Loading...
1990 04 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman 0imler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Lot1Sletsema and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Chmlel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the agenda to move the Presentation for the Maple Leaf Awards prior to the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motlon carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Agenda with the following additions under Counc11 Presentations: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss silt fences and community garden plots; Councilman Boyt wanted to dlscuss oil recycling and the flag in front of the Fire Station; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the Board of Adjustments and an update on Crossroads Bank. All voted in favor and the motlon carrled. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Chmtel read the letter enclosed in the City Counctl packet addressed to the Honorable George Bush, President of the Untted States, regarding National Flag Day. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS: Mayor Chmiel presented the Maple Leaf Award to Candy Takkunen and Rlchard Wing for their service on the Public Safety Commission. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Accept CORE Flshlng Pier, Donations from DNR. (Councilman Johnson wanted to say good work to Todd Hoffman publically on thts item.) e. Accept Plans and Specifications for 1990 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Authorization to Advertise for Bids, Improvement Project 90-2. f. Approve Agreement ~ith Short-E111ott-Hendrlckson for Stormwater Utility Consultant Services. g. Approve Plans and Specifications for Construction of Production Well for Well No. 5; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Improvement Project 89-4A. i. Approval of Accounts. j. City Council Minutes dated April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 4, 1990 City Council Meeting - April Z3, 1990 k. Authorize £xpendlture of Funds for Electrical Service to Lake Ann Park Shelter and Advertise for Bids. 1. Approval of July 4th Fireworks Contract. Resolution ~90-48: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Qulck Take of One Permanent and One Temporary Easement for Roadway and Uttlity Purposes, Country Clean Property. o. Accept Soil Exploration Proposal for old Public Works Slte. All voted in favor and the motion carrled. CONSENT AGENDA: B. SET SPECIAL HEETING DATE, 30INT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND REDEVELOPHENT AUTHORITY PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF GOALS AND OB3ECTIVES WORKSHOP. Councilman Boyt: The meeting on May 7th. I don't know how crucial that meeting is to hold quickly but I'm not going to be here. If there's a possibility of puttlng it off for a month. But if there isn't, Z can put my thoughts in writlng and give them to everybody too. Mayor Chmiel: Well that'd be appreciated. Councilman Workman: So are we keeping the meetings. Councilman Boyt: On the ?th. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move item l(b) Bill7 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve setting a special meeting date of Hay 7, 1990 for a joint meeting of the Ctty Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Public Hearing and Staff Goals and Objectives. voted in favor and the motion carried. C. AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS, FIRE CHIEF VEHICLE. Councilwoman Oimler: I pulled ltem (c) malnly because I remember in our budget process that we ask for that to be removed from the budget and 3im Chaffee did pull it from the budget. I see that lt's back on the Consent Agenda and Dale ~regory did come and speak to me and gave me some facts on it. I would agree that thls vehlcle would be a great asset to our community but Z'm not convinced that lt's an absolute necessity so that's why [ wanted to pull it and discuss lt. Jim Chaffee has assured me that no one in our community ls presently at risk because we do not have that vehlcle. I can see advantages to that vehtcle and I've been more incllned to vote for it than to vote for the expensive exercise machines that we approved for the Fire Department. I guess my polnt is that Z thlnk we've been really good to the Flre Oepartment. When they ask us for a new buildlng and voters approved it. They asked for the aerial truck whlch is here now and lt's an asset to our community and they got lt. They asked for recreational area and workout equipment to keep them in tip top shape and they got it and [ guess I want to know when does the asklng stop. Z thlnk City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 there's other areas in our city that need attention. I also had calls from concerned citizens that think that we're favoring the Fire Department over other departments in our city who also have wants and needs that are real. In the long run I can trouble for our budget in general. At the State level the tax committee is looking at reducing state spending by $537,000,000.00. Some of that will be reduction in local government aids and that means that the City of Chanhassen will be getting less from the State. That means we will either have to cut our spending or increase OUr taxes but I'd rather see us cut our spending. I've also seen over uses of city of Chanhassen vehicles in the public works department and I think until we clean these over uses up, I'm not inclined to favor owning and operating and maintaining more city vehicles. I am open for discussion but I did want the public to know that in the future I will not look favorably on any more vehicles. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment. Haybe ask Hr. Chaffee a few questions. Councilwoman Dimler just mentioned the exercise equipment and T know that came in front of us but wasn't that covered by the money voted in under the bond issue. Jim Chaffee: Z believe it was. Z don't know, maybe the City Hanager can comment on that. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: So it wasn't any additional expenditures by the City? That was part of the bonding approval? Councilwoman Oimler: Bill, you did mention though when it came before us that you thought it was way too expensive and you would have loved to go for the $2,000.00 units rather than the $12,000.00 units. Councilman Boyt: Yes. I agree with you that I would have liked to have seen them come in with different equipment. They did come in front of us and explain why they wanted to spend that. It wasn't additional monies. It was just how they're going to utllize the monies they had. It sounds like we agreed that it was expensive equipment. The Flre vehlcle here or the vehlcle for the Flre Chief, references made to the budget. As I understand it, Publlc Safety set your budget. You had a oertaln amount to work with and you allocated it towards the directions you thought were most appropriate to public safety. Is that correct? Don Ashworth: If I may respond. The 19gO budget includes $37,000.00 that was with the title unallocated. It was done recognizing that there were various vehicle needs within the city and as we got into lggO, we would have to prioritize as basically the need for each of the pieces could better be evaluated. One of the pieces under consideration was a sewer jet machine and discussing that with Gary, the decision was made that that particular piece should be moved off at least an additional year and accordingly, the next priority was the Fire Chief's vehicle and that's how that came before the City Council. Councilman Boyt: So what you and Hr. Chaffee are saying here is that this is your highest priority vehicle? Basically out of the amount approved in the City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 budget for vehicle expenditures, you're saying this is the best use of that money or part of that money. Is that right? Don Ashuorth: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, Mr. Chaffee did you tell me this morning that you had removed that item from the budget? Jim Chaffee: Yes I did. Councilwoman Oimler: Thank you. Councilman Boyt: Apparently I'm not disagreeing with that but it sounds like what you did was created a vehlcle fund and you're now coming back to us and saying thls ls your top priorlty vehicle given the needs of the City engineering department. The needs of park and rec and so on. Am I right in saylng that? Don Ashworth: The approved budget shows the $37,000.00 with a footnote saying during the course of 1990, various pieces of equipment u111 be revtewed and a recommendation made to the Clty Counc11 as to how to best utllize those dollars for equipment needs. Councilman Boyt: I certainly agree with Councilwoman Dimler's point that we need to be careful about how we go about reacting to these needs. I guess I am though saylng that a city growlng 11ks we are needs transportation. If we're hiring people, and we are, to fill these jobs, very frequently part of that cost lsa vehlcle for them because our clty, the nature of what's golng on here requires people to get out and be able to see what's happening. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't agree wlth that. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well, it sounds llke ue disagree on that point. Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to buy a vehicle for every employee. Councilman Boyt: No, I don't mean to say that. I said very frequently, and if you look back at the people that we've added to staff over the last 2 years, I would say that very frequently ue end up purchasing a vehicle for that person. Or a vehlcle that they share wlth someone else. And wlthout that vehlcle we're paying them mileage because there's a lot of driving that goes on here. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to reiterate my point that Hr. Chaffee told me that no one, and I said I would make this a high priority because it is fire department. We have favored the fire department. I belleve that some of their needs are legitimate. However, I don't want anyone to get the impression that anyone in the city ls in trouble or is not safe because ue don't have this vehicle and that's what I always oppose using that as the basis of getting, you know. Like I sald, I'm open but in the future I don't want to hear anythlng else about vehicles. Councilman Boyt: That's the one point we disagree on. I agree with the other things you're saying. We need vehlcles to run this city. That's all I've got. City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jay. Councilman Johnson: Don't we currently have a Fire Chief's vehicle and is this for the what I'd call the duty officer's, like the duty officer's vehicle or something? ! think they take the grass rig home, whoever's the officer of the night or whatever. Because I thought you had a red Fire Chief's vehicle out t here. Dale Gregory: Originally the way this all started was when the construction of the building was in progress. The grass rig that was there either had to be stored or else we used it in this sense as a take home vehicle. That's where we originally got our first of using it this way. Right now it is not a good way of doing it because with the way the weather is, the summers and everything, we can't have the grass rig at a home. It has to be back at the station. We don't realiy have a vehicle to use in this sense. As a Chief's vehicle. Councilman Johnson: Is there a vehicle that you use as the Chief's vehicle? Dale Gregory: I was using the grass rig. Councilman Johnson: Oh, you were using the grass rig. Dale Gregory: I was using the grass rig until the grass season started. Councilman Johnson: What's the red sedan? Dale Gregory: The red sedan was the one that was donated by Craig Blechta and that we basically painted and everything else. It's a vehicle and it's got 130,000 or 120,000 miles on it. It's not a vehicle that's going to be used extensively as a Fire Chief's vehicle. Mayor Chmiel: What year is that vehicle? Dale Gregory: It's a 1981. Besides that, it doesn't have the room to carry the equipment that we have to carry with it. Councilman Boyt: It's much too expensive to drive that grass rig. Councilman Johnson: Oh I agree. And you don't want to put that kind of mileage on it either. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just make a suggestion here. I had looked at this previously. Our Fire Marshall has an existing vehicle that he's using now and I'd just like to throw this out. If we got that vehicle, because I don't think that Mark Liftin uses that vehicle as much as it probably could be used. Maybe if he used the existing vehicle that you have until that one goes and take his vehicle and utilize that, which is a 4 wheel drive. I'm not sure how that would work out but what I'd like to propose presently is that we table this discussion and pursue this thought and see if we can't come up with some solution. City Council Heetir, g - 4pril 23, 1990 Dale Gregory: Okay, I talked earlier with Don. In fact we kind of looked at every aspect we possibly could. That didn't look like a real viable thing because again, the car doesn't have room to carry the things that Mark is carrying in the back of his vehicle and again, the car doesn't really work real well. I mean we're really into trouble with that thing. It is again, the vehicle was donated and it was set up as a personnel vehicle as far as going back and forth to meetings, schools and that type of thing and that's what we initially set it up for and that would be good. We're close to 38 people right now, fire fighters. We've got 4 of them that are attending schools that basical].y go to Vo-Tech schools that are all over the City right now. They're not at Hennepin Vo-Tech and that and that's basically why we set that vehicle up. So they would have something to attend meetings instead of using their own car or else coming over here and trying to get a car from City Hall. We only had the opportunity to use it for about 2 months and it was working good while we had it that way. Mayor Chmiel: I would still like to propose that we table this and have some further discussions. Haybe between having a couple Council members and I'd like to sit on it myself, if anyone else would and slt down with the Clty Manager and with Oale and even Mark and try to come up wlth some conclusions. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask one more question before we get 1nrc this motion? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Johnson: Is Mark's Fire Marshall vehicle utilized at night or is it parked up here? Dale Gregory: No, I believe he takes it home at night. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Is that necessary as part of his function as a city flre marshall to have that vehlcle as a take home vehlcle or could that be used during the day as his fire marshall vehicle and as a fire chief's vehicle at nlght? Dale Gregory' The thing we run into with that is this vehicle, when we set it up, we're going to have to build cabinets and things in the back of this vehicle basically to handle the Flrst Ald equipment. To handle all the pre-plans and the equipment that has to be there and if we're going to use it as a flre chief vehlcle and a fire marshall's vehlcle, that means every mornlng, every night, all of Mark's ~tuff comes out. The other stuff goes in and we are talklng quite a bit of equipment that has to be rerouted every nlght then. Councilman Johnson: Now that's something new to us. Some idea as to what we were talking about, what a flre chlef's vehlcle. I mean the common lay person's idea of a fire chief's vehlcle is a red sedan and we don't know what goes in the trunk and what goes in the back seat of it so it sounds like lt's a mobile command facility. Dale Gregory: The reason it's set up for it, it is the initial command vehicle when you get to a scene. It's to get the chief officer on the scene first. Make the decisions. Set up a command post. Agaln, lt's got all the flles and City Council Meeting - Rpril 23, 1990 everything for all the pre-plans for all of the industrial buildings will be in this vehicle. Communications. Radios which are in Mark's right now. But there are, like again, there'd be First Rid equipment and things in there and that but it's basically set up as a command vehicle so we can set up all the operations out of that vehicle. And the way we'd set it up is even on like say weekends, should I be gone, vacation or that type of thing, we'd always have an officer on duty. That vehicle would go to whoever the Assistant Chief or if they're not in town, a Captain or somebody so basically we'd always have the City with an officer on duty at all times. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Well that explains to me a little bit more why we need the Flre Chief's vehicle. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Zs there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: To table? Is that your motion? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Oimler: I second that. Councilman Workman: If I could make a couple of quick comments before we head into the table. I researched this. I sat down with Oale and I talked to no less than a dozen flre flghters from different communities because in fact I received a call from one of our own fire fighters complaining that maybe we dldn't need thls and everything else. Well I sought to prove or disprove that and the information that I found out was that every fire department that I talked to has one of these vehicles. It probably could be considered a luxury but it's a very nice luxury to have in that then Dale can be on the scene, whether lt's 3 or 4 or 5 mlnutes before everybody else ls and that those 3 and 4 and 5 minutes are very critical to setting up a plan for whatever needs to be done. Where flre plugs are, entry, etc.. ! found out one other thlng that a fire doubles every 1 minute and that these 3 or 4 or 5 minutes are very important and we even discussed the fact that Dale, who works for the City has a park vehicle and why can't we use the park vehicle. That's why I'm wondering if discussing thls at a future date is neoessary because we went around all these angles of whether the park vehicle. Well he can't really keep all this equipment and pre-plans and whatever else in thls park vehicle, which would be ideal obviously because he's in that and so this is a unique vehicle that I guess basically I sought to disprove that we needed it because I get concerned also with the number of vehicles that keep popping up all over. But this is something that if we can afford the luxury, I think is a useable vehicle. Councilman Johnson: So you're speaking in opposition of tabling basically? Councilman Workman: Well no, I'm not afraid to table it. I just wanted to make sure that my point's gone out before. Councilman Johnson: Because at this point all we're doing is writing the specs. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. We've not gone beyond that as yet. City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilmarl Johnson: Right. We're not authorizing to spend any money. Just make the specs. Councilman Boyt: There's plenty of time to do the research after. Councilman Johnson: While they're writing the specs. Well writing the specs wlll probably help us make our decision. Councilwoman Oimler: You know that that means that we've got the vehicle you know. Basically that means we get the vehicle once you go with the specs. Councilman Johnson: I'm for gettlng it so. COUrlcJ. luoman Dimler: Like I said, I'm not deadly opposed but I just wanted to be a forewarning that I'm not going to look kindly on any more vehicles so don't come and ask. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to table with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table authorization of plans and specifications for the Fire Chief Vehicle for further investigation. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion to table carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Chmiel: Let's sit down. Talk. Pull it together and come up with some kind of a solution. D. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR HARVEY/O'BRIEN SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION; WAIVE PUBLIC HEARING; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, IMPROVEHENT PROJECT NO. Mayor Chmlel: The applicant would like to address this regarding the sanltary sewer extension. It's your time to come forward to make your presentation. Terry O'Brien: My name is Terry O'Brien and I'm the property inbetween Harvey and the sewer connection. I've seen the proposal for the cost of the sewer line. Z thlnk my portion of it would be $18,000.00 or there abouts. Somewhere around $18,000.00. I feel that right now there's no way that I can afford that and I'd 11ke to know, and my sewer system ls worklng. If I could table or I don't know what you call it, but until I hook up where I wouldn't have to pay that money until I can some money somewhere to pay that. Z just no way can pay that klnd of money. Mayor Chmlel: I think maybe we can get that addressed. Gary, what are the procedures for that? Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, staff met with Mr. O'Brien and Harvey last Friday to review the study and at that time it was noted and as I'm sure Council recalls, the extension which ls dependent on the Metropolitan Council's permission, ls to really address the failing system on Mr. Harvey's property which since the sewer passes Mr. O'Brlen's property, it was looked at for both properties. But as Mr. O'8rien indicated, your system is currently operating satisfactorily so his request ls, because of the financial hardship of his property, is that if the City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 assessment for the improvement could not be deferred unttl such time as either his system fails and he needs to connect or also there's a possibility that he could subdivide his property, whlch as we all know, takes tlme to walk through the process and takes some money. Obviously if he can split another unit out there, it makes it more financially attractive to him. So if ! can speak for Mr. O'8rien, what he's requesting the Council to consider is that in his particular case that the assessment be deferred until either he subdivides or connects. The deferment of assessments, putting my other hat on and the City Manager may want to address I'm sure, ls looked at in a negative vein as far as a bad debt of the City and has it's negative connotations that I think needs to be considered. It's not policy of the Clty to entertain those types of factors because of that. However, there are some exceptions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Don, do you have anythlng to add to it? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure of the legal ability to do. I know we have a senior citizen deferment policy or allowance under State Statute on a 429 project but Roger? Is there such a thing for a 429? Can we simply assess and defer? Roger Knutson: There lsa procedure for assessing deferring if the property ls not developed. Vacant land. Don Ashworth: Here you have a home and it's just a matter that he has a functioning septic system and would 11kw to watt unttl that fails. Roger Knutson: No. There is no. Don Ashworth: You might have to table to let staff try to... I do not know of an easy solutlon on this item. Mayor Chmiel: I think probably what we're going to have to do so we're going to be in compliance with our requirements, the way we can proceed with this. I thlnk Mr. Harvey and Mr. O'Brien probably would agree that if we tabled this for a couple more weeks to see what we can come up with, a solution of whether or not we can or we can't, I would not want to make that judgment call right now. I would just as soon see us review it and come up with a conclusion on it. Elther positive or negative. I thlnk that I understand your position and I understand fully the cost burden that's established on you for that $18,000.00. I know when I went through mine I paid $10,000.00 to get my water and sewer and I too had water and sewer available with my own septic system at that particular time when the sewer came ln. Terry O'Brien: Thls isn't, the thing ls, it isn't just sewer. I just paid $4,000.00 for the road and around probably $3,000.00 for the water last year and now the $18,000.00. It's about twice, almost 2 or 3 times... Mayor Chmiel: Yes. You're talking $25,000.00 totally with all three assessments. Terry O'Brien: So what do ! have to do now? Do ! just wait for these two weeks? Do I do some... City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make that as a motion that we table it at this time and have staff review and come back with some position on this. Councilman Boyt: I have a couple questions before we move on this in this direction. $18,000.007 Is that what you're proposing? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: Are we paying 7% for City money these days? Don Ashworth: We don't know what this issue would go out for but you can assume about 7 1/2~. Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's interest on money that we've spent will be $1,300.00 a year. And so I'm wondering if we defer this, who's paying that interest? Don Ashworth: The typical senior citizen deferment, the interest stacks up against the property. That's one of the problems with the senior citizen deferment. You can literally double the cost. Turn a $40,000.00 assessment into an $80,000.00 assessment. Councilman Boyt: I have another question. So that's one thing is that you're plllng up $1,300.00 a year from the time this is finally assessed to you. Another thlng that occurs to me ls, what happens if we don't do thls? Terry O'Brien: Well I'll have to sell a lot. There's no way. Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not talking about your situation. I understand what is impacting your situation. What happens if we don't put the sewer line in? Gary Warren: Mr. Harvey's system is the one that has brought this to the fore- front and the City ls on record wlth an enforcement action here to get his faillng system repaired. This seemed to be the cost effective route because it was putting money into a final ultimate solution. If this would not come to pass, then Mr. Harvey would have to go and spend money to upgrade his current system. Councilman Boyt: So he'd have to put in a new septic system basically and that's, what is that $10,000.00-$12,000.007 Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Boyt: So for him, it's close to a wash either way for Mr. Harvey. Is that correct? Terry O'Brien: I don't want to block lt. I'm not trying to do that. Councilman Boyt: Right. One other question and then I'll stop this. How many square feet are in your lot currently? Do you know off hand? Terry O'Brien: In my property? 10 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Yes. Terry O'Brien: There's 450 foot of frontage. Councilman Boyt: So it looks like you've probably got 3 lots in there? Terry O'Srien: Well there's some wetlands. Two at the most. Maybe just one large lot. Councilman Boyt: In addition to what you already have? Terry O'Brien: In addition to mine, yeah. Councilman Johnson: He's got some extreme slope problems and some wetland problems on his. Councilman Boyt: And so one possibility is if you were to subdivide that into 3 lots, assuming that you can have yours and two others. Terry O'Brien: That would be the extreme. Councilman Boyt: Okay, that would be the extreme. Then you'd be paying one- thlrd of this assessment which would be mG,O00.O0. The other two-thirds would be accumulating interest. Terry O'Brien: If I sell a lot, I'll pay it all off. I'm not even looking for profit. Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not talking about you selling any of them. I'm simply saying that If you subdivide them into 3 lots, then you take that $18,000.00 and you spllt it into thtrds. Am I on the wrong track here? Gary Warren: Keep going. Councilman Boyt: It's possible. Okay. So then you're talking about an assessment that you would begin to be charged now for $6,000.00 instead of $18,000.00. Your two lots which were bullt upon would be sitting there idle accumulating interest charges. Isn't that what I heard you could do? Roger? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's right. Councilman Boyt: $o there are some options here is just my point. Terry O'Brien: But sooner or later I've got to pay that right? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jay. Councilman Johnson: In the scenario that just went through, we're making the assumption that Mr. O'Brien's entire lot is going to be within the MUmA line. 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. Terry O'Brien: It is now. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe within a short period of time. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Is the service area that's designated on the drawings we have in the feasibility study, is that the only part that's going to go into the MUSA line or is their entire property going to go within the MUSA line? Gary Warren: The current minor guide plan amendment that has been applied for which we expect to hear on by next week, is strictly to allow the current units to be connected because of the pollution or the emergency situation. It would wait until the Comp Plan amendment and the full MUSA expansion before the rest of their properties could be subdivided. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so yeah. We're assuming in the next year we're going to get permission to extend the MUSA in this entire property so right now all we'd be able to do, he wouldn't be able to subdivide until that happens. Terry O'Brien: Could I do the front lots? That's in the MUSA line. Councilman Johnson: The front lots? Terry O'Brien: Right along the road. Where the sewer goes. I don't care about the back. Councilman Johnson: I don't believe it is within the MUSA line. Gary Warren: No, none of his property is within the MUSA line right now. Terry O'Brien: When it gets approved it won't be? Councilman Johnson: When it gets approved in about a year. Terry O'Brien: This temporary approval thing or whatever it is. Gary Warren: We're talking about two different things. The minor guide plan amendment whlch we're currently expecting to hear from, would strlctly address allowing your existlng unit to connect to the sewer system. Not any additional units until the overall amendment is approved. Councilman Johnson: Right. So that scenario would not work right now. The long and the short of lt. Mayor Chmiel: Presently. Councilman Johnson: Presently. And presently we have a guy pumplng out septic tank several times a month as hls short term solution. 12 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Here again we come into the dollar amounts and we're talking about the environmental concerns. Gary Warren: I believe it's appropriate Mr. Mayor to let staff study this. The Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain ts an example of connection charge approach that we took to deallng with some of the costs but there are some lnterim cash situations that need to be looked at as far as the cost of the money. If the Clty happens the bank roll so to speak so I think there are some options. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Maybe as I mentioned, maybe we should table this. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that motion. Mayor Chmlel: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? A1 Harvey: Mr. Mayor, may I add one thing? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Come on up. A1 Harvey: A1 Harvey, 1430. This is, our syste= failed this winter so this is why this is before the Council. I have no problem with paying a 600 foot frontage between, whlch includes O'Brien's property and our property. I do have a problem of paying 220 feet of what was existing Centex property. When we went to thelr first meetlngs they indicated perhaps they were going to extend the sewer to their property line. Now they did not. They're 220 feet short. I'm wondering if the Clty has any available monies to help us to get to our property and we'll take it from there. As long as you're going to be discussing that, maybe that could be discussed at the same time. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, that's been discussed with Mr. Harvey in the past. Centex was requlred to extend their line to service thelr units and similarly in the proposal, the feasibility study actually overstates to a certain extent how far the sanltary sewer line would have to go to capture Mr. Harvey's current septic system. We would expect that when the plans and specs are actually done, that the sewer line would not be extended to Mr. Harvey's westerly property line because he doesn't need tt to that point. The next property, the Betsy Glaccum property, if and when they need to connect, would have to pay to extend it so it's sort of a wash on both ends. They would paying to pick up the line where it exlsts in the Curry Farms subdivision to get it to their property. Similarly the Glaccum property would have to pay to extend it across his property. Mayor Chmiel: I see what you're saying. A1 Harvey: Except there's a difference in footage. I only have 150 feet. There's 220 feet from the Centex and to get to where our need is, we need tt gO feet so we've basically working with 60 feet which probably is to my benefit to extend and whlch I'm w1111ng to go to the extent of mine. I'm just asking if there's any available monies to help us to get to our properties. I have no problem plcklng up the cost of extending it through ours. I'm more than willing to meet that. I'd much rather do that than to put in a new system at this time. Okay? Thank you. 13 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor with a second to table and come up with some again solutions to what's been discussed. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on Improvement Project 90-5, the Harvey/O'Brien Sanitary Sewer Extension for luther study. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to move item (h) to be discussed when we discuss item 10. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to move item (h) from the Consent Agenda to be discussed with item 10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. M. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: Item (m) is quite quick. I would like a specific date added at which the City will review it's cost structure. I'm convinced that $100.00 isn't covering the city's cost. This is for the leasing of the sign. So what I'd like to have. We talked last time about some sort of study so the City's costs were covered. I'm concerned that if we don't put a specific date on that, it won't happen given the amount of work the staff has to accomplish. So I'd like to put a date of 6 months from today to see a response from staff back on whether we appear to be covering costs with the leasing of the slgns. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 6 months from today to see if we're covering costs. Councilman 8oyt: So I would move approval of item l(m) with that amendment. Councilman Johnson: First meeting in October. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the final reading of an Amendment to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to Require the Posting of Public Information Signs for New Developments within the City with direction to staff to bring the item back in & months for review. All voted in favor and the motion carrted. Councilman 3ohnson: Mr. Mayor? Are you meaning the first meeting 6 months from now or on the 26th? Mayor Chmiel: 6 months from today to see if we are covering costs. Councilman Johnson: That'd be the second meeting in October I guess that would be. Specifically October 23rd. Councilman 8oyt: Thank you for that clarification. 14 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: Bob Wagner: My name is Bob Wagner. My address is 2511 Orchard Lane and I would like to add to the discussion either now or in the future, the corner of TH 7 and TH 41, Crosslng Additlon and specifically the 11ghting to the rear and to the west of the building and the 11ghting of the pyramids at the top. To give you just a 11ttle background, I have had some prlor conversations with some of the Council members and then the community had a meeting with the developer and we addressed the inadequacy of the darkness that we have these days. He agreed. He was going to pursue possible shielding of the lights which rather than point downward as was in your origlnal discussions and as ls in the parking lot, they polnt outward as well. Fairly high intensity. I haven't yet had another meeting with Roger Zahn but lt's my understanding in talking to other members in the community that he can't shield those lights without invalidating the warranty on the lighting system. ! find that unacceptable. What he has done and what I have done personally to three of the lights is put duct tape around the sides. That's a nice temporary fix and I feel it's fairly acceptable, at least for the side and the rear. It doesn't address the tssue at the top. The unfortunate part ls the duct tape is already peellng off. And I would hope there are some regulations still available as far as that development and an inspection process that will address those. Councilman Boyt: Might I respond? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I remember very clearly that the development contract doesn't allow that. That we said there's some sort of candle power limit at the property line. Jo Ann Olsen: And all lights have to be shielded. Councilman Boyt: Well then shouldn't we enforce that? Jo Ann 01sen: We have. We've sent them a letter stating that we won't give the CO until that's done. Councilman Boyt: Well it's not moving with very much speed, typtcal to that sort of enforcement action. Jo Ann Olsen: Well our last understanding was that he was trying to come'up with some solution. We didn't hear that he was saying no, he can't do it. Bob Wagner: And that's a bit figuresome on my part but that's my understanding in talking to other members in the community that it's a matter of expense I think with Roger and how to handle it. Jo Ann Olsen: It has to be done. Councilman Johnson: So nobody opens their business there because nobody can get a certificate of occupancy until those lights are changed. 15 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Hayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: Roger will find a way to change those lights because he can't collect any rent from anybody. Councilman Boyt: The simple way to do it is to go out there and unscrew the light bulb. Bob Wagner: They don't unscrew. Councilman Boyt: Oh, it's sodium? Bob Wagner: I've been on a ladder very close to those bulbs duct taping them because I looked at all of them, All 5 or 6 of them. Hayor Chmiel~ Have you had any response from them at all Jo Ann? Nothing at all from Roger? When did we write that letter to him? Jo Ann Olsen: A couple weeks ago maybe or longer than that. It's been a while. Councilman Johnson: It wasn't in this Council packet. Jo Ann Olsen: After I got the first complaint. Hayor Chmiel: I've not seen copies of that letter unless we've had them in our Admin Pack. Jo Ann Olsen: That's where they should show up. Hayor Chmiel: Haybe I just passed by it. Bob Wagner: I would just ask, have you addressed the issue of the lighting on the pyramids and is that within regulations? Jo Ann Olsen: That was never brought up. Bob Wagner: I'd like to point out that the one closest to the community has never been turned on but I would anticipate that at some point in time it wtll be. The one out by the road is on. It probably only affects us poor fellows that 1lye on the "h111" but it affects me qulte drastically. He did tone that down by putting the glass around it and to me it sort of smacks of the Super Value lssue or the Super Amerlca lssue of 11ghtlng polntlng outwards rather than downward. Councilman Boyt: Roger, what's the next step to gettlng this cleared up? Roger Knutson: You can go after him. He turns the lights on? Bob Wagner: Oh yeah. Roger Knutson: Prosecute him. 16 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Bob Wagner: I'm not here to be real critical. I mean with the tape on, it's much more acceptable. Before it was totally unacceptable and I do believe there is a solution that could be had here. Councilman Boyt: I think Bob, in my experience in working through this for the last 2 years or more, that Roger tends to respond to the gate that squeaks the loudest. Maybe that's the nature of the business. I would like to see the City Attorney draft a letter to Mr. Zahn taking this one step further. Bob Wagner: I feel we've done something unusual. We've gone to Roger as a community and had a meetlng and the actlon has come forward. Councilman Boyt: Well I know he's got a proposal in front of us tonight. I know that doesn't make the 11ghtlng lssue any lighter on your part but I have to believe that his intentions are good and if we just sort of squeak a little louder, we'll get some actlon. Mayor Chmiel: I would almost suggest Jo Ann that you write another letter to Mr. Zahn indicating that he should be fully aware that in the event his lighting is not addressed, that his CO wtll not be issued for any kind of facilities going ln. And that has to be addressed. Jo Ann Olsen: That's what the first letter said. What I'll do is just reiterate that and then also give them a deadltne that our City Attorney w111 address it and that's what we usually do next. Mayor Chmiel: And then maybe what you can do is just keep in touch with Roger and let him know what that solution is. But have a definite date to respond by. Councilman Johnson: How many facilities are under construction inside there that have building permits? Jo Ann Olsen: Quite a few. Councilman Johnson: If there's a couple building permits there, those people who pulled those building permits are the people renting from him I would assume and they would be interested to know about thls. I'm sure that's not one of the first things Roger uill do is run out and tell the people who are renting from hlm about this little problem he's got but we'll let the shop owners squeak a little too. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we can do Bob is approach it from that aspect. Bob Wagner: We would appreciate it. Mayor Chmiel: And see what happens from that. And we can keep you posted as well. If you give 3o Ann a call, you'll know what the solution is hopefully within, can we have a date by which you wi11... Jo Ann Olsen: We give him 10 days. We'll send it certified. Gary Warren: The current building permit...restaurant is working through the process right now. 17 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's on our agenda. Okay 10 days from today, which is the 23rd, we should have a response back by. 3o Ann Olsen: Well it will go out tomorrow. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so take it from tomorrow. Then get back in contact with Mr. Wagner so he's aware as to what's happening. Any other visltors prese~tations? Yes Sir. Don Dudycha: My name is Don Dudycha. I live on 6451 Oriole and when Roger did put this bal~k behlnd there, he was going to have sumac all the way down the bottom and fix lt. He's got rocks and car tlres and busted down fence and everything. 0irt rolled on my property. I'd like to get that cleaned up and get the sumac. He's got sumac about 3 rows across the top. The rest of the bank is all rolling down wlth, just fallen down into my property. Mayor Chmiel: Eroding is what you're saying basically? Don Dudycha: Right. He's got car tires. Great big rocks. Everything down there. I'd like to get that cleaned up too. I've been golng to talk to him but he don't call me back. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you can also put that in the letter to him. Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, we're looking at all that. Don Dudycha: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Gary Brown: You folks approved the new Amoco statlon down there but what you kind of forgot to do was let me a way out of there for my self serve car wash so people can wash thelr car and leave .... see the existlng buildlng on there and where the curbing comes down with the planters and such it's going to look real nlce. That goes rlght down the conter of the sewer easement there...part of my driveway. Councilman Workman: What's north? The car wash? Mayor Chmiel: North is to your right. Councilman Boyt: We didn't get an arrow. Councilman Johnson: Oh, I got an arrow. Mayor Chmlel: North ls Minnesota Trunk Hlghway 101 is at the top. Councilman Workman: I st111 don't understand thls map. Gary Brown: See when I bought that property from you folks 6 years ago. 18 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Tell us just a little bit more what you're saying Gary. Gary Brown: What I'm saylng ls, I have an entrance lnto that car wash off 7gth Street. The exit onto TH 101 and when the people are through washing their cars they make a loop and go back out on TH 101. With the new station, I don't have an access to get back onto TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, I see what you're saying. Councilman Johnson: You mean they loop through the station's parklng lot right now to get on? Gary Brown: Right. Well no, no. No. See we have a combined driveway there but in that combined driveway down the center of that is a sewer easement which when I purchased that from the City of Chanhassen or lot 6 years ago, was the understanding that if anything ever went wrong with the sewer, the City would repair the sewer but I would repatr the road right-of-way because ! put the asphalt down. Which is fine with me. But now all of a sudden this thing got approved and we're out there measuring and there's no way to get back out of that car wash. Councilman Johnson: Do you have any 1dew when you might start this construction? 15th of May now? I nottced they were out putting more wells in trylng to chase, clean the contamination. They thought it was golng to be the 15th of May last year too. For real this time? They were very confident last year. Some of thls curblng needs to be changed. Councilman Boyt: Would you clarify for me Gary some of this? I can get lost anywhere. Show me where your car wash Gary Brown: The car wash is right here. Councilman Workman: Currently? Gary Brown: Currently. That's the existing self serve car wash. Councilman Workman: I'm confused boy. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I won a quarter on that. What are you suggesting as a solution? Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is you need access to get back out onto TH 101. Gary Brown: I need access to get back out onto TH 101. Councilman Boyt: If you had, and it was a joint access, it would seem to me they can't take that away from you. It's probably what it would seem to you too. Gary Brown: It seems like to me. Mayor Chmiel: What's their position? 19 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I can tell you. Gary Brown: Their position is it isn't their problem, it's your problem. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, did you ever have an agreement with them that you could use their driveway? Gary Brown: The problem being, yes I had an agreement with the City of Chanhassen written up by Scott Martin. CounciIwoman Dimler: Did you have an agreement with Amoco? Gary Brown: On that driveway? Counciiwoman DimIer: Yes. Gary Brown: Yeah. There's one that should be on file here. Council. woman Oimler: Do you have it Don? Ocr, ~shworth: It should be in that file. Councilwoman Dimler: Go get it please. Don Ashworth: I'm assuming there's a project file. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to bring that up. I did talk with Mr. Kristofek today. He said there was never an agreement and that you were using the property without permission. And therefore he feels no obligation to alter his plan. Councilman 3ohnson: Is he the Amoco? Gary Brown: ...Amoco ~ith Ursula and I've been their dealer for 19 years and he can't call me about it. Councilwoman Bimler: He said he's been talking to you. Gary Brown: I haven't talked to Mr. Kristofek in 4 or 5 months. Councilwoman Oimler: And didn't you get the plans when it went through? Gary Brown: I saw the plans last Thursday for the first time. Councilwoman Oimle~-: No. You saw it when it came through. And you did not come and object. Councilman Boyt: That's besides the point. The point is, you need some access. You think you've got a document in the City's files, if not your o~n, that give you that access. It would seem to me that if we can find that, that's what we have to forward. Gary Brown: ~hat if we can't find that agreement? 20 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: Then you're in trouble. Gary Brown: No, then we're all in trouble Ursula. Councilman Boyt: Yeah, Z agree with you and I think if we can't find it, then maybe start with City staff and see where we go. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, I thlnk that's where we have to. I think basically if we have an agreement in file, that protects you. You're in good shape. But if there isn't, it's a problem for everyone and ! agree with that. Some kind of solution is going to have to be determined as to how and what we're going to do to provide that access for you. I noticed Oon's writing. What we can do is pull together information from the file and as soon as that's determined, then we can let you know what's in there. Councilman Johnson: Gary, do you know how much property to the east of your existing building you own? Is there a possibility of looping back around? Gary Brown: No. I'm right on the lot line there. Councilman Johnson: Zero lot line? Mayor Chmiel: And you can't back up because people are parked behind you so it's a little difficult. Councilman Johnson: Okay, but then on the west side would it be possible to put a drive back up to where they went back up to that street? Mayor Chmiel: What's on the far west side of that building? Is there enough room to come back out and go around? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, there's a utility easement there as well that's been paved. Gary Brown: The utility easement along the front and then the sewer easement which belongs to the City I believe goes right through the center of the property. Councilwoman Dimler: Has that been paved over? Gary Brown: That's the one that's paved over, yes. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, let us go as to what I sald. Someone from staff will get back to you and let you know. Councilwoman Dlmler: Let's flnd that agreement. Mayor Chmiel: If not, then we'll have to come up with some kind of solution. What that ls, I have no ldea but that will have to be determined and you'll probably have to have discussions with our Attorney as well to see what the rights are. Don Ashworth: About what was the date of that? 19827 19847 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Brown: 1984 Don. We opened in June of 1984 so probably about the first of the year. Councilman Johnson: Is this something new? A new plan? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know, I haven't seen it. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we've seen it. Councilman Johnson: This should have been a site plan. I see this error in back down here and an area I didn't thlnk... Mayor Chmiel: Well that's not on our agenda right now. This has just been brought lo us for basic... Gary Brown: I didn't want to take up a lot of your time. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Councilman Boyt: Hang onto this. You're probably going to need it Gary. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address Counc117 If not, we'll move on to the next agenda ltem. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREHENT DISTRICT FINANCING PLAN, MODIFICATION NO. 10. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this at this specific time? As I mentioned, thls lsa publlc hearlng. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dimler: If I may start Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: OD ahead Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: My concern is that we've just set a date for May 7th for the joint HRA/City Council meeting and there's a lot of public that would like to address thls particular district. I'm wondering if we can walt to make any modifications untll after that May ?th hearing? I understand that the legislature ls pushing on that b111 and I did check on the update today. As a matter of fact I talked to the author of the bi11, Representative Grist and she indicated that because it lsa redevelopment dlstrlct and that it ls not a new district, that her bill would not affect us. I know there's some misgivings about that whenever thlngs are ina 50 page b111 that there's some loophole somewhere that it will affect us and it will be too late. However, another thought ls that April 1st ls the deadllne lnstead of April 30th so if they go with that deadline, than we're too late already. $o it all depends on what they pass. At least I would 11ke to leave our optlons open that we don't accept the projects just as stated here because the public hasn't had thelr input and I don't want it to come back later and they say well lt's rlght here that thls project was approved and we're going to go do it. 22 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: This doesn't approve any projects. Mayor Chmiel: No. This is not the approval basis, you're right. Councilman Johnson: And I think we need to go ahead and approve this tonight. It can always be modified after the May 7th meeting. Nothing is written in stone. This is kind of the edge of the truck. Councilwoman Dimler: Well the bill doesn't include that you cannot modify the district after. Councilman Johnson: Right. If that's after. Councilwoman Dimler: After the bill passes. Councilman Johnson: After the bill passes so I think it's important, this is a modification for the district. Important to get this, this opens up those options so that if these projects do materialize, we can actually do something with them. Or even if it's slightly different. We have a plan. We have something going on here. If similar thing materializes, we can do it. If we wait until May 7th, the bill passes before May 7th, we just tied our hands. I think we really need to pass this tonight. Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Who again knows what the legislature may end up adopting. They're still working on that section as we're talking right now. However, the law as it came out of the committee and that was even as of 5:30 this morning, did show the May 2nd date. I can't tell you that they will or will not include Chanhassen but as written, you would not be able to expand the district. You can always reduce the district so I mean if you make these modifications and come May 7th you don't like one of these descriptions, at that point in time you can remove it or reduce the district. You may not have the ability on May 7th, I should re-emphasize that, may not because we don't know. You may not have the ability to expand it on that date. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I think one of our major concerns was the volume caps, is that right Oon? That's.what you were concerned about? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilwoman Oimler: That has been removed from the bill as of this evening? Don Ashworth: Yeah. The word that I had received was as of this mornlng the conference committee had agreed to remove that cap provision but none of our advlsors had actually seen that. Mayor Chmiel: That's just a discussion but it's not firm in hand. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Okay then, if we're going to go ahead and approve it, I guess I don't have any problem doing it as long as we can modify it. Mayor Chmiel: You can always make it smaller. · Councilwoman Dimler: Make it smaller. On item (c) however, if we could reduce that to take out the retail space; the Amoco, the car wash and just leave the 23 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Apple Valley Ready Hix in there. I'm doing that because the, I talked to the Amoco people today and they're not planning to use any TIF money at all so we won't be havlng to bond for that. Todd Gerhardt: Hr. Hayor, can I respond to that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: The HRA also picked up on the item that you had discussed and Amoco, as written by Fred Hoisington who drafted thls document, is referring to the Hanus facility remodeling. That Amoco really should read auto service center. That would be lncluded as a part of the car wash. Hayor Chmiel: Would that be the Hanus building too? The auto service center, would that lnclude the Hanus building? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: That is the Hanus building. Todd Gerhardt: Amoco is not requesting any assistance. Councilwoman Dimler: So Amoco should be taken off for sure. The retail space, does that refer to a restaurant? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Hardee's? Todd Gerhardt: Well it's referring to a 4,500 square foot facility approximately. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have to share with you, when I mentioned that to Representative Grist, she just about had a fit and she said that's exactly one of the reasons why I'm writlng thls b111. In other words, she's no in favor of using it for any type of a restaurant facility. Todd Gerhardt: In this case it wouldn't be used for a restaurant. It would be used to prepare the land for the construction of something on that site, be it a restaurant or retail center, whatever. Monles solely used to buy and acqulre the existlng car wash and the ralsing of that car wash to prepare it for the Amoco slte and any publlc improvements that would be done in that area. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, so then why was Hr. Brown here asking for access when lt's golng to be razed? Councilman Boyt: Different car uash. Todd Gerhardt: Would improve the value of the car wash. Councilwoman Dimler: The Hardee's doesn't need it or whatever goes in there? Councilman Johnson: Amoco's car wash or Gary's car wash? ~4 City Council Meeting - April Todd Gerhardt: Gary's car wash. Councilwoman Oimler: Well he's talking about hls existing car wash that's going to be gone. Councilman Johnson: But see thls could be 2 years from now that thls happens, He needs his access for the next 2 years too. I mean we're not going to be.,, Councilwoman Dlmler: There's going to be another car wash ulth the Amoco you're aware of? Councilman Johnson: Eventually. Councilwoman Oimler: Before Gary's probably. Councilman Johnson: Gary's ls already there. Councilwoman 01mler: No. Mls new one. Todd Gerhardt: Z guess he has plans to bulld a new one as a part of the Marius facility. Councilman Johnson: Right. But we haven't approved that car wash, elther car wash. Mayor Chmlel: Nelther. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct, Councilwoman Bimler: Yeah, the Amoco one has been approved hasn't lt? Todd Gerhardt: No. Councilman Johnson: No. That was a future car wash. We only approved the station. Councilwoman Olmler: Okay. Well anyway, I would amend this to read then just the Apple Valley Ready Mix. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, he has tug car washes. Amoco has two car washes on thelr site. Gary Warren: The Amoco site has a car wash proposed. Todd Gerhardt: They have an automatic one and a self serve area. The four, bay self serve uhlch ls to the east of the pumper gas pumps ls not approved by the Council. Mayor Chmlel: To the east or to the north? Gary Warren: There's an existing or a proposed one just to the north of the facility. Don Ashworth: And that has been approved. 25 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: That has been approved and you're talking about another one. Don Ashuorth: The one to the east has not been approved. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, the reason I'm bringing all this up is it is my understanding that TIF money is to be used to clean up blighted area. I don't see the car wash as belng b11ghted or the Hanus bulldlng as belng blighted. I guess I have a lot of trouble with that and I would agree with Representative Grist on that that would be a misuse of money. So I would 11ke it to read the Apple Valley Ready Mix definitely needs updating or relocating or whatever so it would just read Apple Valley Ready Mix, that's the tltle on (c) and it says this project will entail the acquisition and demolition of the Apple Valley Ready Mix Plant. Councilman Johnson: I'll argue against that modification in that we're talklng an entlre area. Apple Valley Ready Mix lsa small portion of the entire area. That if we go piece by piece, pelcemeal, we're only golng to do this. We have to look at the big picture and this includes from Great Plains to Oakota. That whole sectlon and how that whole sectlon is golng to be handled in the future. There's a problem that we found some oil contamination and various other things at the Hanus facility. Councilwoman Oimler: I understand that but Don, didn't you say that we could bond for that whole area just by using the Ready Mix plant? Without naming the other projects? Don Ashworth: Well, I made the assumption that you would not be looking to expending any tax increment dollars on either the improvement to the Hanus faclllty or to relocating Mr. Brown's car wash. If that ls the case, then the project just as you've described it would be fine. If there is a deslre to potentially help in relocation associated ulth Brown to pay potential pollution costs, then the larger description should probably stay. Councilwoman Dimler: Well the potential pollution costs would be covered anyway. But I'm saylng the Amoco and the car wash and the fetal1 space shouldn't necessarily be named as such because these are the projects that the publlc may react to. Don Ashuorth: You would not have to specifically name them so if you said a project area, including the area bounded by Great Platns, TH 101, south of the railroad tracks and north of TH 5, that would be sufficient. You would not have to say that the decision is going to be retall or... Councilwoman Dimler: No, but don't you want the Apple Valley Ready Mlx in there because that's the one obvlous one... That's the blighted area. Don Ashuorth: You may want to take and show the Apple Valley Ready Mix. This area includes the Apple Valley Ready Mix. Councilwoman Oimler: Rlght. Don Ashworth: That would further clarify the area. I thlnk if you walked around the area behind the Hanus facility, I think you would call that blighted. City Council Meeting - ~pril 23, 1990 Nobody sees it but it's not one of our better spots in town. Councilman 3ohnson: Yeah, see it's behind a fence but if you look through the fence, it's not exactly in the best of shape back there. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Mayor Chmiel: Fine, go ahead Bill. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to move approval of item 2 amending 2(c) to include the geographic area mentioned by the City Manager. I would move approval. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Resolution ~90-49: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve an Amendment to Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Financing Plan, Modification No. 10 as amended by the City Manager to include the project area, including the area bounded by Great Plains, TH 101, south of the railroad tracks and north of TH 5 to item 2(c). All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE WEST IMPROVEMENT PRO3ECT 90-1, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Don Patton Dave Stockdale 7600 Parklawn, Representing Lake Susan Hills Partnership Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, staff has had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Stockdale and Mr. Patton on separate occasions and if you'd like a full presentation on thls we can certainly do that. Mayor Chmiel: No, I think many of us have read what's here. What it consists of and what some of the problems basically are. Where they're at as far as Redmonds are concerned so maybe if you can just summarize it. Gary Warren: Yes, I believe they both may want to approach the Council as a part of the hearing process. That may be appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anyone wishing to address that at this time? Don Patton: Are you going to make a presentation Gary? Gary Warren: Did you want a presentation? Mayor Chmiel: I wanted you to make a short one. Gary Warren: I'm sorry. I'm good at those. City Council HeeLing - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I thought it was a little short. Gary Warren: There was a shorter one. Mayor Chmiel: It was so fast, it went past us. Gary Warren' Lake Drive West Improvement Project is located between Audubon Road and CR 17. The project was initiated by Redmonds Product petition. Shown on this overhead, Redmond Products is a large portlon of the frontage along the north slde of the roadway. Other properties wlthin the project area, Lake Susan Hills Partnership and some city property and the Stockdale property in the northwest. Basically the project lsa continuation of the city's Lake Drlve frontage road project whlch we recently completed the Lake Orive segment and it includes the upgrade of the road sectlon. Inclusion of sanltary sewer which is shown on thls overhead projection. The extent basically of the road frontage. Storm sewer basically collecting in two locations on the west slde of the property. There's an internal storm system proposed on the site development plans for Redmond Products whlch convey the storm water between their ponds and to an ultimate discharge here at Rlley Creek. Watermaln basically is consistent with the Clty's comprehensive plan for water servlce. Thls would be completing a loop of watermain from Audubon Road to the 18 inch main on Powers Blvd.. Consistent agaln with the frontage road that we have been bullding along this southerly part of TH 5, street 11ghting is proposed and a trail system/sidewalk system along the north slde of the roadway. The road sectlon agaln ls consistent with that which is bullt in the existing segments of TH 5 basically resembles the Clty's collector classification. Project costs estimated for the project, total estimated construction costs of 1.2 mllllon dollars and with the overhead adminstratlve charges basically a 1.6 mi111on dollar project. The project area lies within the City's redevelopment district and as such there's a combination of assessments to the benefitting properties along the roadway and tax increment trunk funds belng proposed for certain aspects such as the sanltary sewer whlch lsa certain element of the sanltary sewer siztng that's belng increased to accommodate flow from the northwest area from the upper reaches of the Bluff Creek intercepter whlch ls currently belng proposed as part of the Clty's comp plan amendment. This ls not an assessment hearlng obviously but the feasibility study as we typically do, does lnclude some assessment methodology that we have presented to glve Councll some ldea and the abuttlng landowners, the benefitting landowners an ldea of the type of assessments that we're looktng at. Sanitary sewer we've looked at on a unit basis by estimating the metropolitan, MWCC's sac units to get some comparable valuation of property from one use to the other. Watermaln similarly follows the sac unit assessment rate. Storm drainage would be on a per acre basis. Sidewalk, roadway on a front foot basis and street lighting on a front foot basis .... 50% of the storm system would be assessed, whlch is consistent with the Clty's pollcy and the other 50~ picked up by the City. There is an estimated assessment table presented in the feasibility study. Again, these are very preliminary numbers just to get an idea. They show the Lake Susan Hllls Stockdale property which in this case we're looklng at strlctly a storm sewer assessment for that parcel. Redmond Products which basically encountering assessments for all of the elements. Lake Susan Hllls, whlch ls the outlot whlch currently has ar, R-12 zoning and then the City property which also has frontage and shown here as receiving an assessment. Project schedule whlch ls changlng here wlth every passing moment it seems. The Redmond Products has noted in the staff report the letter from Ryan Construction has requested that the Clty not proceed any 28 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 further with any formal approvals of their submittals. This is due to their newly hired chief operating officer who has asked to have the opportunity to review thelr intentions in this regard. So we had put together a schedule here that showed April 23rd, this evening obviously for the public hearing and showed construction schedule uhlch showed that we would be able to complete or hope to complete the major elements of the project with the exception of the ftnal bituminous and restoration uhlch would be done next year. That schedule would be very much dependent on the Redmond Products. So at this point in time, this ls agaln the publlc hearing to recelve lnput from the public and with that brief introduction I'll sit down. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Councilwoman Dimler: I have a quick question. I have a question of Mr. Warren flrst. Has Redmond indicated that they're willing to glve you that letter of credit for $120,000.007 6ary Warren: I have received no discussion at all from Redmond or Ryan as far as the willingness to do that, no. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Don Patton: My name is Oon Patton, 7600 Parklaun, Edina representing the Lake Susan Hills Partnership. I have a letter, I don't know if I made copies. Just briefly the real concerns we've got. We developed a PUD agreement which is currently in effect. The slte that we're talking about for the partnership was zoned R-12 at the request of the City. As a part of the procedures that have gone on in the last 6 months, that was rezoned R-16. In this we're asking the City action to redesignate that R-16 as ue had done and grandfathered into our PUD agreement. As a part of that, and the infrastructure that we're talking about here, Gary could I use your slides? Gary Warren: Yeah. They're all over there. Councilman Johnson: Don, how does the R-16/R-12 enter into this item? Don Patton: It affects the sac units that go into it. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. Have you applied yet to make that zoning change? Don Patton: No I haven't. In talking to Jo Ann, she had indicated that we had to bring a project forward and with the apartment market, what we see it right now, we don't see that happening and I don't want this thing to go on forever and then be stuck with different folks up here and different folks on the staff and say, oh, as has happened with the driveway access earlier this evening. Councilman Boyt: Jay, maybe you can help me out. I'm not sure that I understand why we're looking at an R-16. Mayor Chmiel: We just recently adopted the R-16 zone. Councilman Boyt: I understand. I do understand that. I don't understand what it has to do with this. City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Hayor Chmiel: I don't see that either and that was one of the questions that I was going to ask. Councilman Johnson: Well see an R-12 has so many units to get charged against. Councilman Boyt: So he's saying he wants more units charged against this assessment? Is that lt? Don Patton: No. We just want the equal units from the standpoint of recognizing that there can be additional zoning as a part of the R-16 zoning. Councilman Johnson: Gary, is there any affect on the assessment whether it's R-16 or R-127 Mayor Chmiel: What's the difference in that? Gary Warren: Well the higher density. The sac unit formula is to recognize that the intensity of development which relates to the amount of waste water and water demand of the site so as Oon and I had reviewed earlier today, an R-16 zonlng on the site would change proportionately the calculation and lncrease the sac units. So the watermaln and sanltary sewer assessments I would expect to be higher. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Patron's group would pay more? Gary Warren: For those particular elements. Councilman Johnson: And what you want to do is go ahead and make sure you get the R-16 designated here or else when he tries to change to R-16, we're going to say well geez, you only pald for R-12 on the sewer. Is that kind of what... Don Patton: I've got some other comments if I could proceed? Councilman Johnson: Well, we're trylng to flgure out your flrst comment. Don Patton: I want to be sure that I can...an R-12 to R-16. That's the first lssue. Councilman Boyt: Well it would seem to me, and I'll let you finish certainly but it might help you to know where some of us are coming from on this as you do your explanation. It would seem to me that if you're in here asklng for tacit approval to make this R-16, your intent is to make it R-iG, that for my part, I would want, if you're golng to pull the PUD back out and amend the PUD, that's what's going to have to happen. I'm not going to commit myself this evening to an R-16 zone for thl$. Don Patton: Why wasn't the R-16 changed as a part of the PUD? Councilman Boyt: You mean why weren't you grandfathered in as an automatic R-167 Don Patton: Yes. 3O City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Because to me, I can't speak for the rest of the Council Don but [ can tell you that for me there may be a whole different set of conditions for an R-16 compared to an R-12. It's not an automatic. You were an R-12, now you're automatically R-16. We're changing the density. We may need to change some of the conditions around that approval. Councilman Johnson: We did not eliminate the R-12. We added the R-16. So you still have an R-12 zonlng dlstrlct and you're in it. Don Patton: We were approved with R-12 which is now equal to R-16. Councilman Johnson: No. Councilman Boyt: No it isn't. Mayor Mayor: No. Councilman Johnson: R-16 allows you 1G units per acre. R-12 allows you 12 units per acre. Don Patton: There's other conditions with that Jay which we talked about. Garages and so forth. Let's drop that issue. Okay? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you proceed. Don Patton: Alright. The issue that came up, if you look at the watermain. Thls slde was assessed as a part of the Chart Hllls...watermaln extension. When the assessment was done and you can look at the study, there was a section of watermain from here down to basically right here. This part was installed and was not assessed to the properties in here. That's a matter of record and Gary and I have talked about that. So there was a sectlon of watermain 16 1rich which is costly. From the records I saw, there was no tax increment financing to cover that at the tlme. That all these people absorbed and I think that some credlt needs to be given as a part of that to the folks that have already been assessed for that installation. The other thing that was considered that Gary mentioned that there may be oversizing. This shows a 12 inch and we would expect any credits for oversizlng on that. The other thing ls working with accesses. We did provide the Council wlth site plans. Oo you recall that Bill? And we would expect to provide accesses to the County at the slte plan original. With regard to the storm, let's just go to sanitary. I'll go down the letter. Agaln, we ask the design or at least lnput lnto the deslgn so that the access points for the sewer and water accommodate what we had submitted for the concept approval with the PUD. The storm drainage, what we show here ls an area, the dotted areas is what ls being assessed for storm water drainage. As a part of our plans and approval, you can see an exlsting pond right here. You see an existing pond right here. Thls was a natural pond that the ONR and staff agreed should not be changed. This was one that was created as a part of the nutrient and storm water ponding issues going forward. Basically Hickok dtd a study for us and all of thls area was incorporated into the pondlng area. The slzlng. The piping that went down this road and into this pond before it went down into the varlous storm sewer systems. So thls area should be excluded from the assessment for the storm water drainage. I guess the other item on the second page in regards to the roadway, we question ls $91,000.00 lsa reasonable prlce for 24 street lights that goes on the road. It's about $4,000.00 a unit and 31 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 that does seem quite excessive with the cost of business and doing business, we wonder if that excessive cost is really necessary and look at other alternatives for lighting costs. Then the other item is the deferment of the assessments as a part of this. You see almost $400,000.00 for something that may not be developed for 2, 3, 4, 5 years. That's pretty hard to come up with for a partnership. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dave Stockdale: My name is Dave Stockdale. I own the other piece of property in the northwest corner of that section. I just had a couple questions. I talked with Gary Warren about some of the assessments and it's my understanding that the only portion affecting me would be the storm sewer assessment. I just had a chance to briefly look at that table. If I understood your presentation I would be assessed 50~ of that number. Of the $1,260.00 per acre. Gary Warren: The next affect is that the cost for your acreage, half of that cost is proposed for assessment, that's correct. Dave Stockdale: Okay, is the $1,260.00 half or is that before? Gary Ehret: That's after the... Gary Warren: So the unit is after the credit. Dave Stockdale: The storm sewer will not extend onto Audubon Road and northerly and in front of my property? Is that correct? Gary Warren: Zt will not did you say? Dave Stockdale: Right. Gary Warren: As a part of the design, we'll be looking at whether we extend it to Audubon Road. I belleve that it probably will at thls point in time. Dave Stockdale: It's too early to tell what elevation that will be at? Chet Harrison from HNTB gave an explanation to Dave Stockdale's question that could not be heard on the tape. Gary Warren: We've got two projects in design that impact for Mr. Stockdale's properties. Dave Stockdale: Did I understand you to say that half my property drains to Audubon Road? Okay. The portion that drains to Audubon Road, I think Audubon's elevated above my property but it dralns to the right-of-way. Okay. The portion that drains the other direction presumably drains onto Redmond property. Zn the northwest corner you had a holding pond showlng there and Z thlnk my natural terrain drains towards that. For my assessments, do Z have guaranteed surface drainage to that pond and is that pond engineered to accept my run-off? Gary Warren: This is a matter that Mr. Stockdale and I revLewed last week. Basically there is a 6 lot, preliminary sketch of a potential 6 lot subdivision that the Stockd~le property could be looked at to ultimately subdivide. I 32 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 explained to Mr. Stockdale that the City's criteria and the watershed district's criterla for storm water retention or runoff is to retain the pre-development runoff rate which I think we're all pretty well familiar wlth. The choice is either to provide that ponding area on site as you develop or tf the City has available another pondlng area near the property, and if we can accommodate that, then he pays to have it accommodated someplace else but he doesn't have to do it on hls slte. That's a design issue that we lntend to look at and based on Mr. Stockdale's interest, he's at least, if I'm interpretting you right, you're interested in belng able to have the City accommodate your runoff in that pond which probably would increase your costs in this project as far as assessments but the net result would probably be very close to the same as if you had the pond on your own property. It's either you pond on your property or on somebody else's property. If you're using somebody else's property, then you're st111 expected to pay for your fair share. Dave Stockdale: Okay. And then kind of as a question that came up as I was hearing Oon talk. If in fact you determine that because his property doesn't use the storm sewer, they don't become assessed for it if it goes that way. Does the additional cost of that storm sewer get pro-rated for the remaining properties or how does that get picked up? Gary Warren: The topography and the final design will actually determine what's reasonable to reflect the benefits of the properties. In the Lake Susan Hllls partnership property, as Mr. Patton explained, there are some storm water provisions that were provlded in the PUD whlch they have this on site pond to accommodate. I don't know that that degree of accuracy was actually estimated in our current feasibility study. We were just trying to get some concepts out here. A determination will be made prior to the final, the preparation of the flnal assessment roll as to just what percentage of any of the properties go which way. I guess the scenario, if Mr. Patton is correct, the scenario could be posed that a large percentage of his outlot ls not actually golng to be flowing to the storm sewer system so therefore two things would happen. One, a certain percentage of the area from the Lake Susan Hills partnership would be reduced from the assessment area which would have a net effect of increasing the assessment rate. On the other hand, the plplng that's being proposed to accommodate him right now would also be down sized which would have an affect of reduclng the construction cost. Agaln, it's a detail but you would not be asked to pay for anything that is not in proportion to the benefit that you'd be receiving. Oave Stockdale: Thank you. Hayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to make a motlon. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I move that we authorize the preparation of plans and specifications conditioned on the receipt of an appropriate agreement from 33 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Redmond Products statlng that they agree to be assessed for the cost of the improvenlents as outlined in the feasibility study. That they waive their rights to objecting to the assessment and demonstrate clear ownership of the property, Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson: I would like to make a slight modification to that. Mayor Chmiel: Jay. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to remove from that the words as outlined in the feasibility study. If there are significant changes, the feasibility does a preliminary assessment ro11. Wlth that wording in there, as outllned in the feasibility study, I think that's kind of weasle phrase to give them an option out if we change the rolls for Lake Susan Hills partnership and whatever. So just delete those couple words. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, is that okay? That was your wording. Gary Warren: Yes. The wording really meant to apply that the assessment would be along the order. I mean the methodology proposed in that feasibility study was going to be approved. Councilwoman Dimler: The methodology? Gary Warren: Not that we were committed to that rate or quantity but it's appropriate qualification. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't hurt anythlng to remove the words and it limits their ability to argue. Gary Warren: Roger will actually work up the waiver and such and I'm sure that that will cover us. Councilman Workman: I'd modify my second. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. If that was the intent to remove as in the feasibility study. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. How are you going to take into account the comments that were made durlng the public hearing? Gary Warren: The comments that were made in pub110 hearlng, we have Mr. Patton's record and we also wlll be working from two areas. One is in the deslgn. We'll be obviously to hammer out some of the detalls, especially on the storm water drainage lssues as it relates to Stockdale property and the Lake Susan Hllls partnership property. Secondly, as a matter of record, we'll be incorporating this in when we do come to the assessment roll preparation at the end of the project. We will use this to come up wlth the assessment methodology at that time. 34 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: I'm concerned that this is a very large project. That we're basically asking everybody to waive their rights to further appeal it looks like and I'm very wary of that. EspecialIy when it seems to me like there are several issues hanging out here over how this goes. Gary Warren: Redmond Products is the only one that's being asked. Councilwoman Oimler: Right. According to this, the way it's stated. It's only Redmond Products. Councilman Boyt: And we're only doing this because of Redmond Products right? Councilwoman Oimler: Right. They're the impetus for the project. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Resolution ~90-50: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the Lake Drive West Improvement Project No. 90-1 conditioned on the receipt of an appropriate agreement from Redmond Products stating that they agree to be assessed for the cost of the improvements, that they waive their rights to objecting to the assessment and demonstrate clear ownership of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY ANO ROADWAY INPROVENENT PRO3ECT 89-10. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, on March 12th we advertised for bids and April 12th we opened bids for the Frontlet Trail improvement project. We had a very competitive bidding climate as summarized in the staff report. We had four bidders and they were all below the engineer's estlmate of $550,000.00. The low bidder was Wm. Mueller and Sons of Hamburg, Minnesota who is capable of performing the project and has a good reputation from Mr. Engelhardt's experience and as such we would recommend awarding the Frontier Trail utility and roadway upgrade project in the amount of $520,789.50. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got a few questions. Gary, do you have your assessment roll in front of you? Gary Warren: I'm sorry, I forgot to bring it down. Councilman 8oyt: Well I forgot to ask you to bring it down. Don, do you have yours? Oon Ashworth: No, I do not. Councilman Boyt: Ursula, are you aware that you're going to be assessed for this project? Councilwoman Oimler: Not according to the last study that I saw. 35 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Surprise. You're going to be assessed for part of this project. Councilwoman Dimler: Where's the attachment? Gary Warren: The assessment that Councilman Boyt is referring to is the storm water assessment element of the project, When the discussion about removing Kiowa Cir'cle was forwarded as far as eliminating the roadway construction, it was pointed out at that time that the Kiowa Circle property was still in a drainage area for these storm water improvements and that was left in the assessment ro11. 50%. Councilwoman Oimler: I don't recall any of the neighbors objecting to that. Councilman Boyt: I'll bet you that they don't know. That's my first point is that there are golng to be people assessed for this that don't thlnk they're going to be assessed for it. Gary Warren: They were provided ulth... Councilman Boyt: Yes, I agree with you. They were given the information Gary. I'm not faulting the City here. I'm simply saylng that somewhere in the discussions about Frontier Trail I think that there are a few people, you being one of them. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, where's the attachment. This is all I got. Councilman Boyt: That's all any of us got. Gary Warren: That is the attachment. The tabulation of bids. Councilman Johnson: We're not talking about assessments here. We're talking about accepting the bids. Mayor Chmiel: It was part of the total cost. That assessment was in there. Councilman Boyt' I'm sorry, I got rambling. Pardon me. We are talking about assessments here. Although we're not assessing people, we are creating for them a half a milllon dollar bill that they're going to pay. I don't enjoy sitting in meetlngs where people say to me how dld you do thls to me. You and I have sat in a few of those. Lake Lucy Road being one of them. I'd like people to be real clear about what lt's golng to cost them before we make a decision. Well one point. There are a few people out there that are going to be assessed that it hasn't occurred to them. They thlnk they're not part of this rlght now. Mr. Ashworth, how long will it take to pay off these bonds? Ballpark. Don Ashuorth: The City has not sold the bonds. It would be part of the 1990 bonding program. I would anticipate 15 years. Gary, in any of the materials that were prepared, were bonding years shown in any of that? Is anything different than the 15 year timeframe? Gary Warren: The pending assessment rolls that we prepared I believe, 10 year assessment ro11. 36 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Okay, 10 years. At 10 year rate, what's going to be the City's payout per year? The City's portion of this. I grant you that these are assessment issues but my point all along has been that we've got to clear these issues up before we approve this package. And Z think the City's portion of this probably comes to something, I'm guessing but I'd say $50,000.00 a year? Maybe more? Don Ashworth: The percent proposed to be assessed. Staff had recommended a 40~ level. The Council had discussed 30~-40~ and I think there was even some statement as to even a 20~ level. All of the hearings staff conducted with the neighborhood stayed at the 40~ level. Is that not correct Gary? Gary Warren: That's correct. Don Ashworth: So can I use that then to respond to your question? Councilman Boyt: Okay, use 40~. Don Ashworth: Roughly $60,000.00 per year. Councilman Boyt: And where does that money come from? Don Ashworth: That represents the general obligation portion associated with that project. Those are dollars that, really they're the same dollars as operate any other type of function within the City except they are outside of levy numbers. Councilman Boyt: That comes from public safety, park and rec. You name it. Street cleaning in the winter. That's where this money comes from. This $60,000.00. Is that correct? Don Ashworth: The $60,000.00 could compete with those dollars, yes. The point that, right now you have existing bond issues which are going off which would exceed what is comlng on with solely Frontier Trail. So I would not say that this project in and of itself wi11 compete with dollars for police or fire or parks. However, if you had 10 of these projects, if we were to move lnto a period of time where we were doing a number of these projects like this each year. Each assessed at a relatively lower amount, you would have a general property tax impact but I can't answer that question. Are we moving it in that phase or aren't we. I don't know. That's part of Gary Warren's study. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that we don't know how many roads we're going to have to rebuild in Chanhassen. What we have agreed on, I believe, is that the money the City uses to pay it's portion comes out of the general operating fund. And what you've told me is yes, but we're paying off some bonds which generate maybe as much as $150,000.00 a year. I'm sort of trying to lay some building blocks into place so ! don't have to make two giant of a leap here in a minute. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Now a couple of points that are relevent to where we've come so far. Tonight we approved item l(f), an agreement to study a storm water utility and setting a storm water utility up in the City. It's conceiveable, in fact the consultants that put together the proposal said on page 1 in their introduction, special assessment projects for handling storm water are now being challenged in courts more often. Then it goes on to say so 37 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 much so, consequently, many communities lack proper funding for storm water related projects because these individuals are winning when they go to court and say I am upstream and it is not benefitting my property at a11. And so that's one of the reasons for thls study according to the consultants. Mayor Chmiel' Bill, if they're upstream. Councilwoman 0imler: They're contributing to the problem. Councilman Boyt: But they're not benefitting from the project. Mayor Chmiel: They're causing a problem to the project though. Councilman Ooyt~ Okay. I don't want to debate that with you. I'm just saying that the consultants that we've just hired, in their introduction simply said that they're belng challenged. The communities are havlng a hard tlme wlnning these battles. Maybe Roger wants to contribute here and that as a result, it makes the project we funded in l(f) very important to do. So we approved lt, whlch I thlnk we should have. We also...the utllity approach is gainlng recognition as the most equitable way to finance storm water projects so lt's quite concelveable that the City is going to put into place a way of rebuilding these that is golng to be at no assessment to the individual property owner. On this project we are proposing to assess that, I believe at a 50~ rate. Mayor Chmiel: Are you referring this back to Kiowa Circle basically? Councilman Boyt: But the whole project. I mean a big part of this project is storm water containment and I'm saylng, among other things, the people on Kioua Circle do not know that they're being assessed for this project. Mayor Chmiel: Were you aware you're being assessed for it? Co~ncilman Boyt: I figured it out this last week when I talked to Gary and he said by the way, you're belng assessed for thls. That's why I started out by asking Ursula,.. Gary Warren: I don't believe that's how I presented it. Councilman 8oyt: Well no you didn't but in the process of our conversation, I can tell you that finally the light went on Gary that this was golng to cost me some money. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask Gary a question. Have you changed procedures because if my memory serves me correctly, ue were told that the storm water was not going to cost and the City was going to pay that. Gary Warren: Councilwoman Dimler, the sanitary sewer and the uatermain corrective measures were the only elements that were not proposed to be assessed. The storm sewer, because the road ls so deficient in storm drainage capacity whlch relates to some of the problems as we know wlth ~rlls Bovey and such, had always been proposed to be assessed and I could check the record but I'm very certain that we were very sensitive in polntlng out that the storm sewer assessnlent for Kiowa Circle was not being extracted because we still were constructing storm dralnage improvements. Now as it relates to the utlllty 38 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 district and Bill and I talked earlier about this. If an improvement, just because the City chooses if we do to establish a storm drainage util£ty and we go and do an improvement project for storm water drainage such as is proposed here on Frontier Trail, it does not pre-empt the City from still assessing the benefit if we feel we have a good handle on the benefitting properties and we feel that it's appropriate to assess a percentage of that. $o it agatn comes down to City pollcy and how we'use the utllity dlstrict but it is, and Roger can I guess relate the comment that Bill is extracting from our storm water consultant's proposal but there's no question that storm water assessments can become more arguable than connecting somebody to a sanitary sewer. It's not meant to mean that every storm water assessment ls not sustainable but this gives us a little blt better vehicle for dealtng with those and still the opportunity of assessing where we have clear beneflt. Hayor Chmiel: Do you have any inkling as to total amount of dollar costs that would be for that? For the assessment? Gary Warren: On Frontier Trail for the storm water project? Mayor Chmiel: For the storm water for Kiowa. Gary Warren: I believe it's less than $1,000.00. I can go up and get my report if that would be appropriate. Councilwoman Oimler: Would you? That would be interesting. Councilman Boyt: Before you go, there's more. You might as well get it all. You may want to pick up some other... Councilman Workman: Bill, if I could quickly ask you a question. What you're saying is, you think this project this project and the benefitting properties are golng to be assessed thls and then in the next years we're going to have a utility in and nobody else is going to be assessed and then you and Ursula will have been? Councilman Boyt: project. Well, it's not just the two of us: I mean it's the whole Councilman Workman: But I mean, is that the point7 Councilman Boyt: That's part of it and we're just talking August. They're proposing a tlmeline here whlch says they come back with a recommendations in August I believe or maybe before that in l(f). If you want to conflrm that for yourselves. August 13th I belleve. The City holds public hearlngs and adopts utllity program. Well we won't do it all tn one night but they're saying in the mlddle of August that's golng to happen. There's a couple things that I thlnk need to be resolved here. Number one is, as Oon Ashworth has suggested to us, at thls point we don't know how many roads in the Clty we're golng to replace. We do though, I think it's logical to assume that in the next 10 years there are going to be others. All you have to do is drive around town to see that there are golng to be others. This comes out of the, the City's portion of this comes out of the general operating budget so in fact it does compete and yes, we can look at the $150,000.00 that we're going to receive when the one bond is paid off but I want to remind all three of you, particularly the Mayor, that when you City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 were campaigning last year you were talking about spending City money without citizen input. Specifically the City Hall expansion came up any number of times. And that was built into the budget over a number of years and the argument was, but that money could have been spent to reduce taxes or some other way and the citizens should have had more input. What I'm suggesting to you is that this volume of road replacement issue is a big issue for the City. We should have a lot more input and Frontier Trail is marching us down that road to ea)-ly. That it's a $60,000.00 per year commitment potentially for the next 10 years and one, we should be thinking about, is this the best use for that money. You know, interestingly enough, I don't recall somebody from Frontier Trail coming in here to the City and saying we want our road rebuilt. What I recall out of this is that the City did a study. Said the road's in terrible shape and it ought to be rebuilt. Different motivation there and with the City pushing this, then I think we should take the time to do it right considering storm water and how we're going to do that in the long run. We'll know that by the end of the summer. Considering just how big road replacement's going to be and I don't know when Gary is proposing as a time line to have that study completed. So those are two issues. The third issue is that though we don't have to have it worked out at this point, there's an awful lot of vagueness about how much these people are going to be assessed. Forget the storm water. Think about the cost to the road. How much they're going to be assessed for that and when it varies everywhere from conceiveably 20~ to as much as well beyond 40~. It could easily go to 45% or 50%, that's too big a range. We should say to people, you know here's within a couple hundred dollars what it's going to cost you for this project. Not here's within a $1,000.00 is what it's going to cost you for this project. So all that in a nutshell, we shouldn't approve this tonight. There's too many unanswered questions out there and all of them affect people's pocket books. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bill. I notice there's some people here from the area. Is there anyone wishing to comment on that? Bill Loebl: Are you asking me Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: What do you remember7 Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. The majority of the people that I've contacted feel we need a road. Some of them feel we could wait a year or two and I've mentioned this previously in my remarks untll a policy is in effect which funds the reconstruction of city streets by adding taxes to each property on a yearly basis and allocating a certain portion of it to road reconstruction. This could take a year or two until there was enough money in the fund for the first job which should probably be Frontier Trail because it was originally constructed and approved by the Clty as a substandard piece of construction. That has been proven. I believe it is documented. The fact that you have approved the plans and specifications and now you have approved a larger storm sewer study, I think people would be happy to wait a year or two and in the meantime get the funding under way so that the assessments, as undoubtedly they will be, will either be eliminated entirely or will certainly'be much less on the individual property owners. Most of the remarks that I have off the top of my head, if you wlsh to prolong the issue, I can go around and make another petltlon and a survey of the neighborhood. Thank you. 4O City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bill. Gary, as I remember there's some other problems that existed not only with the road but sewer problems within. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, we have televised all of the sanitary sewer under there. There are areas that we are showing on the plans for being reconstructed for testing and celllng and such so there are areas that we have lncluded slnce the road surface would be taken off. That's the time to fix them, that's correct. Z dld look Mr. Mayor, Mr. Loeb1 ls the only one of us who happened to bring his feasibility study here and I appreciate that. The storm sewer assessment that we proposed in the feasibility study was $1,632.34. If you'll recall, we were also given the direction and we did follow through with Bill Engelhardt here and we dld cut back on the deslgn. We found it feasible to actually reduce the scope of the storm sewer improvements to about half of what was in the feasibility study so our best guess now would be that the assessment would be around $800.00 probably in round numbers. councilwoman Dimler: Per home? Gary Warren: Correct. Councilman Workman: Gary, when this assessment wouldn't take place unt11 the project was completed. Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilman Workman: Which would be when? Gary Warren: I would say conservatively we would be hard pressed to assess it this year. Most likely we'd assess tt next year. Councilman Workman: So realistically for our storm water utility, etc. we might have the answers to that long before this project was ever assessed? Gary Warren: Storm water utility district, the schedule that was approved here this evening shows August roughly that we're looking to have some good fix on adopting the utlllty distrlct concept. The assessments, if not levied this year would be levied the lggl for collection of taxes in 1992. Mayor Chmlel: Anythlng else Tom? Councilman Workman: Well no. Maybe we need another Loebl's petition but I don't know if we want to hold thls up. I mean we always talk about, I mean if ue want to hold this project up 2 years, I mean this kind of reasoning has been, I've beat over the head and bloody wlth thls that if we wait 2 years it's going to cost us 20~ more to do tt and the assessments are gotng to go up and so I don't know what the logic ls. I thlnk everybody on the road thlnks it would be a fine idea to have a nice new road with curb and gutter but let's face it, nobody wants to pay for it and if we can get around that, the uncertainity about what the City's going to do permanently, I think we do have a little bit of tlme and some buffer in there without holdlng up the entire project for 2 years, if that's what I understand ts being perhaps discussed. Councilman Boyt: I don't know what the magic timeframe is here. Mr. Loebl mentions 2 years. It might be 6 months. It's that we're committing general 41 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 operating funds here and not just for this one project. We can't stop and say welt that was once but we're not going to do it again. What happens to the people in Carver Beach? Some of them are living on roads in much worse shape than Frontier Trail. In the older part of town here, there's any number of roads that may well have a similar sort of need. It happens this one ties together with some things so I can understand why staff is coming here asking for this. I'm saying that there's a great many unanswered questions. That they need to be answered and that simply because if we accept the utility plan, that doesn't mean that there's automatically money in it. It's going to take some time to accumulate that money. And Mr. Loebl, waiting 2 years doesn't guarantee that the road will be for free either. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be up in cost, there's no question. Councilman Boyt: There's going to be a cost involved in this thing. It's that we're sitting here tonight getting ready to commit $&O,O00.O0 worth of City money per year for the next 10 years. That's more than the City Hall expansion cost Mr. Mayor and we haven't had any input from the City as a whole whether they even think this is a good idea. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes 3ay. Councilman 3ohnson: Isn't this fairly routine? Did we not have general obligation on Lake Lucy? On Bluff Creek and all these different projects. This is kind of an ongoing. Now we're talking about putting together a roadway utility or whatever to program these a little better but what's the difference between Frontier and Lake Lucy or Frontier and Bluff Creek? Councilman Boyt: There's a dramatic difference. Lake Lucy had 802 State funding and we assessed the rest of it. The City didn't have anything other than we committed State Aid money to there. Bluff Creek, the same thing. Councilman Johnson: Okay, there was no general obligation on those two? Councilman Boyt: This is much different. Don Ashworth: The City has had general obligation going back with projects, I think the largest area where many citizens are from that are here this evening. The north servlce area. That was a very hlgh percentage of GO lnvolved in that issue and a lot of paying for those people. Councilman Boyt: You're talking about what, sanitary sewer and storm water? Don Ashworth: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: Different issues than the roads. Not that it's not general obligation. Don Ashuorth: That also included the road construction as well. So anyway we've had, I would say a track record of generally 202 to 30~ of a project has lnvolved general obligation and it's just typical overslzlng. In fact the cost. However, since 1983 all of the projects that really would involve some form of 42 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 general obligation have either dealt with a State Aid project or withln a Tax Increment district and the GO portton has been picked up in that fashion so there has not been a'levy since 1983 certified as a part of our property tax... I'm not so sure that if you would wait the 2 year period of time,' that in fact the percent would go down. I've had discussions wlth our audltors and they have concern in here but they see a policy decision is taking a period of time. I thlnk that they w111 come back wlth the recommendation that would have the cost born in relation to the benefits received. So in other words, similar to a hot water heater, you would have a certaln guarantee golng along with that. We'll guarantee that street for a 15 year period of time but after that you're going to have to pay for it. And you would also be paylng now and you'd have our guarantee again for 15 years. We have to keep issues moving along in the City. I see the Mayor's looking at the tlme so I'll try to keep... Mayor Chmiel: Yes he is. Don Ashuorth: But, it's going to take a period of time to come back wlth some of these what's used by our auditors and staff was looking at moving ahead recognizing that this project ls not significantly different than Bluff Creek, Lake Lucy, etc.. It may be a different form of GO that's been involved. It may end up that the City has to, a year from now, re-evaluate our policy declsion but at least we are getting work done that currently needs to be done. Councilman Boyt: Thls ls 11ke drlvlng down an alley with your headlights off. We don't know where we're going. Mayor Chmiel: It depends whether it's day or night Bill. Councilman Boyt: Well to say that this place is the same kind of obligation on the general obligation fund, general operating fund as Bluff Creek and Lake Lucy, I can't believe that you said that. There's no way that it does it. Is there? Don Ashworth: You're saylng from the standpoint that those are dollars that are going back against the general citizenry? Yes. It is different from that standpoint. As far as how it affected the individual cttlzen. How much the individual cltizen had to pay, they're exactly the same. Councilman Boyt: But the State Ald monles have to be spent on roadways. We're taking this money out of stuff that can be spent anywhere in the City. Public Safety. Park and Rec. Clean the streets. Much different than the State Aid money which can't be spent in any of those places. There's no reason to rush lnto thls and it's rush lnto it actually goes agalnst the principles that I heard being expressed earlier. Councilman Workman: Well I don't know if I'm being accused of something or not but I think it's two issues. One, do the people affected know they're going to be assessed. If they don't know, they need to find out. Does the road need to be repaired, I think everybody on that road belteves it needs to be repaired and so does the City. I don't think the City and the people who live on Frontier are arguing a whole lot of them are arguing that the road is in terrtble shape. Zf they don't know that they're being assessed. Don, you're saylng that they've been notified. Maybe we need to re-notify them or I don't know what we need to do but if two members of the Clty Council dldn't know that they're getting 43 City Council Heeling - April 23, 1990 assessed, then there's maybe a problem and we need to notify everybody again that they're going to be assessed and re-open all this but I don't think there's any doubt about whether the road and the storm sewer needs to be repaired and it's got to come out of somewhere because nothing's for free. So if the issue is the citizens are ill informed and they need to be better informed, them obviously I'm not going to tell anybody forget it. Let's try to sneak one by people. Does the road need to be, is the sewer and the storm sewer and sanitary sewer and everything else, are they leaking and possibly causing pollution and etc.? I don't think that's an argument. Councilman Boyt: I apologize for jousting back and forth here. Let me just clarify one point and I'll let you finish. You're conceiveably talking about obligating the general obligation fund for more money than we have in there. You show up with one more road a year that needs what Frontier Trail does. Councilman Workman." But you have to approve that. Councilman Boyt: If it's in the same condition as Frontier Trail is, you tell me how you're going to turn them down. Councilman Workman= But I think the City is saying we can do this and I don't think the City's, Z think Don the magician has...over and over again where to come up with all this money and he's not going to say to us, okay we need 5 Flew projects next year and then we're going to approve them. You know what I'm saying? I don't think we're going to have those 10 roads. Yeah, they're going to maybe be, there's going to be some roads out there that need to be improved but this is the only one we have nov and I think staff is saying that it can be done and I don't think they're going to run and tell us we need to do all of Carver Beach. Councilman Boyt: We're going to have that study sometime in the next year. Councilman Workman: But it's going to be approved before the assessment. Councilman Boyt: I'm not concerned about the 3 people on Kiowa Circle not knowlng. I mean there's only 3 of us. We're not golng to change the whole neighborhood because 3 of us don't know the assessment. It's unfortunate. They should have known but Z don't think they do. I'm not saying that's the sole reason to stop it. I am saying that the bigger issue is that we are involving a great, potentially a great deal of city money in the midst of changing policles and we ought to put the brakes on thls thlng and do it right. What's the rush? Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and that's back to Gary. When we first began this I remember speaking to you and you sald that you had a plan to do so many improvements as the years go by. You have a priority of roads that need to be done. You've done Lake Lucy. You've done Bluff Creek and Frontler Trall was next on your priority. Isn't that correct? And you have other streets that are coming down the plke. Gary Warren: The discussion, I believe I recall it as well, was that we've worked our way from Lake Lucy Road, Bluff Creek Orlve, Frontlet Trail. The only other project that, and thls vas not through any sophisticated evaluation of our road systems I should point out, was the than Estates area where we did the road grader work and Audubon Road. Audubon Road ls belng covered under the Tax 44 City Council Meeting - ~pril 23, 1990 Increment District. Councilman Workman: And Minneuashta? Councilman Johnson: Lake Minneuashta Parkway. Gary Warren: And Lake Minneuashta. In our 5 year State Aid, that's correct. That was another roadway and that would be a situation where State Aid funds would be involved. That was a broad brush overview recognizing that we didn't have a sophisticated tool here to say this road is good and this one ls bad or where they are in their life cycle. Councilwoman Dimler: And can you tell me why you picked Frontier Trail as the third one on the list? Gary Warren: Well Frontier Trail, the record that we have of complaints from the residents, basically was the motivater to me personally as far as getting it before the Counc11. It was not self motivation to see Frontier Trall done by any means because I realized that there was going to be some significant challenges here to resolve as far as assessment and other elements. But the record I'm sure will show on our files, as far as letters of complaint about the road and discussions we've had wlth the residents and our own evaluation of how much money that we spend annually on road routine maintenance and then you add on top of that our storm of 1987 and the damages that have come because of lack of storm sewer systems so it's kind of a combination of those elements that we looked at. I should polnt out just for Council consideration as well that the current bids that we have are good for 30 days so they will expire on the 12th of May. Before our next Councll meetlng. Councilman Boyt: There is, the complaints about the road was because we couldn't get any potholes fixed. I mean there were potholes that looked 11ke canyons out there. Just a year ago. You fixed those. If you drive that road today there are very few potholes. In fact I don't recall any. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we're going on with this. Councilwoman Dimler: It's really a patched road. Councilman Workman: Well isn't the potholes created because of poor storm water management? I mean they're golng to be recreating... Gary Warren: That's a very complex deal. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, I don't think anybody on Frontlet Trail is argulng that that doesn't need to be done. I realtze there are a few that think the project can be put off for a couple of years hoplng that we establish that fund and I think the fund is a good idea but again, as was pointed out, that fund is not golng to pay the whole thlng and then the people that have already pald their assessments are going to say, well how come we didn't get in on that. That's going to be a problem. And people that are comlng up to have the projects done in the future, they're not going to have all of theirs patd for either. So I don't see why we should delay. 45 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I agree with Ursula. I don't want to delay this and I think a very good part of the roadway funding could be done simllar to what we haw done wlth the tax increment dlstrict and doing speclal assessment write offs. Go ahead and assess it back to the properties and then use this fund to help pay those speclal assessments as lt's created. Therefore, this project in the future could be, that would be part of the study to see if that was legal or feasible to do something 11ke that. But I think my drivlng around the roads, I'll agree this particular road really has some major problems and I'm very concerned about the sanltary sewers that are leaking lnto the ground there. I would hate to delay this another year and have more sewage into the ground and everytlme it ralns more storm water lnto our sewer system. Especially when we keep telllng Metro Councll we're really golng something about I and I and here's one of our bad sections. We've got a chance to do lt, let's do lt. Let's get her on. So I'll move approval of the award of bids to Wm. Mueller and Sons in the amount of $520,789.50. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I amend that to include that the people who are affected would be reminded that they will be assessed including if they're going to be assessed for the storm water, then the Kiowa Clr¢le people should be notified. Gary Warren: Kioua Circle folks, we should send a reminder to them? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes please and I'll second that. Councilman Johnson: 2 out of 2 of them know. I have no problem with that friendly amendment. Resolution ~90-51: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dtmler seconded to award the construction contract for the Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Upgrade Improvement project No. 89-10 to the firm of Wm. Hueller & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $520,789.50. Also directing staff to notify the people who will be affected by assessments from this project. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: I think you've indicated adequately your concerns. Councilman Boyt: Oh yeah. APPROVE TRAIL PLAN FOR AUDUBON ROAD SOUTH IHPROVEHENT PROJECT 89-18. Gary Warren: We have a little show and tell. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we've all been out to see this. Have we all been out there? Councilman Johnson: I know you and I passed on the road as I was going out. You were coming back. Councilman Boyt: We might not need the slide show. We've all seen it. Mayor Chmiel: We may not need the dog and pony show is what he's saying. ,46 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: If that's the case, maybe I can certainly run through some quick overheads that would summarize it or whatever's your pleasure. Councilman Johnson: Quick. Councilman 8oyt: I would move approval. Hayor Chmiel: I think we should probably see if there's anybody here who has any real concerns. Is there anyone here that has a concern over this specific item? Councilman Johnson: ...yeah, how we're going to work around your trees Dave. Would it be okay to put the trails, well lt's clty trees, but it really affects hls property. Would you have any problem puttlng the trail on the east slde of your trees or the City's trees? Dave Stockdale: Nice try. I had some discussion with Gary about where the property lines were and there was some discrepancy on the history of that acquisition. The additional 17 feet on...for the record I've gotten that cleared up Gary. Gary Warren: You haven't? Dave Stockdale: I have. The City records are correct. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that as I see the lay of the existing road in relation to the right-of-way, for the portion basically north of my driveway, the right-of- way lsa 50 foot offset. Or there's 50 foot from the center line eastward to my property. If the sidewalk does go on the east slde of Audubon it will be contained withln that 50 feet and not beyond. The Ctty won't be comtng back for more to go beyond that 50 foot 11ne rlght? Gary Warren: That's correct. The only place where the additional right-of-way would be requlred ls in the southwesterly 55 feet of your parcel as we reviewed last Friday where it shrinks down to the 33 foot segments so just in that small corner there. Dave Stockdale: Unfortunately it's my misfortune, I don't have what I thought I had when I bought the property and I would just ask that the City consider strongly whether or not that sldewalk would truly be used or if there's alternate locations for it. Long range, if they decide that they don't need it, conslder repurchasing what I thought I had. I don't expect you to pull a lot of favor but it's something to consider. I'm not real excited about pedestrian trafflc on that side frontlng an entrance 1nrc an industrial park but that's just my personal preference. That's all I have to say. Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not. any discussion? Councilman Boyt: What can we do to replace those trees? It's really not a major grove there. It just happens to what, 10-15 trees? Gary Warren: Well there's 2 areas. One is the area just discussed near the Stockdale property and the other ls in the south end where we have a sight distance probZem which should be corrected. The southern end there's a chance that we can use retaining walls to minimize some of the impact and we're golng City Council Meeting - April ~-3, 1990 to be looking at that as part of the design. The trees that immediately abut the roadway, they're definitely in the clear zone and are a safety problem themselves and those would be gone but from there beyond we would look to utilize things such as retaining wails. We even looked at trying to modify the alignment of the roadway to get it away from there but the dollar impact of the project, you're talking almost $100,000.00 extra to do that. But in the design we will be conscientiously trying to avold and mltlgate where we can. Chet Harrison: Gary can I raise a point that... Chet Harrison with HNTB working wlth Harald Eriksen from our offlce on thls project and the issue, there's a farmhouse or a farm or a farmstead further to the south on this project that is lmpacted by the tree lssue. Very slmllar situation except the trees are on private property and we looked at moving the road which he discussed but we've also looked, gone back and looked now at bulldlng a small retaining wall to construct that area and one of the things that would reduce the lmpact and potentially, there's a chance we can save the trees if the trail was placed on the west side of the road in that property and I think Gary brought that questlon up early on about if we put the trall on the west slde, it might reduce the problem there and in fact it would, if we built a retaining wall behind the drainage dltch. In other words, there wlll be an overlay of the road in that area. Shoulders added and a ditch constructed and then a trall on the outside of that. If we put the trail on the other slde of the road, obvious].y you'd probably be able to save more trees on that side and maybe save that entlre row of trees along there. I guess that's klnd of an lssue that wasn't clearly addressed in all the documentation. Councilman Johnson: One thing we brought up last tlme Chet was that most the residents that are going to use that trail are going to be coming out of Lake Susan Hills on the east slde. To cross the highway to the west slde, go down and then cross the highway again, if they're heading for Lake Ann Park, means that we now have chlldren crossing a county hlghway twice where they don't have to count it at all if we lose some trees and to me that safety issue far outweighs the tree issue and the additional cost. Hayor Chmiel: That's right. That's what we brought up the last time Jay. Chet Harrison: Agaln, that issue wasn't clear I don't think about what the trail would do to those trees and it would impact them. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: A semi and an 8 year old don't match. Gary Warren: We do have good neus as far as getting across the bridge as you read in the report so we did cut that almost in half. Councilman Johnson: How long will that last before we have to have the full width of the bridge back again? As traffic gets busler and busier there. Gary Warren: Our forecasts on the transportation needs are out to the year 2010 so we're talking about a 36 foot road section. Councilman Boyt: Is it appropriate to move approval? 48 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: It's appropriate. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Boyt: I will move approval with staff recommendation of the trail on the east side and Option 1 for crossing the bridge area. Councilman Workman: Was it staff recommendation7 I thought it was for it on the west side? Councilman Boyt: No, east. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I brought up the last Council meeting. I thought it should be changed over to the east side because of the residents within that area. Councilman Boyt: The consultant suggested the west side and then back in the summary down here it sald east. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion with a second. I do like the fact that Alternative for the railroad bridge of $26,600.00 is a lot better than $52,000.00. Resolution ~90-5~: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the trail plan on the east stde for the Audubon Road South Improvement Project 89-18 with Option 1 for the bridge crossing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE REQUESTS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FANILY HONE, LOTS 1083-89, CARVER BEACH; NORTH OF YUNA AND CARVER BEACH ROAD INTERSECTION, DAN CASTONOUAY. Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments recommended tabling this item untll the applicant could possibly meet the 15,000 square feet. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Councilman Johnson: Basically the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, to a person said that we weren't going to grant your variance. If you'd rather, we'll table it right now and give you time to the find the alternative because we believe there are alternatives to how you can get your 15,000 and we named 2 or 3 different ways to do it. So he's going to go try doing that. He has a potential buyer who was in the audience. Also brought up some interesting, some other residents brought up some interesting drainage issues there. Mayor Chmiel: It's rather steep to the west. Councilman Johnson: Right and there's a significant, according to the neighbors, a significant amount of drainage coming from the west through that property and could cause a lot of problems with a house built there. So they're going to be looking at that. 49 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 30+ SEAT RESTAURANT WITH TAKE-OUT LOCATED IN THE RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT SEUEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING ADDITION, WAYNE SALDEN. 3o Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions from staff. Unless you want me to get into it further. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that's necessary. Is Wayne here? Is there anything you'd like to say? Wayne Salden: ...conditional use permit pass,... Jo Ann Olsen: That was in front of the Planning Commission. They just make a recommendation to the Counc11. Mayor Chmiel: The Planning Commission just strictly makes recommendations. Counc11 passes on it. Is there anythlng you'd 11ke to say at thls particular time or go along with the staff recommendation? Wayne Salden: I'm fine. Councilman Johnson: When do you expect to open? Wayne Salden: It just depends when we get all the permits that we have. They told me I didn't need one of these permits so I just said...and Roger said well I guess you need a permit for this. Construction wlll take about 3 weeks. So whenever my building permit gets approved. Councilman Johnson: Did you hear our earlier conversation about the lighting in the shopping center and how certificates of occupancy's can't be... Mayor Chmiel: That's something probably for you to discuss with Roger. guess I just have one questlon from staff. Thi~ does meet all requirements far as the development plan was established back at that time? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: Any of the citizens? We've got quite a few neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, is there anyone who wishes to address this? Wayne Salden: I have one more question. The question I had is on the conditional use permit if it gets passed, then your bullding permlt ls passed on what particular? Is that just done by the buildlng inspectors themselves? Mayor Chmiel: You have to get your building permit then and your building permlt is then issued and then after that's done, you have your certificate of occupancy in nlaklng sure that your in conformance with all of the requirements of the City. One of those requirements is the 11ghting as well which I think you can probably address with Roger. Wayne Salden: Yeah, I'll mention that to Roger. So your certificate of occupancy 1~ after you're completely done and you're inspected... 5O City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: That means you can start business and have people coming in. Wayne Salden: And that's inspected by the City and the State? Councilman Johnson: The State's the electrical. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the electrical portion is done by the State. The balance of the inspections are done by our people here. Wayne Salden: Okay, but when you have your final health inspection or whatever you call lt, certificate of occupancy, does the State Health Inspector for Carver County, does he make the final okay? Mayor Chmiel: I would most imagine they do. Councilman Johnson: He has to make an okay. The State Electrical Inspector has to make an okay and the City's Bullder Inspectors have to make an okay. Mayor Chmiel: You'll have a sign off on your sheet, on the placard that you get so he can post on the particular site. Councilman 3ohnson: The Health Inspector may not be on that sign. Mayor Chmlel: Some of them are, some of them aren't. Wayne Salden: Thank you. Bob Wagner: Thls ls just very brlef. Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane. I haven't had the luxury of sittlng in the prtor meeting for which I apologize but 11ke others, I have evening activities occasionally and I would just like a qulck review of what conditional use permlt regulations are in effect. What this individual's been asked to do to be able to move lnto that shopping center other than the norm. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to address that? 3o Ann 01sen: Sure. What the conditional use permit ts for is for a standard restaurant and in the neighborhood business dlstrlot that's a conditional use. They meet all the basic requirements with a speclfic requirement for a conditional use in the buslness neighborhood for a standard restaurant. The one condition that the Planning Commission recommended was that they have their own individual trash enclosure and that they...frequent pick-up. Bob Wagner: Was there anything addressed on food odor in the neighborhood? Jo Ann Olsen: No. We didn't find that there was going to be... That's just part of those 12 general conditions. Out of those, the one that we had the most concern about was the trash... Councilman Boyt: Well, Bob raises an awfully good issue. If the neighborhood is impacted on this thing one way, it wtll be impacted of course is with light. Possibly. You've taken care of that. Another one, blowlng trash. We're going to hear about that in a few minutes and we've tried to take care of that in this 51 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 situation. But a third one is certainly odor. Apparently we haven't inveetigated that. Jo Ann 01sen: Well you know I can't say that there wlll not be odor from the restaurant. I don't think that's going to be that extensive. It depends on who's sme111ng it. Councilman Workman: It's not going to be toxlc ls it? Jo Ann 01sen: No. Mayor Chmlel: He certalrlly hopes not. Councilman Boyt: I think anytlme we have a restaurant that abuts a residential area, we have the potential for conflict. Jo Ann 01sen: That's right and there is quite a separation. Councilman Boyt: And one area of confllct ls golng to be, if everytlme they go outside and the wind's blowing right, they smell pizza, it's not going to take long to get tlre of that. I'd be interested in what we can do to control that. Jo Ann 01sen: Well always as a conditional use, that can always be brought back up for review and agaln conditional uses now do have annual revlews. If you want, you could also add a condition that if that ls offensive, that we can look at it qulcker. Even though we st111 would, we would just act on complaints of the neighborhood. Councilman Boyt: Well aren't there thlngs like charcoal fllters and thls sort of thing that would handle that problem? Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't completely remove it. Even wlth your coal charcoal. Councilman 3ohnson: It certainly cuts it down. Mayor Chmiel: It removes some of it but not all of lt. Councilman Boyt: Have you have any? Wayne Salden: You know your exhaust is very mlnimal that comes out the roof of the building anyway that's up and above and blown into who knows where. Councilman Boyt: Rlght over there. Wayne Salden: You have many, there's all kinds of restaurants in a residential area. When you drlve by the Chanhassen Dlnner Theatre, lt's the same thing. I mean theirs is exhausted somewhere. Or you drive by whatever. The mall here in town, the Chalet Plzza is blown out back and the people live behlnd there. Councilman Workman: We haven't gotten any complaints from any of those people? Jo Ann 01sen: Just the garbage. 52 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Wayne Salden: And we've gone with the separate dumpster enclosed for garbage to be blowing around. Lights, I guess 1'11 call Roger on that. Exhaust, it has to exhaust somewhere. It's very minimal. It's 2,000 cfm's which is very minimal amount of exhaust and normally your grease products, if you have burgers and things would have way more smell than you would just out of your pizza oven fan. And that's just to exhaust the heat. It's not necessarily even, it doesn't necessarily even have to run. If it's winter and your kitchens are normally not heated or air conditioned because the~ just go out the exhaust hoods and you have plenty of heat in the kitchen anyway. So you wouldn't even necessarily have to run your overhead fan there there because of it's Code. Councilman Boyt: Code, that's right. Alright, it sounds like and you're the owner/operator/leasee? Wayne Salden: Right. Councilman Boyt: So you have the ability to make some decisions here affecting this? Wayne Salden: The exhaust? Councilman Boyt: Right. Wayne Salden: As in? Councilman Boyt: Well it sounds like that you're quite interested in working with the neighborhood on this issue. Wayne Salden: I don't have a problem with it. There's filter's that can be put in there. It's not going to take all your, you're going to smell some food. I mean let's face the facts. Even wlth a coal fllter in there whlch, your exhaust hood is ran through filters which would decrease anything, amount of grease or anythlng to go up your hood and that's imprinted and then they're out and lt's exhausted out a hood that is covered and then it shoots down and is eliminated. I believe there lsa coal 11ning which ls just 11kc a mesh fish net that could probably decrease some of the smell. I mean tt's Just not that extreme. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I would like to see added as a condition here and it sounds like you're going to agree to it, that every reasonable effort will be made to contaln aroma. Mayor Chmiel: Could we add that aroma to item number 7? That's on page Councilman Boyt: Maybe the place to add it is... Jo Ann Olsen= Page 5. Councilwoman Oimler: It's got odors there already. 3o Ann Olsen: That's the general conditions. It would be on page 5. Councilman Boyt: Where we just have one condition and this would be number Mayor Chmiel: Okay. City Council Meeting - April 23. 1990 Councilman 3ohnson: I'm not, are you going to be frying hamburger or frying anything? Wayne Sa].den: We don't even have a deep fryer or a grill. Councilman Johnson: No grill. No deep fryer. Just straight pizza ovens? Wayne Salden: Pizza ovens and steam tables for Italian food. And there's one gas burner top stove gas operated to good some sauces and things. Councilman Johnson: That's got a hood over it then? Wayne Salden: That's got a hood. They've both have a hood. One is like 6 feet, one is 4. Very small. Councilman Johnson: There's problems with these charcoal filters. Maintenance cost and everything else. They only last so long and then you've got to take them out. Then they've got to be disposed of. It runs a lot of costs up. Maybe provisions for having them added when it's designed to where the filter could be added in rather than, this is the time to plan for that in case there is a problem. There shouldn't be much cost to have the provisions in there that if a problem does occur, that the filters could be added. The filters are also more of a fire hazard than other things too because as you start getting the grease mixed in with the charcoal, it becomes a more extreme fire hazard. Of course there shouldn't be that much grease because you're not doing that. I just don't see that this is going to be, like there has been some complaints on odor on Ahn-Le's. It may not have gotten here but I've had some cltizens say that they don't appreciate the Chinese cooking odor when they're trying to cook their steaks in their backyard. They don't smell the steak, they smell Chinese. But for a place like this I can't see that, we're trying to fix a problem before it happens but let's make sure we at least have the ability that if there's a problem we can fix it. Mayor Chmiel: Can we put that down as a condition? Councilman Johnson: Is that the intent? Councilman Boyt: I think what we're proposing is we're saying that if there is a problem, all reasonable efforts will be made to control that problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but that isn't the way it was at first. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the if there was a problem was not added. It said all reasonable efforts will be made to control odor. Councilman Boyt: I think they mean one and the same thing. If he's not going to have a problem, then it's not a problem but to enter this with the thought that maybe there won't be, I'd much rather enter thls wlth the thought that maybe there will be and that we're all committed, the owner included, to solving it so it doesn't end up back here. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, well there's two ways. I've seen people come off and say okay, I've considered it. There's not golng to be a problem. He puts in hls 54 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 exhaust system with no provisions for future problems. Here all I'm trying to say is that the cheapest point to ever solve the problem is now when you originally put that exhaust system in. Wayne Salden: All that can be done for odors, either you put in a coal filter or you don't. That's just the fact of the matter. There's nothing else. I mean just exhaust hoods. They exhaust what they're suppose to do. That's all you can do to eliminate partial odor and I'm sure it's not 100~. It's probably not 75~ but the odor will be very minimal. Councilman Johnson: I agree. And fortunately also, the winds in this part of the country are primarily either from the southwest or northwest which very rarely, about 5X of the times they come out of the east or the southeast. And that happens to be when you're barbequeing in your backyard of course. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is that Bob. Councilman Johnson: Do you like Italian food? Bob Wagner: I think the issue is one, and I don't want to speak for these people. I think they should speak for themseIves but from my perspective I don't want to have this guy spend money unnecessarily but if a problem were to arise, I'd like to think we've had the flexibility to come back. That's ail. A more important issue to me is not so much what's happening right now but once we've got a restaurant in there and what happens next. I mean what happens? Can it change to somebody else? Can we now have hamburgers? Can we expand? Can they suddenly be frying steaks? That's not at all what I understood when I was here this evening and I guess I'm not sure what you have in your regulations that govern that. Councilman Boyt: Well if it expands it'd have to come back. Councilman Johnson: What if they just changed owners? Mayor Chmiel: Or changed menus? Wayne Salden: It would still have to come back to have re-exhausting because lt's not...State Code. You'd have to have new exhaust system. Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't have to come back to us though. Bob Wagner: It won't be a Hardee's right? Wayne Salden: It would have to come back to someone. It would have to come here sooner OF later. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else from the neighborhood wish to say anything? If not, we have a motlon the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request ~90-2 for an Italian Restaurant to be located at Seven-Forty One Crossroads Center as shown on the plans dated March 29, 1990 and with the 55 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 follouing conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide it's own trash enclosure at the rear of the restaurant uhich shall be enclosed aith the same materials as the exterior of the shopping center. 2. The applicant will make every effort to contain aroma emitted from the restaurant. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE EAST AND DAKOTA AVENUE: A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS ! AND 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF RESTAURANT. B. VARIANCE REOUEST TO THE 75 FT. WETLAND SETBACK REOUIREMENT. AND [(H) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CHAN HAVEN PLAZA SECOND ADDITION. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Jo Ann, let's address the first one. Jo Ann Olsen: Okay the plat first. The applicant is proposing to replat property located along Lake Drlve to allow them to add parklng...to their current site. As far as the plat, it's very simple and we are recommending approval with the conditions in your staff report on page 13. We're also requesting that final plat be approved at thls time to allow the project to move forward and to allow Lake Drlve East to move forward. Because it is such a simple one, we allowed it to go without the final plat actually belng in our hands. I know that that's unusual but lt's very slmple conditions that we wlll make sure have been met when it is provided. If not, we will bring it back in front of you. Onto the bigger lssue ls the slte plan. The prlmary addition to the proposed site plan ls the truck parking stalls located on the east part of the slte. In addition, ulth the realignment of Lake Drlve, the entrance and exit points are being improved for trucks enterlng and cars entering and leaving the slte. The slte was approved wlth several variances to lt. To the setbacks that had even been in existence when it was approved. We're not exactly sure why but it lsn't an existing condition. What we trled to do was to include the site as best possible wlth additional landscaping. Having them remove parklng stalls where they could to provlde more of a setback. We have worked closely with the applicant and they have met many of our conditions and we are satisfied with the slte plan that they are providing us now and we are recommending approval ulth the conditions on page 12. As far as the wetland alteration permlt, the setback to the wetland, the 75 foot wetland setback, the Board of Adjustments reviewed this item earlier this evening and it was a split vote all 3 ways. So it was just passed onto the Counc11. One of the members didn't want to approve it at a11. Another felt that the 10 feet is fine and another one felt removing just one parking stall would do lt. It was Carol who wanted nothing to be done and...uas because of the condition that the wetland is in r, ow. It's a pretty poor conditioned wetland. The fact that the Clty ls alterlng the bottom third made an lmpact with them too as far as how they should handle this situation. What staff trled to do was to polnt out that the existing slte 56 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 is within 55 feet of the wetland now so it's already within the 75 foot setback. We tried to show alternatives to not having it exactly 10 feet away. We think that that's pretty close. So we've given you alternatives. What it would be if they removed 1, 2 or 3 parking stalls. We're recommending that either 2 or 3 of the parking stalls be removed so we are recommending approval of the variance. Then I can't answer the questions on Gary's item. I can try maybe. I don't know what you had on l(h). Councilman Workman: Well my only quick point on ali of this is the staff report seems to state that it's a worthless wetland, if there is such a thing and that it probably won't be there. Why is it such an obstacle? Secondly, aren't we a bit hypocritical if ue can go through one-third of it with our road. Actually go through one-third of the actual wetland and then tell somebody else they can't come within 10 feet of it7 3o Ann Olsen: It can be seen that way. We're not saying it's a worthless wetland. What we're saying is that the circumstances, existing circumstances and future circumstances most likely show that wetland as being proposed to being altered considerably. With the Lake Orive East wetland alteration, we felt that that was being replaced. We felt that again that the alteration, that the wetland is just kind of a result of where Lake Drive East was put in the first place. Just because it's backing up drainage and kind of resulted as that. Yes, it does put us in kind of uncomfortable position saying yes to the City and no to the developer. That's why we're trying to come up with a compromise. Councilman Boyt: We need some action. Councilwoman Oimler: I'll move approval. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we have somebody who wants to say something. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, is there anyone who wishes to have discussion on this? Please state your name and your address. Ray Schleck: Good evening Councilmembers. Hy name is Ray Schleck. I'm a construction englneer wlth McDonald's. This is Gene Borg our operator. Gene Borg: I live at 6897 Chaparall Lane. Ray Schleck: We worked very closely with staff and came with what we thought was an agreeable compromise for landscpaing, setbacks. Everything seemed to be worklng flne unt11 we discovered that what was a low spot in the lot next door turned out to be a wetlands. Gene, I think you've done a little research on that. Gene Borg: On the wetland, I thought that it was a wetland that was created when Lake Orive was put in. In fact it was. I contacted Herald Kerber who used to live there. There used to be a farm there on that site and I have an aelal photo and topography map that shows that that wetland as it exists today did not exlst and that was in fact a part of his cow lot where he kept his anlmals behind the barn is what that was. And he went through all that with me and showed me where everything was and where it dralned from. So I don't belleve it's a true wetland. It's a wetland today. I don't argue that point. It's a 57 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 wetland today but it's not a true wetland with natural flow in and a natural flow out of water. I agree with Tom that I think the City ls hypocritical in golng through you know the best third of that wetland, they're going through the best third of it where the cattails are and where the trees are. And where I think we're actually benefitting the wetland to some degree versus what it was because we are putting landscaping and stuff with barriers you know, traffic and stuff for what does remain of the wetland and putting in storm sewer to help carry the water away. I think we worked very closely with the City. I believe we've met all the criteria that was expected of us in the plannlng so far except for tl~is wetland. It came to my attention, for a fact it came to my attention on Frlday. We did have a 11ttle bit when we turned in the plans and 30 Ann was there about a few days earlier than that. She thought maybe we had a variance problem...a variance. But we worked with the Clty on giving them land for their easements and stuff. We wlll do that. We've also worked wlth the Clty close in gettlng the owner of the property who we're buylng the land from to give the City his land which he was not going to before so I think, we'd just like to be fair. It's very expensive to start cuttlng more off of that. When we found we were in the wetland, we pulled back the parking lot because I don't want to be J.n wetlar, d. I'm in favor of wetlands but I don't think we're hurting thls wetland. Ray Schleck: The grades at that point don't change from what they are now to where they were before. So as far as the level of the land around the wetland, that is not changing. It would be curb and gutter 10 feet away from the edge or from a contour line. The rest wlll be landscaped. Any runoff from the parking lot would be taken away in storm sewer. Gene Borg: I guess I would like to be treated like the City's being treated. They are damaging that wetland, in my opinlon, to a great extent and I hear that they are givlng money of some sort, of some value to another wetland. I would 11ke to propose dolng that the way it exists there as a plot draulng and propose giving money to another wetland in a proportion of the damage that I caused to that wetland. Worked out in the same crlterla as the Clty's worked out because to me I think that's totally fair. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to discuss this? Yes sir. Please state your name and your address. Tom Kosonas: My name is Tom Kosonas and it's 8001 Cheyenne Avenue. I live dlrectly south of this project that's being proposed and I speak in opposition of lt. Thls goes back a number of years of course when HcDonald's first came in it was going to be a small restaurant or serving type thing and now it's expanding and of course the neighbors around myself fear that we're going to end up with a truck stop. It looks like we're buildlng a parking lot so we can bring in trailer trucks off the highway so they can have a place to park. They're going to be practically in all purposes in the back yard of about 5 or 6 people. We've talked about wetlands here tonlght. I was at the Planning Commission meeting also. I haven't heard one thing from Planning commission or anyone speak of concern about the residents that are golng to have these trucks comlng in. I mean the purpose of thls parking lot is to bring trucks in from what I understand. They have plenty of parklng for cars. The parking lot ls never filled so all of a sudden we're looking at in our neighborhood of having a regular supply of semi traller trucks or whatever slzed trucks comlng 1nrc thls area. McDonald's as it is we get trash blowing through the area. We've talked 58 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 about that before. We get the noise of the cars coming in. I happened to be in line with the driveways coming out so at nlght time I get the headlights in my backyard and through my 11vlng room windows, unless we close the drapes. It's a general inconvenience for a number of residents through that area. It's picked up traffic. Whatever. It's 11tter, nolse, pollution and now all of a sudden we're looking at a parking lot for trucks. I cannot believe that the City would allow thls to happen to a residential neighborhood. Thank you very much. Hayor Chmiel: Thank you Tom. Anyone else? Alex Kringle: I'm Alex Kringle, 8009 Cheyenne. I've probably been in that area along the evergreens along this because I planted those. 20 years ago I got permission from Robert Mason and a number of the neighbors and I planted those trees on Mason's property. Shortly thereafter, not shortly. Quite a few years thereafter a road came through. They almost took the trees out. Fortunately they didn't. That pond that we don't think of as a wetland is more of a wetland than you thlnk because when I planted trees across that wetland, I couldn't get them to grow. I had to build up a little dike across there so that wetland has been wet for longer than you and I. I had a load of dlrt delivered. I didn't know about it at the time but the driver sald hey, where your house sits I used to hunt ducks there and so that wetland that we're talklng about now, actually is part of the wetland where my house sits. I realize that the City made a mistake by golng through that wetland. Just because we made one mistake doesn't mean we have to make another. I think we should swallow and say hey, we shouldn't have gone through that. But now we're going to start puttlng ina big parking lot for deisels. Stinky, smelly, idling deisels. Why they can't shut them off I don't know in place of part of that wetland. We've gone through thls over and over again. We made one mistake by zoning that area commercial because it was residential when I bought. As soon as all the lots were sold along there, it was rezoned commercial and then we were told there would be no drive- 1ns in that area. Then we got a McDonald's wlthout a drtve-ln but now we have a drive thru or a drive-in and now we want a truck parking lot back there. I'm not against development but I sure don't think that a deisel parking lot is helping us out with that area. And it is next to a residential area because I plck up McDonald's garbage. When I call them and ask for help, they tell me no, you're too far away. We don't go out that far because I'm the furthest east along those evergreens and HcOonald's to the best of my knowledge, has never picked up as far east as I live. I pick up their garbage. This year I took it over to the restaurant and left it but I pick up their garbage along there. know they go out and pick up but not that far. Anyway, I think the deisels ldllng all the tlme and that, I just don't think we need it next to a residential area so I'm definitely against the parking lot. I know I can't stop that but I don't thlnk we should fill in the wetland. If that's one proposal or I don't think we should give in to the new law that exists now. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, any discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: I went over there today and I looked at that wetland. There's no questlon that it lsa wetland. How it got there, I don't know and ! don't think that that may not be germane to the discussion. It definitely has wetland vegetation and that's mostly on the south side which ls where the City will be altering the wetland. Taking that out. It's a Class B wetland because I guess it has no outlet. Zs that correct Jo Ann? City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 30 Ann Olsen: It's just the type of vegetation. Councilwoman gimlet: But it doesn't have an outlet as well? Councilman Boyt: A lot of wetlands don't by nature. 3o Ann Olsen: It doesn't have it but that doesn't make a difference what type. Councilman Johnson: It used to. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should keep in mind that when the City came in with a proposal just 2 weeks ago for the wetland alteration permit, there really was none of this discussion. Interesting and I'm really not in favor of treating the City any more favorably than I would be treating a private resident oF commercial entity. I'd like to remind us too that Hr. Borg gave the City easements for Lake Drive East and we have a good working relationship with him and I don't think we should jeopardize that. He's already indicated that he will give money to another wetland which means no net loss. I think the parking lot, although I can see where it would be a concern to the neighbors there to have trucks, the trucks are already there and they're parking along Lake Drive East. I know Hr. Boyt several weeks ago or a month ago asked for no parking signs there so really the trucks are going to be there. We might as well make it safe and give them the parking stalls. I do think that the neighbors have a concern. I spoke to a Hr. Randy Swattfager and he was concerned if there would be any increased lighting so at this point I'd like to ask Hr. Borg if there'd be any increased lighting. Gene Borg: There'd be some but it's, the lighting that's on the drawing is pointing towards the... Councilwoman Dimler: The lighting from the parking lot? Gene Borg: It's pointing from the east pointing west over the parking lots. Councilwoman Oimler: How many lights are there? Ray Schleck: There's 2 lights per pole. There would be 10 additional lot ].Jghts. And the type of lot lights we use are directional. They're downcast. They're not, they don't just flood the area. They have a directed spread of l~ght. Councilwoman Dimler: If there would be a potential problem with that, is there anyway we can address that? Ray Schleck: I'm trying to think of which lights would create a problem for the neighborhood and I'm assuming that the neighborhood ls strlctly across Lake Drive. Councilwoman Oimler: Right. Ray Schleck: The lot lights in that area that would be affecting the neighborhood would be these two lights and they are aimed more towards the north. Nor'thwest. 60 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: What about the one on the far north side? Whlch way ls it directed? Towards the neighbors? Ray $chleck: It's dlrected south but lt's, I don't know if you've seen our newer lot 11ghts are basically like a shoebox and the lens is in the bottom so the 11ght can only go down and then lt's spread out. Mayor Chmiel: The fixture you're saying has prisms contained in there so you're restricted as far as your 11ght distribution. Zt's set in a direct pattern. Ray $chleck: Right. If you go 15-20 feet away from the light post, the foot candle level is down to almost negatlve so that's why there's so many fixtures around there to try to get some light. There are already lights tn the island, in the parklng lsland existing. We wouldn't change those so we're trying to get light out into the area. Let me point one thing out too. Our intention was not to make that a truck stop. Z should oall those trucks RV, boat traller, camper spots. I mean tt's not just for trucks. One of the goals is to get the trucks off of Lake Drive. Just glve them an easler path to follow. Councilman Johnson: As long as you're standing there with that up. I hate to step on Ursula here rlght now but bow's the seml, if he comes in there face first, have you checked all that to make sure they can make that turn back around and not have to try and back out or something? Ray Schleck: Yeah, these dash lines show the radius of a 60 foot tractor trailer. The radius it would have to make to come out this island. It would be exiting, this is an exlt only. This is an entrance only so this is the turning radlus here and then comlng in and the radius to get babk out. Councilman Johnson: So you're going to run them by the door? Ray $chleck: Yeah. We worked pretty close through the staff on that one. Councilman Johnson: They definitely do have trucks parked on Lake Orive East. Ray $chleck: Our goal isn't, obviously we're trying to sell hamburgers and that's what we're in business for but it's not to draw trucks. We don't like them that much ourselves. It's one person in a truck as opposed to hopefully a family in an RV. Councilman Johnson: Or a bus. Employees don't love the buses. Just the owners. Ray $chleck: No, that's right. Hayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula do you want to finish? Councilwoman Olmler: Okay. The garbage concerns I guess I'm concerned about that too and I know the neighbors have been out there. Have been picking it up. ! spoke to several of them. There is a chainllnk fence that goes along that whole edge behlnd all of thetr properties that catches most of it. What they told me is that they have to go along the fence and plck it up. Do you have another, Mr. Kosonas, would you like to address that? How does it get to your City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 property or does it get beyond that fence into the neighborhood? Tom Kosonas: Well the fence behind mine...just blows straight through and generally it bullds up behlnd the fence and the trees that I've planted. But I know the comment that they pick it up and I live directly behind them. I purposedly slnce the Plannlng Commission meetlng, I took 3 McDonald's paper products and stacked them about lO0 feet from the road and they're still there and thls Js 2, whenever the Plannlng Commission meeting was. No one has come out and picked up paper along the street or in that empty lot. I don't know when they do it but lt's been 2 or 3 weeks since the Plannlng Commission meetlng. If you go down Lake Orive East, just walk along the road...the road just littered. I mean lt's solld. Both sldes... They don't pick it up. I don't care what they say... Councilwoman Dimler: Is the litter mainly though on Lake Drive? It doesn't get into your neighborhood. Alex Kringle: It gets lnto my yard. Tom Kosonas: How far past my yard it goes I don't do searching the neighbors yards to see... Councilwoman Dimler: Uh huh, but you haven't heard any other neighbors complain? Tom Kosonas: Myself, yeah. They probably don't get as much because I'm sure the fences are going to stop it. It gets into my yard. I send my kid out there to plck it up or I pick it up. When lt's heavy weather 11ke thls... Councilwoman Oimler: I'm sure that we can work out something with that garbage. Tom Kosonas: I'd like to see something on that lot. I don't know who owns the lot behind us. Mason built it at one time...lf it's deeded to the Clty or not. The City cuts lt... Councilwoman Dimler: And the other question I had, is there a possibility, I assume the Clty owns the land on the other side of the fence towards TH 5. Is there some klnd of a fenclng other than what ls there simllar to what they do along 35W to cut noise, lights? You know, something like we did over here with the Brooke's. Is that a possibility? A fence. Gary Warren: You're talking about the... Councilwoman Dimler: Basket weaved fence, yes. Gary Warren: Cedar fence. And this would be on the south si-de of the, across from McDonald's? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Across. Gary Warren: Where all the trees are? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Right. I'm assuming that's City property. City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: No. Councilwoman Oimler: It isn't? Who's is it? Gary Warren: Chart Haven Holding Company owns that lot. Zf it's the parcel that I'm thinking of which is right south across Lake Drive East from McOonalds. That corner parcel there. That is owned by Chan Haven Holding Company. Councilwoman Dimler: So we couldn't run a fence all along that? Councilman Workman: That short stretch of fence in downtown cost $70,000.00 or what do they cost? Councilman Boyt: No, no. Councilwoman Dimler: Here? I hope not. Councilman Workman: What did that new fencing project cost there? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it was much over $10,000.00. Don Ashworth: That seems like a logical number. Councilman Workman: We're going to end up with that situation all up and down Lake Drive. Gary Warren: We will be taking a portion of that lot. Not the whole thing but a portion of that as new right-of-way for the Lake Drive East project but there still will be a remnent piece there that I don't believe is built on. Councilwoman Dimler: Well it's just a question I have. Maybe it's a possibility like we did with the Brooke's. I don't know. That would help reduce noise, light and possibly keep the garbage out of their backyards as well. Councilman Johnson: Won't do much for noise. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it doesn't do anything for noise. Councilman Johnson: If it was 25-30 feet tall it might. Mayor Chmiel: It still doesn't Jay. It normally goes up that wall and goes over and hits the people 2 doors away rather than the ones sitting right there. Councilwoman Oimler: 1'11 add more comments later but that's all I have for nOW. Mayor Chmiel: Did you have something to say? Councilman Johnson: Mostly on the wetlands. I was the one saying I wanted at least one parking spot taken out of there because l0 feet's too close to the wetland but I'm also of the value of that wetland and it's function in nature nowdays. It's been encroached on on probably $ out of 4 sides. There's City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 evidence that that used to be a creek running through there. As I dug through the wetland with a shovel this afternoon, I got to a nice well graded layer of sand and cobble. Large grade sand several lnches thlck indicating falrly fast rushing water at that point. Below that was continued highly organlc clays with root and whatever. As deep as I could go wlth what I had. I dldn't bring an auger out there. It appears to me that this used to be other types of wetland rather than one that held water in that lt's now been dammed by the lake. It looks 11ke the area to the north of it has also been filled. Probably what's left of the old farmstead probably. If you start dlgging in there you'll probably find the barn and house and whatever when the whole thlng was ripped down. They say that's to the north and east of the wetland. Thls wetland drains an area probably twice as big as the wetland itself. There's not a lot of areas dralned by lt. It has no outlet. I don't even think it's an infiltration type wetland. I believe it probably just goes in there and evaporates and doesn't provlde ground water recharge. I can't prove that but I tend to doubt the way it holds the water that it provides ground water recharge. It provldes limited habitat, which the Clty's golng to take most of. I'm a protecter of wetlands by reputation and by the way I feel. I'd like to, this wetland does so 11ttle for anybody other than mosquitoes and the mosqulto control people have already been out there and planted their 11ttle charcoal briquettes init to fool the cattail mosquitoes. As more and more development goes around here, the one thing this does maybe is decrease the amount of water going lnto that wetland. Further development mlght further decrease it and we're going to end up wlth an old dry marsh as it's very small area gets built up and we probably w111 never dlrect any water into lt. This i$ the type of place that eventually I'd like to see it eliminated and a comparable area downstream replaced and enhanced where it actually does something to the watershed. This particular wetland does very little for the watershed. But I still don't want to start a precedence of putting a parklng lot wlthin 10 feet of the wetland. I'd like to see the bushes extended to where they encircle the wetland more to where the garbage blowing off of the parklng lot does not, has something between it and the low area because there's a whole lot of plastic in that low area. I'm also a 11ttle disappointed by the surveyors mlsslng it by this far. Hopefully the additional cost that's caused you all for replatting and everything's golng to be passed on to show...and let them eat that cost. That wasn't a minor mistake. That was really quite a ma3or mistake as far as I'm ooncerned. Error. Omission. Whatever you want to call lt. I think that by putting this truck area or RV area or whatever, actually will be better for some of the neighbors than the current practice of parklng on Lake Drlve East. As I was there this afternoon, a lumber truck pulled up. Pulled onto the side of the road and got out and went ln. Left hls delsel ldllng and came back 10 mlnutes later. Sat in his delsel on the side of the road. Ate his lunch and then left. Thls way if he's parked in the parklng lot, he'll be another 30 or 40 feet away from the homes or even further. The further away he can get, the better off he'll be. Those are most of my comments. I'd really 11ke to see at least one, if not two of the parking spots removed. I'm not that wild about getting for thls poor of a wetland. I'd 11ke to know what's planned for next door too. If there is anything yet. Mayor Chmiel: Bill. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I think the blggest problem here is the expanding parking lot because it's destgned to make it easier for trucks. Look at the City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 neighborhood. Look at what this has done to the neighborhood since 1982. Prior to 1982 no restaurant. You're in a residential neighborhood. You've got TH 5 noise. Whatever it was in 1982 to deal with and then we end up with this thing going all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The neighborhood definitely sees this as a potential problem and they put their money behind it. I guess, according to the neighbors, nobody knows quite how the drive thru got there but we go from a McDonald's restaurant to a McDonald's restaurant with a drive thru and now we're going to go to a restaurant that for all practical purposes could be a truck stop. Whether you want the trucks to stay there or not, we're going to make it easy for them to park in there. The neighbors told me when I talked to them that on occassion a truck pulls in there, parks and stays for hours along the side of the road. I can imagine the driver's looking for someplace to sleep or whatever. Says well, this ls great. It's right by a restaurant and naturally they let the motor run all the time. You travel a lot. I'm sure you know what it's like to be in a motel that's anywhere near a tractor trailer. I know what that's like and to think that the people living in that house have the potential of having that every night, that's what bothers me. The wetland, I don't know how to put this other than to say it. This is a wetland that is maybe better off filled in and a new one dug someplace else. That goes against a lot of what I basically believe in yet looking at that wetland is very disturbing. First it's full a trash. A good bit of.it has McDonald's name on it but it's also got tires. It's just a mess in there. Somebody should clean that up. Whoever the property owner is should have some obligation to clean that up. I would like to see us pursue having the south side of Lake Drive East bermed, and I'm not talking about a 2 foot berm. I'm talking about a 6 or an 8 foot berm. A major pile of dirt. I think that would solve a lot of problems. Z think something that massive would deflect the noise. Now I don't know, maybe other people have more experience with noise deflection but we can't, I can't vote for this knowing that it puts more trucks in there unless ue do something to get those trucks, the noise impact greatly reduced. I can't vote to put I think, as I mentioned before and we didn't get it passed by the way. We shouldn't have any parking there. Those trucks are destroying the boulevard and both sides of that road should have no parking signs on them. If we're going to allow truck parking to happen in McDonald's, it should happen over by TH 5 where there's plenty of highway noise already and there's going to be a lot more. Maybe that would help mitigate some of this but it have it, they can park 50 feet, well I'm not exactly sure how far the back yard is off the south side of Lake Orive but right the way it is, even with this parking lot addition, we're going to have trucks that are close enough that when that motor is running, it's going to seem like they're in your bedroom with you. We just can't have that. People weren't bargaining to get that. Not even with the original McDonald's and ue shouldn't be giving them that kind of problem today. If a berm sounds unrealistic to block that, then I think we have to look at other ways of blocking that and maybe one of those ways is we, McDonald's establishes a policy and agrees to enforce it that no truck is going to park there for more than a half an hour. Gene Borg: We can put up a sign stating that but we close at...12:00-12:30 and someone comes in to open about 4:30. We have no way to stop them. If we're not there...we can't stop it...unless a policeman does. We can put the signs up. Councilman Boyt: We don't have anybody from public safety here but I'd be real interested in if you post a sign, what you can do to enforce it. I would 65 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 imaglne you have some control over that. I don't know how you get truck parking so that it happens as close to the highway as possible but I'm pretty sure that the way thls ls laid out rlght now, that's not encouraged. To me, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't see how we can possibly justify a wetland permit that allows you to get closer to the wetland than you already are. I haven't seen anything in the staff report that justifies that other than the fact that you want to do lt. I don't see a way to do that. We can argue that the City ls violating one end of the wetland so you get to have the other end of the wetland. I just as soon see the thing fllled in and redug. I thlnk your idea of betng willing to contribute to the development of another wetland is a good one. We should pursue that. But that's a separate lssue to me. The biggest issue here in this lnstance is that this is impacting people who cannot move their house. They dldn't bargain for tractor trallers in thelr backyard. Flrst we put OataServ in and let the OataServ trucks run up and down Lake Orive East. Then ue come back and we let them park there and now we're golng to let a restaurant expand so that if they had any second thoughts about parking there before, now we can put 8 of them in there at a tlme. I think that's too much to put on thls neighborhood and we need to very seriously look at how do we reduce the impact. Councilman Johnson: Bill, if they took out 3 parking spots, that would move it about 60 feet further away. Councilman Boyt: Every 11ttle blt would help. Councilman Workman: I hear you saying two different things about the wetland. One, don't get any closer but f111 it ln. Councilman Boyt: I'm saying, if we're going to put it closer, let's just call ita day on that wetland. Flll the puppy in and have them dlg another one. Councilman Workman: Well I think that's what's going to-happen and you know, what we have ls, and none of us were on the Counc11 in 1982 but we have, and we're going to have this same issue up and down TH 5. Stay on the Clty Council and you wlll lose as many friends because TH 5, everybody, I don't think you're proposing that from Oakota to Bell Road will be nothing but quarter million dollar homes and residential. I don't thlnk the people in Chanhassen Estates firmly believe that quarter milllon dollar homes are going to be bullt when McDonald's ls sltting right now. The people at TH ? and TH 41 are havlng the same problem. Timberwood is having the same problem. They all want down TH 5 quarter m1111on dollar homes whlch isn't going to happen. There's going to be a business, residential rub all up and down there with gas stations and convenience stores and pizzas cooklng and everything else and lt's golng to be a continuous headache so it's very tough to, hlghway. Residential. What goes in between there? What's a good buffer? I don't think we're ever golng to, I know Ready-Mix isn't. But I mean it's going to be very, very tough for ua to dictate the owners of property to settle wlth the size of their bumlness the way it ls. I don't thlnk, flrst of all McDonald's can expand if they want here. I don't think we have the right to deny them. They're golng to expand. If we have a trash problem, maybe we can work with the trash problem. I sure hope so. We Carl do things to warrant trucks. We already have trucks so I don't know what the statistics are that we're going to have more of them. The fact of the matter ls we have a business and a vlable buslness here that in talklng to Gene City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 is putting $230,000.00 in the pockets of the kids who work here a year and we don't even have, in our discussions, they have no place to even spend $230,000.00 in this town. They're probably spending it in Eden Prairie. We're not doing things right but what we do and with the pizza man and everybody else and the Roger Zahn thing is we"re getting ourselves in a situation where we're always chasing after the business guy and we should if we have a trash problem, but out of our control is the situation that we have a McDonald's and they can expand and they are alleviating a problem over here and I think it would be fantastic to get signs saying no idling. 20 minute maximum time limit or whatever. If the boats and the campers and the RV's are more lucrative, I mean I can't think of anything worse than a whole series of semis parked here and if we can thwart that that'd be great but if they can't park here, they're going to maybe still park here and they're going to maybe still park on TH S and they're going to cause all sorts of other problems. So I think we're beyond worrying about the wetland because the wetland isn't going to be there. The peopie who live over here who said people used to hunt ducks there. They built their house there and they're not concerned about it. It's gotten littler and littler since before you and I were born I think. Me at least. And so it's gotten littler and littler and now the people over in this neighborhood are worried about this little wetland but their house is built on one. ~nd there used to be a stream running through there and ail sorts of other things so it's down to this micro wetland that nobody is concerned about and foremost the city because we approved it last time to do away practically with it. ! like your idea about the berm. I don't know where the funding would come for the berm but if we can, just like Ahn-Le and Brooke's and everything else for those neighbors, whatever we can do to keep the trash, noise, stink, stench and everything else away from those neighbors, I mean I'm all for that. But we have to face the reality that there is a business here. They are going to expand and there are going to be trucks somewhere in and around the vicinity because we've got DataServ and everything else down there and Lake Drive East is built to handle all the industrial all the way down to eR 17 and Audubon Road. That's why it's there. And so facing the reality with modifications to protect and buffer this, I think we should be looking at that. I think to worry about this wetland because of one parking stall or two parking stalls does nothing because you can still fit at least 6 semis in there and I don't see what that is really going to accomplish on the short term. So it's a wetland that we don't care to worry about and I think we can fix idling problems and the length of time they park there if McDonald's wants to help us out and agree with that because it's a not a preferred business, although those people do eat. I don't know what kind of marketing is going to be done out here on TH 5 to draw trucks in. They get used to it. They get on their radio and they say stop. ! think a lot of it is because of Oatamerv and those guys are coming back out and they want to grab a burger. But further down on the other side of this parking lot, I don't think we're going to have residential homes built there. We're going to have a whole other industry in here. I talked to Gene about it. What are we going to have over here? Nobody knows what we're going to have in there but I can guarantee you it's not going to be homes and it's going to be another impact on this neighborhood because coincidentally TH 5 is right here. So I have no idea how we can propose to berm this thing. A 10 foot berm or something. But ~ think these little parking stalls over here are so insignificant to talk about in the larger picture of all these other parking spots and the expanded lot that it's really insignificant because this is going to happen. I don't know why we're not worrying about charcoal burners on this thing because they can smell Big Macs in City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 the morning or somethin but we have an impact and I know that the Supreme Court dealt with the zoning and that problem and that's going to be tough for us to deal wlth again. The business ls there and agaln, they have the right to expand it and so what we're down to is these little parking spots. Jay says 1. Carol says 2. Willard says none. And lt's a mlnute problem. The big problem ls how much of this truck traffic are we going to get in and do we learn to curb it and maybe we've got the solution solved. I don't know. I don't see the trash increasing or decreasing necessarily here. You and I just had a prlvate discussion, I don't know what's wlth people rolling down thelr wlndow as they're leaving and throwing it out their wlndow. I just don't understand that but maybe we've got a receptacle problem there. Impervious surface problem has been taken care of. They have every right to do what they're doing and so it comes down to thls wetland which lsn't a concern and it comes down to increased truck traffic for the neighbors whlch I think we can handle. Because with or without these I or 3 stalls, there's golng to be some truck trafflc in there just as there is now. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Councilman Workman: That's it. Councilman Boyt: Can we talk for a minute about what we agree on or go ahead Oon. You haven't had anything to say. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I certainly appreciate it. I'm trylng to figure out who's runni~,g the meeting. Councilman Boyt: You're running the meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. One of the things that I see presently, and maybe Gene can work thls out too, is we're talklng about havlng semls. We're assumlng semis are coming in there and possibly they will but is there a potential that you could even allow those trucks to park to the far end of the semls? Designate it as such for the last 3 or maybe 4 stalls. Gene Borg: Try to move them down as they come in? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Gene Borg: Closer to TH 5? Hayor Chmiel: Closer to TH 5. Gene Borg: We can try to move them with a sign... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't expect you're going to have a traffic person out there directing the trucks where to park. Gene Borg: We can put up signs but the more signs you put up, the less they tend to read them. Mayor Chmiel: That's probably true. 68 City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 Gene Borg: We could try it. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I'm looking at is trying to keep it more towards TH 5 if you can. Gene Borg: I don't think we can change the lot to do that. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't expect that you would either. Gene Borg: We could try a sign...proceed to furthest staff or whatever. We can try that... Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, ! think the restriction on time limitation would be something in itself. For the RV's and so on and some of your other trucks, normally do shut them off but semis they do run. Gene Borg: I don't know why they... Mayor Chmiel: During the winter they keep them running. But during the summer they do have tendencies to shut them off as well. But that would be something that you could try to enforce. The other portion I see is the pick-up problem that some of the people have indicated. With the paper blowing around. I think it would be to an advantage and ! know you're trying to be a good neighbor too. Gene Borg: ...I don't know where they went because I wasn't there Saturday but I know they spent 6 hours picking up stuff on Saturday. Apparently they didn't...and they missed... Councilman Johnson: They didn't go through the wetland either. Gene Borg: They didn't have boots on. Councilman Johnson: Even the edge. You could use some more trash receptacles outside. Mayor Chmiel: I guess rather than reiterating everything that's been said, these are many of the things that I have listed here with some of the concerns and there's no sense in rehashing that just to take up more time. I think that if you could probably try to accommodate some of those things, it might alleviate some of those given problems. Anything else? Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I know we're running late but I think if you paint your sign on the asphalt and if the ones next to TH 5, say the 3 down there next to TH 5. If you would put someth£ng on there that would say semi only. If you come down to the ones closest to what used to be the wetland. Gene Borg: RV's. Something like that. Councilman Boyt: Well, I happen to believe you're going to get quite a bit of semi traffic in here because when 184 opens up, it's going to be a natural. It's golng to be the easiest place 'for them to get thls kind of food wlthln several miles. So I think you're probably keeping full of semis but if they're out there by TH 5, you've basically got a spot reserved for them. They'll pull City Council Heeting - ~pril 23, 1990 there. If you say to the 3 that are closest to what used to be the wetland which won't be for long even if we don't let you pave it over now. If you put no semis in there, that gives us another, I would imagine 15 foot to the space so another 45 feet removed. If we could and I think the best place to put this is generally on the asphalt. They're going to be looking in that direction. If you put something down that says I don't know, 20 minute, 30 minute, whatever is kind of reasonable along those lines for parking limits, it would get the idea across. Gene Borg: On some of this you're going to have to put up on the outside because Zn the winter you're not going to be able to read that. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I got it. Councilman Workman: Or a note on the door. Truckers. Councilman Boyt: Well whatever. Gene Borg: I like that idea... Councilman Boyt: Okay, and then if you guys commlt to the idea that you are going to tell them that they've been there too long or if you get a neighbor complaint, you will respond to that. I think we're beginning to talk about something that starts to work. Then on this berm business, Chan Haven Holding Company. They're golng to lose a certaln amount. I don't know where Gary but I would think they're going to lose a certain amount of that as Lake Drive East gets changed. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Right? But we need, there's quite a bit of property there. We could build a substantial berm. Typically in these road projects we end up with f111 or we're taking out or something. There's a lot of dirt that gets moved around. Now this one's pretty flat. I don't know if that's the case but if the City would commlt to providing the dlrt, would you commlt to gettlng the plece of property to put it on? Gene Borg: ...wants $4.00 a foot for that and Z don't see... Councilman Boyt: $4.00 a front foot? Gene Borg: $4.00 a square foot. Councilman Boyt: A square foot. Is that a buildable piece of property? Don Ashworth: I don't see how you could build on that piece of property. It's so narrow. Gene Borg: He wanted me to put in a parking lot and I told hlm no. Councilman Johnson: At $4.00 a square foot? 7O City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Alright, so I know that thts tends to be a scary word for most of us but could the City do this as some sort of public improvement? I'd be interested in pursuing how much of that you would be wllling to be assessed for. Councilman Johnson: Bill, your semi noise source is so high that when you get semls on there, a 6 foot berm's not going to do anything. Hayor Chmiel: It's not going to do a thing. Councilman Johnson: What a berm tends to do is what McDonald's' talked about, it screens it. It creates a shadow effect directly behind it but noise is not like light. It goes around corners. It's a change in pressure and so it just drops right on over. The people behind these fences along 1-35, they have a good thing. A person a block away has no affect at a11. I don't thlnk the berm's going to do you anything. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't know, we've got another issue wlth light. Something needs to be out there to stop the headlights of the cars pulling out. Councilman Johnson: That's where a privacy fence would do just as good. Councilman Boyt: We don't have this issue worked out. And then I'll stop here but those trucks shifting up and down to get in there, we're impacting the property value of these homes along there and somewhere in this approval process that ought to come into play. Councilman Johnson: Bill7 I think one of the biggest things is something Tom brought up. As we develop to the east of here. As more businesses go in on Lake Drive East further down, it's golng to increase or maybe by the connection of 184th down there, that might be a preferred route where you might have a better light and better intersection than Dakota anyway. They may prefer to come in on 184th and may decrease the traffic on Dakota. But the truth is, if we don't provlde the truck parking here, the people servicing these new businesses that will be coming into the east are going to come down here and they're golng to park on the street. Without the truck parking lot, it's going to be worse. Councilman Boyt: We can stop the on street parking. Just post it. It won't take long to stop that if we want to stop it. Okay, well so there's 2 or 3 issues here. One of them ls the wetland. For my part I'll accept whatever is a reasonable replacement of the wetland. I can't believe I'm saying that but I'll do that. Councilman Workman: Well we're mitigating it now. Councilman Boyt: Yeah. That's right. But the other part of it is some kind of a sign arrangement so that the semls park as far away from the people as we can get them. In some respects that will be an Improvement over what they've got now. That we specifically mark the three closest to the street as no semi parklng. I can see some improvements here. I just don't think we can go far enough. 71 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel' Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? For items A and 8. Councilwoman Oimler: Shall we moue them separately? Mayor Chmiel: Moue them separately. A first. Councilwoman Dimler: We have to move (h) as well. Councilman Workman: We don't really need to fool with A do we? I'd moue approval of the site plan expansion of McDonald's and the preliminary plat and if 8 is simply the wetland setback variance, I'm not sure how we'd want to word. Councilman Bo/t: Let's do them separately. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, do them one at a time. Oo A and then let's do 8. Roger Knutson: A includes final and preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: 8i11, are you going to move (h)? Councilman 8oyt: Yeah, we'll get there but first we've got to do A. Councilman Workman~ Okay, I think Tom made that motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: Tom, with your motion are you going to give us any flexibility if we approve the site plan, then we go to the wetland alteration permit and we say take away a couple parking spots or something on the wetland alteration permit. That's different than the site plan we just approved. How do we. Councilman Workman' Maybe we need to go B first? Councilman Johnson: We may need to go B first. Councilman Boyt: Let's do B first. Mayor Chmiel: B first. Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the wetland setback variance at 10 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman: I mean that's with the stalls. Mayor Chmlel: You're golng to lnclude all stalls that's existing. Councilman Boyt: Okay, that includes the signing? 72 City Council Meeting - 4pril 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: The signage that's requested. Councilman Workman: Ooesn't the signage become part of A? Mayor Chmiel: Part of A, preliminary plat. Councilman Boyt: But part of B is the replacement of the wetlands. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: But he's not taking any. All he's doing is getting within 10 feet of it. Councilman Boyt: But to get within 10 feet of it, he's agreeing to replace it. Gene Borg: I agreed to, as I stated up front, agreed to a percentage of the City's destruction I will replace my percentage of my destruction. Councilman Johnson: How much are you destroying? Gene Borg: Well no, I'm within 75 feet of the variance so 65 feet of the variance and then whereas the City, they're going to be within 65 feet of the variance also. Whatever that works out. Councilman Johnson: If you're comparing apples to organes, the City's not paylng anything for what they're doing because... Gene Borg: They said they were. Councilman Boyt: We sure are. Jo Ann Olsen: Well yeah, we are. Councilman Johnson: What? Councilman Boyt: We built wetlands. We paid money to build that wetland. We're dedicating part of what we built to this particular removal so we paid to remove this. We could have done it with some other piece. What I would like to see happen on the wetland is that we call, the wetland is over. At least we take it off the map. We leave it there maybe but we take it off the map and we replace it so somewhere between the City and the HcOonald's application, the wetland is replaced somewhere. Councilman Johnson: But the wetland's isn't in McDonald's property. It's in some other person's property. They should have some responsibility here too. Not just HcDonald's. Councilman Boyt: They're not asking to get a variance. This wouldn't even happen if the parking lot. Councilman Workman: But the wetland doesn't even have a semblence of a wetland after what the City does to it. 73 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman 3ohnson: We're still going to have some semblence of a wetland yes but. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what we have to keep doing, rather than we're hasing back and forth and not making any sense, I think what we should do is move ahead with what we've got going. Tom has made a motion that the variance request to have a 10 foot setback requirement plus the replacement of the 65 feet that McOonald's indicated that they would do, or replacement of that for the wetland. Is that clear? I don't know what I said but pretty close. Councilman Workman: And how about that and that staff work to find out how much wetland needs to be mitigated? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what we need to do. Good. Councilwoman Oimler: I seconded that. Councilman Johnson: You could look at existing watershed that feeds this wetland and what affect McDonald's is going to have on that because 10 foot, you're definitely encroaching withln the watershed servicing that so you could go into a square footage. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but if it doesn't have any outlet, how does it... Councilman Johnson: It's what flows into this wetland is no longer going to flow lnto this wetland so it's golng to have decreased water to the wetland. Increased water to Riley-Purgatory. Councilman Boyt: Wetlands a lot of times seep up the bottom. Councilman Johnson: We're not sure of that. Nobody's done, I couldn"t get deep enough to get to clay. Councilman Boyt: What we're saying here is that everybody has a good intention to replace the part of the wetland that's impacted. Maybe go beyond that. That's my understand. Is that your understanding? Gene Borg: Something... Councilman Boyt: Well, we're replacing part of it. Jo Ann Olsen: We'll look at the plans for, there's two options. We can work ulth the wetland on the Eckankar site. Hayor Chmiel: How about the 429 Jo Ann? 429 process. Using that. 3o Ann Olsen: As far as? Don Ashworth: What I was suggesting was that it simply be incorporated into the public improvement process so the Clty would take over the control of the replacement of that wetland. We would make applications to Watershed Dlstrlct or whomever else and a11 owners would be assessed for their fair share which is City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 basically what Gene is saying he'd be willing to pay. Councilwoman 0imler: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Otmler seconded to approve the variance request for a 10 foot wetland setback plus the applicant working with staff for replacement of the &5 feet of wetland. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Johnson: My no vote is simply that I think 10 foot is going to come back to haunt us as a precedence. I would have liked to have seen some more negotiating there. The other thing ls that, I've got a suggestion for the formula but I guess I can tell staff that. Percent of the watershed taken. Councilman Boyt: That's not workable. It has to come back to us. Mayor Chmiel: Item A. Preliminary and flnal plat to plat lots 1 and 2, Chan Haven Plaza for the expansion of the parking area and site plan revlew for the expansion of the restaurant. Can I have a motion for that? Councilman Workman: Thls ls where we want to add the signs? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Signs. Why don't we just reference parking signs as per discussion? Is that good? Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk that's good enough. Councilman Boyt: And sort of limited hours of parking. Councilman Johnson: No overnight parklng. Gene Borg: Half hour parking? Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Councilman Johnson: A sign saying no overnight parking too. Mayor Chmlel: I don't think Gene allows any trucks staying there now. Councilman Workman: We have an ordinance on that now don't we? Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Resident: ...putting some berms or fences on McOonald's... Councilman Boyt: There's no fences on McDonald's property. Councilman Workman: They're putting natural edging aren't they? Councilman Boyt: You haven't seen the landscaping plan have you? Do you have a copy of that 3o Ann? 75 City Council Meeting - April.23, 1990 30 Ann Olsen: The last plan I saw, there will be some berming in this area and landscaping but there's really not room for them to put up a fence. It would only be covering this area and this area. Resident: How about that southeast corner? What's in there? 3o Ann Olsen: You want a fence in this area? Resident: Yeah. Jo Ann 01sen: That would requlre a wetland variance. Councilman Boyt: Aren't there trees there now? There are trees there now. Mayor Chmlel: Not on that far end. Scrubby. Councilman Boyt: They've got something about a 24 inch elm. Gene Borg: That's a dead elm. Councilman Boyt: Oh, that's the dead elm. Councilman Johnson: That's a 24 1rich stump. Councilman Boyt: Are you doing any plantings? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, there's a considerable amount of plantings... Councilman Boyt: Well I know on the property but I'm talking about that corner up by the wetland. Are you doing any plantlng up there? Gene Borg: In the wetland? Councilman Boyt: It's the southeast corner. Gene Borg: On the property line or the...line? Councilman Boyt: Of your parklng lot line. Gene Borg: ...blue spruce... Mayor Chml~l: I guess that plantlng is qulte substantial. Councilman Johnson: The only thing I wanted on the planting was some more planting as a weed battler. As a fence. It gets caught in the bushes as they go through so low lying shrubbery. So if the wind's blowing from the northwest, the prevailing wlnds, they don't blow across there. So after those spruces and before the first whatever 3 inch diameter...edge or annuals. I don't know. Those low, low bushes are good at catchlng Blg Mac containers. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but there again you've got the open driveway and the other areas there. I don't think that would really stop it. And I thlnk wlth the City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 .. policing effect that they've taken, picking up all that. Councilman Johnson: They've only got one trash can outside, or two trash cans outside. I had to look for trash cans the other day to throw it away. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Kringle, what did you think? Jo Ann Olsen: T just told him we'd work with him in having more landscaping around that one shrubbery. Tt's part of the replacement maybe. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move on this one way or the other. Tom, you made a motion on this before. Councilman Workman: It's the same motion with parking signs and limit the parking to be 30 minutes. I don't know if we can enforce them idling or no ldlying portion on thls. Councilman Johnson: We've got the owner of a trucking firm sitting here. Explain to us the idling of deisels. Tom Zwiers: Oeisels, when you run them on the road they build up so much heat internally in the englne. If you don't let them run for 5-10 minutes to cool back down the temperature, it will crack the cylinders. Councilman Boyt: But it's not the 5 to 10 minutes. It's the 30 to 60 minutes. If they're only going to be able to be there for 30 mlnutes, it's probably not going to be the same kind of problem. Councilman Workman: So just with those two points. Councilman Boyt: What about a pick-up, paper pick-up point? Mayor Chmiel: Are you saying a parameter area7 Councilman 8oyt: Well as Tom likes to say, when I used to do this sort of stuff, one of my jobs ls to go out and pick up paper every day. Do you have one of those people? How do you miss the wetland? Gene Borg: Probably in the winter it was wet in there and nobody could get in there because it was so wet. Councilman Boyt: Yeah, but they do get in there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dtmler seconded to approve Site Plan Request ~90-4 with a variance to decrease the wetland setback from 55 feet to 44 feet subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive a variance to the 75 foot wetland setback and meet any conditions of the variance. 77 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 2. Revise plans to increase the size of the storm sewer to 12". Provide an erosion control plan for the site. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Dluff Creek Watershed District is required. 3. The owner shall be responsible for relocating the retaining wall one foot outside of the right-of-way when requested to by the City in conjunction with Dakiqota Avenue improvements. The applicant will revise landscaping improvements as necessary in this area due to the relocation and present a plan for staff approval. 4. Provide financial guarantees for landscaping improvements as required by the zonlng ordinance. 5. No additional signage is authorized by this site plan approval. 6. Provide requJ, red handicapped parking stalls and curb cuts along with appropriate identification signage. 7. Approval and filing of the plat is required prior to the issuance of buildlng permlts. and; approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for Chanhassen Haven Plaza 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. provide the easements outlined in the staff report and described on the attached illustration. 2, Dedicate illustrated right-of-way to the City, Provide a final plat consistent with these conditions. 4, Enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessary fi)~ancial guarantees prior to having the City sign off on the final plat. 5. The applicant shall have signage indicating the location for parking of semi-trailers wlth a limit of 30 minutes. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Johnson: I said opposed. Councilman Workman: Why? Councilman Johnson: Mostly because I still think that they can use some more pJ. antings to help prevent the spreading of trash. Fairly economical method of doing that. Councilwoman Oimler: We need to move (h). Mayor Chmiel: Item number (h) Bill. Approve Development Contract for Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition. 78 City Council Meeting - April Z3, 1990 Councilman 8oyt: Gary, why are we.doing item (h)? In 10 words tell me. Why are ue taking that little nook out of the turn there? Gary Warren: Why are we taking the little nook out of the turn? Councilman 8oyt: Well item l(h). Gary Warren: That's the development contract. Councilman 8oyt: And doesn't it impact the road too? Gary Warren: Basically just coverlng the conditions of approval of the slte plan as far as it relates to the retaining wall, the developer's connecting to the City's storm sewer system and the landscaping retainage. Councilman 8oyt: What about this extend existing right-of-way? Gary Warren: That's actually a part of the easement dedication that MnDot is pursuing as a part of the TH 5 improvements. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I move approval of 1rem l(h). Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve the Development Contract for Chan Haven Plaza Second Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERHITS AND ARTICLE XXVII, EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. Jo ~nn Olsen: I'll try to keep this brief so you can start your discussion. Thls ordinance was drafted at the request of the City Council. It's not speclfic on Moon Valley. It's for use throughout the City and I guess we need to stress that that's what we should be discussing tonight. Not necessarily Moon Valley. The ordinance ls not punitive. There are much stiffer ones that we looked at but what we wanted to get was one that would allow us to work with existlng situations. We've made a lot of adjustments slnce the Planning Commission had looked at it and had recommended approval. Those have been added in to the ordinance and we've tried to go through a summary of what exactly those were as far as fencing and landscaping, etc.. We've added the adminstratlve procedure for grading less than 1,000 cubic yards and more than 100 cublc yards. Staff just wanted to stress that we think that that flexibility is something that we would like to see remain in there. Other than that I'll just answer questions. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Any discussion? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start. If you will refer to the ordinance itself. Mayor Chmiel: What page? 79 City Council Meeting ,- April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Well, I think it starts on page 2 of the staff report. Or no, it's probably, I don't know. They call it page 2 but it's about 4 pages in. The question I asked 3o Ann earlier and she was going to get some information for me. I understand some of the rest of you also asked this question so maybe you have the information. How big is 50 cubic yards, 100 cubic yards and 1,000 cubic yards? I know how much a truck holds. I want to know in terms of basements. Tell me a typical 1,000 square foot basement. How many cubic yards? Gary Warren: 10 feet deep? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Gary ~arren: I need to know that otherwise I can't answer that. A typical ~,000 square foot basement 10 feet deep would be about 27 cubic yards. It would be about the equivalent of 6 of our smaller city dump trucks or 3 of our tandem, the larger tandem dump trucks. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so in terms of, I can relate to houses so what we're saying is that staff can approve somebody who does, I don't want to make this too complicated here. Four houses in a ~00 cubic yards but they can go up to just short of l,O00 cubic yards so if I've got that right that means about 40 basements worth. That's too much. A year. So somebody could come in and pull 40 basements worth of dirt or whatever, gravel, clay off their property and the City Council never sees it. That's a big hole. I'm inclined to say 50 cubic yards. Okay, 2 houses. That seems reasonable. That's the kind of thing that maybe somebody would do. I'm going to say well, I want to make a house that's going to be 2,000 square feet. I'm going to need 50 cubic yards of fill removed, or whatever they call the stuff you remove. Not 40. You're talking a development. So that's one change I would think. ~dminstrative approvals for something like 50. Haybe 100 max in a 12 month period. We should be in the business of reviewing these things. Not delegating off major earth moving. Then on page 4 of the ordinance, item 13. Rehabilitation plan. I think we could have that it be rehabilitated to a state as good or better than it was before it was mined. Now that gives you some flexibility in determining what is as good or better but I suspect the industry has some standards on that. On page 5, adminstrative approvals, I think when they apply for an adminstrative approval they should have along with those other items, item 8 which is a tree survey. Item 13 which is a rehabilitation plan and item 14, which is a wetland alteration permit if required. $o that's page 5(6). On page 8, 7-45, item B talks about hours of operation. I think there should be something in there that indicates that the hours of operation cannot exceed the development contract hours we have as a standard in those development contracts and that according to ~pple Valley, I like something that they had in there. I forget what the distance was but if you were within a certain distance of a residential development, you could only operate Monday thru Friday. I think there's a lot of merit in controlling mine operations that are close to residential areas. Then page 9, item I which is the dust control. How do we keep the City streets clean. I think we car, simply that one greatly by simply saying that the owner/ operator of the extraction will be responsible for maintaining clean public streets. So if they choose to do that by asphalting an interior drive or wash system or whatever, it's just that they can't get mud or the equivalent on public streets. Let them decide. I think this is an awfully good idea overall. 8O City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I think we're probably a little more lenient than we should be but time will tell. I think it's a good ordinance and we should pass it. That's all I've got. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anybody else? Councilman Johnson: I noticed a minor oumbering problem here on page 4. After 13 they start over again with 12. Gary Warren: 14, 15, 16, 17. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure where that cut-off for adminstrative should be. It says may be approved adminstratively. It doesn't say they have to be approved admlnstratlvely. I would say something 11ke McGlynn's where the entlre project got approved by the Council but they probably moved 1,000 yards, if not a lot more than that. They moved a hill. Major subdivisions, at least Chart Vista, I'm not sure how many yards they moved. But looking at the ptle of dirt that's behlnd my house, I would say that was closlng in on lt. Those have also had tacit approval by the site plan and whatever approval we've already done. When they actually come for the earth work permits, do we want to see that again? Roger Knutson: A quick comment. If someone comes in for the subdivision, you approve, Council approves the grading plan. That's part of the process so they're exempt from thls process. 7-33. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. I still, I'm not sure where. I'm not sure if 50 yards is rlght. 100 yards. 1,000, gut feellng is it sounds pretty big. 1,000 cubic yards is a lot of dirt. I can't think of a whole lot of instances where staff would I thlnk feel real comfortable about approving 1,000 or somebody coming at 9gg. Prove to me you're going to hit it that accurately and you're not golng to do 1,001. I just don't know where the cut-off should be. There's not that much going on right now for me to compare that to. The current staff, I trust them pretty well if they have a bad feeling about tt, it's going to come before us anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any more Jay? Councilman Johnson: I think it's a good thing for the City. A little overdue. Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor I have a comment. I like the ordinance but just on page 7, under Section 7-41 where it says Agreement, Irrevocable Letter of Credlt. If you go down to the end of 11ne 6, startlng wlth the word "the" and then line 7 says, the agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the Clty in the amount of the cost of complying with the agreement as determined by the Clty Council. The adequacy of the letter of credit shall be revlewed annually by the City and the Clty Englneer may direct the amount of the letter of credit. Well it goes on. My question is, I want to make sure that that ls enough to cover the cost and I wonder if Gary, if you have a formula that you go by to set that cost. Gary Warren: Basically we make a calculation on the amount of material that's being moved and apply our unit cost from our current bidding climate I guess to 81 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 come up with the dollar amount for restoring the site or replacing erosion control or...individually looked at. I guess we haven't had an example because we haven't walked this permit through. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And you're going to up that letter of credit every year? Is that what you're saying? I guess I don't quite understand. Gary Warren: Well this provides us with the opportunity to do that if appropriate. I think that's a good clause for us to review the letter of credits. Normally we do that annually as they're scheduled for either releasing or renewal. We take a look at it but typically when a developer does uork or a private individual, uhatever the case may be, the letter of credit lags behind the work that's been done. In other words, ue get a $10,000.00 letter of credit. The minute that he starts doing work on the site and such, putting erosion control fence up or whatever, we're sort of ahead of the game such that ue're normally in a position where we have more security in force than typically is necessary. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, are we going to know in advance how much work they're going to be doing that year and how much restoration costs would be for that work and then can you take 110%? Gary Warren: Basically with each application permit here we would be looking at each one individually and establishing the security amount. If they happen to have several of these and still are below the criteria that's established for the max, that letter of credlt can be bumped each tlme. They could have one overriding letter of credlt per appiicant let's say. Councilwoman Dimler: Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom, do you have anything? Councilman Workman: Not at thls polnt. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I went through some of these things and I just have a couple questions. On page 4, 1rem 11. Travel routes to and from the site. It's good to know what the travel routes are from each location to and from but do you think it would be adviseable to have numbers of trucks as well? Knowing what flow of traffic is there. On page 6 on 7-39 I assume that that's strlctly a hold harmless clause for us. Roger? Roger Knutson: 7-39, that's correct yes. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. On 7-46. I'm not sure the word rehabilitation standards should be as such. Should it be rather than rehabilitation, restoration standards through a lot of those given areas because it ls restoration of uhat's existing rather than rehabilitation. I guess those were the only comments that I had. councilman Johnson: Does that apply back to item 13... Mayor Chmiel: It should apply through the balance of the areas where rehabilitation is. 82 City Council Heeting - ~prtl 23, 1990 Councilman 3ohnson: All the way back to definitions. Hayor Chmiel: Even under definitions. Councilman Boyt: What do ue have on erosion controls Gary? It seems to me I read it but I can't find it. Councilwoman Dimler: It's in there. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was in here somewhere. Councilman Johnson: There's something on the bottom of 8, 7-45(d) that kind of talked about it but. Roger Knutson: In 7-35(B,12) they have to start off by giving you in their application how they control eroslon. Councilman Boyt: There is part of this is when you establish any kind of loose dirt pile, we should be doing something to. That should be part of thelr erosion control plan. Gary Warren: 7-34(A). Is that what you referenced Roger? Roger Knutson: I was looking at 7-35(B,12). Hayor Chmiel: Well we already have erosion control standards within the ordinance requirement and Z thlnk 7-34 covers it there under 1rem A. Roger Knutson: 7-34 does not require a permit. Even if you don't require a permlt, you still have to comply with these thlngs. Councilman Johnson: Just looking at N-12, that says water erosion control. Is that trying to differentiating from alt erosion control or is thls... Councilwoman Oimler: Where are you? Councilman Johnson: Page 4, item 12 up there. Would that be soil erosion control? Councilman Boyt: Why don't we strlke water? Councilman Johnson: Or just say erosion control. Good idea. Councilman Boyt: We don't have anything right now controlling stockpiles of dirt. Occasionally we'll put it into a development contract but it's pretty 11kely ina mlning slte that you're golng to stockpile items. Is that going to come in under 12 Gary? Plan for erosion control sedimentation. Gary Warren: 12 is very broad I would say in scope. It could come under there. If you wanted to point that out. Councilman Boyt: Where would we put it? 83 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: You could add it right in there I suppose. Jo Ann Olsen: That's information that has to be provided. Maybe you should have another section. Kind of saylng what's in 7-34(A). Councilman 8oyt: This is kind of a first reading? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We'll have another opportunity yet. Councilman Boyt: So you can take these notes and work magic on them? Gary Warren: I think it could be added to page 3, item 4. B(4)(a) where you talk about specifications of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys and then you say a proposed gradlng plan and you could say whlch enumerates proposed stockpile sites. Councilman Boyt: Does that make sense to you to include that? We have not, as I gather, we haven't resolved how much staff is going to get to approve without bringlng it to us. I've sald 100 cubl¢ yards. Maybe that's too small. Councilman Johnson: What do the other ordinances say? Apple Valley, etc. Gary Warren: 5. Councilman Johnson: 5 yards? Gary Warren: 100 cubic feet. If they're doing anything below 100 cubic feet, they don't need a permit. Councilman Johnson: I've almost done that in my backyard. Gary Warren: A child playing irt a sandbox could be a violation. Councilman Workman: Shouldn't that include something to do with I guess what we're talking about is it won't have to go to the approval of the Counc11. We're talking about them that would have to have a public notice published. Isn't that what we're getting at? That would happen anyway right when it came to us? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Workman: So it would have to go to the Planning Commission first and probably become a public hearing there? Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Boyt: What I want to avoid is, I don't want Dick Vogel calling me up saylng do you know what they're doing over here? Mayor Chmiel' Dick wouldn't do that. Councilman Boyt: And I don't have the slightest idea because we've never heard about lt. Now there's a certaln slze hole in whlch we'd hear about lt. I'm not 84 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 sure what that is but I know 1,000 is too big. I've got a problem then. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There might be a point. Jo Ann Olsen: Are you also saying that under Exemptions on page 2 that that should be 50? Exemption from any permit, nothing more than 50? Are you saying there at 100 is too much? Councilman Workman: Are you talking about E? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, E. Because you've kind of discussed E on that page and then you've also brought in A under 7-35 on the next page. Councilman Boyt: I think 50 is, I can live with no permit under 50. We're just talking about a couple basements. Jo Ann Olsen: Okay, so you want to change 1007 Councilman Boyt: I'm talking for myself. Councilman Johnson: As I look at this, another thought just came up. It says if we're going to excavate less than 100 cubic yards, you're exempt from a permit. I'm sure there's people out there who would construe that to mean that oh, I'm excavating less than 100 cubic yards so I don't need a wetland alteration permit. At the top could we say exemptions from earth work permit or whatever the permit is rather than just permit requirements because we've got so darn many kinds of permits, we're specifically. I know this ordinance specifically only talks about earth work permits. Jo Ann 01sen: We do address on the next page. We say exempt earth work and then we say it has to comply with City's erosion control and maintain natural existing dralnage and comply wlth other ordinances so it's brought out separately there I think almost better. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can go to something like from 50 to 500? That's 10 basements. That's a big hill. Mayor Chmiel: I think rather than to continue this, I think we should... Councilman Boyt: I'm just trying to give staff a sense of where to do with the thing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll have a little better idea and then maybe we can get a l£ttle bit better information on that as well. Councilman Boyt: You guys can do what you want with it. You'll pass it while I'm gone. Mayor Chmlel: There you go. Any further discussions? Anybody want to say anything? Mike Dwyer: I'm Mike Dwyer. I represent Moon Valley. Just a couple of things with respect to the wording of this ordinance. We were in attendance at the 85 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Planning Commission meetings in March and April and I think if you review the motions that were made, that passed this onto you, it was the intent of the Planning Commission that there be some other language than what is reflected in the materials you received. The one that is pertinent to my client's position is Section 7-41. There was a discussion at the Planning Commission by Commissioner 8atzli I believe indicating that they felt it appropriate that there be a public hearlng before the Clty were to draw down on any letter of credit. That as I read the Minutes and understood the motions that was made was carried. Mayor Chmlel: That's strictly a recommendation. We can change what we want. Mike Owyer: I understand that. The point is that you don't have that even on here. I thlnk lt's a good ldea for due process reasons but I didn't see it in here in the flrst place. Councilman Johnson: Public hearing before draw down a letter of credlt? Mike Owyer: Excuse me. Councilman Johnson: You're saying a publlc hearing before the draw down of a letter of credit? Mike Dwyer: I'm repeating what one of your commissioners said, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: I don't fully agree with that myself. Mike Dwyer: And we'd just like to repeat what we have said at the Planning Commission. That we thlnk this is an inappropriate ordinance because it's drafted, in our opinion I think towards Moon Valley as evidenced by the fact that the City already has an ordinance that's very similar to this and has had it on the books slnce 1986. Late 1985. The main difference belng that you, through a clause here, you capture the grandfathered entity of Moon Valley. We belleve lt's discriminatory agalnst Moon Valley in that sense. We also think it's lmproper for you to try to apply land use laws to a non-conforming land use. Moon Valley ls wllllng to work with the Clty in terms of lt's legitimate safety needs. Indeed there are some fencing problems out there, fine. Until thls matter was ralsed in December of 1989, the Clty had never approached Moon Valley in terms of needing fences. Never approached Moon Valley in terms of needlng a trap or paved roads. If the Clty has legitimate safety problems, Moon Valley will comply with them. 8ut in terms of responding to zoning laws, we thlnk that's inappropriate for an operation that's been there for a long, long time. We do object to the letter of credlt. We think that the fact that that land is there, Mr. Zwier's intentions to develop that land in residential lots down the road, the land is security enough. I don't think the City needs an expensive, very expensive LC to backstop those intentions. The cost to the only existing substantial significant mining operation in the City of Chanhassen is going to be substantial to comply ulth thls. To apply for the permit process along is going to be about $35,000.00. To put up 6 foot cyclone fence is going to be $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 depending upon how aggressive the City is in terms of that fence. The paving of 300 feet of roads, that could be another $50,000.00. That's significant money. We've heard a lot about thls Council's sensitivity to costs being assessed to residents and other landowners. That's a 86 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 significant cost to this landowner. These are arguments that if you pass this ordinance you'll be hearing again from us through the permit process but I think it's an over reaching ordinance and it's one that I'd recommend you not pass. The City hasn't demonstrated a need for it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Dick ¥ogel: I just think between 7-41 and 7-46, a letter of credit should be substantial to take care of whatever the rehabilitation standards for whatever project are done so that the contractor will perform what he says he's going to do in the rehabilitation standards. I'd like to see the setbacks from adjoining property owners enforced. I think that's an important part of the ordinance. And also 7-43, screen off site views. You know I guess that's something that should be looked at. I think one of the commissioners said, maybe there are no homes around, that isn't too important but if there are homes around, I think that's something that should be kept in the ordinance. I guess that's mainly what I have to say. Thank you. Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. Just across the hill from the Moon Valley operation. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can. I have a number of points I'd like to bring up. Maybe they are worth discussion, I don't know. Number 7-32, the permit required as to the portion in here that says active earth work operations that predate this Article that do not have a permit shall obtain an Earth Work Permit within 6 months after the adoption of this chapter. I guess I would like to know why does that have to be 6 months? Why such a long period? Mayor Chmiel: Roger, do you want to address that? Roger Knutson: We felt it's fair to give existing uses some time to put together a plan to comply wlth this and to go through the process. Once they put together a plan they might have to hire consultants, and I'm sure they will. They'll have to come ln. Flll out the application forms. Go through the hearing process. Planning Commission up to here. We just wanted to give them, we dldn't want to cramp them. Terry Beauchane: Does this mean then that the existing operations are not covered by any ordinance or they're covered by the prevlous ordinance and so on? In other words, the operation as it has been rather than as it will be under thls ordinance? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Terry Beauchane: So there would be no restrictions pertaining to this ordinance then? I guess I would like to make a comment also too about the letter of credlt and bond as referred to in this proposed ordinance. I'm 100~ in favor of it and I think it ought to be probably even more substantial than what has been discussed here tonight just because of the possibility of thls land turnlng lnto city property and the taxpayers end up footing the btll to do something with it after the operaters of thls land are already done. On item 7-44, number E. It talks about appropriate to screen off site views. I guess I'm not clear. Site views from who or, I don't qulte understand that. 87 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to, or Roger. 7-44. Terry Beauchane: 7-44(E). Jo Ann Olsen: What we're trying to do there is like some of those bluff areas that would be impossible to totally screen the views from all directions and so ue changed that so that staff can look at the actual situation and determine exactly what is necessary. Terry Beauchane: Well is that section primarily for the homeowners in the area or that type of thing? What I'm gettlng at, I don't know if any of you have ever looked at the Moon Valley operation from Shakopee. From across the river. I mear, it's a God awful sight and it does, ?-44(E), would that cover that type of thing? Councilman Boyt: Can't. Jo Ann Olsen: It'd be impossible. Councilman Johnson: That's like trying to screen the roof of a shopping center from the people that 1lye on the hill above lt. It's impossible to do. Terry Beauchane: That's why I'm asking the question. I'm trying to determine what exactly he was... Councilman Johnson: ...practical to give some flexibility. Hayor Chmiel: Terry, maybe I could make a suggestion. If you have a lot of questions in regard to what's here, maybe it might be a good idea to dlscuss thls wlth Jo Ann. This is going to be the first reading. Terry Beauchane: okay. Am I understanding that this proposed ordinance is not golng to be voted upon or approved tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Not today. This is the first reading. We have another reading before that. $o maybe if you have speciflc questions from staff, you can ask those and then come back to the next meeting with those that are not answered, maybe we can do that at that time. Terry Beauchane: Okay. That'd be fine. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: If that's alright with you. Terry Beauchane: Yep. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else that has a quick one? Ouick question. If not. Councilman Johnson: I just noticed something I didn't notice before. I hate to do this at thls time in the mornlng. 7-44(G). Weeds shall be eradicated. In some areas weeds are the natural habltat and. Mayor Chmiel: Eliminates erosion. 88 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: What's a weed? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I mean what's a weed? Mayor Chmiel: Ask the weed inspector. Councilman Johnson: That's right Mr. Mayor, as the City's weed inspector, you'd be real busy. Anyway, take a look at that. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Mayor Chmiel: If not hearing any other discussions on this, can I entertain a motion? Councilman Boyt: I move approval of the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Article IV, Conditional Use Permits and Article XVII, Excavating, Mlning and Fllling and Gradlng Activities. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman 3ohnson seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Article IV, Conditional Use Permits and Article XUII, Excavating, Hining and Filling and Grading Activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: NOHINATIONS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ASS~IATION OF METROPOLITAN ML~(ICIPALITIE5, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: We received this communication from the Association requesting nominations for Board of 01rectors and the Board duties as you see are as such. My suggestion was at the time that it also ls directed to managers, that what I'd like to do is have Mr. Ashworth submit his name, even though they're to be flled by the 20th and this belng the 23rd. To serve on this Board of 01rectors. Don Ashworth: It was sent in today. It's a very distinquished position so I'm not holding my breath but I did send it in. The orlglnal translt board though on the back side is still open and anyone who would like to sign up for that. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. RTB. Don Ashworth: I think I got them to hold it open until after tonight's meeting. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you get a hold of Gloria Don? I talked to Gloria on the 20th and she mentioned that to me and I told her that I'd like to have an application. Dld she lndlcate she was going to send in one. Councilman Johnson: Gloria who? Councilwoman Oimler: Vierling. Councilman Workman: What's she got to do with RTB? 89 City Council Meeting - ~pril 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: What's she got to do with RTB? She's MWCC. Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say that if there isn't anybody that wal)ted to, I wou].d do that as well or try to. Flnd out what it ls. Don Ashuorth: If you've got anything short. I faxed my over to the League here today. Maybe you and I can talk tomorrow and I'm not sure, Ursula if you had wanted to pursue that one as well or not? Councilman Johnson: She's on the Southwest Hetro Transit Board. I know that... Councilwoman Oimler: I saw it as a progression, yeah. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. One of our members of the Southwest Hetro used to be on the RTB and boy does she come up wlth a whole lot of good information she galned her knOw]ledge of federal and everything. It'd be a good experience for you. Councilman Workman: I will say that, if you recall the NWCC commission, which basically applied for and never heard back. I was there the day with Tom Chaffee and Tom Chaffee suggested yeah, maybe he'd be interested. Tom Chaffee's now on that thlng and I am not and I never heard back from those guys. I suspect my polltlcs weren't in the rlght corner. Councilman Johnson: Hey, I applied for it too Tom. Councilman Workman: Tom Chaffeeo somebody tapped hlm on the shoulder that morning and said what do you think and he said, sure. The next thing you know, he was in. Councilman Boyt: Can we keep this hummer moving? We may finish at 1:00. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE WRAPUP SESSIONS AND ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN DULUTH, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilnlar, Workman: I brought this up to staff just simply to say interested in going. I will be in Duluth that week anyway so I'm looking at the wrong thing. That's the annual conference. I'm golng to be up there anyway. I would like to also attend the legislative wrapup session to find out how in fact we've been stuck. Z don't know that that needs approval or whatever. Councilwoman Oimler: Is there a cost involved? Councilman Johnson: Usually Don asks us if we want to go to this every year. Council. man Workman: The annual? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the annual Minnesota one. I've always had a conflict. This is the first year I don't have a conflict. I hope I have a conflict by then. 9O City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Haybe we can discuss that. I'd like to also on these other items that we have here, I don't know if they're real crucial to discuss this evening. Maybe we could talk this Monday nlght at our next Council meeting. Councilman Boyt: Mine are really quick if I could. Councilman Johnson: My first one is super quick. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then let's do it. Talk fast. Jay? Councilman Johnson: Silt fences. Inspect them puppies. I saw a bunch of them ripped down this weekend. Just that fast. And some, a constituent who was talking to me about dogs in parks. Mayor Chmiel: That's not part of this. Councilman Johnson: I know but from there it got into a community garden because she 1lyes in a quad and has no place to garden and we're talking about maybe looklng lnto the possibility of establishing a community garden 11ke Minnetonka and Hopkins and a few other places have. Where people who don't have any yard can establish a garden. It's something I'd like staff to look at sometime in the future. It's not a high priority. Mayor Chmiel: 0il recycling. Bill. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would like staff to come back in the next 3-4 months with an ordinance on recycling oil. Two points. Thls past week Channel 2 has broadcast several times a program on ground water in Minnesota. Among other things they said 40~ of ground water pollution ls caused by oil that's not recycled. 0il that's put into landfills. That in Minnesota alone there's 2 m1111on gallons a year of used motor oil generated. Mayor Chmiel: That's going to be mandated now with regulations with motor oil. Councilman Boyt: Well I would like to see us out in front on that issue. Councilman Workman: I will say something in relation to that quickly. Over at the SA over on TH 7 and TH 41 where they do have a reoycllng.receptacle. don't know if you're familiar with it. It's in the ground. It's over on one side of the parking lot and you've got to go over and lift up this greasy lid and take off thls greasy cover and put it all back ln. It's user friendly for nobody and it's, I don't know that lt's, I thlnk we need to have user friendly in there somehow because I mean I do it before work. I'm in a tie and I'm getting gas in the morning and I'm going to dump some oll in there. That's it. It's pretty much... Councilman Johnson: Kind of like Sinclair's too. His is real oily. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but at least they've got one. $o is there general consensus that we could be do thls? Councilman Johnson: The County is also looking at this. We're discussing it at the Solld Waste Advisory Committee and the County's trying to put something City Council Heeting - April 23, 1990 together on used oil too and we can work with them. Yeah, they have to by law. Mayor Chmiel: By law they're required, Mandated to. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Next point. This is real quick. Take the flag down off the Fire Station and don't put it back up. It's not legal. You can't fly a flag that's tattered. You can't fly a flag that's been cut off and so, the City can certainly afford to put a flag up at the Fire Station and here at the City Hall that meet all the requirements you're supposed to have for a flag. It's disappointing to see that flag up there too short and all tattered. So I'd like to have it taken down until we get the right kind and put it up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Board of Adjustments. Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustments, and this is directed at staff. We need to have some sort of a rule or idea or suggestion. I think Willard brought this up before. He brought it up to me earller. These people are gettlng, the Board of Adjustments commissioners. Are they commissioners? The Board of Adjusters, the adjusters are gettlng notlce Frlday nlght and sometimes Monday. That has happened on an occasion? Jo AT]r, Olsen: Their packet is sent out the same time the Council packet is but ul~at we have been trying to do is whenever we send out public hearing notices to the applicants, to also send those to the Board of Adjustments and sometimes Vlcky doesn't get that out. Councilman Workman: Well it hasn't happened. Willard was supposed to go on vacation. He didn't know that there was one coming up. He cancelled. 3o Ann Olsen: Yeah, I brought it up agaln and I can only keep reminding her to do it. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I don't know if we need to get it listed in some rules of the Council or how but it's getting some people anxious and I promised that I would at 12:30 in the morning bring it up. Crossroads Bank, I wasn't at the last HRA meeting. I did talk to Tom Mork, the President about where is the Crossroads Bank and he just klnd of named one of these. I'm wondering where we're at wlth the Crossroads Bank. Don Ashworth: They're still trylng to get their charter. Most of it goes back to the concern on the Federal level with the number of S & L closings that have occurred nationwide and general statements that thls country needs to take and have tighter controls for banks and before new banks are started, and that's created more bureacracy which has made it harder and harder to start. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheinl 92