Loading...
1992 02 24CHANI~SSEN CZTY COUNCZL REGULAR HEETZNG FEBRUARY 24, 1992 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. HEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Todd Hoffman and Scott Hark APPROVAL OF AGENt: Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Wing to add the following under Council Presentations: discussion of item l(b) which was deleted from the Consent Agenda. Al1 voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLXC ANNOUNCEHENTS: None. CONSENT AGENOA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Progress Valley Mini-Storage Facility, 1900 Stoughton Avenue, Gary Brown: 1) Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Screened Outdoor Storage as an Interim Use Permit in the Business Fringe (BF) District, Second Reading. 2) Approve Interim Use Permit to Allow Screened Outdoor Storage. e. Approval of Contract for Forest Cover Inventory Project Between the City and Lance Anderson. g. R~solutjo~ Jl~2-2&: Set Liquor License Fees for 1992. j. Adopt Resolution ~92-27: Urging the State of Minnesota to Expand the Funding for the State Outdoor Recreation Grant Program and Reeolut~p ~92-28: Urging the Expansion of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) Program. l. Approval of Accounts Payable. j. City Council Minutes dated February 10, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 5, 1992 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 1992 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 13, 1992 All voted in favor and the notion carried unanieouely. City Council Heeting - February 24, 1992 ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT ESTABLISHING RE~UIREHENT_ THAT NON-CONFORHING RECREATIONAL BEACHCOTS OBTAIN A NON-CONFORHING USE P[RHIT AND ESTABLISH p. ERHIT FEE. SECOND AND FINAL READING; AND A~PROVAL OF SUHHARY ORDINANCE_FOR PUBLICATION PURPQSES. Public Present: Name Address . Steve Decatur Dennis Baker David Tester Ivan Underdahl Bernard Schneider David HempeI Kevin Eidie Randy & Raymond Smith Greg & Barb HedIund Susan Conrad Arthur & Phyllis Bufferding Jerry Kortgard Hichael Ryan Steven Erlckson Kamer Van... Hark Rogers Jim & Jane Hendrickson Bob Hebelsen Hax & Chuck Erickson Tom Herz Terry Johnson Franols Faber 81'11 Turner John Herz Jerry Ahlman Tom & Hary Allenburg Zoe Bros 6645 Horseshoe Curve 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. 3897 Lone Cedar 7502 West 77th Street 7501 West 77th Street 3707 So. Cedar Drive 3719 So. Cedar Orive 429 Pleasant View 748 Lake Point 6625 Horseshoe Curve 620 Carver Beach Road 3901 Glendale Drive 3850 Haple Clrcle 3850 Leslee Curve Non-Resident 3851 Leslee Curve 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. 3601 Ironwood 3621 Ironwood 3201 Dartmouth Drive 3898 Lone Cedar Circle 3471 Shore Drive 3501 Shore Orive 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3896 Lone Cedar Circle 6621Hinnewashta Parkway Councilwoman Dimler: Item l(a) is the second and final reading of a zoning ordinance amendment concerning non-conforming recreational beachlots. I pulled thls item for a few reasons. One was that I wanted to find out here on the permit fee to make sure that that's just a one time. Okay. Also, I wanted to get some comments because it does need a 4/5 to pass, ls that correct? I wanted to get some comments from Hr. Workman who wasn't here the last time. Councilman Workman: Would you like my comments now? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Hayor Chmlel: Being we're discussing it, we'll take your comments at this time. Councilman Workman: Well, what would you like to know Ursula? City Council Meeting - February Councilwoman Dimler: Give me your wisdom on it. Councilman Workman: Well I apologize to probably a majority of the room for not being here. Z don't think you would have cared to have me In the room the night I wasn't here. It was an interesting meeting to not be at. I did read up on it and do a 11ttle bit of homework and some of you called and helped me out with it. Here we are again ktnd of trying to take care of problems that artse that I thlnk the Councll would sooner not have to take care of. And depending on who you talk to, you get different perceptions of what the problem is and why do we have the problem. Is the Clty the problem? Are beachlots in general the problem? I think staff would say yes, that beachlots themselves are problems. It would appear Ursula that needing a 4/5 vote to pass the ordinance which was discussed on February lOth will not occur so maybe this is all a bit antlcllmatic. ! originally started out thinking because the difficulty perhaps of trying to figure out what was going on in 1982, it seems like a very long time ago, would be so difficult and that In fact It was maybe too far gone for us to fairly decide what did exist. And there's probably still some truth to that. Realizing that we don't probably get, realizing that getting the 1991 at this point is probably an opportunity out the-door, I started to question what are the options and what really do we have then if we pass what we have tontght and that would be a permit system for all beachlots and Paul, you can tell me does that include the beachlots that don't have any boatlng rights on them? Paul Krauss: Presumably to document it we should probably do that. Whether or not you're charged for it would be open to some question. Councilman Workman: And maybe Paul and maybe Roger can tell me or tell me if I'm rlght or wrong that then what we would have after tonight ls 1982 ordinance with the Ctty now basically in the permitting business of who has a boat and who doesn't have a boat or whlch associations have how many boats and we would in effect be taking on or looking at each individual beachlot on it's own. Is that correct? As they come in for permitting. Paul Krauss: Yes. You would have the ability to evaluate each beachlot as they came before you with their permlt request. Councilman Workman: And when we got to that point and I've mentioned this to some people that then what we have ls we have a system that could become political in a sense. If in fact we don't know what was there precisely in 1982. It then becomes a matter of our Judgment as to what was there and what wasn't there. Whether it's documented by aerial photographs or memory or covenants or other, am I correct? Paul Krauss: That's true. However, that's the case right now. The ordinance right now relles on a 1982 standard because that's when these became non- conforming, ge don't have a forum before the Planning Commission and City Counc11 to resolve that whlch we would have with the permit process. Our only recourse at that point I would assume ts to file a complaint and have it resolved elsewhere by the court ultimately. Councilman Workman: Well I guess then that brings up my next question then maybe to Roger. Where does the permitting process, and I don't know if anybody in the room has a problem with the permitting process as much as they have to where the basellne is, 1982 or 1991. Haybe most people feel we need a system City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 somehow but what does that leave us Roger as far as legal. I think we had a situation where there was a potential court case and the Judge said no, we're not going to look at it. Take it back to the City so once we get the system in force, what does that do for the beachlot? Roger Knutson: If I could just take a couple minutes and explain. If you do nothing, if you pass no ordinance this evening, the so called '82 baseline wtll st111 be in effect. You passed an ordinance in 1982 that requlred all recreational beachlots as defined in your ordinance to come in and get a conditional use permit. To the extent the beachlots were organized and exlstlng prior to that date, they're grandfathered in. To the extent they have expanded inappropriately or 11legally, we can make them cut back to the slze they were in '82. The purpose behind this ordinance, staff has had a difficult time determining, there have been conflicting testimony in certaln cases as to what was out there in 1982. We did an inventory, ctty staff did an inventory in 1982 on a particular date so we have that information as of that date. Boats could have been in repalr. They could have been on the lake when the inventory person came by. We have complaining neighbors that sald, ah-ha. Back in 1982 they had x. Now they have y. They've increased. So something. The purpose behind this ordinance was to get everyone it's opportunity to come before the Planning Commission for the hearing and ultimately in front of this Council and to reglster thelr beachlots. To establish a non-conforming use. What thelr rlghts were. To establish what was out there in 1982 as best we can. If someone comes forward and said I had 6 boats and one of the neighbors sald 8. Or 4. They wouldn't say 8. Say 4, whatever it is. Then someone's going to have to make a decislon and give them a permlt. Sald alrlght, we'll declde thls once and for all so we know what the rules are. We'll decide it informally so we don't hopefully have to flght every one of these thlngs out in court or struggle wlth each one independently when someone called and said, our neighbors are violating the rlghts that were there in 1982. It establishes the prooess. If you do nothing, we're back at 1982 and we'll enforce the 1982 ordinance to the best we can. Councilman Workman: Is that what the courts want us to do? Is that what that Judge wanted us to do? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Workman: Is he saying that we were lacking? Roger Knutson: No. The Court, the Judge said nothing about the Clty of Chanhassen. The Court said simply, a private person did not have the right to brlng an actlon to enforce our ordinance. Only the Clty can enforce lt's ordinances. That's all it said. We do have an obligation and resources permitting to enforce our ordinances and if you don't 11ke our ordlnance8 of course ue should review them. Councilman Workman: Just as ue don't have the right to enforce covenants. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Workman: Well, something tells me that there's getting to be too many boats on the lake because of the increased agitation I guess of a lot of City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 the neighbors out there. [ guess I wish we could make a clean sweep decision and get it all over with because [ know it's going to take an awful lot of time and effort, both on the homeowners associations and staff and then Councils and probably Councils into the future. To try and come up with that and [ feel a little uncomfortable with that because how do you compromise those kinds of things and we become the Judge and Jury and it puts an awful lot of pressure on us as to what you had back in 1982 when we were all much younger. So it wouldn't appear, again [ don't know that it really would have appeared as though on February lOth the decision was made not to go with 1991 but with 1982 and not a whole lot that i'm going to say or do tonight will change that. [ think we're going to, and [ think this Council has proven that they can work in compromises as well as most and that's probably the best place to leave it at the 1982 and then to have those associations or beachlots come tn and we can take care of it later. [ don't know that there's really any other decision to be made. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Oimler: So basically you're saying our hands are tied and it will be 4 to 1 and so we can forget a substitute motion. Councilman Workman: Well I guess you know, I looked at both 1982 and the 1991 and there are an awful lot of beachlots that are pretty much in compliance and have been and so you're going to punish one side or the other in a sense and it is difficult to tell the people who are in compliance that you know, you screwed up. You followed what you thought were the rules and so you didn't get more than maybe you should or could have if you were a little bit more greedy. So it's really tough to tell that and it's going to be just as tough if we have to tell somebody that has more than they're supposed to have that you can't. But maybe that's why we're talking about this because maybe there are too many on there and that's something we can look at in greater detail. Councilman Wing: ! think a key word Tom is...saying cooperation and that's the real key issue for staff here. [ certainly intend to give the benefit of the doubt where necessary. Mayor Chmiel: ! think basically what you said Tom is right on the button. We didn't really create it as such and the city is the only one that basically enforces the ordinances and by having a conditional use segment within here, it certainly gives that opportunity. Councilman Workman: Roger if I could maybe get you to elaborate on grandfathering. So if a homeowners association did not have their covenants in effect before January iSth, or whatever, 1982, they are probably, what if a beachlot came into existence in 1983 and said we're going to have 10 boats here? And that's in their covenants. Roger Knutson: '83 and that's after the ordinance was passed. Councilman Workman: Right. Roger Knutson: They have no rights. Unless they've gone through the process and received a conditional use permit, they're an £ilegal use. City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Councilman Workman: So then you tell me or try to give me an idea how many boats based on what calculation would they get. Roger Knutson: For 19837 Councilman Workman: Yeah. Roger Knutson: None. Unless they came through and asked for a conditional use permit and qualified for it. Councilwoman Oimler: In 1983 they'd come under the ordinance. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: They wouldn't need a non-conforming. Roger Knutson: Well if they didn't have a conditional use permit. They started in 1983 and dldn't have a conditional use permlt, they're operating 11legally. They have no non-conforming rights at a11. Mayor Chmiel: So they would come in for a conditional use permit. Roger Knutson: If they qualified, fine. If'not... Councilman Wing: Just a comment on that line. Just the information I received today, I was asking about covenants and a member of Planning Commission back in 1982 commented that Lotus had registered their covenants with the Clty or County or State. Whoever was the case and that they in fact were binding in the 1982 ordinance. Or they were ln¢luded and inclusive wlth the '82 ordinance. Lake Minnewashta did not register covenants so those covenants were not binding and that was polnted out today to me and I don't know the factual background. Hr. Ashworth or someone that was here maybe knows more about that but there had been a registered set of covenants wlth one lake and another lake had not and it made a big difference because one set was included in the ordinance and one wasn't. That's the way he had read lt. If it pertains here at a11. Councilman Workman: To carry it a little further, if in 1983 the beachlot came into existence and they dld get a conditional use permlt, what was the calculation that the city would use to determine how many boats they had? Roger Knutson: If they came into existence in 1983 and...conditional use permlt, this ordinance has nothing to do wlth them. Councilman Wing: They're in compliance. Roger Knutson: They're complying and your conditional use permit spelled out how many boats they could have. Councilman Workman: Okay, but how many boats could they have Paul? Take the number of lots and dlvide it by? Or number of acreage. Paul Krauss: No, there's a formula in the ordinance that it's based on the size of the beachlot that they're entltled to. City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Kate ~anenson: Maximum of 5. Councilwoman Oimler: So in 1983 this wouldn't affect them at ail what we're writing here today. Roger Knutson: No. If they started in 1983, this ordinance has nothing to do with them. Councilman Wing: It's only grandfathered lots we're discussing. Roger Knutson: The ordinance that existed prior to our, excuse me. Beachlots that came into existence prior to the adoption of your '82 ordinance, those are the ones that would be affected. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I want to bring up one more point about maybe waiving. We're talking about a fee here not only for boats are we? We're talking about everything on that beachlot just for their existence is what you're saying. That they have to have a permit to exist or one year after we adopt this ordinance they have to cease all activity? That's the way I read it. Kate ~anenson: No, the permit's to establish what they have. What they were grandfathered in with. Whether it be picnic tables or anything else. We're trying to establish what was there that wouldn't comply with the ordinance. What they came in that wouldn't meet the existing ordinance. Councilwoman Oimler: So you're not talking Just about boats here is what I'm saying. Kate ~anenson: Whether they have swimming rafts. ~11 those sort of items, right. Roger Knutson: The answer's yes. Councilwoman Dimler: So waiving the fee for people-that don't have mooring rights is not appropriate? Kate ~anenson: We're taking all of the beachlots. If that's your question is whether we're taking, whether they have boats or not, we're taking all of the beachlots. Some of them do not have boats. Some of them just have swimming. We will still be inventorying those. Yes. Councilman Wing: Considering that this is an attempt to clean up this entire incident, why not even waive the license fee at this point. We're sort of requesting it and I would feel comfortable simply waiving the license fee for these permits in this case. I don't think we need to impose that upon them. Councilman Workman: Or does that make it more binding? Roger Knutson: It makes it neither more binding or less binding. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: I'd go for.that. From what I've heard, you want to ask? Mayor Chmiel: Well, Michael. Councilman Mason: I assume this $75.00 fee is a one shot deal that the association pays right? Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Mason: And I would assume that the City, I mean essentially what we're saying, and I'm not saying whether I'm for or against it right now but if we're ualvlng that fee then the City ls not gettlng back any of the tlme that they put in to researching this. Going out to the beachlots. I mean somewhere these people went to the beachlots got paid. It came out of the clty budget. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. Councilman Workman: $75.00 isn't golng to make that up. councilman Mason: But every little bit. Well, okay. That's fine but I just hope we're all thlnklng about all that down the road too. Mayor Chmiel: And I think in this particular case, this is unusual circumstances that haven't come up too often at a11. So in thls particular case I too would feel comfortable enough with waiving that. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I at this point then move. Mayor Chmiel: As you all know, I look for those dollars every time. Circumstances come up, you have to be a 11ttle blt applicable to whatever it Councilman Wing: Do you have another comment? Unless Ursula has a comment, I'd just move passage of l(a), zonlng ordinance amendment wlth one adjustment to the waiving of the fee. Councilwoman Dimler: Plus I also wanted to, I want to make sure, absolutely sure that if we go with the 1982 and staff goes out and works wtth these non- conforming beachlots, that if they want to, if the people don't agree wlth staff's decision, that they have the absolute right to have recourse to Council. Mayor Chmlel: They have that even just. Kate Aanenson: That's the process. They'll go to the Planning Commission and then the Counc11. You'll make the flnal determination. Councilwoman Olmler: Yeah, but I want them to understand that they have that. Mayor Chmiel: But they also have that opportunity to get on a phone and call us as well. Councilwoman Dimler: And ulth those understandings then, I would move approval of item l(a). Councilman Wlng: Second. City Council Meeting - February 24, ~92 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to include the walving of the license fee. Prior to the adoption I would like to open it up to the floor. If anyone would like to come forward. We've had a lot of discussion on this at both the Planning Commission as well as City Council. If you've had an opportunity to come forward, I'd appreciate it agaln. But if you could limlt it to just a few minutes, we have reviewed all the Planning Commission timeframe. Minutes that we've read. The opportunities that we've sat at the Planning Commission. So with that I'd like to open £t up and £f you do come forward, please state your name and your address. Is there anyone at this time? Steve Oecatur: Can I make a brief comment? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Please come forward. Steve Oecatur: If my voice lasts. Steve Decatur, 6645 Horseshoe Curve. ~lso a member of the Chanhassen Water auality Task Force. I'd just like to go on record as saying I see this as a strong support for improved publ£c safety and water quallty on our area lakes in taktnga strong measure in putting your vote of confidence behind the Plann£ng Commlsston to go and arbitrate this process and decide what ls equitable for all parties. That's really all I have to say. It's a re-endorsement of what the Water gualtty Task Force is all about and I thank you for it. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Steve. ~nyone else? If not, I'll call the question. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the second and final reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing a requirement that Non- Conforming Recreational 8eachlots obtain a Non-Conforming Use Permit Mlth the condition that the permit fee be waived; and approval of a summary ordinance for publication purposes. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. APPROVAL OF METL~ND flLTER~TION PERHIT F~ THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORH ~T~R PONDS MZTHZN 200 FEET OF ~ CLASS A HE-TLAND. CZTY OF CH~H~SSElq. Councilman Wlng: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make staff and planning cognizant of this. Lake St. Joe Is very environmentally sensitive area and I just want to verify that this wetland alteration permlt, I don't wlsh to stop It at this point but I just want to make sure that what the engineer crew is do£ng on Minnewashta Parkway has the approval of or has met wlth some thought from Bonestroo. Being they're doing our surface water management and concern about runoff into lake quality. I want to verify what we're doing in this alteration. Is it in conjunction with Bonestroo and that they've reviewed it and looked at it and support this lssue. I think it was discussed once before but I don't recall the outcome of the item. Paul Krauss: Charles, I've got some overheads. Councilman Wing: Paul, it's not necessary even to discuss it. I just want to verlfy that... Paul Krauss: Charles and I did vislt the slte w/th the project engineer, Bill Engelhardt and with Isms1 Marttnez from Bonestroo. And Bill had some City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 ii,clusions for storm water clean-up originally and they were further refined based upon the comments we got from 8onestroo and they're in the final plans. Councilman Wing: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Okay. You also had item (d). Councilman Wing: (d) was what we were just discussing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you wanted to discuss (b) as well. The deleted item. Councilman Wing: If you choose to do that at this tlme. Roger Knutson: Mayor, are you going to vote on (d)? Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. We'll go back to it because I assumed he was discussing (b) and as I was looking at (d), I see where he's coming from. councilman Wing: Item l(b) really belongs under Council Presentations if that's alright. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can we get an amended agenda to put item l(b) onto the Council Presentations? Councilman Wing: I did that as the intent originally. Mayor Chmiel: Oid you request that? Okay, I missed it then. Thank you. Okay. Item (d). Can I have a motlon? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit for the Construction of Storm Water Ponds within 200 feet of a Class A Wetland, City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. H. RECEIVE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. Councilman Workman: I don't know about you'all but I don't know if I'm ready for this. I'd like to keep the good people of Chan Estates, most of them are very good citizens. I guess what I'd 11ke to do ls try and maybe, I don't know what I want to do maybe. We're dropping a big bomb of $1.15 million on this neighborhood. Now that doesn't mean I don't thlnk it doesn't need it and I think some of these people are starting to have been over the past couple of years, gettlng the idea that maybe thls ls coming. How can we notlfy that neighborhood of the impending doom a little bit better without just saying here it is next year, or ls it 19927 Is it 1992 for them or it ls 19937 '92-'93, that's this year folks. I think we need to, and I know we're all meeting on Saturday mornlng. Maybe we can take this item and I know some people over there and I had intended to maybe get them a copy of this memo. I don't know that 10 City Council Heeting - February 24, they know what thelr Council is up to tonight. I would like to better, maybe we can have Charles go door to door or something. But somehow so we can maybe ease this on them a little bit easier or I don't know if you'd go ahead and ask them if they want this done or not but I would feel more comfortable approaching it a little bit differently. Hayor Chmiel: I think you're half right there. I think some things should be discussed with those area residents and I think that some kind of informational meeting prlor to even discussion of these total dollars. Knowing exactly what's going to take place and what would happen. And the assessments would come in eventually but ! think just keep them informed, knowledgeable as to what we're proposing and how we plan on addressing this because it is a bomb for a lot of people to just say...but It is. It's a vast amount of dollars that are going to be that and I don't even know if we even broke it down to that other point but maybe you'd like to address that Chuck. Charles Folch: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor. Basically this preliminary CIP that I presented tonlght, it's just strictly for informational purposes at thls polnt in time. Just to give you some time to think about things. See where we're at. And the idea of havlng a neighborhood meeting ts a very good 1dew and that's something we do intend to take on. As we get closer to actually getting into the preliminary stages of a potential project but at this polnt in time, as I mentioned in my staff report, we don't know what this ¢IP along with future sewer and water CIP's or storm water management program or what financial impact these programs will have on the ctty and where we're at. Those will basically define what type of, or help define what type of an assessment policy we can establish for street reconstruction projects. I'm sure most of the people in the Chart Estates area are aware that this ts coming sometime in the future. It may be next year. It may be 5 years down the road but it's going to come but the important key questlon that we can't atmwer for them at thts point in tlme is what it's gotng to cost me. So until we have those numbers, I don't think we could really have a productive neighborhood meeting. Untll we could give them fairly representative numbers as far as what they're looking at, then they can declde for themselves ls thls something I really want. Is it worth it to me? Councilman Workman: Yeah, the numbers are very important and I can bet you dollars to donuts, wherever that phrase came from, that if you ask the neighborhood if they wanted new roads and sewers and curb and gutters and we're golng to be assessed $1.15 million, I can tell you dollars to donuts what they would tell you. So that's what I mean. I don't know if you go in there and ask them, hey can we do thls for you because nobody really appreciates tt or looks at it as a favor. But the way this looks like, tt looks like we're maybe 2 or 3 months away from dolng it and I know there's been some ripples through that neighborhood because they've kind of had some inkltngs but I guess I would just, I guess I'd 11ke to table this right now unttl we can maybe talk a 11ttle bit below the surface on how to attack it a little bit more subtley on Saturday. I don't know if you guys can flt that on the agenda Saturday. Charles Folch: In fact we're not, staff is not asking for an approval of this agenda. Basically it's being presented for your receipt tontght. It's qutte possible too, depending on how our overall City Capital Improvement Projects look financially to us ina couple months that even thls schedule may have to be revised before we even go back and start talking to neighborhoods because it's 11 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 quite possible this might be too much to take on also. So we're not asking for any approval tonight. It's just basically your receipt. Basically on record as having recelved thls preliminary report. There's no approval action necessary or anything like that. Councilman Wing: I also wanted to pull this item Mr. Mayor and I echo Tom's concern and sentiments except I guess I even become simpler in my thinking. The fact that thls document exists. The first thlng I dld today was open it up and quickly page through to make sure Shore Orive wasn't on it and then I reached for a hankle and I went, oh thank goodness I don't have to deal wlth this. I realize that this could be a year, 5 years, 10 years down the road but the fact that Oakota is klnd of a prlorlty area along wlth others, I think either in the City newsletter or the Villager, just a comment that this exists. It's in the thlnking process. At least alerts the people that these thlngs are oomlng along and kind of starts to set the stage a little bit because these are going to be critlcal lssues and we don't want to go through some of the problems we've had in the past. So I'd like to see this get public notification, even though it's not formal. It's not offlclal at thls polnt. That's my own oplnion. Mayor Chmiel: I think as you indicated in here, that the pertinent information wlll be known in April for the determination. Okay. I don't thlnk we have to move on that one do we Roger? Roger Knutson: No. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPOINTMENT TO YOUTH COMMISSION. Don Ashworth: The Council had previously asked that this item be advertised. We did advertise. The Councll has interviewed with the candidates. One of the candidates has a problem wlth Mondays and again has not been able to be interviewed by the Clty Council. Staff is recommending that you make the appointment for both the youth and the adult representative tonlght. You have copies of the resumes for the various individuals who are seeking that nomination. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? We have two, or three people that have applled and one has had an opportunity, or not had the opportunity to get in by the name of Tim Clark. Tlm I've sort of known over the years. He lsa youth minister who deals with teenagers on a constant basls and does have a professional experience in relationship to thls. I find that Tlm has got a long resume as if any of you have had the opportunity to look at. He a15o of course does reside wlthin our clty. We also had the other questlon of a teenager to be appointed to this. And thls would be a youth for 2 years and the adult would be for 1 year. Excuse me. Yes, 2 years and i year. That's right. Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, we did interview a young lady and I don't remember her name. Don, do you happen to know? Councilman Workman: Heidi Haluerson. Heidi Halverson: Rlght here. 12 City Council Meeting - February Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, sure. Thank you. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I can make a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: Z'd move to approve Heidt Halverson and Tlm Clark. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I don't know Hr. Clark at all. This is a very impressive resume. It's a 11tile hard, I dldn't get a chance to talk with him at all and it was maybe 10-15 minutes a time and we're all very busy. I'm not disputing that in any way but. Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I said Tim is he worked with my kids in grade school and did an exceptional job. He really takes the time to listen, which I feel is a case of necessity in thls. And has done a real excellent job and has had all very positive responses from people who have work with him. So that was one of my reasons. Councilman Workman: And ! know Jay 3ohnson to be very involved with youth and we all know him to be a good person. My leaning, and I know who Tim Clark is. Not maybe as well as I do Jay but it's a new face so something to me as a new opportunity doing something on.a commission is all. That's kind of how I broke it down. ! know them both to be good people. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: But that's how I arrlved at my. Councilwoman Oimler: And I do think we should move on this because they've been walting since November for us to, I would love to interview Clark but we don't have time. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Utng seconded to appoint Hetdi Halverson and Tim Clark to the Youth Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CHANHA$$EN P_BINE$$ CENTER ENVIRONNENTAC A$$ES~T WORKSHEET. Kate Aanenson: This is a formality. It's pretty straight forward as part of the EAW. Technically you can't approve it until you have the 30 day comment period whlch expired on February 6th. We've attached in the memo comments that we received from the Met Council, the PCA, the Oepartment of Natural Resources and the Historial Soclety. Even though their comments look 11ke we missed a few things in the EAW, I want to make clear that during the development contract and into the process, all those items were addressed and we relayed that information back to them and we informed them that all their items had been addressed and 13 City Council Heeling - February 24, 1992 that we put their comments as a part of the EAW. So what we're asking for them is that your recommendation that a negative declaration for an Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. I agree. I agree fully. I think that a negatlve declaration is a necessity for this. The RGU on this is. Kate Aanenson: Us. City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: The MPCA are the people who are going through, excuse me. The Metropolitan Councll are the people who revlew thls and come up wlth the conclusions. Are there any requirements for the MEOB on this? Paul Krauss: The EOB hasn't, no. The EOB serves as the disperser of the information. They don't. Mayor Chmiel: Alright but it's published in their Monitor. Paul Krauss: It was published, yes. And we directly mailed to the list that we get from EOB and I don't remember. Kate Aanenson: About 25 copies had to go out. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the EAW and make a negative declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen Business Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF A. QJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OENIAk QF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 6 FOOT FRONT YARD UARIA_NCE, 801 PONTIAC LANE, PAUL NAAB. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Just some background on this application. On August 5, 1985 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a variance to build a deck 24 feet from the property line. This is a corner lot. It requires 30 foot setbacks for a front yard. Today the applicant is requesting to enclose the deck and the purpose is to enlarge the living room. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. We found out that this is the only case where the applicant is requesting to encroach into the front yard setback. We couldn't find a hardship. The residence is being used as a twin home which is what the intent was for that parcel of land. Approval of this variance would create a precedence and we are recommending denial of this application. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Naab, would you like to either concur or come up forward and please state your name and your address and indicate what your. Paul Naab: Yes, I'm Paul Naab and I live at 801 Pontiac Lane. I'm right down the road here a mile. I've got a red house, a red car and I married a redhead. It's pretty easy to identify my house when you're driving by. In 1985 when we bought thls property, we had a pasture across the street. It ls now a full development with over 55 homes so there was intensification as far as traffic noise was concerned after we had our deck built. And there's a correction here City Council Heeting - February 24, i992 that I don't know why but we requested in 1985 a 4 foot variance and the deck was built in accordance to that. ~11 we want to do now is enclose a portion of that deck. Not all of it. It's a 10 x 12 enclosure so that the roofline will tie in with the house. Now we have a problem because we live in the Chaparal 6ssociation. We must have their Architectural Committee approve it first before we can come to you folks. This was discussed, the precedent situation was discussed and it was felt that there may not be more than only one other request that might ever surface in connection with an enclosure. There are two kinds of houses in the association. Homes like mine where the living room comes off to the side of the house. The other homes have the living room facing the rear of the lot and they would never have a variance problem. Now some of the statements that are made in this examination of our property, it says that the variation was not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of property. Well, we definitely know that we will increase the value of our home because we're going to be spending between $&,O00.O0 and $8,000.00 to do this. It said we created our own hardship by building the deck where we did but if we had run our walkway to the back of the house and put the deck at the south side, we'd be shutting off our bedroom. So the only place we could have the deck is off our living room as it's built. I know our neighbor put a deck on the rear of his house but after he did so he never used it. There was too much wind coming up this hill. South wind in the summertime and this is our principle problem is trying to get use out of it because of the weather in Hinnesota and we get a lot of south wind and if we had a glass enclosure here, we'd get much more use out of it. I took many pictures of this property which I would like to pass around to the Council but I would also like to mention that we planted 25 amber maples along the property line which when they're full grown will close off the view of our house from the street to quite a bit of an extent. I took a picture of a similar row of amber maple that is located 3/4 of a mile south on TH 101. I'd just like to pass this picture. Now as a matter of brevity, I know that the real problem here is intensifying the ordinance by creating an enclosure on a deck so my argument is simply this. Between our house and City Hall on Kerber Blvd. are 3 homes that are closer to the boulevard than we will be and I've took photographs of these homes and ! have the addresses on the back of the picture. One is 760 Big Horn Drive and Kerber. One is Saddlebrook CV, corner lot. 900 Saddlebrook CV, corner lot and I don't know what CV means. And 840 Saddlebrook Pass and I would like to pass these 3 pictures because these homes are already there and they have been built slnce my home was bullt.' And last but not least I took an aerial photograph of my property. My house is in the center. Two of these homes that are closer to the boulevard are visible in the top of the picture and the others are just views from my neighbors south of me, to the east of me and across the street. In addition to this, it was noted that you had difficulty trying to consider approving a variance at Fox, what the heck was it here? Fox Hollow I belleve it is whlch was an undersized lot and read the entire proceedings in connection with that and I'm inclined to feel that we're not comparing apples with apples in this situation because I have a lot of room between my home and the Kerber Blvd. curbing. If you add 36 feet from my house to my property line and add an additional 23 feet from the property line to the curbing of Kerber Blvd., the property which belongs to the City of Chanhassen, there's a total of 59 feet involved and my 10 foot deck reduces this to 49 feet which is ample room considering there's no one until you go clear across the road. As a matter of brevity, I do belteve that I'm talked out and I don't want to belabor you with a lot of other arguments here. appreciate your consideration, or reconsideration. 15 Citx Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Did everyone have the opportunity to look at all of this? A few more pictures yet to go. Okay. Now that we've had the opportunity to review the photos as well as to listen to Hr. Naab. We'll open it up for discussion. Let's start on the far end this time. Hike. Councilman Hason: You always start on the far end this time Mr. Hayor. I want to hear of course what the rest of the Council has to say. That's a cop out. At flrst blush the structure's already there so what difference does it make if you put more onto lt? But I drive by there every day and I'm looking at the plctures and I'm speaklng here and Z'm trylng to envlslon it. And it certainly will change the way thlngs look there. I mean a deck doesn't, ls not anywhere near as obtrusive as an addltion ls. Of course the other slde of that ls that the variance was already granted and Roger, could I get just a real brief hlstory on, and thls was called an lntense. You have to get another varlance to build on a variance that's already there? Roger Knutson: A variance is granted for a very specific thing. You don't get a blanket variance to fill...your side yard or your front yard. It's granted in thls case it was for a deck. That means nothlng but a deck and the only the deck that was brought before the Board of Adjustment or the Council, if it got up thls far. That's all you can do because you sald a deck ls different than an enclosed living room as far as you know cutting off, dealing with light and space. Councilman Mason: Okay. I'm lncllned to deny the varlance but before I say for sure one way or the other, I do want to hear the rest of the discussion. You know thls ls one of those that Z feel as a councllmember Z'm ina lo$e lose situation here. It's a tough one. Zt's a real tough one. On the one hand you look at what Hr. Naab wants and Z certainly don't blame hlm for that. I'd want that there too. That's a very busy street. But then the issue does come up, if this one ls granted, what happens next tlme and next time and next tlme so I want to hear what other people have to say. Councilman Workman: Looking from this aerlal I don't know if you know Hr. Naab has a, you're going to have a little runway back there on the back. Councilman Wlng: Really, what for? Councilman Workman: For his plane. I don't feel uncomfortable approving thls varlance at a11. In fact I used to 1lye over in thls area and I drove by there and his yard is mowed and basically done by the association. It's always tn good shape. You know when I drive by, twln homes are a speclal klnd of place, as are quads and when you drive up Powers Blvd. and Saddlebrook and they've got the twln homes there and you can see them around the pond, they've gone and what they've done, thls homeowners association has covenants and it's got a homeowners association. The one in Saddlebrook, I don't know that they even have an association...for hlmself so thls half maybe laid sod and this one maybe dldn't or dld seed and then they've got a chalnllnked fence splitting them and it looks llke, twin homes are kind of lntended to look like one unit but in Saddlebrook they klnd of don't because they don't have an association to do that. I'm waiting for one of them to paint the other half different than the other. But thls to me, without golng out because I know we've compared thls variance request to other corner lot decks. This is still a long way away first 16 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 of all. Second, the deck is already there and I don't know that I would call that an error. The deck. Councilman Mason: I'm not saying putting the deck in was an error. Councilman Workman: No, no. That was my word, not yours. But what I always try to use in these situations, and I do miss being on the Board of Adjustments, for different reasons, is if we can help somebody try and improve what they have so they can stay where they have without impacting even moderately, the view or maybe the shape or the general appearance of the neighborhood, then'I like to go ahead and do it and ! think this is a good example of that. For him to go because I did have a question about it because he does have a very large area in the back of the yard. Why not go back there? Well then he has a deck going off of his bedroom. Then he's got the guests and everybody going through his bedroom to get to the chip dip and whatever else. So maybe it's a bad situation because the deck is already there but I don't see this, without going outside of really what he already has there to go up and make a nice looking enclosure. I don't have really a problem at all or a concern. Mayor Chmlel: Richard. Councilman Wing: I'm already on record with the Board of Adjustments as having denied this and my reasons at that time is we were looking at a low deck versus a small house which was signiftoant to me. The low deck didn't bother me there. I guess the past variance to begin with. Why it was necessary to grant a variance for such a large deck and then that bothers me because that varlance now is being asked to be intensified into this additional room and based on prior denlals I just felt it was the fairest for all of us to, as we did, to deny this. On the other hand I found Mr. Naab delightful and respectful and when we denled it he dldn't storm out threatening us at the next electio'n 11ke often happens. He left me with a positive feeling towards them and their intent here so I guess I have to stand on my record but I agree there are some options here. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. ! do believe that it will definitely have a visual impact but I don't necessarily think that that will be a negative impact. I think it might be a posltlve one. Also, I think that the noise level has intensified on Kerber Blvd. without a doubt due to circumstances beyond their control and especially the City has allowed more building and development and therefore I thlnk that does limit the pleasureable use of their deck. I favor granting this varlance because I don't see it as encroaching further into the setback and I see no reason that that would be detrimental to the city. So I favor granting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Rather than to reiterate everything that's been said, I too did basically abstain because I thought that this is a case by case situation with an existing structure already in place. And even though the intensification is going to go in addition to that, it still aesthetically is not going to be displeasing as far as appearance. During the summertime with the amber maples that Mr. Naab indicated he was going to put in, would screen that in itself although during the wintertime of course the leaves are off and 17 City Council Meeting -- February 24, 1992 it's still visible. But },ow many times will you drive by and really pay that much attention to it? Or even walk by and look at it. The other aspect I always look at is the fact that, the positive for me because that means a dollar or two more taxes for the city. I'm always looking for the buck. 8ut it is. To me I guess the 4 foot setback that was granted previously and it's there. It's existing. I think it would probably add a little more aesthetics to that structure. To the building in itself so therefore I think I'd move along to that standpoint. 8ut with that, I would ask if there's anymore discussion. Councilman Mason: I just want to make, and I don't even know that this concerns this request but Councilman Workman made a comment about moderate impact. On whether you would go to approve or deny a variance and that comes down to that question and maybe this is why ue do do it a case by case. But one Council's definition of moderate impact could be entirely different than another Council's, as we've certainly seen happen here in the past. And maybe that's something that ue don't need to waste these people's time with but maybe at a work session or something, those are some things we should be talking about. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: I would move the front yard variance request of Paul Naab. Mayor Chmiel: Be granted? Councilman Workman: Didn't I say to move the approval of the front yard variance request? Mayor Chmiel: Better. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Variance Request ~85-16 for a & foot front yard variance. All voted in favor except Councilman Hason who opposed and Councilman Wing who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Mason: Are you voting on this one? Councilman Wing: I would have voted if it was a tie. Mayor Chmiel: 3 to 2? Councilman Workman: 4 to 1, it was a yes. Councilwoman Dimler: You're was a yes. Councilman Wing: By not voting, I'm comfortable with where it went. The majority rules. Councilman Mason: I'm comfortable with the results but I don't know, I have troubZe granting variances. 18 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1~2 Councilman Wing: Well I'm on that Board you assigned me to and I am too. guess I'd like some direction from Council on what they would like to do. That's a good point. Councilman Mason: Maybe after I've been here for 2 years instead of I I'll feel a little more comfortable with a variance request. I'd like to just back up. There s Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Before I move on, ' someone here who didn't realize that we had the Vlsitor Presentation portion and somehow missed lt. Z'd like to extend to them that opportunity to come forward at this time. As you all know, this is something we can't do anything with. Zt's just a presentation. We're more than willing to listen to what you have to say. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Jacie Hurd: Thank you very much. I appreciate the right. My name ts 3acle Hurd. I live at 6695 Horseshoe Curve. I'm also the President of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. I have a concern regarding a reconsideration of the zoning ordinance amendment concerning the mooring of motorcraft which took place on February 10, 1992. It was Section 1, Section 627(b). I'd like to state that I'm not representing an option for or against the change but I am simply questioning the process that ocourred. As a riparian owner of lakeshore on Lotus Lake I was never notified of the amendment. The change made in the language of the amendment on February loth allowing non-riparian boat owners to moor boats on ctty lakes seems contrary to the intent of the ordinance. As I questlon whether due process was observed, as no members of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association were notified of this change, I ask that this amendment be reconsidered and put up for public discussion at the next meeting. Thank you very much. Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, as you know, we made a change that Roger recommended and it was somewhat definite. And then you considered it would be appropriate to make another slight change which didn't seem to make much difference. But then somebody brought up the issue that I have my own boat at my home and I happen to have one boat. But I let a frlend keep It there. Another friend keep his boat there on my property but nonetheless by allowing a, shall we say public boat on my property, I've Intensified the lake use. If ever you own, rlght now the way Roger had it worded, you have to own the boat in front of your home on your property registered to you and it's pretty clear cut. You can't have your friends and neighbors, people off the lake keeping their boat at your home. It was really fair, tt was originally put that way to be fair as I understand it to the other neighbors and to keep the boat count down which had been a big lssue in thls debate. So by doing what we did in good faith, you allowed me to invite my friends to keep their boats at my home with no restrictions and I guess I'm seeing that as an intensification. I for one am clearing going to say no this next summer because I see the ramifications of it now. And I don't think anybody cares the way it was written as long as there's no complaints but tf there are complaints there's teeth so I would guess, based on this last comments, I would havlng voted tn the affirmative of that, conslder a reconsideration of that particular portion of that ordinance. Maybe a little more information and background of what the pros and cons are but I do think it definitely does encourage intensification and welcome intensification and I City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 think that's what we're trying to avoid here. And as a property owner I would concur that maybe, I didn't copy that. So if you were willing to consider reconsideration, havlng voted in the affirmative, I would support that. Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment too that one of the reasons ulth what we just went through for the beachlots, non-conforming beachlots, that was intensifying use but in view of the fact that we had just intensified the use for prlvate homeowners, I dldn't thlnk it was quite falr to restrlct the beachlots. We seem to be punishing them. Councilman Wing: Kind of talk out of both sldes of our mouth. Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Councilman Wing: So you picked up on the fact that we did? Councilwoman Oimler: Right. Councilman Wlng: Okay. Councilwoman Oimler: And you introduced it. Councilman Wing: Well Roger wrote that ordinance for a purpose and then Mayor Chmlel picked up on the fact that we wanted a little more flexibility. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, the only flexibility that I looked at ls because of a son- in-law and his daughter living in an adjacent to his home and they did not have those lake rlghts. Under that particular circumstance, that's what I really picked up on. And lt's probably a one in a blue moon that that's going to happen but nonetheless because he doesn't have a boat on hls property, I dldn't see why the allowances couldn't be granted for a blood relative to utilize that. By allowing a friend to come on, that's a complete different circumstance. Although there are two whereas before with his there were none. Now it's only being put to one of which it would normally be. Councilman Wing: If we went with the original ordinance as proposed by Roger, nothing ever gets said. If there's a complaint, then we could act on it and it would have to be enforced. The odds of a complaint would be just about nil is think what we declded. And where'd we go wrong Roger? I mean the orlglnal one had teeth and then I really supported Mayor Chmiel in bls interpretation but we are increasing intensity at that polnt whlch maybe ls inappropriate. Roger Knutson: I'll let you decide what went wrong. I don't get to vote on that. Just so we're clear. That language you're talklng about was not a change. That's been in your ordinance for years. You can only have a boat in front of your own house and I thlnk that's. Mayor Chmtel: That's registered. Roger Knutson: Yeah. About 2 or 3 years ago that was put ln. Then the change was, well why can't I have my brother-in-law's or friend and give up the rights to one of my boats so therefore it would be equal? And the declslon was made 2O City Council Heeting - February 24, 1992 that that was appropriate and you certainly have the discretion to change your mind and reconsider. Hayor Chmiel: I would like that. I would like to have a little more discussion with other people before I would bring that up for a reconsideration at this tlme. Roger Knutson: Slnce the ordinance ls, I believe been published? paul Krauss: Well we were just checking on that... Roger Knutson: The process I'd probably recommend, you wouldn't have to. Considering the stage you're at in it, would be if you decide you want to undo that or conslder seriously undolng, of bringing the public back into lt, although it's a little more patnful, I'd recommend that you go back to the Plannlng Commission. Hold a hearlng there and brlng it back up here. Councilwoman Oimler: To me the question is, did we violate the due process by reconsidering? I'm not real sure. Old we Roger? Roger Knutson: I'd have to review the process .... you did not technically violate due process. As far as I know you didn't. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. That would be my concern. Roger Knutson: But this Council's been very strong in giving anyone an opportunity to be heard that wants to be heard and you go out of your way to do that more than anyone ! know. So if you feel more input is appropriate, of course you can do that by sending it back to the Planning Commission and then bring it back up here. Councilman Wing: Don, can ! just clarify this? Also, one of non-riparian lots commented that, it was an older gentleman who did not have a boat but his son dld and so he was going to let his son have hts spot at the non-riparian lot, which is the same thing. I mean we had requests for this easing up of this and then, as I mentioned, the Hayor quickly reacted and I thought appropriately. If we say lake registered in Hinnesota to the property owner in front of his home, that's very restrictive. And I'll accept that as a homeowner. I think that's in the best interest of the lake. ~nd then you're saying I can't have my daughter keep her boat there or I mean it's that restrictive. Or if we put in the word blood relative or are we still talktng intensification? That's the lssue here. Alrlght. Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: And I have one question too. Bo we have a limit on the number of boats that a private homeowner can have in front? Roger Knutson: Yes. 3 I believe. Councilwoman Otmler: Based on square footage? Front footage? Roger Knutson: Per lot... 21 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: Well then it seems to me that would be simple by saying it can be a blood relative's boat without intensification of the useage. Councilman Wing: Then I'd go for the 2 for 1 also. If you are allowed 3 boats and you choose to have a relative, blood relative and then you give up your third boat. Rlght now there's a 2 for i basls whlch someone brought up. Councilwoman Oimler: Not allow any intensification. Councilman Wing: I'm allowed 3 now. And let's say I allowed my daughter to keep her boat there. That would count as 2 boats. I would be happy with that. Frankly I'll go along with anything. I mean thls is golng to affect me and I'm pleased...whatever's passed. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We'll move right along. DIRECT STAFF TO PUBLISH A NOTICE FOR ~OHINATIONS FAR A SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COHHITTEE. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you want to just touch brlefly? Paul Krauss: The next item on youT' agenda is consideration of plans and specs for the senlor center. The Senlor Commission ls trying to pull all the strings together so that when the doors open they can hit the ground running. There's a deslre to have a working group outside the Senlor Commission proper. The specific task is the well being and furtherance of the senior center. This group would also have the ablllty to go out and put the touch on people in the community to volunteer efforts and funds and what not for the senior center. And after reviewing a lot of different senlor centers, it was felt an advlsory board would be the best way to do that. Several members of the senior commission met wlth myself and Councilwoman Dlmler to discuss the make-up of a senior commission and the the attempt was made to make sure that it's a wide variety of folks. Some Senior Commission, Clty Council rep, buslnes$ people, church people, school people, as well as over time probably increasing members support basis. The Chan Senlor Club was also glven a seat on thls because they're going to be one of the primary users. So with that we'd recommend that you tell us to go ahead and publlsh it and get you some names. Councilwoman Oimler: I just have one. It seems to me that there's 12 members recommended here lnstead of 11 as the report says. Paul Krauss: There is and I know you wanted an odd number. Mayor Chmiel: We should have an odd number. Paul Krauss: Well possibly ue could do that by going. Councilwoman Dimler: Well we've got, if you add up the 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2 it comes to 12. Paul Krauss: Would you be comfortable addlng a third senlor cltlzen at large 22 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 that's likely to be a user? Councilwoman Oimler: Make it a 13 member committee then, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. I don't have any problem. Councilwoman Oimler: That's fine with me too. Mayor Chmlel: Can I have a motion? Councilwoman Oimler: I'l~ move approval, or Tom already did. So I'll second. Mayor Chmlel: As amended? Councilwoman Oimler: As amended, yeah. Councilman Workman ~oved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to direct staff to public a notice for nominations for a 13 me~ber Senlor Center Adutsory Comittee. voted in favor and the motton carrted unanimously. APPROVE PLANS AND SPI~(::[F~C:ATTONS FOR R SI~Z~ CENTER. Paul Krauss: I think you're all aware that we've been working hopefully diligently towards getting the senior center plans developed and bring them before you. When this project was originally conceived of, the HRA was worktng with a ballpark cost estimate using tax increment funds of about $175,000.00 for that. I'm pleased to say that by using hopefully a sharp pencil on thls and we're finding the plans at great length with the senior commission and trimming some thlngs here and there, we were able to come in with a cost estimate lower than what we had originally thought. Depending on, and this is an estimate of course. Projection of what the blds are going to come in at and there's always a chance that we may do better but we have to wait and see. We think that we're getting a center that really provides for multl functions. We tried to thlnk ahead and see what kind of activity the Senior Commission and the senior center's golng to want to offer and this space can accommodate most of that. We have Bert Haglund who's the project architect here tonight who can gtve you a brlef run through of how the center lays out. I guess I'd ask him to come up and do that very quickly so that you can get a feel for that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, flne. Bert Haglund: Good evening. As Paul mentioned, we really got started with the planning of this, by that I mean the design of this last, late November-early December and since then we've been able to finallze the design and draft the drawings and specfications and now here are ready to go out for bids. The Senlor Commission when they met last Frtday approved the plans and specs that you have before you as well as I believe you have also a copy of the project schedule and the estimated construction cost. So agaln as Paul mentioned, I have a drawing with me. I think I'll find an easel back here and put them up on there. Paul Krauss: Whlle Bert's doing that, I should polnt out too that we were able to use Block Grant funds on the architect's fees so that we were able to absorb 23 City Council Heeling - February 24, 1992 that cost that way. Councilwoman Oimler: While he's doing that, do you have the money from TIF? Paul Krauss: I have to depend on the money manager for that but he assures me that yes I do. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, good. Paul Krauss: The TIF plans were also amended recently to accommodate the construction. Councilwoman Dimler: Great, thank you. Bert Haglund: First of all, just to get you oriented. You may already realize but thls here is the exlstlng lower level plan as it ls today. And the area that is shaded in here is the area that's actually going to be remodeled or we expect...remodellng. It includes the space that ls unfinished here...end is open. It also includes what now is being used for storage. And that space is golng to be reconfigured as well. So that's the area that we're talking about seeing construction. The plan itself has ended up. Here what I'll do is just walk you through it as though you were coming 1nrc the center. At the west end of the building, the existing sidewalk that comes up to that end of the building w111 remaln as it enters and approches the buildlng here. There's currently a door going into the building here which is going to be removed and replaced by a window. Instead you'll enter the buildlng here in what will be aneu vestibule. That's actually an addition to the building so that end right here is being added. It wlll have the appearance, the same appearance as the entrance over on this side of the building. $o it's meant to be compatible. But you would come into a rather large vestibule, the back of whlch would be used for coats. Coat storage and boots and that sort of thing. The front entrance door and also this door 1nrc the center from the vestibule u111 be on a power asslsted door opener so that is someone's dlsabled or an elderly person can just push a button and the door wlll open. So that's a feature that the seniors really appreciate. So from the vestibule you would enter into what would be the largest open space. Just a slngle large open space here. To the left would be an office and that office has a window next to the entrance here so that a program coordinator and that that's sitting in here w111 see people coming and going. This open space is dlvlded into two areas essentially. This first part here is a carpeted area and then thls part over here has a vinyl flooring. There will be a total wall that when you go from that direction to this direction up and then another one in thls direction over here to potentially make that a separate room so that you could have two activities golng on at the same tlme. This one has vinyl floorlng because thls is envisioned as belng used for arts and crafts, that sort of thing and has as a part of that room, a work counter, a sink and some storage cabinets. Also frontlng onto thls case will be some display cabinets. Continuing down here, this corridor if you wi11, we'll come to a room right here which we're ca111ng a coffee nook. It lsn't a kltchen per se but it lsa place where there's a sink. There's storage cabinets, there will be a microwave, set up coffee. That sort of thlng. That will be a coffee area whlch has a pass thru into this spot right here. Then continuing further, we have here a set of toilets. Mens and womens. And as we come down thls direction there's a water fountain here. And we continue down this corridor further, there's another door City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 here to the outside for exiting in an emergency. There's a window here which will be taken away and replaced by that door. That will serve as a second means of egress from the senior center and also from the library where we will put a door here from the library into that same small corridor so they can have... Then down at the very end, you have this area...storage where we can figure that so we'll put a dividing wall in it separating it roughly into a third... On this slde thls will be for senlor center storage and some other city storage and on the other side will be a storage room. Thls will be strictly library storage. So they'll have their own storage space and not share with others. I think that really covers the main features of the plan. Are there any questions? Councilwoman Dimler: I ~ust want to make sure that we're not creating a variance situation with that addition of the foyer. Has that been looked into? Paul Krauss: It all goes towards the west side of the building. It's no closer to the street. Councilwoman Oimler: No problem, okay. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had a few questions Bert .... fire code with that door swinging back into the foyer, is that an acceptable swing? Bert Haglund: This door here? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Bert Haglund: This door here should. Mayor Chmiel: Should swing to the out rather than going into the room. Bert Haglund: Yes. With as many people as you can have in this space, the door has to swlng in the direction of travel that you're exiting. Mayor Chmiel: Putting on that additional portion, on that far side where they come in and hang up their coats, is that really necessary for that part? Bert Haglund: Well as Paul mentioned, there are a lot of uses that this space ls looklng to serve. Already lt's a very small area trying to accomplish that we need. And as we walk through the programming, the activities and square footage, it's our opinion that this is a really essential part of the project. That without this we would have to take away some other space inside of the building. And there really isn't enough space to afford that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the question I have with the existing door. Can't that be used as such now rather than put that back to the back stde? Bert Haglund: Well we would very much recommend that there be a vestibule as you enter into...a vestibule or as an air lock. Especially In the winter that can create a very uncomfortable state if you had a door ~ust open dtrectly to the outside with people comlng and golng. So although from a functional standpoint, strictly function. Yes, you could come and go through that opening. But again, we would really recommend that a vestibule be part of that. 25 City Council Meeting ~ February 24, 1992 Paul Krauss: If I could say a couple of other things. The vestibule is designed with the long term goals of, the ultimate construction for City Hall which has a mate to this wing on that side of the building. At that time it's envisioned that that vestibule be turned into a function like this one which is an entrance hallway and we would reoriente things. One of the ways we economized on cost in this center. OuT- original thinking, or some of the original thinking was that the bathrooms should be where the existing stairwell is and publlc safety. We found out that a couple thlngs. That that was a fairly expensive rennovatlon to make. It hindered access in the near term between the upstairs and the downstairs. That's not that important right now but it's probably going to be more important to use the space that way in the future. But the cost of that was, we had to stick to bathrooms in the main space. We're just losing sufficient ground to do what we need to do. One of the goals here was that we had to accommodate the Chan Senior Club. Their card tables and they have drawn upwards of 48 people and we've just barely flt them in with the room this way so there really wasn't a whole of room to squeeze anything out. Mayor Chmiel: In using the lighting, I'm assuming this is going to be energy efficient lighting as well? Bert Haglund: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any rebates that we can get from No Smoking Please Company? NSP. And getting some of those rebates going through some of the processes that we're golng through wlth the energy efficiencies contained within. I know there are some programs that are there. Bert Haglund: Yes. And we are specifying energy saving ballast lamps for the lighting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess that was probably about the concerns that I had. I guess [ looked at the total dollars and it was just absolutely knocked me off my chair for the total dollar expenditure fronl what we're going lnto. From what I had anticipated it was going to be. I envisioned $75,000.00, maybe $80,000.00 total cost and we've far exceeded that total amount. But I know we do need thls kind of a center and I guess I'm looking at that overall cost. I'm sure that when we probably go out for the bids, because we've got an awful lot of duct work with our air contained within the facility. Our electrical is still there. HVAC portlon ls there as well and the only thing you're golng to have to do, as I looked at the drawings. You're going to have to, it's my understanding that chip our in order to get the water to the tollet facilities. Bert Haglund: We'll have to remove a portion of the existing floor to serve these plumblng areas and the toilets... Mayor Chmiel: Is there any overheads that we have that we can connect from that rather than having to do that? Bert Haglund: Well actually, what we've done is about the most economical we could because the sewer 11ne in fact runs diagonally from thls polnt like this and we're virtually sitting rlght on top of the sewer 11ne and their plumbing. So we realized... City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: One other concern I have is that with the amount of dollars that we're spending in relation to what we thought we were going to spend, this may not always be a senior center. And I would like to know what staff foresees this as being used as in the future for City Hall in case the seniors move somewhere else? Paul Krauss: Well we've had a couple of meetings to try and get around that. Frankly [ don't think anybody's really too sure. One of the options that's been discussed periodically is that the HRA is giving some thought to constructing a new library down the street. And this is clearly, [ guess I'd call it a phase i senior center because it doesn't offer congregate dining and if this thing catches on the way we hope it does, at some point that will have to be done. That leaves a couple options. Now this is designed to be expandable. The ceilings, the lighting fixtures, everything will match what's in the library. Theoretically it's golng to be possible to just kind of expand that space. The hallways are designed to just come through the library with some minor tinkering wlth walls in the future. There'd have to be a commercial kitchen added at that point in tlme but that's certainly an option. If the sentor center ultimately relocates out of that space, I guess nobody is real sure about what that's golng to be. One of the reasons why we went ahead with that in this space in the first place, thls ls very difficult space to use in day to day city functions because the connections of upstairs to down there are not very good. Long term, if there's another wlng built onto Clty Hall, a lot of things could happen. But at the very least you've got a series of meeting rooms which you know we already lntended to use these as meeting rooms to piggy back onto when lt's not being in use for senior activities, that the City can get a couple of other things going in there at the same tlme. $o you've got the meettng rooms. You've got the bathrooms where you need them. So to the extent we could, we tried to make sure that the investment is one that's going to pay you dividends into the future. Councilwoman Oimler: So you could easily put up partitions and make offices or something down there as we need it? Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah. Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Wlng: This is quite a step for old Chart. I remember the story about your lonely walk one Saturday morning. That's how this all started. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's why I said a few thousand bucks I thought you know. We'd get some people to come in and volunteer their time. Councilman Wlng: I'm a 11ttle stunned by the dollars but I'm going to turn that to you and rely on you for that judgment because you tend to watch it pretty close. The senlors, I think at the HRA, I thlnk somebody might comment they tend to get kind of possessive. What are the intents for multiple use here? Is there an intent for multiple use? Pau! Krauss: Yes, to an extent. I mean the primary use of the senior space is a senlor space but to the extent we keep on telling the senior commission this and the advisory commission, there are going to have to be By-laws established I would assume but to the extent that we have meeting rooms that may be available, and they've got flrst dibs on them when tt's available, we've got a real 27 City Council Heeling -- February 24, 1992 shortage of ,~eeting space i~ this community and there's an intent to be able to schedule that. Yeah. Councilman Wlng: Is there a refrigerator in the kitchen area? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Workman: When we talk about using this in the future and we talk about, what was that word you used? Who used the word about, that will become the se,lot center and they mlght get a 11ttle territorial. The library ls that way. Now what happens when we need, and we're kind of bullding this with the 1,tent that some day soon the se,lots won't be in there. I dare you all to push them out the door but assuming we have another place for them to go, they will go just 11ke the 11brary. Well we may be getting ahead of ourselves if we don't have a library, we don't have a senior center and all of a sudden Paul's Plannlng and Company gets so big they need the entlre lower level. And then Krauss' is going to have to push the elderly into the park. So ulth that in mind then okay we've got klnd of a kltchen area and bathrooms, which you need but now I'm trying to 1magi. ne which department would use that fancy little dinette area and is that wlse for future Clty Hall use. Don Ashworth: If I might. I foresee that lower level, if anything the request from seniors wlll only get stronger. Z mean I do not see that that group ls going to get smaller. They'll simply get larger. The requests for more and more activities wlll grow. The earllest that owners can vacate the Pauly/Pony/ Pryzmus property is 3uly of 1994. We're anticipating being able to knock those buildings down in that timeframe. Start construction of a new library durlng that timeframe wlth the ldea that the library would be able to move in the spring or summer of 1995 from thelr current location. At that point in time, the lower area then could be expanded for se,lot needs and I think that's what Paul was attempting to say. The long range plan would have se,lots in this building. It would also then move the Park and Recreation Department into that lower level and provide a better marriage. The programming activlty that they're currently carrying out in the upper area would again be moved to the lower area and be part of the se,lot actlvlty and other programs that they operate. That will provide reasonable growth space for other city functions durlng the timeframe of 1995 thru year 2000 and a potential wing onto this other side then may occur sometime dfter the year 2000. As Paul was polnting out, this corrldor that we're startlng rlght here eventually will be a mlrror lmage of the one out here. So you'll have a corrldor running down that side leading to a stalrway very slmllar to thls one coming up on that side and what Bert has shown is realZy pretty much an identical image. So if you stood on Hain Street and looked back towards thls building, you'll see the angular wood front over on this left slde will be very much 11kc the angular wood front on th£s side. You'll see the corrldor on thls slde will be slmllar to the corrldor on that side. Councilman Workman: I guess I would also, we might want to keep in mind the fact that this room that we're in rlght now may become inadequate. 6s we get more cltizens and we get more lakes, it may not be enough and certainly on property degregation night, the Board of Equalization, you know we don't have enough room in here and if I mlght add, we could probably use some new chairs. 28 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 But just thinking how that would all work out sounds like Todd Hoffman will be able to mix up some goodies there mld-day. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: Let's do it. Councilman Wing: What are the plans for Council expansion? How does that fit in here? What direction are they going to go? Mayor Chmiel: Well, we may be able to, 11ke we've done before. If you have a lot of people you're anticipating, you move over to the school. I think this probably adequately serves for this particular time and probably for the next few more years as well. If no other discussion, can I have a motion? Councilman Workman: I would move that the City Councll approve plans and specifications for the Chanhassen Senior Center and authorize staff to solicit bids for construction. Mayor Chmiel: Second. With hopefulness that we will have lower bids than we're anticipating. Resolution ~t92-29: Councilman Workman moved, Nayor Chmiel seconded to approve plans and spectf/cations for the Chanhassen Senior Center and authorize staff to solic/t b/ds for construct/on. All voted in favor and the mot/on carrted unan/mously. RECEIVE suppLEHENTAL REPORT TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST 78TH STREET OETACHHEMT IHPROVEHENT PRO3ECT NO, 92-3i CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm sure you're very familiar with the evolution and transformation of this project. It's our intent to see this project proceed with construction this year. Right now we're basically back to the feasib£1ity study point. Since construction did not lnltlate wlthln one year of the previous ordering of the project, State Statutes 429 governs and requires that we hold another, or [east prepare an update to that feasibility study and hold another publlc hearlng accordingly. Zn additlon there was some new information that resulted from the recently completed downtown buslness dlstrict traffic study which was completed by Strgar-Roscoe- Fausch that has affected some of the design e[ements of the project. Specifically the new design proposed is to incorporate medians and designate left turn lanes to help improve capacity levels of service on the roadway. The prevlous trafflc study also recommended the addition of trafflc slgnals on West 78th Street governed by retail and population growth criteria. In fact the timing of the Market Square development potentially could-add the installation of two traffic signals on this project located at the intersections of Kerber Blvd. and Powers Blvd.. Tonlght we have Mr. Jim Dvorak and Mr. Dennis Eiler of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch to provide you a brief presentation of this feasibility study update and answer any questions you might have. 3im. Jim Dvorak: Charles, those of you that don't know, my name is Jim Dvorak. I am an associate with Strgar-Ros¢oe-Fausch. I basically was in charge of preparing this feasibility update and bringing the project to you. Rs Charles said, with 29 City Council Meeting -- February 24, 1992 me is Del,ny Eiler. A pri]~cipal with our firm who has dealt with the traffic study for the centr~l business district. After I go through this quickly, hopefully if you have any questions we'll be able to answer them. The project we're talklng about tonight is West 78th Street Detachment between Kerber and Powers Blvd. located on the west end of the central business district. As Charles stated, the central business district traffic study identified a need for this particular stretch of roadway to be bullt wlth medlans that would provlde for left turn lanes and separation throughout the corridor. What we have here are some typical sections. The one on top shows basically the two lanes in each direction with a center medlan. One thing we would like to point out at thls point ls that this wider or larger center medlan there ls golng to be 18 feet. In this schematic, it only occurs for a short distance. I'll get to that in the plan in a minute .... we have in the area what we term as a left turn lane situation where there are left turns to make movements to the north or south of the roadway into the planned development. Basically what this graphic shows is the storm sewer and utility layout. They are remaining the same as was previously proposed under the work done prlor to us. So I wouldn't give that a great deal. It may be of more interest and is easier to see on this graphic is the actual medlans themselves and some of other amenities that are belng proposed ulth the project. There are driveways shown in approximately this location. A block east of Kerber and another maln entrance north and south at this location and then a solid median filling in the gaps between those. To the east, on the east end of town we have heavily landscaped medlans. They're wlder than are shown here and there are I guess qulte a blt of trees and that type of planting amenity in there. As you can see on here, maybe on the reports, there are only short distances where we have provided a wide enough median to provide for plant. The rest of the area, the median area could be concrete. It could be some type of decorative bonenite. Some type of paver. That kind of thing. We're open for any suggestions... Additionally we've shown some plantings along the boulevard interspersed with the lighting system. Also included is the sldewalk on both sldes of West 78th. Sldewalk would be outside of the plantings where you have the curb, the boulevard with the trees and the lighting and then a sidewalk. Project costs, just qulckly wlth gradlng, pavlng, drainage... sanitary, watermain and landscaping, we come up with an estimate of about $1.4 mi111on total between West ?Sth and Powers. Tacklng on an addltive for legal wlth engineering contingencies, half mlllion dollars, we're up to about $1.9 mllllon dollars. As far as fundlng, as Charles outllned in his staff report, about $500,000.00 or a quarter of the project is proposed to be assessed based on clty standard assessnlent pollcy. The other $1.4 mllllon would have to come out of some type of general fund or other means. With that I guess I would be happy to answer any questions anybody may have. If you have anything on transportation or traffic needs, I think maybe Denny can answer them. Councilman Mason: A real quick question. Just a real quick one on figure 2. The bottom diagram. You've got one thru lane at 12 foot and another thru lane at 14. Denny Eiler: Right. Councilman Mason: Okay. Denny Eiler: 14 feet is from the face of the curb to the center of the lane. A thru lane where there's no curb and there's no obstruction on either side can be 3O City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 12 feet but since you have that curb there, we recommend the 2 foot of reaction. Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Somewhere in here I thought I had read that your contemplating having a sidewalk on the north side? Jim Dvorak: Both sides. Nayor Chmiel: On both sides. Jim Dvorak: That probably raises a good point here. The existing right-of-way that's platted out there is only 80 feet wide. The section that we're proposing here ls about 74 feet face to face. So depending on how much boulevard and how far you want your sidewalks set back, you're either going to have to require some more right-of-way or acqulre some type of easement over the adjoining properties to construct the sidewalks outstde of the road. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm trylng to just in my own mind justify having walks on both sldes of that road. I guess I'm probably answering some of my own because the business that would be to the south ulth the existing 78th Street, that would probably have those needs for those people to get there because there's no way to get back across here and that's golng to be a fairly busy road. The other questions I have, looking at the proposed landscaping and lighting, it looks 11ko there's just an abundance of numbers of trees up and down that street. What is the total distance from Kerber to Powers? Remember off hand? Jim Dvorak: I guess first of all I should, this is merely a graphic. This does not pretend to...the number of trees or plantings. That ~muld be work done in flnal deslgn ulth staff, with yourselves, making sure that everybody's comfortable with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: ! know that to Mr. Burdick, the landscaping was of a big concern to him. I know that that would be a part of an assessment. They'd have the roadway, storm drainage, watermain, sanitary sewer but we don't have landscaping. Will that be broken out? Just curious. Don Ashworth: I don't believe that the landscaping was under previous assessments. Is it being proposed to be assessed? I was thinking not. Charles Folch: I guess I concur. I was under the same understanding that the grading and paving, although it appears that the landscaping is lumped in with the actual line item under the project financing table but correct me Jim if I'm wrong, the assessable amount would represent basically the grading, paving, and lighting type work. Don Ashuorth: It's answered on page 3 and 4. 327 and then 327 under assessable so lt's not being assessed. Jim Dvorak: The landscaping is included in what we're showing on the proposed assessment but it can easily be modified and broken out. I guess whatever the 31 Cily Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Council wishes. These numbers do have the landscaping reflected in the assessments. Don Ashworth: There will be time to discuss this but I would recommend that it not be included because I know that it can be an area that can be controversial ,-~nd Z don't think that we want to get into a positlon where we're not going to plant a tree simply because the owner sees then that he's paying this amount for t his tree. Mayor Chmlel: It shows there landscaping, miscellaneous 458. As I total up the total amount of trees as it looked, I think I came up with about $80,750.00. And some of the concerns I have in puttlng these trees in and adjacent to those lighting standards, making sure that the trees are not going to be an obstruction to the 11ght distribution. I'd 11ke to make sure that if we put those lights in, that we do have them llghtlng those intersections with either a Type II two way or no, that'd be a Type II three way as to what we have here presently. Each of these standards that are shown are almost across from each other and I thlnk that the lighting should probably be staggered a 11ttle more too if those considerations are going to be looked at. Jim Dvorak: That's something we can look at in final design. Mayor Chmiel: Because then you're lighting a little bit more. Jim Dvorak: ...very wide pavement so we want to make sure that we have some uniformity down the road. As you're driving you don't want a bright spot and then a dead spot. So that's something that we w111 look at in flnal deslgn. Oenny Eiler: ~e had a few discussions on the pole types. Hayer Chmiel: Are we looking at the shoeboxes? Oenny Eiler: Shoeboxes and whether they may be 30 foot...whatever. Again, there are several computer formulas for looking at Type II where you have a long pattern but the shallow pattern so thelr lights opposite of each other may be more. Or you go to the Type III which requlres a tlghter spacing but then you have a staggered pattern so there's several options. We're not to that point. This is just klnd of a generlc graphic. One other 1rem we can brlng up, we've shown the roadway section that had a standard median treatment and standard lane uldths that would be typlcal for a State Aid type standard street. Now we understand that the issue of landscaping is open at this time, the 80 foot right--of-way does kind of hem us in a 11ttle bit. We could go to a slightly wider median. Me're showing a 6 foot median adjacent to the turn lanes. We haven't investigated the turn lane length at every location. Maybe some of those could be shorter. We could possibly go out to a 10 foot wide median. Have a turn lanes which would give you 4 foot ulder, 22 foot range between the J. ntersections. So that in the tapered areas you'd have a longer distance where you'd have a plantable, tree plantable area. But then again you're pushlng out to work that right-of-way line. Realizing the boulevard, the sidewalk, the larldscaping on the slde, you're going to be off the right-of-way... So we've shown J.t basically the standard roadway... We can narrow the lanes up slightly. Hennepin County uses a 27 foot roadway. We're showing 28... On the left slde, the driver sits on ~he left, they're comfortable with the 1 foot gutter. Maybe 32 City Council Meeting - February 24, lgg2 you can pick up a foot that way. There's all sorts of little details like that. Mayor Chmlel: What's our streets presently right now? Jim Dvorak: 16. Denny Eller: Is that what it ls curb to curb where you have a single lane. Typically MnOot would build an 18 foot roadway in that situation... Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, to go along with that. I want to make sure. We're talking about a 6 foot median and this is as it applies to the protected turn lane areas. Really a majorlty of the dlstance through here. 6 feet is not a large enough distance to have any type of planting, ~hether It be grass or shrubs or trees. And again your choices mlght be like a concrete, asphalt, or like a bulminite whtch they emulate then what a brick m~ght look like. But I mean you're not golng to have, I thlnk the comment has been made that in the downtown area that it's been overly done as far as the amount of trees and grass. Well we're golng to go kind of the other way because this w111 be more the standard type of islands. Just solid concrete and it will only be in those center sectlons where you can have some form of vegetation. So I think that's really the question that Denny's asking. OD you want them somehow to try to wlden that enough to allow the grass or some smaller plantings in a larger area or are you happy with the idea that those Islands throughout that whole area will pretty much be just concrete? So you have concrete curb, concrete and then concrete curb. Mayor Chmiel: What's the existing center medlan? Don Ashworth: 16 feet. 16 feet allows you then to do the type of things that you have out here. I agree and ! think Denny would agree that the previous one put too many trees, and especially as you started to approach the turn areas. Okay? That's some of the confllct that's out there but I don't know that we necessar£1y want to go to the other extreme and that is almost total concrete the whole distance. Agaln I think that's the question Denny is posing to you. Mayor Chmlel: How do we funnel that traffic? It's easy going out towards Powers Blvd. comlng from downtown but ho~ do we funnel that trafflc if we're going to make the road wider, maybe even 2 lanes. How do you funnel that down back lnto that one lane wlthout causlng congestion and problems? Denny Eiler: As the traffic volumes grow in the section east of Kerber, eventually you're golng to have to add, have to wlden in that area. Wlth the first phase of the development, assuming that's still Market. Going to one lane and widenlng to 2 ls no problem. It's dropplng the lane going east...and we presume that will be dropped as a right turn lane at Kerber. So you've got to have some advance warning that the rlght lane must turn right at Kerber, or the next intersection. Some sign to that effect. That's called a trap lane. Not too bad when it's a right turn lane. It gets to... That should work out as an interim solution. And presumably with the development there, you mould have enough rlght turners to make that a very attractive movement tn the first place. But as Market gets extended south of TH 10~ development, and starts to grow in the whole area... The likely place would be to extend that lane on Market so if you're going to have a trap lane, Market looks like it doesn't have one because 33 City Council Meeting - February 24, 199~ you're going to have a lot of right turns heading east and wanting to turn south to get lo TH 5 and go down. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Mayor Chmiel: 4ccepting approval of the feasibility report. Councilman Workman: Report and call for public hearing on Project 92-3. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, did you want to amend it to take the landscaping out of the assessment? Councilman Workman: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Mason: At what point will we be making these kinds of decisions about trees and this, that and the other thlng? Mayor Chmiel: When final design more or less. I shouldn't say final but during deslgn tlme. Any other discussion? Resolution #92-30: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to receive the update to the feasibility study for the West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 92-3 dated February 19, 1992, deleting the landscaping from the assessment portion, and calling a public hearing for Monday, March 9, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Dick, do you want to touch on your item (b) at this time for Councll Presentations? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I misread item l(b) or I misinterpretted it but I did have a comment that I'd just like to make. It came out of Planning Commission and havlng watched and listened to them over the last few months. It has to do with lot size. Paul's got his, what's the name of this ordinance you're looklng at the PUD and lot slzes? paul Krauss: PUD standards in residential. Councilman Wing: PUD standards. And I just want to express my concern or lnterest here that PUO's are in. PUO's I think are accepted. I think we like PUO's. PUD's give us what we want and the proposal that Paul has before the Plannlng Commission is our standard 15,000 square foot lot with a minimum of 10,000 allowed on PUD's. Planning Commission's been debatlng thls and arguing back and forth and trying to come up with the numbers in deciding what to do for some tlme now as I understand it and I thought it might be appropriate for the Council, whether it's a work session or whatever, to discuss this very issue and 34 City Council Meettng- February 24, 1992 talk lot size. If we're happy with 15 and 10, maybe that could be a direction toward Planning Commission to help them make a decision. On the other hand, I've klnd of stated that I-don't care to go as high as 22,000 11ke Mlnnetonka. I don't see any point for that but I picked compromise numbers out that we raised our minimum lot size to 18,000 and then a PUO down to 13,000 so we kind of little less density and little larger lot sizes all around which I feZt more comfortable. Llttle less density. Llttle less people. Llttle less pollution and so on and so forth. It seems that if the Council takes'this from the Commission, we maybe could save them a lot of time if the Council actually had an op£nion and wanted to give some direction on lot size and where to go. And maybe lt's smaller. Maybe it's no change but maybe in fact there is a majority here that would like a slightly larger lot size. I'm not sure how we would approach that or the proper protocols here Don but. Mayor Chm£el: Well nothing can be done but be some discussion to have staff look lnto it and come up with some of those conclusions. Councilman Wing: Did the Council ever come up with a resolution? ~hat's the word I'm looking for? How would we come up as a group with maybe a consensus that would assist the Planning Commission in making a decision pending on what we might do anyway. Councilman Workman: We'd call Chalrman Emmlngs tonlght at about midnight. Mayor Chmiel: I guess it's something that I have looked at and have voiced my opinions against because 10,000 square fo~3t lots to me ls absolutely ludicrous. My opinion. Councilman Wlng: I feel the same way so what do we do7 Mayor Chmiel: I was always under the opinion let's go to the 20,000 and offer a PUO at 15,000 and I'm serious when I say that. Councilman Wing: And I'm will£ng to compromise at 18 and 13. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. That's something we can discuss. Councilman Wing: Well I'd follow your lead. Councilwoman Olmler: Is the Planning Commission looking for a recommendation from us because I think we're reversing our roles here. They're supposed to advise us and here we're advlsing them. Mayor Chmiel: I'm just offering my opinion. Anybody else can offer their's. Councilman Workman: Let's hear it from the young end. Councilman Mason: I lived in a side by side home In Minneapolis for 7 years with what I belleve they call negative lot 11ne. Or what ls it? Paul Krauss: Zero. 35 City Council Heeting -- February 24, 1992 Councilmar, Mason: Zero. Believe me, there it was negative. And you know, in certain circumstances it works just fine. Councilman Wing: Did you have a boat? Were you employed at the time? Did you have any children? Councilman Hason: That's none of your business. But yes, yes, no, yes, yes. So I certainly think it's open for a fair amount of debate. Councilman Workman: I think maybe going to 20, that kind of ignores some of the realities of home buying to a larger group of individuals wanting to enjoy the amenities of our fine community. I don't believe in lO. Now you just said you liked my neighborhood and I'm not living in decadence but I think I'm just under 15. But I think it's very nice and comfortable. They're building bigger houses on littler lots and it's kind of the way it's going but that doesn't make it right or wrong but I think we're kind of closing out a group of people if we're getting. The bigger the lot and the bigger the house you've got to put on the lot, the more people you're closing out. Maybe that's what we want to do but for younger, two income, professionals who are fighting to keep ahead of inflation, it is very difficult. Councilman Wing: It uill have an affect on the market. Councilman Mason: 4nd maybe we're not just talking about professional people moving here too. Mayor Chmiel: That's true. I think the whole intent behind the...at the time, and maybe I'm wrong but this is my viewing of lt, is the fact of having a house that's affordable for most people. But once it gets going that prlce is not there. The price is escalated yet but yet you're still having a smaller lot. and to me it just didn't make sense. You put a larger footprint on it and that accessibility is there. Where do you put your kids to play? What do you do with those kinds of things and I think that'8 maybe some of the things that the Planning Commission has indicated as well. Z've seen that too often and rather than having the kids playing out in the street, you want them playing in the yards or going to the parks. But if they don't have a park accessible to them that close, kids aren't going to do it. They're going to play in their yards. Zf they have that space, and Z guess all the years that Z've had my kids, there's always been enough back yards. They want to play football, they could play football. Zf they wanted to play baseball, they could play baseball. But it's there. That accessibility is there and there again I'm looking at it from a standpoint too that it does provide one of the things that we always look at is public health and safety and the safety aspect to me needs those kids in the yards and those yards should be a tittle target than what they are. at 10,000 square foot. How much larger, that can be discussed. Councilman Workman: I just think that we can dictate whatever we want. Do whatever we feel comfortable wlth. The market wlll tell us if we're rlght or wrong. If we choose that we do not want to develop very fast or perhaps not at ail, then the economy or the forces that be w111 tell us whether or not we're keeping something out or not. 36 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Mayor Chmlel: I guess I look at it too from operating from an individual developer. Sure, they're in there to make the dollar and that's why they're dolng business but to glve them I additional lot for every 3, I really sort of question. And that's size. Councilman Wlng: That density thing is the lssue I settle on. Denstty means to me more traffic, more pollution, more noise, more taxing the city services and even by upplng say to my 13, which ls an arbitrary number, what are we cuttlng out of a division? 3-4 lots at the most? All we do is widen the ltne. We Just cut the plan a 11ttle differently. Anyway I've said my plece and appreciate your comments. Councilwoman Oimler: Bo you want mine? Okay. I think 10,000 is way too little. So I would go for a bigger one as well. I think that we don't want to shut anybody out and Z know that Chanhassen has been known to do that with high taxes anyway. I've heard lots of people say I can't afford to 11ye in your community. And Z've tried to tell them, I don't know what but we're going to try to do something about that but anyway so I would favor something lnbetween there where we're not shutting people out but also for the safety concerns and children playing and so forth, I definitely favor larger than 10,000. And like you sald, Z don't know if it should be 13. Perhaps 14. Whatever but to do a study and see what is safe. Look at what ts a safe density for us. Mayor Chmiel: [ guess you've heard some of the discussions back and forth here. At least getting a sense, a feeling as to where we're coming from. I think that you've really been sort of spinning your wheels back and forth on the issue and everybody can't quite get together. At least it seems to me there's a consensus of opinion here that 10,000 is much too small, but what that size should be is something I think we can discuss. Maybe even at our, if there's time, at our workshop coming up on Saturday. So with that, we will move on. Thanks for listening. ADNINZSTRATZVE PRESENTATIONS: PL~Z#6 CO~I$$ZO~ REgUEST TO PROCEED #~TH STUOY OF HZGHg~Y 5 CORRZDOR. PL~NNZNG DZRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I guess I don't thlnk I need to spend a whole lot of time on background with this. Everybody on the Council I think has seen the presentation from Bill Morrish and his folks at least one of the times he's been here. And I think you're aware of the fact that even before Bill's folks became involved the Clty and the Plannlng Commission, Clty Council have made a tremendous amount of progress in how we manage development over the last years. We had the comprehensive plan completed. We're tn our storm water program. We've gotten completely new set of ordinances to deal with and there's a lot of, and I thlnk what's probably most Important of all is that the expectations you have for this community, Ithtnk the expectations most of the residents have for the community, have really risen and there's a belief that you can achleve a lot of innovative things. Given that and given the tnput that we had from the University, the Plannlng Commission very strongly felt that we should proceed to the next step which is the formalized corridor study building upon what the University folks have done which really ls some conceptual ideas. They need to be refined. They need to be made real and publlc hearings held to make sure that the engineering works and everything else. So I'm bringing forward a recommendation that we proceed along the track of undertaking that study. Now 37 City CouncJ. 1 Meeting -- February 24, 1992 last fall when we had discussed this at a work session I had hoped that I could do a lot of it in house. Since that time we frankly have gotten quite busy and committed to a lot of different projects. Nee development is really starting to build up again and I'm also losing one of my planners for most of the spring and summer. We really think that to the extent we do something, you really have to operate quickly. Either decide to go ahead or not because there's a tremendous amount of development design going on in that corridor today. And one of the things I want to point out, whether or not you go ahead with a full blown corridor study, we should be working very intensively on TH 5 right now. Charles and Z had an initial meeting with MnDot on a design of the next phase of TH 5 and think we've got a real good working relationship established but we've got a lot of concerns too about how the highway's designed so that would be, if you go ahead with the corridor study, that's something that falls well into it. Zf you don't, you really ought to consider going ahead with that independently. With that I'll turn it over to you for your discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. I was going to say something first but I'll save mine for last. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I was in favor of doing the corridor study. Of looking and planning and having it look great. You know not have it just haphazardly grow. I'm also in favor of, and I don't know if it's included in here. I think we would really be making a mistake if we don't put in frontage roads. Are they part of the plan? I'm not sure. Paul Krauss: Well yes. The frontage road system is outlined in the comprehensive plan and certainly is one of the features of Bill Horrish's crew. Councilwoman Dimler: It is? Okay. Good. I wanted to make sure of that. But one of the problems I see here again is allocating monies and monies for studies and studies and studies. And where are we going? I mean I get a little frustrated when we keep doing this and we're not really ending up with, what are we ending up with that we couldn't do with the information we already have from what's been done so far? And isn't it really up to us to sit down now and start writing the design standards and isn't that really the City's job rather than hiring someone else to do a study? And who are you talking about here too? That the C~ty should work with someone, u£th us and MnDot. Who shouId that be and at what price? Paul Krauss: Well on the later question, and maybe the City Manager wants to add something to that. We've had an ongoing working relationship on this phase of TH 5 with Barton--Aschman who's also working with MnDot. And all the stuff that the HRA has worked out with the intersection improvements and pavement design and what not to let people know they're in downtown Chanhassen, that's been done in that manner and I guess what we saw, that sort of a relationship continuing. As to the first part of the question. I tried to be pretty cautious when ue got into this with the University because Z think that what they did raised the consciousness of a lot of folks and that's a real valid thing to do. And I think the effort is really praise worthy because it pointed a lot of interesting things out. But lt's a hlghly conceptual thlng that they did and it's not designed to stand the test of time. It's not designed to say okay, here's the plan for the corridor. Let's just go out and bulld upon thls. It was a series of ldeas. Good ideas that they put together and Horrish himself 38 City Council Meeting - February 24, or Lance Neckar will tell you, well you know we just threw this on the table for you to think about. But there's been no public hearings. There's been no design of how these roads are going to go. There's no traffic input. There's no land use discussion in detail. We're talking about people's property and you all saw the amount of public input that we structured going into the comprehensive plan. None of that's been done in this case. As for design standards and what we can accomplish out there. Yeah, I think it would be fascinating to draft some stuff up and I'm anxious to do it. It's a breaking field honestly. I've gone to some conferences to learn what there is but there's some folks in town here who have that expertise and can do, I'm the first to admit, probably a quicker and better job of it than I could. I'm bumping up against too the fact that we just don't have the time or the bodies to spare for another major project that's going to have another round of night meetings. It's going to have another round of packets that have to be prepared. We're already preparing 3 and 4 packets a week for different meetings. I just don't have the bodies to do it. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. My question is, with what we have now from the University and I don't remember if we paid for that or not. Bid we pay anything? Paul Krauss: Yes. It was quite a nominal sum... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Can we not now go from there and start drawing what the City needs to do without doing, I don't understand why we have to have another study is what I'm saying. We can modify that plan ourselves but we've got a skeleton base to work from. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's what Paul really basically said is that there are a lot of loose ends from what the analogy was of saying this is how it should look. How do we tie the roads in with it? How do we put the service roads in? More specifically, if we run into wetlands. Things of that nature. Do we go straight ahead and go through the wetlands? No. I think what we have to do is just circumvent some of those particular things. These are some of the things that these people would do. Councilwoman Oimler: We're already writing an ordinance to cover this. This is what I'm talking about. Aren't we doing some of the work already? Councilman Mason: I think we are but it seems to me we've got a concept over here and we want a plan and we've got to figure out a way to get the concept to the plan. Lord knows I don't know how to do it. And clearly, i mean with 3o Ann being gone and that whole thing I share, believe me, I get tired of studies too and you know Lord knows in education we deal with a lot of that kind of stuff but I think my personal feeling is that we need what Paul is just saying. There are some people out there that really have a handle on this kind of thing. It seems to me we could probably say well bag it. Paul your department has to do it anyway and they're going to be spinning their wheels and being worst off than they already are as opposed to someone that can just come in and get the Job done. Councilwoman Dimler: My point is we're going to be hiring someone to give us the skeleton and we're going to have to fill in the details anyway. Do you 39 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 understand what I'm saying? Councilman Mason: Well I do but I think we're getting more than a skeleton out of this aren't we? Paul Krauss: Well you'd be gettlng a document that you would approve as an appendix to your comprehensive plan. You'd be getting an ordinance amendment that would be adopted lnto the zonlng ordinance. You'd be gettlng some center line studies for where these roads are supposed to go. You'd be getting the deslgn lnput that we need on TH 5. And you know, my staff would love to work on this project. I mean they've all asked to do it and I think it would be, if we didn't have everything else golng at the same time, it would be great to kind of work our way through it in house if we had not only the time but the clock is tlcking out there. You've got a request for utilities from about 500 or 600 acres of land in this corridor. It's happening as we speak and I guess that's the concern. If there's a window to jump through, the window's open. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, now let me ask you...and the design plans for TH 5 don't they do that? Paul Krauss: If you want a straight concrete road, flat between here and TH 41, they'll do a dandy job. Don Ashworth: But more than that. They turn back to Barton-Aschman. They're using the consultant services to do this work. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I'm saying. We're just going to help pay for the consultant is what you're saying. Don Ashuorth: As I see it, they're paylng the primary cost in terms of the design of the roadway but why not compliment that work. In other words, pay for what I'll call a small amount of hours wlth the same group that they're paylng the primary dollars to to get them to add things that might benefit us. I don't know that we need to spend the level that Paul has referred to here. Maybe we can in meetings with Barton-Aschman's attorney, maybe we can find a way to reduce these costs but I really thlnk that uslng the person that MnDot ls using makes a lot of sense and potentially could produce a lot of cost savings. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I agree that if staff doesn't have time to do it or the expertise to do it, then certainly we need something but it's just the cost range seemed a 11ttle hlgh to me. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think my stand on this is somewhat known. I guess I...look at that specifically as this Council's legacy to the future. I think all the things we may do in our terms, thls ls probably going to be the blggest lmpact on the city of anything so I'm impressed with it. But it's not going to be painless. How do the owners, if we brlng in thls professional group that Ursula's concerned about, how do they plug into the landowners. Do they deal wlth them and get them informed and get the hearings golng so that they're in the program right away? 4O City Council Meeting - February 24, 1~92 Paul Krauss: That's something that we coordinate from my offtce. I think we're the agency to do that. Councilwoman Dlmler: See, that's what Z'm saylng. We're going to do the work anyway. We're going to add the details to that skeleton. Councilman Mason: But we have to... Councilwoman Oimler: I know that but. Councilman Mason: But it's our city and we want it exactly the way we want it but the people out there that, I mean this plan that Norrish and Company presented was just, it was incredible. Councilman Wing: But just conceptual. Councilman Mason: But I mean he doesn't have the nuts and bolts in place at a11. Councilman Wlng: He said wake up. Councilman Mason: Yeah, wake up and this is an idea. If you want to go with thls, you've got to get busy and work. Councilwoman Oimler: I think we knew that before. Councilman Mason: But lt's givlng us the lmpetus to do something. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Councilman Wing: No. I simply support it and the money's the issue. I anticipated we'd be between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00. Mayor Chmlel: Tom? Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot to add. Ithtnk whoever sald it, if we don't act, we may never know that we didn't act. You know what I mean? We may never know that how it could have been and maybe... Councilwoman Oimler: We wil1 act. Councilman Workman: Yeah, we will act and we may never know if less energy expended did anything. I too get concerned about another study and another meeting. That's why I've been hanging around with this thlng. I'm very interested in it. I haven't been hanging around the thing because there's another time commitment but I'm certain that if we do not act we will get exactly what we deserve. End of comment. Councilwoman Dimler: We have acted already. Councilman Mason: I think we need to do something. 41 City Council Meeting ,- February 24, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with that. As I have written down here, I like everything about this proposal except total dollars for the study. And we always get back to the one thing. And there's some inconsistencies with this as well and one of the things that Paul is mentioned, those are parts of them. Some of the other things I look at is the things that were pointed out with the bridges going across TH 5. There again there's a lot of dollars that would be spent if we have to go through those processes that Morrish brought up to make the aesthetics a little bit better. Those are all the things I think that we have to look at to address to see where we're coming from and what this whole project would really cost us. Because I don't think we can fully afford everything that ue would like to have the way he presented that plan. I think we have to put this whole package together to look at it fully to see what can and cannot be done. Councilwoman Dimler= See and that's my concern. Whatever they come up with I know it will be amended and each amendment will probably cost more money. So if we start at a high cost for the study. Paul Krauss: I want to be honest with you too. I mean I did call one consultant that had done some of these things to get a ballpark figure and then I actually added a little. We have a leg up on this because we do have the concept that's laid on the table. There's a lot of things that folks have, well that you've bought into and the Planning Commission has. It scares me to death that we've never gone public with the thing. That's not the way I'd prefer to have run it but that's the way it is to date and I think that's one of the key things. Councilwoman Dimler: And that will change the plan again. Paul Krauss: Yeah I honestly don't, if we put it out on the table for people to give us bids on, I honestiy don't know. Z mean hopefully they come back iess. Councilman Wing: Will we do this like we did on the water utility where the companies will come in and give us presentations and try to sell themselves. Is that the direction we take it in? Paul Krauss: We certainly could. Mayor Chmiel: You could and I. Councilwoman Dlmler: But lt's llke Don pointed out though, you'd be worklng with the one that MnOot ls working with. That would be the most logical. Paul Krauss: I still should point out too, nobody intends to lose what we've gotten to date nor lose the relationship that we've already established with Morrlsh and his staff. To the extent that they came up wlth ldeas that got people galvanized, that was great. Mayor Chmlel: I loved it myself. You're right. Councilman Wing: Can you discuss the funding? I'm really curious about that. We're slttlng here saylng let's do lt. What about the funding? I'm really curlous about the funding. 42 City Council Meeting - February 24, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: That's the other thing. Where are the dollars going to come from? We're not going to get any money from MnDot. You almost have to do the funding on this in order to get what we really want and that's going to be the city. I don't know if there's any dollar allocations out there that we could get from the Feds or the State in which Z really doubt. Don? Don Ashworth: I think you're right. The funding will have to come through ourself. Surely it won't come from Arnie. He's just going to send us another bill. I don't know where the funding will come from. Councilman Workman: Let's research that and then come back. Councilwoman Oimler: Do your magic Don like you always do. Mayor Chmiel: I think we have to really start thinking because as Paul mentioned, there's already people requesting services be provided to their areas. I don't know if we can curtal1 some of thls. We could probably put, I think we've discussed different things. We can probably put a moratorium on something so it doesn't go too far but I don't like doing that either. My maln concern is okay, maybe we should proceed but we don't know what the total plcture is golng to be. We don't know what the total costs are golng to be and whether or not the ctty can even afford it. There's the whole thing that it really bolls down to. But I think somehow we have to continue from where we are right now and proceed but with the total amount of dollar expenditure I would think ls rather exorblnate in my oplnlon right now. Do you have something working out the back door of another place? Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move that we direct staff to find, diligently look and find for cold cash that we can use to do this. Mayor Chmiel: Or where it's going to come from. Councilman Workman: Todd Gerhardt's all of a sudden missing one day and we got the program, then we'll know what happen. That was a motion. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. Councilman Wing: How can we discuss it without finances? Councilman Workman: Let's talk about it Saturday. Councilwoman Dimler: Well if they get the finances, we'll discuss it further. Direction for the staff to look for financing and if they get the financing we'll discuss it further. Mayor Chmiel: Mike, you look a little disgusted. Councilman Mason: Well I am and I'll tell you why. When we voted to approve our budget, there was something thrown in at the last minute to glve the taxpayers a 11ttle bit more money, which is hey. Oon't get me wrong. I don't want calls tomorrow morning but it was to the tune of about $30,000.00 or so 43 City CounciZ Hooting -- February 24, 1992 that we cut the budget a little bit more and at the time you know things, unforeseen things come up and I felt at the time that maybe we didn't want to shut that window. But we did. Hayor Chmiel: Can't cry over spilled milk. Councilman Mason: But if we end up not being able to do what we want to on TH 5, there's going to be a whole lot more than a 11ttle bit of milk spilled. Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree. I think the whole idea and the concept is great. But realistically the dollars, whether they're here today or they were here last week when we allocated them back to the citizenry of the clty, that's another thing. Whether that $30,000.00 would even touch it, you're talking here $40,000.00 or $60,000.00 and Paul said he's just probably ralsed that a 11ttle bit. Paul Krauss: Would it be useful if Z also, Z mean Z trled to 11mlt thls but talk to a few folks who I thlnk might be...to talk about a work program and tell them, give me a better idea about what thls mlght cost? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I think we've got to get this moving too in a public direction to make sure that that's taken care of. Councilwoman Dimler: Plus I think too if the bidders know we don't have much money, they mlght COnle down in thelr blds. You know. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe with that motion as we have it, to work at that and then come back. Z think that's the direction that you're gettlng. Any other discussion? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct staff to investigate into funding to proceed with a study for the Highway 5 Corridor and then bring the information back to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Mann Opheim