Loading...
1992 06 08CH~NH~SSEN CTTY COUNCTL REGULAR HEETTNG 3UNE 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Hason, and Councilwoman Oimler MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Hart, Paul Krauss and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF A6ENDA: Mayor Chmtel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes and additions: Hovtng item 2 prior to the Consent Agenda; Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss County Road 12 and Senior ¥olunteers; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss animal control and tree escrows for new homeowners. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENT~TZONS: PRESENTATZON OF TH~ 1991 ~U~ZT REPOT, DELOITTE & TOt~. ~J_ZFF HOFFt~ ~ND K~J~I~N ~INEY. Cliff Hoffman presented some overheads outlining the City. of Chanhassen's 1991 Audit Report to the City Counctl. Taping of the meeting begun during his presentation. C11ff Hoffman: ...save another $900,000.00 over a 5 year period. So the feeling that the State is going to save a lot of money by a lot of states going out of existence, I really don't buy that. Buy that people are willing to give up their community identity for that ktnd of money. So if there are any questions on the overheads, at thls point I'll turn it over to Karen. She'll go through the financial statements but you've had a very good year. You've got good people and the question you always want to ask is, are we better than we were a year ago and the answer is yes. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Karen Vanney: The Counc11 should have received their financial statements in their packets. I will be referring to pages within those financial statements. The first page I'd ltke you to turn is page 5 and Cliff said, this is the first year that we've had a clean opinion at the City of Chanhassen. For once our opinion fits on one page instead of two and that's because we had a Marshall and Stevens, the city had Marshall and Stevens come in and inventory ail their fixed stats, that were able to audit them and we could then provide a clean opinion. Okay? Turn the page to page 7. One of the things to note on this page is that your overall fund balance, if you go over to the right hand side of page 7 you have totals there. And down at the bottom, your fund balances increased approximately 5.5 million dollars. The majority of this increase is in cash and in investments and that's very good. Your debt which is about a third of the City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 way up page has increased and this is because you have issued an additional 6.7 million in new bonds this year and you've made payments of 2.5 million in principle. If you look at your liabilities, you had a sharp decrease in your deposits. They went from $439,000.00 down to $52,000.00 and the reason for that being is that you had two CD's last year that got paid back to developers in 1991. Those were the main things we wanted to point out on page 7. On page 8 and 9 we go to the revenue statement. The second line down are your tax increment revenues and they've increased primarily due to increased collections and we'd like to polnt out that those wlll contlnue to grow as your property values increase. You go down to capital outlays, your capital outlay went down significantly from $1.5 m1111on down to $1.1 milllon. And the reason for that is because you, in 1991 they didn't do the sealcoating program on the streets that they were golng to. If you turn to page 10. We'd like to point out that within the general fund, that the overall forecasting for revenues was very conservative and thls was good. You were only $20,000.00 off on your budgeting for revenues for the general fund. We'd also like to point out that the control over your expenses was very good. You had budgeted $3 mllllon in expenses and you only spent $2.7 million which is very good in these times as many cities go over thelr budget. I'd also 11ke to reiterate C11ff's statement on the excellent interest earnings for 1991. Okay, let's turn to page 12 whlch is your enterprise fund statement. Revenues and expenses. You still have a loss from operations but it's less than last year. There were rate increases implemented in 1991. Your wet summer dldn't help as evidenced in lncrease of the fees from the MWCC which went up dramatically from $608,000. to $736,000.00. On page 13 we have the statement of cash flows for the enterprise fund and we'd like to polnt out that you are, you do have net cash provided from your operating activities. Your loss in your enterprise fund is mainly due to your depreciation which lsa non cash item and it's very good that you do have posltlve cash flow there. If we go to page 21, I'd 11ke you to look at the investment footnote. I'd like to point out that all of your investments are in credlt rlsk categories 1 and 2, whlch ls very good that you don't have any in category 3 which is considered the highest risk for the investments. And the last thlng I'd 11ke to point out ls on page 35. This ls your general fund statement of revenues and I'd like you to look at your homestead agricultural credlt. The reason I'd 11ke you to look at thls ls because these funds are the ones that are most at risk when the legislature meets in the next year because these are the ltems that they will be talklng about and looking to see if they can cut. Okay, are there any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any questions? Karen Vanney: Thank you. Cliff Hoffman: I'd like to briefly cover the management letter. The management letter is the one that has 4 sections on the front. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. The first two, pages 2 and 3, the key thing that you should get out of that is that ue found no conditions that we believe to be materlal ueaknesses in internal control. That statement ls found on page 3, second to the last paragraph, last sentence. That's probably the most important sentence that's in that broller plate. We had some small comments on pages 4 and 5 as far as 1rems for the current year. And we've revieued these uith management at the city and we belleve that they're golng to take aggressive action on curing those conditions. On page 6 we've got a couple of items that were repeated from last City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 year. Investments I touched on earlier. Watching that. You're doing very well but that does require very close monitoring and Hr. Chaffee's doing that. Councilman Workman: Back on page 4. The first one. The first observation on that interest. Where did that go? Cliff Hoffman: We made that adjustment last, in 1991 so we did record an additional $60,000.00 in interest income for 1991. Councilman Workman: Which we had so how does that affect us this year? Cliff Hoffman: This coming year what you should do is also accrue the interest. So what would have happened, if we wouldn't have booked the entry as a fund balance would have been understated by $60,000.00. This is Just a reminder to make sure that that kind of thing gets accrued in the future. Councilman Workman: So would that mean that potentially we found $60,000.00 that we didn't have in 19917 Cliff Hoffman: Well you would have had it in 1992. But it really belonged in 199[ is what we're saying because it was accrued or earned. So. Rny other questions on that item. On page 6, we have a comment regarding the receiveable on the bowling center. You're well aware of that. You're following it very closely and we know that management is on top of it. Page 7, I think is one of the things that is important. The City of Chanhassen has followed good conservative accounting policies and there's a lot of things that you've done from a financial standpoint but you really need to think about putting those in writing. City Councils come and go. Mangement comes and go. City Manager's come and go and it's nice to have some kind of framework. Sorry, Hr. Rshworth. The last point on page 8 is we're encouraging you to get the certificate. Less than ~ of the governmental units have it nationally and we believe you have the talent now and the foundation for going after that for next year. Councilman Mason: What's the benefit to the City to get that? Cliff Hoffman: R couple of things. There's a very detailed 50 page checklist that has to be completed and there's a lot of additional statistical information that you have to put in your annual report and what it means is that you're not doing the minimum. You're doing what's considered nationally the best from a financial presentation. People at Moody's and Standard and Poors will tell you that, in a public meeting they'll never say it will raise your bond ratings but privately they teii you that's one of the things that they look for. Is that gives them a lot more comfort. That there's a higher level that you're meeting. You're not just doing the minimum. You're doing really what's a nationally recognized standard and people know that it's only about l~ of the governmental units in the country have it. If you're, if we could just have a little better, a couple of dry summers and improve performance in the enterprise funds and now you've got a clean opinion, you don't have any qualifications in the auditor's opinion. You get the certificate. I believe those elements together will make a different in what your bond ratings are going to be for the future. What your debt costs are. City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: I was just asking Don. We're presently in a BAA1. With the report as I'm seeing now, would this or could this put us into a bond rating for an A? Cliff Hoffman: Could. Could. Mayor Chmiel: Which means we could get better dollars? Cliff Hoffman: All your trends are positive. I just wish we were doing better in water and sewer. Hopefully, the meters are spinning out there this summer. Mayor Chmiel: As long as we've got the 4%, we're still not running a deficit. We're not too bad. Cliff Hoffman: If you look at the trend in your general fund balance, there really are no financial skeletons in the closet. There really aren't. Your debt per caplta is a big number but you're a young clty. It's not any different than building a new power plant. You know what that is. We recelved the full cooperation of the staff and management and 11ke I said earlier, you've had a good year and it's important that every year you're a little better. I think you've 11red up to that challenge. Mayor Chmiel: As we look at that Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financing Report, as an observation you lndlcate there's a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence and Financing Report is really good as you said. In maklng your recommendation that we should review thls and go ahead and do different things. Get some statistical tables and letters and so on. What cost would that be to the City to pull that information together? Cliff Hoffman: That's a very good point. The city went from 45 full time employees down to 42 and you're really stretching staff. I know the finance department spent a lot of time and energy getting the fixed asset records established. That was an effort on thelr part. And external costs, you're maybe talking the first year, $2,000.00-$3,000.00 and then nothing thereafter. Internal costs though, it's something that staff, I'd prefer them to volunteer rather than necessarily that the Counctl would order them to do that. 8ut I belleve they're w1111ng to do that. So it does take a lot of tlme the flrst year to come up with the statistical tables that you're talking about are 10 years worth of data. So it does take tlme and there's a very detalled transmittal letter that has to be in the front of the ctty's annual report. It's klnd of 11ke a State of the Clty letter and so staff would have to wrlte that. And hopefully the Council and the Mayor would agree that it is the State of the Clty in the front. But that usually ls not a problem. Really what it does is makes this a very professional document. When you go to Moody's and Standard and Poors and when you sell your bonds, it just moves you lnto a different league. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, thank you. At least it puts us in the position of knowing where we're at and we're better than last year. Of course we have staff to commend for that. Those are the people who really deal wlth this. We try to keep the dollars down but they implement some of those thoughts as well. So thank you for providing thls and I thlnk lt's an excellent report, only because it does look good for the city. City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Don Ashworth: If I may add. It has been a good year for the city but I think our auditors have been a part of that success. They were with us £n the entire process of developing that fixed asset system. Converting it to local controls and putting it into a format that again is recognized through capra. Secondly, it has been a good year in that at the start of the year we were Looking to arbitrage payments of right around $400,000.00. As we've closed out the year and continue to meet with Beloitte and have their help tn that process, I think we're darn close to $150,000.00 so there's been a significant savings that just, they're not obvious to the Council and ! wanted you to be aware that it has been a good working relationship between DeLoitte and the city. Cliff Hoffman: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Councilwoman Dimler: Should we make comments too? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. If you'd like to make some comments, be my guest. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I appreciated the comment that we shouldn't let the State dtctate our financial policies because obviously we're dotng much better than the State ls. And I thlnk that the suggestion to develop a formal financial management policy to pass on to future Councils and staff is an excellent ldea and I would recommend that we implement that. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, did you have anything? Councilman Workman: No. I knew that Mr. Mayor, you're dotng a great job so. Mayor Chmiel: Everybody deserves a pat on the back. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda Items pursuant to the City Hanager's recommendations: a. Resolution ~t92-65: Accept Uttllty Improvements in Kurvers Point 2nd Addition, Project 91-11. b. Reso%ut~on ~92-6&: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition, Project No. 89-19. c. Resolution ~92-&7: Accept Utilities in Lake Susan Hills West 7th Addition, Project 91-9. d. Zonlng Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Mtning and Earth Work, First and Second Reading. e. Zonlng Ordinance Amendment to Require that Boats Moored in Front of Lake Front parcels be Owned by and Registered in the name of the Lake Front Property Owner, Flnal Readlng. f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Minimum Lot Sizes tn the Rural Service Areas, Final Reading. City Council HeetillO .. June 8, 1992 g. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Beef- License, Fourth of July Celebration, July 3 and 4, 199z, Chanhassen Rotary Club. h. Resolution ~92-68: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lake Ann Park Picnic/ Recreation Shelter, Project RA-110. Water Obstacle Permit, Lake Minneuashta Ski Club, John Timberg. j. Resolution 4t~2-69: Resolution Establishing Fees for Hazardous Materials Incident Response Costs. k. Approval of Accounts. i. Board of Equalization and Review Minutes dated May ll, 1992 City Council Mlnutes dated May 18, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 1992 Publlc Safety Commission Mlnutes dated May 14, 1992 All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUrlcllwoman Dlmler: Could I just make a comment on item (h)? I'm so glad to see that the price of the Lake Ann Park Shelter went down and that we're going to get a better product and thls is the klnd of example that I 11ke to see. It's really great work. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET AND UTiILITY IMPROVEMENST TO TETON LANE {LILAC LANE TO ASHTON COURT} AND LILAC LANE {TETON LANE TO CR 17}ZA__U~.~EPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJEC][ N_O. 91~.__ Public Present Name Address Richard Bloom Jim Fenning Dave Priem Frank & Florence Natole Gordon & Joey Johnson Donna Pickard Joel Oressel Randy Karl Rep. Hilloway Corporation Hllloway Corporation 6~60 Teton Lane 6251 Teton Lane 1275 Lilac Lane, Exceleior 1215 Lilac Lane City Engineer, City of Shorewood ~891 Teton Lane Charles Folch: Hr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to give a presentation on the feasibility report. Then I will close the staff presentation with a few ~omments before we can open it up to the public. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. As Charles indicated, this is the report on the feasibility study for Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. The City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 project area is from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane. From Lilac Lane out to County Road 17. The project, from an engineering standpoint, is feasible. We have a detailed cost analysis for all the improvements. The improvements involved, construction of sanitary sewer, the public right-of-way the roadway from Ashton Court north to the new proposed subdivision and I'll try to get this right, Ithilien subdivision. That new subdivision consists of, I believe it's 17 single family lots. This sanitary sewer would serve the new subdivision, flows south to the Curry Farms development. The total project cost for sanitary sewer is $13,798.00. The second portion of the project is construction of a watermain along side the sanitary sewer. You would connect to the existing watermain at Ashton Court and carry it north to the proposed new subdivision roadway. The developer then would pick up the pipes at that point, carry it throughout his subdivision and make a looped system back to Lilac Lane. It would ultimately end up... The cost for the watermain is $Z4,681.00. As part of the street construction, we have storm sewer construction. Storm sewer over to Teton Lane Is a cross culvert maintaining existing drainage patterns. The major portion of the storm sewer is up at Lilac where we'd be picking up a portion of Teton Lane that flows to the north at this intersection and then carrying it down to the County Road ditch area where it will be discharged. The storm sewer portion of the cost, total Teton Lane and Lilac Lane is roughly $29,000.00. The major portion of the project is street construction. Right now we have an existing 22 foot mat on Teton Lane and similar mat on Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane, corporate boundaries run down the middle of it where the south half is the city of Chanhassen and the north half is the city of Shorewood.-We contacted the city of Shorewood. From a staff standpoint, there's some willingness to participate in the project. There has been no official word on the participation by Shorewood. The roadway on Teton Lane is proposed to be upgraded to city standards. The 31 feet back to back, concrete curb and gutter. Full depth section pavement. Crushed rock and 4 1/2 inches of bituminous base. Lilac Lane would be constructed in similar fashion. There would be some regrading and reshaping of that area in order to improve the sight distances and the access onto County Road 17 would be realigned to provide for a 90 degree access out to County Road 17. We can do that within the right-of-way that is presently existing. So that intersection would be substantially upgraded. The total cost for the roadway of the street construction on Teton Lane is $53,499.00 and the portion on Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. The total project cost, including a 30~ factor, $142,610.00. Again the street construction for Teton Lane is $53,499.00. The Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. Teton Lane sanitary sewer $13,798.00, watermain $14,681.00 and storm sewer construction is $5,640.00 on Teton and $23,699.00 on Lilac Lane. The original report as presented to the City Council for their acceptance of the feasibility study had a method of assessment or method of paying for the facilities. There was some discussion on that particular method at the time. The original method we had looked at all buildable lots and what the potential for units would be if all of the lots were totally developed. You have fairly good sized lots along Teton Lane. This was the original total available units where Hr. Johnson had 2, Mr. Bonovan had 2, Norwest Bank which is the Hilloway Corporation and the subdivision was 15, Charles Pickard had 2, Leonard Ware had 3 and F.T. Natole had 2. That was based on a 15,000 square foot lot with a 90 foot frontage would develop into that type of units. We went back and looked at the second method of assessment. Basically maintaining the philosophy on how to assess it but adjusting the units to reflect present day conditions. The present day conditions, Gordon Johnson, Oonovan, Pickard, Ware and Natole units down to 1 and we picked up... What that City Cou~lcil Meeting - June 8, 1992 means, if you look at the street map. Properties along Teton would be assessed just for the existing duelling that is on Teton. Oonovan along Teton and the 6ordon Johnson. There ls some questlon about whether Mr. Donovan owns this piece of property or not. Our understanding that it's the Hilloway Corporation has it under purchase agreement. It just hasn't closed yet so we dldn't study it. The County Records show it as still being owned by Oonovan but eventually that uill be owned by the Hillouay Corporation and those unlts wlll go agalnst that particular subdivision. If we look at dollars for financing the street construction and what I call assessable costs, $72,595.00. The reason I call it assessable costs is because the portion that's in Shorewood, which amounts to about $15,000.00, ls not assessable. We can't cross 11nes and ue can't assess in Shorewood. They would have to assess their property and return those dollars. Z left that in there as a project cost, basically as a GO cost for this particular project. Looking at the assessment rate, we would be at, taking the 21 unlts and assessing it equally, we get $3,456.90 per unlt for the street construction. On storm sewer, maintain the policy of 50~ of the storm sewer costs comlng out of the storm water fund. The assessable cost would be then $12,838.26 or $611.00 per unit. What that means to the individual property owners ls that Mr. Johnson would have a storm sewer and street assessment. The Oonovan property which exists today would have a storm sewer and street assessment. The Hlllouay Corporation would have storm sewer, street, watermaln and sanltary sewer assessment. All of the sanitary sewer and watermain has been agreed to be pald for by the developer. There wlll be no sanltary sewer or uatermain assessments to the individual property owners along Teton Lane. We would leave services for those properties so that in the event that they would subdivide, that there would be a service provided and ue would not have to dig up the street. That cost would also be assumed by the developer. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly stubs would be put in? Bill Engelhardt: Strictly stubs, right. The Charles Pickard property would be street and storm sewer. The Natole property, street and storm sewer. The City of Chanhassen would have storm sewer of $12,838.17 and then again what I call the non-assessable cost would be the portion that's £n Shorewood, that's $15,859.67 whlch is made up of $12,000.00 street cost and a $3,600.00 storm sewer cost. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. 6o through any portion of the report. Mayor ChmLel: Thank you. Is there anyone at this partLcular tLme that would 11kw to make a presentation to Counc117 Questions you may have? Florence Natole: Charles was saying he wanted to talk before... Charles Folch: I can certainly finish up if you'd like at this point in time before the public speaks, if you'd like Mr. Mayor. FLorence Natole: That's what you were saying. Mayor Chmiel: That's alright. Why don't you just stay right there. It won't take hlm that long. Charles Folch: One of the key issues that came up at the last meetlng when the Council received the report was a question concerning the need for the City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 improvement. As Bill explained in his presentation, the existing road is substandard. It's a 22 foot wide rural section. It's construction previously was approved with the intention that it would be served more of a temporary type of facility if and when a future development would ever occur on the large 10 acre parcel on the west side. That future sewer and water installation would tear up any of the road surface that would be there and render it unuseable. So the road was constructed with a 2 inch mat over minimal Class U as Bill explained. The City's current urban street standard is a 28 foot wide roadway section with concrete curb and gutter. The design section consists of 12 inches of Class V, 2 inches of bituminous base and an inch and a half of bituminous wear. The existing road section is inadequate and again the major disruption which would occur with the utility installation would make reconstruction really the only logical improvement. The proposed subdivision will create 17 new homes as Bill explained and therefore there's a need to provide adequate road capacity and safety for the increased volume which will occur. There needs to improve the road to city standard urban section and remove the barricade north of Ashton Court. Concerning the barricade issue, I cannot speak for previous discussions and Council decisions which I was not a part of, but in reviewing Council Hinutes it does appear that the barricade was installed, one of the primary reasons was to separate two different and somewhat at that point in time, incompatible land use areas. There was a desire of the Council to preserve the open, rural atmosphere that was occuring north of Ashton Court. However, with the Ithilien subdivision and the addition of 17 new homes, you're going to have a neighborhood not unlike.the neighborhood in Curry Farms and not unlike any other neighborhood within the city. Therefore the separation or barrier between the two is really no longer warranted. Costs for the project, as Bill had mentioned is $142,610.00. Staff has gone through as Bill explained and revised the assessment methodology that is consistent with previous assessment methodologies used on recent trunk sewer and water improvement projects so as to not to force large lots and small acreage hobby farm land owners off their property when an improvement comes by. That did make a significant reduction to the large lot property owners proposed assessment on the east side of Teton Lane. There also is a potential for senior deferment. In accordance with State Statute, the City has in the past accommodated senior deferments of special assessments whereby an assessment could be deferred anywhere from 5 to 10 years or until a death or change of property ownership were to occur. Certain financial criteria have to be met to qualify for this program. These are reviewed when applications are taken following the levying of the special assessment. The existing road section that's there today was built by Centex Homes as a part of the Curry Farms development. The City has incurred considerable expense securing the road easements and will continue to expend dollars to maintain the new street and storm sewer facilities. Staff is not aware that any of the properties along Teton Lane north of Ashton Court have ever been or have ever paid a special assessment for street or storm sewer. Therefore the assessment for this improvement seems appropriate. As Bill. mentioned, staff has had meetings with the staff of the city of Shorewood. Shoreuood staff did present this feasibility study to their City Council on Honday, Hay 26th. Or on Hay 26th I should say. Local residents along Lilac Lane were notified of the meeting, as ~ understand. The report was presented for informational purposes only and no other action was requested. Shorewood directed their City Engineer to provide review and input on the project plans so as to address any Shorewood resident issues that may come up. At the close of this public hearing, if there are no other outstanding relevant issues requiring City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 further investigation, it's staff recommendation that the feasibility study for improvements to Teton Lane from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane and Lilac Lane from Teton lane east to County Road 17 be approved and that authorization be given to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Mayor Chmlel: Thanks. Florence Natole: Florence Natole, 6251 Teton Lane. First I have to ask Bill, did you say you would cut us down to just one per person? Bill Engelhardt: Right. Florence Natole: Then my lovely wrlte up here is a 11ttle blt different from what I thought because the thlng that we received, went and got I should say, a copy of the feasibility study and in there you had charged us more than that. So we didn't feel that it was a study. We felt that it was a price list and a plan for the four of us to pay for that plan and this upset us qulte a bit. We felt that if the builder's going to bulld and needs to do something with that road, he should be the one paylng lt. We couldn't see why, in our case, there would be a $6,571.78 cost to us for a road which we do not need and we do not want and now what will it be, $2,000.00 and something. That's st111 too much. The way we look at it, the road should be left open. I'll give you this afterwards wlth the flgures being different. The road should not be open. It should be left but what you should do is what should have been done and I'll read that part of my report. The problem of the hazard blockade at Teton and Ashton Court. This was a compromise made because Centex did not want to pay an additional amount of $72,488.00 and also lose some bulldlng lots to bulld another access road. Therefore Bill Boyt, who uas then on the Council, made a suggestion that a, in quotes, "ln many, many places, a break away barrier be built as Christmas Lake had". They closed that road many years ago and it has never been open. They dld not object to settlng a precedent to please the homeowners even though several houses at the west end were barred from it's use. Thls was flnally agreed to by the Chanhassen Councll on Hatch 24th, lg88. Break away was tzsed over and over again. However, on January 2gth, 19g0, two years laters, when the battler was put up, it was a blockade lnstead and desplte many objections over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even though two instances that mlght have been emergencies, nothlng was done and as recently as Hatch 26, 1992 a letter was sent to Jo Ann 01sen, Senior Ptanner from Hark Liftin, the Fire Harshal about the barricade. When Z called about this Z was told they made a wrong turn. This could have been serlous but it would be prudent to have all members of the Flre Department know where the flre hydrants are located so this will not happen again. However, agaln, we were told 4 years ago that any of the Chanhassen trucks could go through any barrier. When this latest thing happened, someone should have checked up on this problem and corrected lt. One other thlng which was not mentioned, I noticed he mentioned something about this but I didn't hear of a repayment. Several persons were pald for thelr easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Lorls, Reamer, Cameron, Wong and Carlson. A total of $14,070.00 was paid. Will these persons have to return these monles if the road ls open? Sounds loglcal to me. Z have a simple solution, and to you it won't be simple. You're an engineer. But we were not sent any notice by the way of the Shorewood meetlng so we couldn't put any input lnto it. In fact we did not any of us recelve a notice that thls meeting was belng held but we don't let thls stuff get very far past 10 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 us. So ! have a simple solution. Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane and Ashton Court with the break away barrier which was proposed so long ago. Give Hilloway Corp the go ahead to build the homes proposed with whatever upgrading must be done being paid for by the developer as it should be. After 4 years it's about time to put this issue to rest for all time. Now, I have a P.S. here. We're called benefitted properties in that report. The benefitted properties would not be to us or the Ithtlien development. Those homeowners would probably never use the south end of Teton on their side of the barrier. It would be more feasible for them to exit to the left for the short distance to Lilac Lane than right down to CR 17. They would not want to drive through the entire Curry Farm development. The in quotes, "benefitted properties" would be the 21 residents of Curry Farms that are mentioned in the original feasibility study dated September 2, 1987. These people are not mentioned in the newest study and we're sure if each of them were assessed $6,571.78 as we are going to be, this room would not be large enough to hold the protesters. So that is what I came up with and now maybe the prices are a little less but it's still not fair. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Oonna Pickard: Sure. Mayor Chmlel: Could you please come up to the podium and state your name and your address please. Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane. I made copies of what I was going to talk about tonight. Is that helpful for you guys to have that or not? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Donna Pickard: Do you want it now? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Donna Pickard: Also, I'm not a very good speaker so I think I'm just going to read this, if that's okay. The first part of it is kind of a statement and some of it will be saying some of the same thlngs that Florence brought up. Also I wasn't here for the very beginning. You're saying that the residents that were once assessed per unlt ls now just going to be assessed kind of a flat rate of 1 unit? Is that ky understanding? Per existing house on each lot. So my original assessment of $6,571.78 will be half that? Is that my understanding? Bill Engelhardt: It will go down from $6,000.00 down to roughly $4,000.00. Donna Pickard: Okay. Okay first I have a question about how the benefitted properties are defined. We are referred to in this study as benefitted properties. We would 11kw to know how that is defined and then explain to us how we are benefitting. If the roads are upgraded, the development bullt and the barricade removed, our trafflc, and specifically our traffic because our house is located at one neighbor explained as a pivot point where we get traffic on both Teton and Lllac Lane. Our trafflc w111 increase from 70 trlps per day to 450 trips per day. The taking of property will occur in the process of 11 City Council Heeting .- June 8, 1992 uidenlng Lilac Lane, the loss of mature trees and shurbery is bound to happen if Chanhassen c~n only widened on their side of Lilac Lane. It is unclear in the feasibility study how the road w111 be wldened. $o in the future we can look forward to a $422 increase in traffic, it's resulting noise and dangerous safety situations, lack of prlvacy, loss of property and probable loss of trees and shurbery, all resulting in the disappearance of a nice qulet rural neighborhood that we now enjoy walklng and playlng in wlth our children. In addition, we get to pay for all of these "benefits". Hy assessments I'm told now uill equal probably around $4,000.00. To me it doesn't appear that we live on one of the benefitted properties. It feels like we live on one of the penalized properties. Who's benefitting? Obvlous Ithlllen ls benefitting. They recelve their urban roadway that can handle their increase traffic at reduced assessments and no penalties. Chanhassen benefits. The barricade whlch has been a subject of controversy uill be removed and the issues resolved. The 210 additional trlps per day from Curry Farms doesn't affect the new Ithlllen development so while the opening of the barricade is a real concern for the existlng neighborhood, Ithillen has dlvorced themselves from the lssue. Thelr stand seems to be let's build in this neighborhood but ignore everything that h~ ever happened here or will happen here as a result of our building. We are grateful that the City Council doesn't agree with that philosophy and i~ working on getting these i~sues resolved before approving the flnal plat. Curry Farms residents receive a nice benefit. The Feport clearly states that 21 homes in Curry Farms pFetend to use Teton and Lilac Lanes for ingress and egress. They've been wanting this for a while now but Teton Lane and Lilac Lane were never bullt to handle thelr trafflc and the clty held to thelr orlglnal agreement wi[h the Lilac Lane neighborhood to keep the barricade. When ~thilien moves ln, the roads u111 be upgraded. The barricades removed and the access open. All to be paid for by the benefitted properties. Aren't those 21 or so homes in Curry Farms benefitted properties? And if that ls the case, why aren't they assessed for the improvements? As a matter of fact, they benefit more than we do and without getting penalized slnce they wlll be receiving a new and improved way to access their homes at no cost. I can't believe that those of us who have a road that works just flne for us, have to pay for a new road that we don't need uhlle those in Curry Farms who want this new road, feel 11ke they need this new road, won't pay a penny toward it's construction. Let's us honestly look at who the benefitters are. It is unfair to charge us for a road that doesn't beneflt us at a11. It ls unfair that the real benefitted properties, ~thlllen and Curry Farms get away ulth reduced assessments or no assessments at a11. Z have some other concerns that deal wlth the actual construction of the road that to me wasn't addressed at all in the feasibility study and maybe they have since been worked on. But if you can answer these. Z don't know how much detail you have about...for construction but how wide u111 Teton Lane be al~d where are you golng to take the width for that? Charles Folch: If it's improved to a clty standard, it would be a paved road sectlon that's 28 feet wlde paved ulth concrete curb and gutter and it would be centered, typically it's centered on the right-of-way that we have which would be proposed to be 50 feet ulde. Donna Pickard: That's Teton? Charles Folch: That's Teton. 12 City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 Donna Pickard: How wide will Lilac Lane be and where are you going to take that width? Charles Folch: Lilac, we also have 50 feet of right-of-way but the combination between the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen is 50 feet of right-of- way on Lilac so we would do our best and we would have to probably do a transition just north of the intersection with Teton but then for the rest of the remaining segment down to CE 17 but likely be centered on the right-of-way. However, in order to get the right angle intersection at CR 17, as we get closer to CE 17, we're probably going to have to shift to one side of the right-of-way in order to form the curve to make a right angle intersection. Donna Pickard: Just on our side? Charles Folch: Likely on the south side. Donna Pickard: Is there a map that 'shows that? I mean has that been drawn out so [ know what [ stand to lose as far as property or trees? We have quite a few trees there and I guess I just feel real insecure not knowing how much is going to be taken. Charles Folch: As far as property goes, the road is proposed to be constructed within existing right-of-way so there'd be no property loss from that perspective to you. Donna Plckard: Okay property but even on the right-of-way there's quite a bit of mature vegetation there. So that potentially, since it's on Chanhassen right-of-way can just get? Charles Folch: No, one of the things we will do as we get into the detatled design, if we get into the detailed design segment, is to look at exactly what the significant trees are there and we would, as we have on other projects such as Hinnewashta Parkway, when we had no choice but to remove vegetation, trees, etc., we wlll propose a tree replacement plan. But that level of detail comes out in detail design. Donna Plckard: Are the residents notifled each step of the way in the deslgn process? Or are we notifted l£ke we were tonight? You've got to look in the Villager. Charles Folch: Well, I have to apologize. There may have been an error tn the mailing list while I was out of the offtce the week before last and it appears that maybe some of the residents weren't notified. Z apologize for that. Oonna Pickard: Was anybody notifed? Resident: Yes. Donna Pickard: Some people were notified? Charles Folch: But I apologize if there was a mix up in the notifications that were sent out. At any rate, it's our intent to maintain open communication through the project. It's likely that we Would have probably a neighborhood 13 City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 meeting as we get into the design process which would allow you to have some revleu and lnput as to what's actually occurring out there and again, the design, plans and specifications would be brought back to Council for approval which you would have input at that time again in a similar situation as we're here tonlght. Donna Pickard: Okay. Have you considered what the transition is going to be like between the new Lilac Lane and the old Lilac Lane? Because it's a straight road now and you're contemplating upgrading just a small part of it. Charles Folch: Yeah we would, as I mentioned, start the transition probably just west of Teton Lane and then carry the new section down CR 17. Oonna Pickard: Okay, but is there going to be like a curb there? I mean I just want to make sure that, especially people in Shoreuood mlght be aware that. Charles Folch: There utll be a curve as you get to the intersection with CR 17. We want to try to shlft it down to get more of a right angle intersection. Donna Pickard: No I mean up on Lilac. I mean you're saying you're putting curb and gutter. I don't know, I guess I'm having trouble visualizing what that's golng to look like wlth an old tiny road and then a nice, blg wide new road. Charles Folch: Well we will have to taper back with the curb sectlon back to a non-curb or rural section. There will be a transition through there. It likely won't be a curve per se. It would probably be more of a gradual taper. It's not going to be a sharp curve or anything like that. Donna Pickard: Okay. Some of these things I just want to make sure you're thinking about because it's going to affect what the neighborhood feels like and Z don't know if Z want to feel 11ke you're isolating part of the neighborhood in order to facilitate traffic from houses that aren't even in the neighborhood. And also you klnd of got into thls improving intersection geometrlcs at CR 17 and Lilac Lane. You were saying that you were going to take the road and kind of tllt it in at more of a rlght angle? Charles Folch: To improve sight lines, yes. Shoreuood has received some complaints in the past concerning both slght lines at that intersection and also the steepness of the grade coming down with there not being a landing area, particularly in wlnter tlme conditions. If the road have 1ce or snow and things 11ke that. A few residents have filed letters with the City of Shoreuood concerning that issue. Donna Pickard: Okay. Has any detalls been talked about as far as gradlng of the road? I mean I know you just brought it up a little bit. We're right, I don't know if you've ever been there? Because our house comes doun and there's a pretty big slope and then the road's straight and then especially west of us, it drops down agaln. If you're bringing it down harder, then there's golng to be a lot of issues that you'd have to deal with, especially the landscaping on our property. If it needs to be landscaped, is that something that's going to be tacked onto the assessments for the neighborhood? Because there's going to be gradlng that's golng to be done and either landscaping or retaining walls or City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 as I said in my letter, erosion which is what happened on Teton Lane. They came and just graded it and they didn't build anything, they didn't plant anything there and it just kind of has been washing down. I mean no~ there's weeds there SO. Charles Folch: As we would get into the design phase, Bill and his staff will work with a number of profiles and then evaluate cross sections and try to find a balance or happy median between the lower side to the north and your much higher property to the south. Certainly we haven't defined exactly what the impact is going to be as far as tree replacement and things like that but rough numbers, as far as cost associated with replacement and grading, etc. have been estimated in the cost that's been presented tonight. So there would not be any additional costs. That's not been missed i guess I should say. That's not been missed from the estimate. Hayor Chmiel: Charles, maybe I can make a suggestion. In the event that it gets pretty hard to visualize what's happening, it might behoove the staff to come out to the site with Mrs. Pickard and show her exactly what you're talking about. I think that way you can visually see and probably try to understand that a little bit more. I know that oftentimes we sit here too and try to remember exactly what you're saying. Where it's going to be presents a problem. So maybe you can sit with or make an appointment with Mrs. Pickard and talk about that. Charles Folch: You bet, we can certainly do that. Hayor Chmiel: The additional thing that I see too is that if these hearing notices were not sent out, I think it would not constitute the public hearing this evening. We're going to have to continue this public hearing until the next Council meeting because legally, technically they should have been sent out and somehow it just fell between the cracks. That's something that must be done. Charles Folch: Absolutely. Hayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, Hrs. Pickard, do you have anything more? Would that be workable with you to have staff come out? Donna Pickard: I would love to have more communication from staff. That'd be wonderful. Along with what you just said, I hope that there is proper and regular communication with the City of Shorewood on this subject and also with it's residents. I think everyone, not everyone. All the residents along the street in Shorewood should be sent all these notices too. Because although they don't live in Chanhassen it directly affects them. Hayor Chmiel: We have no authority to really send it out to the city of Shorewood people. Donna Pickard: Pardon? Hayor Chmiel: We have no authority to send it out to the city, people within $horewood. 15 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Donna Pickard: Even a decision that will directly affect what's happening to them? Mayor Chmiel: Right. I still have some questions about Shorewood too. Donna Pickard: Okay, that's interesting. And also I want to make sure that there's an agreement, I don't know what you call lt. An agreement and an understanding or a contract as to who maintains these roads. I mean who's going to plow them. Who's golng to clean out the sewers. Repair them. You know fill in the potholes. Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk as far as that road is concerned, it will probably be Shorewood's responsibility to plow. The other maintenance as far as with the sewers or water, that would be st111 our responsibility. Donna Plckard: That would be your responsibility to come and do, okay. I just wanted to make sure that that klnd of stuff was belng done because it seems to me before you, well one of the things you said at the last meeting, I think It was the May 18th meetlng, that you felt like thls project was contingent upon Shorewood approval so I would hope that they would get all the information so that they can make an lnformed decision. Also at the last meetlng you brought up the issue of speed control. While I know that speed bumps are not possible, one ldea that I had, I don't know what the policy ls on putting up stop signs but to put up ~ stop sign at what would be the newly formed intersection of Teton Lane and the road that enters 1nrc Ithillen. That's about the halfway mark between Ashton Court and Lilac Lane. To me that might be a good solution to solve what ls golng to be an inevitable problem. Because a long, nice straight speedway with no driveways coming in, people are going to go real fast. Anyways, thank you for your tlme and thank you for listening. Joel Oressel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Joel Oressel. I'm the City Engineer from the City of Shorewood. I thought it was an appropriate tlme to jump in here. From a staff standpoint, we do have several items of concerns, mostly revolving around the geometrics of lt, none of whlch I think are insurmountable but we would like to have some input in the plan stage. She's also alluded to another ltem of concern for us is to, who would be handllng the maintenance. Would that be a City of Chanhassen, a City of Shorewood, some combination of the two or something 11kc that. Those are the two major items that the City has a concern wlth and we would appreciate notifying our residents for further input. From Shorewood as the project progresses. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Counc11. I'm Richard 81oom. I represent Hilloway Corporation, the developer of the proposed Ithillen subdivision. Flrst of all I'd 11ke to thank Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Folch for the cooperation that's been extended to us. We've met with both of them on several occasions relatlve to thls whole project and they've been very helpful and I think they've made their best effort to be fair in these matters. I understand that argulng about who pays for it always get controversial and I think they've tried to do their level best. I guess what I might do is really make two comments really relatlve to the report and I guess at that point I'd also like to offer an alternate that we would like to suggest 16 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 that you mlght want to glve some consideration to. I guess the first comment is, if you look at the project itself, it's really k[nd of a catch bag of things that are being thrown in here in terms of what's being proposed for improvements. You've got Lilac upgrading. You've got Lilac storm. You've got Teton upgrading. You've got Teton storm and Teton sewer and water. The theory is then, the way that assessments incidentally were handled, they were kind of all lumped in the pot and then there was to klnd of figure out how that would be spread. I guess our concern is, especially as it relates to the Lilac storm sewer and really for that matter the Teton storm sewer. When we designed our subdivision, we were required to look at the drainage area within our subdivision which is greater than our 9 acres incidentally, and we dld provide the pond...etc and all the wetland designs, which we laid out to handle that whole area. As best we can tell in looking at the topography very carefully and going out Friday afternoon and actually looking at the property again, I don't believe that our property dratns to the Lllac storm sewer at a11. It was thought that maybe the north end of our subdivision does but you've got Gordon Johnson's property between us and where the storm sewer ls proposed and lt's still going uphill. I think the north end of our property actually drains across the street or across Lllac to the north and into Shorewood. The balance of Teton, where the break point is from drainage really draining into our subdivision, also the storm sewer proposed lnto Teton ts dralnlng really the Ware property into our property. So I guess what we're saying is that from our, from the storm drainage perspective, we feel like we're more than adequate accommodating what's draining into our property and frankly that is being added into, winds up being our portion of the cost for something that we don't contribute any water to. Secondly, I would guess I would reiterate the comments of Mrs. Pickard and Mrs. Natole earlier. I know the whole Teton barricade issue has been very controversial. I guess we really take no position on that issue one way or the other but the fact is, if the barricade is removed, there's going to be considerable improved access provided to Curry Farms. Now we are being asked to pay our prorata share of the roadways in this area. Primarily due to the fact that even though we don't front on some of these roadways, i.e. Lilac, we'll have our homes will drive down there eventually and we get an access benefit. Well, if that's true, Curry Farms gets an equal access benefit for, and I understand why you were not proposing to assess them because of the controversy associated with that. I guess what we would suggest, and we would be willing to maybe I guess throw out kind of a compromise that we would be willing to do. And really the original sewer and water that we had proposed out of the right-of-way, we did that at the ttme thinking we were going to go on with a private job. Do this ourselves. Not affect the neighbors but then it's kind of grown as we've gotten into the process with the feasibility and that's, in other words the scope of the project has gotten a lot bigger than what we originally anticipated. What we would be willing to do is to install the sewer and the water coming up Teton, as is shown in the report. What we would also work on upgrading Teton Lane along the length of the whole up to Lilac Lane. Beyond, in other words our property. We would ask however that in exchange for that upgrading, that we be given credit against our trunk sewer and water. We actually feel that the sewer and water that's being proposed in Teton Lane is not really a lateral to us at all. It will become a lateral once we install it in our street and hook our houses up to it but really the piece that's being installed into Teton Lane is really a trunk line that's coming up to our subdivision. We will then in turn extend it into ours and then serve our 17 homes off of our internal lateral. $o ~ guess what, and we would also ask that 17 City Council Heeting - 3une 8, 1992 some consideration be given to, and this would be subject obviously or concurrence by Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Folch, is we're not still yet convinced that Teton Lane itself necessarily has to be torn up. The proposal is that it's a ~ inch mat and a minimal sub base under it and therefore the substandard should be torn out and replaced. Well, there mlght be posslbly by increasing pavement thicknesses or something like that, there might be an equivalent way to give you the g ton or ? ton load 11mlt that you want on your road wlthout necessarily having to tear out the whole road. We would still propose curb and gutter along both sldes and in effect then the widenlng would occur on our slde of the road, lessening then that you have a posslble impact against the Natole property. They've been very concerned about their trees in their front yard. This proposal wiJ. J. potentiaily would have minimal impact on them other than the fact that curb and gutter be installed along thelr side of the road. Under our solution then, what we would propose then is sewer and water that we would bulld. We get credlt for that but the clty however could st111 galn those unlts back for the credits you've given us by, if and when they're property ever is subdivided. At that polnt you could collect a hook up fee so the credlts you've granted us, you could recover that back at such time as the adjacent people were to subdivide. The advantage in what I'm suggesting here thls evenlng ls that you don't have to assess now and then possibly defer under the senior deferment or something 11ke that because it st111 accrues interest, bear in mind even though it's deferred. You could defer the matter until such time as they were to ever subdivide. If they were to stay in thelr home and use it as lt's presently being used today. There would be no impact on them whatsoever. With the one caveat I guess we would ask ls that tile Teton storm, that some consideration be given to that. I guess we feel that we're the receiving end of that 11ttle plpe that's comlng across and that we would not be willlng to bulld that portion and we'll work with your staff maybe on solving that problem. But lt's really an overflow from adjacent properties onto ours. I guess as far as the Lilac Lane improvements then, what ue would ~trongly recommend you might want to consider is the costly 1rem in that project, for Lllac now I'm speaking, is really that storm sewer that's being proposed in there which would be on the south side of the road as I understand it. What we're thlnking is, posslbly by rebuilding Teton or repaying Teton, we might be able to shift the drainage point farther north such that we can dlvert more of Teton's water comlng our way to lessen the water that's golng to go down the street and around the corner. And if we could do that, what we mlght suggest that you might want to consider. Now I know this may not be a pe)'fect solution but it would be I think a workable one, is if you had some catch baslns down at the bottom. Maybe several in a row because of the water velocity. Where you could intercept that water coming down Lllac Lane and then just have a pipe golng underneath the road. That would take out a pretty costly item in storm sewer then running that up the street. Having said that then, if you look at the city's portion of what they were proposing to contribute towards this entire project, frankly the city would probably, almost have enough money to bulld the road wlth a reduced storm sewer and it mlght be fairly much of a wash. It would then have no effect on the city of Shorewood people and it more or less stays the same. So I guess we would throw that out as a possible alternate and also note that objections that we did make. Thank you. Frank Natole: One question. What are you golng to do wlth the storm drain that is in front of my house now? 18 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Richard Bloom: Well there'd be no change to that I guess is what we're saying Mr. Natole. [f that drain is currently there, it remains. [f it's currently draining our way, it would continue to drain that way and we would not propose interfering with that one way or the other. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, maybe Charles, maybe you could give us a little insight. Some of these things seem logical. I wonder if you could make. comment on it. Charles Folch: Sure. As far as the recon lssue, as mentioned in my presentation in the staff report, we are going to disrupt a significant portion of the existing pavement that's there when the sewer and water would be installed. There would also be curb and gutter that's going to be installed along both sides of the roadway. [n effect, if you went with an overlay type situation, you're going to have, we could ptecemea[ it in that way but you're going to have differential behavior of the pavement. Each pavement section there. We also took a look at what would have to be the pavement thickness in order to do just an overlay type situation and that amounts to basically an additional 3 inch overlay. About 3 [/2 [ believe it is above and beyond what's there existing. [ bel£eve A1 had the cost numbers, comparison between the two but again as [ mentioned before, the amount of pavement that would be saved after we're done constructing utilltles and putting in curb and gutter is going to be minimal and in my experience with the type of settling and froze action we have in our Chan soils, that you're much better off designing one uniform consistent roadway section. As &t relates to the storm sewer issue, it [s an interesting idea to try and move the high point along Teton Lane farther to the north to eliminate or reduce as much drainage going to Lilac as possible. However the high point in Teton Lane, in that segment of Teton Lane is about at the midpoint or just south of the midpoint along that distance. The drop if you will in elevation between the high point and the intersection at Lilac is 7 feet. That's going to be very difficult to try and bring 7 feet down [n an overlay type situation. Or even in reconstruction. Reconstruction would make it more feasible to try and move that hlgh po£nt but we certainly couldn't move the high point anywhere near that intersection. There's just too much drop. As far as the utilities go, neither the sewer nor the water would qual[fy as trunk llnes. Based on their s£ze, based on the type and number of connections that are going into them. They're not trunk lines. They're local lateral lines and should be installed and constructed as such. Bill Engelhardt: We've been invo[ved in Teton Lane for about 6 years I think here. Going way back to the origlnal study. There's a rlght way and a wrong way of doing thts job. What we've got proposed to you is the right way. I disagree with what they're talklng about in a storm sewer. Trying to move the high polnt. We don't contribute to storm sewer. I disagree with that totally. They are responsible for part of that storm sewer and they should pay their share. In light of the fact that the city is even ptcklng up half of the storm sewer, for the developer to say that they're not responsible for any of that storm sewer is ludicrous. We've trted to take the cost of this project and dlvide it evenly. The property's on the east slde of Teton Lane, Natole, Ware, and Pickard are both very large properties. Originally as it was mentioned earlier, the reason for the barricade was try to separate the rural area from the developed area. Under the original, back in 1987 report, the Oonovan property was never going to be developed. It was in a 100 year trust. It was never going to be developed. I think if you don't look at this project as 19 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 upgrading the roadway to city standards, upgrading the sewer and water in the proper manner, putting in the right-of-way, taking care of your storm sewer, you're golng to be asking for problems down the road and we're going to be rlght back here again looking at another alternative to try and fix the problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Is there anyone else? Randy Karl: I'm Randy Karl, &3gl Teton Lane. I don't know what you folks here are golng to decide on thls. I would recommend that if you do declde to open up the barricade on Teton Lane, that we try to do it as soon as possible. I think you were made aware of one of our neighbors the other day that had a medlcal situation and the ambulance got on the wrong side and the Sheriff had to go out and get hlm and stuff and that could have been disastrous if his wlfe had not had some medication to attend him. I be].ieve the Pickards talked about putting a stop sign at thls new street and belng a resident up here, I know I don't 11kw to stop at a lot of stop signs but I think in the interest of public safety, it might be prudent to conslder putting stop slgns at the corner of Ashton Court and the other street. That would definitely discourage a lot of that speed belng plcked up there on that road and maybe cut down on some of the commuting but at the same time it would help with the publlc safety issues of school buses that now have to turn around at the corner of Teton and Bretton Way. I've got a lot of little klds startlng to grow up, going to kindergarten, first grade and stuff up there so that's a real safety concer~ with school buses and has been. They're very careful and we haven't had any incidents but we also have had a number of incidents, now I thlnk 2 or 3 where safety vehicles, either flre or ambulances have, for whatever reason, got on the wrong side of the barricade. I would hate for that to happen to any of the folks on elther slde if they were responding from Chanhassen and for some reason came up through our area and couldn't get across. That could happen to anybody. We've been lucky so far. $o as you conslder this, I'd recommend since the break away barricade that was agreed to a number of years ago wasn't executed, and if the road ls golng to be opened up, that you consider removing the barricade as soon as possible and maybe attending to some stop slgns and stuff to keep the traffic slowed down through that area so that it can be safe for everybody and enjoyable. Thank you. Mayor chmiel: Thank you Randy. Yes. Richard Bloom: Maybe if I could just comment or clarify. As far as Teton Lane and what we're proposing, I meant to say we want to explore the idea of this overlay idea. Now if we find that in fact, and frankly it sounds like it may not be worth dolng because the extra pavement. You might be better off just tear it out. We are very willing to do that. Now our credit request as far as the trunk sewer and water goes, I guess we st111 do feel that that particular line and we have no lateral benefit off of it so it really is not a lateral line to us. It ls trunk. I understand what Mr. Folch ls saylng but we're also talking about building a piece of roadway that doesn't abut our property and we're dolng so in the interest frankly of hopefully resolving many of the problems that you have out here. Perhaps not all of them but what we're offering ls really there would be no assessment at the present tlme at all to the existing neighborhood. Other than wlth the possible exception of the one dralnage comlng underneath the overflow coming across Teton. That lssue I thlnk we still have to resolve but I think that we were not, and also shifting that 2O City Council Heeting - 3une 8, 1992 high point, if we can, we'll shift it, we think we can move it slightly to the north, especially if we now rebuild the whole road. We might be able to help at least improve that to some extent. I wouldn't suggest for a minute we could put it all the way down to the corner either. That's quite a drop and we understand that too. Thank you. Hayor Chmiel: Anyone else? I know I had some concerns about the safety aspect of it too and I asked Hr. Hart to have someone from our Fire Bepartment come down and maybe we could just address that issue of that. Scott Hart: Hr. Hayor and City Council. The public safety department has been involved with discussions regarding this issue with the City Engineer and City Planner, with the Fire Chiefs, the Fire Board and our entire department and our position is that the fact that we have had two incidents involving problems, once with a fire engine and more recently with an ambulance, indicates that in our opinion the barricade does need to come down. Fire Harshal Hark Liftin is here to address any other specific questions. Positions have been taken that every fire fighter should know the exact way in and out and while they do try their best, occasionally rigs come in from the wrong way. This happened once with a fire engine and a second time with an ambulance and the ambulance personnel are not city employees. They're going by maps and by routes that they believe to be the best. But even if vehicles do come in the correct way, our response protocols do not always permit a single entrance. For instance, if we were to set up the aerial tower, that vehicle takes up'the entire roadway and we'd have no choice but to bring vehicles in from the other direction. And we are human too and mistakes do happen and we do not want anyone's property or their families to suffer as a result of that. Our position is that the barricade be removed and as soon as possible. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Scott Hart: Councilwoman Oimler? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, Hr. Hart could you tell me, would a break away barricade answer all those safety concerns or is that not feasible? Scott Hart: We don't believe so. There was already confusion about this barricade that was supposed to have been constructed in a break away manner and it isn't. We would not risk our vehicles with the barricade that's there now. But we look ahead toward winter time when the street department would be plowing and piling up snow there. We're not in favor of a break away barricade because for a number of months of the year, it's sttll obstructed. Florence Natole: Hr. Harr? Scott Harr: Yes. Florence Natole: How has Christmas Lake been able to do that for 10-12 years and have no problems? Scott Hart: I don't know. 21 City Council Meeting -. June 8, 1992 Florence Natole: Well why would there be more problems for us than there is for [hem? Scott Hart: I'm afraid I don't know what the situation is. Florence Natole: Well they've got two roads...and they don't fight Christmas Lake people. If they put something in, it stays there and I would think that Chanhassen had a little power too. If it's supposed to be in there and supposed to be a break away, it should have been done and it hadn't. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can discuss and talk about within that particular prevlew of that Christmas Lake situation. Thank you Scott. Anyone else? We are not going to close this public hearing. We're going to continue lt. I thlnk some of the thlngs that you're looklng at and some discussions maybe should be looked at fully. Come up with that final conclusion of whether we do or whether we don't. And anythlng from Counc117 Councilwoman Dimler: Lots of things. Shall I start Mike? Councilman Mason: I have lots of things too. Is tonight the night or 2 weeks from tonight? Mayor Chmiel: I think 2 weeks from tonlght probably maybe but unless there's something pertinent to what we discussed that may be dlscussionary at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I've got 2 things in particular that might influence what gets done in the next 2 weeks. Before the next public hearing. That one ls the break away barrler. Slnce we don't know and I thlnk the question is legitimate, what has Christmas Lake been dolng and I know in the Minutes of the last Counc11 meetlng I brought that up too and it was just sald that that's part of Shorewood and it was dropped at that but maybe we should look into that and learn and see what can be done and if it ls feasible. It doesn't sound like rlght now it ls but obviously it's been working for Christmas Lake so for the next meetlng, if we could have that study and then have a report on that. Mayor Chmiel: And I'd like to know the length of the road that they had along the lake frontage as well. What the distance was to be included up to the break aways. Councilwoman Dimler: And the second item was, I do appreciate Mr. Bloom's efforts in trying to come to some sort of a compromise here but I do think that Council in general should remember that this whole thing is before us because of [he development. If it weren't for the development, we wouldn't be looking at a road upgrade. We wouldn't be looking at storm sewer and we are putting a cost on those neighbors and I think that we should consider that when you divide up how it's going to be paid. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael? Councilman Mason: I concur with that. I think the point from Mrs. Pickard about benefitted properties is very well taken. Curry Farms certainly is golng to get a far more beneflt out of thls than the people already 11vlng on Teton City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Lane and I don't think, as it stands right nom, ! don't think that's an issue that this Council is dealing mlth and I think me need to. I really do. And I guess I just, Bill mhat you said about a right may and a mrong may. I agree mith that completely. You knom from a technical aspect. I think sometimes it's not the only thing me need to look at. There's certainly a lot more to be said but I guess it should probably mait for 2 weeks. Councilman Workman: Well, I agree mtth sort of ail. You knom Shoremood, the Curry Farms residents already paid for their road. And this road should have never matched up mith Teton Lane if it mas never intended to go through so me can blame our fore fathers and everything else on that but it never should have been matched up and you know that me have misdom mhen new neighborhoods are coming in and we're saying, that they mant to do that. They still mant to do that and you know, who wants to assess the Natole's or the Pickard's or anybody? The fact ks that Curry Farms paid for their roads and they probably should already have that through. It should already probably be done. I think me ought to be notifying those Shorewood residents a little bit better. One of the strongest voices, Mr. $imcox, has I think given up and thromn in the towel and he's probably more. Donna Pickard: He was at the Shorewood Council meeting on the 20th. Councilman Workman: He's given up mith us. Donna Pickard: Well yeah. Councilman Workman: But he's probably got more riding, I think the headlights go right into his house. He's probably home matching the Twins tonight. $o I mean just the fact that it matches up. It should have never matched up. We could fix the situation maybe for public safety by just renaming one end of Teton Lane. I mean that's, Natole Way or something. But I do too. I probably talked about this issue now a half a dozen times so I mon't go on any further but you do have to look at the other end and mhat has been set up in Curry Farms. And that isn't very good either but it's really a loser situation. So I'll be announcing my resignation, no. Mayor Chmiel: You can't do that until later. Councilman Mason: Just one more qulck question. I'm confused as to why we can be going ahead with this mithout anything from $horemood. I mean this, obviously we're not just going to tear domn half the street. I don't get that. Don Ashworth: Well, we are proposing a joint powers agreement. We have been in meetlngs for lssues such as the maintenance and mhat not. I've talked mlth Mr. Herme on and I feel comfortable that Shorewood does know about the project and that a joint powers agreement m111 be entered 1nrc and the lssues that have been brought out here this evening will be put into writing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I would like to contlnue this public hearing until 2 weeks from today which will also be on a Monday evening. Councilman Mason: We need to get the Pickard's and Natole's on the mailing list. 23 City Council Meeting -- June 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the things I mentioned before. That we have to, that's why we're continuing the public hearing is so ue can recirculize to the people who did not get notified and that's the reason why we're continuing the hearing. Don Ashuorth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: The Attorney informs me that it is more than just sending out the notices that somehow did not get sent out. If you're calling literally for a new public hearing, it's going to require a new advertisement as well as the individual notices. And I think, I don't think ue can make that in the 2 week period of time can we? Charles Folch: Do we have someone from the newspaper here? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Dean Trippler: You need 2 weeks don't you... Mayor Chmiel: 10 days notification prior to the public hearing. Roger Knutson: So you can't do it. Don Ashuorth: You're not going to be able to. Councilwoman Oimler: Even with the continuation? Roger Knutson: Technically this is an invalid hearing. It's not a hearing at a11. Councilwoman Dimler: I see. Mayor Chmlel: So we're talking a month from today. Charles Folch: July 13th. Mayor Chmiel: That would be July the 13th. And I'd like to make one suggestion with the agenda. To make sure that this is one the front side. Up close so these people don't have to slt through hearlng it one more tlme again. I'm sure they enjoy comlng here and they would just prefer dolng anythlng else except. So with that we w111 then republish and continue the publlc hearlng in the proper sequences our Councll has indicated. Councilman Workman: Do we need a motion? Mayor Chmiel: OD we need a motion Roger? Roger Knutson: It's a good idea. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would call for a motion. 24 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Councilman Workman: For a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: Call for a public hearing and notification of all adjacent property owners included the Shorewood people as well. Councilman Workman: $o moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Counciluoman Oimler seconded to call for a public hearing on July 13, 1992 and to notify all adjacent property owners, including Shorewood residents for street and utility i~proveaents to Teton Lane (Lilac Lane to Ashton Court) and Lilac Lane (Teton Lane to CR 17), Project No. 91-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NON-CONFORMING USE PERMITS FOR R[CR[ATIONAL BEACHLOTS= A. FRONTIER TRAIL HOMEOWNERS A~SOCTATION. Public Present: Name Address Andrew Hiscox Tom Manarin 7500 Erie Avenue 7552 Great Plains Blvd. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the request before you on 5(a) is for Frontier Trail Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot. This one and the one following it are fairly straight forward. They're requesting approval of the status quo condition as was found on the property in 1981. Therefore there really is no disagreement. They're inconcurrence with the original inventory. The Planning Commission reviewed 5(a) and did recommend it's approval. Since the Planning Commission meeting, there's been some discussion between the beachlot, the city staff and the adjoining property owner, Mr. Hiscox. Apparently there's a boat launch that is actually located serving the recreational beachlot that's actually located on Mr. Hiscox's property. There's negotiations going on where they're going to exchange easements to legitimize that. Additionally the beachlots' dock which is currently located in the vicinity of Mr. Hiscox's property will be relocated back onto the beachlot and be consistent with our dock setback. So we are recommending that it be approved. Mayor Chmiel: There's only one thing that I see Paul and it's just minor. But on the shoreline you show the non-conforming recreational beachlot permit with the association request and it shows 200 feet. Shouldn't that be Z93.57 Paul Krauss: It should be. Mayor Chmiel: It's on the second page in on the back of the second page. Back side. You show 200 feet. Paul Krauss: Yeah. We'll make that correction. Councilwoman Dimler: Roger's gone? I wanted some legal counsel. 25 City Council Meeting ,- June 8, Mayor Chmiel: Legal counsel has just left. Maybe before we go ahead with that, and with your questions, is there anyone from the Frontier Trail Homeowners Association who'd like to say anything? Are you pretty much in agreement with the staff recommendation? Tom Manarin: Yeah, I'm in agreement. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure this has been worked out somehow. Tom Manarin: Tom Manarin, 7552 Great Plains Blvd.. The only question that we have is, belng that it is at 193.5 now, if we deed over another 30 feet, is it going to False any problems? Councilwoman Oimler: That was my question to the lawyer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that, I'm sure that that would have to go through the process of the city maklng sure that that's connected with that. Paul Krauss: If I can clarify that. Is that for the boat launch? Tom Manarin: Well, it's the boat launch and then some. It is our opinion that the boat launch is on our property and that lt's a totally new survey that has been brought up in Favor of Hiscox's, not us obviously so he can do whatever he wants to do. We're w1111ng to live with deedlng it over and havlng the easement but our question is, hou's it going to affect ua with the city by losing another 30 feet. Paul Krauss: We're basically validating the status quo. We didn't do any of the surveys. These are privately done surveys. We accept them at face value. We're accetlng the conditions out there at face value. Whlch means that the boa~ launch, if it is on Mr. Hiscox's property, that's just the way it is. I mean the status quo ls golng to remaln. The fact of the matter is, nothlng's changed out there. I mean a survey may have changed. A piece of paper may have changed but nothing else has changed out there. So whichever way it turns out, I don't see that as an issue. Mayor Chmiel: So what you're saying is that everything is as status quo so there shouldn't be any? Paul Krauss: Exactly. Mayor Chmiel: Point of precedent. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Could I just ask a question? Mr. Hiscox's survey apparently is done so that he could subdivide. Paul Krauss: That is true. Councilwoman Oimler: And if that subdivision indeed does take place, how does that affect this beachlot? Paul Krauss: In point of fact Councilwoman Oimler, I don't believe it does. He is looklng at recombinlng and separating lots away from the beachlot. He's got 26 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1~92 beach rights for access for his new lots. We've run this past our city attorney. Gotten some ideas from Roger. It doesn't appear to have much bear£ng on it as I see it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, as long as that's true then I'll. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, did you still have that question or was the question. Counciluoman Dimler: Well, I think it's ansuered, yes. Thank you. And uith that I, did you move approval already? Councilman Mason: Councilman Workman moved approval but I'll second It. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You moved approval Tom? Councilman Workman: Yep. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the 1981 status quo for the Frontier Trail Non-Conforming Recreationa! Beachlot with one dock, 40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of their motor vehicle access, parking for 5 to 6 cars, a bq3at launch (20 feet wide) and approval of a swimming beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. SUNRISE: HILLS HOHE;Ot/INI~RS fl$$OCIATIOIt. Public Present: Name Craig Luehr A~dr~ss 7226 Frontier Trail Paul Krauss: Thls ls also another hopefully easy one. Again, they are requesting approval of the status quo as they existed in 1981. Therefore as we see lt, there really ls no lssue. The Planning Commission recommended approval and we do too. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Any residents from Sunrise Hills? Yes sir. Cralg Luehr: My name's Cralg Luehr of 7226 Frontier Trall and I'm a member of the association. I think we discussed most everything last time at the Planntng meetlng. It seemed falrly stralght forward and I thlnk from my perspective of being a fairly recent member, that we're sitting pretty good. Since we've talked Ursula, and I don't know if you have anythlng you want to bring as a member too or even tf you can. Councilwoman Dlmler: Yes as a matter of fact. Mayor Chmtel: She has to get off of her chatr here and go doan in front. Councilman Workman: You need to leave the bulldlng ls what you need to do. If I might be so remindful. 27 City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: I'll abstain my vote. No. One of my questions was, why did staff come up with 12, the number 12 o~l the parking because in 1981 certainly I know that we've had more than 12. There are no designated paved, marked parking spots. What it is is grass and everybody parks on the grass and I know we've had more than 12 down there. So where did the number 12 come from and do we need to put it in there? Paul Krauss: As to whether or not we should put it in there, yes. We should have a number where we agree on so there's a benchmark to judge this against in the future. That's the purpose of going through this. Where it came from originally, I think we got that from the Association. As I recall on this one, and forgive me but I was away when this was at the Planning Commission meeting, is that there uas no 1981 survey information I believe on this one. Therefore, well I guess it was done. It showed one dock, 60 feet. Space for an off street parking for 12 vehicles so I guess what we're doing is we're taking for granted that this number was accurate. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I question that number because we've lived there since 1975 and Z know there are more than 12 cars down there. On certain days. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, one of the things the application showed, whoever filled it out, Charlie Robbins indicated number of parking spaces as 12 there. Councilwoman Dimler: But it's just grass in there and everybody parks on grass. There's no paved or marked spots so I'm wondering if we can change that number at thls point. Paul Krauss: I don't have information on that Ursula. I mean you would know more about It than I. Often times grass parking is more inefficient too than marked parklng. Councilwoman Dimler: But we don't want to pave it because we want to save that lake water. The quality of tile water down there. So we'd rather park on the grass. We don't want any more impervious surface next to our lake. Okay. Hr. Luehr? Craig Luehr: Could I just ask one question in relation to that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Craig Luehr: Would the 12 lots mean that we couldn't put any more actual gravel lots but we could park more cars or would that limit us to the 12 cars? Paul Krauss: It would limit you to the 12 vehicles. Councilwoman Oimler: See, that's what I'm saying. We don't want that because we've had, I know in '75 all through we've had more than 1~. I don't know why Hr. Robbins chose 12 at that particular point but it's not an accurate number. Paul Krauss: I have nothing else to make a recommendation on. ~8 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I can't even make a recommendation as to how many. Unless what we can do is to approve this with some discussion to be done on those vehicles to see what it could accommodate. Councilwoman Oimler: Could we amend it to say 20 at this point? Being that you just took the arbitrary number of what Mr. Robbins said. Paul Krauss: Again, it was in the '81 survey and then we received the application for that. I'm honestly not sure, I mean I don't want to sound argumentative but I don't know if 20 fits. If you're telling us that it's been there. Councilwoman Oimler: Well 12 doesn't fit. 20 would fit better. So you know, as long as we're going arbitrary, let's go with 20. Mayor Chmiei: What open space do we have? How much do we have? Total space? If you take a vehicle and just do it out mathematically, you'd come up with what? Paul Krauss: A parking space and the drive aisles are typically thought to take up 400 square feet apiece. Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: Let me put my council hat on. As a council member, would recommend. Mayor Chmiel: As I look at it 12, and you're saylng 20. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. That's closer to what's actual and we've been living there since '75. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if you wanted to continue this, we could go take a look at lt. I mean roughly there should be 8,000 square feet of area to park in to accommodate 20 cars. If that's what's out there, I guess I don't have a problem with it. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you happen to know the square footage? Mayor Chmiel: No. It says length of the shoreline is 150 feet. It doesn't say anything about the depth of the lot. Councilwoman Oimler: Right. Shall we leave that open then for staff to check? Paul Krauss: We can certainly do that. Hayor Chmiel: You have to have room for the people to accommodate picnic area. You have to have the room for the canoes and plcnic tables, grills. You've got a portable restroom. Temporary building. There isn't any. Councilwoman Dimler: We have a Port-a-Potty. 29 City Council Mee. ting ,- June 8, 1992 Mayor ChmJ. el: Why don't we have staff do that review to make sure what it can accommodate. I don't want to say 20 because I'm not sure that it can hold 20. From 12 to 20 is 8 more and that takes up a lot of room. So why don't ue have staff review it and if that seems logical after that, then let it be included as such. Councilwoman Dimler: I would rather have that. As long as we're going to lock into a number, I would want to see a more accurate of what's been going on down there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've never been invited down there. Councilwoman Oimler: Oh, please come to our 4th of July celebration. Mayor Chmiel: So with that. Councilman Workman: We might want to find out from the Attorney if Ursula can make that motion. Mayor Chmiel: No, she can't make the motion. I'm asking someone on the other side of Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Why can't I make the motion? Councilman Workman: Well, that's what I want to know. Mayor Chmiel: Because you're a property owner. Councilman Workman: You're an affected property owner in this. I'm only looking after your well being. Councilwoman Oimler: I can make any motion I want to. Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. Can I have a motion with that suggestion? Councilman Mason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Are ue going to carry the whole thing or are ue just going to carry the parking part? Mayor Chmiel: Just the parking would be reviewed and come up with a conclusion as to what can be accommodated. Councilman Workman: Okay, second. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying I can't vote? Mayor Chmiel: I think you should abstain. Councilwoman Oimler: That's a no vote. I can't abstain. 30 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Abstention, right? Councilwoman Oimler: I can't vote on this? Councilman Mason: Conflict of interest Councilwoman. Roger Knutson: When your interest is different from the publ£c as a ~hole and you have an ownership interest in the property as a homeowners association, it'd be my recommendation that you not vote. Councilman Workman: But it's not considered a no vote? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, an abstention is a no vote. Roger Knutson: Silence is a no vote. Councilwoman Oimler: No, silence is a yes vote. Abstention is a no vote and I don't want to vote no on thls. Mayor Chmiel: Because of conflict of interest, no vote. Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1~81 status quo for the Sunrise Hills Non-Conforming Recreationa! Beachlot with one dock, ~0 feet in length, no boats being moored or docked, continued use of their motor vehicle access, two canoe racks with space for 12 boats, a swimm[ng beach with swimming raft, marker buoys, and a boat launch. The Issue of the number of park[ng spaces wtll be tabled for further review. All voted tn favor except Councilwoman 01mler who abotained and the morton carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Paul Krauss: Just as a point of order, if that's a problem, is it reasonable to absent yourself from the vote and then it doesn't count as a no? Mayor Chmiel: No, just indicate it as a conflict of interest and not voting on the lssue. Roger Knutson: It's an interesting academtc exercise but you'v got the votes to pass it. COUNCIL pRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Z had one for the County Road Highway 12 which the County is going to be turning back over to the City of Chanhassen. Charles or Don, can you enlighten me on thls a 11ttle btt more? Do we really want it? Oon Ashworth: County Road? Mayor Chmlel: 12 and that's up by the, on the edge of Chaska by Gedney. And I look at it from two concerns. One, who's going to matntain it because it's way out in a 11ne. Do we have any agreement between us and Chaska because Chaska does plow through there? Bo they take care of that? What happens to it? Don Ashworth: I thlnk to respond to your flrst question, do we want it. The answer is no. Are we literally golng to be forced to take it, the answer to 31 City Council Heeling --June 8, 1992 that is yes. Chaska has stated that they will plow it. The Council will do some patching on tile roadway. The County doesn't really care to give it over but they're being forced to do such by the State and basically saying, with new 212, they cannot have two county State Aid roads that are less than 2 blocks from each other. And accordingly, the State has put 212, which will become obsolete, under the County State Aid system. Removi~g Stoughton and once that is removed, just like here with our own main street, it comes under the jurisdiction of the city whether we really want it or not. Hayor Chmiel: Well, the 212 corridor we're talking about which is way doun the line yet, I don't know why we should be addressing it at this particular time now. I mean it could be 20 years from now before that 212 corridor goes in. Don Ashworth: Except that the County has to submit their State Aid plan each year and to show improvements that thelr proposing as a part of that system. It was during that set of plan submittals that basically the State came in and saylng we are literally changlng thls over. We met wlth, and thls is really not new. Some of these discussions, maybe that's one of the problems is the final resolution here ls occurring I believe almost 2 years after we've already acted on this. So there was a resolulion from I to 2 years ago where they had initially presented thls. Thls ls klnd of the end of that process. Hayor Chmiel: It would have been nice if they would have come to us prior to that time and lnform us this ls what they're considering in dolng. Glve us that opportunity to at least look at it rather than come back with this resolution saying you've got to. Don Ashuorth: The Council had asked, what would be the effect of not doing the CR l? project and some of the businesses and potentially ue should relook at that issue. That does involve the County. Why don't I ask Roger Gustafson to come to one of our next meetings. We will talk about the CR 17 issue and also this one. If you would like. Hayor Chmiel: Good. Good. The other issue that I just wanted to talk about is, as we've read in the papers again with these children abductions and funny thlngs happening, I talked ulth Scott Hart today and trylng to institute gettlng seniors again involved. And it doesn't lnclude a lot. Haybe just a jacket for those people to wear and have a 11ttle ualkle talkie or whatever. But at least have those presence of those people within those parks to deter any of these people that mlght have any wild ldeas that mlght come up. I guess ~ want to make sure that ue don't have any more of that funny situations happening as we've had in the past. Exposures and thlngs of that nature for these klds. By having some of these senior citizens as CSO's to go into these parks and at least be present there, would make a deterrent for those people to think second about doing what they were going to do. He was going to pursue it and come up ulth some flgures and hopefully get back to us ulth that and we can go from there. Tom. Councilman Workman: Animal control. I had the opportunity to meet with Hayor Haug up in Tonka Bay and he said he always watches the meetings so he knows what we're dolng so he's probably not watchlng yet so, lt's an early meeting so too bad. But hello if you're out there. But he had a lot of good things to say 32 City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 about the contract and he really appreciated it and he said, ! think he mentions it to the Mayor once in a while. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I wanted to pass that along to the Public Safety Department. In light of the harmony that we've got now that we didn't have when we initially started the program about 3 years ago, ! feel an awful lot better about the program so it was fun to hear that. It was the one thing he said we were dolng right. But that was about it. Zf I could add one other lssue quickly. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Workman: The continuing saga of the tree escrow to new homeowners. This is personal experience now. Mayor Chmlel: Next agenda. Councilman Workman: ~f I could bring this up. Councilwoman Dimler: Now wait a minute. Get out there. Councilman Workman: What people have to do is they have to put a sod escrow, whlch I flnd very appropriate. This ls some of the pent up anger that people have and unttl you really live it, you don't understand. So what I had to do was, back in the end of January was put ,500.00 up for sod escrow, whlch I thlnk is important because people should sod and seed at some point within the f£rst year. However, you finally do that, so at closing you put $500.00 in that's difficult. You'd rather put it somewhere else. Okay, so you do that when there's a burden. Now, you go to get the sod and you do that and that cost me $750.00 so maybe our escrow isn't enough. But that costs me $750.00. There's another burden and my money's sittlng at City Hall. I won't see that money probably until the end of the month. We're talking another 30 day wait. It's my money, not the Clty's money that's sitting there. Somebody from engineering has to come out and actually see that tt's there. I don't think anybody's done that yet. Engineering has vacated the room. It's a real burden to have to go through what you're going through because it's kind of double jeopardy. Now I've got $1,350.00 laying out there. Well I was a City Council member, they made me kick in an extra $100.00 for some p<~ol fund but it gets to be, you know Mayor you talked about a guy who you knocked on bls door a couple years ago and he had a quarter million dollar home, which was a nice sized home, and he said the *500.00 or whatever was a burden. It does get to be a real pain In the butt, especially when my money's sitting at City Hall and I can't really get at lt. I had to go out and buy sod. You can't really use that money to buy sod anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Would it be better if you accrued interest on your money? Councilman Workman: That's what I'm counting. But you know what I mean, so now I've really pald for it twice and I'm still not going to get my money because, it's not in the register ton£ght. It's not approved and so I'm not going to get it until the end of the month. Maybe. 33 City Council Heeting - June 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Tom, that's all the joys of being a property owner. Councilman Workman: No, that's all the joys of how the city functions. That's just my point. That it is kind of irritating because now I've done it twice. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. For every one of those maybe that comes through. I don't know, maybe you can answer that Don. Have we had problems with that before with people and that's why it was instituted? Don Ashworth: I've not heard of any complaint until this evening. I think Tom hits bad timing. We pay bills every 15 days. One of the problems is, to be able to make that payment though, the request has to be in like. Alright, if you wanted a check that's on this Monday, it would have to be in by last Monday or Tuesday. That's awfully close to when Councilman Workman had notified me that the work was done and I don't know if. Councilman Workman: No, no. That's not the problem Don. I'm just stating some of the problems. It was done tile previous Saturday. I talked to them on Monday so if it needed to be done on Monday or Tuesday it was. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not getting into, I'm not trying to get into mine. It sounds like I am. I'm going to get paid down the road. All of it's paid for so it's not like a big deal. They didn't loan me the sod. So I'm just saying, those are some of the things that people do get angry about and but I was told by staff that on Monday that they would get out there either that day or Tuesday and it hadn't been done so just one of those llttle customer servlce thlngs that could lrritate somebody and has. Don Ashworth: We can look at some other alternatives. I know one of them that we tried was literally having property owners sign off and if you failed to do the work, that we could do it and actually put that as an assessment back against his property for what would be the following year and hypothetically, in that fashion he doesn't have to come up with the cash, at least as the guarantee. He still has to come up with the cash to get the work done. One of the problems there though is it's very easy for a builder to come in and simply sign away your rights and all of a sudden the following year you find this charge on your property tax statement and then you're back in as was the case with the guy down at the Pra£rie House where the contractor signed off on like $65,000.00 worth of sewer and water units and he didn't know about it until the following year. So there's kind of some down sides. We can relook at some of these aspects. You know another part is, your procedures are such that we make sure that ue get you the bill so you know who it is we're paying what. So you get an opportunity to take and say, Tom Workman, $500.00. What's this for? I don't really care to pay it. Councilman Workman: Well, my point is this. We have this ordinance set up because there are some problems. 8ut they are the exception because people do, 95~-gg~ of the people do sod or seed their yard or plant trees. Okay. But what we're doing ls we're taking out a whole bunch to get at the 1 or 2 or 3 percent and that's what I don't 11ke government dolng because lt's the old thlng about, we need to have, we need to force people to put 1 tree in because otherwise they won't. Well the Mayor bullt hls house ina beanfleld and there's trees. There's 100 trees in your yard? 34 City Council Meeting - 3une 8, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: 67. Don Ashworth: I don't know if I would totally agree from the standpoint that if left totally to their own priorities, would that $500.00 or $750.00 in your own case, would that go into landscaping first. Something for the kids. Well, maybe I can take and put some seed out there and that will be okay. How much dirt and sod, or dirt and what not has gone into the street while you try to explore the option of seeding the property yourself. Councilman Workman: Yeah but I just told you I have $500.00 in escrow plus I had to buy the sod. This system doesn't make it easy for people to go do it because they're not really dolng it wlth that escrow money. That's what I'm saying. I just paid twice for it. Okay, so that doesn't make it any easier for somebody moving lnto the neighborhood. That's what I'm saylng. So now I've paid $1,250.00 for sod and I have $500.(X) st£11 sitting at City Hall. That's my polnt. Now I'm not really using that money to buy the sod. I sort of am and eventually I'm going to but it doesn't make it easier for the homeowner to go out and do that. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we have it where they provide the receipt from purchase of the sod people. Present the bill and saying that we've paid for this. Why can't we then refund thelr money? Don Ashworth: Or potentially, and I think we discussed this with the trees. Tom notifles us in advance who it is he's golng to purchase that from and we literally process the check in the name of that firm. They either bill, we could flgure out some way in which we literally get that check to them. Whether you hand carry it over to them at the time you pick it up or that they bill us for that $500.00 knowlng that we've already made out a check to them. Mayor Chmiel: That sounds like it gets a little sticky. Don Ashworth: Even pre-pay. $o you've got $500.00 credit coming with Natural Green. Councilman Workman: $o I should have went to City Hail the week before I got sod or after I made the agreement with the sod and said, cut a check. Or a month before and sald, thls company is going to buy, see that's starting to get. Don Ashworth: Why don't we come back with some suggestions for your Counc11 meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. ADN~NSTRAT~VE PRESENTATIONS. Don Ashworth: The Opt/scan is something that we and the County will go into. It's there. You put the monies away. The County is the one ~ho bid it up and it was my bellef that under a Joint Powers ~greement we slmple pay the bill when it comes back in front of us. It's not something that's required to be bid by us because it's already been bid by them. In discussing the issue with the City Attorney, the technical portion is the City Council must approve all contracts 35 City Court,ii. M~;eting - June O, 1992 in excess of $15,000.00. I can hold off and put it onto the next agenda. Mayor Cl',miel: I would think we should. And not only that but then at the same tlme, knowlng the total amount of dollars we're golng to spend for that. I'd also like us to look at with our existing voting machines, is there a potential we can sell those to someone else? {]on Ashworth: I can...and respond to those. Hayor Chmiel: With that I'll call for adjournment. Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.. Submit[ed by Oon Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 36