Loading...
1990 01 22CHANHASS~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 1990 Mayor Chniel called the ~eeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. ~ne meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL Mf~BERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, CoL~cilw~man Dim]er and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Jim. Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AG~ADA: CounciLman Johnson moved, Gouncilwc~an Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the followirg additions to Council Presentations: councilman Johnson wanted to discuss pooper scoopers, Councilwoman Dimler wanted to review the interview process for c~,issions and councilman Boyt wanted to dis~s recycling costs and Hospitality ~lites Hotel. Ail voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the ~tion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ch~iel drew a name for the recycling prize. CONSENT AGESDA: councilw(xman Dimler moved, councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda it~%s pursuant to the City Manager's recom~_ndations: b. Resolution #90-6: ;~lthorize Preparation of an Updated Feasibility Sb~]y for the Section of Go~mty Road 17 from TH 5 to the Lake Drive West intersection j~t south of Purgatory Creek. c. Resolution %90-7: A~thorize Preparation of Feasibility. Study for Phase II-A of the Downtown Bedeveloi~nt-Oountry Suites Hotel Site Improvements. d. Resolution %90-8: Authorize Feasibility. Shady ~emdme~t for Extension of Dell Road South of Lake Drive East (DataServ Property). e. Approve Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids for Test Well and Optional C~servation Well Construction for Well No. 5, South Lotus Lake. f. Ordinance Amendment Re~iring a Oertificate of Occupancy. on Single Family Homes, Second Reading. g. Approve Agr~-~ent Terminating Minnegasco's Oontract with H%FTA. i. Approval of Accounts. j. City Co,~cil Minutes dated January 9, 1990 as av~nded to correct the spellin~ of Dan Dahlin's name. Planning Cc~v, ission Minutes dated January 3, 1990 k. Resolution %90-9: Approve 1990 Budget Resolution. 1. Resolution %90-10: ~lthorize Preparation of F~dification to TIF District No. 2 Econ~,ic Development Plan. City Council ~k=eting - Jan[~ry 22, 1990 m. Resolution 990-11: Approval of Resolution RecAlestlng a Ti~ Exte~slon from the Metropolitan Oouncil to allow the City to ccmplete revisions to the Cc~.~rehensive Plan due to an Amendment to the M~tropolitan System Plan. n. Resolution 990-12: Resolution in Support of the City's Grant Application to Metropolitan Council to acquire recycling bins. Ail voted in favor and the F~tion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Terry Beauchane: My na~ is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Clo~ Drive or it's the saF~ as Highway 169/212. I have 3 items and I don't know if I'm appropriate here about bringing [~ the Moon Valley issue which I was here about a month ago. Mayor Ch~iel: We have that on the agenda as it~ 7. Terry Beauchane: So that will be bro~.ght up at that time? Mayor Ck~;iel: Right. Terry Beauchane: Okay. The second it~, I brought ~ again a F~)nth ago at the Council ~=eting was the disposition of the Tri-Y Drive In restaurant. The burned out Tri-Y and I've not seen anything on the Council agenda or heard anything about what's going on with that. Mayor Chmlel: I think staff has been reviewing that and as .vet have not co~ back with rec(m~endations. But they're in process of looking at that. Don Ashworth: Do you know, Jim, will c~]ickly be able to respond to that item? Jim Chaffee: I do not know. Right after the last Co~mcil meeting that it was brought ~ by...Scott Hart to look into it and I have not heard back from him. Mayor Ch~.iel: Would you have the~, follow ~%9 on that to c(~ up with a conclusion? I'm not sire as to what our ordinance specifically spells out. That there is a certain portion of that building burned and not rebuildable, then that should be leveled. Terry Beauchane: I guess I'd just like to c(x~ent on that. That structure has been that way for probably 6-8 months or longer. The third iteT, I'd like to just get on the record and it concerns TH 169 and indirectly or directly, depending upon howyou look at it, Moon Valley. ~ne proposed, and I understand it's cc~,ing ,~ at a planning session for additional storage sheds on TH 169 and in general any and all other development that is going on down at that stretch of the highway. I don't know if you folks are aware of the traffic proble~ down there. Everyone is aware of the traffic congestion and the a~unt of traffic that that road generates, especially in the su~ertime when w~ get t_he racetrack going. When we get the parks going down the other side of Shakopee and then of course ~x)n Valley gets in operation with their big du~ trucks and all the rest of it. I wo~ld sc~Lehow like to see sc~,ebody do sc~thing about that traffic probl~, and not continue ~]tting ~re and more turn in type traffic on City Co,.~cil Meeting - Jan~u~ry 22~ 1990 that highway. I've contacted the Department of Transportation in the past~ They have said nothing. I've contacted the Sheriff's Department. The Highway Patrol. Still nothing and people k~_--p getting killed down there. Literally killed. My. daughter was in an accident last .~ar. My. neighbor was in an accident. He almost got killed. Last year my mailman literally got run over fr~. the backend by. a cs~nt block truck that ~s waiting to turn in to Moon Valley. That's how bad it's getting down there but nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. I guess I look at the City (k)uncil as being the first course of action. C~viously you may not have direct power over the State of Minnesota and their state highways but you certainly have ~mough power over allowing more develol~aent, more structures and more traffic. Congesting that highway down there. We literally take our lives in our hands when w~ have to turn into our own driveway to get off that highway, and I mean literally. don't want my kids to be killed nor does anybody else down in that area and I think if any of you people have ever driven that highway down there during rush hoLtr, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Mayor Ch%iel: I've driven it. Many times. Terry Bea~hane: And I w~uld welcome anybody to come down there and sit on that stretch of highway for a 12 hour period during rush hour and see what's going on. Like I said, this is an indirect consequence of like the Foon Valley operation. The sheds and now additional sheds are going to be put up there, storage sheds, which is just going to complicate the probl~ much more than it already, is and nobody, seems to want to do anything about it. Councilman Johnson: You keep m~ntioning the additional sheds. Would you fill m~ in on this? Terry BeaL~hane: There is a proposal c~ming up in front of the Planning C~dssion I believe next ~sday possibly, unless it gets postponed again. Next Wednesday. Paul K~a~ms: Yeah, Mike Sorenson had approval to construct a single cold storage warehouse down there. Although it wasn't clear... Mayor Ch~,iel: Located where? Paul EXa~s: Off of TH 169 in the BF district. Terry Beauchane: Directly across fr~, SuperA~_rica gas station. Pa, il Krauss: Up on the hill there. It was a heavily wooded site and basically there's no trees left on it now. There's one building. It was really designed for Ltlti~ately 4 buildings. We have s~me issues with the proposal w~'ve ~ working on with him but h~'s going to apply for 3 additional buildings identical to the first one on that sa~e site. Councilman Johnson: In reviewing this, will you check to ~ake sure that those ~ildings are being used only as cold storage and not as office facilities. Paul Krauss: Well we've ~n involved with that since last September Councilman Johnson. There are scme anc~alies there. It's not being used as an office. It's being ~ed as storage but it's heated which may or may not be... City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 CounciL~mn Johnson: Are they doing ~mintenance inside of it? Paul K~auss: No. One is ~med for a pl~bing storage. The other is for seaplane equi~_nt and there's an electrical contractor and a concrete contractor there. To F~et building code and the needs of their tenants, they heated it and to meet the building code, they also put in a bathroom. Both of which w~ren't anticipated at the ti~-~ the thing was approved but were authorized at some point after that. Council~mn Johnson: But there is nobody there all day? Paul Krauss: No. Not to the best of my knowledge. Don Ashworth: Paul, are they not also looking at the general BF district. Talking about the Planning Cc~nisston. Where is that in that process? Paul Krauss: That hasn' t been real active right now but the Planning C(m~ission in the past has asked to look at the possibility of eliminating the BF district and reverting that area to agricultural zoning. We're having a discussion with the Planning C(m.~,ission on things they'd like ~m to do during the coming year at the next F~eting. i'nat's being disc~msed as one of the It~ that the Planning Cc~nission wants to look at. Terry Beauchane: Why don't any of these disc~msions and plans and so on ever involve the traffic down there? That's what I don't understand. Councilsmn Johnson: We don't have a lot of jurisdiction over it. Terry Beauchane: Somebody should have jurisdiction over sc~body getting murdered on the highway. Counci]mmn Johnson: One thing that is going on right now, there are several things going on. Terry Beauchane: There are too many things going on is what the problsm is. Councilman Johnson: Tc~ is on the Southwest Metro Transportation Group. Council~mn Workn. mn: Something like that. Councilman Johnson: Sc~thing like that but you know we're working very hard on getting TH 212 taken off of there to where it's only Highway 169. Terry Beauchane: I understand all that but what happens in the meantime? That's the question. What happens between now and 10 years from now while we're waiting for the new TH 2127 Council~n Johnson: You're going to see Fore traffic. Terry Beauchane: We' re going to see more deaths. We' re going to see more people dead. One of them might be my kid. ;~hat happens in the ~antime? Co~ncil~n Johnson: Do you have any suggestions on what we can do? City Oo,~ncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 Terry Beauchane: Yeah. Stop ~re building down there. Stop the trucks] Councilman Johnson: Stop the trucks. Terry Beauchane: Stop the trucks. You put the storage shed across fr~m Super ~erica. The people cc~ing into that storage shed, a lot of then are coming frc~, Chanhassen-Shakopee and they have to make a left hand turn across the highway which splits into two lanes right there. Now if you want to know how many accidents they have down there, go down and talk to the attendants at Super k~erica. They have better statistics than the State Highway Department does. You ~mnt to know how many accidents are caused by. the Moon Valley, the big trucks c~ing out of there, they go north so they're going across traffic at about 5 mph and you've got cars zipping up that highway at 65 mph. Whether they're supposed to be going that fast or not is ir~aterial. Mayor Chniel: Are there any signs in and adjacen to there in relation to trucks hauling? Terry Bea~hane: There is nothing there. I even suggested to the Highway Deparh~ent, when they rebuilt a culvert underneath the high~ay right in front of our driveway. ~hen they rebuilt that, I suggested that they put in right hand t,.%rn lanes, passing lanes to get around while we have to stop to get into our driveway. They wouldn' t do it. I then suggested the stretch of high~ay from SuperA~erica L~ to our driveway, that they. at least paint a no pass yellow line down that whole little piece of highway. 3/10th's of a m/le. They wouldn't do it. I even offered to pain the damn thing myself if they'd give me the paint. That's how much attention we get down there. Now we're not going to get it fr~, the State obviously. The Gounty, they could care less. I've never even seen anybody from the County down there. You people are my last resort. How many people have to get killed? Mayor Ch%iel: Let us look into this a little F~re in detail and come up with s~ conclLmions and see what can be done. Councilwoman Dimler: If I could ~ake a cc~x~emt about stopping the trucks? itmt sounds like a good idea but personally all the trucks that cc~e from South Dakota and you know where the grain terminals are in Savage there? Terry. Beauchane: Yep. Co,~cilw~an Dimler: There are 4 or 5 of th~ down there. There is no way that they can get across any other way than to go TH 169 and across the river. You would really...they have no way to get to ~arket. Terry. Beauchane: I understand that. The direct traffic on tl~ highway, that's a big enough problem ~lt now you people are allowing more construction and more activity, on that highway where you have cross traffic across the highway. That's creating even more of a problem. That you do have a control over. Mayor Chniel: That's something as I say, Don maybe can make a stat~.~ent. Don Ashworth: Again, it sounds like the primary issue is the additional storage City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 sheds and that is coming up to the Planning Commission. You should make your presentations to them. After the Planning Commission acts, it will c(m~ back to City Council. You'll be discussing that at a future date. You may wish to ask the City, Attorney bet~ then and now to provide an opinion as to your ability to deny those storage sheds based on potential increases of traffic that it Fey generate. I have sc~e real questions as to whether or not we can do that but I think Roger should respond to that question when the it~ comes back to City Co~nci 1. Terry Beauchane: But the same holds true for Moon Valley and then any other potential construction or rezoning that may go on down on that stretch of highway. It's not just the shed. Don Ashworth: I agree and later on we'll be talking about Moon Valley and you Fey wish to speak again at that ti~e. CouncilF~n Boyt: We certainly have the ability to, w~ Fey not be able to turn down the request to expand but w~ can certainly put conditions on it that will do more to guarantee traffic safety just like wa did at TH 41 and TH 7. Just like we've done on a number of other times. Councilwomen Dimler: You F~an with signs? Councilman Boyt: No. Building turn lanes. Putting no cross dividers. We can work with the State to do a lot of things along there. Terry Beauchane: Or slowing down the speed limit. ~tting in no passing zones. Councilman Johnson: No left turns. Terry Beauchane: Thank you. Mayor Ch~,iel: Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to make a presentation to the Council? PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION, REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT CONTAINING A DOUBLE BUNGAL(~ INTO TWO SEPARATE ~ LOTS, 7611 AND 7613 IROQUOIS, ANITA THOMPSON. Public Present: Kevin Velgersdike Address 7610 Iroquois Paul Krauss: The applicant is requesting approval to divide the existing lot in half. The lot contains at the present time a duplex hc~ which would be divided down the party wall. City Code requires that the Council approve metes and bounds divisions which this is. We think there are two issues with this proposal. ~ first is that the lot does not meet the 20,000 square foot minimum area now does it F~et or do the individual lots _F~ct the 50 foot frontage that are recruited for duplex hca. es. In fact duplex h(m~s are allowed City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 in the R-4 district and this is an RSF zoning. Basically ~at ~u have there is a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. We believe that the City Oo,~cil could however approve the metes and bounds division by finding that while the existing dwelling and lot are non-conforming, that the proposed action does not really intensify, the use and that's what we believe to be the case. Fundamentally there's a duplex on the property now. There w~uld continue to be tw~ dwelling units on in the future. They would just be divided. We believe that this interpretation could be applied if .~x~u choose to do so since the lot existed prior to the date of enactr~ent of the ordinance. We also note that - the~e axe similar hc~es and lots, duplex hc~=s and what not, in this area so there's a standard if you will for non-conform,lng situations. If the Council believes that their request should be considered as an intensification of a non-conforming use, their request could be resu]~ttted back through the Planning C~v~.~ission and further evaluated. Staff has discussed this proposal with the Public Safety Department and they're raising a new issue that's not in the report. They'd like the hc~e or they. want t/~ h(x~e to be brought up to Code for duplex dwellings which requires fire rated walls and what not inbetw~en separate services. They've asked that we not allow, that we authorize approval of the plat if you choose to do so but that we authorize ourselves not to file it until they've improved the property and have had an approved inspection fr~m Public Safety. So we're rec~x~ding that that be added as condition 4 but we axe r~nding that it be approved. Mayor (~iel: Thank y~u. Is Anita Thc~pson here? Is there anyone representing her? Is there anyone in opposition of the proposal that would like to address it? Please step up and state .~x)ur name and your address please. Kevin Velgersdike: Kevin Velgersdike, 761M Iroquois. Just ~ points. One, I'm not aware of any other similar double bungalows on the street of Iroquois in that axea. ~valler lots. I believe the r~%aining hemes on that are single dwellings on Iroquois. My. other point is, of concern I guess .more, would be in subdividing these two, axe they. going to be two individual residences and if so, what is going to govern the maintenance of these two residences? My. main concern would be leaky, roof. If the one o~ner has to replace the roof, the other owner doesn't really want to spend the money.. ~m I going to be staring at a k~lilding with two different colored shingles at it. Painting and such so I gL~ss if the Council okays it, I would like to __~c some sort of an agrc~---~mt on maintenance on that property so that an agre~%ent to the fact that it's maintained consistently. There's no probl~v~. I've lived in townh~s and have always ~ m~m~bers of associations that regulate the grounds care, th~ building care and such so that would be my one concern. ~he ~hole idea, I don' t necessarily oppose as long as it's regulated. Mayor Ch~,iel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? As I said, this is a public hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caxried. The public bearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: Do you m~an to say that it currently doesn't m~t duplex standards? Paul Kra~s: No it doesn't. Duplex requires 2~,~ square feet and 5~ foot of City Council Meeting - January 221 1990 frontage~ Councilman Johnson: No, I mean the house itself. The Public Safety side of things or is it designated...twin home standards? I mean duplex and twin hc~s are two different things on the building codes I believe. Paul Krauss: Yeah. Excuse my use of the semantics but it does not currently ~et the requirenents for having two separate ownership~ on the same dwelling. It's ~ preliminarily reviewed by our building department and they're going to be looking for things like a fire rated wsll, which may mean the construction of a new interior walls. We're not sure but there would be a require%ent for two separate utility services and those sorts of things. In all likelihood we don't believe it's old enough that it probably does not. Councilm~n Johnson: Thank you. Councilm~n Workman: I guess in regards to sc~e of the req~lirements, I think Roger would agree that we can't make h~neowners paint their house or do a certain thing to their roof other than maybe putting buffalo chips on it or something. I have a good friend of mine in ~den Prairie who lives in a twin ho~ or a duplex, I'm not sure what the difference, is and he's a very, very picky fellow. In other words, keep things painted and neat and clean and mowed, shoveled and everything else. His neighbor isn't that way but he's attached. Half the time the owner was renting it to other people so he wasn't there and he didn't really care. ~lt my buddy while frustrated, never would have done half the house. Painted half the place a different color or put different shingling on or anything to offset the whole. As picky as he ~as, he wasn't going to do something like that and maybe there's people who wouldn't care but I don't think you'd well the place if it was half of a m~ss like that. That's certainly going to hurt your resale with what the next door neighbor does so I think they automatically end L~ working in tandem, but I don't think we can put covenants on that house to tell th~n how they have to do things. Roger K~utson: S~v~times you're surprised by what other people do but no one who was advised would ever buy half a twin hcme or a duplex unless there were party wall agre~v, ents in place. Lhless there are maintenance agree%ents in place and that sort of thing. Enforcing those is a private matter and sc~etimes they don't work. I can' t believe that someone would buy one of those things without having it in place so I'm ass~ing it will be there. Councilm~n Johnson: First tLm~ hc~e buyers would do a whole lot because they don't knowanybetter. Roger Knutson: ~lt if they hire a lawyer. Councilman Johnson: They don't enough to hire a lawyer. Roger Knutson: It is possible. Mayor Chv, iel: You're plugging for business Roger. Roger Knutson: It is possible. It is possible that it could happen but it sure would be foolhardy. City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilm~n Bo.ut: I would suggest, this is a rather interesting dilez~aa. On the one hand I agree with staff that this shouldn't have c~%e through as a request for a variance. I don't think I could have, I would have voted against it if it was, and will if it ~ a request for a variance. I think that this, it wasn't built to be a twin borne amd I think w~ stand to create a probl~ when we allow it to go under two owners instead of one. The things that w~'ve eluded to, the neighbor F~ntioned and in all reasonableness they shouldn't happen. But we sure put the opportunity, out there for it to happen. If it was designed and built as a twinhc~ it ~Duld have, one, ft would be up to Code but the other one is the way it would be laid out would provide a certain amount of insulation, in the trod hc~owners fr~ each other. So that on the one hand, that tells me that we really shouldn't do this. G~ at least I shouldn't vote for it. On the other hand, ye got the rights of somebody who owns a piece of property and a house and they're saying what I want to do is I want the opportunity, to sell this in two separate pieces. So that's what I see as the dile~,a and I'm not sure that I've worked out an answer yet. I'd be happy, to listen to what others have to say about it. I don't like either one of the~ I guess is what I'm saying. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my, I wish Anita were here because I'd like to ask her why and get a little bit F~)re insight as to what Pm.r particular situation is but my feeling right now is that I don't want to create any. potential problems which I can ~_-~c this would be, especially since it's surrounded by. single family. Mayor Ch~.iel: I guess basically that's a part of my concern. That being a single fav~ly residential area. To go into a twin hc~e sort of disrupts things to a certain portion within that specific area and how does. that really apply to the area in itself as far as the values on the hemes. What is that going to do for the residential single fas~[ly residential within the area? I guess I have some concerns about that. Gouncilmmn Johnson: It's an existing bu/lding though. Mayor Ch%iel: I know it is. Councilman Johnson: One thing I see of it to an advantage, the only advantage I see of it is now you're going to have half of it occupied by. an owner versus a renter. In general o~ners will take better care of their personal possession than a renter will take care of s~ebody elses personal possession. Mayor Ch%iel: Unless you get a good renter. Councilman Johnson: (h yeah. There's go~d renters. One of my 3 renters I once had when I was stuck with sc~e rental property unfortunately ~s good. Mayor Ch~del: 1 of 3. Councilman Johnson: 1 of 3. The other 2 still ow~ me money. Councilman Boyt: We certainly have no guarantee of it but it would see% as though, I think it's fairly cctv, on for people in this situation, for the owner to live in half of it and rent the other half. Councilman Johnson: That's what's happening now I believe. City Council Meeting - January 221 1990 Council~n Boyt: I think fret a maintenance standpoint and various other things, that's ideal. We have no way of guaranteeing that that would happen. They could conceiveably rent both halves out. Mayor Chmiel: I guess the concern as I've mentioned, it bothers me just a little. I know if I was located within an area and s(x%eone wished to do that to that particular building, I'd probably be a little leery about it because it does change the ccmplexity of the area. It's a hard judgment call. It really is. Councilman Johnson: Paul, have you met Mrs. ~ncmpson? Paul Krauss: No, I have not. Councilwoman Dimler: ...her half and own it and ,vet sell the other half off? Is that feasible? Mayor Chniel: That could possibly be. I'm not sure. Council~n Boyt: You ~ake an awfully good point when you say that this area isn't zoned for twin hc~s. councilman Johnson: It isn ' t zoned for duplexes either. Mayor Ch~.,iel: It's all single family residential. CouncilFan Workman: Nothing's going to change by the zoning though. Councilman Johnson: It's still going to be a non-conforming use. It's an existing non-conforming use without enough lot area. Lot frontage or anything for a duplex or a twin hc~. The only thing that's going to be different is you're not going to have renters in there. We'll have two different owners to work with. Councilman Boyt: You're not guaranteeing that you won't have renters. Sc~body could easily buy, that and rent it out. Councilman Johnson: That's true. Mayor Ch%iel: No question. That can aiways happen. Councilman Johnson: With any single family you can do that too. I think that the reguir~nt to bring it to twin hc~e standards definitely r~s to be in there because there are sc~e definite safety considerations and also they ~ay have troL~le getting insurance and stuff on their half of the hc~e if they don't have those fire walls inbetween. There co~%ld be s(~ probl~ right there. And that in itself might be of a big enough expense to Mrs. Thompson that she ~ay not do it. I'm not sure, if w~'re going for the fire rated walls, that's basically putting another slab of drywall, as I understand this, over all adjoining walls on both sides. So you'd have two pieces of drywall and then doing the same thing in the attic. Building a wall th. rough the attic and all levels. City Oouncil Meeting i January 22~ 1990 Mayor Ch~iel: Any fur~ discussion? OounciLm~n Johnson: If she ~nts to pay the money, I'm for it. I'll let her do it. Mayor Ch~del: I guess I still have a real concern about this Jay. Starting something within that residential area with two. Charging it. A lot of people who have built their own homes there and have bought hemes because it's stric~y residential and single family and this is chargirg that whole cc~plexity of it, at least is my opinion. CounciLman Johnson: Yes. Changing it closer to what they have. Everybody in their own ownership. It may be eliminating a rental. Mayor C2m~el: Yeah, you're talking about taking one individual hcme and putting it into two. Councilman Johnson: This is t~ now. This is a duplex. Mayor (2w, iel: That's right. Councilman Johnson: An existing duplex where she rents out half of it. Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking, we can talk about all the combinations it might be but we're always going to, we'll eternally have a rental situation there as it sits. Potentially we would have two ownership situations. We could potentially have two renters situations right now too. I mean we could always have that combination everywhere but I think we're going to eternally having renting situation if it stays as it is because nobody's going to be able to buy the other half. CoL~cilman Johnson: Did notices go out to all the neighbors on this? Paul Krauss: We would have notified our normal list, yeah. Councilman Johnson: How long ago? 2 weeks? Councilman Workman: I think it's just a situation that is existing. Charging the zoning and what we call it doesn't do a whole lot. As it sits, it should have never ~ allowed in the neighborhood. Mayor Chv, iel: In the first place. I agree. ~hen did you get your notice? Tw~ weeks ago? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I know the people that live next door to this. By the way, the map is wrong. It's across the street frc~ that lot that's shown on the map. I don't know if that makes any difference to it. I think it kind of CounciLman Workman: At this stage I don't know ~hat would be lost. Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval with condition 4 that the ~ be ~sgraded to twin home standards before the plat can be filed. 11 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Mayor Chulel: Is there a second? Councilman Workm~n: I ' 11 second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Don Ashworth: Staff would have a c~lestion in terms of, let's assume that the c~lrrent ordinance requires separate water for each unit. Separate sewer line. Would you be looking to that in that? Is that part of the consideration? Councilman Johnson: Separate sewer line would be awful difficult. I can see how you could put in separate water m~ters for both and separate gas m~ters and separate electrical but separate sewer line, you have to replum~ the whole house. Don Ashworth: Staff had anticipated there might be a single line. Require easements so that when we get over there and repair it but if the current standards would say each one has a separate waterline and a separate sewer. Councilman Johnson: How about as feasible but primmrily interested in the public safety side of it? The fire walls. Mayor Chmiel: That's mandated by ordinance or by the State. Councilman Johnson: The fire ~lls? Mayor Chniel: Right. Councilm~n Johnson: Yeah but see, it's an existing hoL%se. By doing this split we can make th~; put in the fire walls but if she doesn't do the split, then she doesn't have to put in the fire walls. Councilman Boyt: Oh I don' t think that' s true. Council,'mn Johnson: That is true. Counci~n ~: You're saying that ~ the Fire Marshall dete~Lines that ~u're not in c~Lpliance with the Code he can't enfor~ it? I don't believe that. Council,'mn Johnson: It's not new construction. Mayor Chmiel: You're saying once she had sc~one in? councilm~n Johnson: If she pulled a building permit to do anything in that house, w~ could make her change the walls. Is she in compliance with the duplex codes? Jim Chaffee: I don't know that right now. Don Ashworth: I'm sure she is not though because no building 15 years old is c~%rrently in compliance with new codes. Councilmmn Johnson: So your house is not either Bill. 12 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 Don ~rth: Nor is mine~ Councilman Boyt: I don't know that single family residential fire codes have changed. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Bo.vt: But I know that if the fire inspector c~mes out and inspects our place and chooses not to do any. enforc~r~nt, that's negligence. I'm sure that that would make it. Don Ashworth: No. A good exa%ple is adjacent to your furnance you have to have a fresh air return c~ing into that furnance area. That's a new requirement. I don't have that in my ~. It's not a matter that my house is going to burn up or yours but they. believe that that's a good requir~nent for all new construction. Now I guess my question is, do w~ force Anita to run in that fresh air return adjacent to that f~rnance because that would be required under new construction. Mayor (]a~iel: ~hat about Minnegasco? What are their requirements? Can two people have one furnance and split costs accordingly and do they. have to have individual furnances? Councilman Workman: They. do in rentals. Jim Chaffee: I don't think they have any requiremsmts one ~ay or the other. Mayo~ Chv, iel: They. do with double metering. I know they have s~mething. Jim, Chaffee: But as far as if you ~nt to remt your home out and you only have Mayor Chv, iel: But who's the responsible party for that bill of the two being there? Jim Chaffee: To whoever t~ bill is sent to. Councilman Bo.vt: I would think, as mA~_h as I non%ally hate to delay items frc~ one agenda to another, that there's ~ 'things that it would be good to know. One of the% is this discussion we've just had. ~hat are the facts rather than what are your and my estimated idea of the facts. The other one is, I really think that this is going to amount to quite a dollar expemditure and does the applicant really ~mnt to pursue this if this repxesents a $10,0~.~0 or $15,~0~.0~ expenditure? Maybe we need a little time to get those questions answered. Councilwoman Dim]er: I would be in favor of tabling as well. I would like to hear Anita's. Councilman Johnson: I'll withdraw my motion if you'll withdraw your second. Mayor Ch~iel: Both have ~ withdrawn. 13 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Councilwc~n Dimmer: I'd like to hear Anita speak as to why. I'd like to take her reason into consideration. Councilman Johnson: Tnen I'll move to table this for staff to inform Anita one, of this rec~lire~.;ent for the twin hc~e standards so she can evaluate the effect ~%~on herself on that. And to answer so~ of these other questions that have been brought up here. Councilwom~n Dimler: Second. Co~cilm~n Johnson moved, Councilw~v~n Dim]er seconded to table a re,lest for an adminstrative subdivision to subdivide a lot containing a double bungalow into two separate lots. All voted in favor and t_he motion carried. COU~2IL DIRECTION OUTLINING ISSUES CONCERNING REGULATIONS OF CIGARETTE SALES. Mayor Chv, iel: This basically I think should have been labeled as a reconsideration. Councilmmn Johnson: No, this is a different one. 4 is the reconsideration. Mayor Ch%iel: Oh, I'm sorry. This is yours Jay. Sorry about that. Go ahead. Councilwmn Johnson: W~ll basically I think we've talked about this twice before in that we've been working on reducing the availability of cigarettes to minors in the City and one of the m~ans for minors to get cigarettes is shoplifting. When those cigarettes are prc~,inently displayed where shoplifting is very easy, it becomes even a more utilized method of obtaining it. It also has other repercussions I believe on the kids even though they're just trying to get cigarettes but what's next t~upe deal on shoplifting. I talked to the new manager over at Brooke's and asked him, what his monthly inventory showed on his cigarette shoplifting. He said it was very high recently. The source may not totally be minors. He does not know exactly why. As a mmtter of fact, I have observed an enployee several months back basically shoplift a pack of cigarettes. Open them up and have a sv~ke when they had sv, okers in there. ~lt that employee's no longer there. But they said in the recent months they have had a very high losses on tobacco products. I've only looked at two of our facilities, Brooke's and Kenny's. I didn't go over to SuperAmerica over on TH 7 and TH 41. I meant to but never got there. And I didn't look at the Super Q as to what their effect is. Most of the displays they have can be fairly easily moved behind the counter or a lexan shield put around the front of them to where it's a clear shield. You can still see the display but you can't reach in from the front and get at the cigarettes. I did find out that the cigarette co~oanies pay to have their displays placed in these stores. These special displays where you can get your sunglasses with a pack of cigarettes or whatever it is that they give you to try to entice you into buying cigarettes. Those displays, the merchants are paid to have those in there so there will be an effect on the m~rchants with that. I'm not sure how much they get paid for it. I can't imagine that it's a too terribly big amount but I'd like to see, I do not see it as a big infringev~_nt upon the merchants' profits in cc~oarison to the ham% and it Fay even save they, money in shoplifting expenses as we go. 14 City Oouncil Meeting - January 221 1990 Mayor Ch~tel: By. having ths~ contained behind the counter? Councilman Johnson: By. having them contained behind the counter. Especially tl~ cigar and tobacco products. At both of these locations, the ~mplo~ cannot see those products whatsoever. They're c(x~pletely dependent upon somebody to reac~ under and pull it up and hand it to ~. Any. 4 foot tall kid can shoplift that stuff real easy.. Their pockets are right at the same level. It's a little harder for an adult. He might have to lean over a little bit. But I w~uld like to go ahead with an ordinance. Mayor Ch~iel: Any other discussion? Tom. Councilm.~n Workman: I can hardly believe it Jay. My. question is, how can you tell a level headed councilmember. You can tell by. the fact that milk comes out both corners of his mouth. We have an issue c~min~ up, it~ rm~ber 4 Jay. Item n~%ber 4 is just about identical and you just gave me my argxm~nt and ~u're on the other side of the issue. Number one. The cigarettes over at Brooke's, most of they, in this display case are in rather large packages. Councilman Johnson: Not the cigars. Councilman Workman: Not the cigars, okay. Any kid that inhales cigars ought to because he w~n't do it again okay. You don't see kids out behind the warming house over here at the rink inhaling Tipaxillos. ~hose cigarettes are in packaging that's large. Either it's a 2 for 1 deal with free dice or cards or s(~v~thing or lighters or s~mething so they're very difficult, they're not this size. They're not the size of a can of pop or ~maller. I guess what I've ~--~ getting at with the whole thing with the vending machine situation is don't concern ourselves with their inventory. Okay. I know that things get stolen but the stuffed olives Fright be stolen too. We' re mot w~rrying about, I don' t want to concern ourselves with the inventory, problem. Okay. That's the issue with the cigarette vending machine. We don't ~mnt to keep them behind the counter because the bartenders are stealing or scmebody's stealing thsm. Okay? So what you're saying is move them all back there and they're safe. Councilman Johnson: Fr~m the kids. Councilman Workman: Well there's kids w~rking at Brooke's. Councilman Johnson: You have to be 18 to work there because they sell beer. Councilman Workman: They do? They don't look 18. But I'm getting old. And Jay, when ~ take on a group like this and tl~ attorney for th~ Coalition for s~mething vending was in here and he talked about a lot of the same issues and everything else. I can guarantee you that the people ~ho own those racks are going to be in here doing the same thing and applying pressure to Jay Johnson and saying, you can't do that. And you just got done saying that it's not an infring~%ent on retailers or their profits. Councilman Johnson: I said not a major infring~%ent. Or significant. Councilman Workman: Well I didn't hear major. Councilman Johnson: Maybe I said significant. 15 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilm~nWork~an: Then when we go to the vending machine, we're going to get to that, I can hardly wait. Then you're saying we should keep ths~ in the vending F~chine because they've got an inventory probl~ and they're getting stolen. You see what I'm saying? Councilman Johnson: No. You're trying to pull a separate issue into this issue. Councilman Workman: No, what I'm saying is, let's keep it all clean. Because when you tell one place they can do something and another place is unable to do that, then that creates even more of a hardship. So when we tell one place that they can put a switch on a Fachine but this person over here doesn't have that machine, well he can get one if he pays $5,000.00 more to get it and that we're opening a hole in our ordinance and start doing things. I'm just saying, in one situation you're saying inventory behind the counter. One you're saying not. Councilm~n Johnson: No. I think you've got everything mixed l%n here. I'm trying to put the same control at a Brooke's as you're putting at a bar. I want only adults to be able to get at those cigarettes. Okay? That's the reason that we're saying that vending machines are outlawed currently in the city of Chanhassen with cigarettes in they, because we don' t w~nt children or minors. I'm not sure if I'd call a 17 year old a child but we don't want minors getting at the cigarettes. Well there's a huge loop in that thinking if you allow the~ uncontrolled in a Brooke's or a Kenny's or any other place, where it's really a hang out for the younger children. Tne ones that we really ~nt to protect. Those kids 10-12-14 that we don't want the% to be able to start ~%oking. Those are the kids that aren't going to be able to get into a bar and fake their way into going after a machine anyway. I don't know m~ny 12 year olds can fake an ID to get into Filly's but as long as you brought up the next thing, the difference is that these cigarettes are uncontrolled by an adult. In the ~achine with the rev, ote switch controlled by an adult, those cigarettes are controlled by an adult. These we now have uncontrolled cigarettes sitting out there. All I want to do is try to put together an ordinance where we can control this substance. I think it's the same thing you want to do. We want to control it whether it's in a vending m~chine or control it whether it's in a supermarket. If we had a Target store here, they have racks with cases of it there. I know the SuperAmerica may also have, I know the SuperAmerica in Eden Prairie has a little section where you can go in and pull cases of cigarettes out. And I've seen the ends of those cases opened. Where's somebody's opened the end of the cases and they're only selling cases. They're not selling individual packs so somebody had gotten in there and stolen so~e cigarettes. That's what I'm trying to prevent. How this drags into the vending machine issue I don' t fathom yet. Councilman Workman: Well so then if as an owner of Brooke's, if I can get a case that's electronically controlled by the person behind the case, that would be okay in Brooke's also? With a door to pop open? Council~n Johnson: Yeah. As long as the adult has control, the supervisor, whoever has control over who gets their hand in that case. CounciLm~n Workm~n: Do you want to include that in an ordinance for this? Councilm~n Johnson: If we can come up with some kind of wording. I don't think 16 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 that's as feasible as a cigarette machine but if scmebody ~nts to add, I won' t include that at this time unless scmebody requests it to be included and tbey showed that there is such a feasible device. I can see some real liability probl~ if you have an electronic door ~m it because you're going to have to have it close. Grab sc~sbody's hands. Axe ~u saving that ~u ~nt this to continue to be freely and openly to... Councilman Workman: No. I'm just saving, don't concern yourself with the inventory of a store. Councilman Johnson: No. I don't care about the inventory.. I'm saying they've got shoplifting goin~ on. I'm not saying, and I think that paxt of that shoplifting is by. children. Mayor C~miel: I think ~hat you're saving, because of the availability as to where it's located within that store, that's why. the kids are takin~ the cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: Right. I can't prove that there's children taking it but I know from personal experience as a young child that that does happen. And it does happen with cigars. I was very sick one day. Councilw~van Dim]er: Jay, would you answer a question for me. The ordinance as it's proposed here, you're saving it has to be behind the counter. Is that what you're saying? Councilman Johnson: That's what I was sa.ring initially. Mayor Ch~iel: Rather than having the% out on the counter in front. Councilman Johnson: Right. Councilw(~an Dimler: And if they're on the counter, they have to have a shield in front of the~? Councilman Johnson: Right. Oouncilwuman Dimler: They can be on the counter but shielded? Councilman Johnson: Right. To where they. can only be accessed from the rear. Councilwoman Dim]er: Okay. I guess I don't have a probl~ with this and I see it as a supplement to what we've already, done rather than in opposirg to. It's going one step further in assuring that our ~ungsters are not able to... Mayor Ch~iel: Having that accessibility. Councilw~van Dimler: Yes. Mayor Ch%iel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Well, it -_._-~s as though maybe Ursula has it in that it's a m~dification. It sounds like what we're really talking about is controlling the point of sale of tobacco. I would go along with the staff report that suggests 17 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 that this not be aiH~d at cigarettes but that ~ aim at tobacco products since what we're doing here is giving direction to staff to draft scme kind of an ordinance. Tnat we probably ought to look at having one ordinance that addresses the controlled sale of tobacco products somewhere along this line and that's not to complicate Tc~'s ordinance or the ordinance that he championed but simply to kind of try to tie it all together in one piece sc~_how. Maybe subsection (b) of that ordinance. I see no reason, well let Fe put this positively. It makes sense to Fe that we would control the sale of tobacco products in Chanhassen in sc~.~ reasonable fashion. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that that's a good idea and I also viewed the attorney's opinion. He said the City does have the authority to enact such an ordinance basically protecting the public health and the primary benefits frc~, the ordinance would be the prevention of theft and making it m~)re difficult for children to obtain cigarettes. And I agree with that position. Co~ncil~n Boyt: I would suggest that Faybe one of the things that w~ want to think about in the next few weeks though is we probably don't want to be a test case. I think a good question for the City Attorney to address is if we're going to becc~e one. I'm not particularly interested in spending our tax dollars to fight the tobacco industry. Tney have a lot more money than we do and it could be real expensive. So I'd like to at least get an opinion on that. Roger Knutson: Whether someone is going to sue you, no one has told He they're going to. H~pefully they would not. You are not alone in thinking this kind of regulation. They would pick on you or pick on someone else or pick on anyone they don't really. No one is threatened or rattled sabers yet. Councilwc~n Di~ler: Plus the ordinance has public hearings yet too. We have that whole process to go through so w~ have plenty of opportunity for more input. Mayor Ch~,iel: And I don't think, I don't object to us championing these kinds of things Bill. I think we're at least putting the City in the proper direction to have elimination of kids basically starting a habit that can be a direct, not as a benefit for th~; and could be a health hazard. Council~n Boyt: I agree with you. I think we all agree on that point. I guess I would like a little more information about our liabilty if we get pulled into cot=t. Roger Knutson: Because of concerns, there have been a few lawsuits and there's a body of law growing on the subject. If you want, I can have a brief for you and an t~:~date as to ~here things are. Councilman Johnson: If w~ fail to pass an ordinance that protects the children of this city because we're afraid of lawsuits frc~, the tobacco industry, we're not doing a real good service to our city. Once they sue tm, then w~'ll have to cross that bridge. Mayor Ch~,iel: Cross that suit when w~ get there. Any other disctmsion? CouncilFmn Johnson: ~as there anybody here fr(x~ any of the, that would like to 18 City ~oun~il Meeting - January 22 ~ 1990 address it? Ma~or Ch~,iel: Fr~m Kenny' s, B~ooke' s. ~ouncilwcman Dimler: A merchant's point of view. Councilman Workman: I guess a couple of my points, in regards to Bill as it relates to Jay. Bill, I think what I 'm getting from Bill's point is I've put a lot of effort into the cigarette vemding machine ban and it went through nice. Okay. Very. so~n w~'re going to talk about maybe kind of goirg back on that. What I'm saying is, once you decide and once we decide that we're going to do this to every store and every Holiday, SA, Q or whatever is no longer able to do this, a representative and sc~ money, and a nice tidy ordinance to change our idea and everything else, to c~e back from our stance or a lawsuit or something is a wrong time to start thinking about it and cc~ back. ~hat's ~hat I'm saying because you've got things nice and tidy. Well then people start throwing money around amd spending time in our meetings or doing something else and the next thing you know, we' re trying to moderate back from something that's currently tidy. That's what I'm, saying. So now's the time and the public hearing is the time to think about whether or not we want to get into that mess and I'm with you. I want to and you know where I stand on this issue but then let's, once we say okay. Now we're going and we're going to do it, them to go back, it's like Teton Lane. What are we doing? Councilman Johnson: You're talking the next issue I do believe. Councilman Workman: As it relates to this. Once we get both feet in the concrete, let's j~p in the river. Councilman Johnson: I think we ~ to inform like Cooper's about this before... Councilman Workman: ~ness industries are rather slow. They react after things have happened but they do react. And when the reaction comes and they do use this as a test case, that's the wrong time to think about the impact. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. Mayor Chef el: Yeah. Can we have a motion? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move that we direct staff to prepare an ordinance limiting the point of sale of tobacco products to areas f~om behind the counter, not accessible to the general public. Councilman Workman: I' 11 second it. Co~cilman Johnson m~ved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to prepare an ordinance limitng the sale of tobacco products to areas behind the counter not accessible to the general public. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 19 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 CONSIDER REQUF~T FRf~ DANIEL DAHLIN AND JOHN DOREK TO ALLf~ THE SALE OF CI~S BY VENDING MACHINE THROUGH THE USE OF A Rf~OTE CONTROL COIN BOX ELH2TRONIC UNIT. Mayor Chmiel: This would be basically for the reconsideration but before w~ get into discussion, I'd like to read a letter that I received fr~, the Minnesota Department of Health and it was addressed to me indicating and saying, I wish to c(x~,end you and the City. Council of Chanhassen for your recent action prohibiting the sale of cigarettes frc~, vending machines. You've taken a very caring step towards protecting the health of youth in your cctv, unity. Chanhassen's vending mmchine prohibition sets a very positive example for c~nities throughout the state and I am, pleased to see that several other cities have initiated sim, ilar prohibition. I congratulate you on your contribution to the adv~t of Minnesota as a great state of health. Sincerely yours, Sister Mary Madonna Ashton, Cc~missioner of Health. I thought it was nice that she took out time to even recognize the fact that the City of Chanhassen has taken that position. So with that I would like to hear any discussion as to what your thoughts are regarding reconsideration. Counci/man Boyt: Maybe the public. Mayor Ch%iel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the issue? Dan Dahlin: Yes. My. na~e is Dan Dahlin and I'm the fellow who was here 2 w~eks ago. The packet that I gave addresses sc~e of these other issues about access as well as the vending machines. ~nat's not an industry type of a packet. That came frc~, a police officer in the city. of Woodbridge, Illinois. Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to just sort of s~mrize. There's an awful lot of information that you have here. Councilman Johnson: We're not going to be able to read this. Dan Dahlin: Yeah, that's why I was thinking, as I discussed before, if we could put this over until the next m~eting and then during that tim~ you could read that and I could also d~Lonstrate to some people how a r~,ote control device. Mayor Ch~,iel: Table this for a 2 week period? Councilman Johnson: Well I'd like to ask staff if they've c(~e [~p with an answer on some of the questions I called in and asked about on Friday I guess. I think it was Friday. As far as what kind of penalties we can assess if the switch is gerryrigged to where it's always on and anybody can just throw money in and it will always go or if that's physically possible with this device. Don, did anybody have a chance to follow up on that? Don Ashworth: Roger? Roger Knutson: Depending on what your ordinance would say, but as I understand your ordinance, the idea is that you have to have a device that has to he functioning and your ordinance could provide that if you don't have that device or if it's not functioning, you're in violation of that ordinance and you lose 20 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 199~ your cigarette license. Therefore ~u can't sell cigarettes. You can do things like that. Oouncilm~n Johnson: Could ~ put a time period before they can reapply for a license? They can reapply the next day for a cigarette license after they lose their first license and cc~e back and say w~ll it's fixed now? Roger Enutson: Again, you would he the author of that ordinance. It'd be your ordinance. You could say, out of business for a yeaz. 6 months. 3 months. ~atever you word it. Councilman Johnson: A reasonable ti~ period. Osuncil~man Dimmer: I also have a question on the device. I ~ent to see it and it is, it's a device like a 9arage door ope~.r. Is it a 9arage door Dan Dahlin: I believe it is. I believe it is. Council~a~an Dimler: I~cm my o~n experie~ I know that there is only so ~any frequencies and sc~ 9arage door oldsters operate other l~ople's 9arage doors. Ou~s does operate other l~.~ople's and other l~ople's operate ours so my question is, if th~ minors ~ot a hold of this and decided to try. their 9arage door openers, would th~y work? Osuncil~an Johnson: Is it on the sam~ f~eguency as a ~ara~e door ~? Dan Dahlin: As ~ had d~monst~ated to .~u, ~e ~ere those 8 switches a~d they would hame t~ in that frequency so I imagine ~e, a child ~ould ~o and buy... Councilwoman Dimler: It's feasible that my ~ara~e door ol~ne~ would ~ork on it then? Dan Dahlin: If you ~alked in there, sure with ~u~ 9arage door. I would imagine there's sc~ t~endous probability, a~ainst that. ~ouncil~man Dimler: And there's only so many frequencies. Councilman Boyt: You mean there's 8 code swi~? Dan Dahlin: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I'll bet you $1~.~ that you can't o~en it in 24 hours. Councilman Johnson: ~ith 8 switches, that means 256 ex~nbinations. Mayor C~el: Dependin~ upon how ~ny times they 9o there and k~ep trying. Councilman Boyt: The ccmbi~tio~ of 8 different numbers? You couldn't work it out if you did it every ~tnute in that period of time so that cc~ination is next to foolproof. Councilman ~orkman: Not necessarily. Mayo~ Chmiel: No. I don' t agree with that. 21 City Oouncil Meeting - January 221 1990 Councilw~n Dimler: But if it happened to be on the same frequency~ Mayor Chmiel: Not at all. That still can be ~orked out. Councilm.~n Boyt: I'm not saying it couldn't be w~rked out but I'm saying it's more foolproof than the lock on our front door. Councilm~n Johnson: I've had mine about 10 and I've got the same 8 switches. Council~mn Workm~n: And Jim's is about 8 and he says his opens about 1/10th of the garages in the neighborhood. Co~ncils~n Johnson: Mine only opens mine. Mayor Ch~.iel: Everybody tonight going hc~e try your garage door openers and see how many open. Councilw~r~n Dim]er: Our garage door opener happens to open Chuck's folks so it's lucky that we know them and their's opens ours. But I'm sure there are others that can open ou~s that we don't know. Councilman Johnson: 8 switches is 256 different frequencies. It w~uldn't take you that long but we don't know if it's on the same frequency as a garage door opener either. The frequenc~ ban assigned... Councilwoman Dim]er: I'm assuming, I mean he said it w~s a garage door opener. Councilmmn Johnson: Well it looks like one. Are you an electronic's expert? Dan Dahlin: No, I'm not. Co~ncilm~n Johnson: You can ~ell on the inside by what the frequency, it will tell you what the freq%~ncy range is. You can compare that to. I mean a different garage door opener brands use different freq%lency ranges. Council~n Boyt: So it's pretty unlikely anyway. Councilm~n Johnson: Oh yeah. ~here are people who have built devices that for a lot of m~ney could run through those frequencies in a matter of seconds and determine what it is. Councils~n Boyt: Okay, I' 11 take my bet back then but did we get so~e answer to the penalty question that you asked? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Revocation of the license for a year. Could there be any kind of autom, mtic or any fines involved in that? Roger Knutson: Violation of your ordinance ~)uld be a misdemeanor but the act%~l levying of a fine w~uld be by the district court. Councilm~n Johnson: Right. Roger Knutson: Any charge ~ould go to court and try to decide. 22 City Co~cil M~eting - January 22, 199~ Council~n Johnson: So the best thing, if we discovered this open like this would then bring a minor in. Let the minor buy the sales and hit ~ up for selling to a minor which is a much worse offense. Roger Enutson: Gross misdemeanor. Mayor Ch~iel: What's a gross misdemeanor? $2,50~.~? Roger Knutsom: $3,gg0.g0 and a year. Councilman Boyt: Well I would maintain that we have a pretty simple issue, in spite of our recent discussion. We have what I gathered was something about the spirit of the ordinance that staff see~d to be talking about in their report and we have undoubtedly, I agree with Tom's point. Th~ simpler something is, the clearer and easier it is to enforce. I lean towards the spirit of the ordinance but as I recall a few weeks ago, that was the direct I was leaning in and it didn't make any different then either so my sense is that we're probably going to keep the same ordinance w~'ve got. I don't think there's any point in laying this over 2 w~eks. I think we can assume the thing works and make a decision. What do you guys think? Council~n Johnson: I think here we're controlling the point of sale which I think is the spirit of the ordinance. We have an adult who ts making that decision. ~e~r they put them behind the bar and the adult decides to hand it to the guy and sell it to tha~ or decides to push the button and allow him to get it that way, it makes no difference. It's the adult that has to make that final decision. I don't see what the differen~e is fr~, selling ths~ behind the bar or selling tbs~ r~ely like this. I could even ~ the, even though this one is better than using sc~e kind of token syst~, where only your certain token would work but tokens I don't think are that good because slugs can be made. I think this would meet the spirit of what we're trying to do is control the sale of cigarettes to minors. Councilw~m~%n Dimler: I have a few ~ts too. Like I said before, I did go and look at the device. I was very impressed with it. It worked in their sit,ration. I did make it clear at that time that I was concerr~d about the other cigarette vending m~chines in town. Mr. Dahlin has the most updated machine which is easily adaptable to this device. ~here are other machines in town that are not that easily adaptable. It would cost more and maybe not have such tight control. And because we can't just write an ordinanc~ for one person in town, we have to consider ever~uDne, I have already called Mr. Dahlin and told him that I intent to keep the ordinance in the nice clean package that we have it in instead of it opening up for law enforcetent headaches. Co,~cil~mn Workman: My concerns, they re~ain. There are an awful lot of questions with this device. Not that it couldn't work fine. Possibly used as an excuse. Possibly used erroneously. Spemd more city staff time checking on devices. Sending minors in. We're not interest_~4 in sending E~tnors in anywhere. T~at's up to the Public Safety Department. So my wish is that the ordinance stays as clean as we can ~ it. The City of Waconia, our neighbors to the west have done likewise. I think we set a precedence ~hen we say and tell some of the people we've ~ telling what a great ordinance it is and people have been telling us, Sister Mary Madonna, the newspapers and evex~y 23 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 else that we're going to back down, back way down on this now2 Councilman Johnson: Now you say it's way but. Mayor Chmiel: I think I feel just exactly as what you've indicated. I liked the cleanliness of what we had already adopted. I think at that particular time too Mr. Dahlin, you had an opportunity to indicate sc~e of those concerns at that particular meeting but I'm not sure whether you had everything pulled together or not for that particular tim~ to discuss it at that public hearing m~eting. I guess I too like to see it just revain as is. I feel more comfortable with it, even though that's probably a device that can be worked. There's always that potential and the laws are the probl~. So I guess I'd lean c~ite heavily towards re?.~ining with the existing ordinance as w~ have. councilwoman Dimler: So then it makes no sense in wasting staff tim~. Mayor Cbt. riel: And it would require a four-fifths majority to change that for reconsideration to even go to it and as you can see, you don't have that. councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. Roger Knutson: I believe it's a simple. Mayor Ch%iel: Is it simple? councilman Boyt: Whatever it took to pass it the first time. counciLm~n Johnson: Well you don't have that either. Co,~cilmmn Boyt: Well for the sake of orderly progress, I'll m~)ve approval and then Jay if you'll second that, w~ can take a vote and this will be decided. councilm~n Johnson: Sure, we' 11 second that. councilm~n Boyt moved, councilm, mn Johnson seconded to reconsider a request frc~ Daniel Dahlin and John Dorek to allow the sale of cigarettes by vending machines through the use of a remote control coin box electronic unit. Council~mn Boyt and Councilm~n Johnson voted in favor. Mayor C~v, iel, Councilman Workman and Councilw~v~n Dim]er voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. RECONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF A ZONING ORDINAS~EAMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the ordinance regulating convenience stores and other uses having gas p~m~ps was approved. Since then a probl~, has surfaced relative to it's enforce~,ent and the Amoco reconstruction that has been underway or been on the boards in the city for quite sc~e tim~. When we first presented this report to you late last fall, we indicated in the staff report that we didn't believe that this ordinance should ~ effective on uses that had already been approved by the City and in fact at that time we indicated to you 24 City. Council Meeting - January 22~ 199~ that ~moco was in for a buildirg permit on that station, which in fact they. were. However, what happened in the intervening time. Mayor Ch~iel: Was the permit issued? Paul Krauss: The permit's been issued in the last 2 w~eks. ~hey came in with the permit materials and then the glitch was that the site has to be reworked through fCA before the pemmit can be issued. CDnsequently, the peri, it was not issued until 2 w~eks ago and construction hasn't star~ and probably won't start until spring, ihe problem, is that the curzent ordinance requires a 25~ foot separation between gas ~. The ~ station right now has a 197 foot separation between it and the Holiday ~ch ~s increased to 214 feet with the new building plan. Since it was not our intention that it be applied to the existing uses and it wasn't discussed but wa didn't believe it was the Council's intent to do so, we proposed an amemcinent to the ordinance that would clarify that relative to the k%oco station and allow it to procccd as is. We feel that sc~thing like this is necessary, because in the City Attorney's opiniom to us that until sc~thing is actually built in the ground, it could be stopped by. changing the ordinance. In this case, they have not broken ground yet. Mayor C~,iel: Okay. Thank ~u. Any. discussion? Is there anyone wishing to address this particular subject at the time? If not, we'll bring it to the Council for discussion. Councilman Boyt: Can I make a motion? Mayor Chv~iel: Sure. Counoil~an Boyt: I would move that ~ reconsider the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in 4.5 of the staff report. Councilman Jonson: Second. Councilman Workman: What does reconsidering Council~an Boyt: Putting it back on the agenda. councilman Boyt moved, councilman Johnson seconded to reconsider the second reading of a Zoning Ordinance ;~mdm~mt modifying restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and aut~mot/ve service stations. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. B0ger ~nutson: Now that it's back on the _+~ble, do you ~nt to vote on it? councilman Boyt: I tho~ wa were just reconsidering it. Councilman Johnson: Next agenda. Council~an Boyt: Do wa want to do it noW? Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, w~ voted on that for reconsideration. Councilw~vmn Dimler: Do you want to reconsider right noW? 25 City Council Meeting L January 22~ 1990 Councilman Boyt: Sure. Mayor Ch-,iel: Sure. Councilwoman Dimler: I moved against the ordinance to begin with so I suppose I ought to vote against this. I'm real confused. Councilman Boyt: As I recall the discussion that set this up over a year ago, or just about a year ago. The question then cam~ up about were we trying to impact existing stations. Convenience stores and so on. We really weren't trying to address the ones that we had already approved, at least on a concept plan s(~.~where. So I think this reconsideration keeps in the spirit of where we were trying to head. The ordinance isn't going to prevent anything that's already been approved except for the Amoco station and they're not in a position where they can change their layout anyway. Mayor Chr, iel: Exactly. Councilman Johnson: I would agree with that in that I think the whole tiF~ period of this we have been, it's ~--n my impression that we weren't talking about the Amoco and the other sites that have already been approved to not develop but any. future sites. Mayor Chmiel: Well, that was part of the concern at that partic%~lar time. f%~ture sites and what we can have where. I think we've addressed those specific issues now. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm still real confused here. You're saying that the ones that are in existence are not subject to the new ordinance. Is that what you're saying? Mayor (lm;iel: I would say that those are probably grandfathered in right Roger? Councilman Johnson: The ones that have been approved even. The Amoco site. Councilman Workman: Has the Am~co site been approved? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, w~ approved tbs% last year. And Charlie James' site. Paul Krauss: Well the ordinance as written would not apply to Charlie James' site. It specifically only applies to sites for which a building permit has been issued prior to the effective date or the rebuilding of an existing ~e. Councilman Johnson: And Charlie would have to co~oly with this? Paul Krauss: Yes they would and I've been in contact with one of their staff people and told them, about this and said, two months before you want to build the thing, you'd be required to have a conditional ltse permit. Tney would ~t the standards. Councilman Johnson: l'nat's no big deal. Mayor Ch~,iel: Any other discussion? If not, can I get a motion? 26 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22 ~ 1990 Councilman Boyt m~ved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the second, reading of the Zoning Ordinance P~mcl%ent pertaining to convenience stores and uses having gas pumps and a~snd it to make it effective only on uses approved after the date of adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRRr. IMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 31, ~D/~RAY HILL AND LOT 1, ~ 1, PLEASANT HILL, LOCATe) ON MURRAY HILL RfI%D JUST SOUTH OF MRr~ HILL R(I%D, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Paul Krauss: ibe City is proposing to divide a lot containing a city ~teI tower and sell a portion of it to Mr. Kreidherg. Mr. Kreidberg owns the parcel located to the south. The purchaser intends to add the area to his lot but has indicated that it would not contain any new housing no~ would it be further subdivided in the future. The City would retain ownership of the ~ater tower property itself and also over a trail easev~nt that would run fr~m Murray Hill Road to Minnetonka Junior High located to the w~st. The Planning (km~ission reviewed the it~n on January. 3rd and recc~er~ed it's approval. Based on the foregoing, staff recc~msnds approval without variances subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mayor C~,iel: Okay, thank ~u. Anyone wishing to address this specific it~ one more ti~e? If hearing none, we'll bring that right back to the Council. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Subdivision Request ~89-23 as shown on the plat dated Decenber 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 2 be shown as Outlot A on the final plat. 2. The north 20 feet of Outlot A is dedicated as a trail ease%ent. 3. The property cannot be further subdivided or any new residences be built on the site. All voted in favor and the m~tion carried. DISCUSSION OF MOON VALLEY RIFLE RANGE, 1MM FLYING CLO[/D DRIVE. Paul Krauss: Last December, after hearing concerns raised by. area residents, the City Council directed staff to report hack on the F~x~n Valley. gravel guaxry. The report ~s to contain background information and options for enhancing the City's control over the operation. Staff has worked with the City. Attorney to prepare this report. The first ite~ concerns the r~v~red expansion of the operation by. the acquisition of additional land. We reviewed property tax records and can find no recent acquisitions, at least not at the County. We further note that the current site is separated fr~m the h(mes on I believe it's Erie Drive by. an intervening parcel owned by. a party, named Teich. At that point too we should say that we believe the City. is in a position to prevent additional acquisitions pertaining to this site. ~hat the non-confozming grandfathering portion of this it~ pertains only to the property that was owned 27 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 by the operator at such time as the ordinance was put in place requiring a permit. And w~ believe that the City again is on good grounds to p~event the purchase of additional land at it's conversion to a gravel quarry. As we indicated last Dec~%ber, the operation itself is non-conforming since it does not have a conditional use permit and one is required for mineral excavation in the A-2 district. As near as we can tell, the records indicate that they did apply for a perm, it sc~etim.~ I believe in the early 70's but no action was ever completed on it. However, due to it's age, this is a grandfathered use. In addition, due to the nature of mineral extraction and legal precedence, we really feel we cannot view this type of non-conformity in the ~ual light. Tnat is, usually non-conformities aren't allowed to expand but in this case gravel quarries by their operation are continually being expanded. Tne one exception we see in Moon Valley is the new operation that was used to excavate clay near Pioneer Trail last year. In discussions with the City Attorney we don't believe that this is grand fathered in since no permit was obtained and believe that it is in direct violation of the existing zoning ordinance. Should the City Council wish to take action to regulate this use, the clay mining, we believe that there are several options to be considered. As far as the clay mining goes, again we think it's a non-perm, itted illegal use of the property and that the City's in a position to require that activity cease on the clay excavation. That that portion of the site be restored. Ou~ belief is based on the fact that the operation is new. It's physically separated fro~, the gravel pit and is used to mine a different material than gravel. Options relative to the gravel pit are s(mr.~t more co~,plex. While we're not likely to be in a position to stop that operation in it's entirity, we believe that we could require, in fact they obtain a permit from, the City. If the City Council wishes to go this route, we would recom~.~nd that a new ordinance be drafted that would provide specific standards for regulating mdneral extraction. Our c~%rrent ordinance doesn't do a very good job of that frankly. This ordinance could include requir~ents relative to site screening and buffering. Enviror~ntal protection. Site restoration. Limits on noise. Dust. Hours of operation and other related matters. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how to proceed. These alternatives, each involve considerable time and effort and some degree of legal exposure for the City. However, we're prepared to respond as directed by the City Council. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this? Is there anyone here from Moon Valley by chance? Is there something that you'd like to say or address Council on and if you would, you can cc~ up to the microphone. Terry Beauchane: I guess I'm not sure how to put this. Mr. Boyt read the proposal that was just read by the Planning Department and I guess I'm not completely clear on exactly what all that means. It was a mouthful to digest. Axe we saying in effect that, if I understand this, that the existing or the original Moon Valley operation can stay in operation to whatever extent it wants as long as it doesn't go beyond the original boundaries of Moon Valley? Of the original Moon Valley operation? Paul Krauss: To a point but let ~ phrase it a little differently. What we're saying relative to the existing gravel quarry is that we don't believe that the City's going to be in a position to stop them, from, m~[ning gravel on the site. If directed by the City Council however, we believe that the City could require that they obtain a perm, it and that conditions could be attached to that permit. 28 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Terry Beauchane: For the existing or oziginal Operation? Paul Kra~ms: Exactly. Terry Beauchane: Okay. And those conditions would be? Paul Krauss: Well t~. have yet to be developed but what we would do is write an ordinance that specifically requires co~itions of approval that could cover a wide variety, of i t~m~. Terry Beauchane: And that would apply to the original excavation or mining operation? Paul Krauss: Yes. Terry. Beauchane: Okay. And then we have the second p~rt of the issue which is the mining of the clay north of the original Moon Valley. Paul Krauss: R~ght. And I believe that that's a separate ite~ or could be handled separately. That that is in fact a violation of current codes. It represented a considerable ex[~nsion of the site or complete relocation of the operation to a different area. Terry Beauchane: ~m I interpretting that to _m~a__n that they should never have dug that hole in the first place without getting a permit? Paul Krauss: Yes, that' s our opinion. Terry Beauchane: And then that means if that's the case, they would have to reclaim that land and put it back to it's original condition? Paul Krauss: If the City Gouncil wishes to follow up along those lines, .-es. We would recc~me~ that the site be restored. Terry Beauchane: And the third part of ~hat you're saving then is if anyone wants to mine land within the city. of Chanhassen, they. would have to come under this new ordinance that you're proposing or might propose? Paul Kzauss: Yes. Terry Beauchane: With all of it's restrictions and/or ~ahatevex? Paul Krauss: That' s correct. Terry Beauchane: ~m I understanding that correctly noW? Okay. ~he one thing I did not heaz any discussion on or brought up I guess was again, as I mentioned at the beginning of this session, the traffic problems. Mayor Chtiel: That we're going to look into and the~ if we have to address. Terry Beauchane: Would that or could that be a part of this new ordinance also? Mayor Chtiel: As a condition? 29 City Council Meeting - January 221 1990 Terry Beauchane: As a condition or whatever~ Paul Krauss: Traffic could be one of the items that you could look at. You wouldn't be in a position to stop it but you might want to require turn lanes or s~thing else that improved it. Council~an Johnson: However, it would be tough to enforce those on Moon Valley because of grandfathering conditions. Terry Beauchane: Well that all depends on how you look at it. Council~n Johnson: ...pew, it to continue a non-conforming use. How you could get hi~, to have to put in turn lanes, etc., etc.. Tnat's going to be very difficult. But any new operations. Mayor Ch~,iel: Could you even, and I'm sure they don't want to be out there during peak traffic flows. Terry Beauchane: Who doesn' t? Mayor Chmiel: Let F~ finish my state,Lent. I'm sure t_hat Moon Valley doesn' t want to be out there during those peak hours as well because it could be a detriment for the~, as well as anyone else. Could that be incorporated in the operating hours to avoiding peak flow of traffic? Paul Krauss: Conceiveably yes but I guess I would defer that to Roger. Roger Knutson: It certainly is sc~thing that would be a condition of seriously look at, I think that might work. Terry Beauchane: I guess I bring ~ the question based on the traffic probl~ being that that is a U.S. Highway controlled by the State of Minnesota. Does the City Council even have authority to. Mayor Ch%iel: We're controlling what's c(~,ing off the site, not the highway. Terry Beauchane: I guess I'm referring to like turn lanes, passing lanes and that sort of thing. Now you're talking about... Mayor Ch~,iel: That would have to be discussed with the Highway Department to see whether... Terry Beauchane: So we' re leaving it up to the~ then. For that part of it. Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes. We don't have jurisdiction over that road. Terry Beauchane: ~nen I guess we already know what the answer. Mayor Chniel: We can make reco~mendations to ~. Terry Beauchane: And we know what's going to happen with that. Nothing. Mayor Ch~,iel: Well we never know. 3~ City Gouncil Meeti~3 - January 22, 199~ -_ Councilman Johnson: It depends upon how much pressure gets put. Terry Beauchane: We've been tryin~ to put pressure on down there for .~ars. I guess that's all the c0~%ents I have. Mayor Ch~iel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Councilman Work~an: T~ points. N~m~er one, Paul. Are you saying that Moon Valley. couldn't purchase the Teich propexty, make a gravel pit out of that? Mayor Ch%iel: They could purchase it. It's our belief that they couldn't use it for a gravel mining operation or that we could stop ~. Councilman Workman: What's the immediate concern? Then my second one, we'll keep it short. Isn't this an issue of a much la~ger magnitude rather than a City's probl~,? ~nis would see~ to me to be down in a protected wildlife area. I guess maybe it's not in the protected wildlife area but adjacent to, etc.. That this is an issue for the EPA or ~ with bigger and better contacts. Mayor (~iel: Fish and Wildlife? Councilman Workman: Because I mean it's such a high impact thing. All up and down, if we go by the EPA. Aftex saying you can bury. garbage on the bluff down there too but I think our only option after, I think the next option after r~moving all this fill is goirg to be Met Council request to bury. trash there to fill it in. Is this s~mething that we should all be w~rried about and who can we, as a little City. Council ask for help in jurisdiction or is it just us? Paul Krauss: Councilman Work~mn, I think that first of all, if we did pass an ordinance that required a permit and did put ~ through those hoops, that we would notify, all the other agencies to find out ~hat, if any, leverage or interest they had in it. Right now most of those agencies that might have an interest in it don't have any reason to be there amd they're not affecting a wetland. There apparently were sc~e improvements on the site to keep the more serious erosion on the gravel pit side and not going into the Minnesota River. It's my understanding that there was some interaction bet%men the Minnesota River Wetershed District and the operation in the past. Yeah, I think a lot of those agencies would be interested. You erode away a major bluff line that's visible over a large distance, a lot of agencies it would be, but there's no vehicle for them to interact on it right now. If we required a permit and put that through and sent that out, there may be some potential lease for those agencies to review it and make their concerns known. Councilman Workman: Is Met Council going to ask us to bury garbage there7 Councilman Boyt: You know how to make this exciti~ don't ~u? Paul Krauss: I don' t know. Terry Beachane: You bring up a good point. How are they going to fill in that hole? Councilman Workman: I mean that's a permanent scar. 31 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Paul Krauss: Yes it is and there's a lot of creative things that can be done with gravel quarries although, the Byerly's in St. Louis Park is a gravel quarry as is everything south of Southdale. ~ney can be used but it takes a lot of effort and design ingenuity to do it. Mayor Ch~iel: What you're saying about Met Council Tc~,, that's probably very true. They're looking to re. rake a proposal that they have jurisdiction over all matters and supercede counties or cities and mandate that you put a landfill where they want. Councilman Boyt: Let' s hold that for a future. Mayor Chv, iel: I just thought, he threw it out and that's very. Councilman Johnson: That w~uld require a mandatory envirnor~ental impact statement probably at this point. Councilman Workman: That doesn't m~an a whole lot. Councilman Johnson: No, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Mayor Ch~iel: Have them, go through the process themselves. But anyway, go ahead. You're done? Okay, Jay. Do you have anything? Councilman Johnson: I think w~ should move at d[~ spccd to put in a perm, it ordinance for this. If anybody wants to go do extraction other places, I think you know there has been sc~e consideration. Who was it? Ursula, who is it that sells the sweet corn, farm~ over there? Councilw~mn Dim]er: Peterson. This is Sever ' s brother. Co~.mcilman Johnson: Oh, Sever's brother. Okay. I only know Sever so okay. Now I know Sever's brother. Councilwoman Dimler: Why don't we let him address it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because there was so~e talk of mining clay out of your land and I'd like to see that done with proper permits and ever.vthing. The people on Bluff Creek Road would be very interested in that not happening. My. friends I know theze. Darrel Peterson: I don' t really see any problem here gentlemen. Mayor Chmiel: Could you just state your name and your address. Darrel Peterson: My. name is Darrel Peterson. We own 180 acres right to the east of Moon Valley and there is no hole being dug anywhere. What they're digging is still 20 feet above the highway and I don't think you have to worry about any d~ going in there later. I think what we have to look at is property rights here. I think property rights are just as right as civil rights. I as a neighbor don't have, can't tell him what to do nor can he tell me what to do. Nor if all of us get together can we tell him what to do. ~ney haven't been doing anything that's bothered anybody. There's no law's been broken. Tnere's no victim~ to any crime. I think we're just stepping out of 32 City Co, tncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 l~ne a l~ttle ahead of tiF~ and before you get a little too foolish, I'd like to read you a little something out of the Supr~te Oourt decision of June of 1987. Get my glasses on. A major property rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that landowners must be cc~~ated when the gov~ regulations bar the~, even ~rarily fray, ~ing their property. ~me court by a 6 to 3 vote said regulations such as zoning ordinances that impose mew limits on an owner's use of land may s~)unt to the taking for which the Constitution requires Just compensation. A little farther do~ it says, in recent .v%~rs Court have seem more willing to recognize that some land use regulations can have the same affect as public ownership. The Supreme Court said, let's see here. Temporary takings which deny...all use of his property are not any different in the kind frc~ permanent takings for which the Constitution clearly requires c(m~ensations. ~e decision ~ade clear that once s(~e court has found that an owner's land ~as taken by. regulation, gov~t officials may s~end the regulation, withdraw it or buy. their property, but whatever the gove~t does, it will have to cc~pensate the owner. So that's where I stand. Any. questions from, you? Co,.~cilman Johnson: I've got no proble~ with that. Mayor Chv~iel: Yep. I don't argue with that. Councilman Johnson: We're not going to say he's got to quit mining gravel out of there. We'll say he can't go beyond his property, limits. We may say that he can't get within so many feet of his property, just like ~u can't place a house on your property, line. Darrel Peterson: You see there's a buffer zone on Dicky. T~ich's. I don't know who's ~laining. S~mebody driving by. from Shakopee or Chaska may not like it ~t that don't give th~ the right to say what they can do and what they can't do. As far as, if you look at the property., if they. w~uld go through, they've got a big ~%lly behind there. If they'd go through there and level that all out, it w~uld be a much nicer site when they. get done than when they started. According to who? My. opinion is just as great as yours isn't it? I live there. Councilman Johnson: He's on the other side. Darrel Peterson: I'm on the east side. Resident: You've got about 1,0~ yards between you and the hole. Darrel Peterson: My. land, I grew up on the hill and I overlook the hole. Resident: They. dig that hill between me and the gravel pit Darrel, I'll look right at a bunch of dump trucks... Darrel Peterson: ~lt they can't take it because Dicky Teich owns it and they're saying... Resident: ~t if they sell it they certainly can. Darrel Peterson: But they're saying they're not going to allow that. Resident: ... 33 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Mayor Chv, iel: Gentlem~_n, this is not an arguing position here. If w~ can just sort of... Darrel Peterson: But w~ have a gravel pit there and what I'm saying, it's better to let ~ do their thing and finish it than try to stop something in the m~ddle here. I beg yo~%r pardon. ~lt what I'm saying is they have the right to do with their property, they're the ones that are paying taxes on it. You pay taxes on yours. We don't tell you what color to paint your house. Councilm~n Workm~n: The arg~%ent is, if he does buy the Teich's and we're leaving the gravel pit alone. If he does buy the Teich's and then does buy part of yours and part of yours and it keeps going out. That's what the concern is. Darrel Peterson: Fine. But within his own property rights, he's got the right to do what he wants to. He's grandfathered in there. That's what I'm saying. Co~mcilm~n Workm~n: Yeah. That we know. Darrel Peterson: And we go to great lengths to give somebody civil rights but property rights are just as much. Councilm~n Johnson: Now w~uld you like to see him 20 years from, now pull all his equipment out and leave? Darrel Peterson: I don't think he intends to do that. Councilmmn Johnson: No, when the gravel's mined out. We've got this big hole there. Darrel Peterson: It' s not a hole. councilman Johnson: Well we've got a big scar with no vegetation growing on it and only re~nents of sand and gravel. No possibility of any vegetation ever growing back on there other than what grows in gravel but it's no longer [m~=able for mining. No longer economically. Do you think we should any kind of regulations as to restoration of that area? Darrel Peterson: But don't you think that he as the landowner is going to do the best he can to get the m~st dollars out of that? That's going to m~ke a beautiful site when it' s leveled down. Co~cilmmn Johnson: It tomy cost him more to restore that site. There are m~ny examples in this country where businessmen have walked away frc~, a site and just left it because they've gotten as much value out of it as they want. So this permitting of the site will give us the same rights as they do on the big mines. The big coal mines where they have to restore the site after, this is strip mining. That's all this is. Our permit is going to require th~, to restore the site before they leave the site. Maybe even phase restore the site to where the entire thing, restrict how m~ny total acreage of the site can be opened at one time before restoration starts. It's not going to be breaking any new gro[~ds. It's not going to be much different than other mining operations. We're just trying to control, protect the environment and protect the city here. 34 City (k~cil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Darrel Peterson: Y~ah, I would agree if we had a hole being dug but there's hole being dug. The hill was taken out but it's still way high above the highway and if you go just a little farther back towards the railroad tracks, there's another big gully in there. Councilman Johnson: Put my house on top of a hole and I fall into a mdne, there's no hole there because, never mind. Darrel Peterson: An.uhow, you understand what I'm saying. Mayor Ch%iel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Jerry Ripk~a: My. na~ is Jerry Ripke~a and I am s~plo~ by. G & T Trucking which operates Moon Valley. Just to a couple issues. We have no intention of buying the property next door and mining straight through. There's no intention of that. I don't know where that came up fr~ but that's not an intention of o~%rs to purchase ~)re property, and to do m~ning to~mrds the west. As far as to the traffic isms, since wa have purchased that property. I have ~ continually on the State to help ,m and do things. In fact, there is in fact truck hauling signs out there and they. are because, I'm sorry. The signs say trucks entering and those were put up by. us continually on the State to get those put up and that's the only reason they're there. We have tried to get turn lanes out there and the State has not done anything or won't address that issue at this time anyway. As far as traffic, in the trucking business time is money. I do all the scheduling. I do not att~ to schedule when our traffic is the highest out there. There's many times where w~ could be hauling on Saturday and w~ do not haul on Saturday because of the traffic load out there. At $.80 to $.86 a minute with a truck you can't have the~ sitting in traffic so w~'re very. aware of what goes on out there, believe me. We have done a n~ber of things to control the water. It was brought UP that the Watershed District has been there. and they have been there and we have dug ponds up on top. We've put dikes in. S~ve culverts and things like that to control our runoff up there. I think that we do a better job now of containing it than before we purchased the property. Also, as far as to the restoration, we have already, started to bring or put black dirt back on the slopes so it is a flat slope. Right now I'm working at about a 4:1 or 5:1 so that as we work our way around, we will be restoring that piece of property. It makes no sense for us that when w~'re done that it's just there because we hold that property, in value ~ we're done and we ~ant to be able to sell it for the highest possible price so we are doing s~me things and will do it but you can't do it until we mine the material out. So I feel that we are addressing sc~e of these issues. Terry Beauchane: I've got some questions. I guess first of all, the issue, let's see the last one concerning restoring it. Now I'm not positive but I was just up there a few weeks ago and on the southwest side ~here the steep cutoff is of the mining operations, I don't see how you could put black dirt in there ~er any circ~v~tances when it's straight up and down. It can't be restored. Not without taking the hill down. I don't care what anybody says. If any of you people have ever been up to that mine and looked at it, it's a straight drop off. It is not a hill by. any stretch of t/~ imagination. Secondly, do you own ~bon Valley? Are you the owner? You're not the owner. Then .uou cannot say that the owner of the existing ~k)on Valley. will or will not buy. the Teich property next to it right? I don't understand what ~ur relationship is with the owner of Moon Valley and the minirg of Moon Valley.. Are you leasing the 35 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 rights to mine it or what is the relationship here? I don't understand it. Jerry Ripk~a: ...relationship. On the issue of who owns it and who does what I don't think that has anything to do with it. Ter~ Beauchane: Well you stand up here and say that you have no intention of buying the Teich property, but you don't own the Moon Valley. property now. You may not be hauling out of that Moon Valley forever. He could just as well call another trucking fi~, in and start hauling out of there and get rid of you right? Is that not right? Mayor Ch%iel: That's always potential in any... Terry Beauchane: Well no, but he's making the statement that he has no intention of buying the Teich property. He doesn't own Moon Valley. It doesn't Fake any difference what his intentions are. Mayor Chmiel: And I guess we're not in a court of law to be asking these questions. Terry Beauchane: No, but I'm trying to clarify some issues here that I don't think are quite realistic or legitiFate here of the points he's bringing up. And I guess the third point is, you say about the r~off and so on and so forth. That Faywell be that you are taking steps back in the pit area and so on to control sc~ of that r~off but is it not also true that a big culvert was dug and put under the highway right in front of the entrance of Moon Valley and it now goes under the highway and drains out into the wildlife area that's owned by the government? Jerry Ripk~a: Tnat culvert was put back in in the 20's I believe. Terry Beauchane: That culvert was just put in last year because I saw th~n digging it. Darrel Peterson: There was a culvert in there way in the 20's and it was big enough for Fe to walk through. I used to play in it. Terry Beauchane: Well okay. Tnen I guess it was refurbished, expanded or whatever but in any. case, that culvert now serves as a runoff frc~ the mine. I gave you pictures of that about a ~nth ago. Of the c~lvert. Now that r[moff is cc~ing from the pit and is going into a wildlife area. A wildlife refuge area which is owned by the government. Darrel Peterson: No Fatter what hills you live by. l~e runoff ir(m, my hills. Terry Beauchane: I don't care. If you're destroying sGnebody else's property, it' s beyond the issue of your own property. I guess that' s my point. If it' s destroying or interrupting or in any way affecting sc~one else's property, then it's not just an issue of that property owner. It now becomes an issue of all the property owners around it and in this case it is now becc~ning an enviror~_ntal issue. I think Tc~ Workman brought up a very good point about that. Maybe it is ti~ to get the EPA involved. I guess I don't have anything else to say. 36 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Mayor (~a~iel: Is there anyone else? Darrell, did you want to say something? Darrel Peterson: I guess I feel that we have to respect o~ people's property as they respect mine. As far as runoff on these hills, no matter, whenever it rains you're going to have runoff. That's just, whether it's running off a gravel pit or running off of farmland or ~ahatever, rain is rain so we can't condemn rain. That's an act of God. And that culvert was in there many years ago so that's not a problem and I think, like I said, the thing is there and you fellows that want to stop it, it's going to be worse than if you let it finish up. But any questions? Councilman Workman: Only in that Darrel, when we have new construction we ask people to put up a silt fence, hales, etc.. When you have disturbed hillside that silt is going to run off the hill in greater quantities and higher vol~ae into a wetland because it is disturbed. There's not any vegetation growing on it because it's ~n stripped. That's the only point that I think that we're making. Darrel Peterson: Yeah, but it doesn't do that much damage nor does these things that you talk about, do that much good. I farm around then all the time and it's a bunch of foolishness as far as I'm concerned. A big waste of money. Councilman Workman: I mutght agree with you on that because usually they're not working anyway but I'm just saying, this is a very large area that's been stripped. We have pictures of it and everything else but with open sand and gravel, a big downpour could literally run tons of gravel into a protected wildlife refuge. Darrel Peterson: Yeah, but you get runoff no matter ~hat. Mayor Ch%iel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, let's bring it back to Council. Jay, do you have s(x~ething? Councilman Johnson: I think we need to put together a mineral ordinance permitting mineral extraction ordinance that requires a permitting conditional uses. Make it a conditional use or whatever and that we have controls on sight lines. Runoff criteria. Enviror~ntal criteria. ~atever traffic criteria we can c~ up with that is fair and equitable to not only this site but every. possible, all the sites. We can't try regulating just one particular site. There may be other sites where scme mining may occur in this city.. The ~ for clay in this area may become very great in the future when ~den Pzairie's landfill opens up. Chanhassen is a site where we have various deposits of clay that several people are going to ~nt to mine and we may ~nt to get an ordinance to control that mining. Not only here but elsewhere. So I think that up ~til now there hadn't ~ a very big ~ for a mineral extraction ordinance but I think in the future we may have one. So I think we really should do this. Councilwuman Dimler: I have a couple of questions and I guess Boger's probably the best one to ask. I just want to make absolutely clear in my mind as to what grounds are we basing that we can ask for a pen%itting process at this point when wa haven't in the past? 37 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 : Roger Knutson: Even though this is a non-conforming, apparently non-conforming use, a wealth of case law that indicates that you still have the right to regulate this existing ,me to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Such obvious things as slopes, excavations so no one is injured, buffering, runoff control, erosion control, dust control, traffic. Things like that. You can't put th~, out of business. Just because they're a non-conforming use does not mean that you cannot regulate them. You can regulate them,. Councilwoman Dim, let: Okay. So we're going to be basing our concerns on public health, safety and welfare? My. other question ~as, now how can we, and I think I heard Paul say that even if, they have the right to buy the Teich property, but they will not be able to mine it. On what basis can we stop them, from mining? Roger Knutson: It will be outlined in the ordinance if that's the direction you go. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, we don't have that right now? Okay. Mayor Ch~,iel: That' s what we' re looking for. councilman Johnson: Do you have an idea how that would happen? What we could put in the ordinance to make that effective? Roger Knutson: When they cc~,e in for a permit, we'll permit the land they own. councilman Boyt: That wouldn't stop th~% from cc~,ing in for another permit. Roger Knutson: ...if they ~t the criteria under your new ordinance for a new mine for example, yes. They'd be entitled to a permit. Pres~mably, not prejudging your ordinance, I would guess it's a fair assumption that you're not going to allow a gravel mine with any intensity 10 feet from sc~_=one's hcx~e or 150 feet for that Patter. You can have certain buffering and certain criteria. Councilwoman Dimler: And this new property would have no grandfathering? It cannot extend their grandfather lng? Roger Knutson: That's what the ordinance would provide. Councilwoman Dim]er: Thank you. That's all th~ questions I had. Councilman Boyt: I'm in favor of this. I'm a little surprised we don't already have it but I think all we have to do is look at the clay mining that took place over a year ago to realize that the City needs someway of knowing what kind of mineral extraction's going on and having reasonable controls. Not unreasonable controls but I think the ones laid out in the ordinance that's proposed, at least for further study, is a good one. I've got a few changes that I would suggest and I guess that's the limit of my com%ents. In item 7-4-4 which talks about when permits will be required, it says we're not going to require a perm, it if you take less than 1,000 cubic yards in a calendax year. That's a lot of ground. I mean you say that's a small a~ount but 1,000 cubic yards is, you're going to notice a hole in the ground. Councilman Johnson: That's a grading permit. 38 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Paul Krauss: Excuse me Bill. There's another aspect to this report that's kind of buried at the back and it pertains to how the City regulates grading permits in general. We'd like to, and we've held off on drafting an ordinance to deal with that because we think there's some problems right now with how we deal with grading perm, its. ~at we w~uld propose to you and we've come up with a comprehensive ordinance is methods to deal with that 1,000 cubic yards or less and procedures for handling that. So we w~uldn't just leave it hanging Bill. It would be taken care of in the sa%e ordi~. Co~cilman Johnson: And that would be separate than mineral extraction. Paul Krauss: Yeah. For example, if .v~u're a hc~eowner and you want to bring 400 yards of black dirt onto your property, or scmet~hing like that, we would want to be in a position where we could authorize a pexmit subject to conditions. Councilman Boyt: As long as it's covered scot, ay. I just didn't want to create a hole without any control. I think in it~, 7-4-12 where it talks about standards for the extraction site location that 30 feet from the boundary of adjoining properties is not enough. I would suggest 50, maybe 100. We're generally going to be talking about very large sites and the way I'm thinking of this is how far from a property, line can s~. drop off 200 feet? I don't know what the right n~v~er is but I'm pretty sure 30 feet isn't enough. In 7-4-15 which talks about operations, noise, hours, explosives. That sort of thing. Point n~er 1 talks about a maxim~ noise level. I think that's good. I think we might want to add just a general intent line that says every, reasonable action shall be taken to control the noise of operations below the maxim~ allowed. Again, that's ~t vague but it also says that our intent is that people do everything reasonable to control the noise. Then in its~ 4, I think there's a very. good point in there about the MPCA and Enviror~ntal Protection Agency. and such. I would suggest that we add to the last line ~here it says, we prevent all drainage into streams, lakes or wetlands. As has ~ pointed out in s~ve of our other ordinances, a wetland is not a lake. A lake is not a strea% so we should have all three of those covered. Mayor C~,iel: I think that those are good points Bill and there are others within here that ~ to be addressed and looked at as well. Councilman Boyt: But I support this. I think we should move forward with it. Councilwoman Dimler: If I could make another ccarment. I guess my general direction is that I do support sc~, as we said, reasonable controls but I'm w~ndering if what we have here isn't a little bit too restrictive already. I think like ~der 7-4-14 under appearance and screening at the extraction site. It~v, 3 is all buildings and equiim%ent that is not being used for a period of one year shall be r~oved frc~, the site. Again, how do .u~)u prove that it hasn't ~ used? What constitutes use? I mean those kinds of things. They just drive me up a wall when I see them in there. I think we tend to get too restrictive and that makes me a little... Mayor Chmiel: It's the same thing in item 1 and 2. Machinery shall he kept in good repair. Abandoned machinery, and inoperable equiBz~nt... 39 City Council Meeting - Jant~ry 22~ 1990 Councilw~n Dimler: I do believe that, I agree with Mr. Peterson that the owner has the most vested interest and he's going to, unless they're not interested and I understand that there are s~e people that are not interested. However, that's their right to be ~ninterested in their ec~lil:ment. You know, so~ people don't keep their cars up either. I get a little uncomfortable when we try to get to that type of regulation. I do believe in sc~e reasonable general guidelines but not to get too specific. So I'm not in favor of passing this as it is right now but I am in favor of looking at... Mayor Ch%iel: That's what I think we're looking at. Is having a drafted ordinance to see what we feel once it's pulled together. I too feel that what you're saying about this, there are sc~ concerns and some concerns that should be addressed and sc~ of these concerns could possibly be eliminated. But I think for the overall benefit of the city, I think it's something that w~ should have in place and I specifically think of the City of Maple Grove just as sort of north of the City with the amount of pits that are existing that have not been addressed and they're there. Nothing growing except for a few trees and a few things of that nature. That's really bad there. If you have an opportunity, jt~t take a look at it. You'll never forget it. Councilwc~mn Di~.ler: So how do we proceed with this? Mayor Ch~,iel: I think what we have to do is send it back to Planning and back to staff and over to the Attorney to see that each of these issues can be addressed and upheld in court if that's the case. councilman Johnson: Has this been passed in Lakeville? Roger Knutson: ~nis ordinance, yes. Councilvmn Johnson: How long ago? Roger Knutson: Last year. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that, well I guess I'm always reluctant to not send something to Planning Cc~,ission of this sort and yet I hate to see us delay this. This is the tiF~ when we ~ to pass this because this spring, it's going to open up and I'd really like to think that we would have had the permit before us before they begin mining this year. Especially that clay pit. I think part of whatever motion we draft should direct the City Attorney to take action against that and stop it for now. But with this ordinance, I'd sure like to think that we can get it done in the next 6 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: That's something I think we can F~)ve on rather quickly. Councilw(mmn Dimler: But that doesn't ~'~_an it can't go back to Planning. It should have due process and I don't ~ant to ~ sc~thing rushed here. If there's a real good ordinance that we keep amending. Councilman Johnson: I'm sure there are sc~,e people out there who are considering selling their clay and would like... Mayor Chmiel: Tnere are other ordinances that are in fact operation on these. I beleive Brooklyn Park has then and so does Osseo. It might be well to look at 40 City Oouncil Meeting - January 221 1990 Roger Knutson: I have a list of ordinances from lots of c~m~ities and where there's cross referencirg and cc~rising which we just received today and which I'll pass out. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ~ the Planning ~ission move forward on this on high priority.. Counci]man Boyt: I think that's what I'm sa.ring Jay is, this is one of those projects that a year ago this came up and nothing happened, almost nothing happened until a f~w m~nths ago ~ahen we received a citizen c(xnplaint. I hate to see Lm end up in the middle of the s~m~ex still trying to get this on our agemda. Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with you but I do ~nt to have it go through due process. Counci]man Boyt: ~h sure. Mayor Ch~iel: Yep. Okay. I think we ~ a motion, g~ere's ~n a lot of discussion on this and I think m~re specifically we should deal with What's presently before us on the Moon Valley portion of the clay extraction. Oounci]man Johnson: Do two separate motions on that? Mayor Ch~iel: And I think we should probably have two separate motions on this too, yes. (kz~cilman Johnson: Could I ask the representative ~cher they plan on continuing that clay operation next year? I'm sure what's going to happen here is we' re going to direct the City Attorney to try to prevent .you to. Jerry. Ripke~a: I don't know how I want to phrase it. I guess it's our position that that property Ms purchased as one piece of property as a gravel pit. We have clay in front as well as in back. Clay is a term for a type of material. There's from sandy clay to CH clay to CL to CA you know. If it Ms sand back there, it really wouldn't. Clay is sand material to me. It doesn't really matter but that's our stance anyway. Councilman Johnson: Given that, I'd like to m~ve that we direct the City Attorney to take what action necessary, to prevent fu~~ mining of clay from this gravel site. Councilwoman Dimler: For what reason? Councilman Johnson: Based on what he says, that this is a change of operation. It's at a different location than the existing gravel pit and it is not the mineral that is grandfathered in. ~he mineral grandfathered in is gravel which is considerably different in chemical ore, position than clay. Gravel is not just a big piece of clay. Clay is a totally different m~neral. Councilw(~an Dimler: Okay, but them t~. can in the future when we have the permitting process in place they can come in and try to get a permit to do clay? 41 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Yes. Right. Now they're not grandfathered for that. I'd like to prevent that operation fro~. starting up in the spring. Councilman W~rk~n: Second. Councilman Johnson: I think I should say Attorney and staff rather than direct it just at the City Attorney. Councilman Workman: Jay, maybe what you ought to do is direct the City Attorney to look into what w~ can do to do that rather than tell him to do it. He's zealous. And advise us therein. Mayor Chmiel: I think that' s good. That' s a good idea. Any further discussion? Council~mn Johnson moved, Co~cilman Work~.mn seconded to direct the City Attorney and City staff to look into the matter of preventing any further clay extraction from the Moon Valley gravel pit at this time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chniel: Tne second portion of that, we ~ also regarding the proposed ordinance. CouncilFan Johnson: I move that we move the proposed ordinance forward to Planning Commission and request Planning Co~%ission to put it as one of their top priorities and the Planning Department to place it as one of their top priorities to get an ordinance back to us as soon as possible. Mayor Chmiel: Pertaining to the excavations of mining? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. The excavations and mineral minings within the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Council~n Boyt: Well I would ask that we set a time limit. Mayor Chmiel: The ~)st expedient. Councilman Bo.vt: How about a month? CouncilFan Johnson: That's not eno~3h ti~ for Planning Cc~nission to even consider it. You publish it. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. For them to notify everybody. Tnat does take a little bit of ti~. How fast could w~ move on that Paul? You'd probably have a better handle. Councilman Johnson: Could it be back the first ~eting in March? Mayor Ch~,iel: This being the 22nd of January. That would give you 5 weeks. 42 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 199~ Paul KraLms: Yeah, if you're going to impose a deadline, I would ask that it be the second m~ctirg in March but w~ w~uld take the first. Councilman Johnson: That's why. I didn't say the second heca~ I knew you'd ask for the first one in April. Mayor Chniel: The second Tuesday of the month. Councilman Johnson: Tuesda.v? Councilman Boyt: Well, whatever deadline we set, I'm sure they'll m~t it and the biggest deadline is that these folks are goirg to want to open up for business and they ~ to know what conditions they can open up for under. Councilman Johnson: Before the frost c(x~es out of the soil they'll want to mine clay. Mayor Ch~iel: February, March. They still won't be in there. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd also like to see scmething to the wording, as reasonable control too so that they have sc~e guideline. We' re not looking to get real specific here. K_.--cp your machinery, in repair and that kind of thing. Mayor Ch~iel: Yep. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think maybe some additional clarification is in order. Once we generate this ordinance and it's published, the ordinance would be on the books but then we have to go and make that ordinance effective on Moon Valley. I guess I'd defer to l%0ger on how that might be brought about and how long that might take. Roger Knutson: The next process would be, as envisioned by me anyway, is that you~ ordinance would say even existing uses must c~ze in and get a permit. Gravel permit or an excavation permit or mining permit or whatever you call it. Then you have to give ~ a reasonable amount of time to get their act together and come in and apply for and paying the permit. So if you pass the ordinance in one m~eting, you can't expect ~ to have a permit in 2 weeks. It will take 2 months, 3 ~nths. In the meantime of course they can continue to operate because they. are a non-conforming use so the process takes a bit of time. Co,~cilman Johnson: But not the clay operation? The gravel operation. councilman Workman: We just have to Act as soon as we can. That's all. Mayor ~iel: I think as most expedient as we possibly can. councilman Johnson: How about targeting to have it back to the City. Omancil the first m~eting in March as a target? Well he ~nted to go for the second. councilman Bo.vt: I'll second it. 43 City Oouncil M~ettng - January 22~ 1990 Councilman Johnson moved, Council~n Boyt seconded to send the proposed ordinance pertaining to excavation and mining to the Planning Cc~,ission as their top priority and that the ordinance be brought back to the City Council at their first meeting in March. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SENIOR CITIZEN STUDY, JUDY MARSHIK, CONSULTANT. Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy here? Judy, would you like to co~e forward please. Ma~u~e while you're cc~,ing up. I took an opportunity to call each of the churches in town to see if wa could get some senior citizens to participate in this senior citizen study. I did call three different churches and I was able to, Lutheran Church of Living Christ, St. Hubert's and Family of Christ and I tried getting a hold of Cindy Shepherd and I wasn't able to but I have cc~e up with four different names of seniors who would be willing to assist and I'm going to be getting a couple more yet from St. Hubert's and hopefully if I contact Cindy, to have sc~one from their church as wall. ~lt I just wanted to m.~ntion that I've talked to Zelda Hinzland who has consented. Dick Neiland has. Floyd Tapper and Einar Swedberg so w~ do have people who would be willing to sit and discuss. Paul Krauss: Don, would w~ also be using the 2 of the 3 people that we discussed the last time? Mayor Chniel: I think that's s~v~thing we can discerns. The Council. I have a feeling, I'd like to take people fr~, the co~%unity. I want people from Chanhassen and I appreciate Joan Lynch extending her services to be incorporated in this fr~ Shakopee but I'd like to keep this to the people of our co~r~nity. Your floor. Judy Marshik: Okay. In light of the lateness of the hour. Mayor C~iel: 1: 00 gets late. Councilm~n Johnson: Nobody told you item, 8's L~ually about 8 after midnight. Judy Marshik: I'm glad you didn't tell me that. He did say it might be after 9:30 but he didn't say how late. You've received a copy of the proposal already so I just pulled out sc~ pertinent sections and thought that it might help to refresh your memory as to why I'm working for you and what it is I'm going to be doing on behalf of the City over the next 6 months. Essentially there's 3 objectives to the study. One is to do a needs assessment for the City and try and identify what's happening in the area d~ographically. What's happening to your senior population. I'm s~re many of you are extremely well read, a very articulate group as I had a chance to observe. You know that there is a graying of k~erica taking place and very likely Chanhassen is part of the silver surge so we will try to find out what the numbers are projected for seniors in your area. That is a nationwide trend. It is a Minnesota trend. It is a metropolitan area trend. We'll just have to find out what's happening here. You're a sc~~t younger c(mmunity and growing very rapidly so just getting a handle on what the percentages are will be helpful for you I'm sure. I will also be looking at what services are available in the area and will be getting some opinions fr(m; your seniors in the area as to what's strong and what's weak about city services for seniors. The second thing we' 11 be doing is looking at 44 City Council Meeting - January 22, 199~ what would happen if you were to set up a senior center here in the co~mnity rather than using the one that you have ~ using in Excelsior. We want to find out what i~act that will have on the center in Excelsior as ~11 as what impact that would have on your ~ity. The~ finally w~'ll wrap that all up in a report to you and give you ~ recommendations as to how to proceed and that's why. it's important to have seniors involved. Mayor O~,iel: Just one other question that I had frc~ s~me of the people that talked to. Their concern was where they. might be meeting. Would it be during the day or would it be evening? Judy Marshik: ~tirely at their option. As far as I'm concerned. Mayor Ch~iel: Many. of the~ have the time during the day and a lot of then don't like to go out in the evening. Judy Marshik: Sure, that's entirely at their option and I know a lot of seniors don't like, especially in the wintertime, traveling out after dark. It's difficult to see and scmet~ slippery so I'm sure we can work on that. The second page really goes through four stages of the market research for you and tells you what w~'ze going to be doing, 1, 2, 3, 4. (]me, w~'re going to get some background and do the denographic analysis. T~D, w~'re going to go out and talk with some people n~minated by. the project task force as being wise and s~art people on senior issues ar~ find out what they think is happening in the area. The third thing we will do is a mailed out survey to area seniors and the fourth thing we will be doing is some focus groups when we have sc~e recommendations in mind and see what they think of the recc~dations. Then on the last page of that handout is the time table and w~'re working on it~% one on the time table tonight in January to meet with the Council. To get a task force organized and to get your input. If you have anythirg in addition to the proposal. Information you ~mnt to see when a report comes back to .uou. What will you r~ in it to help ~u make up your mind whether to pr~ with organizing services within the city itself or continuing to rely on the Excelsior center so you may want to think about that. Anythirg else you want to pop into the pot and then in February we hope to get started on the task force meeting process. That's just kind of a nutshell. Councilman Johnson: Are you aware of the Excelsior center's losing their building? I thought I heard sc~thing. Judy Marshik: That's what I had P~ard and I believe I put that in the background to this report. Councilman Johnson: 7hat could have a very big impact. Judy. Marshik: Yeah, we need to explore what's happening with funding up there and with the building. Councilman Johnson: Sc~e of the people up there have the impression we're trying to compete with the% and I don't think we are. Judy Marshik: Ch really? 45 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilm~n Johnson: Oh yes. There's a lot of jealousy you know. Everyti~ we've talked about this in the last 3 years there's been, a large portion of the people there actually live in Chanhassen. They go to that. Judy Marshik: That's what I heard. It se~ms like a long drive tome, especially for seniors. Councilm~n Johnson: See, you don't realize how far north Chanhassen goes. It's very close to Chanhassen up there. Judy Marshlk: Oh okay. So it might be a good mmtch for so~e of those northern seniors but not such a good mmtch for the southern part? Councilmmn Johnson: Right. S~_ you're ~ay down here. These seniors up in this area, Christmms Lake, they're a lot closer. ~dy Marshik: Sure, they're right on the other side of the lake. Yeah. Council~n Johnson: Because of scme noise out there, I couldn't hear all you were saying about finding new people but I 'ye got a few suggestions. One volunteer. Mayor Chv, iel: I've got a bunch of names. Judy Marshik: It's prudent to get s~art seniors on this task force and I'll tell you why. It's like your investment in the f~lture because at so~ point you're going to need sc~e people to cc~e in and give you testimony on issues pertaining to this center and m. mrket research becky, s a way of educating a s~mll core of people as to what is happening in the co~nunity. They can serve as a sounding board for you in the future so I really appreciate it when ~ can get a group of articulate and people who serve on behalf of other seniors. Presidents of senior clubs or organizations but people in m~re of a leadership role because they tend to take their responsibility very seriously and they also track what w~'re doing and they come and when I'm gone, they're still here and they're still reporting on behalf of whatever they learned on that research and kind of keeping you on track with what they feel is ~ed for the co~vLunity. So it's an investment for you. It's a good time investment I think. Mayor Chv, iel: Great. Are there any other questions of Judy? Councilw(~ Dimler: I had a q~estion as to, and I didn't see it. Maybe it's in there but I didn't have time to read it real thoroughly. Are you doing a cost analysis as you go in your study? Of the final product in ~y, I ~uld like to know what cost this is going to be and what you expect the City to bear. Judy Marshik: I am really a market researcher. I am, less of a program, designer. I did put in that we would project to you what the needs might be in terms of senior expectations for the center and what kind of space and resources might be required. I would assum~ that an architect or program, planner would need to be the person that w~uld put in some of those resource costs. Paul Krauss: ~ne purpose of this st~y was to get a general handle on what the needs were. What the availability of services is. What we could look forward to and what sort of things we should att~npt to program in the future. When we 46 City (~ouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 got into it, it was pretty clear that what it's going to do is point us in the right direction but w~ will probably have to do further analysis of these recommendations as we go along. It's a fairly limited scope and we have a fairly limited a%ount of funds to devote to it frc~ our Block Grant so we've kept the approach as narrow, it's actually as wide reaching as possible but it's goirg to deal in generalities and not dollar specifics. Councilman Johnson: It's a first step. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand that and I agree with that but ! think when it comes to, we can identify, all kinds of ~s and if we don't have the money to pay for the%, re ~sting our time so I would like to have at least a little bit of a handle on the approximate which doesn't have to be exact. Judy ~rshik: I think very. likely ~at we'll be able to do is give you better an est]sate of ~ and one thirg I aiwa.us say to people that are plannin~ for needs, if your budget doesn't pe~t for it this ysar, it's often wise to look at what are. Councilw~3n Dimler: It's something we could work toward. Judy. Marshik: Exactly. What is most acute and them what might be secondary, and Councilwoman Dimler: It'd be nice to have a little, as we're going, kind of an idea of how deep we're in. Council~an Johnson: S.~_ I think we're in total ignorance of our senior right now. That's why I've ~ pushing for this. Mayor Ch%iel: I think it's adviseable that we have something so we can have reference to. Councilm~n Workman: What is a senior? 55? Judy. Marshik: A senior is what you call a senior. There's a lot of different definitions. It used to be the retirememt age which ~s ~andatory at 65 but retirement law is charging so much now daFs that the definition of seniors is kind of slipping and sliding around. S~me people define the~ at age 5~ believe it or not. Some at 55. Some at 62. S~ze at 65. S(mme at 70. Some at 72. Depending on what the program is. Council~ Dimler: So all we know is with each passing day there will be more and more of us. JUdy ~shik: Yes and we're all getting closer with every passing day. Councilw~van Dimler: Also, I guess I'd like to convent on the make-up of the c~mittee. I agree with you Don that it should be Chanhassen residents. That's just my basic feeling and I think although it's nice to have professionals, I really would like to hear frc~ the common folk. Mayor Ch~[el: Yeah, and that's the ~ay I basically feel about that too. We do have the names. We' 11 get those to y~u and hopefully I should get a few more 47 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 the other two. You may have more than 6 or 7. Judy Marshik: ~nat would be fine. They don't all come to a ~=eting anyhow so it's nice to have a little extra if they drop out. Mayor Ch%iel: And that's one of the points one of them made was that most of March he's going to be gone so by. having these people on it, just keeps rotating with s(~ leaving and s(~ coming and going. Council~n Johnson: Which churches did you work with? Mayor Ch~,iel: With the Lutheran Church of Living Christ, St. ~%bert's, Family of Christ and the only one I didn't get a hold of was Cindy. Shepherd. councilman Boyt: I can check with her if you ~ant. Council~an Johnson: You may want to, w~ have other residents that, Mt. Calvary. really covers and St. John's, St. John the Baptist Catholic, a lot of the seniors on the north side. That's a group that w~ really have to include in here. Mayor Chniel: Well w~ have this in the paper too requesting and w~ didn't get any so I decided that we'd better go out and just hit a few of th~ anyway. Those that are contained within the city. council~an Johnson: One person I was thinking of used to be a resident of Chanhassen. He's recently moved a little further west out on a lake now and he's retired which is Pastor Hugh Gilmore who used to be our pastor at Mt. Calvary. He was instrumental in getting a senior's highrise I guess or apartment complex. He's ~---n involved with seniors for a n%m~er of years and he's a senior himself now. Mayor Ch~,iel: In fact I heard him speak at the senior citizen day that they had just last week. But there again. council~n Johnson: He's a for~.~r resident. Mayor Ch~,iel: Right. As a foyer resident, I might have some question. I do want to get residents within the city. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to talk to him though on... Mayor Ch~[el: Good. Why don't you do that? council~nn Johnson: Okay. I'm not sure if he's in town right now. I haven't seen him for a few ~ndays. Mayor Ch~Liel: I saw him 2 weeks ago. council~an Boyt: I don't know Joan Lunch but I'd like to ~ake a pitch for the idea that sc~Lebody who works for Cad, er/Dakota and Scott county. Co~nunity Action Agency. probably has a vested interest in what's going on. 48 City (~ouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Mayor C2~,iel: Yeah but Bill, I agree with that but I don't ~nt those kinds of people to influence the other people as to what they. think their ~s basically are. Councilman Johnson: Kathy w~rks for the same group too. Councilman Boyt: Right but usually this thing c~mes down to having enough people to carry out the w~rk you ~ant the task force to do. I'm real confident that this is goin~ to be a challerge for this group to get enough bodies. When you've got people that actually volunteered for it, I'd sure hate to say to one of those people, no. Especially wh~m there's only 3 of ~. Mayor Chv, iel: I'm still going on the criteria Bill that it's not a resident of Chanhassen and I think that's what we have to look at. Co~,.-ilman Boyt: Well w~ disagree about that criteria. ~hat's all I'm trying to establish. Councilman Johnson: Cne other volunteer I have, which Hugh's not a volunteer because I haven't talked to him .vet but my wife has volunteered to be on this. ~nat took a little arm, it didn't take much arm twisting. Councilman Boyt: She's not a senior citizen. Mayor Chv, iel: No, she's not a senior citizen. Councilman Johnson: Neither is Kathy. Dorfmex. How do I know? I know Kathy very ~11. Councilwoman Dimlez: Maybe w~ can't take her either. Mayor C~miel: Strictly seniors. They know what the needs basically are. Councilman Johnson: Here's somebody who w~rks with seniors as a provider, a service to seniors. A professional. Just because ~u're not a senior does not m~an you're not concerned with seniors. Councilwcman Dimler: I understand that. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to be on the c~mit~ but I don't have the time an~ore. Council~mvan Dimler: But if you're not a senior citizen ~u can only speculate what they. ~s might be. I really want to hear frcm the people that are living it. Councilman Boyt: That's what the study is all about. Councilman Johnson: My. wife does meals on wP.~_ls okay and it's one thing that she's going around and talking to seniors that she gives out the meals. She is aware of s~me senior ~s. Just because you're a senior does not, because you're not a senior. That's age discrimination and this Council cannot be in age discrimination. 49 City Oouncil M~eting - January 221 1990 Councilwc~mn Dimler: For a senior study I think you can~ Counci 1F~n Johnson: No I can ' t. J~dy Marshik: I would suggest that you do consider a couple of providers based on my past experience. What they do is they provide for s(~e tugs and pulls in the task force itself when they're coming down to ~ahat is the final service mix and it's good to have different points of view. In addition, you do need sc~e people to implement and the seniors will not be the people that will be impl~nentin9 any of the findings so if you want to educate a couple of providers along the way, it's not a bad investment again. Pick a few good crees in the area and educate thaT,. Council~n Johnson: And there are volunteers that work with seniors who are not seniors. Not all volunteers who work with seniors are seniors. And I'm very concerned about this. Councilwoman Dim]er: Are you saying Kathy works as a volunteer for Scott/Dakota Carver County? Council~mn Johnson: I'm not sure if she's a paid m~m~er or if she's a volunteer. Paul Krauss: She' s a paid staff m~er. Councilwc~mn Dimler: Yeah. See, that's what I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: But I know Kathy very w~ll. I'll support Kathy completely on this because I know the type of person she is and how dedicated she is. Councilwoman Dim]er: I'm just saying that I would like to -_~-c it made up of the people that are Chanhassen residents that are actually the senior citizens that know what their ~s are. Council~mn Boyt: But that's what the survey's all about. I don't care who you put on there. I think, how can we make this controversial? Mayor Chmiel: You're right. They're looking for 6 or 7. We'll have more than 6 or 7 and those... Judy Marshik: They're really going to be steering the market research now so there will be 10 interviews which you will have findings from. Focus group findings so it will be pretty hard to phony that stuff up. Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to eliminate sc~e of these people that want to work. Do you understand what I'm saying? Are w~ going to incorporate everybody? Is there a limit of numbers? Mayor Chmiel: I think the more you have. Judy Marshik: The more the merrier. Up to 12 to 15. Scmething like that. Councilsmn Johnson: So~.~ of these people can drive the seniors there. 50 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Councilmmn Workman: My c~,ent would be, if anybody gives a rip, my cmm~nts would be. Councilman Johnson: An.~ody under 3~ is mot allowed on this at all. Councilman Workman: I am 3~ Jay. That's right. You didn't recognize my birthday. I would go along, anybody that could get involved. I even thought about it at one point in gettirg involved if I could so I don't know about the age thing but I would like to, I would say that if ~e cannot get enough people frc~ Chanhassem itself proper, that whatever we decide isn't going to get a whole lot of action oz involvement frc~ the seniors that we do have in town if they're not interested in getting too involved otherwise. If we can't get enough people, that would be an indication all on it's own if we can't get enough seniors frcm Chanhassen. Mayor C~m, iel: I'm sure we'll have enough. No question. We'll still have 2 or 3 more co~ing from St. Hubert's. Councilman Workman: Well thank you for listening anyway. Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, is there a motion that we have to have on this? Paul Krauss: I don't think so. It ~s an informational Mayor Ch~iel: Okay. Thank you very. much. Appreciate it. ZONING ORDINANCE AM]~DM]~%]T REGARDING ES~%BLISHING THE MAXI~ LOT SIZE FOR CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS AT 15 ACRES, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: This ordinance orginally came out of your review of the T~am~le of ~k proposal during which you discussed the possibility, of instituting a 25 acre minim~ on churches. ~ne basic concern being the property, tax impact of churches and the impacts on surrounding residential properties. Ultimately your recc~endation was that the Planning Omn~ission c~nsider a 15 acre cap. The City. Attorney drafted up an ordinance that the Planning Om~ission discussed twice and really raised a n~%ber of mixed e%otions on their pert. I guess to boil it down, they. felt a concern that churches were singled out. That if the issue was tax impact, that it should also apply to all tax exenpt institutions. Cad, fire Girls or whatever. I guess basically philosophically the Planning Cc~ssion had a proble~ with this approach towards regulating churches to the extent that they. ultimately recca~ma-~ it not be approved. We brought the ordinance up to you for your consideration. It pretty much does, well it's a cap that you were looking for in terms of the acreage requirement. In dimmm~ions with the City Attorney, we have a pretty fundanemtal question as to whether or not it's going to achieve your goal and one of the questions with this, and that Roger can get into if you like, is the fact that churches can own multiple pieces of property, under this ordinance basically getting around it. As long as all those pieces of ground w~re used for church purposes, they would all be tax ex,pt even though only one has the building on it. So frankly, we're not sure if this is going to do ~hat you'd like it to do and we await your direction. 51 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I ' 11 keep mine quick. I think they' re correct. I mean this isn't going to do what we want it to do. I think w~ knew that from the very beginning. I don't believe that this Council has the intent of restricting churches. Tne Planning Cc~v, ission gathered that. I believe Eckankar did initiate this discussion and churches were looked at because of thsm but I believe that other non-profit institutions ought to be directed also. My. opinion terrains that 800 parking stalls in a residential area off of CR 17 is an improper use of that property. Dividing it up and dicing it up and having the church own many different parcels doesn't acco~.~lish anything. I think we need to attack this from, a parking stall situation. I don't know how w~ did that. We just got done talking about it. We didn't talk too much about churches in there or non-profits or anything else but it re%ains a poor use of a residential area and I think the Planning Cc~v, ission to assume that we're just picking on cht%rches or fbkankar is erroneous. I pick on Eckankar with the rest of the other uses that might go in sc~eplace where I think it's an improper use. So I don't know where we left the parking issue. We talked about apartments and quads and duplexes and everything else but w~ didn't figure out and talk about chuxches I think. Councilman Boyt: We didn't do anything on a maximum,. I think we did something on the number of spaces required but nothing on a maximum. Councilman Johnson: We were doing minim~ns. Councilman Workman: Don't they have an 800 car capacity there or 800 person capacity? 800 person capacity in that church. Paul Krauss: That sounds right. Councilman Workman: But how many parking stalls did w~ allow? Paul Krauss: 1 per 4 I believe. Councilv'~m Johnson: You know Tom I don't think what you're really m~aning is parking stalls but intensity of use. Traffic. Trips per day and that kind of thing is what we should be concerned about within residential and other zoning classifications. However, in this particular case a church is a se~wice to residences. It's a little hard to say that but I agree with you. We have to look at the intensity of use of property. You wouldn't want to put a drive in as the house next to Re. Put in a drive thru window or something. Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, a big large parking lot in a residentially zoned piece of acreage is not, and I think we all felt that. It got to be a much larger issue but what it came down to was it was... Councilman Johnson: I think it's broader than the parking lot though. If you had s~m~thing that only had 10 parking spots but constantly had cars coming throt~3h, that would be non-compatible too. Councilw~nan Dimler: I g~ss I have a few c~estions knowing what's coming up from, St. Hubert's and I'm not sure that we don't ~ant something in place beca[me one of the things that Father Barry has ~ proposing is to build a senior citizens center. Now just becuase that's connected to a church, is that to be 52 .City Oouncil Meeting - January 22; 199~ Councilm~n Boyt: Probably2 Councilman Workman: It's churched owned. Sure. Councilwc~an Dimmer: So those are the kinds of things. Also, I guess I'm not really in favor of, we'd have to include public land. We can't restrict parks to 15 acres. So in a way I agree that this does not do what w~ want it to do. But I also, this was not Just directed at churches but just because Eckankar did bring it up but the intent was to limit the, that they couldn't take the whole parcel out in taxes but I guess afte~ talking to the County Assessor, I feel reasonably assured that he has the authority, to limit that. So I guess I think if w~ ~nt to throw it out, that's fine with me. Mayor Ch~iel: I guess I follow right behind what you're saying. I agree with that fully. One of the things that I had w~itten down at the time. Paul, could you make a list of the properties that we presently have that are tax free in the City of Chanhassen? Paul EXams: I w~uld assume we could yes. I'm not sure exactly how we'd go about it but why don't ~u let us look into it and get that for you. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to ~_c that and of course one of my major concerns too was to limit the tax impact on a community. To limit religious institutions, no way and that's not anybody intent... Councilwoman Dimlez: But we could potentially end up with all of our land, valuable land being tax ex~t and we won't have a very. good tax base. Mayor Chv, iel: That's part of the concerns that I have. Councilman Johnson: TH 212 is going to take up an awful lot of... MaWr Ch~,iel: We have to provide those services for each and I think as you look at many of the existing churches that are in locations, you're not talking 15 acres. You're not even talking so~e 3-4 acres. Councilwoman Dimler: We have the regional park already. We have the Arboreta. We have quite a bit of land already off the tax rolls so that was my main concern is that we don't get into a probl~ here where most of our land is tax Councilman Johnson: We're taking more off all the time. As we build a subdivision and put s~,e on, make it more intense. We put in a neighborho(x~ park and that's well it should because t/~re has to be... Mayor Ch%iel: You have to provide that. That's right. That's a little different thing. Councilman Johnson: And churches are necessary., as we grow, we're going to be putting more churches into this town. Mayor C2~iel: No question. No question but I think scmehow we have to circ~%vent that too. 53 City Council Meeting L January 22~ 1990 Councilman Johnson: We are rather unique with the regional park, the Arboretum. I guess those are tw~ of the biggest. Camp Tanadoona is pretty good size. I don't know how big it is. fk~t those are great resources too. I mean w~ take, I think w~ use both of th~, in our advertising of the city and the quality of life in our city. Mayor Chniel: So I g[~ss it gets back to. Councilwoman Dimler: Trusting the County Assessor. Councilman Workman: But wasn't the whole idea being t_hat we thought that this large church was an improper ~e? Councilwoman Dimler: No. For that amount of land. Councilman Work~an: Yeah, so getting back to what Jay says and what I'm getting at with the parking, the intensity in an area where nobody ever dreamed that kind of intensity would be or that kind of use. CounciLman Johnson: Because that's on Powers. If that was on some other Yeller street, I'm not sure that that intensity is as bad as it is at that partic~lar one. I would hate to have seen that one on Lake Lucy. which would he, that intensity on Lake Lucy. might be a problem. Which becomes then, okay even a Lake fancy boat ramp. Is that an increase? What's the intensity of something like that impact on? How do we control intensity of use? Councilmen Workman: I 'm j~mt saying, if it' s a tax exempt, church is on this big piece of property. It's tax ex~pt. There it sits for eternity tax exempt. Church c(x~es. Church goes. Uses change. Maybe the use will change. Maybe it will still r~nain tax exempt. Maybe it will become Jismy and Tammy Baker's Crystal Palace. Maybe it will be scmething else but it will be tax ex~pt and we' 11 have a new intensity there that we have no control over. You know what I mean? Councilmen Johnson: Yeah. Councilman Workman: ~ne church is built and for it might be now, it might be s~thing different tc~,orrow. Churches change. We know that. Colonial church moved in and moved out. We've got things moving around but the thing could becc~ a tax ex~pt sc~,ething else. Councilman Johnson: See I'm not too wild about tax exempt. I don't see that we're going to have half our town tax exempt or 25% ever get tax exempt. What I 'm ~re concerned about is intensity of ~e and we s~v, ehow control non- compatible uses. In that particular case I don't think we're going to see enough traffic out there that's going to cause an intensity of ,%se problem. Mayor Ch~,iel: I guess we're leading right back to what is the best thing to do to control that portion of tax exemptness and if there's another means of doing it, as Tc~., has indicated with the parking. I think that's the direction maybe we should go. 54 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 199~ Pa~l Krauss: If you're looking for my rec~v~endation, I guess I'm not sure exactly how to advise you. The tax ex~aption issue is one that's real difficult to deal with in the zoning ordinance because it's just not structurally made up to do that. In terms of siting criteria for churches as a conditional use, s,~re. We could look at better guidance in the standards we have now for when you have a new application for a church. It wouldn't necessarily prohibit a church fr~m going in but says that you have to m~ these minimu% standards before ~u're allowed to go in. We could look at traffic. We could look at s~me other things and you can get a handle on that but whether it would stop another act if it came down the road, I don't know. Councilwcman Dimler: Is it possible to do something like this? We take our geographical area and we determine how much of the land is already, percentage wise tax ex~pt and then fr(xu that draft an ordinance saying that only so much ~re tax ex~v~t land can be in and it's a very general type of an ordinance. Paul Krauss: I don't believe we could and I'd defer to Roger on it but you know, the federal government defers tax ex~ption, we don't. I don't know that we can say we' 11 accept so many. square feet of tax ex,apt land. O~uncilw~an Dim]er: In other words, once we have that ordinance in place and we already have so much tax ex~pt land, anything that wants to come in at that tax exev~t stat~, that ordinance, we'll be able to say sorry.. We're filled up with tax ex~c entities. Councilman Johnson: I don't know if we'd went to. Councilwoman Dimler: You can' t do that? Roger Knutson: You can't regulate ~zho buys land in your c~m~v~nity. You can regulate what they do with it when they o~n it but you can't say this group can't buy. or this group can. There's a cap on how much you can buy.. Councilwoman Dimler: No, but can say that you can cc~e in and even though we can't interfere with your tax ex~t status in anyway. Roger Knutson: We do not confizm tax ex~fc status. That's ~ pre~ by. a piece of real estate in the case of the State of Minnesota. Councilman Johnson: I tell you, if the university, of Minnesota wanted to come in and put 1~0 acres of research center out here. Councilwoman Dimler: They. could. Councilman Johnson: I'd welcome ths~ for one because it'd probably spurn a lot of other things. There's a lot of tax ex~mt things that are good for a city. I'm not sure if we ~ant to go off and just say we don't ~nt tax ex~pt. In fact the City is probably the biggest tax exempt. Councilman Workman: So are ~u ssying we should scrap this? ~%row it out? Councilman Johnson: Pretty much. Councilman Workman: Are you Bill? 55 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Definitelyl Councilman Work~an: Let's get to the bott(m, of this thing. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it doesn't do what we wanted it to do. Council~mn Johnson: We all had different ~ants. I think it did bring up a good point though that you brought up is how do we control the intensity of use. i'nat's just kind of a vague thing to Councilman Work~an: And like I'm saying, that building will be there for our lifetimes. Churches co~e and go and ~ you have a building there that ~y be the use that will he next will be a tax ~me but then s(x~ething's going to go in there and then what ' s the intensity and what' s going to happen. Councilman Boyt: Well we take care of that. We have all sorts of ordinances that allow us control over the ~ay in which people use their property. None of that centers around how much land they can have to do it that way. Mayor Chmiel: Mayte some of the things that you said Paul previously. Limited by what roads are in and adjacent. Jay mentioned that too. Paul Krauss: At the present ti~, our CUP for churches has four criteria. Tne site has to be on a collector/arterial road. That the structure has to be set back 50 feet. ihe parking area is set back 25 and no more than 70% of the site be covered with impervio~ surfaces. We could look to expanding those in some way. I'm not sure how exactly but you're still looking at mintmtEn criteria. In terms of intensity, the way your ordinances usually deal with intensity, is it requires that you have more land the ~'~)re intense the ~me gets which is sort of the opposite direction that you want this to go in. I don't know that it's going to achieve, I mean some of those things might be valid for us to look at in terms of CUP review for churches and they probably are but I don't know that it's going to put a cap on the maximum size that you're going to get. It just means that the bigger the church, the more land they're going to have to buy. Councilman Workman: What happened with the big church, Baptist ch,~rch in Eden Prairie that they just put up? This big spire? Paul Krauss: I've seen it but I don't know anything about it. Councilman Work~an: I mean isn't that pri~ commercial? Paul Krauss: It's in that office district. Councilman workman: Isn't that prime commercial property? Mayor Ch%iel: I would say so. Councilnmn Johnson: Yeah, for except I think they owned it for a long t/me. Councilman Boyt: Yeah, there was a church there before. They just rebuilt. Dramatically rebuilt. 56 City O~cil Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I thou]bt that just came in. Councilman Johnson: I think the old building's in there someplace. Councilman Boyt: They had to buy some extra land to do that. They bought it fr~, the junkyard which was probably an tmprove%e~t. Councilman Workman: It's unbelieveable. But anyway. Do w~ throw this out and start all over or do we have to pass this Just to k...-~-p thinking about it? Mayor Ch~,iel: I think we should drop this in Paul's lap to come up to see if he can expand on each of those four restrictions that we have presently. To make those additions to that and I really don't know how. I guess my. only concern of this whole thing was at the given time ~s the dollars that this city. is going to lose in the a%ount of taxes. That was really my real concern. I didn't want to see us lose that. By. taking a whole chunk of parcel of 174 acres and encompassing it into a church property. That was my conoern. More specifically when you look at the other churches we have within our cc~nity and just having one built. Councilman Johnson: I think you have to say all non-profits. If you're looking at non-profit tax, you're going to have to say all non-profit. You can't be specific against one class of non-profit. Mayor Ch~iel: That's probably very. true but somebody else can c(~e in and try. to buy. I know we have a church standing in the wings right now just waiting to c(me in again. They're talking 85 acres. Councilman Boyt: There's a very telling issue here and that is, if you look at the Planning Commission Minutes. If you look at our current attendance. You'll see that this is not a hot issue in this c0~munity. Maybe it was when it was related to othex issues but as a stand alone it~, it's not p~shing people's hot button right now. Mayor Ch~iel: I think we've got to get those hot buttons pushed though. Councilman Boyt: It's nice if we can anticipate what they're going to be. I agree with you. I think that I for one w~uld be against increasing the standards that we currently have for churches because I think that a typical church that's co~ in front of us in the last 4 years or 3 years has been an operation that's trying to pull together enough resources to build a building. The tougher we make those standards, the more we're limiting those. And if it's a zoning issue as to whether we ~nt ths~ in residential and as Paul said, we already have in place some constraints about road size and the depth of the lot and that sort of thing, I think that issue is pretty much ~here we're going to end up leaving it even if you spend more time studying it. I think when you look at tax exempt as the 4~ pages or so of Minutes frc~ the Planning ~ission d~onstrate, it's an issue that's tough enough to cross the i's of just about everybody that tries to study it and I just don't feel confident that we're goirg to work out a good answer. So I think ~ ought to scrap this and move on to issues that w~ can deal with. So I would more denial of the zoning ordinance amendment, Division 6. 57 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I would second it with instrt~tions to planning staff to continue to look at options. I want to keep Paul busy. Councilman Boyt: Sure. As long as it's not real high on your priority list. Councilman Workman: I think when we looked at, you're right, in the past 4 years people, churches scraping every ounce together. Well, we just saw first hand that it's becc~ more commonplace across ~erica that there are some church organizations that are pretty good at making big dough and owning big property and it can happen again. Then it will be a hot button and they' 11 say who was on the Council. Councilwoman Dim]er: You know churches weren't our only intent. Councilman Workman: No. Absolutely not. Councilman Johnson: I think the size~kes a lot of difference. What other facilities might go into a residential setting where we ass~ they're going to be a smmll facility and they could cc~ out to be a very large facility and have an ~pact. Beyond churches. Daycare centers or whatever. I don't know. Mayor Chv, iel: Are we on TV in Rochester? Co~incilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding establishing maximum lot size for ch~trch develol:~_nts at 15 acres. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DIVISION 6 ENTITLED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELO~ STANDARDS AND REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Staff prepared the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance relative to site plan review procedures because during our use of the ordinance in recent months we becav~ concerned that there's not a lot of meat to the existing site plan review. Tnere's not a lot of guidance as to exactly why we're doing the procedure and what we're looking for. Basically while the ordinance allows ~ to require site plan reviews, there's no purpose listed or there's no standards for us to review these things against. The draft ordinance we believe accomplishes a n~ber of things. It includes the establishment of an intent stat~ent. Exactly why we're doing site .plan review and what we want to accomplish. It includes grounds for the city to require modifications to the plan. We oftentimes approve a plan contingent t~)n doing something to it. Right now that's not technically in the ordinance for us to do. We believe that the ordinance require, well it does propose enhanced public notification which we wo~ld be in favor of. We would apply the same standard to this as we do to other uses that are reviewed in public hearing. One other thing that it does acc(m~lish is so~thing that we've talked to you before about is requiring bonding for landscaping and site improv~,ents so that most of the time you'll find that sites open or request a certificate of occupancy before all the landscaping's installed and we have not really had an effective hook into these people. In other words, their money sitting in the bank that's... That kind of a requirement is commonplace in other Twin Cities suburbs where we're one of the 58 .City Oouncil Meeting - January 22~ 1990 few that doesn't require it. This ordinance will institute that. ~ne Planning Cxx~ission remmmended approval of the ordinance on January 3rd. They had raised s~me questions regarding the adminstrative review procedure amd clarifications to that and that was done on the January 3rd meeting and they did rec~d approval. Ome thing that also ~rrants some discussion with this is the Planning O~mission asked us to look into the possibility of requiring the posting of signs on properties that are undergoing subdivision or rezoning ~r conditional use permit. Whatever public hearing is ccming before the City. A n~er of c~munities do that. ~dina, Bloc~ington, Minnetonka. I think Burnsville just in our area. W~ strive to notify as many neighbors as we can of an item t~t invariably our mailing lists aren't perfect. ~here's somebody gets excluded. Nobody reads the legals in the paper. The paper's here, excuse me for that hut nobody does and you find that the signs are an effective tool. Now the signs are not particularly, they're not in the ordinance here but w~'ve c~me ,.~ with a couple of proposals for you to look at with signage if you'd like us to pursue it. Some communities require the developer to install the sign. They basically tell th~, exactly what it's supposed to look like ~hile other cities own the signs outright and you have to purchase the signs and then your city crews to install them. If wa had a choice, my own preference is to have city owned signs and look towards raising the pexmit fees if we need to to cover the costs for doing that. That way we're assured that they're put there. They're all exactly alike. Tbey say call the city if you have any questions and that they're put up properly in a proper place. But we'd ask you to consider that and direct us as you wish with that. With that we are recc~mer~ing approval of the ordinance. Mayor Ch~tel: Thanks Paul. Any questions? Councilman Johnson: I like the signs. Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah, I do too. Sign postings should be done. That's something that I like for notification. Councilman Johnson: I think there's s~v~thing about rezoning that signs are required but it also says it is not a grounds for denying the rezoning if they don't put up the signs. So do .uou know how many signs we've ever put up for rezoning in this town? Mayor Chattel: Zip. Councilman Johnson: I've -_.-~n_ one. It sat out in front of Lake Ann ~ we originally rezoned the Lake Ann area a n~nber of years ago and that's the only one I've ever seen. Right on TH 5. That's ~hen people are ~Dndering what's happening to a piece of property. Not everybody reads their mail. Mayor Ch~,iel: You're right. I agree. People have that opport~mity to take a look at it and see that sign. Once they. see that sign, then they. can form their opinions. I'm a strong advocate of that. Pa~l Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're frankly not certain what the cost of acquisition of those things would be. If you'd like ~hat we could do is I could talk to public safety, or possibly we could get out and get s~me information back to you on the cost of acquisition. 59 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Mayor Ch~Liel: How Fmny do you think we'd need? TWo? Three? Paul Krauss: No. Considerably more t]man that. You'd want to have th~L up during the period at which this item is under discussion. Sc~ of these things are for quite a while. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but how many signs do you think you'll have t~ at one time? Paul Krauss: I wouldn't be surprised if we had sc~thing on the order of 12 or 15. Mayor Ch~,iel: That ~any? Councilman Johnson: We had two rezonings today. Mayor Ch~iel: I'm thinking that there, I was thinking probably a half a dozen at the max. Now you say a dozen at one time. Paul Krauss: If you're looking at rezonings, conditional use permits, subdivisions and site plans, you're covering a lot of ground. Council~mn Johnson: It depends upon the condition. If we're talking a conditional use pea, it for a business to c(~%e into an industrial park, I'm not too sure if we need to put up a sign because almost all the lots out there are going to require it right? I can see a rezoning. Going frc~ residential to industrial. I'm not sure if within an industrial park we'd r~ to put ~) a sign for scmebody's going to cc~e in for a conditional use permit. Would a lot of them need that or a site plan? Paul ~rauss: Well yeah. Now that's a good point Jay and what we can do is clarify where these things are req~lired. Councilman Johnson: A convenience mart within a residential zone, you might want to put a sign up. I think we should specify, what the signs, what information should be provided by. the sign. How it should be located. What the size of print and that kind of stuff on. The minim~ and let the developer it up. Make it his responsibility to do it. Not city staff because I don't think we can get a good grip on how much it's going to cost us and then charge him, back. Mayor Chmiel: And if that individual developer doesn't put it [~, then their application doesn't proceed until once it is up. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a cc~nt on that. I guess after having gone through the process, and I'm sorry. We tried to get a te~rary sign to advertise the booster garage sale for our high school and we had, Kay Boyle was in here 5 times trying to cc~ up with just the right sign and each time the City rejected, it. I'm sorry, but on behalf of this poor developer, if we're going to do the signs, they've got to be city because then if we break our own ordinances, okay but I Just think it's too F~ch of a headache for this poor developer to go through. Councilman Johnson: We have scme examples. 60 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Councilw~nan Dimle~: How easy. do you want to make it for people to develop? Oouncilman Johnson: If it ~s easy, everybody w~uld be a developer. Councilwcman Dimler: And you're right. Scme othex cities might have this but they' re probably city owned. Are the~ Pa~l Krauss: In ~dtna for example I think t~. tell the developer what it should look like. If .uou' re interested, why don't you let us come back to with more information. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, give us more information on .that but I would be, I guess I speak in favor. How much do you expect the permit to go up if w~ have the signs? Paul Krauss: I don' t know .vet. Mayor Ch~iel: 72 cents. Paul EXauss: We also ~ to re-evaluate our permit structure as it is. It hasn't ~ done for a while. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I do have s~me other general cc~memts and that again is, if you want us to, I'm not in favor of approving this tonight because I think again it's too specific. I do favor general purpose description. I do favor a general guidelines but I think when we get to the point where we're restricting everything, again I think it might be too costly for anyone to develop in our town. I think I'd really caution against getting so restrictive that they're not going to c~me to Chan. ~hey're going to go around us. Councilman Johnson: Actually what we're doing is giving ~ the formula. Right now they come in and they don' t know what we ~ant and they try this and they. say, I don't want that. They put in 3, 4, 5 different plans I've ~ccm c(x~e in for s~mething and here... · · '" : :'~': ;"'V ,.'..~' :-.'..' '' - I': Councilwoman Dimler: But here, in Section 20-121 we're asking th~n to do the sa~. If any major changes shall require another site plan application. Councilwoman Dim]er: So this person is going to have to c~ back even with this in place, they'll have to come back if we're not satisfied. ' ' '; C.'I' .' : '~ ~:" ~z2 ~.' -~'~;"- ::' - '; '": '"' " Mayor Ch%iel: But that's tongue in cheek. If they cz~ in amd they propose a development and they. want to make a charge to that develolm~nt, I think those adjacent property owners should be the o~es who should be informed as to what's really happening. Councilw~van Dimler: But isn't that already a part of another ordinance? Mayor Ch~iel: I don' t think so. Paul KraL~s: No. The site plan review would be the procedure to go back through and renotify and take another look at it through the Planning O~mission 61 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilwo~.~n Dim]er: I agree the neighbors should be notified but I mean do w~ need this so restrictive an ordinance to accomplish that? Mayor Chmiel: ~nis is still the first reading. Maybe what w~ can do' is get t_he additional recom~,endations that everyone is making. Councilw~an Dimler: My other question .is, does the buildings that are going up downtown, the HRA, do they have to co~ly with this? Because we're talking about harmonious and those kinds of things. - Mayor Chniel: I would say so, sure. Councilw~v~n Dimfler: And already we're getting comments that the M~dical Arts building is nothing like the people expected. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's out in the middle of the street. Councilw(m~n Dimler: It' s too large. It' s in the middle of the street. Good golly, what are you people doing. So I guess I'm not in favor of asking someone else to do s(xnething that the City hasn't done. Paul Krauss: ~ne HRA sponsored buildings go through the same site plan 'review that anybody else would have to go thro[~h. Also, the process here is not new. I mean we're doing it now anyway on any building other than a single family or duplex h~ve that's developed in the city. We're not proposing to change that. Councilmmn Johnson: But you do it without rules. Councilwoman Dim, let: t~lt you're getting more restrictive. Paul Krauss: The only areas that this is more restrictive that I can recall specifically deals with the prohibition against metal buildings unless you're in an agricultural area. Everything else basically gives guidelines for how you're going to review things but doesn't say you shall have such and such at your front door. It's basically the process. Council~n Johnson: Aren't metal buildings already restricted somehow or another? Councilmmn Boyt: No. We tried to. We never got it passed. It never really got out of Planning (kx~nission and every ti~e it did, we sent it back to them and it died in a quagmire of adm. inistration. Councilman Workman: Wasn't this drawn up because of number 7? Wasn't that our original intent, point 7 there? Paul Krauss: Nu~er 7 was discussed with you earlier, yes. Council~mn Workman: Wasn't that why this one? Paul Krauss: Number 7 in the staff report. I guess too, in reviewing so~,e projects, we r'~--dn't go into particulars on which ones. I've had developers 62 City Council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 cc~e up to me and say, you don't have any rights to tell me to move this building or to require that the parking lot be moved to save a tree or whatever beca[~e in the ordinance all it says is that you're doing a review. It doesn't say you're entitled to do anything with that review. This ordinance hopefully addresses that concern amd says well here's the beef. We do have the right to look at these things. Co,~cilm~n Johnson: We're placing conditions on site plan reviews and we have no ordinance sayirg w~'re allowed to. It's the ~ argument I have with the State a lot of times. State air pollution group is requiring air toxics review of all air permits. (~ almost all air pen,,its. There's no law in this state requiring that but they' re doing it. Nobody' s challenged the% yet. That' s what we've bccn doing here. I'm sitting t~D faced. When I'm sitting at work complaining about the MPCA and then I come in here and sit down and do the same darn thing and tell these developers, hey you've got to do this because the 5 of us say you have to. Our laws and rules don't say it. We should have the laws and rules agree with what we do. Councib~n Work,an: I'd m~)ve approval of the first reading of the proposed ~endment to Division XI, site plan review procedures of the. zoning ordinance. Mayor Ch~iel: Is there a second? I'll second it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to cc~v~mt. First, I suspect w~ all agree with this but I think what this really does is it uses the staff better than we maybe have in the past. It allows the Council to do what I think we're best at which is setting policy, and begins to get the staff into the implementation of the policy.. That I think is an improv~%ent. It should save the applicant time. I know one of the things that ~as in the Mayor's platfozm when be ran for office was saving applicant's time. I think another thing it does is to some extent it takes some of the politics out of specific applications. One, there are a whole class of things in here ~ don't have to have a site plan review for which isn't really a change from our current ordinance. The other one 'is it takes these changes which we've occasionally seen come back to us, rather minute changes sometimes, and does what we do with t2m~ anyway. How many times in the last year have we said to staff, go work this out? Now by. ordinance, re saying to them alr ight here's ~hat we consider to be a reasonable guideline for you to work it out. I like this. There's a couple of things I'd like staff to think about when they. ccme back for the second readirg. One of those in point, L~nder the general category I guess. E, Site and Building Plan. This is a grading and drainage, it's point 2 under (e). Existing natural features (topography, wetlands, vegetation) as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation, stozm water retention ponds and erosion control. Just a simple addition that I think is right in the spirit of what ~u're trying to do. I think on the next page, Section 2~-110, it~% (c) is about as close as I can ~ to where I think we're getting at some of the items we've put into develoImv~nt contracts. The preservation of .the site but I'd like to .~.staff consider adding there is that all areas to be saved will be staked off. I think, as I say, I think we've done this with trees and ~n other areas .we wanted to protect of late so I'd like to see staff consider adding that to that point. Staking off of areas. Councilman Johnson: This isn't an implementing ordinance though. 63 City Council M~eting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Well it's saying, in this particular case it's saying preservation of the site. It's saying, what are our standards. One of the standards of preservation of the site is that you've staked off those areas. I don't know, you may not like that. I'm just suggesting that that's a point that I'd like you to consider. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if it should go here or sc~eplace else. CouncilF~n Boyt: Maybe somewhere else. There's tw~ things, well one that I think we ~ to address that isn' t addressed here and probably doesn' t need to be addressed here related to this. I've seen in the last year, 2 years, several examples of where staff has signed off on building permits that in fact shouldn't have been allowed but either the drawing was erroneous. Well, that's generally what's happened is they don't draw in the w~tland on their plan so staff pep, its the deck and you go out there and that baby is laying right next to a w~tland where it shouldn't be so I think something that, again another case where I had the building inspec~ors cc~e down and look. A building site was approved. All the erosion control had been knocked down. They came in and they grading right on top of the trees they were suppose to save. I think that sc~_how we ~ a pre-site inspection. Tnat the building officials should be given the right, since they're going to go out and look anyway, they should be given the education so they can say, whoops. Your erosion control isn't up. Put it up. Mayor Ch~,iel: Does staff have enough of that time though Bill? CouncilF~n Boyt: With the building inspectors, they're going tO be out there anyway. Mayor Chniel: But they don't look at it beforehand though. CouncilF~n Boyt: It's a good c~estion. It's an area where when they don't look though, the site ends ,.~o suffering and scmetimes the environ~nt ends ~ suffering. Good question as to whether they have enough time but I'd sure like to see that looked at. I think this ordinance is a good one and I'd like to see it passed. Mayor Chr, iel: Don? Do you have sc~thing? Don Ashworth: I think Pa~zl had a point. Paul Krauss: As to the erosion control t.vpes of issues,' we're approaching that in tw~ different ways. Whenever a site plan is approved, it requires erosion control. We're talking about a fairly, you know if it's a site plan it's a fairly significant develol~nt. We do go out there and do a pre-grading analysis and walk the site with the developer. If tree preservation was an issue, we Fake it a condition that we walk the site with the developer and Fake sure the area is staked off. We can modify the grading if we need to becat%se we see sc~e things out in the field that weren't picked up. Relative to single family develol~'~_nt, that's sort of handled differently. When w~ have a subdivision that's approved that illustrates erosion control off the back part of a lot. What w~'re doing now is w~'ve got a procedure in house where we go back through the subdivision files everytime a building permit is requested to see what specific conditions were attached to that lot. If erosion control was 64 City Oouncil Meeting - January 221 1990 one of the conditions because it us on there, w~ write, jr onto. a fo~ so the developer knows it and the buildirg inspectoz knows it and they've ~ very. conscientious about it and coming back to us and saying what type of erosion control are w~ looking for or telling us that it was knocked down and they. told the ~ to put it back up or they' 11 threaten to stop .~r.,k... We're working on perfecting our adminstrative procedures but I think 'w~'~e done a lot in that direction and would continue to do so. ._.~_.... .... ~: :....: Mayor Ch~iel: Paul, do w~ get .thesg..psrti. cular plans in for develoix~ents, do ~ have those certified by. a PE? " PaL%I Krauss: ~sey have to be prepared by. a registered professional I believe. Now grading and engineering plans have to be signed off by. the... Mayor Chv, iel: Yeah, okay. Technically they're not showing what they should on those drawings as to what that property, is. We can go back to that particular PE and technically they could be in violation of their issuance of their professional engineering. Co,~cilman Johnson: ~hat does that do? Mawr Ch~,iel: The point being is that they have to have everything on that d~awing that is exact as what's there because they're certifying to that. If they. don' t, then ~ have that to go back on. Paul KraLms: Yeah, I think there's s(~ truth to that ~yor. The probl~ is that the engineer that designs the grading plan isn't out in the field affect, rating it and they won't be held liable for the actual construction unless they are them project managers on that. Basically it c(x~es down to .u~)u have to keep on top of these things. Councilm~n Boyt: I'll give you an example and I guess the reason this is an issue is because the example is right outside my back door. When they. built a house, they moved the erosion control. ..They filled in.the .w~tland ~.... then they,.- dug their bas~v~nt and w~ sign~ ~ff on:"~at'~'baby. No~"~-th~ City 0ouncil but staff did and in investigating it, staff said w~ll, gosh. You know it didn' t look like that on the map. Now I don't know who w~ go back against but I know that they filled in 15 feet of w~tland intentionally. (k)uncilman Johnson: A lot of things have charged since then. Mayor Ch~[el: Oh sure. Councilman Boyt: Well it's 2 years. No, actually it's less than 2 years ago. Councilwoman Dimler: Colonial Groves are still filling it in. Councilman Boyt: Well that's, how many years ago was that they got that approval? So, I'm just saying that I'd sure like staff to figure out an answer to that so that w~ don't have to worry, about it. Councilman Johnson: I've got one other question. Superk%erica at TH 7 and TH 41. Site plan review that came through us did not illustrate that the canopy. was going to be lit on the outside. We talked a lot about the recessed lighting 65 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 underneath. No ~'~_ntion of the outside lighting which he put a lot of money into. Spent a lot of ~.'~)ney and, but that ~_nt through on building permit. We said hey, that wasn't on your site plan so you had to turn off his lights. He's t[trned off his lights and they said they're going to t~trn th~ back on in another month and it's ~n quite a few. Mayor Ch%iel: He' s saving money. Councilman Johnson: ...They'll never save as much as what they've got in bulbs in the place. Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah they will. Councilmen Johnson: Yeah, probably. How do we prevent that? Is there anything in here that would say, if it wasn't presented in the site plan? It's an error. It's an cmission and they're going to claim, oh geez we just forgot. Councilman Boyt: I think there is. It talks about, in there it talks about the spirit, the intent of what was passed. That if staff feels that it's not in keeping with that, then they'll bring it back to us. Councilmen Johnson: How does the building inspectors review that when they're reviewing and they see these lights? Unless they really go through every one of our things. Paul Krauss: Well, to a large extent it's a matter of the building inspector's being aware of what our concerns are and when they see these changes out in the field coming back to us and saying, hey I think this is s~thing you ought to know about. Councilmen Johnson: This is in plan review they should catch this. Paul Krauss: Yeah, and we should catch it in plan review as well and we've changed the in-ho[%se procedure on that a little bit so we're more on top of it than we were before. Councilman Johnson: Okay. So ac¥,instratively you've made changes since that happened? Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah. CounciiF. mn Johnson: Good. Mayor Chniel: We have a motion on the floor with a second for the acceptance of the first reading with modifications and suggestions and recc~me~Sations that have taken place. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Ch~,iel seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Division 6 entitled Site Plan Review, to Revise the procedure, expand on develol~%ent standards and require financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements, including researching the posting of signs and such other recommendations by. the City Council. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 66 City. council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Mayor Ch~del: Would you like to give your reasons? Councilwuman Dimler: Yeah, it's like I said before. I agree w~ should have s(~ething. I think this is too restrictive. I'd like to see what you come up with for the second time around. Faybe I' 11 vote for it but I am concerned about having our permits and everything be too costly here that they'll go arotF~] us. Councilman Johnson: I think this will be cheaper. Councilwoman Dimler: Well hopefully. If that's what it ends up to be, I'll vote for it but if it gets to be too expensive to develop here in Chanhassen, they'll go around us. Councilman Boyt: The most expensive part of it is time. Councilman Johnson: And when you have a recipe, it's a lot cheaper. APPOI~ OF A CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ASD APPEALS. Paul Krat~s: There's really no presentation on that. As you're a~re, Councfl~nan Dfmler has announced that she will no longer be able to serve on that Board. We're looking to have a replacement for that. Mayor Ch~iel: I'd like to make a rec(a~mendation that Jay be appointed to be a representative to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. counci/man Johnson: Okay. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chv, iel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Jay Johnson to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Johnson: Well again this ~rning I observed, as I went to work, sc~body c(~%ing off the back school yard with their dog. I. can only imagine what had transpired out behind the school but I know ~hat the pla.u~/round monitors' opinions are of the people who bring their dogs for their morning on the playground. Not only that but in ever~y else's yards and everything else. I saw one guy. over in Chan Hills, whatever it is. Behind the ~Donalds. That subdivision, walk along a sack and a pooper scooper and I stopped my car and got out and thanked him. I said ~u're the first guy. I've seen in this town do that. You know, thanks. I didn't know you had a dog. I think it's a responsibility, of a pet owner to clean up after it's pet .whether it's in his own yard or somebody else's yard. I cleaned my yard up when I owned dogs. Whenever they. did wander next door, we w~nt and cleaned that up. We do have a leash law which is not terribly watched but I think we're getting to the point that I'd like to see a pooper scooper law. 67 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilm~n Workman: I don't know if it ~as down on the lakes, Lake Harriet and stuff, that was one of the biggest, most political issues they ever faced down there. Are you prepared to take on all comers in that? Councilman Johnson: Sure. I ' 11 take then on. Mayor Chmiel: You might be standing by. yourself. Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't be the first time would it Jay? Councilman Johnson: No, it wouldn't be the first time. Councilman Workman: I don't know, there's scmething holy about. Councilman Johnson: Letting your dog do it on ~y else's lawn. Councilman Workman: Well. I'm not promoting that now. Councilman Johnson: How can you arg~ against a pooper scooper law? Councilman Workman: Well you wait. I'm just telling you, you wait. It's an inventory thing. When you're starting to tell people about territory. Councilman Johnson: Territory? Well you know, w~ actually have a law in this city against dogs going on parkland. You can't bring your pets, and I personally believe that if you clean up after them, I don't see a problem with pets in the parks too. There are certain areas you may not want them in because you can't clean up after they pee and you don't want, you know the kids rolling a hill don't want to go in that. ~'nere may be some, but I think there's room in a park for a pet too. But anyway. I'd like staff to look into pooper scooper ordinances. Councilw~van Dim]er: I have a question I guess and a reccan%endation for the interviewing process that we have for our cc~nissions. I guess it's been only within the last 4 years that the commissions themselves have interviewed the applicants and I guess I think that's a fine idea until you get to the point where people have expired term~ and they are ~anting to be re-applied and .vet they sit in on the interviewing process of the new applicants. I think that might be a conflict of interest there and I think that it makes some of the other cc~issioner members uncomfortable because they, with those people that are reapplying and also into the process they're not comfortable with stating how they really feel. So I don't know what to do about it but I would say that we'd have to have some guidelines as to the people with the expired terms that are reapplying would not be in the interview process. So that they're not interviewing the new applicants. Councilman Workman: I agree with that I'd also go along with, and this is for department head's sake, that if your term's up, it's up. Councilman Johnson: No, automatic reappointment? 68 City. council Meeting - January 22~ 1990 Councilman Workman: I think it w~uld behoove the department head to get the process going 2 months prior rather than a month after, you know what I mean? I know right now we've got 3 people up on Park and Rec. I understand there's a probl~ getting some candidates and stuff and it's not just them. The HRA, it's everything. If your term is up, it's up. If it creates a quor~ problem, then the department head beware. Councilman Johnson: Oh, you're saying if the term is up, it's been the policy. in the past that they. w~uld hold over until they've been replaced. Councilman Workman: Right. I'm saying I think we have the ability to think ahead and see that there's people's terms up. Let's take care of it before. Just like the City Council. Councilwoman Dimler: Two months prior. Co,~cilman Johnson: One time that that's not a good idea is during lame duck season. Okay, where a lame duck Council app~..ints new c~mmissioners. Appoints themselves onto the next commission. ~hings 'like that.' In other w~rds, an election year, this year cce~ng up, if we had things ezpiring, next..Decem~er 31st and on Nov~%ber 30th if Bill and I and Don don't get re-elected or' if we don't run or whatever, that we then get to make these appointments. I think it's appropriate maybe to hold off on the at~ooi~tments during that time. I think we did that, or tried to do that a little bit. We did that when you. all ca~e on board I believe. We held s~me of the appoinhv~nts off so you could be involved in some of the appointments. Councilman Workman: ~hen maybe they shouldn't be during calendar year. they. should be made in May. Terms should expire in May or something. Councilman Johnson: That' s a good idea. Councilman Workman: I buy that point. I'm just saying. Councilwoman Dim]er: Yeah, not have it be so close to councilman Johnson: There's nothing sacred about ~r 31st. Councilman Workman: Other than it's going to change everybody's term. But you know, just so that department heads, and I'll department heads and Todd you're the HRA department head aren't you. That we get the action going for the Dec~%ber 31st in October or something. It's public safety. It's everything. So that we don't have, n~v~er one, gaps because now those people are doing a favor by. saying, well I'm just not going to ocme because I'm not a member anyway. Councilman Johnson: That's rotten time of year, Dec,ray, er. It's Christmas, Thanksgiving, Christmas holidays. Councilwoman Dimler: And advertising at that time is. councilman Johnson: It's useless. Everybody's running around. They're try. ing to buy. the last Cabbage Patch doll. I think the thing we brought up of moving all the coemissions to different than January.. 69 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I don't think people have park and rec issues on their mind in Dec~er anyway. CouncilFan Johnson: It's a good time to have them. Councilman Workman: But they're not thinking about the beach and the park. They're not using those things as much. Don Ashworth: So~ quick points if I could. Some of those letters came in very late. I know scme of th~,, Wing's for example was dated ~r 21st or 26th or somewhere in that area. Quick question for Roger. In terms of, I know that the policy, to have the co~nissions interview menbers who are reapplying is a local decision. ~nat's something that the Council decided on. It's a Council policy, decision that was made. I think it was more like 2 years ago but anyway, in the last few years. If Council wants to change that and have that cc~e directly to City Council so if a co~misslon member wants to reapply, instead of interviewing with that cc~nission, it would come directly to City That's a decision solely of the city Council. Roger Knutson: Correct. Don Ashworth: How about the decision regarding, so I would like to take and either have it voted on tonight or at s(~ point in time because without voting on it, there's no other place that this is written as to what your policies are. The second point, regarding continuing until they're set. Continuing until the Council selects a new person. Now that's really under State law but can the Council also have a local policy, that would say we don't really care if under state law they could continue, we want the term to expire on December 31st? Mayor C~iel: Okay, put it on the next agenda. Don Ashworth: Okay, and get responses to each of these c~estions? Mayor Ch%iel: Yeah. Councilman Workman: Maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe Ursula does one thing and Faybe I have a different concern. Don, you said that a co~%ission member shouldn't be Interview~.~d by the Cc~nission itself. It should go straight to Council? I think Faybe the point is that if I'm a cor~.tission ms~er, should I be a part of the process to interview other people? Counctlwc~an Dim]er: Yeah, that was what I was saying. Council~an Johnson: If you're also a candidate yourself? Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Councilman Johnson: Ursula Fakes a good point. Councilman WorkFan: And does that person even r-~-~cd to be interviewed after so many years? Councilw~man Dimler: Yeah, I don't think they need an interview. 70 City Council Mseting - January 22~ 1990 Councilman Workman: I mean they should have that right~' Councilman Johnson: They have the right to an interview before the Council. I r~mber a few years back of Ladd and several people on the Planning Cc~ssion saying, I don't feel right interviewing the guy, I've been sitting next to for the last 3 Mayor Ch~iel: Yep, they did bring that up. Councilwoman Dimler: Plus ~u don't feel cxxafortable making your comments. Don Ashworth: But then they're not going to interview the new Candidate? Is that what I hear you saying? Councilwoman Dimler: The ones that are reapplying should not be a part of the interviewing process because otherwise they're in a sense interviewing their opponent is what they're doing. Don Ashworth: Okay. Councilman Boyt: Let's start with Hospitality Suites Hotel. Mayor Ch~,iel: I thought it was recycling costs first. Councilman Boyt: Okay, you want to start with recycling? Mayor C~el: Yeah, that's what you had first. Co,~cilman Boyt: Is the tape finished? Well, I was in hopes that it would be. We've got at least half the newspapex people have gone home because this is really considered just a frustration to share with the Council. The recycling costs were in the Admin pack. It figures out to $169.~ a ton of which 75% of that ton was newspaper. A $45,~.~ cost, give or take a few thousand but that was in the ballpark of what Paul suggested was probably a reasonable figure for 9 months service. ~hat we've missed in this, and I think if we went back and checked the record, I was probably one of the people pushing th~ hardest to get recycling started back in April of a year ago and I'm glad everybody all voted to do that but in spending that $45,~.0~, it's more what's sort of tragic to me is what we havem't done. We've picked up 268 tons of things that would have gone into a landfill s~=wheze and that was good. On the oths~ hand, if we didn't spend the $12,0~.00 it would have cost us to clean up the whole city in ter~ of tires, refrigerators, water heaters. Anything laying out that people couldn't haul off. That ~ms a quote we had of about a ~ ago. 12 grand, t~,'ll bring the trucks in and they'll haul it out. We could have used that money, what was left of the $45,~.~ to hire a full time employee to go out and work on educating all of us to be more a~re of the costs of not recycling. Work with the businesses in to~n who already have a pretty good record. To have an even better record in recycling and we didn't do that. I think it's just a shame. I g[~ss that's all I want to say. Mayor (~iel: What's the solution to it though? 71 City Co, mcll Meeting - January 221 1990 Councilm~n Boyt: Well you know, we had the solution back in January and we didn't hang tough on it. That was when we could have stopped it. I don't know what your neighborhood is like but when I drive through my neighborhood, there's very low involvement right now with recycling. Mayor Ch~.Liel: Now my area has been good. Councilman Boyt: Well, I wished you spread the faith over to. My neighborhood has generally ~ a very high participater in leaf recycling and that sort of thing but for scme reason they're not hanging in there with this particular item. A lot of money. A thousand dollars a truckload. Okay, well so that's all I had on recycling. I don't know if anybody else ~ants to respond. Mayor Ch~,iel: No. it's been. Hopefully we'll have that word out a little more than what Councilman Boyt: Did you see what the County gave us? We spent $45,000.00. Did you see how much the County gave us? Councilman Johnson: ~ney haven't given us anything. Councilman Boyt: I'd be embarrasS. Mayor Chv, iel: We haven't gotten it. Councilman Johnson: That's what we say they should give us. Councilman Boyt: That' s right, they haven' t give it to us now. Okay, the Hospitality Suites, that was also I believe, that was in the HRA packet. Tom gets to look at that and I was F~ntioning this to Todd beforehand. I think this is what I consider a classic example of how we spread the responsibility and get nobody to hold accountable. Hospitality Suites was in front of the City Council and we told th~ what they could and couldn' t do, and I thought very clearly. ~ether it was right or wrong. So now I look at the HRA pack and I see this. The same issues in front of the HRA. Now Todd tells me the HRA is going to read that and they're going to be s~art enough to realize that they're really not voting on those issues. But in there I see the reduce the thing by 12 feet. I see the canopy issue. We' re going to put a post L~ so we can change the canopy. If I was they,, I'd he confused about it. Where this starts and stops. You mentioned earlier tonight how close the Medical Arts ~ilding is sitting to the road. I re, avOwer the night we voted on that. I look at that, that's our responsibility that that sits 10 feet off the road. I think it was driven by a parking issue. The parking issue is what drove the dog gone old City Hall to sit at an angle. But to m~ it's very important that we have one group, whether it's the City Council or the HRA and they vote on that and it's done and we don' t take the hotel or another one of these issues and run them, through both groups to see if we both vote the same way. Councilmmn Workman: Can I Fmke a strong suggestion? Councilman Boyt: You're our HRAman. Go to it. Councilman Workman: It ~mybe the City's tim~ at this point to make the City Council the HRA. An Econc~Lic DeveloD~ent Commission rather than the Housing and 72 City Oouncil Meeting - January 22, 199~ Redevelopment Authority ~ Councilman Boyt: That's really not my issue. That may be a good issue. Councilman Workman: Well the issue is that I have to look at it twice. Thank heavens because I don't understand it the first time. But there is, believe ma, out there, there's a big question out there in the public about who takes responsibility for this stuff and more often than not they're going to give it to you and ma. Maybe w~ made a decision on it. Maybe we didn't. Did you ever catch yourself trying to r~ber if you did or if you didn't? I now know for a fact that I did s(~v~whare alon~ the ~ay because I'm on both. I'm guilty. ~hatever happened, I'm guilty but I think it's something that the Council, in a discussion with Todd today and this is not out of dissatisfaction for any m~.hers of the HRA but it's scmething that maybe w~ ought to look at. (2mska doesn't have an HRA. We've got a lot of maybe the big issues that we've wanted to, out of the ~ay. I don't know ~at the legalities of it all but if we ~ant to take the responsibility., to be responsible as Council people, maybe that's what we ought to do. Councilman Johnson: That's what the City. of Minneapolis does too. ~neir Council is the Housing and Redevelolmment Authority. Councilman workman: It's a non-elected situation on the HRA. I myself'would feel more comfortable if the City Council were making some of those decisions and it would take out a lot of the glitches. It's just something I think for discussion that we ought to talk about. Councilman Johnson: I think it ~s done partially for workload but it really hasn't achieved that. Councilman Boyt: It would if ~ quit running the same issue in front of both groups. Staff has got to figure out where the buck stops and put it in front of that group and then it'd save one of us s(ame work. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I guess I have a comment on that and that is that the HRA is not elected. The public sees these things. Gets upset and you know the road, the narrowness of the road is a prime example. When I looked at the model out here it was beautifully straight. It was t~o lanes going each way. There was no median and I looked at that and I said what happened. I talked to HRA msm~oers and they said, I don't know who changed the plan. I talked to Council msv~ers and they said, I don't know ~ho changed. I talked to staff, w~ don't know who charged. Nobody would take responsibility for charging it. The public is frustrated because they don't know who to go after, g~ey can't go after staff. They. can't go after HRA but they can go after, and that's when they're angry, they go after that vote. Councilman Boyt: Well, they did that last November. Co~%cil~man Dimler: It doesn't matter really who made the decision. The Council gets the ax so therefore, as long as we're the ones that have to take the ax, we should be the ones that have the final say. And maybe the only say. Councilman workman: It had to do with the shuzbery. We had a ~all c~ttee, Don and I and Bill on the shuzbery. Public Safety ended up looking at it. HRA 73 City Council Meeting - Jan,omry 22, 1990 ended looking at it. I don' t know 'what my decision ~as but, I m~an I know what my decisions were but I can tell you what, it was sifted over again long after we did. That's 2 months. Mayor Ch~,iel: I haven't seen anything has really happened after that. To come back and say, this is what we really did. This is the way it's going to be. Council~n Workman: I'm not looking for more power but I think out of a responsibility kind of thing because I think it is kind of confusing to a lot of people. ~lt it's something for discussion and I thought I'd bring it up at this point. Councilman Boyt: My. last point on this is that the value in having the HRA separate, one value is that they supposedly then don't have to deal with the politics of the sit~ation. But it's not ~rking that way. There is I think the HRA not only is politically sensitive but we're the ones that pay the price as you pointed out. So it is pretty political and it doesn' t achieve that advantage that it should have. Well, good topic. Paul Krauss: I can just clarify the hotel issue. ~he Council is getting the hotel back. Basically you gave the developer some guidelines and you said this is the site plan. The only way to change it is to go back through the Planning Cc~,ission. They are in the process of doing that. At the same time concurrently Todd was going to run them, through the HRA but ultimately it will be your decision and it will be on a meeting in February. Late February. Councilman Boyt: So they decided to take their ti~e huh? Paul Kra[ms: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: I also told Bill that HRA has architect[~al reviews. That architectural review is limited to basically color and materials to be used... and it's m~)re of an update to thsm. They're providing subsidy and everything. They'd kind of like to see what the thing's going to look like and t_hen they give architectural review to certain aspects of color and materials to be used in that... City Council has final review on all sites plans... Co~ilw~an Dimler: So you're saying it's o~= fault? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. S~itted by Don Ashworth City. Manager Prepared by. Nann Opheim 74