Loading...
1992 07 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR NEETING JULY 13, 1992 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson and Scott Hark APPROVAL ~ AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Mayor Chmiel added a public announcement and under Council Presentations regarding Lake Ann Park; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the intersection of West 78th and Dakota, the leash law and the City and Council's continued use of local companies in purchases. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: Mayor Chmiel: The public announcement that I just wanted to mention is that we received from William's Pipeline indicating that they are going to be doing a high pressure water test of their pipeline located beneath their signs and is in pFogFess and will start on July 22nd for several weeks. The actual test may take several days to perform in one segment or whatever they're doing. You'll know the test is in progFess when you see the signs along the pipeline right-of- way which state caution. Please stand clear, Williams Pipeline Company. there's any information or explanation of this, they have given us a phone number. For those who may be interested I'll give that number out. It's 612-633-1515 and the right-of-way agent is Linda Slaughter. It's also an emergency number which is 1-B00-331-4020. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City tlanager's recommendations: f. Approve 1992 Audit Report Contract, Delloitte & Touche h. Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Regarding the Minimum Lot Size Requirements for A-2 and RR Districts j. Approval of Accounts k. City Council Minutes dated June 22, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 1, 1992 l. Designate Bus and Handicapped Parking Zone, Chanhassen Senior Center All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 A. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN MWCC, CHASKA AND CHANHASSEN FOR INTERCOMMUNITY FLOW. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, item l(a) is an agreement, a joint pouers agreement between the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Chaska and Chanhassen. Also there's a fourth party, the Net Council. I wanted to know what the Met Council's role was in thls. And my second questlon is, why ls Chanhassen puttlng up money in front to be reimbursed and why can't we just okay the project and have the MWCC pay without running it through our budget? And number three, how does thls agreement assure the pursuance of a permanent solutlon to the problem? In the worst case scenarlo if there ls no permanent solutlon implemented, hou has Chanhassen then affected, are ue then in a positlon where ue are forced to keep slgnlng an agreement forever? Those are my three questions on that 1rem. Mayor Chmiel: Don, would you like to try to address each of these? Don Ashuorth: Hopefully between Charles, Bob Schunicht and myself we can attempt to respond. Although the 1rem does not show Metro Council in the limited item in front of you, the agreement very definitely includes Metropolitan Counc11. We want Metro Counc11 to sign off on this agreement. It's very important. It may be a signer to it recognizing their overseeing a role of MWCC. Secondly, and agaln I'll offer Charles, ls my understanding that between Metro Council. Or between MWCC and the Clty of Chaska, those two agencies will be puttlng up any additional costs that would be lncurred as a part of any of the oversizing or the work to connect to this lift station. Correct Bob? Charles? Charles Folch: Do you want to address that one Bob? Bob Schunicht: Yeah, the Waste Control Commission is basically rentlng capacity from the City of Chanhassen in facilities that you've already ordered for plans and specs along Lyman Blvd. and Audubon Road. So they're renting for a period of tlme not to exceed probably 8 years. The date is the year 2000. December 31st of the year 2000 so you have ordered a project to put in improvements along there. They're going to use the excess capaclty in that line for a perlod of 8 years and pay you on an annual basis for that. The agreement is set up to pay you for 5 years right now ulth a fixed amount that's pald for each year that that extends beyond the first 5 years up until the year 2000. Any oversizing or any other costs that the Clty was not normally golng to incur as part of thelr current project is belng paid for by the Waste Control Commission. Councilwoman Dlmler: Nou if we declded to go ahead and develop and needed that capaclty for ourselves, how would that affect thls agreement? Bob Schunicht: Charles and I worked on some computations based on a real aggressive development schedule out in that part of the area and we're confident that you w111 not have flow in that 11ne that would cause any problems whatsoever before the year 2000. The thlng you have to remember is that a lot of the capacity in that system ls for the area south of Lyman Blvd. so you'd have to extend all the way down there too so you'd have to basically, in the next 8 years, develop to complete saturation everything all the way over to TH 41 and TH 5 and part of the stuff south of Lyman Blvd. to ever even dream of City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 having a problem in that line. The other thing I'd like to point out too is that one of the struggles we had tn designing that system was that we're dealing with a real 11ttle bit of waste water flow because there isn't a lot of development in that area right now and won't be until it starts to pick up for, the flrst year wlll be maybe 50 or 100 homes on there and it will start to continue. So we had to look at some interim facilities. Smaller pipes, smaller pumps to put in that station. With the flow coming from Chaska, the City is going to, in addition to the monies that are in the agreement, will save about $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 in lnterim facilities that they would have had to install just to be able to operate the system over the first 3 to 4 years. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're saying it's a mutually beneficial7 Bob Schunicht: Absolutely. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Also, what power do we have to force a permanent solution that say after the year 2000 and we want to use that capacity? Does this agreement in any way hinder us from being able to do that? Are we forced forever to sign this thing if they don't come up with a permanent solution to the problem? Bob Schunicht: You have to, after the year 2000, you have to mutually agree to let the process continue. You could shut off. You could pull the plug. Shut the valve and they're done after the year 2000. And they've got a similar agreement in Plymouth dealing with Medina. Medina going down through Plymouth and they're really concerned about that because it's starting to get to the point where they need to do something and they're hussling to get it done. Mayor Chmiel: But in their particular position, they are in no position whatsoever, to accept additional flowage of sewage from anywhere, even with thelr system so therefore there'd have to be some klnd of flow going somewhere. If not through their capaclty in a normal sewage disposal plant, it would still have to run through here. I get a little hesitant in thinklng as to what that solution could be and that solution could be a constant flow into there. Bob Schunicht: They're looking at two solutions and the agreement is pretty clear about the fact that they have to continue to pursue the solution to Chaska. That this does not become a thing they wait until 1998 and start taking another look at. And they're looking at either building a new plant or going over to the Blue Lake Plant. Going down. through. Across TH 41 down to Shakopee and over to the 81we Lake Plant. Mayor Chmlel: And that would take many, many years. Bob Schunicht: That, I don't thtnk they could get it done much before 1998 and that's the reason they're out of capacity this year and next year in Chaska right now. Mayor Chmiel: I guess if their flow is, total flow is going into the system, how will the charges incurred by MWCC to the City of Chanhassen for those flows, and I know Chaska's going to do lt? Pay for those particular flows that would go into it. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Bob Schunicht: Right. Mayor Chmiel: But does this effect our flows so, and that means that our people may have to pay additional dollars as well? Bob Schunlcht: No. There will be a meter at the station that's going in Chaska and that will be subtracted out of the flows that Chanhassen ls billed for. Councilwoman Dimler: I still have one concern and maybe Roger can answer that and that is, I don't see anything in the agreement that gives us any say in making them come up with a permanent solution. Can you address that Roger? Roger Knutson: To this extent that this contract terminates December 31st, the year 2000. So at that polnt lt's been sald you can pull the plug. They'd better have their own solution or they've got their own problem. Councilwoman Olmler: Okay, just the termination date then but ulth the renewal, with the possibility of renewal though as I read it. Roger Knutson: At your discretion. Mayor Chmiel: Normally when Council gets some of these things, shouldn't there be some dollar flgures tied in prlor to maklng thls approval so we know exactly where we're standing? Bob Schunicht: We did an estimate of the amount of money the Waste Control Commission would pay to Chanhassen for that first 5 years of capacity. That's about $80,000.00. What the agreement does is say that it sets forth a procedure for determining what that exact amount is based on the bid prlces that the City recelves and the agreement ls based on the same methodology that we used in negotiating the Lake Ann pro3ect. Oon and I worked on that in 1984-85, so lt's the same methodology. Zn thls case you were paylng the Waste Control Commission for using their facility and in this case, they're paying you for using your facillty but the same methodology. It seems 11ks both partles pretty much agreed to that and have an agreement existing in that manner already. Don Ashuorth: If I may, that's the same cost agreement that now has been really adopted metro wide. I think Champlin, another example. Again the cost, as they be associated wlth the Chaska connection, are back to Chaska and MWCC so ue don't, although I believe Bob has worked out what those costs are, we really haven't seen them nor do we really care to as long as they've agree that they're going to pay. One of my recommendations parallels Councilwoman Dimler's comments and that ls, in addltion to slmply slgning thls agreement, I thlnk lt's imperative that cover letters go along with this that say, us're going along wlth thls but it is ulth the intention that thls wlll be disconnected in the year 2000. That we're asking you to sign this document, meanlng MWCC and Metro Counc11, and recognize that this ls everyone's lntent and the Mayor point that they'd better get moving to insure that they've got a permanent solution. I feel very comfortable that thls lsa good document for Chanhassen. Not only in paying money back to us in the interim period, the current perlod of time, but they're also agreelng to flndlng a long term solutlon for southern Chanhassen as a part of this agreement. They're agreeing that down by Holasek's, and I think we saw that in one of the last reports. They had a 11ft statlon going over City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 there to serve a relatively small user. Through this agreement Chaska would allow that connection to go as gravtty flow towards Chaska. They're agreeing that Gedney u111 contlnue to be able to use the Chaska sewer 11nes ina similar basis to what they currently are. They're agreeing that the area north of 82nd Street and west of TH 41, that we can use Chaska's sewer line for that area. That probably will be through a smaller lift station. They're agreeing that the area east of TH 41 and north of 82nd Street, that can gravlty feed towards Chaska, that they uill serve that area. So there's a lot of pluses in here for Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: Well...numbers basically are accommodating what our flows may be in that particular area as well. Bob Schunlcht: We were very careful to make sure that Chanhassen would not be hurt and only benefitted by this agreement. The other thtng that Don mentioned, lt's enabled us to clear up a lot of questions about the joint sewer systems and we are having some ongoing conversations about the joint water systems too so it's been a very good process. Mayor Chmiel: Who represents Chaska? Bob Schunlcht: Dave Pokorny's been representing Chaska. Mayor Chmiel: No outside, do they have a consulting firm? Bob Schunlcht: Yes, Ken Anderson from our offlce. Mayor Chmiel: From your office? Bob Schunlcht: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That's what I wanted to make sure was on the table. Bob Schunicht: But Z argue with him all the time. Councilwoman Dlmler: It bette~ not be a confllct of interest rlght. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Hearing none, I would move approval of item l(a). The joint powers agreement with the addttion that those coyer'letters be sent as Don had mentioned. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 3oint Powers Agreement between HWCC, Chaska and Chanhassen for Intercommunity Flow with cover letters being sent stating the intention that tt will be disconnected in the year 2000. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 B. APPROVE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH BONESTRO0, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. Councilwoman Dimler: Item (b) has to do with the, approving of a consultant service agreement between Bonestroo and Associates and the City of Chanhassen. My question on this was, as I read through it, at first I thought it had to do with the surface water management but I see that it's separate. Is this a separate contract? Charles Folch: This is a separate contract for providing municipal consulting engineering servlces on projects such as the Upper Bluff Creek project and future projects with the Clty. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. What criteria did you use to come up with a need for such a consulting servlce at thls tlme? Charles Folch: Basically we have approximately, probably a dozen, dozen and a half contracts wlth consultants who provlde servlces for the clty. Basically what a contract does is it's an agreement between the City and the consultant as to what types of services they will provide. Defines specifically as it relates to a project, the specific elements and details that they will perform for the City at what cost and such and a fee schedules are tied to that agreement. It basically keeps a consistent mutual worklng partnership, if you wl11, between a consultant and the City as to what ls expected of the consultant and the consultant also knows what is expected of the City in this mutual agreement for providing services. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. As I was reading through it, I thought it was rather extensive and very binding and I was just wondering, now it talks about inspections here too. How do these inspections dlffer from the inspections already being done by our public safety department? Charles Folch: The inspections conducted by our Public Safety Department are more specifically orlented towards actual buildings. Inspections of the buildings that are golng ln. Homes. Thlngs 11kc thls. What the consultant will be inspecting is, take for example a sewer and water project for the Upper Bluff Creek area. They wlll be inspecting those utillty 11nes. That's not an area that the Uniform 8uildlng Code covers. That's an area that's governed by 10 State Standards and the Amerlcan Publlc Works Association. Or Amerlcan Water Works Association and such so that's an area outside of the Building Code. So they wlll be providing inspections on those particular types of projects. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and who's been doing those inspections for us in the past now? Charles Folch: It typically is the consultant engineer on the project will provide the inspection on the project. It's a normal process that they carry through. They deslgn the plans and then carry it through the project construction administration. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying the developer has a consultant and we'll have a consultant and we'll be duplicating services here? City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Charles Folch: Okay, on the public improvement projects such as Upper Bluff Creek for example again. We have our own consultant such as Bonestroo that will design and construct or contract, administer the project. On a private development project, the developer has his own engineer who will design the plans which we review in house and you approve by your action and they are required to provide an inspector on the project but we also provide inspection over that private development project so that we ensure that things are being constructed according to our specifications. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And then also, it didn't have a dollar figure with it and I'm kind of relunctant to approve any agreement that doesn't show me what it's going to cost the city. Charles Folch: There's two in the appendices. There's two fee schedule charts if you will that are a percentage of fees. Councilwoman Dimler: Right but I mean there was no dollar amount as to how much. It said per hour yes but how many hours? What's it likely to cost the City? Charles Folch: Basically that would come about with the preparation or presentation actually of the completed feasibility study. At that point in time there's a project cost estimate that is given and basically by using these schedules, at that time you can at least get a general idea as far as what their cost for services are going to be to carry it through the project through the design and construction process. Councilwoman Dimler: But we're supposed to be approving this before we see how much it's going to cost us? What if they come up with a cost that it'd be cheaper for us to hire our own engineer to do this? Charles Folch: Well under each project you have the decision making ability at the feasibility stage whether to see the project through as a public improvement or whether the project warrants doing it or not based on a number of factors such as cost. Councilwoman Oimler: But once we have an agreement with them, they're always going to be the consultant? Charles Folch: Not the sole consultant. We work with a number of consultants. Councilwoman Oimler: Oh you do? Charles Folch: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So this is not an exclusive contract? Charles Folch: No, this is not an exclusive contract. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks. Any other comments? I'd like to hear from other Councilmembers. City Council Meeting -, July 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Quick question that I have. In looking this over, and it's really thorough and I see some things in there. Were all these services provided basically needed and can some of these that are contained within this contt'act be done by our engineering department or staff as a working part? Charles Folch: I guess that's a difficult question to answer to you off the cuff but both the consultant and myself have reviewed the specific points of thls contract. In just general terms I would say, lt'd be very difficult. In trying to matntain the continuity of the project process, our city staff will still have revlew and input through the design process but at thls polnt in tlme we really don't have the capabilities to actually take over any portion of the deslgn on a particular project like that. Most of our consultant flrms are set up with CAD and computer systems to do the hydraulic modellng and things like that with the project~ It would be more consistent for them to contlnue to do the entlre process rather than try and split it up and then you've got a coordination effort that needs to be done and we really aren't set up to take on portions of their projects. Mayor Chmiel: I guess one of the things as you indicated, feasibility that would come back to us. Knowing what the dollars are basically going to be and what the cost ls golng to be to the clty. So ulth that I guess I don't have any other speciflc questions. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'm still relunctant to approve it without having some sort of idea what it's golng to cost. And I'm sure the consultant has probably worked wlth other clties of approximately the same size as ours wlth the same amount of development going on and perhaps they could look into their records and see what it has cost those communities and maybe glve us some ldea before I would approve this. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what you could say is not to exceed or have them come up wlth a figure not to exceed. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I don't even have the budget saying where it would come from. I would llke to know what part of the budget. I don't want to bust our budget here. Charles Folch: Maybe I can kind of clarify. I didn't go back far enough in my explanation. Take for example if a project would be petitioned by the public or what have you. We would recelve those petitions. I would typically contact one of the consultants and get an estimate as to what it would cost for them to perform the feasibility study. Okay. Then I would bring that cost to you along with the recommendation of whether to proceed with us authorizing the study or not authorizing the study. As I mentioned before, wlth the completion of the feasibility study, there is a project cost estimate associated with that. Basically thelr fee for providing the deslgn, contract administration and inspection servlces are basically guided by the two curve pay schedules which are 11sted in the appendices. So at that polnt in tlme, because each you know differing projects can have different costs associated with them, typically the larger the project naturally you're golng to have, there's golng to be more involvement, more time spent on thelr part. Although it's not a linear progression where the dollar amounts progress directly in relation to the City Council Meeting - July 13, lg92 project, there is some savings. The larger the project goes, the pro rated share of their consultant fee is not as high as a smaller project. But I think it's difficult to say at this tlme what their fee is going to be on a project because it depends on what the size of the project is and what type of project it is. Just general sewer and water and street projects, that's pretty well defined. When you get into doing a lift station, an elevated storage tank, some type of specialty project like that, then it's not quite so defined. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, I understand what you're saying but I'm still a little confused. At the tlme that we wanted to do the project, wouldn't we go out and get bids and have them be one of the bidders and then pick the lowest bldder for the study and the project? Or would we just exclusively say, well we've got a consultant service agreement with them so they're the ones? Charles Folch: Typically we do not go out, when we have a project and Just put basically RFP's out. Request for Proposals if you will from consultants on our projects. We have done that on a couple large scale things such as a surface water management program and the MUSA study because they were such large projects and we basically felt that maybe it was an appropriate type project to open it up to the general market because of the dollars that were involved. But basically for performing ongoing, continual municipal services, it's a benefit to both the City and the staff to develop a working relationship with a handful of consultants that will provide continual services to you. They get to know the city. They get to know what is expected of them. There's consistency that's developed. And you're also giving them enough work that you keep their interest. If there's a problem on a project and this consultant only gets one small project a year in a community, well you're not going to get priority service right away when something needs to be done. So there's some benefit with taklng, working with a group of consultants on general, ongoing municipal type projects. And it's, for getting services such as these, it's not always in the City's best interest to take the low bidder. Going out for bids on it for a consultant and taking the iow bid because you don't always have the most qualified consultant providing those services. It may be their first time working for the City and staff may end up spending, you may end up spending more money on staff time to try and train these people in as to what is expected of them. Councilman Wing: Is this exclusive of the...contract? Charles Folch: That's correct. We have a separate agreement for that specialty project. Councilman Workman: It was my understanding, and I had to depart so I maybe dldn't catch all the things but it was my understanding this is kind of a continuation of the contract we had before. That contract expired? Or why are we continuing at this time? Charles Folch: This is actually a new contract for municipal services. We've had previous contracts for Surface Water Management and the MUSA expansion but this is a contract that basically will govern future municipal projects that they provide services for the City. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Wing: How do you budget for this? I mean Ursula has asked about a dollar amount. How are you going to, is this an unknown or what are you going to budget for this? Don Ashworth: I look at this, this is a master contract at times that Bonestroo is selected to do a particular project so I'm not sure if ABC Company owning a piece of land out here will be coming in and asking that the City extend the sewer and water and at that tlme we would know how much that costs and how much would be charged back to that developer. But if the selection were then made of 8onestroo to act as our engineers for that project, this contract would come in. Would be an addendum to that addlng that particular project? 8ut if durlng the course of the year you did no projects, you've incurred no cost. Mayor Chmiel: Sure it boils down to but still the dollars are hard to grab onto. Normally when we submit a contract for just about anything...what I feel ls an estlmate so we know where we are withln that ballpark, how much farther can we go or should we go with that? As far as the dollar expenditure is concerned, that's what I thlnk we have to really look at. It's just that we can't loosen that dollar fully. We should have a fairly, at least a handle on what we're talklng. We're glvlng a Carte Blanche, open across the board klnd of thing here and we don't know really what those dollars will be. As Oon said, even if you don't do anything in that particular year, we're not golng to spend any money and that's true and I don't disagree with that. Councilwoman Dimler: But Charles, did we budget anything for anythlng 11ke that in this lg92 budget? It comes out of your budget in the engineering department? Charles Folch: Actually it comes out of the particular project because again, you would have to authorize the dollars to do a feasibility study which they may or may not be asslgned to and then agaln, after that's completed, you would have to authorize or actually order a project and approve them to do the plans and specifications on a project. Councilwoman Oimler: That comes out of the project as well? Charles Folch: That's correct, yep. Mayor Chmiel: From whoever's requesting it. $o it really doesn't all come out of the city but there's a lot of tlme involvement wlthln the clty that we st111 have. Councilwoman Oimler: Well thanks for all the answers. Charles Folch: Excuse me Oon, if I could add too. One thing we could do, if it would behoove you, ls ulth each project, as a part of the feasibility study, we certainly, I mean it shows there what thelr estimated costs would be to provide their services so we could certainly make sure that that is a line 1rem that's clearly addressed based on the estlmate of the project. Mayor Chmiel: That I would say would probably be a good ldea to have. That way it would glve Council a 11ttle better idea. So with that, I'll call for question. Would you 11ke to entertain a motlon on thls Ursula? 10 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: Well, with those explanations and with the expectations that what we're requesting here will be kept in mind, I would move to approve item Councilman Wing: Second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Consultant Services Agreement #/th Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderl/k & Associates. A11 voted favor and the mot/on cart/ed unan/mously. C. APPRQVE RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSIG~ENT B.Y .LANOCO QF LOA~ AND BOND PURCHASE AGRE[HENT. Mayor Chmiel: Item (c) is the reassingment of the IRB loans. I guess I had a couple of questions that I have and maybe I don't understand what tt is but what rate of lnterest dld we have in '79 and '88 that we're looklng at this and the changes that we're going back to with some of the reassignment of the loans? The other one I have is, we're moving this from one individual to another and even though someone's indicating here that they assure that the opinion will be a clean optlon, tax exempt status can be maintained, and I don't understand how this can be done. If you're changing it from the city from one person to another, you've glvlng them the tax exempt. Normally they don't take that tax exempt status, do they? Roger Knutson: I don't know what the interest rates are but, and we haven't seen one of these I don't think in 7-8 years. I don't know how long it's been. 7-8 years. Long time. They don't make any sense to me... This is an industrial development bond. Not one nickel of city money is involved. Not one nickel of taxpayers money is involved. It was a method in use for a number of years whereby you could get tax exempt status for your funding. And a project was built with these IDB bonds, using basically the City's name but without using...without using your money, without using anyone's money except private investors, and now the building is being sold. And it's like in the old days, when you sold a house, someone could assume your mortgage. Well, these folks are assuming the bond. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that is transferabl~ just like it is with the mortgage? Roger Knutson: Not anymore. You can't transfer your mortgage. Mayor Chmiel: Z meant purchase from and if it has an assumable. Roger Knutson: Yeah, it's an assumable mortgage if you will. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I can add a little bit. The principle amount of the bonds is $600,000.00. To date, the principle balance is $429,138.81. Don went upstairs to get the interest rate for... Mayor Chmlel: Well I guess he can probably tell me what that might have been back then as to what they are now and I know that probably in '79 and '88 they 1! City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 were higher. Therefore we'd proably bring it back down with the interest rate right nou on those industrial revenue bonds. Roger Knutson: Traditionally they save people 2 to 3 points. Mayor Chmiel: As long as you can save at least 2 points, then it's to your benefit. If it's 3, it's more. Don? Oon Ashuorth: I'm looking. Maybe you could, if you have other questions. Mayor Chmiel: No, I was just curious to know what that was back at that particular time as opposed to now because all the rates are much lower and we've done that ulth some of our bondlng wlth the Clty where we've saved the Clty money by doing that. Roger Knutson: I'll speculate that they're higher than they can get now. Lower than they can get now or not much better or otherwise they wouldn't be assuming the financing. Knoulng the partles involved, they'd get good financing. Don Ashuorth: They are not an obligation of the City. They're not shown under the bond issues. Z was hoplng Z would find a footnote to that extent and Z think it's, I think I still can under the auditor's initial oplnion but again it may take me a couple of minutes to flnd lt. Hayor Chmiel: My major concern uas, is I'm going to have to sign this thing and I want to know what I'm slgning. I don't think you're going to have to go through that much more. I think I've answered most of my questions that I've had. I would entertain to accept item 1(c). Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Resolution (N)2-77: Ha¥or Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the resolution approving assignment by LandCo of Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. O. APPROVE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE BMR PROPOSAL ?ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF URBAN DEER POPULATIONS~ Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, item (d) has to do with the Department of Natural Resources proposal for the Ecology and Management of Urban Deer Populations. Apparently from readlng thls I get that they want us, the City of Chanhassen along with 23 other communities to sign a letter uhich would be addressed to the legislative commission on Minnesota Resources whlch is made up of 8 Senators, State Senators and 8 State Representatives to get funding to study the deer problem. Agaln, I have a problem wlth approving thls without being glven an amount of what they're going to be asking for. Mayor Chmiel: $256,000.00 is what they're looking for. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, where did you find that? Okay. They're asking for $256,000.00 and I know from personal experience, because we have a hugh deer problem on our farm in Minnetrista, over 200 deer eating our corn and soybeans every year, we have contacted Larry Gillette of the Hennepln County Parks 12 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Systems who is, they are cooperators in this particular project. And he has given, not only us but also the City of Minnetrista a wonderful presentation with all the answers apparently that they're looking for in this project 1 and 2. So I feel the answers are already there and I think the money should be spent on correcting the problem rather than studying it. And I would recommend that if there are many concerns here within our city, that we would have Larry Gillette come and give us that same presentation. It was very informative and also had many solutions to the problems. Mayor Chmiel: Scott, I think you received this letter. Haybe, and as you've indicated, support sending this letter to the legislative commission for the appropriations of those dollars. And I thlnk from what Ursula ls saylng, ls that Mr. Gillette, Larry Gillette from Hennepin County Parks has already gone through that process. It looks 11ke they're starting...just one more time. there any quick response that we have to give to the ONE with this? Scott Hart: Mr. Mayor, actually I see that the process was started about a month and a half ago. This originally was scheduled... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you know how many cities signed the agreement? But I still would recommend having Mr. Gillette come out here because I know we do have a problem. That's not the point but I'd to see that... (There was audio problems with the tape at this point in the discussion. There was no action needed for item l(d). E. APPROVE BOULEVARD ~REE PLANTING PROPOSALm BARTON-ASCHHAN, Councilman Wing: That was mine. Boulevard planting proposal. Arboretum Blvd. and Kerber Blvd.. Both streets about 1 mile long. This has to do with boulevard tree bids. It has to do wlth plantlng boulevards, is that correct? Putting trees and landscaping along and reading through this we have a, this is going to be 8arton-Aschman base map preparation, field review, conceptual landscape plan, community open house, bidding documents, contract bidding, construction services for $12,700.00 divlded by $200.00 a tree, that's 600 trees that for sure are going in. $13,000.00 just to do a feasibility, architectural study for 2 miles of road? Can't we just say, we want shade trees along those streets every 40 feet and put them in? What's involved here for $13,000.007 You know I'm probably the foremost tree proponent on thls Council but to spend $13,000.00 to talk about putting them in, I don't know if I want them that bad. Don, how would you address that? Don Ashworth: I concur. It sounds like a lot of money. The problem is that, the legislature doesn't really trust cltles so they enact so many laws to make you ensure that you jump through every hoop. So even though it sounds as though you can just go out and put in trees, you still have to go through the formal specification process to tell potential bidders what it is you want. You've got to tell them where those trees are golng. What work has to go along with it because if the guy doesn't do what you want and the trees are crooked or whatever, did you tell him he had to stake them? Did you tell him he had to stick them in the ground? Which stde up. I mean it may sound proposterous but 13 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 I mean you have several nurseries in Chanhassen who will probably bid this. And if there's any irregularities in the bidding process, they're surely going to tell you about lt. We want to ensure that we go out and we pick out the stock that we want. This is the type of a job that if someone would want to volunteer to go through each of the steps, I could help them and I thlnk lt's the type of thing a Councll member or somebody knowledgeable in thls area could take on this task. Mayor Chmiel: I'd be glad to. Now that I have some free time. Don Ashuorth: You're going to be putting in the hours associated with it. would guess if you would volunteer to take thls over, I'd say lt's golng to be 100 hour project. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Councilman Wing: I think there's some other issues here because the Park and Rec is trying to form a Tree Board and some expertise is going to come wlth that from the community and the Arboretum. I just wonder if for $7,000.00 if Peter 01in on the weekends wouldn't step in and make similar recommendations. Now I'm not, Don I'm not trying to make 11ght of this. I guess I dldn't know plantlng trees was that complex and to landscape. If this was going to be a city wide project, and descrlbe and make these standards for all our streets for the future but to do two 1 mlle sections for $13,000.00. Don Ashworth: I'm sure the Mayor can do a good job on this. Councilman Wing: Well he has my support. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, mine too. Councilman Wing: If you'll chair the committee. Don Ashuorth: And we will try to make sure that we do not violate any of the State laws I was referring to. Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a questlon though. Are we required to go through with these proposals because from, I drove those sectlons and I think, if I'm anywhere near where you're talking about, the one here in the Clty on Coulter Orive, is that going to have anythlng to do with our proposal for the clty park? Don Ashworth: First I should note, in preparing the cover, the proposal from Barton Aschman ls correct in that it describes Audubon and Kerber. I thlnk the cover talks about Arboretum Blvd.. The two streets here, Audubon and Kerber. You take either of those segments, you do have exlstlng trees in various sections. All the way through on Kerber. Parts there you would not be puttlng trees in primarily on the east side of Kerber and on the, oh I'm sorry. On the west side of Kerber and the west side of Audubon. 14 City Council Meeting - July Mayor Chmiel: I think basically what you're looking at is the spacing of those trees. What's needed. Species which are acceptable to salt and spray. That don't die out and there's a lot of other things that have to be taken into consideration. Don Ashuorth: I think that Peter Olin would be a good resource and maybe we could get authorization to spend some dollars potentially with him. In terms of recommendations regarding the species and also going out to the nurseries once bids have been received, to actually tag individual trees so that we know we're getting good trees as a part of this. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just in due respect to you and Mr. Ashworth, I did drive these today and I did feel it's not a very simple matter. I mean you slmply don't just start puttlng trees in and there's sidewalks and there's hllls and there's a lot of angles here that I think if there's going to be a permanent plannlng and it's golng to be maintained and address the future, lt's not as simple as just going out and driving and making some snap decisions. Beyond that Don I would leave it in your desk. Mayor Chmiel: Well I agree Oick. That's true because often times when you plant trees, you're going to have to take some safety lssues into view as well. Because of the intersections and making sure that they don't get blocked or placement of trees in proper locations. Nor do you want to put them directly or as close as you can to the, in the boulevard sectton to the curbing because there too you're golng to have roots causlng problems and breaking out sidewalks and the curbing and a lot of other things so there's a lot more to it than really meets the eye. Councilman Wing: Can we table this issue just for one meeting to get a little background? Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any reason why we couldn't. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmlel: Do you see any problem wlth tabling thls if we're looklng at fall planting? I also wanted to just bring out the fact in addition to your tabling that I thlnk we should look at a spring plantlng rather than a fall planting as well. Don Ashworth: These projects have been held open for a long period of time. That's fine. It could go to this next spring. It ail1 take 30 days. Mayor Chmlel: It gives me a little better work base is what I'm saying. Don Ashworth: 30 days for specifications. 30 days in the advertisement process. We'll need to go out to the venders. You're probably talking 2 to 3 weeks there. My only trepidation would be, we can put it off one additional agenda but if we mlss let's say the next one, they won't be planted this fall. It will be next spring. 15 City Council Heeting - July 13, 1992 Ma/or Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second? Councilwoman Oimler: Seco)nd. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the Boulevard Tree Planting Proposal by Barton-Aschman. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE SURFAC~ WATER HANAGEHENT PROGRAM TASK FORCE. Councilwoman Dimler: Another one on the budget. I serve on the Surface Water Management Task Force and I did attend that last meeting but I'm $OFYy tO say I left before this vote was taken to approve a feasibility study for projects on, one on Lake Riley and I think too on Lotus Lake if I'm not mistaken. I believe the amount is $15,000.00 and that was brought down from $30,000.00 wasn't it Mike? Councilman Mason: I don't think that we arrived. We were just throwing figures out. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, okay. Paul Krauss: I think you were originally presented with a proposal that had a different set of projects that could have gone as high as 30 and nobody was comfortable with that. And neither was staff and as ue discussed this further, it seemed that one of the biggest expense was one of the projects. If you look in your packet, one of the projects on Lotus Lake is a major project. Councilwoman Dimler: A. You're talking about A. Paul Krauss: Right. And in staff's opinion that didn't fit into the context of qulck, relatively slmple, relatively low cost projects wlth blg returns for water quality. It's a valid project but it was very, it's something in longer term. So we, we belng staff came up with a thlrd project on Lake Rlley which does two things. Lake Riley obviously has a problem and we didn't want to focus all the efforts on specifically Lotus. We happen to know more about Lotus than the rest of the lakes which is why this tended to occur. We also felt that the one on Lake Riley, if ue do the upfront deslgn, we have a very good chance of having the developer undertake much of the work with the construction of the project subdivision. $o that could be a real blg bang for the buck on that one. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I look at a feasibility study as a part of a project so when I approve a feasibility study I am actually already approvlng that project or saylng that it needs to be done. So what I'd 11ke to have lsa little bit of an ldea on how much the total project mlght be. Now obviously, and that ls part of the feasibility study. I understand that so lt's klnd of a catch-22 here is what we're doing but apparently you must have some idea because we scraped A. We knew it would be too extensive and probably too expensive for what we were going to get. So we must also have some idea on what B and C and the one on Lake Riley are golng to. 16 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Paul Krauss: Only very rough Councilmoman Oimler. Councilwoman O'imler: Okay. Well, that's all I want is a rough estimate. Paul Krauss: As I recall, Ismael indicated to me that these projects were in the $10,000.00 range to complete. We eliminated the one that had a lot of land acquisition. We believe we have easements over everything else. The other projects and as I say, the Lake Riley project may cost next to nothing, or very nominal. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And see that would be fine and I'd have no problems because I do agree with the principle of improving the water quality but I just don't want to okay a study for something that's gotng to cost us big bucks at the end. And then my other question was this $15,000.00, is that coming out of - the budget that we approved already for fees for servlce under mater quality plan? We approved $50,000.00 for this year plus also for initial water quality construction. Another $50,000.00 so that's $100,000.00. Is that $15,000.00 coming out of this particular budget? Paul Krauss: Yes. As you're aware, for the other Council people's beneflt. The Surface Water fund is running a surplus right now and that's after we've committed to Bonestroo in a btgger contract to complete the planning and the program. We then have some money set aside to do things. Well this is coming out of the to do thlngs. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So, it's already budgeted for? I just want to make SUFe. Paul Krauss: It's budgeted for. It's not in Bonestroo's original contract. If that makes sense. This is work above and beyond what we have contracted wtth them to do. But there ls money in the budget to cover thls. Councilwoman Oimler: To do lt. Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting an extra $15,000.00 from somewhere. Okay, I move approval. Mayor Chmlel: Well I'd just like to add to that because I wanted this pulled as well. And the question that I had was, one. Are we in budget to date? It sounds like we're having a surplus right nom. Paul Krauss: Yes. Let me back up a little bit on that. Now in the budget hearings over the last couple years, you've heard me a couple times say that the Council authorized the 60~ funding level but then we found we weren't even gettlng that because some mistakes that were made by the engineering firm that had originally set it up. So we're essentially getting 60~ of 60~. What that gave us is a total, after 5 years of about $800,000.00. Clearly that's enough to pay for the initial contract with Bonestroo, which I think was 197. It's clearly enough to pay for staff's tlme working on thls project, whlch is some small portion of that. And then tt's clearly enough to do things. Now these projects are small and fall mlthln that, I thlnk what we anticipated. What thls 17 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 will never cover, and the City Manager and I shared some concerns on that, is major projects that maybe warranted. After the study is completed, ue know that you know you may want to spend $250,000.00 doing a single project or you have to buy some land. Those are things that go well beyond the scope of the budget. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And then what additional dollars do you see, it seems like we're going to stay within there. That was my other question. What additional dollars will be needed for this? It sounds like you're not going to have to go through that process on what we've done thus far. Paul Krauss: No. All of what's being proposed is within the current budgetary constraints. As this project though draws to a completed plan and we have a capital improvements plan and ue know what all the sources of problems are in given lakes and what we think ue have to do, I think at the last budget we agreed we were not going to raise the quarterly fee but as is, hopefully the project will demonstrate that it's a success and has community support and at some point we're going to ask you to reconsider that but ue don't need to now and this is not going to make us or break us. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I was just wondering how much longer are we going to go with this until ue come up with the next need is what you're saying from before. Whatever the next project might be. Paul Krauss: No. I think that ue have availability of funding to do a number of these smaller projects. As long as we limit them to 1 or 2 per lake and stagger it out. What we won't have funding for is a major project of maybe $200,000.00 or $300,000.00. Hayor Chmiel: Hy major concern is too Paul that we don't raise the costs as we did before to the residents within the City. And try to maintain and keep it right where it's at. I guess for the long haul, there has to be sometime where it gets cut off. And when that's going to be, that's the question that I was asking. Paul Krauss: I don't know the answer. You authorized an initial 5 year program with annual review by the Council during each budgetary session. Is thls a program that u111 go on forever? I doubt it. Is ita program that wlll establish a series of goals that may take more than 5 years to achieve and may take some other budgetary considerations? Probably, but I don't know the answer to that right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: ...it looks like you're going to be increasing by State mandate up $8.00 per year for this other water quality. Drinking water, ts that the one? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, so the utility bills will be going up and I don't think that I want to contribute to any of these projects. Increasing that utllity. I think that if we have to do a major project for over $200,000.00, or 18 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 $250,000.00, I'm sure we can look at some other funding sources. Maybe bonding or something like that. Paul Krauss: Well, and that's a very good point because frankly it's one thing to tinker a little bit with ponds and make them work more efficiently or restructure things but we have a number of areas of the City that have significant area wide drainage concerns that were never dealt with. [ hesitate to suggest that some of those might be a special assessment project but the fact is, there's area wide benefits to fixing these problems. So yeah, undoubtedly there are other things that are going to have to be looked at. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and then also under that staff recommendation, I would like it to read, as it reads now, staff recommends City Council authorize spending $15,500.00 to conduct feasibility study. I'd like injected prior to the $15,500.00 not to exceed. Councilman Mason: I did note that if ail three of those feasibility studies are done at the same time, it will be a savings to the city of $1,000.00 which I think would behoove us. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're right. I agree. Councilwoman Dimler: So with that understanding I move approval of item 1(i). Councilman Wing: Second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize spending an amount not to exceed $15,500.00 to conduct feasibility studies under the Surface gater Hanagement Program for Projects B, C and O as outlined in the 3uly 8, 1992 letter from Bonestroo Engineering. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. M. RESOLUTION APPROVING WATER OU~LITY TESTTN, G MANDATES AND CHARGES. Councilman Wing: City Manager, where is the water utility charge right now? don't see it 11sted here? Under water rates and Section 19. Is the utility surface water fee that $3.00 quarterly, is that somewhere else? Where is that fee urltten? Councilman Workman: Surface water. Councilman Wing: Surface water. Utility charge. Don Ashworth: That's a good question. Charles, do you know? I know Tom had prepared thls. The Resolution is Identical to the one that's currently on the books. It must be a separate resolution on the water surface. Councilman Wing: Why wouldn't we just include that in with the utility assessment? Don Ashuorth: It would make sense at some point in time to have one resolution that basically is covering both charges but you're correct, I do not see it in 19 City Council Meeting ~. July 13, 1992 here so that means that there are basically two separate resolutions governing utility bills. Councilman Wing: My other concern on this was, we have a Federal mandate that trickled down to the State of Minnesota who immediately trickled it down to the Clty of Chanhassen where the buck stops, with an exclamation point says, you've got to pay for it. And that's flne and it says, protecting the health of people consuming water from public water supplies lsa responsibility that Minnesota and it goes on and on and on. Parameters going from 23 to 83 that have to be checked so each user now has to pay $2.00. Me. Each one of us here has to pay $2.00 a quarter or $8.00 a yea)' to ensure that we have clean water. But it goes beyond assuring that the Clty water comlng into my house ls clean. I mean we assume the City's doing that. It also says we have to go 1nrc private homes. Prlvate homes. Test thelr water for this factor, for lead, whatever the case and I've got to pay the prlce for that private testing. How did this happen? Don Ashuorth: And the sad part is that this bill really recognizes that this work ls being mandated on the Federal level for the entlre State and it's really the outstate area that ls benefitting the most as far as the number of wells and they literally looked and said, we're not going to be able to get the money out state so we'll establish thls as a charge for well testing. And this is like all of the residents of the Clty of Minneapolis who get water out of the river are paying thls amount of money to test wells? Councilman Wing: In the newspaper we put out an ad asking for people that wanted thelr water tested for lead. I think they got 3 responses so Z volunteered. That was the fourth and it's mandated that we test 60 some homes for lead and we can't even get citizens to volunteer to have the testlng done so we go out and solicit it but then Z've got to pay for it. Well, Z'11 move approval of l(m) but I want to be on the record as under protest. And I realize we can't do anything about it. Don Ashworth: I agree. Mayor Chmiel: We're all in agreement. It always seems like whenever something comes up, there's additional dollars or the amount of fundings that they used to give cities are taking away and every tlme we turn around the citles are getttng slapped with the charges. So maybe with our hopeful that's sitting up here, when he gets up, he can start trying to do some things up there. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, is anybody asked about what happens if the City of Chanhassen doesn't comply? I know that I saw the people in Chaska wrestle with it and Minneapolis and everybody else has kind of goose stepped right with it but I am assumlng that. Mayor Chmiel: Don goes to jail. Councilman Workman: We're golng to lose everything warm and dear if we don't follow thls? I mean they're golng to take our LGA away? Roger Knutson: It's a charge...if you don't pay the MWCC. What they can do is they can take you to court. You owe it to them. 2O City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Workman: That's another story. Roger Knutson: And incidentally, I've got to editorialize on this. This is one of my hot buttons too. The amount of money they're collecting far exceeds their cost. Far exceeds their cost. Councilman Wing: Well there's a whole page explaining the bureaucracy and why they had to get to that. Roger Knutson: And they're suggesting, when people have asked why are you charging this amount now when your budget, and then how much you're going to spend is a lot less? Because we might have higher costs in the future. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see us write a letter to them with those concerns and indicate that ue will pay but we don't understand how they determined or how they came to the conclusions and that they will have a surplus of dollars. Councilman Mason: A letter signed by the Council? I would like to sign that. Councilwoman Oimler: I would like to sign that too. Don Ashuorth: Roger's additionally hostile because he's a Minneapolis resident. Councilman Wing: Well one thing I think I can assure our residents is that by the tlme we're done wlth our surface water utility work and paying for water testing, we're going to have water good enough to drink in this city. Mayor Chmiel: Oh sure, no question. Okay, would you like to make that as a motion Richard? Councilman Wing: Well I moved approval of l(m) and then, are you talking about the letter? Mayor Chmiel: Yes and that we'd like to sign by Council. Councilman Wing: Approve l(m) and I would also in that motion request a letter as per the Mayor's recommendation slgned by the Counc11. And that will go to the Minnesota Department of Health or up to the Federal level? Councilwoman Dimler: Both I would say. Mayor Chmiel: Little waves maybe make something... Resolution ~92-78: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Nason seconded to approve the Resolution approving the Water guality Testing mandates and charges with direction to staff to write a letter of protest to be signed by the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. PRESENTATION BY THE UNITED gAY OF THE HI~EAp~IS AREA, BYRON LAHER. Mayor Chmiel: Is Byron here? We'll go right along. 21 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Todd Gerhardt: ge'il contact Byron and see... Mayor Chmiel: He probably doesn't know where Chanhassen is right? PUBLIC HEARING: SUPPLEHENT FEASIBILITY REPORT ON STREET AND UTILITY IHPROVEMENTS TO TETON LANE AND LILAC LANE,.PROJECT 91-4: Public Present: Name Address Richard Bloom James Fenning Frank & Florence Natole Gordon & Joey Johnson Mike & Ann M. Preble David Euald Randy Karl Mlke Couple Robert M. Bouen Stephen & Cindy Dome 14600 Woodruff Road, Wayzata Ithilien Developer 6251 Teton Lane 1275 Llla¢ Lane 513 4th St N.E., Montgomery, MN 6370 Teton Lane 6391 Teton Lane 6331 Teton Lane 62?5 Powers Blvd. 6398 Teton Lane Charles Folch: Hr. Mayor, members of the Council. During the renotificatton process for this hearlng, staff and the developer for the Ithlllen subdivision have had the opportunity to meet further to discuss the project. The results of the meetlng leave us with a new proposal for the improvements whereby the developer has agreed to construct all the proposed Teton Lane improvements under a prlvate contract at their cost. The developer has also agreed to pay for 20~ of the improvements to Lilac Lane which will be a public project. In exchange the developer ls asklng that trunk utility hook-up charges for thelr subdivision be walved. Given that the sanitary sewer and water lines which they wlll be constructing under Teton Lane under prlvate contract may serve future subdivision.of the large lot parcels on the east side of Teton Lane, staff would concur that thls request ls reasonable. The other significant change is the elimination of a special assessment to the large lot property owners, i.e. Johnson, Plckerd, Ware and Natole. Instead a connection charge is recommended based on 50~ of the cost of the Lllac Lane and storm sewer improvements and the acreage of the large lots. Thls connection charge would come due if the property would be subdivided in the future. The connection charge rate is proposed at $2,687.00 per acre and would be adjusted annually for inflation. A revised financing schedule for the project is attached in your staff reports uhlch provldes the numbers for both the developer and the future connection charges that may be incurred with the large lots. The result is that these property owners, Johnson, Plckerd, Ware and Natole are not unduly burdened ulth an assessment at this time. In effect development is paying it's way on this project. The flnal issue lnvolves the barricade and at Council's request, staff has met with Shorewood representatives to get some more information on how the two break away barricades they have installed are performing. In short, thelr maintenance personnel basically considered these a maintenance nightmare, particularly in the wintertime. They're constantly going out there and replacing either broken or vandalized pieces of the barricade or portlons which may get stolen or removed. Really they dldn't have too many good comments to say about the barricades. The temporary type barricades. Bottom line from 22 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 staff's standpoint is that Teton Lane is a public street and as such, the public should have access to this street as any other street within the city. Staff continues to recommend that the barricade be removed on Teton Lane. That's all we have. We can open it up to public hearing comments. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Is there anyone at this time who would like to come up to the podium and indicate their concerns? Yes. Please state your name and your address please. One more time. Oonna Pickerd: That's okay. My name is Oonna Pickerd and I live at 12i5 Lilac Lane. I speak for myself when I say this. I want to thank both the city engineer and staff and also the developers for working together and eliminating the assessments for us. I guess that was important to me and I guess I appreciate the time that you put into doing that. I understand that the barricade has to come down because it is a city street. I guess I just want to make sure that an effort is put into ways to try to reduce the speed. One of the ideas I had was possibly putting a stop sign where the Ithilien development empties into Teton Lane. Kind of a three way stop. I understand that sometimes you need to see what is going to happen first before you make a decision about whether that's done but that was an idea I just wanted to throw out. I had one more thing here. Also, I met with Mr. Folch and with Biii Engelhardt this morning on our street to kind of go through design and what kind of things might be changed when and if the street is constructed. Lilac Lane more than Teton Lane and I just want to make sure that officially it's on record that they both said that before anything is done, that they would get a hold of the neighbors in the neighborhood so we can get together and kind of look over the final road construction details to make sure we understand what's happening. The grading of the roads. The configurations and just the details. Just because I guess it's nice to know what's happening in the area. That's ail I think. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes sir. Robert M. Bowen: My name is Robert M. Bowen. I live at 6275 Powers Blvd.. Hy property is immediately north of what the engineer frequently refers to as the drain. I understand the drainage of this area. Thls lot you're talking about is going to drain into the creek. I was told by the owner some time ago that by some mlracle water ls golng to run uphill 50-60 feet, go through Powers Blvd. and then run down that drain. You'd better have an Environmental Impact Statement in order because I'm not going to tolerate it any further. When Beddor, and you permitted him and his crowd to build what we know is Club Med. That area in the northeast corner of Pleasant View Road and Number 17. Water has been draintng down in that creek so that all of my fences have come down. They were reinstalled 2 years ago. They're down now. Furthermore, in the northeast corner of that same intersection, nobody has gone down there to see the utter destruction that is being performed on that land by your drainage. And your engineer's drainage. It's intolerable. A month and a half ago I went up there and was horrified to see that so much water has come through that a . basswood tree this big around was standing on it's tenacles ready to go. I went by tonlght and turned left. I wlsh everyone of you members would drive down that road, look into that intersection and see what you see now. The idea of our preaching about environment ls ridiculous in vlew of these developments. There's no means by which you can meet the two things. You've paved over most of thls township, from here to the Minnesota-River. You're wondering if we've 23 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 got water problems and as you're suggesting tonight, you're still going to tax and tax but we're going to call it a user charge. It's happenillg throughout government and I'm not here to tell you what you should do. That's your business but if you do it wrong, you're goi1~g to get sued. Finally, if an/body here has been told that they won't be taxed, I remind them of 20 years ago. That was the last time I appeared here. I presented a written statement to every member of your Council and to Russ Larson, your attorney and got up and made the same kind of a speech. Went over. Sat down. Russ Larson came over. After consulting with you people, or your predecessors, he said Bob, you know we don't intend to rul~ an assessment on that sewer down the creek. You aren't going to use it. Why? Because 2 years before I had agreed that you could come in on the north and do it. I was lied to. I was lied to by this Council. When I asked Russ why they changed their minds, they said it was the Council and the engineers. I've said enough. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bob. Might I just add to that. The previous Councils that you're talking about, and I don't know which one. I thought I just wanted to clarify that. Councilman Wing: Before we drop that subject. Is there a conceived drainage problem runnlng north from thls? Charles Folch: We were in fact just, as Donna mentioned, we were out there this morning and I'm not aware of the pre-existing problem which Mr. Bouen has described. Certainly I can get in contact ulth him and we can go out and meet out there and take a look at what the situation is. Robert M. Bowen: No. You do your own research. If you've got an engineer that can't do it, I can't help. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we'd like to do is sort of work with you Bob if we can and maybe alleviate what that glven problem is. We're not sure what it is and I'd even 11ke to come out and take a look at it as well. Robert M. Bowen: You're welcome anytime. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Workman: If I might add that I have my own drainage problem in my backyard due to no fault of my own. I've been building a home there and staff's working wlth me to rectify it. There's about three different optlons. I thlnk they do a good job of coming out there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think this is something prior to our engineer as well so it's something that we can take a look see on. Is there anyone else? 3oey Johnson: Hi. I'm Joe/ Johnson, 1275 Lilac Lane. I just have a couple questions. I wanted to ask. Mayor Chmiel: You live in Shorewood, is that correct? Are you in Chan? Joey Johnson: Well, we're the Johnson's on, our house is in Chanhassen but our mailbox ls ln. We're in that situation. I just wanted to ask when the City council Meeting - July barricade would be removed. Do we have any idea how soon that would be done? Charles Folch: It'd be staff's recommendation to remove it immediately. In discussing the project timing wlth at least for the Teton Lane improvements which will be coordinated with the Ithillen subdivision, they will be moving on a much faster pace than of course the Clty project wlll since we have a number of steps we have to go through by law during the public process but I would recommend that. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Prior to taking out those abutments as I call them, I would 11ke us to look at, from public safety standpoint, that 3 way stop. That would have tendencies to slow down that trafflc as Donna had indicated. I don't think that's too bad of an idea. Charles Folch: Yeah, what I would recommend, as I explained to Donna, is that once the subdivision has developed. All the homes are basically butlt, you have the construction. The home bullder trafflc out of there and we're basically in a normal traffic situation which wi11 probably take I would imagine a couple years to get to that point. Once we have that normal stabilized traffic pattern, then we can certainly take a look and evaluate and see how effective a 3 way stop would be there. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I thlnk something should be done prior to that. Not just a couple years from now because we did have complaints with speeds going through that particular area and I think we also had some clocklng on it as well. Some back information so something should be looked at so there is not that given problem wlth those speeds along that street. Charles Folch: Certainly we can, I can work with Scott and maybe we can set up some routlne patrollng and some speed surveys out there to see what's happening during construction. Certainly if there is speeding going on by construction vehicles, etc. we can certainly cltate them accordingly. I really hate to be premature and set up some sort of permanent signage if we only have some, what I would conslder short term violators that are in the area. But certainly we'll do whatever we can to mitigate the situation. Mayor Chmiel: Nobody violates, they just drive fast. Check downtown. 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. 3oey Johnson: My concern was just what you were talking about. I agree with Donna or if you just look at the situation because we have, right now there'is no place to... I too would like to thank the Councll and Clty Manager for the way everything has gone. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else7 Stephen Dome: My name is Stephen Dome, 6398 Teton Lane. This is in regard to the barricade comlng down. I think that we have flnally reached a point of community and if we think of Chanhassen as coming to~ether, we can now have neighborhoods whlch are not separated by an artificial barrier but once agaln we can become a community. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Steve. Is there anyone else? City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Florence Natole: I just have to get up one more time. Mayor Chmiel: If you didn't, I'd feel bad. Florence Natole: Right. I figure, this is Florence Natole, 6251 Teton Lane and I have fought so many battles but it sounds 11ks the war is already won by someone else but what I got a klck out of was thls, when I got it. Donna got it for me I should say. Saying how Shorewood, all the terrible things they've gone through and all the complaints and all the problems they've got but they've still got their barricade up. So it didn't do any good to do all this complaining and I just thought, if it was that bad, how come they haven't brought it before their Council and opened up. As far as our's belng a public road, it never was until Curry Farms got in there. And Christmas Lake Road has always been open because I used to stay in that little cabin. Those 11ttle cabins there for the 4th of July. We used to go out there for famlly outlngs so that Christmas Lake Road has always been open but once it was closed, it was closed and that was the end of it. But I also have to say, if you're golng to open it, it would be my intention that you open it right away so that all of the traffic for buildlng and all these trucks and so on wlll be going through Curry Farms. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Florence. Is there anyone else? As I mentioned, this is a publlc hearing. Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Richard Bloom representing the developer James Fenning. I just wanted to maybe say a few thlngs. I'd 11ks to flrst of all thank your staff. Thls has been a real naughty, difficult problem frankly to resolve. All the improvements that we're talklng about here and Mr. Folch and Mr. Ash~orth and Mr. Krauss were very helpful in worklng with us to come to the resolution that's being recommended by your staff thls evenlng. We wholeheartedly support the recommendation that's being offered by your staff this evening. If we could maybe ask one indulgence from the Clty Counc11. It's taken a long tlme to resolve for thls improvement project and our plat in effect, our flnal plat approval was conditioned upon thls problem belng resolved, whlch hopefully this evenlng it ls. What we would, we're intending to come back I believe at your next meeting with the final plat. We'll have the plans and specs for our private improvements including Teton for you and the development agreement I believe will be before you that evenlng as well. What we mlght ask ls if you empower your staff this evenlng, if we could maybe get our site grading started. We're anxious frankly to get going on the development. We're very wllling to comply wlth, I kno~ there's Watershed District approvals and permits. We need to do that. Eroslon control and bonding. We're not suggesting those be walved. We'll gladly comply with all of those but as I understand your staff can only issue a grading permit of up to 1,000 yards administratively. If you want more than that, basically it requlres Council action. So I guess we would first of all support the project recommendations thls evenlng and maybe ask if Council could posslbly give us some consideration to allowing your staff to lssue the grading permit subject to thelr requirements. Whatever they may lmpose upon us. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you have any problems with that? 26 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Charles Folch: Taking into consideration some of the external time control project schedule control factors ~hich the developer did not have basically control over or input on, I would say that if staff, if the developer could provide staff with a grading plan ~hich we could review and approve administratively, I think that would be acceptable if the Council's willing. That'd be acceptable under these circumstances to allow the grading to take place. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this particular time? As I mentioned, this lsa publlc hearing. Randy Karl: I'm Randy Karl, 6391 Teton Lane and I just wondered if we could get some clarification. I know we've talked about what immediate is with the barricades come down. What that means to the City and stuff. Taking it down. I think when the barricades was put up, it was supposed to be put up immediately and it took about a year and a half or so for that to happen. What timeframe would we expect if that's to happen? Mayor Chmlel: I think the availability of our particular people to be able to get there to make that removal. What their workframe t$ right now, I can't tell you. Randy Karl: Is that like weeks? Days? Months? Don Ashworth: Maybe Charles. One of the things I'm concerned with is if they've got graders in and movlng heavy equipment, I think that that has to be taken into consideration there as well. Our physically being able to going out and lifting the J barriers, that doesn't present a problem in my mind. But we're still looking to the safety of the vehicles and the neighborhood and if there ls major gradlng, I thlnk that should be taken into consideration there as well. Charles. Charles Folch: Well I agree. I agree. Don Ashworth: Would you like to make a guess as to time? Charles Folch: We could probably have the situation cleared by the end of the week. Bill Engelhardt: Could I comment on that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Bill Engelhardt: Teton Lane is going to be totally under construction. If you're talking sewer and water so it might be beneficial to leave those barricades up until that road is fully improved, curb and gutter and accepted by the City along with Teton Lane and then open it up as one project. Mayor Chmiel: That's a good recommendation. Good idea. Randy Karl: I'd just like to point out that anybody that drives down Powers Blvd., TH 5 realizes they're driving through a lot of grading and construction and I think the State and everybody is accommodating that situation. If you go 27 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 over on Lake Lucy Road they're doing a lot of grading and construction trucks out there. And I think you can manage that issue. I would like to point out again that we've had a couple times where emergency vehicles couldn't go through there and I'd hate to think that if we've got the road under construction, the proper barricade should be set up for the construction issues and identified appropriately but just to leave the barricades up because we know we're going to do some work and do those things, might not be appropriate tomorrow. Might not be a good day fo)' somebody in the area. Again, we've had those situations a couple times. We've been lucky. I don't think anybody wants to see someone not be attended to appropriately by fire and safety vehicles and I'd really encourage the City to move on this right away and not take that risk for any folks that live in that area and then address the construction under the appropriate action that you would normally do for that kind of work. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think as we're looking at it, as you've indicated, it's been a year and a half in it's timeframe since it's been installed and I am hopeful too that there's no need for emergency vehicles within that area. 8ut I think from a safety aspect, that right now with what they're going to do through there would be a good recommendation as they've indicated before. Don Ashworth: If I might. They're correct. For the next meeting we're proposing to have the development contract and the final plat approval, etc.. Hopefully by that time we will have a better idea as to the specific schedule that they're looking at for the installation of the sewer, the water, the streets. If, as a part of this item, the next agenda, potentially we could, we'd be in a better position to respond to that question and I totally agree with the individual who just spoke that we should keep the road open. But as Charles said, I think for the most part the road is going to disappear during the construction of the sewer and water line. And I think by our next meeting we'll have a pretty good handle on how long that will take to take and get the sewer and water and street back to a condition that's driveable. Charles Folch: I was just going to add to that. That maybe one thing we can consider with the approval of plans and specs for the project is that the barricades, you know at contractor's discretion, the barricade, the permanent type could be removed and more construction type barricades could be installed which allows the contractor access in and out of that point and would also allow for emergency access from that end also. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, I'll make a motion or make a request to have a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. No discussion. Councilman Wing: I was through there today and the only thing I found undriveable about the area was the barricade and it's difficult to turn around. I don't see why, if the road's going to be torn up and undriveable and unuseable, you might as well take them down, enjoy 2 days of peace and move on. I don't know if there's any hazards involved in not taking them down right away. 28 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 And it's not a thoroughfare. It's a very limited, isolated corner. Otherwise, I'm comfortable with all this. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion? ursula? Councilwoman Oimler: I guess as I was listening to some of the concerns here, Mr. Bowen's especially, I would like to see his concerns about the drainage addressed and see if there really is a problem there. I think it might be a good idea for all of us to go out there on a scheduled meeting even because the way he makes it sound, it sounds like a major issue. Also I agree with Bonna Pickerd's concern about the 3 way stop. I think that's legitimate. I also would like to know, and [ still haven't heard anything about the agreement with Shorewood. Do we have a construction and maintenance agreement on Lilac Lane with them? Charles Folch: Currently at this time Shorewood maintains Lilac Lane and it's our anticipating from talking to them previously that they will continue to maintaln Lilac Lane once construction is completed. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. We're doing construction and they're doing maintenance? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here from Shorewood? We did send out letters to them as well. Florence Natole: They're havlng their own meeting tonight. Mayor Chmiel: We should have had a combination. Florence Natole: On Byerly's. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to be in that one. Thanks. We have our own grocery store. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I was just going to make a real quick comment on what Mrs. Plckerd said. I think thls is one of those cases that for the most part, after people got together, everything worked out. I know there's some consternation about the barricade coming down but other than that I think thls is a case where everyone worked hard and got a good solution. I think it's great. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'd like to say too, you know I hadn't made up my mind about the barricade before I came here. I was listening for the public comments and I was really glad to see that there was a consensus to take it down and I guess miracles never cease. It's like the Berlin Wall coming down. Councilman Mason: I don't know about that. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe with that I'll call the question. Tom. 29 City Council Meeting ~ July 13, 1992 Councilman Workman: I still am concerned about, I know Mr. Karl is anxious to get that thing down. In fact he offered to take it down...and I guess maybe we should start getting used to it opened. I guess maybe it will take time for the Karl's and the Euald's up there to try and... I do feel...our staff and ever/body's been able to work things out. We didn't get to hear from Mr. Natole tonight at all or the past couple meetings but it's nice to know that perhaps things have kind of worked out. I got to know Donna Pickerd a little bit with our dancing daughters and things but maybe the people on the other side of the barricade, the Karl's and Euald's, etc. can help to try and self monitor and keep an eye on the traffic speed. I know that on my own road and my own cul-de-sac, that's what we do with each other. You know when somebody's in the neighborhood that doesn't live there because they're going fast because we don't because there's a lot of kids. So a lot of changes on the north side of the barrier and so if they can be extra careful about it. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. With that I'll call a question. Resolution ~92-79: Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the feasibility report and supplement dated 3uly 9, 1992 for the installation of street and storm drainage improvements to Lilac Lane between County Road 17 and Teton Lane contingent upon the developer for the Ithilien subdivision waiving his right to a public hearing, accepting a 20~ assessment of the smaller project cost, and agreeing to pay the full costs of the larger Teton Lane project (curb and gutter, street expansion, sewer and water extension, etc., including barricade removal). In addition, the connection charge for the storm sewer improvements to Lilac Lane be adopted for the Johnson, Pickard, Ware, and Natole properties for collection at such time that future subdivision would occur at any of these properties based on a rate of $2,687.00 per acre of contributing area as presented in the revised cost schedule and annually adjusted for installation based on construction cost index. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Could I clarify? Is the barrier coming down now? Hayor Chmiel: No. Until they determine when the best time is really to have it down. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEUENT OVER. THAT PART OF THE WEST 5 _FEET OF THE EAST iQ FEET OF LOT 1. BLOCK 2, COUNTRY pAKS, 3931 ~OUNTRY OAKS DRIVE, MARK AND JULIE GRUBE. Public Present: Name Address Jim & Ruth Boylan 6760 Minnewashta Parkway Kate Aanenson: Legend Home is representing the applicant. This was an incident where the applicant came in for a building permit. Staff does a check on thls. This shows a 10 foot setback whlch is required by Code. Unfortunately thls lsa 10 foot utility easement which doesn't allow encroachment. Upon inspection by the Bulldlng Department at the time of final permlt, it was noted that thls really is a drainage and utility easement. Normally a window well or certain 30 City Council Hooting - July 13, 1992 architectural features, bay windows, fireplaces are allowed to encroach into a sideyard setback. But because this a drainage and utility easement, that is not permitted. Another anomaly is that normally our easements are $ feet. For some reason a 10 foot utility easement was put on this. There is no utilities in thls easement. Staff feels comfortable vacatlng that and turning it into a $ foot utility easement. Therefore he meets all the requirements of the zone and there should be no problem. So this doesn't requlre a variance. It's strlctly just a vacation of the easement down to 5 feet. The only recommendation that we would have is that the applicant pay for any recording fees. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? This is a public hearing. James Boylan: James 8oylan. I live at 6760 Hinnewashta Parkway. Hy wife and I are co-owners of the property that immediately adjolns this area and we have a little bit of a problem and have had since the beginning of this house construction. There seems to be a problem wlth Legend Homes buildlng too big a house on that lot and needing some of ours. About 1,400 square feet at last measurement, of our property that has been encroached on. The City has constantly told us that this was a civil matter and that they couldn't do anything about it. And I guess my questlon to you tonlght is, okay. Then who's responsible for the proper drainage of this land if this is a drainage easement? We already have 3 feet of dirt on our property that we didn't contract for in the first place and another foot of mud that has washed down and I have pictures if you'd care to see them. If you are interested I will show you. But I guess at this point in time, I'd like to know who's responsible and who we name on the civil action as being responsible for this, because there will be. Kate Aanenson: Can I clarify that issue? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Kate. Kate Aanenson: I was called to go look at the property. The original plot line did show the drainage but it doesn't drain into Mr. Boylan's property. There is an ongoing dispute. I was called to go out to look at, there is some dralnage going onto his property right now where the window well is in this area right here. We did tell the homeowners that they would need to provide eroslon control at this time. There is a dispute. When the foundation went in, it's my understanding that some trees were knocked down on Mr. Boylan's property. James Boylan: Some trees? 1,400 square feet of our woods. Kate Aanenson: I'm just explaining to you what the facts are as I understand them. And that there's been a dispute between the homeowners complaining about miscellaneous materials being on Hr. Boylan's property. It's all been turned over. Someone's been speaking to the Attorney's office and there has been complaints flled with our community service officers have inspected both properties. As far as this issue, as far as the home size fitting on there, it really meets all the requirements of the zone. They chose to place it as they saw fit, which is their right to do. How to place it on the lot. It does meet all the standards of the zone and there lsa dispute between the two property owners to some of those issues but we've asked them, there is right now some dralnage golng on. ~ went out there Friday and ~ spoke to your attorney. I did 31 City Council Meeting - July 1,3, 1992 ask the homeowners to put up erosion control on that side where it is currently draining. It's my understanding that they will be doing that and that they're going to be putting sod in shortly and also a retaining wall on that side. James Boylan: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, Councilwoman Oimler. I really would like to address you on this polnt of, I have heard so many promises as how Legend Homes was going to take care of things. I've been hung up on them. By those people. I've been told that ift want to take them to clvll actlon, I'd better have my ducks in a row. We have gone through 6 months of a lot of trouble and a lot of problems just trylng to get our ducks in a row. We had a survey done on the property to find that the corner iron had been dug up in that corner of our property that locates that by the bullder. Before we could get in and replace the corner iron, our surveyor had marked that property with the proper stake and properly marked. They came in and relandscaped. Dumped more dlrt on top and he had to go back to the government monument and resurvey it again because they had buried that corner 1ton and it is the startlng locatlon for our property from the government monument. I think that thls is just ridiculous that we're unable to keep these people out of our property. I have put up a fence. A construction fence that was meant to be temporary. I have been cited by this clty that it didn't meet aesthetically wlth thelr values but it seems to be alright for them to come in, tear up our yard, cause us all this expense just to prove that we've been wrong and end up ina civll matter over thls. Thls is just ridiculous and I'm, the day that I went to take the fence out of the property and I had marked that fence 6 lnches lnslde our property 11ne just to keep them out and doing more damage and I had to go in and take it out because in 10 days I had 90 days in ia11 or a $700.00 flne or both, if I didn't comply. $o I complied. My van got stuck in that mud that's back there because of lmproper drainage. Now who's responsible? I have already talked to the new owners. They feel it's the builder. The builder wants to get out of it and make ita clty problem and that's I guess fine wlth me, lt's just a matter of okay, who's got the buck here people? I mean you know, do we allow people to come in and do thlngs in an area where we have plenty of land out here. I thlnk a 10 foot setback is ridiculous in the flrst place on the slde given the amount of land and lots that we usually bulld on here and the klnds of respect that we have. That means that if you allow them that easement to put in that egress, and I don't know, if you'd 11ks to turn that on agaln, I have a question for you. I'd like to know why they needed to come in on this egress. Excuse me. Here's the area where that wlndow well comlng lnto the property and I don't see it right now. How come lt's not on there? Oh, this is the one. Right here. Okay, it's in so that lt'~ wlthin 6 feet of our property 11ne. Now, what I was told was that that's pe~'fectly legal due to an interpretation of the rules and ordinances. That it falls under the same thlng as a chlmney or an overhang or some other such, you know somewhat temporary things. I think that's stretching ita bit when you consider it lsa piece of the foundation just 11ks it was the basement. It goes all the way down to the footing level of the basement and lt's a major part. And if you look, there's a pretty substantial back yard there that they could have put that in without going into that easement in the first place. Why did they do it, in that particular spot and then encroach that close on our property? And I guess the third thlng ls that I wouldn't mind so much except for the fact that they also chewed out 1,400 square feet of our property in the construction of this house and in that area where they built that plece and I'm real concerned rlght now because it ls improperly graded. 32 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 ImproperIy draining and it is draining on our property and I think that they want to get out of this and make it a city problem. I rest my case. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I don't want the problem for the City. I think, and maybe being we have our counselor here, I'd like to ask his opinion being we're paying him such a high salary. Roger Knutson: We're looking at one discreet issue on your agenda. That ls, do you need the easement or don't you need the easement. This issue is really apart from what the next door nelghbor has done to bls property. If engineering and planntng say you don't need the easement, then you don't need it. You don't have to glve it away. It's your property lnterest and you can say no, we're going...whether we need it or not. We own it and we can keep it. That's apart from the other problem. From what I've heard, keeping that easement will not solve the problems between the neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Is there anyone else at this tlme that would like to address this issue? This is a public hearing. If seeing none, I'll suggest we close the public hearing. Can I have a motion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. voted in favor and the mot/on carried. The publtc hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Being there's concerns here, as was indicated, that there's feet in hls property llne I think as you've indicated. Ruth Boylan: No, it's from. Mayor Chmiel: From? James Boylan: 6 feet from our property. That's not a problem. It's just the fact that I'm worried about who's got the respons£biltty for doing proper drainage there. There's other damage that is a civil manner and has llttle to do with the City Council. It will be addressed, believe me. But the problem here ls that there's also the dralnage problem and I don't want Legend Homes to feel that they can escape from a duty of proper drainage and dump it on the City. Mayor Chmiel: No, and I wouldn't even accept it from the City because I think it's the responsibility of that developer who's putting that project in to provide that klnd of elimination for you. James Boylan: Could I request that the City Attorney or somebody else from the City send us a letter stating that they feel that it ls Legend Homes' responsibility for the drainage problem so that we don't have the buck passed around here. Kate Aanenson: I spoke to him on the phone Friday and told him that speclflc issue. He had to solve that immediately and eng£neering confirmed that. Yes, with Legend Homes and the homeowner. ! called them both and your attorney and told them that. That they had to have that resolved. Immediately. 33 City Council Meeting ,- July 13, 1992 James Boytan: I would like something from the City please in writing that states that they will agree to that. Roger Knutson: letter. I don't know if they'll agree to it but we can urlte the James Boylan: Well, that it's not the City's problem because they're golng to come back and say, no, no. The City of Chanhassen, lt's their problem and it's going to get just. Councilman Wing: Right now they're on, excuse me. Did you open this up? Mayor Chmiel: No, but you've got it. Councilman Wing: I know my place. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I still have one, we're only vacating 5 feet. There will still be a 5 foot easement there? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: So in case we have any drainage or any other utilities [hat need to go there in the future, there will be room? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Are they going to rip rap that or you sald they're going to put grass on the retaining portion? Kate Aanenson: They're going to put a retaining wall and seed or sod. There's ilo seed or sod on the property either. That's part of the erosion problem. Councilman Workman: That is all we need to do? I mean is that all we can do? James Boylan: Are they going to remove the extra dirt that they put on our property? Mayor Chmiet: That again will be between you and them. Councilman Workman: Well you know, there's some people building a home right next to me and they took a couple of edges of my sod that I just lald and Z can understand where he's irritated if one tenth of what happened to his property happened because you get a 11ttle sick and tlred of the construction guys. see the construction guys ill the back there. James Boylan: Would you like to see the pictures? Councilman Workman: I'd love to. And so I know it's very frustrating and very irritating because they really don't take lnto account the fact that somebody's actually living in my home you know and they are using my power and water. But anyway, so I don'[ know that we can do anything other than to, as Kate has 34 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 already suggested to the builder. You didn't have a drainage problem there before. You shouldn't now. But does that hold any teeth? For anybody? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a litigation problem that has to take place. Councilman Workman: Does the City have to pursue the drainage problem from on Legend Home? Who does? Roger Knutson: I have not looked at this issue. We can look and see whether there are any Code's they're violating. Councilman Workman: Altering an easement? Mayor Chmiel: Kate, what'd you have to say? Kate Aanenson: Oh I just say as far as setbacks, there isn't any. I know that someone from Pubiic Safety has taiked to EIiiott, yes and he is aware of the probiem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Do you have any? Councilman Mason: No. If staff is okay with the vacation of it. And obviously there's another problem that needs to be dealt with here but we're dealing with this one particular situation. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Don, if this is an ongoing problem and I was out there probably several months ago and I saw where they came and rather handily mowed down, although this ls noninhabited, forested area which would be really easy to move into slightly. Nonetheless it was Mr. Boylan's property and by vacating thls we klnd of solve the problems for the owner and Legend Homes. I guess the teeth we do have is to table this for a couple weeks and have Roger and everyone else clarlfy lt. Maybe I'll go out and look at it and before we vacate it, being we're helping them out in the process of doing that, make sure they're helplng out the problem by their actlon. So I would move we table thls until the next agenda pending clarification of the situation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table the vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easement over that part of the ~est 5 feet of the east 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Country Oaks for 2 weeks until the City Council meeting dated 3uly 27, 1992 for further clarification. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 35 City Council Meeting -- July 13, 1992 NON-CONFORHING USE PERHIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR HINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Addres~ Fran Faber Morris Mullin John Merz Ralph Hegman Mary Jo Moore 3471 Shore Drive 3451 Shore Drive 3900 Lone Cedar 3311 Shore Drive Dartmouth Drive Kate Aanenson: Let me just clarify in case there's some ambiguity. This is Minnewashta Heights. I know the packet went out with the cover of Minnewashta Creek. Located on Lake Minneuashta...approximately 74 homes in this area. The beachlot does not meet the 200 feet of lake frontage requirement or the 30,000 square foot minimum area. It has 50 feet of frontage and is approximately 7,500 square feet in area. The staff did do a survey of this beachlot in 1981 and found that there was 6 boats at the dock, although there appeared to be a total of 14 slips. We're not really sure what that means. If there was space inbetueen or there appeared that there was rope at the dock. I'm not sure. Whoever did the inventory at that time just noted that there appeared to be 14 spaces. The dock at that time was 150 feet in length. In addition, the survey showed that there was 2 canoe racks with space for 12. It's questionable whether or not the dock, it fits within the setback zone. Myself, I've had engineering out there eyeballing it. It's questionable. It looks like it may be encroaching the dock setback zone so one of the recommendations in the next year that they comply with that and make sure that there's a 10 foot. In addition the swimming, since this beachlot is only 50 feet and they do have a significant width to the dock, the swimming each really is pretty narrow. I want to make sure that any swimming is not encroaching onto the neighboring property. The Planning Commission concurred and felt like the 14 boats that the Association was requesting was consistent what they felt was documented in '81. The Homeowners Association did supply documentation of their Minutes for the last several years and they had in that 17 names on that list. Mayor Chmiel: Can you clarify that? The last time they had that with their Association as to the date? Minutes or whatever they had to substantiate. Kate Aanenson: What these are? It's documentation showing how many boats were authorized for use in the different years. I think it goes back to 1979, '78. In that year 1981 they showed 17 names, although they're saying 14 people... they've got actual drawings of where those slips would be located. So basically the Planning commission concurred with what the Association was requesting. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to make a statement from the Association? Yes sir. Would you please state your name and your address please. Fran Faber: I'm Fran Faber at 3471 Shore Drive. It's the property immediately adjoining the recreational park. I just wanted to make a little bit of a statement concerning the background on this. I moved out here in 1963 and 36 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 immediately upon arriving out there I found out that 25 feet of my land, my lake space had been used for a recreational park. I also noted that Mr. Mullin's and Mr. Loeber', Mr. Lemke, Mr. Fowler and Z were members of a Minnewashta Heights Beach Committee and that we were responsible for the overseeing of the use of the land. I don't think the author of this particular statement of using 2S feet on each side giving us a total of 50 feet of lakeshore really envisioned how much the changes of the future were going to put pressure on the use of this particular area. There has been, at the beginning, the use of small boats. But as time has gone along, these boats have increased in size and have increased in number and have now sometimes included pontoon boats. Z think that as time went along we realized that the possibility of liability was going to be there and so we asked the Minneuashta Heights Homeowners Association if they wanted to take over on the overseeing of this particular property. After a mutual agreement, they decided to do this. $o nou the overseeing of this particular property is in the hands of the Minneuashta Heights Homeowners Association. I would like to just make a couple of observations because I have seen some things that I'm not pleased with it. First I have had children swimming in our area and the people have come out of the slips of this particular park area and have immediately proceeded to the west which immediately crosses our swimming area. And when small children are swimming out there and dive and keep themselves underwater some of the time, it's very easy for the boat to go by and a propeller to hit them. Luckily to date nothing has happened along this line but I'd like to certainly set up guidelines that will prevent this kind of a thing in the future. There's also some skiing done in this particular area and again, the same risk is present. I hope we can set some precedence in this particular decision that you people are making that will help to increase safety and increase the possible satisfaction to all the people involved. For myself, I'm perfectly willing and satisfied if the offsets on the property lines are maintained. I do not like to see these abused. Also, I think that most of the problems can be solved in a friendly, neighborly way with this Minneuashta Heights Beach Association. Bill Finlayson and I have over a period of time developed a friendship and I'm sure that we can work out. things that will meet with the mutual approval of all of us. I just wanted to make a comment that we've certainly enjoyed our stay in Minnewashta Heights. Our property. We like the setting and we hope that ue can make it safe so that when we sell our property, which is going to happen in the future, that they too will receive the benefits and enjoy it as much as we have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Morris Mullin: My name is Morris Mullin. I live at 3451 Shore Drive. I'm on the other side of the access in that area from Fran Faber. I moved there about 3 years after he did. Built a house there. Raised my children there. I concur fully Feally with everything that Fran has said. We, at the present time in my opinion, have the friendliest, hardest working, most agreeable people in that area that we've had in my experience there. I'm very pleased about that. I feel happy and comfortable there. We do have problems down at the beach but I feel that most of them we can resolve internally in our own family in the Heights area. Z hope that this can continue to be so. I'd like to thank B£11Finlayson and that group. They've worked very hard, especially this year in maintaining that property down there and things have gone extremely well. If ue can maintain this kind of a relationship in the area, ue should very seldom 37 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 have to come here and ask for your help. We appreciate your understanding and thanks for this opportunity to speak. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Morris. Is there anyone else? Joh~ Metz: My name is John Metz. I live at 3900 Lone Cedar. I'm not adjacent to the Minnewashta Heights landing at all but I do have a question for the Council as it relates to this issue. What it really relates to is the 1982 baseline. Planning Commission had voted to uphold the '82 baseline. This Council itself had voted to uphold the '82 baseline and it's to my understanding that it is the burden of proof, and I use that statement as has occurred here before. That the burden of proof as to the number of boats that should apply to these recreational beachlots is what is in fact existed at the time that the '82 ordinance vas enacted. This '82 ordinance, I remember being in these Council chambers when that vas enacted and it was virtually a war that went on here to enact that. We have a good ordinance. It's in place. It seems to be well founded and uell thought out but for some reason, when we come to the absolute adhering to the '82 baseline that we've ail supported, we seem to abandon these thoughts and I just, not personal because of Trolls Glen. That's a separate issue and I don't even like to mention it in here but in regards to Trolls Glen and in regards to all these issues on all the lakes, it vas repeatedly set out and con¢irmed by ail of us here that the '82 baseline vas going to be adhered to. And it seems to me, from what I've seen so far, we're not exactly adhering to our own recommendations and I really think that we should be more cautious in how we approach that. I mean the 'Sa baseline is the '82 baseline. It doesn't say how many were planned to be there. How many were there and the burden of proof belongs to the people that are applying in this permit process. I know you all know my position and I appreciate your time hearing me. Thank you very much. Ralph Hegman' Mr. Mayor and Councilpeople. My name is Ralph Hegman. I live on 3311 Shore Drive. We have lived in that house for 4 years. I have absolutely no quarrel with the Minnewashta Heights additional boat slips. I do also have a question however though on the baseline. When we moved in 4 years ago we chose Minneuashta as a lake to live on after looking at many different places. On Lake Minnetonka and other lakes in the area and ue chose Lake Minneuashta for a number of reasons but one of them was because it did not have a heavy, heavy lake useage. That's one of the things that does concern us is the, I have never come to one of these meetings before although I've had other notifications in the past couple of years about adding slips to various places around the lake. I guess my main concern is that if you have established a baseline, regardless of what the needs are, whether you have some developer coming in from the outside that wants to take up a lot that's 50 feet or 75 feet or 100 feet long, and nov rLLn out basically a marina for additional slips or if it's adding 1 or 2 boat slips, I think that the integrity of your initial baseline should be what's upheld. Again I think it's the safety and the number of boats should be a main concern and one of the main issues. Thank you ver,y much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Ralph. Anyone else? Mary Jo Moore: Good evening. Mary Jo Moore. I'm on Dartmouth Drive. Lake Minnewashta. I just have to state that the property, the adjacent proeprty owners in this case apparently have no objection to this the way it's been set 38 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 up. I think it's very unsafe. I think 14 boats in a 50 foot lot is almost unheard of. However I must again state that we have stick with our '82 baseline which was your predecessor's did a good study of it and I grew up on Lake Minnetonka. I saw that go from a very safe, fun lake to one that's just treacherous. I was there a couple weeks ago and it was not very much fun. I also lived at Lotus Lake for 10 years. I saw that go from a very nice lake to one way traffic. We did do the '82 for a reason and we had the saw, we had the foresight to stick to it and let's continue to do that. Thank you. Oh, I do have one question, if I may. Once this has been established, I'm really questioning the whole procedure here. On the Pleasant Acres I believe it was, was allowed 10 boats. Two weeks ago there were 1Z. This weekend there were i5. How do we control it? Kate Aanenson: What we decided to do is, because it's going to take a long time to get through all the non-conforming beachlots, that we said the ordinance, they had to be into compliance one year from the ordinance that we adopted. That they come into compliance which is February, I can't remember the exact date. I believe 24th, 1993. Because we figure the ones that we took through the process first, it wouldn't be fair to the ones that we're getting towards the end so basically this year we're trying to take them through the process but next year anybody that exceeds the permit number, call the City and we'll go out and cite them. Mary 30 Moore: So you're going to rely on the residents of the lake to report any overage? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mary Jo Moore: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Council. Michael. Councilman Mason: What John just was talking about really hit home and I got one of my occasional flashes of hopeful intelligence. And you know, it's too bad that lt's taken 9 years to revlslt thls and I thlnk that's the issue because so much happens in 9 years. Party A says this. Party B says that. I'm in the mlddle. You're over there. Someone's over there. And no one knows. Burden of proof. In this situation there were only 6, or what. 7 boats there but it was clear that there were moorings for more boats so you assumed they were out. You know how do we deal with that. I'm hoping that from now on people will be maklng periodlc checks and seelng that whoa, there are 2 more boats than are supposed to be there and I would be very surprised if there wasn't fairly immediate actlon. But I really thlnk one of the problems, I think the biggest problem in this whole thing is we're trying to figure out something that happened 9 years ago and we don't have, unfortunately very accurate records on it which is too bad because I think the lake has suffered because of it. However I think with this process in place now, hopefully that part of the lake suffering and that doesn't make it any fewer boats. I understand that. That is an aside. I was down at that beachlot today and it certainly is very well kept up. I'm very impressed. It is very small and it is very crowded and I too share the concerns of the adjoining neighbors about encroachment, although I was also very encouraged to hear both gentlemen think that it can be worked out. I 39 City Council Meeting -.July 13, 1992 hope so. Z can certainly see wlth boats golng in and out of there, how it would be extremely dangerous for kids swlmmlng on elther slde there. I'm not quite sure how we can address that but I certainly hope we do before we approve thls. Because it's small. It's very well kept up. Don't get me wrong. Obviously people care about what's going on on that beachlot but lt's very small. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I was there yesterday and looked at that with Councilman Wing. And you're right, maintenance is done real well but itls narrow. Thomas. Councilman Workman: There appears to be, am I hearing correctly an encroachment on the setback of another parties next door from this? Mayor Chmiel: Basically I think what they're saying is the boats that are out there are within that 10 foot from the property line over. As you take a site 11ne and look out to the lake. Councilman Workman: Had the Planning Commission addressed that or are we addressing that? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: What I sald ls that it appears to be mtnimal. It may be over but they will have to rectify that. But agaln thls goes back to they have to come into compliance by next summer. You know it sounds 11ke they're going to try to work something out for the rest of this year. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just interject something Tom. I tried to clarify it with you. The fence that's up there, I stepped off 10 feet and then looked directly out to the lake and it appears as though there ls that encroachment of that 10 feet. Councilman Workman: Not only...? Mayor Chmiel: Right. There's also an additional piece of dockage out there that Z don't thlnk should be there. On the boats on the far outslde. Those that are facing in with the canoples there. I don't think that should be an extension of that particular dock elther but that maybe we can dlscuss too. Councilman Workman: Well you know, along with Mr. Metz you know...and the or '82 basellne and have we, I guess does the Councll feel satisfied that the Planning Commission has stated that 14 is what they had because of what it looked 11ke they had dockage for? Correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Workman: Which isn't an exact science. Although they show boat slip assignments, etc.. Z mean it's such a hard and difficult thing at this point for a Counc11 to have to try and make a declsion on on records kept by a homeowners associations of how many boats. So you try and take a stance on what apparently was the baseline, and I understand the work the prevlous Councll dld but how do you prove other than thelr own and guesslng and using aerial photographs or other, that say that lt's something different. How do you do 4O City Council Nesting - 3uly 13, 1992 that? How do you penalize those other people? I mean I think we care and understand, I think we do, that we want to preserve the lake. We've had to fret over this thing and we're going to have to continue to do so on all these lakes. It's a very, very tricky business without trying to take away from somebody what they're used to having you know, if in fact they've had it. You know what I mean? It's kind of, so it's very difficult situation. I don't want to, Ursula's smiling at me. You like to see me squirm, but it's so difficult because you can't, how can you make a decision because it is difficult. Other than saying well, we think you have too many boats there so now we're going to choose ?. How do you do that? And so that changes the values of properties lnside the homeowners association and that's a whole other argument. $o I guess I don't in this situation have anything to go on other than what staff and what Plannlng Commission has declded. I don't know how else to make a decision. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rlchard. Councilman Wing: There's some pluses here. The first one is that Mr. Finlayson has been commented tonight as doing a good job trying to work together with the neighbors. I thlnk that's in everybody's best interest. I thlnk both neighbors have suggested that as long as the city will put into effect here and enforce the dock setback zones, that that not only protects the neighbors but 1n-fact I think as Mr. Faber mentioned, satisfied his concern and gave him if you will breathing room from infringement and then with the boat traffic getttng out to the west or whatever direction it goes. In fact has a way to get out to the lake without infringing directly onto the neighboring property. $o I thlnk there are concerns for that but our only question tonight and the only question we're addressing isn't safety or the position of the dock or anythlng else. I mean they've gone from several small fishing boats to a11 20 foot boats. From no boat 11frs to a lot of boat lifts and so have I. You know everything's grown. We've all expanded. We've gotten bigger boats and going further so those are moot polnts. It's just unfortunate. The questlon is actual use. Now on the '81 and the '82 sketches, actually in '81 they don't have a sketch. In '82 they show three 11nes of boats which is what they're attempting to do now. The three lines of boats is what's caused the trouble in the past is that third 11ne has in fact infringed on neighboring properties but we still come down to actual use. What were the actual number of boats and Kate has suggested, our survey said G, ?, 8 or 9. Well I've 11red there for 27 years and I know for a fact that it wasn't G boats. No question that that's not an accurate number so scratch that one. $o then do we assume that this sketch they showed me from '82 is accurate where it says 187 Well it just happens for 1981 and 1982, Bert Ackerman flew over and took aerlal photographs of the whole area and we have a picture of what it looks like. So you go down and there's only 6 boats parked there in the photograph but anybody wlth any brains can see that there's a slip, a slip, a slip, a slip, a slip and so if you count the sltps, which is in fact where the boats were, I came up wlth 12. It could have easily been 13. I can't dispute it. They clearly didn't have 18 but I do see in the photograph they had between 12 and 13 boats in two lines. And it's, so whether it's 1, 2 or 3 lines, again that isn't the problem so I see that the boat issue here is kind of moot. Very little to be discussed. I think Plannlng Commission dld the best they could and all I would ask is that as a part of this permit, whatever number the Counc11 elects to go with, that the dock setback zone ordinance and section be referenced in the permit so that subsequent officers from Minnewashta Heights City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 recognize that this is a restriction and a city ordinance that has to be complied with. I don't see that they're going to have any trouble with it. Councilman Workman: Well Richard then aren't you really saying that our so called '82 baseline has a heck of a lot of holes in it? Councilman Wing: Not all of them. This one. This one is not as accurate as it could be. Absolutely. We've debated that all along. On the other hand, some of the other ones are more clearcut. There vas a better count or more accurate count. We could blow this picture up but I'm just telling you, we could honestly, there's a boat here. A boat here. A boat here. Obviously there were boats next to it so if we go out, we've got a total of 12 boats that I can see easily for 1982. Now that doesn't reflect on, are we counting the summer of '82 or summer of '817 Kate Aanenson: '81. Councilman Wing: '81. So I don't know what the argument is. I think they are interested in pollcing themselves and I was happy to hear the neighbors relatively comfortable wlth compliance and I thlnk that's a real important issue. And unfortunately we all know that 14 boats, there's marina's on Lake Mlnnetonka that would k111 to have that denslty. We're really getting up there but on the other hand, the '82 ordinance was agreed to protect the existing boats and if there were 11, 12, 13, 14 boats there, we agreed as part of this compromise to that ordinance, to protect what existed. So as much as I'd like to see fewer boats, I can't. Councilman Workman: And maybe you can answer a philosophical question because here I am a non, Z didn't have an opportunity to spend the nice evening on Lotus the other nlght. I don't own a boat and I don't 1lye on a lake. Here I am a cornfield dweller and I'm charged with preserving and protecting for the homeowners of Lake Hlnnewashta and Lotus, thelr lake but I get the sneaklng suspicion they don't, they only care beyond their own dock themselves. You know what I mean? I mean I'm charged wlth it and I'm left at, thls ls maybe what I was trying to get at. I'm left with feeling comfortable and guilty for trying to plck a polnt in hlstory where we can say okay, thls is what you had. Right or wrong. Too many or not enough. But everybody seems to be pointing at the other guy and they've all got huge boats. What do you call them? A speed whatever, rippers? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Councilman Workman: You know, as a whole nobody cares about the lake. Individually they all care about the lake but lt's reflecting wlth the home. councilman Wing: I think it's frustrating with the lake owners because they control 1,400 feet of lakeshore and have 14 boats on it and then 50 feet comes along and that 50 feet has 14 boats. That's not right but that's the reason the '82 ordinance was effected. They recognized that thls was going to become the norm and the way of life and it wouldn't work. There are very few like Minnewashta Helghts. We had what, 60 homes back in '81. Almost 70 homes in vlrtue have been built and they all puddle down there and they all, it was just a hlgh intensity use and it was one of the flrst ones in the city. And City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Minnewashta Heights is probably one of them that prompted the alert that this ordinance was needed. Nonetheless, those boats were there as I see it and under thls ordinance are protected whether we 11ke it or not. All we ask is that they stay off the neighbors properties and stay on their own property and that's why that dock setback zone exlsts. That's been there all along and Z think they have violated and that's why Mr. Faber was here tonight to point out that that has been an lssue. If they w111 go along wlth that, Mr. Faber has no complaints. Mr. Mullin has no complaints. I'm going to have a complaint? I don't 1lye next to them. And I don't see, if there's anybody here that can prove to me that they had less than 14 boats, good. They've kind of showed me that they had 14 and I hate to admit It but that picture suggests they did too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to clear up one thing. When Mr. Wing says they, you're not a part of that association? Councilman Wing: I'm part of Minnewashta Heights but not part of the beach. Councilwoman Oimler: Because I have to say something and this is my opportunity. Guess what? When Sunrlse Hills came up, I wasn't allowed to discuss it because of conflict of Interest. You remember that? Councilman Wing: Well I didn't have an opinion and I'm not. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm Just kidding. Councilman Wing: I'm not trying to set a precedent here at a11. I thought if either staying out of this or addressing it from the podium until I realize there are no lssues. The actual use is the only question. Councilwoman Oimler: But I do get a kick out of you. You said anyone with a brain could see that there were 14 slips and yet the boats, it shows only 6 boats. Well my parking lot issue was that exact same thing. We had plenty of space for more and yet there were only 12 cars down there at one time so that's what we were allowed to have. Can we change that now? Councilman Wing: Well I'm surely pleased I was able to feed the fire. Councilwoman Oimler: Just a little personal thing there. I guess we are talklng about lg81. I keep hearlng '82. Kate Aanenson: '82 is when the ordinance became effective in January so we have to look at the level of use the summer before. Councilwoman Dimler: At '81, okay? Alright. Looking at all this, I have the same concerns that everybody else has but I can't prove that there weren't 14 there. I can't prove there were 6 there. It's really difficult for us to make that decision. I really thlnk that again Plannlng Commission dld a good job discussing it and seems to be in agreement so I would go along with the recommendation. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: I guess it'd be repetitious for me to say anything more but often times when people go and buy property adjacent to lake, it always seems like not all realtors, some realtors, really try to sell the issue on what you can do on that particular lake. And by buying a home you're able to put a boat on that lake. Until they start really understanding what it is and it isn't that way. I think I mentioned this before on one of the others. I think when we originally started these lots, they were designed purely I think for recreational lots. That is swimming for the people who have the utilization of that lot and the accessibility to the lake. And this is just my own thoughts. But they probably didn't even include boats or thoughts of that into it. I think that by looking at what the Planning Commission has gone through, I sort of concur with it. I have some concerns with the setback of the 10 feet with that site line. I have a little concern with the additional dockage which extends beyond from where it's at and I don't know if that's a violation but I think that should be looked at. But that 10 foot setback I think is something that ue have to really closely watch. As I said, when I looked at that yesterday, there was some encroachment that I feel is in there already with that third row of boats that are sitting there. $o with that I guess. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to make one more general comment in regards to what was brought up about how we're going to police this. I guess I think it's okay to have people call but I hate to leave it totally in that situation where a nelghbor has to snitch upon neighbor. What I'd like to see is that we do a surprlse check at least once a year. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think we could check them all once but what I'm saying is, 11ke we can make sure that the rlght length of dock ls out there but I'm saylng, everyday we can't go out and check. If someone notices that there's additional. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Right. Yeah. $o you're going to do a yearly check? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Wing: Don, could I just make a general comment? This pertains to all of these. The ones we're working on, whether it's Riley or Minnewashta or Lotus, the ordinance we presently have doesn't allow any dock or any boat on a recreational beachlots such as this so I think it really behooves these people, Mlnnewashta Helghts, Pleasant Acres or whatever group, Sunrise Hllls, not to abuse the intent of helping protect back in 1981 and '82. I think that there was a real compromise made. The lake people cut down boats. Accesses were closed. Numbers of boats were split between lake and non-lake. Then we start intensifying and in the case of Mr. Faber, maybe infringing, they're really abusing the intent of that ordinance and the protectiveness of that ordinance. So I would just ask that all of these respect that posltlon and stay wlthln their own bounds. I certainly expect Mr. Faber and Mr. Mullin to stay on their own property and 11kewlse with the Helghts and agaln, I thlnk Mr. Flnlayson has done an excellent job...supportive. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'd like a motion. Councilman Wing: In good faith I will be happy to abstain. 44 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: That's two no votes right there. Councilman Wing: [ guess I am bias enough on this issue that l, although support your decision as I believe it's coming out so just for the record. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion from the floor? Councilman Workman: I would approve Minnewashta Heights non-conforming recreational beachlot I guess per Planning Commission recommendation... Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: That includes the buoys for the beachlot to make that more safe rlght? They were not there but we're recommending that they be put in. Kate Aanenson: Buoys? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the question is whether or not, if there are certain width of a beachlot before you can put them in. We thought that would help delineate the property lines to make sure that there's no encroachment. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just get a clarification. I should have asked the questlon before but I dldn't. Wlth those total numbers of boats and the canoe rack that's located there, there are 4 canoes that were housed in the, what do you call that? A skateboard, one of those wind sails appeared as though was on there. In that, and by what I had seen here, they show that there are two canoe racks consisting of those 4 additional and that's all part of the recommendation by the Planning Commission. Councilman Workman: Do we need to include also the setback? Mayor Chmiel: I think that setback portion should be. Councilman Workman: That they must. Kate Aanenson: We're putting that in the letter to all of them but if you want to add that again, that's great. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to add it for emphasis and I mean that is another ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. Okay, motions on the floor with clarification and second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Mtnnewashta Heights Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with one dock 150 feet in length, with emphasis on staying within the dock setback zone, two canoe racks, 14 boats docked, swimming beach with marker buoys if they will enhance the safety of the swimming beach, and a swimming raft. All voted in favor except Councilman Ming who abstained and the motion carried. 45 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AHEND THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, CONCERNING ALLOWED U~E IN TBE BH, HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, very briefly. The ordinance is a little confusing on the point of what exactly is allowed in terms of auto related uses in the BH district. Under one definition they're allowed as principle uses and there's another definition, a little bit different, worded differently, they're allowed as conditional uses. Frankly I think the City's in a somewhat better position to have them all grouped as conditional uses. It gives you a little bit of an extra measure of control over those kinds of things. Therefore we had the amendment drafted that basically did that. It eliminated it as a permitted use and listed it as a conditional. Fairly straight forward and we're recommending that you approve it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only thing I'd like to see added to the recommendation is that this should be listed under then the conditional use and it doesn't really specify. Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah I do, is the property owner losing any rights here by doing this? Mayor Chmiel: No. Paul Krauss: Well, these things are still allowed. Instead of as of right, as a conditional right. I guess I'd defer to Roger to explain the nuances inbetween but the conditional use permit does give you those added review criteria and a little bit of extra leverage to get a project to meet tile city's goals. Councilwoman Dimler: So they can still do the project but with our input more? Paul Krauss: And hopefully a little more input than you would have had before. Mayor Chmiel: Right. This gives you an opportunity to put additional conditions contained on there that you didn't have the ability to do prior tO that time when it was a permitted use. Okay, call a question. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20, Section 20-712 eliminating auto service centers as a permitted use in the BH, Business Highway District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: You mean no discussion? Mayor Chmiel: No. 46 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITy STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF LAKE LUDy ROAD BETWEEN GALPIN BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD liT) AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 41~ PRO3[CT 92-12. public Present: Nale John Waldron Merle Steinkraus A~ldress 1900 Lake Lucy Road 1800 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Chmiel: This is sort of a cut and dry thing. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, I move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Charles? Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The westerly terminus of Lake Lucy Road is currently at County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard. Future extension of thls road out to Trunk Hlghway 41 was a transportation element specifically identified on the comprehensive plan. Ideally we would prefer to see development of thls road proceed from an east to west fashion in order to maintain continuity and avoid deadheading a project by properties but the City has recently been contacted by two property owners located just east of TH 41 and would fall somewhere close to the west end of the alignment who intend to develop thelr property. Thls places the Clty in a posltion of havlng to choose whether to proactively plan for this road alignment or reactively respond as each development proposal comes ln. Proaotlve plannlng is preferred in this particular case as the future Lake Lucy Road will function as an urban collector road and topography and environmental features will play an important factor in determining it's appropriate alignment. It is staff's recommendation to officially map the entlre segment of Lake Lucy Road from TH 41 to CR 17 and conduct a formal feasibility study for the westerly quarter mile of improvements whlch w111 serve these two developments. It ls anticipated that the cost for this study uill be recovered over a number of years as abutting properties develop and construction projects take place. It ls therefore recommended that the mapping and study as specified be authorized and that the consulting engineering flrm of W1111am R. Engelhardt and Associates be asslgned as the project engineer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: This is part of our comprehensive plan £sn't it? That was always in there? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, not that I have any objections with Bill getting this particular job but here again, although he may have the time to be ~ble to do lt, do we ever look at puttlng these kinds of thlngs out for blds to have people come in, as we've discussed before? 47 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Charles Folch: AS we talked about earlier, on larger specific type, specialty projects such as the Swamp Program and the HUSA expansion, we did. For these general municipal type projects, it works real us11 for our department to work with, well right now it's probably 5 to 6 consultants that ue work with on a regular basis. Assign these projects out accordingly. When I assign these projects out Z basically try to evaluate a number of factors with the consulting firm. One, their current work load with the City. Two, their ability to perform the project. Three, have they done similar projects such as these in the city and how well have they performed. The ones I've worked with I'm real happy with. Z'm real satisfied. They know the city's system. They know what Z expect of them. Oftentimes they make my job easier because they cover bases and Z don't need to basically lead them by the hand aZ1 the time. I think it works much better than, and I think us're getting good products from them. Z would be real leery about putting these out for RFP's knowing that, well not knowing who we would get in that would come in as the low bidder on a project. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess I'd just like to ask you those specific questions to justify them. I know really I guess what the answers are but I want to be sure that the general public sometimes sits back and questions these and has indicated some of those concerns to me from time to time. Why is it that we always use the same ones? Why don't you have it on a rotating basis? Having a number of select ones that you feel comfortable with. But those are some of the questions that have been brought up to me and I guess I have those concerns to ask that question. Is there any other discussion? John Waldron: Can I make a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Please be my guest. Please state your name and your address. John Waldron: Good evening. John Waldron, 1900 Lake Lucy Road. I'd just like to have entered into the record as you're plannlng for thls extension of Lake Lucy Road, that I thlnk we've brought up before about our blke path that's not really a bike path. Our kids'aren't too safe so when you're golng thls extension, could you have some plannlng made for a blke path that's not right on the road? ApprecLate it. Mayor Chmiel: tf the dollars are there, we'll be more than happy to. Anyone else? Any other discussion? Councilnlan Workman: Z had one 11ttle question. Zt dldn't seem to me too long ago that Z asked the question. It seemed to me at the very end of Lake Lucy Road now at Galpln we kind of dld some upgrading of a water pump there and lt's 11ke rlght in the mlddle of the road. Where the road will go. And I asked why don't we move that or get it out of the way because you know our road's going to go there. Can anybody really... Mayor Chmlel: The sewage llft lsn't lt? Councilman Workman: Is it sewage? Charles Folch: Actually water booster station is what it is. 48 City Council Meeting - July 13. 1992 Councilman Workman: It seems to me we put an awful lot of money into that. That's going to have to be moved and maybe we can figure out what, weII I guess it's money down the pit but did it make sense for us to upgrade that at that time or did it faii and we reconstructed it? Charles Folch: Well to be honest, I don't have the history of it. Councilman Workman: Maybe find that out for me personally anyway. I guess I was told at the tlme, and maybe it was Gary Warren who said. Councilwoman Dimler: It was part of a well improvement. Councilman Workman: The road wasn't coming through until the year 2010. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a, any other discussion? Can I have a motion for the preparation for the feasibility study? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Resolution ~t92-80: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded that the official mapptng of the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) and Trunk Highway 41 and the preparation*of a feasibility study for the road /mprovement project of approx/mately the westerIy quarter m/Ie of this segment be author/zed, Project No. 92-12, and that the consuIting engineer/ng firm of W/II/am R. Engelhardt and Associates be assigned as the eng/neer on the project. AII voted in favor and the mot/on carried'unanimously. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEZ P. ERCE RO~D EXT..EN$ION, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PRO3ECT 92-6. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Attached you have the feasibility report for this proposed road aIignment. -Two optlons are presented. The flrst proposed ls to construct Nez Perce as a thru street out to Pleasant View Road wlth the realignment of Peaceful Lane connecting into this new segment as a T intersection. Thls option would provlde more of a continuous north/south movement on Nez Perce between Pleasant View Road and Lake Lucy Road. The second option proposed ls to connect Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane at a T intersection and then upgrade the existing Peaceful Lane between that location point north to Pleasant Vlew Road. Both proposals will construct the roadway up to the Clty's current urban standard roadway section. The feasibility study presents some, at this point known advantages and disadvantages of each alternative which hopefully will aid you in deciding along with staff whfch is the appropriate alignment to choose. At thls point, all we're asking tonight ls for the Council to formally receive the report and call for a public heartng to be held at your regular meeting on August 10, lgg2 at which time our project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of this feasibiiity report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I looked at this and there's some discussion that we had this last time with Mr. Owens where we should proceed with condemnation of that roadway. And I can't see us spendlng money on condemnation for that untll Mr. Owens really starts deveIoping his property. I can't see us throwing money down 49 City Council Heetin9 - 3uly 13, 1992 and away because eventually he will plat that particular property and in no way do Z feel we should spend those additional dollars unless someone else is going to pick up those costs. Charles Folch: Yeah, at this point it's not staff's recommendation to proceed with a formal improvement project. We again want to proactively protect the appropriate alignment of that roadway by officially mapplng lt. I'm not up to speed oil the current situation of the Owens property which was in I believe in bankruptcy but if the appropriate time would come about where we may be forced into condemnation, we certainly would want clear justification before we'd recommend that to you. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor too when ue reviewed the last plat, who's name escapes me. Troendle Addition. You might recall that we had the folks on Lake Lucy Road that were concerned that as traffic levels build, at some polnt they wanted to be able to trip something and we agreed that we would raise the issue again I think in 12 months or 18 months. I'm not, you know clearly the construction hasn't begun there in earnest and I'm not aware of any problems at this time but again thls puts us in the driver's seat to respond. Mayor' Chmiel: Okay, good. Zs there arly other discussion? Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Resolution ~92-81: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to receive the feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Road, Project 92-6 and to call a public hearing for Monday, August 10, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE SIGNAL JUSTIFICATION REPOR~ FOR WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTIONS AT GREAT PLAINS BOULEUARD AND MARKET BOULEUARD, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT NO. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant engineer, Mr. Dennls Eyler of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch ls present tonight to glve you a presentation on the updated signal justification report. (Oennls Eyler was not speaklng dlrectly lnto a microphone and therefore portlons of his presentation were not plcked up on tape.) Dennis Eyler: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Last time I was here the slgnal justification report...tabled and there were speciflc questions that were asked by the Councll that nlght. Those questions concerned the tlmlng and the need for traffic control at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and 78th Street. And also the need for trafflc slgnals at Market Blvd. and 78th Street. Some of the questJ, ons and concerns were on tile operation of the intersections today and...lmpact of commercial development along 78th Street, particularly Market Square. And there uas also discussion concerning the detour of TH 101 due to the reconstructln of Dakota Avenue. At that time there was still hope to get the work done in the fall so there was kind of a sense of urgency... Another questlon was, what happens after that project ls done and 5O City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 the dust clears and Market Square is fully developed? There will be increased traffic from Market Square but based on a license plate study that we had done before...due to the reconstruction of TH 101. We also took a look at the cost of operating the intersections... Operating costs of the vehicles... construction and maintenance cost of traffic...other impacts associated with the operation of the intersection. And then we looked ahead to what happens when the Target store's developed and within that timeframe since we were here last, apparently the site is starting to look like...and we also took a look ahead... plans for the 3ames property and the Burdick property and compared that to an earlier traffic study we did back in 1990. See if there had been any changes. At that time we did... So with that, what we did, I'm not sure. Bid you all have a chance to read the handout? Basically ue went through, not 3ust one analysis. It's graphical solutions that kind of show those. This being 78th and Great Plains. The existing volume today is slightly over the line for 3ustification for signals and I'm sure...and your question about what happens after TH 101 is rerouted is certainly pertinent. Traffic will go down. During the detour the volume will jump up significantly and then after Target opens by late 1993 or 94, the longest... We took a look at user cost because being this is a T intersection, there are less conflicts than the graphical solution... So we took a look at the cost standpoint. In today's operation is really kind of on the line to get back with the cost of the traffic signals to what's the cheapest, overall operation of the intersection. These costs are based on approximately 4 seconds per vehicle for stopping costs and delay is figured on an hourly basis at $6.00 an hour. Those are typical costs we use in engineering studies and they're generated by the... Traffic signal would cost approximately $70,000.00 and $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 a year to operate the machine... So right now today...that was very, kind of an astute observation that you made when I was here last time I had reason to ask those questions. After we looked at the detour, the additional traffic that caused the detour...not work real well with the existing stop... There'd be no way to pass that traffic through the existing stop signs. We did look at all way stops and we looked at a temporary signal being in in 3 months. The temporary signals...would be the cheapest solution. We also looked at ahead to 1993 and again, because the...but going ahead in 1994 with Target... Went down to Market Blvd. and...with the opening of Market Square and full development with really right on the line, and with the...of Target by '94, it clearly is in the zone to 3verify a traffic signal... We didn't do a whole economic study now. We also prepared graphics that show a change from our earlier forecast. I guess the most significant thing there was, the most significant changes were that the earlier study was done with the access to the development on the southeast corner of Kerber and now with the possibility of two intersections between Kerber and Powers, the volumes on that south leg have been dropped and the volume on the west leg... The most significant impact on 78th Street was that earlier when we felt that 78th Street would either have to have two thru lanes in each direction or left turn lanes... west through Market with the transition taking place between Market and Laredo down to one thru lane. Now with the, kind of the crystalization of what's going to happen out here on these two parcels, that first graphic is...to the point where, and again this whole development and it's anybody's guess as to what the timeframe is but at that point we'd probably need to have two thru lanes all the way down 78th Street. The turning volume there since...But again that's out of the whole buildout on the horizon...but from a pure and graphic standpoint, these intersections will be approaching...level service D or below with one thru lane by the time of this whole buildout... 51 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Workman~ How soon can ue get a signal in there if we ordered it tonight? Dennls Eyler: If you were to put in a temporary...but if you were to try to get one in as soon as possible, a temporary could probably go in if we could ldentlfy where to put one...and I'm not sure what your lettlng ~chedule$ are but realistically 3 months would be the soonest you could get one. Councilman Workman: Temporary? How about permanent? Dennis Eyler: A permanent, probably 6 months. Yeah it would be quicker. It depends on the manufacturers and where they are in thelr cycle. The principle pole manufacturer for traffic slgna].s...they make about three different types and they set their dles and they run a particular dle for a particular tlme and then switch over. So if you hit it wrong, you're looking at 4 or 5 months for poles. If you hit it right, you could get them in 2 months. Councilman Workman: It would seem to me that on TH 5 it took, at Rosemount it took them a year to get Dennis Eyler: Now it depends on your approval process you're going through. If you're through State Aid, and I'm not sure what the City's, Charles' plan is on...but if you do go the State Ald route, then you have to go through MnDot approval and revlew process. For State Aid only projects, that can... Councilman Workman: Is the Great Plains intersection be a State Highway7 Dennls Eyler: Great Plalns and 78th? That wouZd be County State Aid and it would be. No, Great Plains? Yeah, you're rlght. I'm not sure what the status is on the turnback. Part of the negotiation for rerouting TH 101 onto TH 5. Councilman Workman: 19987 Dennls Eyler: Well, I'm sure MnDot wants to get off of ?8th Street... As a matter of fact, I checked with the right-of-way sectlon. Thelr records don't lndlcate that they ever reconveyed the old right-of-way where the Town Hall was relocated. Apparently they st111 own the land under that building. Their records never dld take over the intersection. I don't know if that's just paperwork slow to follow so there might be a questlon of who owns the intersection today? Whether they actually have any ownership in lt...because it is a trunk highway... Typically their lead time for a signal project, by the time the plans are turned in to the time you can let it, runs about 3 months. So if it took us a month to get the plans over to them and 3 months to review them, that's 4 months and possibly another 4 months... So you'd be looking at next spring. Ideally to get the underground this [a11... The other question ue took a look at...and I saw Don's memo to the Council. Councilman Mason: I was going to ask, what your opinion is on this 1oatter Mr. Ashuorth. Oennls Eyler: ~ dld bring along an example of the kind of graphical example of what signal coordination can work in this manner. Thls is the standard one way slgnal progression with everybody's drlven on a one way street with the slgnals City Council Meeting - July go bang, bang, bang down the line and what the slope of this line represents is the speed. So if you wanted to go in on a one way roadway to control the speed, this particular one is kind of dark. It's set for 25 mph. The steeper this line goes, the slower the speeds are. Now what's wrong with this picture is, if this is a one way street, it's fine but if you're trying to go in this direction, down the street this way, you hit green here or red, green, red, green, red, green and so on. That's why we had them... Anybody can draw a line. Sometimes there are hand solutions for these too. If it appears that... by hand 10-15 years ago. This is a two way solution. This happens to be in Moorhead, or how a through band can be maintained in both directions. Up and down the street. Again, these speeds can be controlled at 25-30 mph or whatever. Again, it's the block spacing has a lot to do with that... Sometimes to control speeds you may have to impose a stop every 3 intersections and a stop. It doesn't always work out... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions? Councilman Wing: What, Market Boulevard is the first one? I guess the one that I effect the most is Laredo which to me seems to be passed over. In your priority, where do you see the signs going in order of 1 thru 4? Dennis Eyler: I believe one of our earlier memos we had, I think we had Kerber before Laredo. Councilman Wing: Market was the first one? Dennis Eyler: Well, 78th and Great Plains was first and Market was second. Councilman Wing: Market must have been first. Dennis Eyler: Yeah, Market was ahead of Kerber. I understand what your concerns are a little bit... Councilman Wing: That's where I've gotten the most complaints. Dennis Eyier: I don't know if having a signal at Market, there are some streets in here that's possible to get... If problems continue at Kerber, they can use... Councilman Wing: If there's stop signs east and west of Laredo, considering how narrow those roads are, if a stop sign stopped traffic either east or west of that intersection, is the Fire Department going to get out and be able to go east or west on West 78th Street? The space curb to curb has been really marginal. More than once we've not been able to go around traffic. Dennis Eyler: Yeah, that's a concern. We really don't have room for a fire truck to pass stopped vehicles. Don mentioned... Councilman Wing: That would stop traffic. I want to know about traffic that's on there and stops. That system doesn't move them out of our way. It stops them. 53 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Dennis Eyler: Well if you're coming up behind a standing string of vehicles, it turns the light green and clears the trafflc out in front of the approaching flre truck. So if the flre truck was comlng down 78th and they came into an lnteresection with backed up trafflc, it would turn the light green for the direction that flre truck's going so presumably the trafflc would get out ahead of it. Councilman Wlng: State law says, pull over and stop. Dennis Eyler: Pull over and stop but with a 60 foot road that isn't a problem. MnDot's current standard for a curb to curb... Councilman Wlng: Well Scott, I think before this goes any further, that's got to be addressed because rlght now trafflc just sort of keeps movlng on and they sort of just move on but when you start stopping trafFlc, the Fire Department's golng to have to flnd alternate routes. It's my suggestion or my opinion that in the majorlty of our trucks, there wlll be no emergency fire vehicles going east or west. They slmply won't be able to get through. We're effectively going to block off that road and those narrow sections. I think lt's that severe. I don't thlnk I'm exaggerating. In the case of the aerlal truck, without any doubt impassable. There's not even a chance of them being on that road. Dennls Eyler: Yeah, Z've looked at all the alternate flre routes and...thls project to build a turn lane along...right turn lane into Market Square and a rlght turn lane at Market Blvd... That block, at least the fire trucks can do that one block. Councilman Workman: I thlnk that's flxable. I don't know, Don's memo talked about 4 different intersections. I thought the rest of the memo talked about just two of them at this polnt. Mayor Chmiel: Saying Market and Great Plains Boulevards. Councilman Workman: I know that Kevln HcShane's here and he probably wants to address it a little bit too. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: I would like to throw in my pltch. It's golng to be cheaper. Flrst of a11, you're going to end up at some point signalizing all of them. From a trafflc needs standpoint, Market ls first. Kerber, if we just do Market and Great Plains, you're still going to have the problem on Kerber. From a fire standpoint, you need to do Laredo. You end up literally dolng all of them. Why not do them now? Take care of the pedestrian issue. I thlnk that the lssue as to whether or not certaln segments need to be wldened can be studled if that's what the Council so desired. But I thlnk it's critlcal that, at a mlnimum, 2 signals, and agaln I would prefer the 4, get in before TH 101 gets shut down this next spring because you'll be openlng the new grocery store. Shut down TH 101. You'll see the same thlng that happened here on Market Blvd. from earlier this year when TH 5 was closed down. It was a mess. And with a 3 or 6 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 month delay on signals, it's very difficult to wait. You've got to be ahead of these decisions. Councilman Mason: I agree. Assuming that it is going to happen, we might as well do it right and do it as cheap as we can. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with that. Some of the concerns that I see here, I'd like us to somehow to emphasize that crosswalks, pedestrians have that right-of-way to get across there. Z thlnk we're going to have to do that with some kind of markings, number one. Number two, I really want us to get our little digltal miles per hour recorder on that street on a dally basis starting at 7:30 in the morning and running that probably until 8:30 or g:O0. And 11ke to see it on that street from 4:30 untll maybe 6:30. I'd really 11ke to see it on a daily basis only because God only knows the way they go through that downtown. It just frustrates me to just watch that. And being that we have a mechanism that ue can start making people aware of, I think we'd better put it to use. The sooner the better because I don't want to see us wrlting tlckets. I don't llke to see that done but if it's got to be, then it's got to be. The other day I was going 30 and I was going east on 78th and I was just about to Market Blvd. and the car that was behind me was a good block and a half and he had to be going 45 or 50 by the tlme he caught up and I kept it right at 30. And it just scares the 1lying bejohn out of me to know there are people walking up and down that street. This ls just not happening in any specific hour. It's all the time. It's constant. So we've got to start doing more protective lssues for our people. If it gets to that point of having to write tickets, then we're going to have to do it. If that's going to be the name of the game. I don't 11ke to see it. I don't want to do tt but lt's the only way to start slowing people down. It's the same way going into Excelsior. Councilman Workman: I've never yet seen an officer wrlting a ticket on that road. Councilwoman Dimler: Excelsior? Mayor Chmiel: No, ?8th now. Councilman Workman: Well you know, I used to be concerned about what signals would do to downtown in a negattve way. I no longer think that way. I think 50 mph easily is going on down there and every day I'm at the post offlce. It seems like I'm there at 4:30 or 5:00 every, I shouldn't be but I'm there just to be in the mlddle of it because there are frustrated people down there. Screeching rubber. Threatening lives. It cannot be doing anything good for the downtown buslness community, climate or other. And whether Target comes or not and whether TH 101 moves out there or not, to me it is not going to make a hill of beans in the future. This is going to be a problem here on out and I never thought I'd hear myself say that if we need four, we need four. Excuse my condemnation of our forefathers but the declslon has not been planned real well in that our roads end at West 78th. Kerber, Laredo and everything else and so there's no place to go. They've got to make rights and lefts and that doesn't help anything and we've got to give these people some relief because I tell you, as elected officials, the grlef and the looks on people's faces that I've seen, I hope they didn't recognize that it was me anywhere near. But if I'm coming West 78th at 30 mph and somebody's right on my butt and I'm gotng to make that 55 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 turn to the post office by the bank, I can just feel them on that edge of that bumper and they're going around me and it's just every time. I guess I've now turned my feelings toward how excited I'm going to be when it starts to cool off i)~ our downtown because it's as unfriendly as it can get and it's going to get worse, I know it. And not to be a big promoter of pulling people over but these people need to be pulled over and ticketed because, I mean I condemned a fellow City Council member when he suggested 31 in a 30 was a ticket. I still would but 50 in a 30 in that zone is outright insane and I would suggest that if we get, when we get these lights hopefully, that it's a 25 mph segment, not a 30 to keep it pleasant. Councilman Wing: Where's all this conceived speed? Where are we talking about? I can see from Kerber west but are we talking about Kerber east? Mayor Chmiel: You're either going east or... Either or. Councilman Mason: I come on Kerber all the time and I'm tearing from Kerber onto ?Bth and they're just coming off of Powers Blvd.. They're just right on you. Mayor Chmiel: I'm getting to the point where I get to those intersections and I get there. I wish I had blinders and I go. Councilman Mason: They come out pretty fast. Mayor Chmiel: Because it is. It's just too darn fast. Something has to really be done. I guess I'm not opposed to the stop and go lights because we're going to have to have them. I'm not sure yet whether the four are really needed all at once but I think if we start stringing, we put in the proper amount of conduit for those additional two that might have to come on line. Councilman Mason: I hope whatever, assuming ue decide to put in some stop lights here, I hope we at least do think that there should be some kind of master control and like you said be looking, even if we do just approve two now, let's make sure that ue can control them all and not have to. Mayor Chmiel: And I'd also agree with the comment that Don made. In the event these are in, they have a control that the police vehicles as well as the fire vehicles can flick and turn those things. Councilman Mason: The Mayor gets one of those in his car too, doesn't he? Mayor Chmiel: No, that was Charlie McCarthy. Councilman Mason: Oh that's right. Councilman Wing: When you start talking about arl opticom system, we're talking about one expensive system and we're not roaring down Lyndale Avenue in Bloomington through a million stop signs. This is rally limited and I can't imagine what that system would cost. Dennis Eyler: Yeah, it's an additional, these days about $5,000.00 an intersection. There is an interim phase. If you only have two traffic signals 56 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 in downtown and they are hooked together, we can have a...right from the fire hall which is just a push button. We put one of these in Ouluth. They have central fire statlon in downtown and they have two runs away from the fire station on one way street and they have a button for each one and that turns those slgnals all the way down the one way street for g or 10 blocks a green and holds it green for some preset time. I think 60 seconds so that would help clean out downstream of the other intersections along 78th. Not only do you get the green to get out onto 78th, but then you could have it go green in either direction from the intersection out here in front of the flre hall. And that's where, most of that stuff comes with a control...anyuay. It's all in software and... Councilman Wing: Why don't we start realistically looking at downtown and stop hedging around the fact that a mistake was made and stop trying to run thousands and thousands of cars. It's 11ke trylng to run 35W out of downtown durlng rush hour with 2 lanes instead of 4. You can't do it. And if we're golng to put in thls enormous retail downtown ulth all these major dlscount stores, why have we've got a 16 foot road segment? We've got to face up to the fact that that just isn't uorklng anymore and maybe that medlan has slmply got to go and open up that additional space. Councilman Workman: That lsn't golng to stop the speed though. Councilman Wing: I'm talking about moving traffic. Mayor Chmiel: I think...uhat he's just saying. With controlling of those lights as per se. I think the right widths were much too narrow. As I've indicated before, but they dld the same thlng downtown Minneapolis on Nlcollet Mall. They narrowed that one more and more than what it was before and I still don't agree ulth some of that. Councilman Wing: You're soon to know what it's like to live in downtown Tokyo and Seoul, Korea. And this is truthfully. These are four more stop signs than I blt all the way from Seattle to Minneapolis last week in four blocks. It's just disheartening to me that we're at that point. I mean let's face it. I mean Tom, I agree with you. I guess they have to go in. You guys are driving this thing and £t's a nightmare. I can't construe. I don't come down here. I don't want to be near the place. It's disheartening to see us putting in 4 stop signs in a 4 block area. I've just got to support you guys, whatever you declde. Don Ashworth: If I may make one additional. Although the two may have some appeal, I think it has to be recognized that you're really k£nd of only putting in one. The one at Great Plalns I thlnk will really help in terms of vehlcles coming up the roadway so they know they should be bending to the left and it's a safe movement and they don't have to worry to get out in thls big intersection. What am I supposed to be doing? It will be very, very benefic£al to the left turn person because he's got some guidance there. He feels safe. I mean hey, the green arrow. The other vehicles have stopped. But one of the drawbacks wlll be, you're st111 going to have that 4:30 traffic comlng down by the clock tower, stopping and then moving out. Stopping and then moving out. I think Denny's talked before about this spacing issue and really platooning ina lot of ways is better. But you're sttll going to have that as tt deals with the City Council Meeting -. July 1.3, 3.992 westbound traffic. So the pedestrian, if they're down by Medical Arts or the Riveria or the person trying to get out at Laredo, is still going to have the problem because of these vehicles that are platooning out from the clock tower. And that's why again I would push for that Laredo. I think that that's a way in which Z really like this idea that Denny came up with. Turn the signal green at Laredo and then clear out greens all the way away from that so the cars don't pull off and stop. If you don't do Laredo, you can't have that. But Laredo's kind of the last priority so then you kind of come back to this position, well let's just do it. Councilman Workman: If we do Great Plains and we do Market and we don't do Laredo, that's where the most potential backlash from the people who care the most is going to come. Because somebody's going to say, that Market Boulevard light's only for the City Hall people. And Laredo is where the people are coming out of there and I can, geez. I can just see the faces and the names of those people down there that are going, what were you thinking? Why didn't you put one at Laredo? And that's where ue were originally thinking about putting a stop sign temporarily. Remember that? A couple, few years ago. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Scott Hart: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Scott Hart: Councilman Wing addresses an issue that it at least is something to think about. The problem will only be slightly taken care of by greening out the intersection or stopping it. The problem downtown is, the law does tell people and people are trained to pull over when they see an emergency vehicle and therein lies the problem. And there's nothing quite as terrifying as trying to get people to yield. They'll either pull to the left and stop. Stop dead in the middle of the road. Seldom pull to the right. In this case, even if they did, they'd still cause a backlash. We train people in Driver's Ed to pull over and stop. Frequently they'll do that despite the fact that you're behind them with an airhorn telling them to move on. That may just be something with the size of that street that we have to deal with but I think that's an issue you were trying to address there Richard that wouldn't be alleviated by signal controls. And it's one of the reasons that the deputies don't work downtown very much. There's no place to pull off to the side. Councilman Wing: That's true. If they made a stop, traffic stops. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion. Mayor Chmiel: I don't want it. Councilman Workman: I think I'd better make it so it gets done properly. Approve signal justification report for West ?8th Street intersections at Great Plalns 8ouelvard, Laredo Boulevard, Market Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. Authorize preparation of plans and specifications of Project No. 92-3A. 58 City council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Clarification. Are you going to have these all go in at one time or are you still looking to go with one and try the other one and then make sure we put the? Councilman Workman: Yes. Go in. I think so. Get the system in rather than trying to figure out half of it I think. Mayor Chmiel: Well once it's put in, it's never wasted. Councilman Mason: We can put the system in and then not put the poles up. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: Thls lsa major, major declslon for the clty which lmpacts a lot of people. And I'm not opposed to it. I support Tom's motion but at some polnt here ls there golng to be a public hearing or advertise thls? Let the publlc speak. Let them be encouraged because this is going to be a large. I'd 11ke the publlc to know what lt's golng to cost. What we're doing. Let them know that we're going to sign downtown aggressively and then they can either oppose it aggressively or at least support the Council's decision. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea. Councilwoman Olmler: Isn't there always a publlc hearlng on these projects? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman 0imler: Oh. Well then I would support that definitely. Oon Ashworth: What I would suggest is that if the motion is approved, and you can do it or since lt's through the HRA is paylng for lt, you mlght ask them to do it, but we've got a 3 month perlod of time while they're developing plans and specs and gettlng ready for the whole bidding process and another 3 months after that until deliveries and all the rest. That somewhere before these things are actually bid out, that the publlc hearlng be held before any orders are made. Mayor Chmiel: Rather than a public hearing, we'll call ita public information meeting. Don Ashworth: And would you 11ke to do that or would you like to have the MRA do it? Mayor Chmlel: I thlnk Councll should probably do Oon Ashworth: Okay, advertise it as a part of one of our agendas? Mayor Chmlel: Yep. Councilman Workman: My motion stands. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Motion stands with public conditions contained. If you accept that as a friendly amendment. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, Mr. McShane wanted to address? Kevin McShane: Good evening. I know the hour is late. I'm Kevin McShane at 180 South Shore Court. For those of you who don't know. I'm also the President of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and so I come to you. I agree with everything you've said about signing downtown. I wasn't going to say anything because you've covered basically all the items on my mind but I do think that I live a half mile from where I work. I'm a resident of Chan. Work here. I get up and down that street many times throughout the day and all your comments are very true. Pedestrian traffic in particular. I try to walk to the local restaurants at lunch, sometimes not making it back. People really do travel down that street. Richard, the digital readout has been set up across the street and I have a pretty good view from my office and you see 40, 46. I don't see any brake lights go oT~. Speed is a concern. Coming in and out of those roads on the north/south roads trying to take rights and lefts. It's almost impossible during rush hour so all those things do happen and I'm here everyday and see it. I really encourage, I know signing is a big issue but I think with all the development going on right nov and all that's sure to come in the next few years, we need to get that in place nov because as ue saw this summer with road shut down, it was very, very difficult at Market. It happened overnight. I mean the minute the road shut down, all of a sudden there vas just horrendous traffic so I'd encourage you to vote in favor of it. Thank you. Councilman Workman: Who knows, we may be able to enjoy the trees and bushes in town now. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion or, the floor. Was there a second? Councilman Hason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Seconded with a friendly amendment. Any other discussion? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the signal justification report for West 78th Street intersections at Great Plains Bouelvard, Laredo Boulevard, Market Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard; authorize preparation of plans and specifications; and that a public information meeting be held in regards to project ~2-3A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON LIOUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Mayor Chmiel: We have had the opportunity to do some administrative presentations with the updating. I'd like Mr. Harr to address the issue. Scott Hart: Thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council. Included in the Council packet are the Mlnutes of the public hearing on alcohol issues which you dlrected the Publlc Safety Commission to hold and to return the results to you 60 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 in July and so here they are. I believe the hearing was more than adequately advertised wlth notices belng sent to, among others, each school principal in our District, the Superintendent of Schools, the Drug Education personnel at each school, our churches, liquor license holders and the citizens that have attended drug abuse prevention meetings over the past 5 years here at the City Hall. Only 5 citizens attended and those that spoke were in the liquor sales business, each offering to provlde the clty wlth assistance if further restrictions are to be considered. No one in attendance raised specific concerns regarding the number of additional on sale and off sale 11censes beyond the existing holders of record or regarding the locations of future liquor stores. Because the Public Safety Commission was specifically charged by the City Council to solicit input from the community on these issues, this was what the Commission did. Because no specific safety issues were raised, it was suggested by the Commission that if the Council wishes the matter pursued, that the Planning Department may be an appropriate resource from here regarding what the city would like to see from a planning and development perspective in the future. I think we were all surprised at the noteworthy lack of attendance at this public hearing and I'd like to comment on this. Frankly, I was very disappointed. I think the specific issues that were being looked at are important, but I think there's an even bigger issue that I believe deserved more attention, far more attention than it received. That issue is community chemical awareness and concern. Chanhassen has led the way in taking a strong position in restricting access of tobacco products to our youth. Similarly, we assisted in the design and implementation of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Over the past 4 years the Mayor has worked diligently at attempting to mobilize the community itself in developing an ongoing response to the negative impact with chemical abuse in all the communities that surround us. This public hearing was yet another example of our Council's sincere concern about the problem. We have not been overwhelmed with community concern however and frankly this troubles me. The problems of drug abuse are with us. The Mayor and Councilman Wing have joined the Drug Task Force to see the activity that is occurring around us. The deputies and troopers that work in our areas can attest to the devastating effects of alcohol and other drug abuse on our roads and even within our homes and schools. There is a problem and whether or not further liquor license restrictions are the most appropriate way of addressing the overall societal problem. I was shocked that our school district, churches, and the community at large found this attempt by Councilman Wing, the City Council and the Public Safety Commission to examine an important health and safety issue of such little importance that no representatives attended or even called to make an inquiry about the hearing. What was apparent was that we do have liquor retailers in town that are responsive to your concerns and have made themselves available to assist with any future re-examination of issues that may occur. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: Just a quick comment on what you said Scott about, I think a lot of people tend to belleve that we don't have, there are no drug problems in Chanhassen/Eden Prairie, just like we don't have at rlsk kids in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. And untll people, you know it'-s real easy to hide things 11ke that in the suburbs and I think that's an issue. I mean certainly you share it in one way and public safety and I share it in education and lt's there. We battle that one in the schools alot too and it is frustrating. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Scott Harr: We've attempted to get people interested and I've written articles in the newspapers and told groups. I agree with you Mike lO0~. I think the change that we've seen that concerns me is 10 years ago, even longer there was a counter culture that appeared different who advocated the use of illegal drugs or drug abuse and people saw something that concerned them. Now it's a more conservative time and it's not being seen and doesn't appear as a problem and yet all of us, because ue see the information, here from a public safety perspective. From an educational perspective or others, see that it's there and the difficulty is knowing how to address the problem. And that's why I wanted to make the statement tonight is I was really surprised that whether or not this was a specific problem, influential people were invited and didn't even call to find out more and that concerns me. Mayor Chmiel: I think too, with our Drug Task Force as we have it, we will be having some inquiries from the High School, Chaska or I should say in School District ¢112. I don't know whether they have contacted you or not but they will be doing that and they're going to follow through with it this year. I brought it up at a School Board meeting here a couple weeks ago. Councilwoman Dimler: I was going to ask, I was on a Orug Task Force here several years ago and we were supposed to meet at least once every 6 months or so and I haven't heard of any meetings since then. What happened to that task force? Mayor Chmiel: You missed both of them. Scott Harr: That speaks to the problem. We had so few people attending that we redirected the energy 'towards other attempts. Red Ribbon Day. Other awareness programs. The Drug Task Force. Those were the meetings that caused me to write artlcles in the paper and address concerns wlth community groups because we'd have these meetings and so few people would show up. And the Mayor and I talked about, what do we do? We want to get the energy. We've kept the people in touch. We've just not been sure of what direction to get the momentum going. Councilwoman Dimler: I bring that up because several times I've stopped at the pharmacy here in town and he was on the drug task force too and he's asked me several tlmes, what happened to that task force. I haven't been notlfled of a meeting in a long time. Mayor Chmiel: We didn't have people really showlng up for the meetings, that was part of the problem either. Councilwoman Dimler: Well, the ones Z attended were well attended there for a while but that was because there was a specific drug information that we were giving at that tlme. Mayor Chmiel: And those weren't bad but they still weren't good for what the populous is here. Councilwoman Olmler: Yeah, after awhlle it klnd of petered out. Councilman Wing: One of the members of Public Safety and myself did a survey of all the other citles and I guess my lntent wasn't so much alcohol abuse or the 62 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 problem itself but rather, what are we doing as a city in zoning, licensing and plannlng issues. As I was able to look at other clties and talk to Paul Krauss, he's got some complaints on mlnor lssues such as definition of restaurant. When is a restaurant a restaurant and not a bar? I was concerned about the 18 year old lssue,of bartendlng and servlng 11quor and it turns out that that's common in every other city. It's the norm so why would we be anything but normal? So I thlnk all that's come out of this that I learned was there's a couple zonlng issues that need to be addressed by Planning. A couple licensing issues that could be discussed and just some definitions that need cleaning up. It puts us pretty much in par with what every other city is doing. I guess I found this pretty much up to the level with everyone else wlth the exception of a few definitions of restaurant. How many square feet should a bar/tavern be? Or how would distance from a church or whatever? We don't have those thlngs rlght now. Councilman Workman: Richard, did you find that cities are regulating them or not? Councilman Wlng: Not anymore than we are. Councilman Workman: Well we aren't regulating them so you're saying, maybe Roger can answer that question. Are clties regulating? What I did was, I've heard Burnsville had an ordinance. I thought I brought it with. I don't have it wlth me. Councilman Wing: Roger wrote it, didn't you? Councilman Workman: The 8urnsville ordinance? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Councilman Workman: You did? Well I've got Roger's ordinance and they sent it out to me. I haven't been through the whole thing yet but that's what I'm asking. Do most cltles not regulate the number of licenses? Roger Knutson: There are 800 cities in this State and to be honest with you, I've not canvased them a11. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, 854. Roger Knutson: Most clties I'm famillar wlth don't do much more than you do having a licensing ordinance and restriction. Certain zoning ordinance restrictions. Burnsvllle has a dispersion corner that they have to be so far apart. Councilman Workman: You asked him the question and why and the clerk couldn't tell me. Well I kind of like it that way she said. Roger Knutson: I think the idea is that they're perceived to have certain undesireable secondary effects. Drunks golng there or not. I don't know whether it's true or not. So they want to separate them. They don't want them all clustered to create an environment which they would not feel good. Councilman Workman: You said you surveyed 36 of them? 63 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Wing: Well no. We had 20 some cities. Well anything from St. Paul over we caiied and got, we have ali the ordinances and there's nothing in them to read except everybody has done away with bars and taverns. They don't exist. Burnsville, all the liquor licenses are at motels, restaurants. Serve food. There are no bars or taverns. St. Louis Park has one left but that one's on it's way out. So I think that's, Roger correct me but I believe that there are no bars, taverns such as Filly's or the Bronco used to be in Chanhassen. Their licenses all go in to food establishments now. Roger Knutson: 3ust from observation, from driving around Minneapolis and St. Paul seems to have their share of bars. What I'd call a bar. Councilman Workman: Well I mean a microwave makes them a restaurant. Roger Knutsoi~: Yeah, a lot of cities do not want traditional bars. Councilman Wing: Suburbs. Suburban ring. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess basically what we have is what we have. I think where we're golng in the direction we're going ls probably the rlght way. Councilman Workman: Which is what? Mayor Chmiel: Knowing as to what we want with setbacks and total numbers. We're looking also at populations. Councilman Workman: That's what I'm concerned with. Mayor Chmiel: That was the other thing where for each 5,000 population they increased it as I remember readlng someplace. And I guess that's something we can think about right now. I don't know if we have to act on it at thls particular tlme but I thlnk lt's something that we should thlnk about and maybe come up with some conclusions and have some additional information prepared for us to pursue a given direction that maybe we should go. Councilman Wing: I think Mr. Ashworth came up with some good ideas and suggestions that came from a position of knowledge maybe. When there's a real dull agenda, he could throw a cover letter in with some ideas that might... Councilman Workman: You mean 11ks tonlght? Mayor Chmiel: We're gettlng too close. So with that, I don't think we have to have any actlon on that particular 1rem at thls tlme but I'd 11ks to thank the Public Safety Commission for taking the tlme out to hold this and go through the process. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: I have one that I want to just discuss briefly. Our lights are on too long at Lake Ann Park. Can we check into that and make sure that the timlng devlce is accordingly and I thlnk we close the park at 10:00. Good, because they were on until 11:30 when I went to bed again. 64 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Todd Gerhardt: Dale...shut off. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so we're looking into that. I don't like to watch that meter spin. I don't get any more paychecks from them. Don Ashworth: We've incurred a lot of personnel costs as well in going out on those and I know in the last 2 or 3 weeks they've just had a continuous problem and I don't know why. We're working at it. Mayor Chmiel: Can we address that and take care of it? Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Because I don't see those rabbits and the other animals playing any games out there. Tom, West 78th and Dakota. Councilwoman Oimler: Could I just follow up on Lake Ann? I wanted to talk about it. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes you did. The building, yeah. Councilwoman Oimler: Yes, the shelter that's being done and I know that Mike wanted to know what was happening and why it's so slow. But also it has been suggested to me by some members of the public for the naming of that shelter. I know that our current Mayor here deserves to have that honor. However, the name that was suggested to me by several residents was that we would honor Mr. A1K11ngelhutz slnce he was the Mayor when Lake Ann was established and I know that he worked hard to make this a beautiful amenity. It's not his suggestion though. A beautiful amenlty for the city. Blg Al's or whatever but I would just like to bring that forward for the public that expressed this concern to me and maybe we could conslder lt. Mayor Chmiel: The other question that I was going to ask too is, why is that golng so slow? I don't think they've done anything in 3 weeks. 2 weeks at least. Don Ashworth: There was a mistake in the delivery of the, I keep saying brick but it was the, what was it? The rock and that was to be a, not a smooth face and they ended up delivering a smooth face whlch would be terrible because that provides a real opportunity for kids to write things. That, I'm sure was part of the problem. I'm sure that our wet tlme here hasn't help anythlng elther. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well I'd like to find out what the reasons are. Let's keep them going. Councilman Workman: Is that the same company that is doing Minnewashta Parkway? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I think so. And 101. Councilman Workman: West 78th at Dakota. You all know where that is. Right when you're exiting TH 5 at McDonald's to the right there and you were to take that frontage road back to 78th there. Patrlcla...Pappenfus who owns Chanhassen Secretarial has been kind of on me and I will note for the record that she is a 65 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 resident of Plymouth but they are having a very difficult time at that intersection. And this is a very bad intersection. I know they're getting done with TH 5 but that frontage road, people coming off and on and if a Lyman Lumber truck wants to make a left to get out onto Highway 5, you cannot get by. In fact they're tagging people who are going around them on the shoulder. After 2 or 3 light changes, they're not being able to get through. In fact, boy that light is so quick on TH 5 now, I swear you can get 2 cars out onto TH 5. Mayor Chmiel: 7 cars. Councilman Workman: Boy then they're speeding. But it's a real, real, real bad situation. I don't know what ue can do. If we can pave an actual by-pass lane there or what. Can engineering, can the Council suggest to engineering to take a hard, and public safety, take a hard look at what we can do to give those businesses satisfaction. There's some real frustration going on. Scott Hart': You're talking north of TH 5 and east Dakota. Councilman Workman: The whole intersection. Scott Hart: But specifically when they're coming out of the Chan Business Comptex? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: I mean not to mention the fact that if you are heading east and you want to go to West ?Sth down there near Redmond, you can't do it because lt's backed up and stacked up and it's real trlcky in there. Mayor Chmiel: What we need is a light there. Councilman Workman: Charles, do you want to take a look at that and maybe brlng it up as a future item to pave it or something because something's got to be done? Charles Folch: Yeah, we can certainly take a look at it. I'm not sure that there's going to be an easy answer. We would have hoped that our Trunk Highway 101 north leg project would have been under construction already and would have been on it's way to help alleviate that problem that you're describing but we've run into some delays wlth the railroad people. Councilman Workman: Maybe it just takes some paint on the road designate an actual pass lane or something because lt's terrible. Charles Folch: We can take a look at it. Councilman Wing: Terrible's not the word. It's really impassable. Councilman Mason: Yeah, it is impassable there. Councilman Workman: Really. I mean you would be slttlng there in excess of 5 to 10 minutes if you didn't break a law, which is unacceptable time for people on the go. 66 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: But it's going to improve. Councilman Workman: Leash law. I was approached by a woman and I thought I brought thls up at a Council meetlng. We've done nothlng on thls. The old doggie do law or something. We have got in our parks big signs that say absolutely no pets allowed. Thls person has complained that in fact what that's doing is people are then not going to the park but they're actually having their dog do thelr thlng on thelr neighbor's yards and stuff. So I don't know if we've got a problem wlth this law. There was also a concern that in fact dogs don't have to be leashed, just under the verbal command of their master, which is what I do all the time. But we're invittng people to the parks and I know Ursula has a problem with thls but they have to leave thelr pets out but it's apparently causing people frustration in that now we've got all these little lots. They've got blg dogs. They don't have anyplace to run thelr dogs. I'd like us to revisit that if possible. Councilman Wing: What did Jay call that? Councilwoman Oimler: Pooper scooper. Councilman Wing: Super duper pooper scooper law. That was it. Well I'm not bringing it up. Mayor Chmiel: Neither am I. Councilman Workman: I'd like to readdress that because there's some frustration. Councilwoman Oimler: Tom wants to. Councilman Workman: I'll bring it up. Councilman Wing: Do we want a leash on them? What's the real issue? Councilman Workman: That people have 120 pound dogs and they've got less than a third acre lot and they don't have anyplace to run their dogs if you can't take them to the park. What [ thlnk we need to do ls we need to have some way that people are going to take their baggy and their scoop and clean up after their dog. Mayor Chmlel: Well that's what you should do in the first place but people don't do it. Scott HarK: Councilman Workman, what you're suggesting is that we, the City permit animals in the parks. Councilman Workman: Look at what we can do to find a place. What people have been doing is they're going to walk them. They're going to walk them down the road or something and they're going to crap on, excuse my language. Yeah, their going to leave their problems. They're leaving them on people's front yards. Anyway. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Mason: I don't personally don't think telling people they can now run Rover at Chanhassen Park is going to have an effect on whether they're lettlng Fldo do it in somebody else's yard or not. Councilman Workman: All I'm doing. Councilman Mason: No, I understand that. Councilman Workman: Passing on what a couple of people have told me. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's just up to the individuals who have dogs should really police themselves and take care of those situations. Councilman Workman: What I'm going after here probably is a technicality that we've got signs in our parks that say, humans but no pets and that causes some problems for some people. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Maybe it should read no humans, just pets. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's something to thlnk about. Councilman Workman: I'm just saying. I don't take my dog to Lake Ann. There's a 11ttle park behlnd me. I dare somebody to tell me I'm not golng to take my dog there. I'm going to. You know what I mean? Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'm the same way. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. It's getting late. Would you like to carry on to the next one? Councilman Workman: Yes. I've been having conversations with Don Ashworth about a situation that arose at a company, actually it was two companies that complained that in fact they didn't feel 11ke they were belng falrly treated by the City in, as the city makes purchases. Thls is not, by me a reinforcement that they are not dolng that because I know they try hard and they do that. What Councilman Hason: Local people? Councilman Workman: Yes. The one primarily has to do with Park and Rec and purchasing Park and Rec equipment. Picnlc tables, etc.. There's a firm in town that sells all of that and they do not feel as though they are being given a falr chance or missed that. And so I'm golng to, like Todd Hoffman knows about it and so does Oon and we're going to get together to talk about it and I wanted the Counc11 to be aware... Hayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think I brought this up a long time ago that I'd like to see the Clty purchase from within it's own residents providing the prices are right. And if they are, that's where you buy Councilman Workman: Well what further complicates it is the fact that you've got, if you want a playground set and you've got a consultant that says there's some very, very specific specifica[ions and only one firm can really match those 68 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 specifications, you're in effect choosing that firm and maybe eliminating others and so there's some of this going on. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can I have amotion for adjournment? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashaorth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim