilman Geving: Gould you respond specifically to Dr. Rockwell's recomnendations? Gary fhret: Sure. Dr. Rockwell recommended six items three of which we initially said we could accomodate as a part of this development. I believe items 1, 2 and 6, I'm sorry I don't have them right in front of me but 3 and 4 I believe are the specific items which at the Plannirg C~mmission we stated that the direction we had received from both the HRA and the City Council or our interpretation of that direction was that we wanted to make this an aesthetically pleasing, clear water pond, at least as best we could. That the creation of those ponds as a wetlar~ type of settirg was not desire~L Dr. Rockwell's specific requirements or request are items that will definitely result in the creation of a wetland type habitat in that location. A depth of I believe she said .5 to 3.M which rolling contour bottoms and the planting of wetland marsh grasses in item 3 and 4 both will result in a marsh type setting there so the big issue I guess is the pond to be created in a wetland type settirg er do we attempt to create, I don't want to call it pristeem but a clean water, aesthetically pleasing recreational type of pond although there is no intention that I~n aware of to create a recreational facility but again that is really the crux of Dr. Rockwell's. Councilman Johnson: Dr. Rockwell's recomm~ati~ were what I was concerned with. I don't see this as an all or none type recommendation. I don't see that we have to go completely a clear water por~ without any emergent vegetation and just rocks on the sides without vegetation. Make it basically into a large fountairu I would think that we could provide sc~e habitate on the edge. It's always nice to have a duck or a goose swimming around in the pond there. I'm not sure how much it would with t/~ fountain in there. I'm not opposed to some of it but I do not believe that the intent here is to create a wildlife pond betw~---------~ a railroad ar~ a highway. It's not the right place for it. It's more of a more scenic thing. I think a good landscape architect could work in a little bit of, Chanhass~n is wetlar~s and cattails and that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind seeing a couple cattails sticking up out of this thirg if it's done right but I think it's main purpose for settling out materials and stuff has to have hydraulics to it and whatever ergi~ r~ for that. Her number 3, the rollirg bott~ is if you were planning on going deeper than 3 foot in most of it, I wouldn't mind seeing a small section of it that was half a foot to 3 foot that did have some emergent vegetation and maybe a duck or two. 13 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Geving: What will be the depth of this particular facility as you see it? Gary Ehret: Most of the facility is designed for, with a normal water elevation of 945, about 7 feet of depth. We designed the 938 roughly bottom contour. Gary Warren: I think it ~s to be kept in mind as you mentioned, the primary purpose of the facility and also as we go on, the shaping of the facility, we're talking about bottom contours, it's going to be in constant state of change because of the sediment purpose that it serves and there will be a time when the City will no doubt be involved in having to clean out the bottom of that so when we talk about things such as tryir~3 to establish gradually sloping areas and some of these things, it's almost, I don't know premature but it's goir~3 to be modified so much as it exists that it's almost a contradiction to try to make that facility do those things at this time. It's going to evolve in a natural state and I definitely personally have some concerns about the water quality in that that it doesn't become say a septic type of environment and that's why tt~ aeration and trying to minimize sc~e of these problems. Councilman Geving: I think this is really what we were thinking would happen here is that we clean up that ground reservoir before we flush it on down to Rice Marsh Lake and onto Lake Riley. I too am having a little problem with Dr. Rockwell's recommendations. However I know Liz and I know what she feesl about the environment and that's by her training. Her background. I would expect that she would give us those kinds of recommendations on this issue but it may not fit just exactly what we're looking for on this particular instance. Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple of questions and what I'm concerned about is, this is one of those instances in which the City is going to go against it's own ordinance and that makes we wary. Our ordinance pretty clearly states that we're dramatically changing the role of what is at least noted as a wetland and we're doing it as the Staff Report has said, we're going to increase the natural run-off rate that hits this thing. We're going to be flushing stuff through there down into Rice Creek when we certainly want to and I noticed that one of the members of the committee that helped write the Wetlands Ordinance happened to be at the Planning Commission meeting and reiterated that wetlands should be protected at all costs with the theme of the ordinance and the City is turning around and we're rather tough on private developers who come in here. Appropriately so I think and now we're turning around as a city and saying but that doesn't apply to us and I don't think that's appropriate. I think we need to do more to control oil and things that would clearly be on top of the water, debris that was talked about. Maybe as it enters or before it enters or shortly after it enters but I don't think we should let this become a pool for collecting oil because it won't do a very good job of that. It's going to flush it right down. So I ask the question is the pond large enough to really do the job and I don't think it is. You stated in here that it really wasn't large enough. It was kind of a compromise deal. That one of the reasons we made it deeper was because we didn't want to make it larger and when we made it deeper we put it down into 14 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 the water t~_hle. As I recall, the people who draw their water from the water table would like us to be careful with what we expose the water table to. This is no different than running oil into a lake the way we're putting this thirg up ar~ so that concerns m~ The other thirg that concerns me is we've said the high water line is 951. We built it for 951. We put our storm sewer outlet at 94~ I think if you've got a volume problem, maybe we move the storm sewer outlet up and get another 6 feet, you call it bounce, in there but basically it's not large enou~tu If I can fir~ a comment in this phase of things I think in the Planning Commission there were two people who I think said it fairly well. One of them was Ladd Conrad, he says if we really want this to act as a filtering basin we would recreate the wetland and make it really work like the wetland. The City Council is contradictirg what the wetlar~ ordinance says and it's also an attempt to make an one acre pond or whatever the acreage is look like a clear water entryway to Chanbamsen. I guess I would agree with Jay. I have no problems with the entrance of Chanhass~ beirg a mars~u We've got them all over tt~ place. Then ~ the page 11 of the Planning Commission minutes from July 8th Mr. Headla points out, how can we c~me alorg and agree that the city can allow a degeneration of the wetland. I guess as it' s proposed I'm against it. Councilman G~ving: Any comments to that Gary? C~ry Ehret: Councilman Boyt said an awful lot of things but the one thing that I would like to clarify is I'm not sure in which context the size issue was addressed but I can assure Councilman Boyt and this Council that this pond will be designed to handle what is commonly used as a typical run-off generated from this area. ~hat amount was determined by Bart Engineering and their study is 33 acre feet ar~ that is what we are proposirg to store in this pond for ponding purposes. Councilman Boyt: What you're saying to me then is the pond will not increase tt~ rate of flow downstrea~ from here? Gary Ehret: The Barr Engineering study specifically said that the downstream pipes were sized with a given capacity and that this por~ was to be sized to handle whatever excess was generated so that we did not increase the downstream flow. Councilman Horn: I got the impression from reading the Planning (5~mmission minutes that they were lookirg for an alternative plar~ I wondered what happened to that recommendation. Barbara Dacy: Gary, correct me if I'm wrong but we tried to respond by saying that this was the recommendation from the Watershed District. Tt~ other option was to do nothing or to go out and acquire additional commercial land to provide that storage capacity to meet the 33 acre feet. Somewhere the water has to be stored upstream before it goes down to Rfce Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. C~ry, does that st~marize what you were talkir~ about? Gary Ehret: Basically, yes. Councilman Horn: So you're saying there is no alternative plan? 15 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Gary Ehret: I guess the way I would address that is there is no alternative plan that either we, i.e. BRW or Bart Ergineering, another consultant, felt was economically justified. There are alternatives but in our opinion they do not make as much sense either technically or economically as is proposed here. I could go into some of the reasons why as Barb mentioned. Councilman Horn: Did you have that information at the Planning Commission? Gary Ehret: Yes and I did respond to the Planning Cc~mission on those irons. Councilman Gaving: We have a Planning Commissioner here, would you say a few words on that Tim? Tim E~hart: I wasn't there at that meeting. Councilman Gaving: Are you satisfied with the question and the response that you got fromGary on your question? Councilman Horn: No. Councilman Gaving: We have discussed and I don't believe that we are surprised by the location of this water storage facility in that location. I'm not surprised by what I saw on the maps. It's been there for some time and if we're going to store ground water before we release it to Rice Marsh Lake, I don't know where else we could do it. If we're going to store it in the downtown area. We have seen literally a number of maps over a long period of time sketching this pond out just about where it's being proposed so I'm not surprised where I see it tonight and apparently you are Clark. Is that what you' re tell lng me? Councilman Horn: No, my question was it appeared that the Planning Commission was looking for an alternative recommendation and I just wondered if we had more information tonight then what theyhad received. You're telling me we don't. Gary ~hret: We did not review any other alternatives between the Planning Commission meeting and this evenings meeting. Councilman Horn: I'm not surprised with the location of the pond but I am surprised at the fact that we're hearing now is an approved wetland that we are violating our ordinance on. That I'm surprised at. I've always known this was the concept for that area. I didn't realize that was a wetland. I didn't realize we were violating our own ordinance by this basic plan. I would have thought that we would have looked into that when the basic plans were put together. Barbara Dacy: As to the ordinance issue, I think the issue that we were trying to express to the Planning Commission that in this particular instance, I don't know if there is another way without violating the ordinance. We're trying to trade-off holding the storm water, the required amount of storm water draining off from the downtown area and the trade-off is that we're improving the downstream quality to Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. While we 16 City Council M~eting i JUly 2~ 1987 certainly admit an~ point it out in th~ repO.'rt that certain ~uide.l. ines are being violated~ it is an attempt tO address to an 9verall issue. I think that was the point that we were trying to address. Councilman (~eving: Barbara~ do you suppose, that's why the Planning C0mmissi6n built it back into their recommendation items 3 and 4? So that to t~ ext~t practical we would at.tempt to adhere to the wetland Ordinance ar~ to the recommer~ations of Dx. Rockwell in providir~3 an aesthetically~ e~vironmentally sound area with let's face it~ some duck marsh habitat is really what she was recommending: That you_leave it pretty much in a sta~e that you cur_rently are finding it right now. That's really what she recommended. I believe that the Plannin~ Ommmission tried to cite that to the extent that we can~ that it is possible, that we should attempt to do that without destroying our ordinance provisi0ns~ Barbara Dacy: The amount of storage that, s being, r ..ec/uired is unlik~ any.o .the.-r subdivision development. We do have an item later on in t0night:s agenda., for a wetland alteration permit~ There is a tremer~ous amount of storm water that we have to store frc~ the downtown. Councilman Geving: Didn't we have a similar pond. _ove~_ near the victory Envelope area? It was pretty much of a weed .eate~, cattail marsh are~ remember seeing it in back of the home there near the highway and eve6tually we made it into a full fledge pond just to store the water so we've done that. Gary Warren: I was going to say~ a Class B wetlands is_ what we're talking about here also~ I think that needs to be kept in mir~. Councilman (~ving: So we've done something similar to this just across the road~ Don~ would you like to speak to this whole issue please? Don Ashworth: Yes~ you're absolutely correct~ Within the Business Park you did have areas that would fall under our wetlar~ ordinance and we did exactly the same type of thing there in creating the holding bas_ins to basically insure that the downstream Lake Susan area was protected. It has worked out quite well for us2 We looked at alternative areas and I really don't think that there are any. Or~ area that Gary really did not touch (x~ that maybe he could would be the ponding area that would be on the north side of the railroad track and the ability to potentially use part of that area. Barbara had noted that that may be shifted but as I see that area, that will act as a filtering area to ~ por~] itself. Barbara Dacy: Another item too is that further on down in the Ward Estate, when ar~ if that property develops, part of the plan is to create another pooding area in the Ward Estate so I believe there is a wetland in that property also. There are other areas downstr_~m that we can further help with the water qual ity. Councilman (~eving: But the water from the north won't get across TH 5 to that area. Is that correct? It will be channeled to the Ward property? 17 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Barbara Dacy: It will have to flow through this and yes, as the map is showing, it is going to the Ward and through the Hidden Valley develoimnent and then to the storm water pond in the Hidden Valley area. Councilman G~ving: Okay, so that's all ~ worked out. Gary Warren: One other point to keep in mind I think and we ran into it with the Saddlebrook development is that Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, they're phospherous sensitive and they are sensitive because of already the phospherous that lies in Rice Marsh so any volume of water, even if it's crystal clear is going to have an impact down there so we're not really looking at this although we are trying to take advantage as much as we can for nutrient removal and sediment removal but the impact on the lake, the phospherous impact there's nothing that we can do upstream to prevent that. ~nis is for detention and for vol~ne control. Councilman Geving: This is the beginning of a planned approach to channeling that run-off into the Rice Marsh and eventually to Lake Riley. We don't have a plan now. It just runs. At least this is the beginning of an overall plan. Gary f~ret: One of the things that I tried to illustrate to the Planning Commission, to get a little sense of what we're talking about, there are two items we're talking about. Storm water volume and pollution control if you will. One of the things I illustrated was that the current outlet under TH 5 serving this area had a capacity of about 60 cubic feet per second. When you look at the development of this entire downtown area and what I think everybody agrees they hope will occur, the sizing that we have done for the storm sewer system on the pond that is also a part of Barr's report, estimates a volume of run-off of 300 cubic feet per second so what we're talking about coming off of your downtown is an increase of like 5 times what you are currently seeing or what the current pipes are able to handle. That's one of the critical points is that as this thing develops, one of the possible alternatives is we do not pond it, we run it in a pipe. I point out that economically that is extremely impractical. As an example, the pipe that we have designed coming down this area to handle the northern sections of downtown is a 72 inch pipe. By comparison, the pipe that currently goes out here is 48 inch pipe. If you start to talk about let's look at an alternative. Let's not pond it, let's run it right through, you're talking about an awful lot of money. Councilman Geving: Don, did you conclude your statement? Don Ashworth: Again, my only point was is I think you can have a combination of both the ponding capacity that the engineers are talking about. The ability to be able to clean that area in tb~ future as well as to incorporate design standards on the north side of the track that would insure that the filtering and the other concepts associated with the wetland are in fact maintained. Councilman Geving: And you can live with that Gary? If the recommendation and the council approval tonight were to include items 3 and 4 of Dr. 18 71 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Rockwell's recommendations, you could live with that as a design construction feature? Gary Ehret: I think absolutely. O~e of the things that I would propose if the fbuncil would consider it is Oouncilman Johnson's recomme~atio~ and that is maybe we can look at say the corner that is a little bit more removed from Market BlvcL and TH 5 intersectior~ Maybe we look at concentrating o~ Dr. Rockwell's comments in that-area leaving the other area a little nearer, a little cleaner. We can certainly do that. Don Ashworth: That was the recc~mer~ation I was trying to piece apart. ~ouncilman Geving: I~n still looking for Ju~e 15th memo. I don't see that in our packet by the Soil Conservation Service. Barbara Dacy: It's Attachment 94. Councilman Gaving: This is all that there was, is just one page? Barbara Dacy: Right. We have provided our ager~ies with this or~ page form because it makes their job a little easier in giving all of our requests. It's just signed Stan Weilland. I should have put... Councilman Gaving: I was looking for something from the Soil Conservation Service. Councilman Boyt: When I look at the contour lines on the map, it appears to me that what we're creating is a couple of holes in a lot of relatively flat area. Does this show us the changes or are these the existing contours? When I see the dotted lines arour~ there it looks to me like we're dropping it in the center area it's going to be 938. ~hat's what we're actually creating right? Councilman Boyt: Ar~ what we're talking about is char~3ing that alo~ the lines that Jay and some others had talked about to fit with what Dr. ~ockwell emi ks about in terms of depth ar~ basically create a marsh again. Gary Ehret: Yes. What I have to be very careful about saying tonight before I go back ar~ look at it is, if for example we were to shallow up this or maybe create essentially an island cor~ition to achieve some of what she has requested, what does that do to our por~ in volu~e. Councilman Boyt: I would like you to tell me how we're going to go about stopping the flow downstr~ fr~n this por~ so it's not storie~ up with the phospherous that's already sitting there that we've discussed many times before as being very susceptible to increased flow. Gary Warren: It won't. 19 ?£ City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Gary Ehret: Well not totally. The pond normal water is set at 945. A 1 year, a 5 year, a 10 year storm will raise that water elevation, I~n guessing a little bit but let's say 947. What we will be designing, we have not designed it yet but what we would be designing is intended to be what I would call a camelback system whereby the pipe would have a hump in it. What that would do is allow low frequency storms to bounce in the pOnd. Not be outletted immediately but bounce in the pond. Remain essentially in the pond and then would outlet at a low flow conditioru There's a lot of ways you can achieve that. Some I 'm sure you've seen in Chanhassen with skimming devices. Councilman Boyt: May we talk about that one for just a minute. I would think that somewhere in here we should have some skimmers. I don't know if they look very nice but they would sure do the process of getting some of this junk out of the water before it goes downstream. Another thing, I would like to have you tell me a little bit about why we have to have that level at 945 and the exit, why can't it be higher than that? Gary Ehret: The main criteria we're trying to achieve is roughly 33 acre feet of storage. We have to achieve that between what we would maintain as a normal water level and a high water level. The high water level of 951 is essentially dictated by the future roadway conditions on West 79th Street. In other words, if I have a high water level of 951, if I am not able to contain that in this pond I could for example be creating quite a bit of ponding. There eventually be a low point just to the west of the motel, restaurant, etc.. We hope to take all of that flow into the pond. There's a storm sewer system connecting the two. If the pond bounces above 951, we're going to create considerable ponding in this area. My point is that 951 we determined is about our top limit. Now the question is, to get 33 acre feet, how far do we go down? The 945 was the best information we had of the ground water in that area, i.e. if the ground water is at 945, we will not get any new storage volume created beyond or below that. Between 945 and 951, that is the elevation we have to live with. From there that dictates the size of this Councilman Boyt: Let me back up a little bit, we're digging a hole down to 938 but that's below the water table and so that's going to fill up? Gary Ehret: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Tnat's not going to serve to absorb any water from downtown because it's already filled? Gary ~hret: Correct. Councilman Boyt: Fow high is that filled up to in a normal year? Gary Ehret: To 945. I want to clarify that to the extent that 945 is an arbitrary number based on whatever the ground water condition is. Maybe today the ground water would be higher. A month ago it might have been 941. Councilman Boyt: I think I've got it, excuse me but' maybe we can save a little time. What you're telling is you want to put your outlet at the 20 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 existing water level and then you want to build the pond big e~ough so it bounces to absorb whatever runs off downtown? Is that right? Gary f~%ret: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And you're telling me that we can put skimmers in and that those will hold s~me of what's coming off of downtown? Gary fhret: They would be designed to handle normal low flow conditions yes. Councilman Boyt: Am~ they would capture oil sticks, this sort of third3? 'So now we're still dealing with the problem that we're cresting an influx of more water. More water is leavir~ this area because we're puttir~3 more water into it and the alternative is we open the pipe and run it down there with no sediment so what we came into all alorg was we ~ a settlir~3 por~L Now the question is, is this the best we can do? You said we could spend a great deal more money and do better. Can we sper~ a little more money ar~ do better? Gary Ehret: I'm not sure what you would look for as better. We will design this the best normal way possible to prevent any deliterious polluted type water from proceeding downstream. We are working that design with Bart Engineering who are the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed ergir~crs. We also have to have approval from ~nDot of this por~. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest, excuse me but you're givirg me more information than I r~, I would like to suggest that we go with what Dr. Rockwell said except for tb~ slope which I guess everybody is saying is not realistic in this point. I would like to suggest very strongly that we move - your outlet above 94~ I think that's going to reduce the normal rainfall to staying right in the ponded area and except for the exceptional rainfall will be controlling tl~ downtown storm water close to downtown. Councilman Geving: Maybe you want to respo~ to that Gary because how far do you want to go above the 945? Councilman Boyt: Give me a couple feet. Councilman Geving: There may not be a couple feet. Gary fhret: My response is, I can take ano~ look at that. We have not designed it. We are not committed to anything in terms of the current construction contract. I can take ano~ look at that. ~he tough problem is, when you raise the outlet you are either raising the high water level or increasing the size of the pond. Gary Warren: Maybe the direction you're giving Mr. Boyt is that he take a look at it and try to reduce the amount of excavation as much as possible. We're not looking at an arbitrary number. As Gary pointed out, we've got a top elevation we have to control. We also have a volume criteria ar~ we have an area criteria. 21 74 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I grant you, there's a lot of difficulties here but one of ~ is we're running too much water out of the thing ar~ we don't have a means of controlling it once it runs out and it's going to stir up phospherous as well as anything we don't get trapped into this pond. Councilman Geving: I don't believe we're running any more water out than presently exists. That water is eventually getting to Lake Riley one way or the other. Tne only difference here is that we're ponding it and releasing it slower. I think this is a much better plan than we've had in tb~ past. Gary ~hret: What I guess I would add to that is simply that there are two existing outlets that handle a certain volume of flow. Bart Engineering estimated it to be 60 cubic feet per second. As a part of our downtown improvement plan, both with the plan and what would run directly, they have said that we should not outlet more than 60 cfs which is capacity of the current pipes. So in essence, we will not be releasing a volume greater than that which the pipes could handle today. Councilman Horn: But are the~ Gary Ehret: I don't know if I could tell the Council that they are currently handlirz3 their maximum flow. You could easily tell if you have a heavy duty rain storm. I think we had one tonight and if you saw ponding in that ditch, that might leave you to believe that they are running under capacity. If you have never seen ponding in that ditch, odds are they are not currently functioning under full capacity. Councilman Geving: One more quick round here and then we have to proceed. Go ahead Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I've been sitting here listening to all this. I disagree with a lot of what Bill says and it's coming from my background in hydraulics. I would like to further point out like Don did that we have a northern wetlands. I reviewed this carefully when we had it as a part of the downtown redevelopment. They went through a lot of talk on this. The northern wetlands, as I remember it, was designed to taking out some of the sticks and the floating debris, etc.. That's one of the first places for the skimmers to stop it before it gets into the larger wetland. I think 945 is a proper place for the outlet. I think what we're doing is we're creating a downtown that's going to happen. It's going to have a tremendous increase in flow over the next few years into the lakes here so we have to decrease that amount of flow in a timeframe. We will still have more flow down there. It will still, no matter what we do, whether we do this or we do something else, more water is going to reach Rice Marsh Lake because of the impervious surfaces that we're going to be adding. Tae roofs, the parking lots, etc.. The downtown is going to redevelop, Rice Marsh Lake is going to suffer. This is protection from Rice Marsh Lake. If we have uncontrolled flow in there, the phospherous problems are much worse. As is, this won't solve all the phospherous problems. Like Gary said nothing will solve all the phospherous problems. I think within the intent of our wetland ordinance, this is improving the overall wetlands in the area. This is going to help Rice Marsh Lake. The alternative is not to develop downtown. I'm for this. I think 22 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 there has been a lot of planning going into this. The only thing I question on it and I know there probably is a reas~ f~r it is why they went down to 938 which is 7 feet. To k~.--p a 7 foot depth the active storage capacity is above 94~ I think implementing Dr. Rockwell's recomm~ations do not affect the storage capacity at all. Basically instead of having everything at 938 we would be putting more area from 942 to 944 and that's not eve~ our active storage requirement. ~hat's my comment. I think that we are actually, by approving the wetlarz]s alterati~ in this case we are helping the wetlands in the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: Would you like to make a motion to that effect Jay? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconde~ to approve th~ Wetland Alteration Permit %87-7 subject to the following conditions: . C~mpliance with the Soil Conservation Service comments as stated in their letter of June 15, 1987. . G~mpliance with construction specifications recommendations %1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the extent possible in Dr. Rockwell's report of June 22, 1987. . ~hat the Engineers take into account the comments made by the Council members regarding design, iQ. putting in some areas where aquatic vegetation _r~_n flourish. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried by a vote of 3 to 1. Councilman Geving: You heard tonight Gary and Gary you heard the comments from the staff and ~pefully you can build those i~ I believe what you said Bill was very germain and I believe you can build those considerations in. This I think is a big step forwand in this whole process. It gets us rolling. Gary ~hret: I would like to add that I have no problem with the recommendations of the Council. Going further with the design and ceding back and showing you what it is w~'re att~ing to do. REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 18,g~g SQl]ARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER (~F IARfIX) DRIVE AND WEST 78TH ST~RRT, WINFI~ Barbara Dacy: ~his item has been brought back for Planning Commission and City Council review because of the change in tbe site plan for the Retail West project. ~his building has been shifted back approximately 21 feet so that there is a different rear setback from the rear lot line from the rear of the building. The original plan showed an access drive with a tier of parking along the rear of the building and now what is proposed is just a rear access drive. ~he Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised site plan subject to staff conditions with another conditioD. The Oa~missi~ was concerned about the safety of the service drive to the rear of the building 23 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 especially at this corner here where the service drive intersects with traffic coming out of the pump area. They were also concerned about the traffic coming from the parking area over in this location so the Commission recommended that special consideration be made for the safety of the service drive such as stop signs and spccd bumps and possibly a curb. We're looking at a stop sign in the northwest corner of the building in this location and possibly a s~ bump along the rear access drive here. The applicant is here tonight, Jim Winkles fr~n Winfield Develolanent. Jim Winkles: I'm with Winfield Develolanent. Just to add some things to what Barbara has said, we recognize also the fact that we don't want that rear driveway to become any kind of a hazard and I guess we concur with the fact that there should be some kir~ of signing or s~ bump that will typically control traffic fairly well with development such as it is. As we said at the Planning Commission and I believe you've got a copy of those minutes and recommendation, the change primarily reflects taking a row of parking that was along the back property line and putting in front of the building. We think t_hat this may in fact have a positive impact on the area in that we won't have a lot of activity and truthfully we don't want a lot of activity in the rear of the building. We would like to confine it to the front and in so doing we also recognize that we have to be sensitive to the needs of the neighbors up to the north and we're trying to do that through a landscaping plan that we did present to the Planning Commission that night. I can put that up briefly for you. On the landscaping plan we tried to create as solid of a landscaping wall through that entire area. Involving not only-~a retaining wall along this entire area or a fence depending on the location and elevation of the grounds but also coupling that with spruce trees ar~ landscaping on top of the retaining wall. T~e effect being t_hat there will be a minimum of 8 foot coverage and in most cases more than that with the landscaping that would be above that so cars and all lighting in the rear would be absolutely shielded from any of the residents in the rear. The idea being to try to soften the impact of anything that does occur in the back. The materials in the back of the building will be the same kind of high quality that we'll be using throughout the building too so what we want to try and do is create a very quality building and yet make it functional for our tenants and ourselves. Just briefly if I could show you, I'm not sure if you have seen the exterior but this is what the building itself would look like. The idea of trying to create a theme that would be somewhat compatible we believe with what's happening in downtown Chanhassen. Some real quality materials in terms of rock faced block, a lot of glass obviously, cedar shakes so the idea is to try and create something that will blend very well. We did meet with the neighbors as we indicated at the Planning Commission meeting in an attempt to try to hear their concerns and also try to meet them halfway in terms of what we can do with buffering. Short of that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Councilman Geving: How many neighbors showed up at this meeting or did you meet individually? Jim Winkles: We have gone and actually gone to every door around the back there on an individual basis to invite them to meetings. At that particular meeting there were a couple different property owners that were there. There 24 City (buncil Meeting - JUly 2~, 1987 were three, I'm sorry. Councilman (~eving: Did you meet with the Wallantines for example? Jim Winkles: I have not met the~ myself but Rich has. Councilman (~eving: I notice w~ do have a letter from the Wallantines. Jim Winkles: The people that we met were the first people, the Havelicks the next people just to the east and then I believe the fifth house down was also there. Councilman Geving: Mr. Kelso. Jim Winkles: What we heard was that they obviously want to see a good quality project. Councilman 6L=ving: ~hat Ms their reaction to this retaining wall? Jim Winkles: That seemed to be s~ethin~ that they likecL Again it provides not only, it's not going to be an 8 foot fence or wall along there just for the elevatio~ changes so on our side it will always look like 8 feet. On their side obviously it will be landscaping finish. My impression was they seened to accept that very well. Councilman Johnson: Where are you moving the trash containers to? Jim Winkles: The trash will be put into the retaining wall berm that will be going right in this area. It will be completely shielded a~d absolutely invisible from the neighbors. Barbara Dacy: ~hat location was close to the original location on the original site plan. Jim Winkles: We had at one time tucked it right into the building. Kind of cut it out and the Fire Department said they didn't like that ar~ wanted us to move it away. Councilman Johnson: You get a lot of fires from those things. Jim Winkles: That was what their concern was. That it would start in there and come up into the roof and get into the syst~ there. Councilman Johnson: The other one that tt~y talked about in their letter was a fire lane in the front and I don't see them saying anything about that. Barbara Dacy: In our meeting with the developer and Fire Depa~~t, that was resolved by the determination that there would be parking spaces reserved for fire lane access. Jim Winkles: Both these general areas will be areas reserved for emerge~ vehicles. 25 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Similar to what w~'ve done with the Q-Superette building. Councilman Johnson: We're not looking at the big fire lar~ where you can pull his big fire truck right up to the front of the door or emergency lane like in front of Kenny's and various places where you can have access right into a door. Jim Winkles: Their concern was being able to back like an ambulance right in and right out and have room to get at people. Councilman Horn: My only concern is the spc~ bumps. How do you manintain those in the winter? Jim Winkles: You have to plow and I guess it's a question of the management of the property. We had a number of different properties around the city where we do have speed bumps and it's simply a question of working with your plowers and making them aware that you have something like that back there and making sure that they're careful. All I can tell you is that on the other properties that we have, which is a fair amount around the Twin Cities, we have not had a problem with that. Occasionally you will get a nick and have to replace them is what it amounts to. It's a management questiom that has to be looked at. CounciLman Horn: What about ripping pieces off of people's cars? Jim Winkles: Again, generally if you have plowers that are competant and you work with them, you should be able to deal with that? Councilman Horn: No, I'm talking about private owners cars that get hung up on this stuff. Jim Winkles: Again, you don't have a speed bump that's going to cause a problem for cars and stuff. The idea is make them aware that it's not a freeway out there. It's going to be something that's going to give them some notice to slow down a little bit. Councilman Horn: Is it recessed or does it protrude above the ground? Jim Winkles: It would protrude above the ground? Councilman Horn: So it would knock things off. I'm opposed to sp~ bumps. Councilman Geving: Clark, you'll notice this was added by the Planning Cce~ission. Councilman Horn: Yes, I would like to delete it. Councilman Boyt: Om speed bumps, Mden Prairie seems to make them work in their shopping center. That strip right off of TH 5. I think they do a pretty effective job of slowing people down and I think we're offering people a straight stretch of road with basically no surveillance because we're screening it in on one side of the building and the other side with these 26 City Council D~seting - July 2~, 1987 plantings. It's going to be tempting without some control. I would like to ~ us make this one way. I would like to see us, if possible, if agr~le with the Fire and Safety people, ~row it a bit so we can increase more plantings and I~ referring to Fred Hoisir~gton's memo to us dated June 29, 1987 and I would like to know how you've responded to his memo because he makes several recommendations that he feels can be take~ into account. Jim Winkles: We have in fact discussed the whole issue of whether or not it should be one way. I think the general consensus that I thLnk you had in talking to Barb and with the Public Safety Director was that perhaps it would be better if it were a two way situatioru The basic reason being that we felt that the roadway back there is there primarily for service and for emergency access. It was felt that the amount of traffic c~ that road was relatively low and that therefore we should not be really having any kind of problem back there in terms of traffic or the amount of activity. I guess for the fact that we do have people coming into the Riveria through that way and there are other people that we generally felt ar~ I guess in talking with the Public Safety Director felt that a two way street would be better. Councilman Boyt: I disagree with yo~ I think you're offering, if we made it so that the direction of flow was from the Fire Department, Safety people towards the east, I think one of the things we're doing is we're stopping an influx of traffic onto Laredo which certainly doesn't r~ more traffic at that point. I think if we're conce _rne~__ about access into the Riveria Supper Club, we can start and stop the one way at the Riveria so people can enter the Riveria back parking frc~ both directions but they can only leave from one which would be towards the east. Jim Winkles: So you suggest that we start the one way approximately right there? Councilman Boyt: My suggestion is that I don't want traffic entering onto Laredo from that back stretch. My other one is I~ just looking land. I think you've taken 9 feet away from a buffer and as I understand it land that was initially going to be planted with the spruce and t3~ sort of thing you've mentioned so we've lost that kind of de~th to our buffer and I felt one way of getting s~me of that lar~ ba~k was to make ~ road one-way. I see in that memo of the 29th that's not only my cor~cern but also the concern of our consultant. I want to congratulate you for tt~ sprinkler system. I think if we got anything out of this move it was an improvement in the fire safety and I want to note as we all do that the neighborhood wrote letters saying they were opposed to this move so I think we should offer them something in return which I see as a greater buffer strip. Councilman Geving: I think the developer has had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood and I encourage that and I was happy to see that that was done. Moving the building back, providing more parking in front, ! see as a positive move and I too am not really in favor of having these speed bumps to the back side of this driveway. I personally would like to see those removed. I like th~ item that was included by the Planning Commission for tt~ purpose of general safety of the service drive area and I think that our Public Safety Director might be able to work that out. I do believe that that road should 27 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 be a two way street. There's plenty of room back there and I think there should be traffic going in both directions. There is some sentiment ar~ probably some very good reason for not bringing a lot of traffic onto Laredo Drive but I also believe that we need as much roc~ in the back as possible for, we've got trucks pulling back there with a lot of people probably parking back there and unloading and loading so I think the two ways is probably the best way to go for me. I see that we have got the Fire Inspector's comments in here about the fire lane. I don't have any real big questions about this and I think as far as I'm concerned I would make the motion that we go ahead with the revised site plan review for Retail West with the conditions as proposed to us tonight. Councilman Johnson: I would just like to say, I'm with Bill on the one way. I'm for the speed bumps and I'm not sure about making it narrower. While that helps, I like keeping as much traffic off of Laredo and getting it to the main street as we can. There's no use going to Laredo if we can go out to West 78th. What happened to the park trail plan? Wasn't there a park trail for behind the building? Wasn't there a park trail back somehow running through the downtown? Barbara Dacy: I recall that was going to be on Chan View. That Chan View would be used as th~ local trail access and then all along the front side of West 78th Street, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there is going to be a sidewalk proposed on the public improvement. Councilman Geving: I think Jay that to resolve the question on the speed bumps and all these other things, I would rather just leave item 7 worded this way. Special consideration be made for the safety of the service drive and we'll direct our Public Safety Commissioner to determine whether or not speed bumps or traffic signs, stop signs, whatever technique that he recommends be appropriate for that area. We're not traffic engineers and I think maybe that would be the best way to solve it. All we're noting here is that we have a concern for the service drive. Councilman Johnson: Can we say stop signs, s~ bumps, consideration of one councilman Horn: As long as you leave s~ bumps out. I think we should put in here that there should be special consideration made for safety of the service drive period. Councilman Geving: Tnat's the way I stated it earlier and I think that's all we need to do and we will direct the public safety director to determine. This is his profession. He can determine which is the best way to make this a safe area and we've given him the consideration here of telling him that we're concerned about the safety of the service drive, you make it safe. I think he'll determine from the options and this could come back for all of us to look at. We'll know whether speeds ~-cn added. You'll know that the recommendation is for a one way or whatever and we can vote on it at that time. 28 81 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What you're saying Dale is your motion is reading such that we turn over the decisio~ about what's going to happen in controlling traffic to the Public Safety Director? Councilman Geving: You know it's not a bad idea. I think we pay him a lot of money for just doing that. I would say yes to your question. Absolutely. Barbara Dacy: I think the Public Safety Director in our meeting, we did briefly talk about a or~ way situation ar~ the width of the drive, ba was quite adamant about keeping available for attack situatio~ If a ooe way situation were to be considered by the council, I think he would want to evaluate that and report back to you. Councilman (~eving: We'll write into our comments tonight for his consideration and direction. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that we ~ more landscaping. consultant we hired to review these things says more landscaping. The neighbors say more lar~scaping. I think the City Council should say more lar~]scaping. Jim Winkles: If I could just add something of that. After we met with the neighbors, that's when we did revise the current lar~]sc~ping plan we have to reflect the type of things that we did talk about in the neighborhood meeting ar~ that plan was also prepared after the consultant had in fact prepared his report. Barbara Dacy: Fred has not seen the revised plan and he will be directed to Councilman (~eving: I had a note on that too Bill. I thought Hoisington had some real concerns on whether or not his recomm~tions on plantings were being followed through. That can be followed up on. In the timing between the Coemission and the Oouncil he was unable to review it. Councilman Boyt: The one last thing and I apologize for dragging this out is that on this trash container, especially since you now have it against the barrier wall, I would like you to install one that's quiet. ~his up down, bang slsm is going to get us a lot of problems. Councilman (]eying moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the revised site plan st~mped "Received June 23, 1987" subject to the following cor~itions: le Installation of a sprinkling system and dry sprinklers in the roof section. 2. Nelocaton of the trash e~closure. . Su~mmission of a lighting plan, revised utility plan and revised landscaping plan prior to building permit issuance. 29 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 . Installation of fire hydrants as required by the Fire Department and coordinated with BRW. 0 Revision of the site plan to indicate the gas pumps 50 feet from the edge of Laredo Drive. . Compliance with all other conditions of approval from the original plan review. e Special consideration be made for the safety of the service drive. The Public Safety Director should review the plan to determine the appropriate technique for the safety of the service drive and shall report back to the Council with his fittings. 8. Mr. Hoisington shall review the revised landscaping plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.15 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS TO CONTAIN THE KENNY'S SUPERMARKET BUILDING AND A BAYCARE FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER__OF WEST 78TH STREET AND GR~T PLAINS BOULEVARD, WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT Barbara Dacy: The parcel, as you are well aware, is located directly west of where the existing Kenny's market is on the north side of West 78th Street. Currently the property that is represented on your preliminary plat sheet is the property that's indicated by a solid black line. The daycare center is to be located on the northwest corner. Also indicated on the plat is the edge of the gas station. That's this parcel right here. You will also note that between the boundary lines of the gas station and the proposed day care center there is a 20 to 30 foot strip that's located in this area. Basically what the plat is doing is creating this new lot in the northwest corner of the site and one of the recommendations is to resolve this 20 to 30 foot strip. CHADOA has indicated to staff that this will become part of the parcel to the south so the revised preliminary plat will reflect that. As you are also aware, the HRA is in the process of considering authorizing condemnation of that parcel and the HRA would be responsible for the demolition of the gas station. Therefore, the area could be cleared so that area could be used for parking area for the proposed facility. By creation of this lot in the northwest corner of the plat it is technically landlocked and we had addressed that issue in the report. There will need to be cross easements filed for access purposes. However, in all practicality the lots will have street frontage from a practical standpoint. BRW has also provided some comments about the proposed storm sewer plan and access for utilities that are recommended as a condition of approval obtaining necessary easements to serve that parcel. The Planning Commission at their meeting did recommend approval of the proposed plat subject to the four conditions that were in the staff report. Councilman Boyt: BRW and Hoisington's comments, I would like to have those addressed sometime. 30 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman ~evin~: This is the time tO dO it~ Barbara Dacy: I think a number of Fred's concerns had to do with the site plan issue. Bm did have scm. concerns about utility easements. Councilman Boyt: I think you've written those into your proposal so lb okay with that. Councilman Johnson: Looks good. Councilman Geving: I have ~o comments. I like what I see and I think Staff has done a good job in brirging this to the Planning Commission and the rec(mm~ndations are in order. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request #87-28 subject to tl~ subdivision of a revised preliminary plat indicating the following: . Identification of additional parcels, such as the Anderson parcel, as lots. 2. Identification of utility and drainage easements. . Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of the Anderson parcel including execution of proper access and parking cross eas~nents in conjunction with the filirg of the final plat. . Inclusion of the 20-30 foot strip into Lot 2 or the parcels to the All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DAYCARE FACILITY LOCATED IN ~HE NORTHWEST CORNER ~F WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD., ~~RD DEVELOPMENT AND CHADDA. Barbara Dacy: This transparency is the interim parkirg plan ~ it shows the location of the 5,9~M square foot daycare center. As we talked about earlier in the item regarding the commercial revenue bo~ls, one of the items that we did look at was potential reuse of the building if it were to swing from the daycare center to another use. Based on those parkirg requir~z~ents, additional parking spaces are going to be ~ed from the parking area in front of the Kenn~s buildirg ar~ the area that will exist after we remove the gas station. ;~3ain, cross parking easements will be nccded to be filed. Of more importance though is, as was pointed out by our consultant was the overall function of the site especially during peak traffic hours during drop off ar~ pick-up times especially under this proposal there is kind of dead end that's formed along the west lot line. Mr. Hoisington suggested that the City consider a municipal improvement project for this parkirg area ar~ for the area to the west so an overall circulation can be achieved. ~he City Manager also wanted to address that issue ar~ after I'm done I think he wanted to make a couple of comments about that. Further, the proposal is a separate free 31 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 standing building. Originally the zoning ordinance was drafted with a specific phrase. A daycare center should be part of an integrated overall shopping center. When the zoning ordinance was prepared the current projects that are being considered and proposed now by CHADDA are different than what was being considered at that time. This represents the overall plan that CHAEOA is proposing for the redevelopment of the north side of West 78th Street. The projects are incremental and smaller in size versus the originally anticipated long shopping center reflected in the model sitting here in the chambers. The free standing proposal should not pose any adverse impacts into the area and would function quite well adjacent to the proposed housing development. What staff is recommending that the Council could make a motion if they so desire tonight to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment process to eliminate the requirement that a daycare center be part of a shopping center. Finally, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the site plan subject to staff's five conditions and a sixth conditio~ that the building inspector review soil borings for the site. This was in reference to BRW's note that the area to the north of the site did contain poor soils where the housing project so they added that sixth condition that the building inspector review those. I know the City Manager wanted to add something. Don Ashworth: As part of the downtown public improvement project we looked at all of the private lots surrounding the improvement area in an attempt to coordinate improvements for not only the public improvements but in prviate areas as well. We were very successful in that regard and specifically you will see major improvements in parking associated with the bowling center, the movement of the bus that is associated with the Dinner Theater, major revisions to the Dinner Theater area. The public improvement parking lot behind Pauly's, Pryzmus, the Pony area, we have included in the project the temporary parking area for the Bernie Hanson facility on main street. We did not have specific proposals for this segment. The north side of 78th Street. ~nat has changed. The HRA has made a commitment that they will purchase the Cennex building. They will remove it and all of this is contingent upon a certain budget being achieved and monies made available. Tae recommeodations of the planning staff are contingent on the HRA in fact completing what they are supposed to do. As a part of that we're in a position to create a parking area in front of the daycare that will be very attractive and done in a similar fashion to the one behind Pauly's, Pony, Pryzmus but if you look at that area and say we're going to build a parking area in there for this new facility, it's actually going to be out of character with F~_nny's parking lot and would not consider the Pauly's house nor the parking and the necessity to get back out of 78th Street. We have an opportunity here with this project or as a part of this to order a feasibility study which would include making the public improvement project a municipal parking lot on the north side of West 78th Street. To assess the cost back to the benefiting property owners and to incorporate that with all of the work that is currently being done. We talked to all of the property owners with the exception of Mr. Mason. I honestly believe I can get his agreement with the project as well. Tae other owners, we have reached an agreement that they feel this would be a good idea and something that the city should do. So as a part of this I would hope that the City Council would consider the initiation of a public improvement project to install a municipal parking lot on the north side of West 78th Street. 32 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Counci]a~an Horn: I go along with the recommendations. Councilman Boyt: What we're proposing to do then Don is extend this parking lot off to the left which I guess w~uld be the west? Don Ashworth: To the left and the right. Actually, Barbara if you could back on the CHAfI~ plan and show the entire parking area that could be put in at this point in time and coordinated with our roadway improvements, I think it would make a tremendous asset. It would be going all tbs way over to Retail Central, back out to West 78th Street, back over to Great Plains Blvd. and then back. Councilman Boyt: And. you're saying Don that HRA is making arrangements to be able to financially cover that? Don Ashworth: To be able to purchase Cennex and the removal of that building. The installation of tt~ parking lot then and all parking improvements, so you would be putting in the landscaping, the sidewalk, the parking areas would then be a cost that would be assessed back to businesses in that area ar~ that is the same type of principal that was used across the street. Councilman Boyt: That definitely was an issue of this was the traffic flow. Good plan. Councilman Johnson: I was concernsd about what happened to the facility. Temporarily the Pauly building has a hair dresser in there and you say this would work around it? Don Ashworth: Right. The parking lot would literally be built around that and in a future point in time. Councilman Geving: Take that building. Don Ashworth: We could. Councilman Geving: That's the oldest building in downtown. DOn Ashworth: If at all possible we will. Roger is an Attorney and recognizes his rights and we will continue to work with them so as an interim measure I w~uld anticipate sayirg with the ultimate being that it w~uld go. Councilman Geving: ~hat you plan for the long term. Don Ashworth: Right, it's r~oval. Councilman Geving: Okay, let's move ahead with this. Councilman Johnson: Can w~ add a 7th that we start the feasibility study? Barbara Dacy: That's included in n%~ber 2. 33 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Don Ashworth: You interpret number 2 to say that that needs a feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I think that's what was intended with 2. The only different it~n here was the ordinance amendment to change that daycare. Barbara Dacy: If the Council wanted to do that as a separate action. Councilman Geving: I really don't believe it belongs here. We can direct Staff to do that but let's go with the six recommendations as I stated in my motion. Councilman Johnson: Dale, I don't like to have, number 2 here implies that we're asking for this and that always brings up if somebody wants'to fight something and we only implied something. If we could modify number 2. Councilman Geving: Go ahead. How would you like to reword it? Parking lot improv~nents will be carried out as a municipal improvement. Councilman Johnson: And authorize the feasibility study for that improvement so nobody can come back in the future and say we never authorized this. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Site Plan Request #87-6 based on the plan stamped "Received June 15, 1987" amd subject to the following conditions: . Prior to building permit issuance, the acquisition of the gas station shall be executed by the HRA. . Parking lot improvements will be carried out as a municipal improvement and authorize the feasibility study for that improvement. e Detailed facia and sign plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any substantial changes to the site plan will require additional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. . Submission of a revised landscaping plan and trash enclosure detail prior to building permit issuance. . Obtaining all necessary state licenses prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Building Inspector's review of the soil borings. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton returned to chair the meeting. 34 87 City ~ouncil ~ting - JUly 20, 1987 PEMTOM CORPORATION, 3430 ARBORETUM BLVD. (WORM PROPERTSQ: PRELIMINARY PLAT R/~QUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 24 ACRES INTO 5 SINC~.W. FAMILY LOTS. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located south of Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into five single family lots. The applicant had originally come in with a proposal for six lots with Outlot A to be a recreational beachlot. He could not get support from the soil consultant that the site could support six lots with septic sys~s so the applicant has come in with a revised plaru The soil consultant has approved of the site. The applicant has moved the street over to the east to allow for movement of septic sites. Tb~y meet all the requirements and has also removed the request for the recreational beachlot on Outlot A. As far as street, a typical rural section would be 60 foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a 40 foot right-of-way instead to preserve the site. Staff has supported it as long as it is constructed to an urban street section with the curb and gutter rather than a ditch section that would be used for a rural right-of-way. The applicant is also proposing an easement to the north of the property for possible future access either to the property to the east or the north. All of the lots do have street frontage except for Lot 5 which will be served by a private drive off of the cul-de-sac. The applicant is proposing four docks. One which would be shared ar~ the~ the other three lots would have their own. T~e docks will require a wetland alteration permit because it will be crossing a Class A wetlar~ Staff has recommended approval of the subdivision with the changes as proposed and the Planning Commission also unanimously approved it with the 11 conditions. Staff also wanted to point out the added condition 12 stating that the applicant will provide the trail easement recommended by the Park and Recreation Comm issior~ What the Park and Recreation Commission requested was a 20 foot trail easement along TH 5 and along the easterly side of the property. I apologize for missing that one and that should be added on after co~ition 12. So again, we are recommer~ing approval of the subdivision. Would you like me to run through the wetland alteration permit now? Mayor Hamilton: Why don't we wait on that. Dan, did you have anything you would like to present on that? Dan Herbst: I think staff has covered it quite well. You're familiar with the plat, the ~d Worm farm right across from the Arboretum. It's a beautiful piece of land. Rolls gently from the lake up to the top. Oovered with maple tree~ It's really hard for me to develop this~ I~ used to doing 6 to 8 townhouses per acre but basically we're talking about putting a small road in because of the topography ar~ the tree cover to reduce your requirement from 60 down to the 40 foot. I basically had just three e~gineering items and you could build those into your recommendations, that would be subject to your engineer's approval. ~ Barb already mentioned to the Planning (bmmission but one of these stiuplations is that if Iku not able to obtain a slope easement from the Arboretum that I be allowed to put a retaining wall there. The second item relates to the catch basir~ Our er~ineer has recommended that one catch basin would handle all the drains in that road. We put in two. I think your engineer is recommer~ing four but I think we could work that out with Gary by looking at the amount of flow. The third item is an expensive item ar~ I know you're had some problems with roads here in Chanhasse~ because 35 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 of the clays and because you've really had poorer standards in the past but this is an expensive road section with 12 inches of base under 3 1/2 of blacktop. Our engineers tell us that with good inspection of those soils and done properly, 6 inches of Class V would be more than adequate for the type of road being proposed. The trail easement is new to me. I did not get a chance to talk with Jo Ann but are you proposing that the road be moved over on the Arboretum side? Jo Ann Olsen: No, it would be, when that road would be improved they would just have a trail easement within the 5 foot. It's just for connection. They want a connection from the property to the north that would eventually connect to the Carver Oounty Regional Park and then to connect with Dogwood. Dan He_rbst: So whatever land would be available between the blacktop and my property line and the rest we could... Jo Ann Olsen: Right and it might just be along the future right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: I would like to hear on the park trail, we have the Chairman of the Commission and the coordinator here, what are we looking for from these easements here? It's a little confusing. From what I'm seeing, there's not much between the blacktop and the property line. What's the size of this eas~nent that we're talking about? Mike Lynch: We expect it to be on road as far north as the road goes and then the stripe would run along the edge of the property line to the northeast corner of the property. Councilman Johnson: So in other words we're looking for an on-road trail here? Okay. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see a condition added that no chemical kill or dredging be allowed. I would also like to see one in reference to our soil consultant. That the potential sites for the septic systems be clearly marked and that nothing be moved and no traffic be allowed over those areas during construction or otherwise. Tnat and maybe this is already inherent in our other ordinances but if not I would like another condition that no building permit without the siting of the house and two septic systems. I think it's pretty evident in this that there's going to be a problem or there certainly could be a problem in where you put the house and where you have your septic system. Especially since you have to keep the septic system areas ur~isturbed and I think it's appropriate that we see all that before building permit is granted. We have a note in our materials here ar~ maybe you can address this that the sewage system on Lot 1 is too small for the proposed building there. Dan Herbst: Basically there are three approved sites on Lot 1. Excuse me, there are two sites for Lot 1 and three for Lot 2. Just imagine either one of the two sites was not adequate than an easement could be worked out and a site could be picked up on Lot 2. 36 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1987 Councilman Boyt: So you may have already dealt with this but I'm looking at the memo of June 18th and it says under Lot 1, sewer system o~ Lot 1 will not be adequate for a 4 bedroom or larger h~e. Has that since changed? Dan Herbst: I think he's making an assumption there that the existing home that exists there, since he's ~ living alone, will not hold flow for four people. There was a family of five living there for 28 years. Councilman Geving: Is Mr. Worm still there? Dan Herbst: Mr. Worm is still there. Councilman Boyt: And the trail easements have been taken care of. Did you say Mike that the trails are going to be on th~ road? Mike Lynch: As far north as the road goes. It reaches a cul-de-sac. We still need a strip traveling north of that to the northeast corner of the property. Councilman Boyt: Is what we're proposing then, to put a trail right on the main roadway? Is that what you're saying? Mike Lynch: On the edge, stripe it off like we've done in other places. We're looking at that to be a really low traffic road with five houses. Councilman Boyt: Tell your rationale for that than is the low traffic rate? It's not because there isn't shoulder room, it's strictly the fact that you don't envision much traffic since there are five houses there? Mike Lyre. h: We don't e~vision much traffic ar~ we try not to take any additional space where we don't ~ it. Due to the fact that the houses are all on one side of the road, the sidewalk situation whic~ we've se~n some lately so w~ felt it was adequate. Councilman Boyt: The other thing is I would like to see us keep the 58 foot right-of-way. I don't think it costs anybody anything. We're not saying you have to develop it. Gary is telling us he can put the road down but what if, under some cor~itions we need that? We'll have to go back ar~ buy it_ I would propose that we keep the 58 foot right-of-way. I don't think it changes anything about how the road is put in. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I'm wondering how the area is determined where the docks are put in. As I drive by it appears that it gets smaller every day. Mayor Hamilton: Is that part of the alteration permit? Yes, we'll get to that next. Do you nave anything on the preliminary plat? Councilman Horn: No, the only question I had is this does tie in with the property to the north that w~ looked at? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. 37 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Geving: I kind of like the involvement of our Park and Rec people in our last few developments. I really want to encourage you to continue that Mr. Lynch. I think the Park people have done a good job. I kind of like the idea too on s~me of these small developments we're putting the on-street trailways or walkways. It seems to be working out. Ithink that the concrete curb ar~ gutter as a recommendation here, even though it's a small development is very worth while and we should stick with the urban standards. Even though you're out in the country and will look very much like you're in a rural area, I think that in all of our developments we're staying with that standard. Where you may have some problem with that Dan. Dan Herbst: I don't have a problem with curb. Councilman Geving: Then the only other comment, I would agree with Bill on the 40 foot right-of-way. Do you have any comment on that Gary? On moving it up 50? Gary Warren: No, my only comment in the staff report was that we could build a road within a 40 foot right-of-way. I don't know if that impacts the lot sizes at all. Councilman ~eving: What would you recommend? Gary Warren: 50 is our standard. Mayor Hamilton: Dan, I was just curious about the existing home there, is that going to be torn down? Dan Herbst: I really haven't had a chance to study that. I would say it's better than a 50-50 chance that it's going to come down. Mayor Hamilton: I think then there should be a condition stating that if and when the home is torn down that the debris from that be taken off-site and disposed of at a landfill or appropriate site. ~en I wanted to clarify with Bill, you said you wanted us to see the septic system pads. Were you referring to staff I hope? Councilman Boyt: Yes, right. Not the City council. Just before the building permit would be issued that Staff would see this where we're going to put the house and this is where the septic systems are going. Mayor Hamilton: Then your 12th one you wanted to add no chemical kill or dredge. Councilman Boyt: Maybe that's more relevant to the wetland application so I can hold that. Councilman Johnson: It's a condition number 1. Mayor Hamilton: If it's a spawning area you can't go in there. No chemical kill or dredging. I have no other comments. It looks like a reasonable plan and I think we should maintain the 50 foot street right-of-way too. 38 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Geving: I think that we should revise mmnber 2 to a 50 foot right- of-way ams add the Mayor's 12th it~mu We retain the Park ams Rec trails as recommended in their May 6th memo on page 7. NUmber 13 would be the Mayor's recommendation for the house. If at any future time that house is r~ longer occupied and is destroM~d that the house and all the materials be removed from the site. Gary Warren: Marking of the septic systems? Councilman Boyt: Yes, we need to mark ~ ams no traffic. Councilman Johnson: Were you including, Ibn not sure technically whether this needs to be added, I think it ought to be reviewed, where the Worm is removed, what about the existing septic system? It's fairly old, I don't know if we want to reuse it. I think it has to be reviewed somehow or another. I wouldn't want to ~ it sitting there. Mayor Hamilton: Based on what I saw on the drawings, you wouldn't put a home on that site anyway. It would be further to the east. Gary Warren: City ordinances would require for it be capped off and filled with sand. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I've seen cars haul old septic systems and stuff like that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Preliminary Plat Request ~87-12 with the following conditions: le The docks shall be permit~ if the proposed area of Lake Minnewashta is not a spawning are or are approved by DNR and the U.~ Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, no chemical kill or dredging shall be allowed unless specifically approved by tt~ DNR and the U.S. Fish amd Wildlife Service. The dock plan shall comply with conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. The selected access shall be constructed as a public roadway in a 50 foot right-of-way to City urban stamdards, with concrete curb and gutter o 3. Suhnit a satisfactory final grading and erosion control plan. Accommodate in the drainage plan the existing drainage and sub- drainage from the Arboretum research plots to the east of the site. Be Enter into a develo~xaent agreement with tt~ City ar~ provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvenents. e Comply with all requirements of the DNR and Watershed District as recomnended. 39 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 ® Obtain permission from the University of Minnesota Arboretum for grading proposed on their property before initiation of any construction. 0 Provide two additional catch basins to be installed at approximately Station Number 4 + 50 to intercept roadway runoff and convey it to the 48 inch culvert. m Protect the proposed mound system drainfield areas from construction traffic and frc~ overland drainage. 10. Prepare and submit a suitable erosion control plan as part of the construction documents to provide for proper protection for the lake and wetland areas. 11. If the applicant can not achieve No. 7 of the above conditions, the applicant must suhnit a plan for a retaining wall to be approved by the City Engineer. 12. The applicant will provide an on-street trail easement as reconxnended by the Park and Recreation Comnission. 13. When the home presently on the site is destroyed all materials will be r~noved off-site. 14. All septic systems sites be marked and no traffic be allowed over the septic system sites. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. PEMTOMCORPORATION, 3430 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD: B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DOCKS WITHIN A CLASS A WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen: Tne fact that they are proposing going over a Class A wetland requires a wetland alteration permit. We have visited tbs site with Elizabeth Rockwell. We received her comments on the impact of the docks to the wetland. It is very cattail choked but definitely should be preserved. She felt that if a dock posts did not have an adverse impact to the wetland. Tne portion of the dock will be permanent so they will not be impacting the wetlands every year and then the ones out in the water will be temporary. Elizabeth Rockwell also suggested that any pedestrian access to the dock be provided by a boardwalk to preserve the rest of the wetland. She felt that there would not be a impact. Also, there was a comment whether or not it was a spawnir~ area. The DNR has not gotten back to us on that yet but we have heard preliminarily that it is not a negative impact to have docks where there could possibly be fish spawning. In fact, sometimes they like that even better. We are recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit for the dock with the conditions stated in the report. ~nat the applicant receive a permit from 40 City Council ~k~eting - July 2~, 1987 DNI~ ~hat a maximum of four docks be permitted. That the docks shall be connected with boardwalks. That the wetland alteratio~ permit does not include dredging or the r~oval of cattails. Mayor Hamilton: It s~_s like it shouldn't allow dredgirz3 or removal of any materials. Not just cattails. I'm not sure why it specified that. Councilman Boyt: Back to number 1 on the recomm~atio~, maybe I didn't hear Jo Ann right in what she just said about the dredging but I don't care if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves it or not, I don't want it in there and I don't want to give them that option. They are going to have a problem with cattails that will grow up through anythin~ ar~ when you put your boardwalk in there, you're going to have little cattils growing all up through it. So that will be a problem but my positic~ is that chemical treatment or dredging is not an option. The other concern is, and maybe staff can tell me more about this, what's their opportunity to bring motorized boats in there? I understand it's about 4 feet ~cp or shallower. Jo Ann Olsen: Right now I don't know exactly what the depth is. They can use motorized boats? Councilman Boyt: They can not you say? Jo Ann Olsen: They can. You can't bring motorized boats into the wetlar~ itself but the docks will be out in open water where it is not w~=tland. Councilman Boyt: Can you show me on this map where we can see tt~ water just what your description is? Jo Ann Olsen: ~%ese tips are in the open water and that's where the boats will be located. This area here in the gr~ up to that high water mark, that is the Class A wetland. So what they are receiving a Wetland Alteration Permit for is to put boardwalk over that wetland. Councilman Boyt: In this inlet into the bay there, are we creating a r~ to dredge that or is there substantial water enough to float a boat through there? I don't want to put a dock up there and the next thing we're going to do is dredge that channel out. Jo Ann Olsen: We would not permit it and right now, they have at least two boats going in ar&] out of there. Today with it being so dry, I~ sure there is still the open water there for it. Councilman Boyt: Now what you're showing by way of dock then gets the place where boats may be stored substantially out of the wetland? Jo Ann Olsen: They are out of the wetland and they will never be operated within the wetlar~]. Councilman Boyt: So the issue that you asking us to accept is how do we feel about running a boardwalk over a wetlar~? 41 94 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Boyt: And then the other issue that sits in the background is what's the impact on the spawning area? It certainly looks like it would be a spawning area if there was water flow in there and my guess would be that the impact of a dock on a spawning area isn't the dock, it's the boats. You put a boat that you can water ski behind there and turn the motor on and you're going to have an impact on the spawning area. Those are the issues I would like to have discussed. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to address those Dan? Dan Herbst: Basically, the open water is public water ar~ boats have going in and out of there since time began I guess. Tney are fishing in there all the time. Ever since I've bm on the lake the last 10 years it's open water and they fish in there. All I'm asking is that we have reasonable access to that public water. It's a general recreational lake we got out there. The DNR has stated over and over again that the lake is to be used for general recreational purposes of fishing and they don't see anything that they told me about which would see as a negative impact. On the spawning, basically they have said that a dock in the shaded area can actually increase the spawning in some cases. The negative impact of spawning would...is that it would allow carp and that kind of fish so we took Elizabeth Rockwell out there and she agrees what I'm proposing that we would use boardwalks from the dryland through the wetland and put the docks in what is basically public water. Mayor Hamilton: How about a large boat, would that disturb the spawning area adversely? Dan Herbst: I would assume that's true all around the lake. There would be anything different here. I couldn't keep boats out of there if I wanted to nor could you. It's an open public water. If someone wants to go launch over at Minnewashta and fish with a boat right now, you can't stop tlxa~. Councilman Horn: It just occurs to me that that area gets smaller everyday as more and more cattails build up. Is there any designated area that would define or describe what's called open water? Jo Ann Olsen: Just what is on our map and again that changes. What we use is the ordinance high water and then use the open water area. Councilman Horn: I suspect the ordinary high water mark isn't applicable in this case. What it is is the edge of the vegetation that we're really trying to define. Jo Ann Olsen: Actually Dr. Bockwell stated that it was cattail choked and could benefit with some of the cattails being removed. Councilman Horn: Is there a way we can define what that is though so somebody couldn't ccme in there and start chopping them down? 42 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: I'm not sure. We could have it surveyed to show exactly where that edge of vegetation is today. Councilman Horn: It seems like we should define that because I've walked that ar~ it looks to me like the edge of the cattails is in several feet of water. Councilman Geving: Just a quick question, how far is it from the nearest highlar~] over this proposed walkway to get to the dock? Do you have any idea how long a span that would be from the dryland to the docking area that we would be going across this cattail area? Jo Ann Olsen: It's a pretty good distance. A lot of where the cattails are, the distance I would say maybe 50 to 100 feet but the~ the rest of that is still wetlands ar~ has been trampled down by the grazing sheep so a lot of it' s ~_n altered already. Councilman Geving: I guess the concern I have is that eventually that area, if it's not well defined as Clark said, the typical homeowner might get in there with his boat and.dock and attempt to dredge that area either chemically or physically to remove whatever is there now and reduce that span that be has to get across the cattails to get to his dock. I would like to pursue what Clark is proposing here that we identify the area because I could very definitely see that one of these homeowners get in there with their docking areas. They definitely will be attempting to remove that. Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the conditions that they can not do that but we will... councilman Geving: But reality is something else. Once the homeowners get there they're going to have kids that want to get to the lar~. It isn't just the boatowners but the other things that go along with it. Jo Ann Olsen: What I forgot to point out is what we're going to be doing with this like we do with variances and conditional use permit is record a document so the lot owner always kno~ all those conditions. councilman Geving: Very good. In the past I know we've always had this discussion with the developer. The developer who-develops it. Sells the lar~ and a homeowner ~ in and be does what be ~ants. I have no other comments. Councilman Johnson: I would like to continue on two of the comments. One from Dale, one from Bill. Condition 4 change it slightly to read, does not include dredging, removal of cattail or chemical kill. I agree that that needs to be a little stronger there. We don't want them killing the cattails. councilman Boyt: Aren't you really suggesting that we take that line out of number 1 then? councilman Johnson: You're looking on number 1 of the last issue, we're kind of superseding our previous number 1 slightly. Number 5 that I would like to see added here would be to inform purchasers of the property of the above four conditions. More than stick it as part of the deed or file it. Insure that 43 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 the people know about it. I don't know what all the conditions on my deed are. I do not pull out my deed every couple years to read it. In fact, when I bought the property I didn't look that closely at the deed so if there are some special conditions stuck to my deed I don't know what they are. I have a feeling very few property owners actually do. They buy the property and away they go. They've got other things on their mind. I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Mayor Hamilton: Dale just had a point, it is hard to enforce and that's where the whole problem comes in. It would seem to me that the best place to put it is in the Covenants and Restrictions on the property and that should be given to the person who purchases t3~ lot ar~ it should also be on file with the City so as the property sells we know what Covenants and Restrictions have ~ placed on that property and those restrictions have to be what we've outlined here tonight. No dredging, no cutting of cattails, etc.. When the property owner then comes in to get a permit to put a dock in then we can review it and we still have control of that particular use. Then it becomes an enforcement problem. It always an enforcement problem and they can go down and do any darn thing they want and it's a matter of just trying to enforce it ar~ that's the problem we have all the time. We have the most control if we attempt to do it that way. We have the opportunity to review it again rather than sticking it on a deed where we're never going to see that. We're never know what the heck they're going to do. At least with Restrictions and Covenants we know what can happen. I guess that was my only thought on this thing. It gives us a little more control over it. I don't have any problem with the boardwalk going over a wetland because I don't think eve~ though you're going to have cattails growing through it, that same type of thing as the Arboretum does and it works really kind of nice. Pat, did you have a question? Pat Swenson: I think you all covered pretty much what my concern was. If I might make a suggestion that we specify that motorboats used in the wetlands is prohibited by ordinance. If that's spelled out in your covenants, that will probably eliminate it because it is prohibited and that's firm. If people are coming in fishing in the wetland, they are in fact breaking the law. Dan Herbst: That' s not a wetland, it' s open water. Pat Swenson: Right but I mean, backing your boats in, just trying to prevent this because we do have the ordinance I would appreciate it and I think all of us would if we could spell it out that way so people will know that it's not going to restrict then to prohibition. Mayor Hamilton: I think one of the other things we may need to do is look at perhaps putting in a slow, no wake bouy in that water so people who are there are continuously reminded to go slow in there and that would help to keep from stirring things up too much. Susan Conrad: Having listened to Dr. Rockwell a lot, I would assume that she would consider motorboats starting up in that area as being destructive. Maybe Jo Ann can correct me. Is it possible to even consider in your 44 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 discussion restricting motorboats being moored in that particular area? Is that unreasonable? Mayor Hamilton: No, because it's open water. They can drive boats in there right now. Susan Conrad: I know you can but my only experience is on Lotus so I really don't know but in recent years since we've done..~motorboat startups adjacent to wetlands, so that's... Mayor Hamilton: How could you stop them? Susan Conrad: You wouldn't allow the docks to be adjacent to the wetlands. You move them over into the dry area so tt~ motor startups weren't going to interfer with that flowing mat. Councilman Boyt: I think the only thing we can do and I may be wrong but my guess is to try ar~ get the cooperatioD. Once they hit open water, I think that's the DNR's deal. I don't think we can go in there and say anything about ope~ water, although we have so maybe I'm wrong. I would like to see, as long as we were just talking about covenants, let's put something in the covenants. I think this problem of motors, you're aware 'of what we're talking about. You know the sensitivity of it. I think we ~ something in the covenants to ir~icate that people are going to use a great deal of caution ar~ care in that bay area. When you put that in there I think we've got a chance that people will say okay, I buy into that ar~ do it. I don't know how else we can approach it legally and expect to get enforcement. If they're in the wetlar~]s that's a different matter but once they hit open water, gosh, we can put a spccd limit on it but that isn't going to. Councilman Horn: I think the defining of the area accomplishes that. It keeps them out of the wetland. You put a slow no wake in there and that pretty well restricts the speed so I think that covers it for us. There's no way we can do anything else in there because they've got the same restrictions at tl~ end of their dock as anybody launching. Councilman Johnson: I think that the docks going out into the open water, the distance we get them away from the wetland which would be part of the dock permit process when they come in for the dock permit, if they want to extend a dock a foot out into the open water ar~ put a dock at that point, we're going to insist that it go a little ways farther so that we protect the wetlands. That's where it has to come frem that point. Then, I guess a number 6 condition, 5 is put the conditions in the covenants would be to petition the DNR for a wake zone or can the City's pervue call that a no wake? Jo Ann Olsen: That would go to the DNR. Councilman Johnson: I think as number 6 we should petition the DNR to designate this little bay as a no wake zone. Councilman (~eving: I would like to direct Staff to identify ar~ conclusively document the existing wetland conditions. 45 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Johnson: That changes year by year. Councilman Geving: But I would like to do it as we start this project. It will change because people will make it change but we don't want that so if the staff could do that. I know it changes but let's get it right now. Mayor Hamilton: We know where the high water mark is so that's where the wetlands extend to. Councilman Horn: I suspect it goes beyond that. I think it goes in beyond that because... Councilman Johnson: That's where it starts. It goes into the lake from the high water mark. The lake side is where we want to find out where it is. Mayor Hamilton: We're not going to go past that but that side is going to move back and forth as the water goes up and down. Councilman Horn: That's what we want to define. Councilman Johnson: At this point we want to define that. That shall be defined from dock permits. We'll r~_~ to know that information when they come in for dock permits. Dan Herbst: I understand what you're trying to say in theory but I want to challenge that. I think you've got a real problem here. That area is changing every year. Clumps of cattails are busting off every year and going across the lake. How are you going to survey and stake and show an area out of the water and have anyone remember where they were? I can do an aerial photography today and you're going to still argue with it. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it's a matter of surveying and staking. We may want to just say that the water area in that particular bay or whatever you want to call that cove in there is 2 acres or something and that's what the water area is. Dan Herbst: What if it's 2 1/2 next year? Councilman Geving: Dan, I think the intent of what the Council is telling you is the important thing. Preserve those wetlands. Dan Herbst: I agree with that concept. I'm asking to challenge how you're really going to do that. Tnat bay area, I'll show you some aerial photographs, it changes drastically. Mayor Hamilton: But if it changes too drastically we're going to want to take a look at it to find out why it's changing too drastically. Is somebody pulling all the cattails out or are they dredging it or what's happening? Dan Herbst: It's a great idea. I think it's like a lot of other things, you're going to have an impossible time enforcing it. 46 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 Councilman Johnson: It's only a snapshot in history and in geological time, they talk about huge errors in geological time, when you're talking wetlands you're talking small time because they c~e so much but it will be a snapshot. It will give us a base. It will be something to work witlL Right now w~ have nothing. Dan Herbst: What is the base? Barbara Dacy: I think we can work with you Mr. Herbst to try and achieve the objectives that the Council is trying to get at through your, I know you do have a proposed set of Covenants and Restrictions, we can work together to achieve some of that. Councilman Johnson: I'll go for number 7 to direct Staff to look at the existing condition of that wetland. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit 987-5 with the following conditions: 1. qbe applicant receive a permit from the DNR. 2. A maximu~ of four docks shall be permitted. . The docks shall be connected with boardwalks to the property above the 944.5 elevation to direct pedestrian traffic off of tb~ wetland. . The Wetland Alteration Permit does not include dredging, the removal of cattails or chemical kill. . Informing purchasers of the above conditions through Covenants ar~ Restrictions. 6. The Citypetition the DNRtomake the way a slow no wake zone. 7. Direct Staff to identify and document the existing wetland. All voted in favor and motion carried. KI3RVERS POINT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TH lSl, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF TH5, FRANKLIN ~, ~.VIN ~ ROS]~St~Y SMITH AND ROBERT CONKLIN: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RfX2RFATIONALBEACHIX)T. Barbara Dacy: The first issue is tr~ conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. ~he Planning Commission did recommend approval of the proposed plan that you see in front of you there. The plans dated June 4, 1987 subject to the two staff conditions. One further update on this item, there was concern regarding whether or not woodchips would be an appropriate material to be used in the pathway down to the beachlot. We met with the applicant this week and that area will be terraced so there will be some type of prevention of washout of woodchip materials so staff's original concern 47 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 regarding that material has been recommended for approval. Tne recommendation for the beachlot is to maintain the Planning Commission recommer~lation. With that I'll leave it unless you want me to go ahead with the other items. Mayor Hamilton: No, why don't we just discuss this one first. Mark, did you want to address this issue? Mark Koegler: I don't think there is a great deal to add other than when we initiated the project we met with Dr. Rockwell as the first step ar~ we substantiated where the wetland is. Tnat was shown on the map and all over the development it has been shown away from that area to preserve that so with that, any questions you have. Councilman Johnson: My comment on the recreational beachlot simply paraphrased ar~ basically preceeded my comment on the overall subdivision which is that overall it's a good subdivision that I see here and while recreational on Lotus Lake is tough, there are a lot of folks out there, everything here seems to be within our ordinance. It looks to be really good planning. Councilman Geving: I would only echo the same thing. I think this is a very nice plan. The Kurvers I think have done a good job of laying out a development. They could have come in with substantially more than the 42 single family lots. These are good sized lots. The recreational beachlot I know is a big issue on Lotus Lake. We do have ample opportunities for the beachlot operation. We've had discussion in the past but as long as they meet all the requirements for the City Ordinances, they're proposing to develop here, let t~ move along and meet those ordinances, I don't really have any big problem with this. We'll get into some of the other issues, the road issues and so forth but I think as far as the conditional use permit I'm in favor of it. Councilman Horn: We're allowing two docks on this beachlot? Barbara Dacy: Yes sir. Councilman Horn: And each dock can have three boats on it? Barbara Dacy: That' s correct. Councilman Horn: With usage of the 42 families? Barbara Dacy: Yes, all the lots are within the radius. Councilman Horn: I'm kind of curious as to how the six spots are going to be rationed out? Mayor Hamilton: The same as Lotus Lake Estates does it. They draw or do whatever. It's up to them. They have the number of spaces and they handle it the way they want to. I guess that's not a function of ours. We did that with the Lotus Lake Estates, the same situation. You had 40 homes and they had 4 available spots or whatever it was and they just said they would take 48 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 care of. I think that's the same situatiom w~ have here. Councilman Horn: I think as far as ordinance goeS, this meets the ordinance. I have a concern with recreational beachlots in general but unfortunately the ordinance is already in place ar~ allows those. Councilman Boyt: Tell me how it's handled when you have three boats at the dock and someone who has la~ their boat at the public access wants to use the dock? Barbara Dacy: The three boats per dock is for overnight storage. Councilman Boyt: Strictly overnight so they can have 10 boats in that dock during the daytime? Barbara Dacy: Well, if all of them were able to launch at the boat access but I doubt it unless everyone from the subdivisio~ got up at 4:~ in the morning... Councilman Boyt: I don't want to discuss the boat access. I guess my concern is aimed at the total number of docks. I think it's too bad they're not putting everyone in the recreational beachlot and not putting so many docks in the lake om the ir~tividual property. I think that's where tb~ impact c~ the lake is going to come but as far as this particular request, as everyone has said, it pretty well meets our ordinance which is nice and I don't see that we can do anything more with it. Mayor Hamilton: You were talking about the materials for the path going down to the lake Mark. Did you have a comment om that because I thought the woodchips would be nice but now we're proposing gravel. Barbara Dacy: No, staff has rescinded that original recommendation because they are proposing to terrace-it in such a fashion that will prevent washout of that material. Mayor Hamilton: Even if the woodc~pe wash out, it's something that can just decay as it gets into the wetland or gets down to t~ bottc~ of the hill there. The gravel if it washed down is just going to cause a problem eventually here, start filling in. Gary Warren: Staff's concern was to Stabilize the slope and that's where the comments were omning from. Terracing is a good solution for that. Mayor Hamilton: I had no other comments. I think it's nicely laid out. I like the way they propose to have the little bridge going down there so people can walk across that and not affect the wetlar~ at all. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Cor~itional Use Permit Request 987-12 for a recreational beachlot based on the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" subject to tb~ following cor~titions: 49 102 City Council Meeting - July 20~ 1987 1. klherence to all conditions as required by Article 5, Section 9(11). . Th~ beachlot shall be maintained by a haneowners association or by an organization consisting of the subdivision residents. 3. Direct Staff to investigate a slow - no wake area. All voted in favor and motion carried. Margie Karjalahti: I'm just wondering if perhaps we might look at the beachlot will be going close to the wetlands there, that we might not be there also with boats going in ar~] our of the dock... Mayor Hamilton: We can certainly request that the DNR do that. Barbara Dacy: That could be included under the wetland alteration permit request. Councilman Geving: Doesn't it belong here rather than w~tland alteration? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think it belongs in the conditional use permit. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 36.3 ACRES INTO 42 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval and added five additional conditions. Number 15 was that compliance with the action taken by the Park and Recreation Commission, that the Planning Commission while it endorses a trail along TH 101, the applicant's request for no trail or trail smaller than 8 feet is a reasonable request for a street trail. Number 16 they require individual grading and erosion control and tree removal plans for those riparian lots. Number 17, that Staff be permitted to meet with the applicant and MnDot to resolve the issue of some of the access onto TH 101 prior to City Council consideration. If there is a major revision on the plat it shall come back to the Planning Commission for review. Number 18 that a timber management plan be conducted by a DNR forester. The Council is not aware of this but staff has been working with DNR on the Shadowmere subdivision to conduct such a plan and we think this would be another element for the plan. Finally, that the City Engineer would review prior to City Council consideration the possibility of linking the northerly intersection of TH 101 to Cheyenne Trail. Finally, the Planning Commission added the Army Corps of Engineers included with the condition that the applicant receive all of it's permits. I would like to follow up on some of those conditions. Tne first issue regarding the Park and Recreation Commission action, the Park and Recreation director advised that as far as the trail within the Kurvers Point Road right-of-way that could be constructed within the right-of-way and that a 6 foot sidewalk would meet the intent of the recommendation. Further the Commission did require the addition of a 20 foot trail easement along TH 101 so they could begin implementing a trail along that road. Prior to this time the overall trail plan was not put together and other subdivisions along TH 101 do not have provision for a trail easement. Tne issue concern from the applicant's standpoint is whether or not 20 feet is too restrictive beyond the 50 103 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 17 feet that they are proposing to dedicate on the plat as you see tonight. This issue could be resolved with contacting MnDot ar~ determining what their typical improved four lane road section is, urban section and determining whether or not the right-of-way that the applicants are providing with the additional 17 feet could accomodate the off-street trail. In any case, the intent of the Park and Rec Commission action was to make sure that an off- street trail could be provided but that part of the City is looked at for ~ implementatioru The secor~ issue to follow-up on is regarding the possible connection of the proposed roads into Cheyenne Trail, the street to the north. This is ~urvers Point Road here and Ckeyenne Trail is located right here. It is physically possible to make this connection. However, the applicant has here tonight a plan that is showing that that connection will create a series of double frontage lots along TH 101. It really affects the entire lot layout pattern of the subdivisi~ This combined intersectiom then would also provide us ingress/egress for approximately half of the 74 Colonial Grove subdivision lots located to the north of that. This corztition was added by the Commission toward the emd of the discussion on this matter. ~his was to be considered by the Council that these people in the Colonial Grove subdivision would have to be notified about this change in the street plan. However, right now the applicant doe~ want to address this issue in their comments. Taird is the issue about the southerly access of KUrvers Point Road. If I can indulge the Council to be patient, there are a number of alternatives but I would like to briefly go through those and unfortunately I have to add a 7th as a result of a meeting that took place out at the Sosin property with a member of the MnDot staff. ~nis was late on Friday afternoon after the reports had ~ distributecL When we were first preparing the report prior to the Planning Commission meeting, we were notified by MnDot that this proposed access does not have sufficient amount of sight distance from the crest of the hill so a number of options were identified. One was to move this access to the top of the hill. That would result in approximately 1M 1/2% grades going into the subdivision and when TH 1M1 is improved, more than likely that hill will be flatened ~ you will get a resulting disparity between the street elevation ar&t building pad elevations in this area. Second option was regrading TH 101 to remove the crest of the hill. That option is very expensive and also involves the cooperation of separate ownerships on the other side of the road in Eden Prairie. Thru third option was looked at by creating a right-in/right-out situation at that southerly access point. However, this was the item that was presented to the Planning Commission. Since that time what's ~ addressed of late is that the right-out in the acceleration lane would conflict with t/~ existing location of the Sosin driveway. MnDot was still concerned about that because of the right-out and sight distance fr~n the crest of the hill. Fourth option was to create it as right-in only. While this may he acceptable in MnDot's eyes, the City ~s to seriously evaluate whether or not a restricted access should be allowed with no median in the existing roadway. [krfortunately right-in omlys are abused by the general public. They could cause sc~e traffic accidents. The fifth alternative would he no access at all and cul-de-sacing Kurvers Point Road. That would result in a 2,0~M foot lor~3 cul-de-sac serving 42 lots. Then we get to option number 6 which would go something like this. What was originally shown as a street intersection would be dedicated as right-of-way. However, this jog that you see here would be provided as a roadway easement as a "temporary situation" until TH 101 gets approved because again more t/man 51 104 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 likely the crest of the hill will be flatened and the sight distance issue resolved. However, as we all know, when and if TH 101 is going to be approved could be a matter of 5, 10, 15 years down the road. Tnis option was recently proposed last week. It does pose some concerns regarding it's location directly adjacent to the existing location of the Sosin driveway. MnDot has not responded in writing to their position as to this entire situation. Although the existing driveway only serving one house located this close to a street intersection, there may be minimal impacts as far as traffic conflicts with a car coming out here and traffic here. There is still a lot of concern regarding the proximity of these two so directly close to one another and especially in view of it's relation to the crest of the hill. This location does resolve the sight distance concerns. However, if you go out there on- site you will note that it is a bad situation. Two sub-options, this option that was posed in the staff report was either the Sosin's combine their access into the street which Mrs. Sosin is here tonight and will speak that they are not in favor of that option or number 2 that their driveway be shifted approximately 150 feet to the south or towards their southerly lot line. Out at the site on the $osin property with a representative of MnDot, the final option was created and that was to leave this intersection at this point and create a right-in/right-out with relocating Mrs. Sosin's driveway down to the south. Therefore, we resolve the sight distance issue. We resolve this issue but we also create another situation where the Sosin property has a safer access. However again, the City needs to consider whether or not they should be allowing a restricted access at this point. Staff's recommendation is as long as there is an option out there to provide for a full intersection, our recommendation would be to recommer~ that to the Council. However, in this case under I guess you would want to call it option 6, we would recommend that this be the recommended alignment and subject to looking at relocating the Sosin driveway 150 feet to the south. MnDot will respond in writing within the next two week period. They wanted to go back and evaluate all these options and so on but in the meantime the City needs to consider whether or not a right-in or right-in only is even an option with the subdivisior~ I think that was it. Mark Koegler: First of all I think the information Barb has provided along with the Minutes that you've got in your packet which are very extensive do a good job summarizing the project as a whole and I'm not going to drag you through that again given the hour. We would like to emphasize the trouble points, the first one being that the Kurvers and the Conklins are developing this property and chose to do so under their own control for the very specific purpose of having more control over what the final plat is going to look like. They chose to do the development rather than sell it someone who would handle it in that manner. The plan that we bring before you tonight and I guess I'm starting to speak to the plat first of all. I'll address some of ~ other comments in a moment but the plan that we bring before you tonight does not contain any variances. It contains lot sizes twice the City's normal requirement. We think it's a very high quality development. A unique development for this community that is going to reflect the vegetation that is on the site, the slopes that are on the site, the wetlands and of course Lotus Lake. A couple of comments then I think are appropriate on some of the transportation issues that we've raised here in the last few minutes and then a few remarks regarding the recommendations of the Planning Commission and 52 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Staff and we would appreciate some Oouncil consideration on. I'll take them in the same sequence that Barb covered them starting with Cheyenne Trail. As she indicated in her remarks, we looked at a series of probably 7 or 8 different development schemes for the property before the final. What we had originally looked at was an access off of (heyenne Trail that would come in with another connecting access to the south along TH 10L What that did and this really can be adapted being discussed because the street connection could be made down in here maybe in lieu of this one. The problem we ~ is that basically forced a reconfiguration of the entire remainder of the parcel and the biggest problem we had was that from a development perspective was the large row of double frontage lots that we ended up with. Our philosophy was, as on the plan before you, was to crur~h the cul-de-sacs down to TH 101 so we could radiate lots off of that thereby diminishing the amount of double frontage lots. We think that's a more sellable product as well as being more attractive to the City. This particular plan does have a benefit I guess of allowing 47 total lots. You recall that we are proposing 42 so actually it's a more intensive development scheme but simply was judged as being not desirable from a lot standpoint as well as from tt~ porting that we have an opportunity to accomplish on the other plan versus this here in terms of the impact on the wetland area and tt~ beachlot itself. So for those reasons that particular alternative was dismissed ar~ we would certainly requets that the street arrangement that was laid out in the plat be the one that is the subject of the discussions this evening. With regard to the issue of the southerly access onto TH 101, that's ~ an issue that obviously has ~ kicked around by a lot of parties and we think all of those parties have a very legitimate concerns ar~ issues that have ~ raise~ Be it the property owner, be it MnDot, be it the City or be it the people who are actually developing the property. We have considered probably more than the seven alternatives that were listed. MnDot originally came back and gave us four and that snowballed to seve~. At the basis of the problem is tt~ hill. As of a meeting that occurred late this afternoon, literally only a couple of hours before the meeting, the K~rvers decided the best way to deal with the situation is to attack the problem. As a result of that and in conformance with MnDot's original recommendations, we're proposing as a part of Phase II of this project that we'll cut down the hill on TH 101 as a part of this development and they will absorb the costs for doing that. We think that not only will resolve making a much better and safer intersection point and obviously you've got the public along TH 101 as well so we think working with MnDot that is the alternative we would like to pursue. We think that will go the furthest towards resolving all of the safety issues which are there ar~ we have some concerns even about the right-in/right-out. We would like to see a full intersection and that would allow that. A couple of comments we have then on some of the recommendation aspects of the plan. In reviewing the City Engineer's report, in essense had no major prob _lem~ with that. He suggested moving of the watermains. We star~ willing to do that. Although the cul-de- sacs are short ar~ we might argue that it's not needed on some of them it will improve the quality of the system that does go with the land. There was concern on the fire access to the two lots that are presently serve the K~rvers. We would like to look at in conjunction with the area, adding an additional hydrant or relocating a hydrant in this locatio~ to provide fire service to those two lots. We have a hydrant that sits here right now on Willow View Cove ar~ if need be would exter~ that back to some point within 53 106 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 Mr. Conklin's property to look at providing the adequate service that that would require so with your permission we would like to work with the Engineer between now and the final to insure that those items are covered. In essence, we're concurring with his recommendations. The Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations I guess are another item we would like to touch uporu Barb referenced and I think the Minutes referenced, first of all I guess I should state that all parties of the development are firm believers that this City should continue with th~ trail plan and the trail along TH 101 should be a part of the City's long range plan. The point where I guess we differentiate a little bit is on the land area required to do that. What we have shown so far as the dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way alon~ there, the Park Commission came back and asked for an additional 20 feet of easement. We realize that's easement but that's still 37 feet of property which is a fairly healthy chunk that is not useable for certain aspects... Presumably when the rest of the right-of-way is acquired on the other side of TH 101, that will result in 100 foot wide right-of-way which in our estimation is adequate to cover any improvement to the road they do and the trail. Tne problem we have in saying back to MnDot, will this meet your standards is that if you go talk to MnDot today they will say we're not going to improve TH 101 so we're asking an agency who says they're not going to be a party to improving it to comment on it which is kind of awkward position. As we all realize, TH 101 has ~ an awkward position for a long time. Unfortunately will continue to be so. So for that reason we would request that the easement not be included in your recommendation. We would like to use that land, particularly on some of these northern lots as part of the design. These lots are fairly well shielded naturally. We've got some lots on the northern entrance that we would like to do as much berming as reasonably figured. Tne second item along the line of the Park Commission's discussion was on the trails. It's been recommended through Kurvers Point Road and not it's been recommended to be essentially a 6 foot walkway type of sidewalk. This subdivision obviously contains public streets. Therefore, there are public access to it. However, the nature of the development and the nature of any development that has a beachlot involved is basically private. That beachlot serves only the 42 homes that are within this. Our concern with emphasizing a public walkway through there is from a practical standpoint in the future of the neighborhood association having to police itself and to limit the activities only to the residents that are within this development. We are not trying to overburden that beachlot. We are not trying to overburden that lake and as a result of that we would like obviously to keep the development public but not overemphasize if you will public access to this. The other issue we see is simply the low intensity development. The street pattern we think very adequately will serve the walkway as it does in Lotus Lake Estates next door and several other developments throughout this area. It's a point to point item. They're not surrounded by major transportatior~ We are not, hopefully not at least, taking another development and dumping their traffic into this and as a result, it's a project that's really focused on the 42 lots and therefore we would request that that no be a part of your consideration. Tne only other point on Park and Recreation is as staff report indicated there was a r~ for 1 1/2 acres of parkland which was met by the proposed beachlot. We're not going to stand here tonight and tell you that that beachlot meets all the recreational ~s for those 42 residents. Tnat simply is not realistic. It does however take some share of the burden off of the city's 54 107. City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 park facilities. The beach here for instance will service swimmers as does Lake Ar~ so there is some balance there of traffic that is not goirg to Lake Ann but is staying here. For that we would simply ask that you consider whether or not there is some credits appropriate from the overall park charge. I don't know what that is. Perhaps y~u have past precedent. Maybe it's 25% or whatever it may be but we think some credit may go alon~ in there. Final item, I guess I ~ to save probably for the next item o~ the agenda. We have some comments on the dockage issue as well but I think those are really receptive to the next portion. JUst to finally summarize, we're after a very unique develol~ent here ar~ we have a plan that reflects that. We think we have a plan that pots sound site planning. It's a plan which the Conklins and the K~rvers, being creators of the neighborhood if you will, are content with. We think it meets or excccds city standards. We're excited about it and would like to get in the grour~ this fall ar~ with that would certainly request your approval. Georgette Sosin: This is the first that I've heard of this plan. I do compliment the developers that tkey are taking on the responsibility of a really major problem for everybody who lives on TH 101. We are the only neighbors that are actually adjacent to this develolm~ent. Our concern if the road is cut down certainly is minimalized. I'm still not sure about when that is going to happ~ ar~ which one of these options that you're choosing so perhaps you could respond to that. Mayor Hamilton: Mark, perhaps you could just jot these things dowr~ If you have other concerns we' 11 go through th~m ar~ then he can address all of thsm. Georgette Sosin: I ~ to know that for the concern that we have as being their southerly neighbor. The other concern that we have, of course the major one was the traffic problem. We also, by the way complimented as you read in your notes, we think it's a good develoI~ent and we're very pleased with the way that it has been planned. However, being the southerly neighbor and seeing the way that this is platted through our trees, we are a little uncomfortable with knowing exactly what these people and these people might want to do with what is their own visn~l barrier ar~ privacy to this development. We had requested from Kurvers to buy a strip of land as small as 5 feet that we could at least have perhaps up to here so we could plant evergreens or plant some kind of a visual barrier. We have not had any answer from them on that question. We would like to have some kir~ of barrier that will insure that these will he protected. That these will never be cut down and when they're on the property line like that, as you know, there can be a dispute. So those are two concerns really. With the driveway which it sour~s like if you can explain a little further has some different flow ar~ the visual barrier. Mark Koegler: If I understood, there are really two parts to the driveway questio~u There was timing ar~ then there was alignment. Let me address the timing issue first. Our intention is to come in ar~ developer this property in two phases and we think we have a very good demarkati~ point to do that. That is specifically the first phase will include everything essentially on this side of this line and would pick up what's now called Lotus View Lane so in essence we're going to have a line that would go this way ar~ would 55 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 delineate Phase I of the north and Phase II of the south. Any improvement of the street beyond this initial loop which would serve as an initial cul-de- sac, I think a very natural turnaround, would be part of Phase II so that all of the improvements to TH 101 required for this would be worked out and would be part of Phase II and obviously Phase II can not proceed until you saw that happen. The alignment we're taking about is the alignment that is shown on the original plat. Tae shaded area that's down to the south, ignore that if you will. That was one of the alternatives that was addressed. We don't think that's the best way to handle it so we would propose to keep the alignment the way it is shown on the preliminary plat that is before you this evening. It provides about 180 feet separation along that lot line along TH 101. With regards to screening, I am aware that the Sosin's approached the Kurvers about purchasing some property. That approach was made after the preliminary plat was put together. From what K~rvers tell me they are certainly amenable to looking at splitting off on the final plat a portion of that providing them obviously with the cost considerations and so forth can be work out and presumably they can be between both parties to consider that request. The Planning Commission did discuss it and I think agreed with us that it's not necessarily the responsibility of the developer to screen the driveway. We think realistically the owners of Lots 8 and 9 are going to want to screen the driveway more than perhaps the Sosin's are going to want to screen the backyard but we still understand their concerns and willing to look at that and the parties can negotiate. The plat can acccmodate the sale. Councilman Johnson: I really think this subdivision is a real relief to me. To come in here and we've got a developer fixing highway problems is amazing. I would like to hear from the Park and Rec Coordinator or our Chairman of the Commission on this 20 foot wide along TH 101. I personally believe that there is some way that we probably can stabe it to MnDOT to save their face or whatever for them to give us an answer. Maybe not make it specific to this but within such and such type of road arrangements, how much do we need to put in a trail and specifically give them the dimensions of this. Not necessarily saying this is TH 101 so they're answering a general question, not committing anything to TH 101. I would like, if they come back and say it's adequate but 20 feet seems awfully big beyond the 100 foot wide potential right-of-way in the future. What's the Park and Rec think? Lori Sietsema: At the time it was presented to the Park and Recreation Commission it wasn't pointed out to them that there was 17 feet of right-of- way there. I feel if we can be reasonably assured that an off-street trail can be built in there no matter what happens to that road, that they will be comfortable with leaving it as 17 feet. They were very concerned that TH 101 is a major priority to get a trail along there because of the traffic there and if it can be accomodated within 17 feet, I have no problem. If there is a problem with that, then we need the additional easement. Mike Lynch: We're also concerned about berming because a lot of b~rming is being done inside of those right-of-ways and as seen on east side of TH 101 a little further north in an Eden Prairie development, there is a berm and t~re's 12 feet straight down into a ditch and then there's TH 101 and there's absolutely no place to put a trail there unless you attempt to ride on top of the berm so we knew there was going to be a berm and we knew there were 56 109 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 problems coming up with TH 101. We're not stuck on a number figure of 20 feet, 17 feet, whatever it happens to be. We just want to make sure that we can get into that. Councilman Johnson: So you're weren't actually saying, you had no knowledge of the 17 so you were going 20 feet from the road right-of-way? Mike Lynch: Right. It's almost the same thing as the 17 so still within that right-of-way we would like to see that a berm is constructed so we can still get a trail in. Councilman Johnson: The berm is not going within the 17 feet? Mark Koegler: No, the grading plan requests all of the berming be totally on private property. Councilman Johnson: Ckay, so I think we can probably modify number 15 here. Rather than saying here to reflect the TH 101 trail will be coordinated with requirements of MnDot or something like this. Maybe it will be 18 feet or something. I don't want to argue over 1 or 2 feet. The other thirg is for the interior sidewalk, 6 foot sidewalk. I think one thing that may be done is put it along tt~ east side of ~urvers. We've got Kerber ar~ Kurver now that's going to be here. I know why you're putting that there but I think that, I don't know if the public safety has said anything about that but we've got a Kerber which I don't think there would be any residents that actually would be fronting on Kerber Blvd. so if they made a phone call in ar~ said Kurver that for emergency purposes the fire trucks won't be heading west when they should be heading east. Having names that terribly close together, it may not be a problem but that's another thing to look into. I know when you develop your homestead you like to put your name on it but I~ for the interior sidewalk because I see my street and how many children are out and playing in our street. We've got one or two cars parked out there and it is very hazardous. I would rather see the sidewalks where the people pushing the baby buggys down tt~ street and everything else. I don't think it would he that detractive. I would keep it on the east side of ~urver Point Road so it is away from the beachlot. Out of sight, out of mind on the beachlot. The kids that are going to find it from f~en Prairie as well as anything that's going to be the same problem with most beachlots is probably the kids coming in and whether there's a sidewalk or not a sidewalk isn't going to slow down the kids very much. There's another point on the beachlot credit. The addition of the recreational beachlot to me does not do anything for me for park credits at all. The costs of the lots on Lotus View Lane ar~ Lotus Circle and the other landlocked lots are going to reflect the availability to those people's recreational beachlots within the prices they're going to pay and I don't think the developer is giving up anything. I don't think there should be any credit at all give~ for giving an amenity that he's going to make a profit on. I do want to continue to compliment him on a heck of a good desigru A lot of thought has gone into this. That's about it. I don't know what we can do with the trees. I think that's an issue between the co-owners ar~ the Sosin's. 57 110 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I guess I would start by saying that I'm real impressed that you're willing to cut th~ hill down just like Jay said. I thought that was an absolutely ridiculous possibility and driving TH 101 everyday I'm delighted that someday it's going to be flat. I guess I would like to ask Georgette, is it my understanding now that that proposal leaves the road situation and your driveway alright? Georgette Sosin: I think it's an improvement for the entire city. For anybody who drives that and certainly for us. If that is done at the time that he says, then I think we would be satisfied. In fact I'm thrilled. Councilman Boyt: Now I think with the trees, what I think would be a very easy thing for you to do Mark is just put that in as a Covenant as those particular lots or someway enter it so that they don't cut those trees. I don't think that's costs anybody anything. I agree with you. I think it's in everybody's interest to keep them there but maybe one line like that would save a little money and get the job done. Tne trails, I wish that Tim Erhart was here since he is certainly closely attached to the trail system. I think it's very important that the developrs understand that Park and Bec handle the trail matters and not the Planning Commission. I think that the developer came in to the Planning commission with some trail matters that would have bc~n better dealt with at Park and Rec and by the Park and Rec people. I think there is the 8 foot wide trail, it remains I guess to see what gets built but I'm interested in consistency. I think we ask for an 8 foot wide trail through Saddlebrook, several of them and I think if that's the standard we're going to use in this city that's the standard we're going to use. We're not going to go 6 foot in one place, 8 in another and so I would like to see us stay 8 feet. On TH 101 trail situation, we're going to have a trail on TH 101 and I think if we change that to read sufficient room for a trail and the kind of trail I have in mind is, I forget what class you call it, maybe Mark knows, but it's the one where you have separate pedestrian and bike and whatever room we need to build that. I think you all can work that out but that's what I want to see there. The park versus the beachlot, jay has already addressed that. I agree with him completely. I've got some questions about the grading plan and are those better kept for another part of this or should we? Mayor Hamilton: Right now. Councilman Boyt: I think it's important in this situation and with the slope on this land that we use what I think of as Type II silt containment situations which are haybales plus the plastic sheeting. Wherever there is a possibility that anything can run into the lake, I suggest we don't fool around with just the netting. We go with both. Tae other thing I would like to see us and I haven't looked at the grading plan to know if this is going to present even a remote chance but if it does present a remote chance I want to see us use that floating sediment trap in the lake. Basically I want everything on this property to stay on this property. I've got a concern about the potential spawning area possibility and the fact that that hasn't been resolved. I think Clark's probably going to talk to the number of docks so I won't address that. Those cover my concerns. 58 111 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 Councilman Horn: I guess I wasn't going to comment on the number of docks. It meets the ordinance and obviously is not part of this. I do have a concern though just to expand on something that Jay said and that was the street names, I would like those to be reviewed by the Public Safety Director. We've got two Lotus' here and a couple other Lotus' nearby ar~ I think we want to keep those fr(xn being confused. Other t/man that, I think it's a good layout. Councilman Geving: I would like to say this in respect to the Knrvers, Mel amd Frank, I think you have made some major concessions as developers in this plan and I thank you for that. I think the city will thank you for many years to come because I think this is an excellent plaru Again, I repeat we have seen approximately 20 developments in the last 3 or 4 weeks and I can tell you that I have not ~_c-~n_ a net density of 1.5 units per acre anla~here in months. Maybe in years so you have done a very, very good job of putting this together. I like the plaru I like the road the way it flows. The cul-de- sacs. I think this will he a very high amenity area for anyone who buys o~e of these lots ar~] I really mean that. I knew your mother very well ar~ I would like to say that I think somewl~_re in this plan you should call one of those circles Mary Circle or Mary's View or something like that. I really liked her and she was a nice lady. In regard to some of the questions that Mrs. Sosin had and I'm very delighted that that two issues that you raised Georgette hopefully will be resolved. The EIsrvers made a major concession tonight in suggesting that they would bear the burden of cost of resolving the road issue which of course is the key issue of this whole development and of course secondly if they can resolve tt~ second one for your visual concerns that would go a long way to making a very happy neighbors for the people who buy these two lots 8 and 9. I don't believe that I'm very much in favor, in fact I'm not in favor of giving any park credit at all for bbe development of the beachlot. I see no advantage to the City for you to put in a beachlot for your residents in this degelopment and would not go along with any kind of a beachlot credit. As far as tb~ trail is concerned, the easement aloog the highway has always been a dream of ours going way back, to build trails throughout our community and I can tell you that we're going to have a trail along the entire length of TH 101 when we put all the pieces together.. I don't believe that we need to have 37 feet. That's ridiculous but I do believe that we ~ enough trail area so we can make a connection along TH 101 and whether that's 17 feet or 20 feet I don't care. As far as the on-road trails within the plat itself, we've gone to some different ideas and have worked out where we've gone to a 6 foot on-road type of a trail. I would like that where we just stripe o~e side of the road and people can walk throughout the plat ar~ find it very comfortable to get from here to there. I think 6 feet for any kind of a trail within the plat is more than sufficient so I believe that we should provide for that. The Park and Rec Commission's recommendation should be carried out. We should have a trail somewhere throughout your development. It isn't just for your own residents, tt~ people who like to hike, walk and I'm sure that it will again be another amenity for your plat. As far as the connection to Chey~ to th~ east, I think that's a dumb idea. I really don't see any value in connecting this east of the northern most route up to Cheyenne. I don't see any re~_~on to do that. When we build a development like this, I kind of like to see it as a self-contained unit where you have an access ar~ egress ar~ people who live there have an identity. To mix these with the Colonial Addition I don't think would be 59 112 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 good planning strategy. I believe that there was a comment from the Park people in terms of the 1.5 acres of parkland. Again, I go back to that no credit. You have met that of course, I don't see any problem there. We did have historically a lot of drainage problems from parts of this land flowing, I think some of it flows mostly to the north and gets into the Colonial Addition one way or another. Either flows back onto your property or your proeprty flows onto the north and into the Bloomberg Addition so I guess I am most concerned about item 9. That a culvert shall be provided under the Kurvers Point Road connection to TH 101. Do you see any problem there Mark? Mark Koegler: That's no problem with us. Councilman Geving: Because historically I know when we worked with the Bloomberg additions it's always b~- a problem for those drainageways. That concludes mine, you've done a good job fellas. Mayor Hamilton: I have a few comments. Again, like everybody else I think it's a keck of a nice plan. I'm really excited about it and I can't believe you're going to cut the road down but I think that's fantastic if you're really going to do that. There's no better way to solve a problem and I hope you know what you're doing. The trails, it would be nice to have a trail on TH 101 but if the K~rvers are going to dedicate some property or give an easement for a trail along TH 101, then I think we ought to go right on down the street and get it from the Sosin's and get it from the Oelschlagers. and get it from South Lotus Lake ar~ everybody else that's on the street which we haven't done and probably never will do. I'm as much in favor of trails as anybody else but a trail that starts in the middle of a street and stops before it gets to the end of the street doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Anyone having a trail through tbs subdivision, to say that they need to put in a 6 foot or 8 foot or 10 foot or whatever it might be, sidewalk through their subdivision that starts at one end of the subdivision and stops at the other end, is only for the residents who are going to be there primarily because I can't believe that we're going to encourage people from, I mean I wouldn't go over there and drive into their subdivision and stop and park in the street and then walk back and forth on the street, get back in my car and go back home. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me anyway. Maybe some people would do that, I don't know. I think by doing that we're doing something that Jay touched on. We would be encouraging people to come into the subdivision and perhaps use the outlot that they have intended for the residents who live there, that we're going to create some parking problems arES we're going to have the residents back here saying we want no parking signs and we want the same type of problems that we have in Greenwood Shores and we have in Carver Beach so I think rather than creating a problem we're going to have in the future, Dale touched on it, we can stripe a part of the street and if people wish to walk their children down the street or walk over to the outlet they can use that portion of the road to walk on that's been striped for that purpose. I also feel that the connection to Cheyenne Trail is not a reasonable consideration and certainly detracts from the subdivision rather than adding to it. Credit on the park charges, I guess I could go either way on that. It does seem as though I think Mark has a good argument when he says the people who live here are in fact going to, when they use the outlot that's being created, certainly in the summertime, they are going to take some 60 113 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 pressure off of Lake Ann or off of Lake Susan or any of our other parks so I think we should consider some type of a park credit. Certainly not 100% but 20% or 30%, whatever that might turn out to be. I think those are the extent of my c~nnents. Barbara you had somethir~ you were goirz3 to say a minute ago. Barbara Dacy: Yes, I just wanted to follow-up on a couple of suggestions about the existing trees alor~ the Sosin lot line. We could as a part of tt~ timber management plan have the DNR forester look at that area as well as the Council looking at making it a requirement to maintain that existing vegetation as a buffer subject to the DNR inspecting to make sure all the trees are healthy and some of the good species are maintainecL That could be a function of the forester. Mayor Hamilton: I was going to comment on it and I forgot. I guess I would like to know, before I would recommer~ anything om the lot line between the two properties I would like to know where the line is first of all. Whose property the trees that are there currently are or~ There are a lot of scrub trees in there that could easily be weeded out. Keep the good ones and you could plant inbetween evergreens if that's what you wanted to have in there and if those trees are on the Sosin property than they ought to plant trees to go inbetween the growth. If it's going to be on the new subdivision property then people who buy that or perhaps ever the developers would put a few trees alor~ there to screen. I guess I agreed with the comment that screening of someone's driveway is not something that I think is a high priority and certainly the people who are going to live there are perhaps going to be more concerned about screening their own backyard from somebody~s driveway where they can see cars going by or traffic. Georgette Sosin: I would like to say that we're not into doing landscaping that looks like sc~ethink from a French castle let's say and that scrub trees I happen to like. I feel strongly about them as a visual barrier and I would really resent s~nebody coming over and messing arour~ with what I think is a really nice barrier as it is and saying this is not a special tree and therefore it should be removed. The whole point of our wanting to buy that land is to keep it somewhat wild because our land is kept that way. We don't have a lawru We don't have a lar~lscaping that's not natural ar~ I want that natural border ar~ I like those scrub trees so I would not think that your suggestion, as well m~nt as it was ar~] I know it was, would be satisfactory to us. I don't know if you follow. Mayor Hamilton: I follow you. I guess that's fine. If that's your choice ar~] you could plant trees further back on your own. Councilman Geving: This is a private matter that the Sosin's and the K~rvers can work out themselves. Leave it at that because thelWve already made a valid offer and let them work it out. Mayor Hamilton: I also think it's important to remember what Mark says as far as tt~ phasing of this. Whatever acts ar~ ccmes about in tl~ southern part of the subdivision is going to be in the second ~. Thelfre going to do the northern phase first, northern b~] f of the subdivision which will give them time to reduce the hill on TH 1M1 and make the access useable. That's not 61 114 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 going to happen for a while. I think we need to move along and get them started on the northern half of this and I know that's what Mark said that's their phasing plan. That makes a lot of sense. Councilman Johnson: I would like to correct that I was for an off-street trail. I personally believe adding 6 foot to the width of a city street would be a lot more expensive to put 12 inches of supporting rock and it splits my mind the actual term for that but all your support and two layers of asphalt and everything I believe a 6 foot addition to the street would be more expensive than an off-street 6 foot wide, 6 foot wide is a fairly wide sidewalk. My main reason for a sidewalk off the street is for the people, the 42 houses that live there and the people that are there for them not to have to walk in the street when they are walking down to the beachlot or when they go with their baby stroller down the street. I have baby strollers all over my street all the time and we also have some teenage girls at the end of the street so the teenage boys are zooming up the street with babies and strollers on tbs side of the street so I would rather see ~ on the sidewalk. Mayor Hamilton: Could you address that Mark? Mark Koegler: First of all I don't think it probably benefits any of us to continue arguing whether a sidewalk fits in here or not. You have your opinion Councilman Johnson and we have ours. The point I guess I would like to bring out is if you do decide to go with a 5 foot or 6 foot sidewalk and most sidewalks are 5 feet historically, we would suggest that you give us the freedom to either include it in the street or include detached. We have located several species of trees on that property that are relatively close to the right-of-way that we want to retain. We may in some cases want to go around the tree with the sidewalk, if you make us put in a sidewalk. The other thing we would ask for is if you do that we would like, there's a staff recommendation that says the trail credit should be waived in lieu of our putting this in and that's fine. We again though get back to we would like an equitable arrangement of the cost. Our estimate of the detached 6 foot wide trail and that's 6 not 5, is about $8,800.00. Park credit we would receive is slightly less than $400.00 so again we would get back to if you require us to do that would that be reflected as an equitable credit among all parties. Councilman Johnson: There was some other point that we looked at credits. ~nis is not the point to look at what negotiating credits. Mayor Hamilton: When do we do that Don? Don Ashworth: Part of the development contract. You have in the one with Rick Murray before you tonight, that was a very good bid on that. $4.50 a running foot with that 5 foot. If that's the case... Councilman Geving: Let's just leave that issue. Councilman Johnson: I think we can look at that a little further. Tne one other thing is Ma~k brought up the item 5, the extension of th~ hydrants and he brought up some changes to it. I was wondering if Gary had any problems with his relocation of fire hydrants and if Gary has a recommendation for how 62 City Council ~seting - July 20, 1987 Gary Warren: We met on a preliminary basis to review my interest am] their concerns ar~ options ar~ as a part of ~ final plans ar~ specifications I'm sure we can come up with some meeting of the minds on this issue. Councilman Johnson: So on number 5 could we say location of the fire hydrants to be negotiated between the City f~3ineer and the developer rather than the specifics? Is that what we're talking about in number 5 is tt~ specifics of moving it to these locations? Gary Warren: It basically impacts the realignment in general of hydrants and in particular the service to the Conklin property on the northwest corner I think is the biggest challenge on that. · . Councilman Johnson: That's what w~ were trying to get at with number 5 here? Gary ~arren: Right. Councilman Johnson: So if we said the location for fire hydrants should be negotiated, you think that would be the better way than being as specific as we are right here? Is this what's going to happen? Is this what you want Lots 6, 9 ar~ 10, Block 1 and all this good stuff? Gary Warren: We ~ to address ar~ I think that Mark is agreeable to coming up with some modified approach for getting a hydrant in there. He pointed out two possible locations here and that's what I'm getting at so I think subject to my review and approval, I think that would suffice. Mayor Hamilton: ~here isn't any disagreen~t on that issue? Gary Warren: No, we have to work out the details. Councilman Horn: You want to eliminate 17 then? Councilman Boyt: Yes, that's right. I think we have that resolved. Councilman Johnson: Do you want to indicate how we resolved that? Councilman Geving: It's not necessary. Councilman Horn: It's shown on the plat. Gary Warren: Tbs phasing is the key part. Barbara Dacy: It's hooked into the phase 2 constructioru There should be a condition. Mayor Hamilton: T~at's trt%e. It should say as part of Phase 2, TH 101 hill will be reduced to provide sight distances required by 63 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Horn: I would like to see you modify number 1 to include Jay's comment about reviewing all of the street names by the Public Safety. Not just the ones they've indicated. Mark Koegler: Just one question of clarification, I understand the possible confusion on street names. We certainly would defer the Public Safety's opinion on that. I think he had reviewed it and that's where these first two changes came from. If you find Kurvers Point Road acceptable, I would ask that the Council accept that. This property has historically been known as Kurvers Point for about 8 years and the family wanted to retain that name as the name of the street. Tnought it had a nice ring to it as far as the development so again, we don't want to jeopardize public safety but if it's agreeable to the Public Safety Director, would the Council allow that one to r~nain. councilman Horn: I think the question is confusing with Kerber Blvd.. Mayor Hamilton: It's Kerber Blvd. and Kurvers Point Road. I don't think there is. councilman Geving: I don't think there is any confusion on my part. I think it should be Kurvers Point Road as depicted on the plan and as proposed by the developer. They've been there for 80 years, I think this is their development ar~ they have the right to have their name on the development. councilman Horn: So you don't want to hear what public safety has to say? Councilman Geving: No. I think the only reason the public safety recommended a change on item 1 is to eliminate confusion on Lotus Circle and Lotus View. To me there is no confusion on Kerber Blvd. and K~rvers Point Road. Mayor Hamilton: I think we can simplify it by saying that we're all in favor of Kurvers Point Road remains and have the Public Safety Director review the other ones. councilman Johnson: I see our Public Safety Director over here indicating to me that he doesn't have a problem with it. councilman Boyt moved, councilman Geving seconded to approve Subdivision Request 987-14 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" with the following conditions: 1. Rename Lotus Circle and Lotus View Lane. . Additionalmanholes ar~ pipe bends shall be utilized where appropriate to install the sanitary sewer and watermain within the roadway area and not under the curb and gutter. . Erosion control measures shall be provided, especially for the connection to the existing sanitary sewer frem manhole 92 to existing manhole 916 and the beachlot area. 64 117 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 . . . . . . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The watermain on Lotus View Lane shall be connected to the existing trunk watermain at TH 10L T~ watermain proposed for Willow View Cove shall be loop connected to the watermain proposed for KUrvers Point Road. A minimum 8 inch diameter watermain shall be utilized on the deadend line proposed for Lotus Circle. A watermain extension shall be provided ar~ a hydrant installed to be able to provide fire protection to the existing three homeson Lots 6, 9, and 10, Block L The hydrant shown on Outlot A should be moved to the west near manhole #15 to better service the area and eliminate gaps in fire protection coverage. Tn, watermain connection at the south e~d of Kurvers Point Road to the existing 12 inch main sbs]l be made by the installation of a new gate valve connection ar~ centered at the intersection of this roadway. Likewise, ~ watermain connection proposed for the north end of Kurvers Point at TH 101 shall be centered in this intersection with a gate valve. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed consistent with the City' s urban standards. State Dept. of Transportation permits shall be obtained for the proposed connection to TH 101 ar~ State requirements for sight distance and turnlanes shall be complied with. Culverts shall be provided under t/~ KUrvers Point Road connections to TH 101 to maintain the drainage in these areas. Internal erosion control measures, in addition to that proposed, shall be utilized to mitigate off-site transport of sediment. A final Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be included ar~ approved as part of the plans ar~ specifications for this project. Also, endorse tt~ use of Type II erosion controls ar~ floating sediment traps wherever appropriate. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1. Storm drainage calculating and documentation shall be sut~nit~ as a part of the plans and specifications and impacts to the wetland The applicant shall apply for ar,] obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant sba_]] enter into a development contract and provide the City with the financial sureties required by this contract for proper installation of these improvenents. Ommpliance with the action taken by the Park ar~ Recreation O~mission. 65 t18 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 16. Individual grading and erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted at time of building permit application for Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lots 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18, Block 4. 17. As part of the phase 2 construction the hill on TH 101 will be reconstructed to resolve the sight distance problem. 18. There will be a timber management plan by the DNR forester on this property paying special attention to the area on riparian lots within 75 feet of the high water mark. All voted in favor and motion carried. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. Barbara Dacy: Tnere were a couple of sight visits with Dr. Rockwell to determine the edge of the existing wetlands and that was used to prepare their submittal. Also, since the Planning Commission action, the drainage calculation has been reviewed by the engineering office and has bc~n confirmed that the storm design and storm water run-off calculations meets the 100 years storm event in compliance with th~ wetland ordinance. At this point Staff is stating that the proposed drainage plan is meeting all the wetland alteration permit guidelines. Technically tb~ run-off is not within the wetland. However, the rate of run-off will be less than or the same as existing rate of run-off through the development. The secondary issue is in regards to the docks. Four lots do contain some wetland area. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. The recommendation was that the wetland alteration permits be processed prior to final plat approval so that action taken by the City can be recorded along with the deeds at the County. I know the Council had discussed this issue in a prior application. However, the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the staff was to conduct that process prior to final plat approval. Tnat w~s it on the wetland application. Mark Koegler: Just a couple of comments. We certainly have no dispute with what is required. It's clear in the ordinance. The only thing that's not clear in the ordinance is when it has to be done and by whom. There are two valid approaches to doing that. (~e Barb summarized. ~ne other one we would ask you to consider, really offer as a suggestion, is to allow the individual homeowners when they purchase the property to come back and do that. The reason we request that is we believe there is a possibility that each of those, you'll end up reviewing applications twice. We will come up with a plan if that's your direction and do that before the final plat showing access to those lots, docks and so forth. That's not to say six months later when a homeowner comes in and he would want a different configuration. We would rather leave it to him to make that determination. If you will not permit that for whatever reason, we will take care of it now. Councilman Johnson: Barb, I see two of these that are affected by the wetland but what are the other two again? 66 119 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 Barbara Dacy: It was the two lots on the other side of the beachlot. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 contain an area betw~----n the buildable area ar~ tt~ lakeshore and Lots 1 ar~ 2, the wetland area in the case of Lot 2 takes up the entire frontage of the lot. Lot 1 again, the wetland separates the upland area along the lakeshore. Councilman Johnson: So in reality where the dock could be on each of these lots does not affect any of tt~ wetlar~s except for that lot right there that you just started to point to and if the lines are drawn properly on this and maybe with some really minor rearrangement of these lines he can get a little bit where he doesn't even touch it. If the property line moves slightly there. Barbara Dacy: Yes, you're right. T~e docks in three of the lots will be outside of tt~ wetlar~ area: However, tt~ wetlar~ ordinance is specific. It says docks, walkways and boardwalks shall receive a wetland alteration permit approval. Lot 2 of Block 3 here, yes. It could be that the dock is going to, that individual site plan for Lot 2 is going to have to be looked at closely to see how that functions with the wetland but the ordinance is clear that it states docks, walkways and boardwalks have to go through this process. Councilman Johnson: If the dock touches tt~ wetlar~? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Johnson: (kay, so if the dock is going from the upland area beyond the wetland. Barbara Dacy: And/or the walkway down to it. Councilman Johnson: Okay, they can access that through the recreational beachlot would be the alternative if they wanted to access and not put a walkway across the wetland. Barbara Dacy: I guess that would be an alternative. From a practical matter I guess at this point, from an individual property owner, this line to get down to his dock he maybe doesn't wan~ to walk over 1~ feet but yes, that's an option but again, these are issues that we probably have to look at with those individual applications no matter when they're filed. Councilman Johnson: I don't see why we're looking at it right now personally because like you say, the owner right now is going to come up with a plan and then the individual landow~ is a guy like that buys one of these lots, I would go around because of what I think of wetlands. If it's some other people they'll probably want to put a concrete sidewalk through it. I'm sure the developer is not going to say something like that. Barbara Dacy: Staff's intent on that whole recommer~ation as to when this is going to be conducted, we're really trying to address past council concerns about when these people are notified about the issues regarding tl~ dock. The Planning Commission feels that if somebody went ahead and did put in a boardwalk ar~ dock without city approval and now they're coming back through 67 City Council Meeting - JUly 20, 1987 process after the situation. Councilman Johnson: Taat happens all the time in everything. People build decks, fences, improve their basements, everything without tt~ proper permits and have to come back. I think here we can create that within the covenant that all decks, like we did with the Worm property, inform them through there. We can do the best we can to make sure that they don't build without proper permits in there but if it's spelled out within their covenants and hopefully they read their covenants, that that will happen. That may be a better way to do it rather than try to approve it before final plat. I'm not too wild about that idea. Councilman Boyt: I don't see that we're doing anything here besides saying it looks like they can put a dock up. Isn't that basically it? We don't have any plans to react to. I don't know Tom. We've got a number of people out here with wetland expertise sitting in the audience. Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is exactly the same as what you just saw in the Worm property and I think what we need to do is hopefully be consistent with this one is put it in a restrictive covenants. When the landowner wants to put a dock in he has to come in for a permit. To say that they have to receive a permit prior to the plat being filed, I don't ever recall that having bee~ done before and I think it's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. To have it on the deed is also something we haven't done before and I don't see any need for it. If you put it in the Restrictive Covenants the landowner is going to have to come in. He's going to know what the restrictions are. He's going to have to come in for approval. We don't lose control of putting the docks in. I think you're right, we're looking at the possibility, someone may buy a lot and not even put a dock. As Jay earlier pointed out, it is a possibility that people on either side of the beachlot may want to take the path down to their dock ar~ they won't even have to go across the wetlands. Somebody who is an environmentalist may buy that lot and may be able to get to it without even crossing the wetlands so I think those are the things, when the property owner has the property they have the option and it's not for the developer to say, I don't think, how he can get to his dock. It's just that they have an option to put a dock in if they wish and we have the opportunity to review that. Barbara Dacy: Just to put the nail in the coffin. For clarification, the Pemtom application, that wetland alteration permit was specific for those docks for those five lots. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Barbara Dacy: If the motion is to approve that the owners come in after the final plat is approved, yes that can be a condition of approval but you will see potentially four separate wetland alteration permit applications and the Pemtom application was they took care of everything all in one shot and that was done tonight. Mayor Hamilton: Well, it was also in their conditions restricted covenants too that they don't have to put it right, if I was a property owner in the 68 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 121 Pemtom thing and I wanted to change it some, I see no reason why I couldn't have a right to do that. It's in their restrictive covenants also ar~ it tells them they have to come in and get a permit. As far as I'm concerned, it's a wide open door. They can come in ar~ propose anything they want. All it tells them is they have a right to come in and put something across the wetlar~ arz] put a dock in. Councilman Boyt: So, we're proposing the same thing we just proposed half an hour, hour ago? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Geving: It shouldn't be any different. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit Request %87-8 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. Restrictions and Covenants be filed which identify the need for a wetland alteration permit for docks, walkways or boardwalks for riparian lots that contain a wetland. 2. Complia~ with the stormwater runoff guidelines as stated in Article V, Section 24 (8) (4). 3. The applicant receive a pexmit from the DNR. 4. The wetland alteration per,.it does not include dredging, removal of cattails or chemical kill. 5. The City will investigate a "slow - no wake area". 6. Staff is directed to identify the edge of ~ wetlar~]s. All voted in favor and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE lg ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND PEACEFUL LANE, I~ATERS AND BONNERS/ART (7~ENS. Barbara Dacy: I have nothing more to add. I appreciate the applicant's patience. We probably should have schedule this item before the previous one. The Planning Commission recommended approval with an additional condition that all existing structures shall conform to setback requirements. They were concerned about the existing buildings on the site. ~he new lot lines were createcL Also, as to the future road connection the applicant has indicated that they are looking at creating an easement between Lots 7 and 8. We're looking at the 5~ foot road easement betw~----n Lots 7 and 8 to provide potential future access to the properties to the east. ~%e topography -in there is very conducive to that ar~ the reservation of the easement would not impact the lowlands. 69 122 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Art, did you want to say anything or your architect want to make any comments? Art Owens: ~nly the one thing that is on the 14. We would like to have it in two phases. The five lots in the north phase first and then as we construct and contract those, we are ready to go on the south..~aking the difference in 6 tying the extension of Peaceful Lane. This is now a driveway and then this construction contract is what that point indicates. Otherwise, in the easement to come to the property we agree to go between 7 and 8 on that. Bill Bonner: Mr. Owens is concerned about the language there and Barb indicated that that was pretty standard language in all of your approvals and that he's not doing any developing to develop that first phase there would be no reason for a develo~x~ent agreement. We want to make sure that that one pass. Barbara Dacy: We can work with the developer on that but Gary would like to see it. Gary Warren: I didn't catch the first part. What's the phasing plan that you're talking about? Bill Bonnet: Tne first five lots there that are serviced by the existing. Gary Warren: That would be the first phase? Art Owens: Yes, they' re already serviced. Councilman Geving: Why wouldn't we need the development contract? We would still r~ that. Gary Warren: We would need a development contract. Tne discussion, what about the fill that we acquired, is any of that coming from the second phase now? Bill Bonnet: Ideally, that would be the best situation. I think what Art is saying is a couple of his children were interested in building on those earlier lots. Maybe one or two there where there would be minimal fill, that actually could be brought in from outside sources. He is just concerned that he not be obligated to a development contract that he doesn't know much about at this point in that Phase 1. Gary Warren: You would be platting the whole area though? Bill Bonnet: Yes, just developing in two phases. Gary Warren: I think the development contract, we have a phasing section in the development contract where we can address that. We've done it on Chan Vista for example where as they get into the second and third phases, that we've just amended the contract accordingly except they have platted those second and third phases as outlots. 70 123 City Council Meeting - July 2~, 1987 Don Ashworth: Otherwise we don't have any control. ~hat shouldn't be difficult for you. If you put it as an outlot, you've got an approval from the Council as with Near Mountain. They brought in each of the outlots and they had already received pre-approval. It was a matter of one meeting and away you went. Bill Bonnet: I think Art just wants to make sure he's not buying a pig in a pouch so to speak here ar~ he doesn't know what the develola~ent agreement says ar~ doesn't want to agree to it until he knows a little more about it. Mayor Hamilton: He doesn't have to agree to it until he reads it ar~ agrees to what's in it. Art Owens: The problem is not the contract or what it says, the problem is tt~ phasing ar~ the timing and the cost of the_to get there. We can go ahead with this part now with no problem but our family purpose is not to go into debt. We don't inter~ to go into debt on this so it's a matter of working it out so at a point in time when we know we've got sale on these lots aa so forth, I think the development contract calls for it having ~ completed within, what is it a 2 year period? Mayor Hamilton: 3 years. Art Owens: But in the meantime they have to have the money up, is that right? Don Ashworth: Only for that portion of it that you're goirg to develop so if Phase 1, if that's the portion that you want to plat, you have to have the security up front for that to cover any public improvements in that area that the remaining portion would simply be an outlot. There may be some security arrangement if you're going to move dirt ar~ if we have to restore that but that would be relatively small. Gary Warren: Within one year of platting you have to have started the improvements. In other words, the improvements have to be completed within 2 years of the platting so if you go with an outlot and just plat right now your Phase 1 and do that, you will preserve your timing for the rest of the phasing. Art Owens: But we can still get approval of the platting of this but you're callirg it an outlot, is that what you're saying? Gary Warren: Call your second phase an outlot and you would probably be getting into su]~nitting a separate grading plan because you would, ur~erstar~ing your right, want to be able to acquire some land from the phase 2 area which they did with Chan Vista ar~ that would take a separate letter of credit or financial securities so we have guarantee that if something doesn't go through that w~ can restore t/~ site if we ~ to. Bill Bonnet: ~here are obviously certain economies of doing both phases at once, doing the cut and fill... 71 City Council ~%~eting - July 20, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Do we have any comments on this development, on the subdivison? Councilman Geving: No I don't except we want to make sure that this is an urban standard street design ar~ you agree to that. Councilman Boyt: The first question I have is just a clear-up. Are we talking about just the first five lots now and everything else is an outlot or are we talking about the whole thing? Gary Warren: No, I think Mr. Owens consideration, he's interested in receiving approval for the preliminary plat which shows the whole concept here but when he comes to final platting he will only final plat the first five lots o Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you. I do have some reactions to that and one of them has to do with Park and Rec and I'm really glad that Mike and Lori have been able to hang arour~ for us here. They spent a lot of time in the Park and Rec meeting talking about parks in this area and how they were going to address that issue and one of the questions that came up that I think the Council dealt with several months ago was whether or not their function was to go out and find spots for parks ahead of time. Be proactive and I think we all said yes, locate them so we can then figure out how we want to deal with that. Is that accurate? Okay. Mr. Bonner, I thought your reaction and comments with Park and Rec were just excellent and tt~ way that you functioned with the group and the group with you. I was impressed. I would suggest along those lines that we connect through Lot 11 onto Outlot A in Carver Beach Estates to pose the opportunity to eventually reach maybe someday to be built, Nez Perce Drive. That that would then offer the option to open that cul-de- sac up which I gather is fairly lengthy. So part of Lot 11 would go into road easement. I would suggest everything towards Outlot A in your proposal which is where the City is building their reservoir, would become part of that proposed passive park around the reservoir. Then along those same lines on Lot 12, I would like to have a conservation easement in Lot 12. I think you indicated a willingness to protect 12 and the trees in there and that's what I would like to see is something by way of easement because they were talking about putting a trail down from the reservoir basically to this lake across the never to be built Peaceful Lane. I would suggest in regards to that the City keep it's right-of-way with Peaceful Lane as far as at least enough to make a trail out of it. Somewhere I see, the building on Lot 14, I think it's recommended that that be renoved? Barbara Dacy: It wasn't that it was to be r~m~oved, it was just that... Art Owens: It' s to have the proper setbacks. Councilman Boyt: ~hat will handle that because that means you're either going to have to move it or change the lot lines, is that correct? Art Owens: No, what you see on there is a leanto standing out from the building, perhaps 30 by 50. 72 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 125 Councilman Boyt: What I see right in the middle of Lot 14 looks like some kind of house structure and it's right ~n top of the lot line for Lot 13. That isn't going to fly is it? Bill Bonnet: That's the leanto though. Councilman Boyt: Ckay, so that's cc~ing down. Bill Bonnet: Tb~ whole of that will come dowru One of the Commissioners suggested that if someone buy that lot, I supposed, theoretically the new shed could be utilized as part of the structure ar~ we're saying that we're certainly willing to have that structure, whatever it ends up being. ~t any city codes for setbacks or sturtural, whatever. Rather than say all buildings must go, someone might choose to use part of that existing garage. Councilman Boyt: lb comfortable with that. Those are my comments. They are really aimed at the Bark. I think we have a ~ to do something with the city reservoir site. We also have a chance to give the cul-de-sac an exit ar~ I would like to see us do that. Mayor Hamilton: I'm surprised r~body commented on the request for a variance on Lot 5 because it's a flag lot. It seems like we just had a proposed subdivision here just a couple of weeks ago and everybody went crazy because there was a flag lot on there, isn't that right Jay? I think you said you didn't like them and I'm just wor~]ering is that the only way this can be laid out? Bill Bonner: We tried any number of ways. Mr. Owens approached the folks down here with the possibility of trying to tie something together. As you can see, unless you simply extend these and make them inordinarily deep, this lar~ basically is landlocked. I told Barbara I would be happy if her people could come up with a better approach, we would sure look at it. This very honestly is what we feel would be the most feasible approach with all things considered. The folks down here are an older couple that live on the home and I guess the gentleman was actually born in that farmhouse ar~ the~re just not ready to do anything at this point so our intent would be to leave that access point in this area so that when t~ do develop there's a loop system that can work but until that time this really, that might not be for 5 to 10 years and to have a private driveway coming onto here did not seem to be that much of a dilemna. I very honestly don't know any other way to service that lot. Mayor Hamilton: You could serve you in a cul-de-sac with a different access but I don't really have a problem with flag lots. I guess if we're going to be consistent about this whole thing, you're the one that b~ps on the variances all the time and you ~ to show a hardship and I5~ not sure there's a hardship being shown. I wasn't sure what was different about this one. Councilman Boyt: Can I respond to that for just a second. My thought and I guess I kind of leaped over it was that I~ asking for s~me property, I'm basically wiping Lot II out. I'm willing, consistency is something that I think is important as pointed out if we're in trouble, we probably are, but 73 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 I'm willing to give them Lot 5 to get Lot 11 and get that extension on the end of the cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see that there is any tradeoff. I certainly don't see taking of Lot 11. Bill Bonnet: Could I just comment about some of our thinking on that? ~ne subdivisi(x~ that's beir~ developed over here is considerably smaller lots and we're assuming would be a slightly different character. We purposedly kept these lots well over the ordinance trying to identify more where the existing things that are going on here, across the way at Mr. Beddor's development. Mr. Owens already has a h~estead on a rather large, gracious lot there. We upgraded from a rural section to an urban section. I guess we just felt that betwee~ what's going on up here, Mr. Owens had given a fair share dog gone it and the subdivision plan is not enhanced by running these people through. There's really nothing to be gained by going through here to get to highway 17 when they've already got a direct access there and the character of the two subdivisions is not, I don't think are going to be the same. Councilman Geving: When we put the 0utlot A on that other development, we didn't know what was going to happen then. We just put it in there. Bill Bonnet: You were trying to do us a favor and we're saying thank you but it didn't work out ar~ that's what we hope to do here is if these folks need it, it's there. If they don't, we're not going to say, hey you got to use it. Mayor Hamilton: We were afraid that this would be landlocked so that was the reason why we put that there. Bill Bonnet: And I totally agree. We looked at that scheme and decided that all things considered, it doesn't do much for this development or this development. If we had decided to go to a smaller lot scheme that might have made a little more sense but we're trying to keep this with the large lot, much more expensive hc~es and this really would be a detriment. Councilman Johnson: I would just like to throw a little shot at my thought on the finding of a hardship is preservation of the trees, woodlands and the topography of the area. That hilly area there and the existing pond, etc. have created the hardship. I have a feeling that won't be hard to show that at all. By doing this it best utilizes tke land. Mayor Hamilton: Is having trees in the way a hardship? Councilman Johnson: The City's desire to preserve the trees and the natural amenities of the site, this best does that. Mayor Hamilton: I think to clarify that, probably your desire. I think trees are something that regrow. I'm not as hung up on saving the trees. I like to same ~ if you can but you can replant them. 74 127 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think point number 2 in the City Council recommendation, no trail is required in the proposed right-of-way, can you tell me what that means? Barbara Dacy: ~hat was ar~ Lori correct me if I~ wrong but the Park and Rec Commission wanted the trail if the proposed cul-de-sac was going to connect down into Carver Beach Estates to the south. As the motion is presented, it's presented as a cul-de-sac therefore tl~ trail would look to a trail in the old Peaceful Lane right-of-way but there is not a requirement in the proposed cul- de-sac o Lori Sietsema: To be consistent with what we've done with other subdivisions, on cul-de-sacs we don't ask for trails and because this is a cul-de-sac. At the time it was seen at the Park and Recreation Oommission it was proposed as a through street ar~ they did recommend that a trail would go along there but as a cul-de-sac, to be consistent. Councilman Boyt: I guess we're not going to get a through street out of this, I would like to add a cor~ition on preservation of those trees in Lot 12 since the Park and Rec talked about running a trail down Lot 12 it would seem to me you discussed that a good bit in Park and ~ ar~ I didn't see any resistance from your group. Mayor Hamilton: I would think that most developers don't want to cut down trees because they add value to the land. They're not going to cut them down. You have to put a building pad in there someplace right? Barbara Dacy: In cor~ition 10 we are requiring that detailed tree removal scbsme be sukmitted and we could flag out Lot 12. Gary Warren: There are some concerns just because of the filling and Bill correct me if I'm wrong, Lot 12 in order to build a building pad there, there has to be s~ne fill on there and there will be some trees removed as a result of that. Councilman Boyt: T~e other thing is, how long is this cul-de-sac? Didn't I read 1,080 feet? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: What does our ordinance say is the maximu~ length, 1,5007 Barbara Dacy: The ordinance does not specific an exact distance. It says the length should be based on the amount of development density that it abuts. It does not establish an exact distance. Mayor Hamilton: The old ordinance was 1,500. Councilman Boyt: I would sure like to, all the reasons you guys have given me for not having long cul-de-sacs and here we go with a long cul-de-sac, 1,000 feet. 75 t28 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Geving: What are you going to do? What else can you do with this development? Councilman Boyt: I think you can lay the groundwork to go out to this non- existent road. Barbara Dacy: I don't think staff has ever made the statement that a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac is a long cul-de-sac. The previous application, the Kurvers application that was 2,000 feet and you do have to look at the amount of density and number of lots at which it is going to serve. We have approved 1,000 foot cul-de-sacs in the past. In the Saddlebrook subdivision and in others. To be honest we're looking at street lengths that in excess of that. Bill Bonner: If this connection is made, that cul-de-sac comes 200 feet. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman (~eving seconded to approve Subdivision Request 987-13 subject to the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 1, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 5, Block 1. o Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission rcommendations; however, no trail is required in the proposed right-of-way. . The extension of Peaceful Lane into the subdivision shall be an urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter built to City standards. o The roadway shall be extended to provide frontage to Outlot A, the ground storage reservoir site. 0 The existing assessments on the property for sanitary sewer and watermain shall be spread against the proposed 15 lots. 0 Grading proposed on the Outlot A reservoir site shall be coordinated with City construction plans for the reservoir and shall not comment until authorized by the City. . Lot 1 shall receive access from Pleasant View Road and all of the lots will be restricted to access fr~m Peaceful Lane. . All slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized utilizing wood fiber blanket or equal. . The retaining wall construction proposed for Lot 6 shall be sukmitted to the City's building department for separate review and approval. 10. Clearcutting of trees on the site will not be allowable and a proposed tree removal scheme shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 11. The watermain shall be loop-connected to the existing main on old Redman Road. 76 129 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 12. ~he applicant shall provide a 5~ foot roadway easement for future connection of Peaceful Lar~ to the subdivisions to th~ east. 13. ~he applicant shall apply for and receive appropriate permits from the Watershed District ar~ any other agency having jurisdictio~ in this area and oomply with the conditions of these departments. 14. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the appropriate financial sureties as required by this contract prior to th~ initiatio~ of any construction of the site. 15. Omupletion of the vacation of right-of-way abutting Lots 12, 15 and Outlot A. 16. All existing structures shall confom to setback requirements. 17. Findings of Fact on the hardship for a lot width variance for Lot 5 be prepared by the City Attorney. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. APPROVAL OF ARCHI~S CONTRACTUAL AG~RR.M]~T, PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING. Mayor Hamilton: You have a proposal before you for $23,75~.0~. I have reviewed this with Don ar~ Dcm has reviewed this with Ed Kodet who is here this evening and Ed and I have talked and Lori ar~ Ed and I and Todd. We have resolved that the amount is an amount that's probably reasonable ar~ the outline that you -_~c here may not be o~e that is going to be strictly adhered to because there are other things we ~ to do within there other than just having a lot of drawings done and Ed has agreed to that. We're going to kir~ of shuffle things around but we do r~ that amount of money for phase L Ed, did you want to make a comment? Ed Kodet: 0nly to follow up our conversation the other day that the predesign phase is starting from that meeting we had with D(xu I've ~_n meeting with the people in the Chanhassen Dinner Theater Saturday morning a~d in following up with the other elements of the predesign progr~n involving the Councilman ~eving: You met with our Task Force and has the task force given you a number of alternative choices for sites for a particular community center site? Ed Kodet: ~be discussion regarding site location has been examined in terms of primarily two sites. The Lake Arm site ar~ the downtown site. The Lake Ann site has limitations because of the MUSA line, sewer and water access. So far it seems to focus in on the downtown site being the one that meets most requirements. 77 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: There hasn't been any attempt to push for one site or another but the downtown site seems to be the one that is the most viable. We've looked at a lot of other sites and there are a lot of problems with all the others. Councilman Geving: It seems to me that one of the Commission's tasks was to review a number of sites and not be restricted to the Bloomberg site at all. In fact, be far reaching in their evaluation of where is the best place to put this particular community center and I'm hoping that we don't zero in immediately on the Dinner Theater with the idea that here's a piece of property that can be renovated. Have we done any financial anlysis? For example, have we compared the cost of a new structure versus doing what may be done with the Bloomberg site? Mayor Hamilton: I would like you to attend any of the meetings. Councilman Geving: I wasn't part of it. Mayor Hamilton: You can attend them. Tney're open to everybody so you can atter~ them. Councilman Geving: One of the things I said the night we set up the Task Force is that we hope to have s~me financial people on there that would be able to scope that out for us. Ed Kodet: We do have the financial depth to do that. We have our company do construction cost estimates. If that is not satisfactory, we'll more than likely have to hire a team like Anderson. Councilman Geving: No, I'm not getting into this now but I want you to understand that I don't want to zero in on the Bloomberg site exclusively. We want the best site in the c(mmunity. Mayor Hamilton: And that's exactly what we're going to do. We can pick every site in town and it may not be satisfactory to you. Maybe you don't like the downtown site for some reason but the fact is, when you look at every site in town, which we've already done, there is one site that's probably quite viable to do this project and that happens to be downtown. Whether you like that or not doesn't really matter but you can search for the rest of your life and look at every piece of land in town. A lot of our land right now is outside of the MUSA. That automatically eliminates that. There is a possibility that you're going to put a site downtown on a temporary basis. 4 to 5 years from as that grows and the MUSA line expands, you're going to want to look at another site. Councilman Geving: That may be a long ways off Tom. Mayor Hamilton: I know that and that's why I say, we're looking at all alternatives. We're researching this quite well. Councilman Horn: But isn't that the groups function? As I see what we're asking here is for architectural assistance but what I hear Dale asking for is 78 131 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 a function of the group itself2 Councilman (~:ving: I'm hoping that group has done their job. Councilman Boyt: David Headla is on that group ar~ he's fr~m out in Minnewashta ar~ I think he's brought a pretty strong concern that we hear from Minnewashta occasionally which we've forgotteru At the last meeting David, and you would have to check with him but my impression is that again, to realize that it looks like the downtown makes the most sense. I think a ballpark figure was it was something like 40 hours a foot less to build where we currently have the structure. I sort of started out on this thing thinking that maybe this was the wrong idea all together. ~he more we bring it in, I think w~'re going to have a good proposal for you. Councilman Geving: Just so we explore all the issues and looked at good alternatives. Mayor Hamilton: Like any committee or commission, they will look for all the alternatives. They are in the process of doing that ar~ Kodet firm was selected as the firm to be the lead company in the project with us and consequently we need some money to accomplish all these things. It is not going to be just drawings. It will be a lot of things involved in there other than that too. Councilman Johnson: One of the very last things down here says the above does not include referer~ assistance or cost estimates. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's not necessarily true because we're altering this as we go along. We' re going to use the money for what we need to use it for. Councilman Johnson: Tne point I was going to make is that from rough schematics you can make a rough cost estimate. It's a lot broader scope type cost estimate. It's not down that I'm going to have so many linear feet of such and such I-beam ar~ that kind of stuff but you generally, engineers can come up with cost estimates from a wide schematic. · d Kodet: If I could clarify that and I would like to maybe set aside some time for that proposal and call it predesign services which involve programming, which involves some preliminary cost estimates, involves site evaluation, existing building evaluation and as Mayor Hamilton pointed out, those services directed by you ar~ the staff, they need to be accomplished in the predesign phase to get a scope of where this project is headed. You ~ this to set that aside and call it predesign work. Councilman Johnson: So what you're saying is at the end of this $23,750.00 we are going to have an idea of what this facility will cost us if we go onto the next step? · d Kodet: Absolutely. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we' re moving in that direction. 79 City Council _M~cting - July 20, 1987 Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Architect's Contractual Agreement for the proposed Community Center building to Kodet Architectural Group in the amount of $23,750.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF TAX FORFEITURE LAND SALE. Resolution ~87-72: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the tax forfeiture land sale and follow the City ~gineer's recommendation. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who abstained motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATION: Mayor Hamilton informed the Council that the National League of Cities conference will be December 12-16, 1987 in Las Vegas. Also that the League of Cities conference will be September 20, 1987 in Minneapolis. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. Tne meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 80