Loading...
1991 11 04CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1991 Hayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiei, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Workman COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Oimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Jo Ann Olsen and Sharmin Al-Jarl APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following addition: Oon Ashworth wanted to discuss the TH 5 COrridor Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: REQUEST FOR VOLUNTEERS, CAMP FIRE BOYS AND GIRLS. Mayor Chmiel: We received this letter in October. It says Dear Community Leader. Volunteers are needed by all organizations. Enrlch your own life by giving to someone else. Please spread the Camp Fire message. Help us by promoting the volunteer. Camp Flre is a co-educational youth organization for boys and girls in grades K thru 12 and it emphasizes teaching self rellance skills and good citizenship behavioral tralts in an enjoyable atmosphere that promote self esteem and success. They're asking us to please present this at our Councll meetlng. I have done so. If there's'anyone who wishes to joln the Camp Fires Boy and Glrls, please do so. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution ~'91-107: Accept Utility Improvements in Trappers Pass 4th Addition, Project 90-6. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: None. REQUEST FOR GRADING PERMIT, 6691 HORSESHOE CURVE, THE CHANHASSEN BANK. Mayor Chmiel: We'll have a staff presentation flrst and then we'll go from there. Charles Folch: This item was brought before staff earlier in the past week. There were some concerns about this exlsting structure and surrounding retaining walls on Horseshoe Curve. It's apparent that the retaining wall system in the rear yard of the home is failing. It currently at this point in time jeopardizes the structure itself. If there would be a complete failure of the wall, there's also potential for some erosion and such that would potentially affect Lotus Lake. The property has now been acquired through Sheriff's Sale by City Council. Hect.i:lU -- Novemb~:r ~... 199i the Chanl~asse~ Bank ~-~nd Li'le b,~nk represent,'.~t[ve, i'ir. Kev1, idcShane and his consultant have been working with staff over this past week [o try and formulate ~ plan ullich would be able to add'r-ess ~nd l¢Ossibly flx the retaining wall r~ltua[lon yet this year and allow them, to do the needed improvements thls year in order to qL~ickly be able to turn around and resell the property. Kevln is I~ere tonight to give a presentation o~ this issue. Mayor Chmiel: 8ood. Keri,. Keri. r, HcShane¢ Thank yOU Nr. Hayer ~rld Council members. Ny name is Kev1, NcShane with the Chanhassen Bank and as charles ~tated, we're interested in a grading permit on the property on Horseshoe Curve. I just wanted to glve you a lJ. ttle history on how ~11 this developed. As Charles stated, we acquired the property ~.hro,tgh the Sheriff's sale and it consisted of three lots one of whlch had a honlestead, erie resldent property or a home that was basically abandoned and was to be torn down and wasn't and then the structure in question, it was a new home that was built back Zn 1986.-87. The original house permlt was issued 1~ 1986. Construction on the home was comple'Led lr, 1987. One of the lssues ls there was never a final inspection done and 'that tile property has sat there. Was never occupled and has not been sold. Through tile Sheriff's sale there's a period of 6 nlonths redemption period ~o the previous owner whereby we had to let that period run before we could effectively try to market lt. So we really acquired tile prop~;rty L~'i 3une of this year to the point where we could actively put it on Lhe nlarket., which ue did. We basically had a number of people look at it and as soon as they saw the problems with the retaining wall and drainage, basically we haven't had any offers. Our real estate agent recommended that to really be able t.o sell tills propei'ty we should correct the situation. We started Laking blds in September to do that. The blds dld not glve a detall drawing so we went back and 11sted Rlck Sathre from Sathre and Associates out of Wayzata to do a gradlrlg plan fo're' us and then have been reblddlng it slnce then. f;o the time frame has involved us trying to ma'rke~ it and realizing that we 'really needed t.o do something to correct the situation in the back yard. The retaining walls Lhat are current.Ly there one is, tile nearest one to the structure i.'; currently about i inch away from it and lt's lea,lng into the structure and failing. Zt is a hazardous situation. As the origlnal excavating w~ts dormm some time ago, the~e was never proper dralnage and therefore we've had water problems in the basement. We've .gone Ln and tried to correct that with some .~ump pump and l~uttir, g that in and spendlng some money to do that. And we still have the problem that water accumulates and doesn't drain properly. So as a part of our excavation plan, it would be to slope the back yard to allow for proper drainage. Z believe the packet inc].uded our plan as t.o what we wo~J.d do and it would be a 3.'1 slope that we would be proposing in the back yard. We do own Lots 1 and 3. I.ot 2 we sold at the end of October and the existing owner, we're in agreement with them to allow for an excavating easement on part of Lot 2 ~o the plal, t. hat you see does cover basically 3 ].ets but it's primarily for the be,of1[ of the lot wlth the spec home. What we would 1,tend to do ls correcL the hazardous situations that exist there now including ~aking out the retal~llng walls that are now raj]lng. Agaln improving the drainage. We would, as we remove those hazards, the 3-'1 slope we feel in the long run J.s the best situation. We've looked at several alternatives including additional retaining walJ. s and it's our, Mr. Sathre's opil,ion that this is the best solution for a difficult situation. ~n additlon we would propose thls late in the year we had intended to :sod the slope~ That appears to not be a good alternative now. The City Council Heeting - November 4, 1991 next best step wouid be to get it graded. Put the top soil down, seed it and then put a protective covering on it so that it would vegetate in the spring. And we would propose a wood fiber blanket for that as a cover on that backyard slope. We do have a contractor that is available to do this. Hr. Ron Lahti has given us a bid. He would be able to start this week yet, pending approval. There are a couple of sites noted in my letter to the Council regarding where this wouId be hauled to. One of them is across the street.. That's been determined as we discussed this with staff, not to be a good alternative because of some future considerations. The Hinnetonka location, the individuai that he needed to firm that up with is stuck, was stuck in the storm and didn't get back and he intends to hear from him yet today or tomorrow. That is Parkwood Builders and the site would be on Hinnetonka Boulevard and Fairchild. A third aiternative, as I laid out, would be the property just west of the bank that we currently own that is now low and that is a third alternative for a fill site. Basically it's reaIiy been a burden to all the peopie who have been invoived in this and we realize it's not a good situation. A burden to the City in the fact that taxes have not been paid on that property for some time. We corrected that October 15th by bringing all of those current to the tune of about $38,000.00 for the parcels lnvolved in addltlon to what we would need to invest here. It would be, the bids we have are a little bit open ended because of some of the things you may flnd as you tear down the building. The two small, the shed and the existing home but it appears it will be about $40,000.00 to do this project as it stands. Hayor Chmiel: Very good. Kevin HcShane: Any questions? Councilman Workman: Kevin, you're finding out about another side of banking here that you, engineering degree and everything now. Kevin HcShane: I don't have one but I'm learning. Councilman Workman: There were quite a few things in our memo that hopefully were laid out to Kevin that were concerns of staff. And I guess I was wondering if any of those had been taken care of. Kevin HcShane: We addressed I believe all of those and I believe you're on page 2 of the staff recommendations? As far as the property owners wlthln 500 feet, because of the timing on this and wlth the onslaught of the weather and a relatively short tlme frame, we had proposed and discussed today that we would send a letter, the bank would to all those people within the 500 feet detailing what was golng to be happening and why. That seemed to be one solution that we talked about with staff that would make some sense. The material to be excavated, that's primarily clay soll over there. The tlmbers from the exlsting retaining walls would have to be taken to a normal dump slte and then the actual fill itself would be taken to the locations we discussed. The timeframe, our contractor feels that he could have that within 2 weeks and probably shorter, agaln depending on interruptions wlth weather. The travel routes would basically be Pleasant View Road out to TH 101, either to the north to go to the Mlnnetonka slte or south and then West 78th in town to the site that the bank currently owns. In terms of number 5, we again talked wlth staff about coming up wlth an agreement. If thls were to be approved to fine tune that and we felt City Council Heeting -, November 4, 1991 that we could get that done in fairly short order. The watershed district approval, the discussion on that was if the site across the street was going to be involved, it would potentially lnvolve more than one acre. If that's not a dump site, what we're discussing ls less than one acre and would therefore not requlre watershed distrlct approval. The cost estimates of the work regarding a letter' of credit, our number is approximately $40,000.00 and the bank would be w1111ng, we can't lssue a letter of credit on ourselves but if that's a cash deposit with the City, we'd certainly work that out. Councilman Workman: The travel routes to and from the site. I guess I'm not concerned about that because that's going to have to happen sometime sooner or later anyway. I guess a lot of the memo klnd of talks a 11ttle blt and maybe our planners can tell me, can talk about the nature of the time of the season that we're trylng to get thls accomplished and it's relationship to the lake. That seemed to be a concern as to whether we were going to have a problem with pollution in the lake. In the spring? But I don't really see that. I guess I don't really see that in some of these ? points that are lald out. And then when you go to the bottom on number 3, from page 2 on the bottom half, how do we keep somebody from putting fill somewhere when there's a lot of if's and if the city does develop a storm water system in this area, the property may be needed for a retention pond. How do we balance that with what they want to do now? Don Ashworth: Z think that the, as Kevin noted, he's in agreement at this point in tlme that they're not golng to pursue that lot that we were referring to. There's an exlstlng drainage swale in there. There's a storm sewer plpe. Thero's trees in there. By the tlme that we started to place all the pluses and minuses on a sheet of paper, it became pretty obvlous that if you were golng to use that site lt's going to require a lot more time than basically Hr. McShane has and so accordingly the Nlnnetonka slte ls better or the one here. Kevin HcShane: That's correct. The time constraint is a big issue there with all the outstanding items and we've discussed that falrly thoroughly. councilman Workman: I guess I, like I say, it obviously needs to be done and lt's golng to be done sometime. I know there's a window of opportunity here that's closlng very qulckly but to ask them to wait 6 to ? months or whatever the problem would have to be seems pretty rough considering maybe there st111 is an opportunity to get it done. Mayor Chmiel: Plus the fact that there is an existing problem. If the so called retaining walls are going, we'd have more problems with this if this washed lnto the lake. A lot more glven problems all the way around and I agree wlth the concept. Hlchael. Councilman Hason= I'm concerned knowing what the roads are like today, if this starts up pretty soon, how is that going to impact the residents of that area ulth mud and dlrt falling on the road? With what's golng on now. I mean I agree with what you're saylng about the time. That's paramount to you. These 500 people, my guess ls they're going to get notified the day of or the day after these trucks start going in and out and I understand the logistics there but there are going to be some eyebrows going up and I would guess a lot of calls to Clty Hall. City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 Councilman Workman: That was my point. If we said no you can't do it. Wait until June, there's still going to be that amount of trucks. Councilman Mason: Well right, I understand that but hopefully there won't be inches of compacted snow on the ground in June and the people in the area will know about it. Mayor Chmiel: What would we do if we had Mr. McShane write a letter to each of the residents indicating the given problem? They would like to start this project at this particular time and that they would make sure, I don't want to put words in your mouth as far as the time frame of working it. It wasn't interfering with people in the area and their going to work and coming back home. Possibly that contractor working inbetween those respective hours. Councilman Mason: I think if the people are notified before it begins and I think if using Pleasant View myself occasionally, if I lived on Pleasant View, if I knew that the road was going to be taken care of while it was happening. You know I worry, we've been accused from time to time and I think wrongfully so of pushing things down people's throats. Well I know it's wrongfully but some people are going to construe this as the trucks are rumbling. What's going on here? And that's my concern. Now you sound like yoM're willing to put some kind of letter out to tell the residents. Kevin McShane: We realize and the City has been very helpful in working. City staff in working with us on this and there are no good solutions. We inherited a problem and to me I think we run a greater risk by not doing it and waiting until spring. If those walls fail, they fail in an uncontrolled manner. I mean here if we can get the work done and get it restructured, i think we improve the possibility of it being done right and being done once and we've looked at numerous alternatives. One thing I did visit with the contractor about was the fact that given the current time of the year and the commuting time in using TH 101, that we would look to restrict his hauling between 8:00 and 4:00 and he saw no problem with that. Not hauling on Sundays and he was fine with that and felt that he really wants. What happens is he'll have to get in there and get the trees down first and get the lumber out. When the actual dirt hauling starts, it's about a 7 to 10 day time frame. Mayor Chmiel: What kind of trees are those? Do you have any idea? Kevin McShane: One is a pine tree on the right side and I tried to designate that separately. The others are oak trees. I should note that on the front of the house there are two trees along the driveway within the proposed retaining wall. The smaller one is already dead and the one up near the front of the house is probably half dead. The way these retaining walls were put in and their close proximity to the existing trees, I believe and Rick Sathre believes they're already at risk. They showed some signs of stress already and there's a potential to lose those anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Would there be a potential in putting trees back in? I know that's going to be a couple more dollars. Kevin McShane: Well those are fairly, there's a fair amount of trees on all those lots currently and I think by the time you do the slope, the west side City Council. Meeting --November 4, 1991 where the l'etaining wall is is basica].ly trees and brush along there separating it from the other nelghbor currently and taking these trees out doesn't dlsturb anything along the property line. Lot 3 slopes off towards the other street and that is currently, that whole hillside is currently vegetated with trees and shurbs. Councilman Mason: When did the contractor think he could begin hauling the fill out-? Kevin McShane= This week. Councilman Mason: When? I guess I'd like to see a letter going out to the residents before the trucks rolled in there? Kevin McShane~ Well I told them that'd be subject to what we discussed tonight. Time is of the essence but I also understand that. Councilman Mason: I guess I thlnk that's really important. Wlth that, and I had one other question. The house on the bottom of page 2. The house was never glven final certificate of occupancy. What's the deal ulth the three season porch there? Was there never an original site plan or does not meet setbacks. This w111 come back to us then at some polnt or not? Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't think so. Jo Ann, were you going to say something? Councilnlan Mason: It's not her's. Sorry. Jo Ann Olsen: I haven't worked on it so I don't know exactly what it needs as far as the porch Todd Gerhardt: Fie would have to come back for a variarlce. They can't give a final for a buitding permlt. Don Ashuorth: I thought there was a discussion thls afternoon that they were within the setback area. I think there were some questions as to the plan that Rlck had originally presented. I'm not sure if that's an lssue at thls polnt in time or not. COUrlcllman Mason: If that letter gets out and ls in people's hands before the trucks get rolling, Z don't have any trouble wlth it. Kevin McShane: The variance issue as Z understood it was a separate issue from tile grading and if that needed some more time to discuss, we were going to do that at a future date. It's a 11ttle unclear as to what was in the orlglnal plan tha~ the previous owner presented and how a].l that happened. $o we were going to address [hat at a future tlme. Mayor' Chmiel.' Will we provide names of the property owners for Mr. McShane? Don Ashuorth: I mentioned to hinl that in that area, our utility listing would be quite complete and he got his agreement. In fact we w111 go further than 500 feet and get all of the names on Pleasant Vleu. The other point that Z thlnk Jo Ann or Sharmin brought up is if this is approved, we would enter into then a City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 contract with him that would provide again a letter of credit. It would be a requirement that they would have to clean the streets if there's any dirt as a part of this. Hours of operation and any of the other conditions that ue basically have talked about so far this evening. Just so that everyone is aware, staff has the authority to issue a grading permit up to 1,000 yards. With the amount of dirt that's being presented here, that's the reason it's coming back to the City Council. Typically there is a hearing process and the council would be waiving that recognizing that this work has to be complete by November 15th to meet the Watershed regulations and you've got an emergency situation in that if those walls do go down this winter or next spring, you could be taking that entire house into Lotus Lake. Kevin McShane: I have pictures if you care to see in a little more detail. Mayor Chmiel: I drove past it. Councilman Workman: I've seen it. I'd move approval of grading permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Stevens Addition with the condition that the neighbors ulthln at least 500 feet are notlfled before excavating beglns. Councilman Mason: And with a friendly amendment with the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Plus the conditions that Don had indicated. The letter of credit, clean the streets and hour of operation. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Grading Permit request Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Stevens Addition with the following conditions: Neighbors within at least 500 feet of the project be notified pr/or to excavation, letter of credit be provided, the contractor will keep the streets clean of mud and debris and hours of operation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WATERHAIN AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 24 AND LAKE RILEY HILLS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 90-10. Name Address David Mitchell Lee Wyman Gene Quinn B.J. & Mary Low Janssen Diane Riegert Karen Blosberg Leslie O'Halloran Rlchard Chadwick O.S.M., Consulting Engineer 400 Lyman Blvd. 532 Lyman Blvd. 500 Lyman Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. 530 Lyman Blvd. 550 Lyman Blvd. 420 Lyman Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project consultant englneer Mr. Davld Mitchell with OSM to give you a presentation of the findings of that feasibility study. City Council Meeting ~. November 4, 1991 David Hitchell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is David Hitchell with OSM Engineering. We were asked to prepare this study primarily because of a petition prepared by Mr. 3chh Klingelhutz the developer of the Lake Riley Hills property. We were asked by the City to prepaf-e this study to determine the need for public utilities to the property. As part of this study we held a public meeting 2 weeks ago, October 21st in which we invited all the property owners within the study area and the study area is outlined by this dashed line [,ere. This public mee(ing included the individuals from Lake Riley Shores area, or Shore Acres area and as I stated earlier, all of the property owners in that area. The existing system that we would want to be pulling off of to provide service to this area is shown here I believe. The existing watermain that would be used to serve. This again being the development site area here. Existing watermain comes out of the Chanhassen 14ills area. Existing sewer in the area. There's currently sanitary sewer both shown by the red being a forcemain, the green being gravity lines serving the entire lakeshore area of Lake Riley. This gravity system comes into City Lift Station ~8 which is pumped up into the gravity system that goes into a City Lift Station ¢17 which is then pumped up to ~ point in the area of the large apartment complex here which then goes by gravity through Rice Harsh Lake area. Then eventually into the Lake Ann Interceptor down through here. Proposed improvements to tile sanitary sewer system, we actually looked at two different options. The first option being to provide a gravity line at Lyman Blvd. to serve this area down to existing lift station and then in doing so, in looking at this proposed alternative ue noticed that the life station is sized currently at I believe 100 gallons a minute which is insufficient to serve this entire study area. In finding this out we looked at some other alternatives to see which is going to be the most cost effective way of doing [his. I guess this being one of the first alternatives we looked a(, what we were looking at is rebuilding Life Station ~17, providing a new forcemain ttp through here and then this green line here is an existing gravity line which would be insufficient to carry the amount of loads that this entire area would develop. Another problem that arises out of this, and maybe it's better shown by this previous map that I had up here is that tile forcemain, or excuse me. The gravity line through the Rice Harsh area is apparently a line that's in very poor condition. It was installed over very poor soils and is currently having a lot of infiltration and inflow problems which the City pays for through [heir Metropolitan Waste Control fees. Taking all of this into account and also taking into account that the City is also having a study done by another consultant that covers the 1995 study area as it's referred to, we started putting some more ideas together to come up with an alternative that is going to be a lot more efficient or cost effective a~]d would also help serve the rest of the city I believe a lot better. I should add that the reason for the cost effectiveness is that we would be looking at relaying the entire line [hrough the Rice Harsh Lake area. Along with being more cost effective, there's also some environme~]tal concerns and the cost impacts would be approximately 5 times or well over $100.00 a foot to relay that pipe through there. We're looking potel]tially at putting it on pilings. This would be to prevent settlement and to help alleviate some of the inflow and infiltration problems. This proposal here, which is the proposal that's actually recommended in the fessibility study, is to provide a gravity line onto Lyman. Again this would be extended up into Lake Riley Hills at this point. This portion here would be constructed as these other areas develop. Also co~]struct a gravity line up into the Lakeview Hills ~partment complex. At this time we're not proposing to reconstruct Lift Station ¢17. It's found that the life station has capacity to City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 handle thls development and this development only. We're not saying this has to be done at this time but we do recommend that this be done in the near future so that it has a capaclty to handle development in the area. And then the primary reason for the public hearing tonight I believe ls to look at the proposed watermaln. That's really what we're requesting authorization for plans and specs at this time. The City and the developer ls. The proposed watermain is to extend a 20 1rich watermaln down TH 101 and then a 12 inch watermain over to and up through the proposed Lake Rlley Hills Addition. The 12 inch would be installed in the boulevard or the ditch section of both roadways, thereby reduclng the amount of the cost and reducing any costs associated wlth rebuilding the roads. The proposed watermaln assessment area, as we see it drawn here, are these areas crosshatched here which are the areas that show the benefitted properties of that proposed watermain. As you can see, we're not showing any benefit at thls time to the Shore Acres or the residential areas along Lake Riley. The reason for that is we're only extending the trunk watermain into this area. It was presented at the publ£c meeting on the 21st that the residents of these areas down here feel the need for city water, that they should petition the City at this time and make this part of this project. Agaln thls belng more prospective. The larger the project the more prospective to all those individuals involved. What we're looklng at here as far as the study goes in proposed assessments to the area, the study shows an estimated assessment of $830.00 for the watermain and an estimated assessment of $2,000.00 for the sanltary sewer. The total project cost area $350,000.00 for the watermain and approximately $6~0,000.00 for sanitary sewer. These again I should stress are estimated assessments.- They would be finalized as soon as properties are determined as far as the actual benefit to each property. Things that we want to take into account are actual number of lots available to each property. Questions arose out of the October 21st meeting stattng you know my property has wetlands on lt. Are those assessed and that's something that we want to look into further to determine final assessments and that'd be part of the flnal assessment hearlng. Proposed project schedule, agaln we're not proposing to do anything with the sanitary sewer at this time. Proposed schedule would be to order plans and specifications for the watermaln elther at tonight's meetlng or in the near future. The Council would then receive the plans and specifications and order them out for bld sometlme in sprlng of 1992 with the actual blds being received and construction beginn£ng in spring of 1992 and hopefully havlng construction completed by the summer of 1992. And this schedule is primarily dictated by how quickly Mr. Klingelhutz would like to develop thls property. And Z'11 turn this over to Charles I guess if he has any further comments. Charles Folch: Yes Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As Dave pointed out, at this time it's now known which route would be the most, is the available route I should say to dlrect a trunk sanltary sewer 11ne. It is hoped that the City can work with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to get approval to construct a 11ne up TH 101 whlch would not only servlce this area but also in the future service the 1995 and Bluff Creek areas. At this time we estimate a trunk assessment of somewhere in the ballpark of about $1,500.00 to $2,500.00 per unlt so for the feasibility study purposes we've estimated $2,000.00. Once we know which ls golng to be the route to take, we can determine more final numbers based on the flnal alignment. As Oave also pointed out, the estimated assessment for the uatermaln ls $830.00 per unlt. Unlts for raw residential land were determined based on one generating an ultimate density of CJ. ty Cour~c.-'L.1 Na~'~.L.i.l~,g Nov'~.~mb~'~.'r 4, i991 approximately 1.85 units per acre and the high der, sity residential and commercial, area~-;, tl~eir ullits were ba."si¢;ally der. ermined from the flow units generated 'from those types of properties. So at this time we'd certainly open t:l~e floo~' lip for ClUCSf-J. olls and pub].ic comment. Mayor Chmiel; Very good. Thank you. 4s I mentioned, this is a public hearing. 4nyone wishing ~o address (his at this time, please come forward. State your name and your address and position that you're taking regarding this. 4nyone like to come forward? Leslie O'Halloran: Hy name is Leslie O'Halloran and I'm from the area that's off of Lyman Blvd.. I'm here with my neighbors tonight nol~e of whom I think need [his project or want it. I'm wondering if Mr. Klingelhutz, the developer is the only one intef'ested in this project. I'm at a loss 'for words. One thing I'm wondering about doing these two projects separately. I don't know anything about layil~g pipes bLtt I know just tl~e aggravation alone of having our places ripped up two times doesn't seem like. a good idea and I wonder about the cost of d~ing them separately. Also the timing. There are few of us to carry the cost of these improvements and I'm wondering if maybe, I know this area is going to be developed down the lirle ~nd there uil]. be a lot more people needing and wantlng lt. ~. ~ust questiol~ why i~ should be now. And another concern Z have is if this project should not be completed, if the developer' is not able to sell the honleS or whatever, is not financially able to carry hls part, then who pays for the sewer or the water tl~at comes in? Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Haybe what we should do is to address each one irldividualJ, y at this tilne. Maybe you can address some of those questions that were asked. Ct~arles Folch: Sure. Certainly the cost in doing 'two separate projects may or ma), not bo ,ss ¢;fficlent as dolng one project ultimately. At Ibis point in time though we can't and don't know the timlng of the sewer project. We would hope that you would fo].low suit. It could even possibly be incorporated with thls project. We do have a little blt of lead tlme through the winter here to develop the project plans and specs and it is somewhat possible that we could lump the two projects together depending on Metro Waste Control action. As far as the question of who, if the developer was unable to sell lots and who would pay, would make up the cost. What's typically done ls the assessments, once tl~r~'y are levled, (l~ey'l-e levled against the property themselves. Whether he subdivides the properties lnto how many lots or whatever, the assessment ls on 'record as ].evied agsinst the property and as all owner as such, he is responsible for paylng those assessments. I think you may have had one other question that I missed a~ ]: w~t::: t~king notes hare. Leslie O'Halloran made a statement that wasn't picked up on the tape. Charles Folch: Well of course as Dave pointed out, the City received a petition from Mr'. Kllnge1i~utz to lnltiate the project. We have had some other perspective deve. lopers come al,d talk with myself and the plannlng department in general about what was happening out in the area and the posslble timlng of infrastructure improvements. No other commitments of' direct reques[s were made from these people. They were just basicaliy lnformal questions as to what was happening. 10 City Council Meeting - November 4, iggl Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Richard Chadwick: My name is Richard Chadwick. I'm one of the owners of some of the property that's lnvolved in thls proposal. Z also feel that there's apparently just one person, or one developer that has an interest in moving this project through and I thlnk that most of the people that 1lye in and around that area that's involved in it are opposed to having the project put through at this tlme. I wonder if we have any say, a group of individuals that do own the property or probably even more of the property than Mr. Klingelhutz that is involved in the property, would have a say or perhaps even just an equal vote with him individually as to what the project should be placed through at this tlme or put off untll such tlme as it is more practical to develop all of the property in the area rather than just do it because one person is ready to move forward. I would be opposed to it being put through at thls time. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Anyone else. This is your opportunity to come up and say something. Rlchard Chadwick: I thlnk there are probably a dozen people or more over in this area that just concur with the last two statements. If you want a show of hands or if you want everybody to come up and say the same thing, I'm sure they could do that. Mayor Chmlel: Well I'd certainly 11kw to have everyone at least have an opportunity to take a position on this. At least we get a little-better feel sittlng on thls slde knowlng where your thoughts are. Bailey Janssen: My name is Bailey Janssen. I'm also one of the homeowner of the area. I agree wlth Leslie and Olck Chadwlck that there's one party in the area that wants this done. The rest of us don't. To my knowledge anyway. And if it ls golng to happen, I think it is a 11ttle premature right now for the area to be developed. Why not do the sewer and the water at the same time? It's a big added expense to do them separately. And lt's a blg hassle for the homeowners in the area too. To do one now and then another one 2 years down the road. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Lee Wyman: My name is Lee Wyman and I own the adjoining property next to the addltlon and I'm opposed to it because I feel that the only personal galn ls John Klingelhutz and I don't think all of us in the neighborhood should, at thls time anyway, should have to pay because he wants to press ahead and develop it. So I'm opposed to it. Karen Blosberg: I'm Karen Blosberg. I'm also a homeowner in the same area. Mayor Chmiel: Karen, could you please spell your last name? Karen Blosberg: Blosberg. And I am opposed to it also. I feel we've been homeowners there for many years. Paid our taxes. Taking care of our property and I feel that this ls being shoved down our throats. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 11 City Cour, ai]. Me~.,tir, g - November 4, 1991 Diane Riegert: My name is Diane Riegert and I have '[he same viewpoints as the others. We only own 1 ~tcre Zn this ~rea but my concern ls for some of the neighbors that do own lots of property and the fact II,at they're golng to be el[her forced (o deveJ.~p it at this tlme and just the assessment on some of these people is just way too much than they can handle. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: l'l~ank you. Anyone else? Okay. Before I even close the public hearing, .T'n, getting sort of .~ feellng here that 'the need or want or desire ls ~'eally not I~ere. .T.'d just like to express ,an opirllon, at least as discussion. Z've got a couple questions too as well. We're golng to have another larger capacity new lift station. Wi~o picks up the cost for that? Does the developer pick up that co.~t or does the Clty pay for that cost? I;harles Folch.'. Well., for [his type of project wl~ere the lJ. ft station improvement would be. in conjunction with a trunk facility improvement, the cost would be, or are proposed to be lumped in[o one project which would be assessed back to all the benefitting properties within [he serivce area. Hayer Chmiel: What amourlt of contribution would the developer put into this? Charles Folch: At thls point in tlme, based on the $2,000.00 and $830.00 per- unit cost, you're looklng at abou~ $138,000.00 for sarlitary sewer and a little over $57,000,00 for uatermaln. Hayer Chmlel: Okay. Good. Thank you. As Z say, a little blt of discussion. Z'm tl~inking seriously of probably what we should do is just table this. Councilman Workman: Carry the public hearing over? Hayer Chmiel: For right now, yeah. I'd like to see staff do some reviewing of thls and COnle up w.i. th some additional dollars and numbers. I guess my major concern is uha[ it's going to co~st the city ~.o go through this process and as you well know, growth i.~; something that eventually happens but yet I want to make sure that the amount of dollars that would be expedited would be taken care of so it doesn't put the city ina blnd. I'd 11ks staff to go back and be a little creatlve ill thls. I also want to, there's a conflict for those who want it and those who don't and I'd just as soon see that also be addressed. There's ,'~ lot oF dollars involved in the pr'eject just like any given project. And when you come to assessments, lt's something that everybody has to pay and maybe uhen's the pr-operty time? When's not the proper time? I understand too, I think as you mentioned '[hat the Lake Riley Hllls subdivision w111 be included in thls ulth that portion of it. On some of the variables as far as assessments for one servlce area and hlgher or lower than adjacent future servlce area, can you explain that a little bit? Charles Folch-' Well ~ ~, ~ m~ ' S kind of a concept if you W111 that has recently come up to staff's 4tr. ention and we thought we'd also b'ring it to the Council. In fFtct probably later on tonlght wlth the budget work sesslon. As you're well ,aw~tre, one. of tl,e difficulties we run into with assessment projects are assessing, whether it be a street or a utillty project or whatever the project InJ. ght be, is assessing a certain dollar value or dollar amount to property owners irl one area for one project and 'then wlthln a year or two, three year's down the road ue have another project for' whlch tile dollars may be different. 12 City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 Somewhat different. Sometimes significant. And you have the question as to fairness as to why I'm belng assessed thls amount when this area over here paid that smaller amount. So lt's an idea that posslbly looking at what the overall system costs are going to be in a drainage area, if you wi11. And determining posslbly how many potential unlts should be generated out of that area and determining from that a uniform trunk cost which could be adjusted on an annual basis if you w111 but that way it would lnsure that everybody wlthln a drainage service area would be paying relatively the same amount. It's an idea. Something to look at. Investigate further as the Councll has directed us at the last meeting to look into establishing uniform assessment policies for these improvements projects. So it's something we may want to take a look at as we go through the process of establishing these policies. Mayor Chmiel: I think it puts us in a very precarious position to come up with a conclusion as well, as it is a difficult one to come up with. And if we can get some direction clarification, that might clarlfy some thlngs. But anyway, that's where I'm at least coming from. Councilman Workman: Do you want to close the publlc hearlng or not close the public hearing? Richard Chadwick: Could I ask a couple more questions? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Richard Chadwick: First of ail is it necessary and is it to include all of the property in that area in the assessment at the present time or could some of the property that is for instance not open to development immediately, that is not on Lyman Blvd., away from it at some distance, be assessed later on when it is subject to development? The next question I guess flts in wlth some of the questions that have already been raised and that is, can we enlarge, maybe a year or two down the 11ne, enlarge the area that ls servlced by thls and thereby lower the costs for everyone. And perhaps at the same time put off the water project untll it can all be put in at one time to agaln lower the costs for everyone. I think the costs here are qulte expensive for these as individual unlts and lt's going to really hurt people. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: I'd like to address number one and I think the engineer should address the second. But what Z heard the Mayor saying was exactly that. He'd 11ke to see thls 1rem tabled to see if there's a way in whlch improvements potentially could be extended to allow those who wanted, primarily Mr. Kllngelhutz to get the improvements while not creatlng an undue burden on the homeowners. As we're sittlng here tonight, I don't have a magic solution to throw out in front of everyone but what I heard the Mayor saying is he would like to see it tabled or Council, would like to see it tabled to see if we can do that. Flnd a solution. Mayor Chmiel: Right. 13 City Count. ii. Mee. tilig -- November 4> 1991 Don Ashwort. h." Number two, Charles. Cl~,'~rZos FoLci~' tdhich was expanding the serv£ce area which is a very good question to ask, The service area which Dave presented to you tonight up on the screen J.s the largest area, if you will that could be served by gravity to this trunk utility so that's the defined service area. There is the potential that .if a joint pFoject vas dor, e via the trunk line up TH 101, that line uould also have another service area attached to it so there is a portion of that line ~here the cost certainly could be spread over a larger area but the improvements alor, 9 Lyman Blvd. ~ould be specific to this service area. Mayor Chmiel: I'd ,tlso appreciate getting any of those drawings that would be ava.i, lable that's going to be presented so we a'L least have an opportunity to review those prior to the counci], meeting as wel]_. Tom. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I thought the report really, for the impact it was gui. nc to have on the area, Z thought we could have added maybe some of the drawings and m~tybe OSM can provide us with that. I think it was R/chard Chadwick right? Richard Chadwick: Yes. 6ou~ci.lman Workman: You kind of summed it up. It's kind of a question of not doing it ¢,t all and really creating developers out of those who maybe don't want to develop and we run into thCs problem an awful lot. I've got a feeling it's goii~g to be comirmg t~p on a lot more with the MUSA line expansion, I see soBe people on the list, I'm sure those with properties maybe thought at one point of development sometime in the future. Maybe just not at thls point and everybody is maybe at a different phase of what they were thinking and Mr. Klingell~utz is 1. he bad g~y because he's calling the question. But it did kind of, I did kind of ask myself then, ~hy do we not have the Lake Riley residents if ;n fact...l_ake Riley ~ef'e ill here and ~e'd have a riot. I'm not sure if they'd want it or not. But those seem like a lot of big options that were not really studied. I kno~ ~hey ~ere thrown out but not really studied. And you're saying maybe the study will take care of it. Charles Folch: We].]., we looked at what 'the people along t. ake Riley and Kiowa had and basically those people are currently on city sewer. There was a special project done some years ago to get thenl city sewer. They all at this time are st111 on wells. We do not know the status or' condition of these wells but to, in a sense not force a project down somebody's throat if you wi11, we did notify these pYoperty owneFs of the neighborhood meetings so they could ooBe and hear about the project. ~e invited them to give ~.~s information, plmone calls, whatever, if they were interested in being a part of this project, to let us know. So that was one of ti'me big pluses we were hoping to gain from the neighborhood meeting. I~owever, as of this time only two of the property owners a~on9 Lake Riley B~vd. have shown an interest in being a part of the project. Councilman Workman: Okay. Well I agree with the Mayor and City Manager's suggestiol~ on tabling. Mayor Chmiel: Mike? i4 City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 Councilman Mason: Yeah, I do too. Personally it would seem pretty wasteful to do one now and 2 years from now dig it up and do it agaln. That seems to me 11kw we're throwing good money after bad. I thlnk maybe there's move to it than that but I've thought more than once how irritated I get when I see a road dug up for one thing and then in 2 years it gets dug up again. So yeah, I think tabling it's a very good idea for now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rather than bringing this back up to Council, as indicated in the staff report, bring it back by December gth, I'd like for us to delay that untll sometlme in January. Probably our second meeting in January whlch would be January lOth. And probably prior to that time I'm not sure that if you have all the information pulled together, you sit down individually or slt down with a group from the people within that area and have sort of a work session. Charles Folch: We can have another one. Mayor Chmiel: So they will have an idea as to what and where we're going with thls. But rlght now I see a lot of thlngs here that thl$ really does not strlke my fancy at this time. So with that, with the agreement I'd like to make that motlon that we table thls. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Hason seconded to table the watermain and sanitary sewer improvement project in Section 24 and Lake Riley Hills until the January 20, 1992 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF LONE CEDAR LANE (CEDAR CREST COURT) RIGHT-OF-WAY~ SCOTT GAUER~ 3820 LONE CEDAR LANE. Councilman Workman: I'd move to close the public hearing. I don't know if there's going to be a problem. Mayor Chmiel: No, ue don't have to close the public hearing at this time. We're going to leave it open. That's the way I tabled it. Councilman Workman: No, I mean this one. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, on this particular one? Councilman Workman: I don't think we've got a problem here do we? Jo ann Olsen: I've just got a couple things to add. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, maybe there's something. Councilman Workman: There are children here who would like to go home. Including me. Jo Ann Olsen: There isn't a problem. This was brought in the past and there was some objection from the owner on Lot 3 to give up his right to the vacation. i5 City Council Meeting · November 4, .1.991 They have come 'to an agreement now but ho warl'LS a condition added. Condition number .5 stating that the 6auers shall grant easements strictly in accordance with the terms of the July 8, 1991 agreement. The agreement between the two p~rties and in that agreement there's referral to easements being granted so he wants tile approval tled to those easements being provided. We have no objection to thai being ,.~dded since he is givi~g up his right (o that right-of-way. Other than that lt's right--of-way that we no longer need and w~th the proper easements being granted, we're recommending approval. Also then in condition 2, it should say Lot 3, Block 1. Not Lot 4. Cotm~cilman Workman: I move to close the public hearing. Hayer Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address it? Scott 6auer: I'm here. I dol~'t really I~ave anything to say. I have looked over the proposal and I don't have any questions. Hayer Chmiel: Alright. There's a motion on the floor to close the public hearlng. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmlel: Discussion? Commnoilln~Zrl Idason.' Z( sounds like everyone's happy. Councilman Workman: I'd move vacation of a portion of Lone Cedar Circle, Lot 3, Block 17 Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Workman: Cedar Crest. Councilnlan Hason: Second. Scott Gauer: ..,Lot 4 right? Jo Ann 01sen: Well, lt's in front of Lot 3 and Lot 4. You don't need to spe¢lfy_ Zt's desc~'ibed in the easement vacation. Both lots are involved, Lots 3 and 4, Resolution ~91-108: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Vacation of a portion of I_one Cedar Lane (Cedar Crest Court) right-of-way with the following conditions: 1. A 20 foot wlde drainage and utillty easement shall be reserved over the exlstlng watermain and the new storm sewer facilities wlthln the right-of-way proposed for vacation. City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 2. A driveway or cross access easement shall be provlded by the applicant in favor of Lot 3, 81ock 1, Cedar Crest (Mityllngs) for rights of egress and lngress through the proposed vacated right-of-way. The City should delay recording the vacation document until the City has recelved flnal payment from MnOot for the cooperation construction project (~90-9 Trunk Highway 5 Frontage Road Improvement). The City shall quit claim the vacated right-of-way to the Gauers. 5. The Gauers shall grant easements strictly in accordance with the terms of the July 8, 1991 agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL OECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, 51 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SWIHH[NG POOL. BOB AND ANNA SANTOS. ~$[ TRAPPERS PASS. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, do we need four votes for these? Mayor Chmiel: Variance needs 4 to i right? Don Ashworth: I don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: Are you sure it's a simple majority? Don Ashworth: I believe so. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Variance you need 3 votes but zoning ordinance amendment you need 4. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I was just being cautious. Councilman Workman: Just checking. Mayor Chmiel: Who's going to present this? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I will. The applicant is proposing to build a swimming pool wlthin 24 feet of a Class B wetland. Lots withln thls subdivision were created with insufficient depth which made them difficult, if not impossible to bulld upon wlthout a variance. There was compounded by approval of a bulldlng permit whlch resulted in the construction of the home wlthout obtaining a variance. At the tlme these actlons were taken, staff was working under enormous pressure being both short handed and faced with large number of development proposals. The ordinance requlres that we survey the area wlthln 500 feet. We dld so and we found out that we have setbacks from the wetland that are as 18 feet, 52 feet, 20 feet, 35, 65, 62. None of those meet the requlred 75 foot setback. There is a precedent that has been created wlthin this neighborhood. Normally staff would not recommend approval of a varlance for a swimmlng pool since they are not normally considered to be a necessity. However, in this case the owner purchased a lot wlth reasonable intentions and are only now having problems due to past actions by the City. The 8oard of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed this 17 City Counci_l. iteet.i.l~9 -- November 4~ .1.991 item and recommended denial with a vote o'T 2 to 1. Chairman Johnson and Board member Watsoll we're concerned ulth the .Leve], of chlorine that would be dumped into the wetland and how it would affect the wetla]~d. Staff contacted Ms. Cell Strauss with Lhe ONR. We Al_so contacted the Mittnesota Pollution Control Agency, We were lnformed as long as Lhe concentration of chlorlne does not get, high concentration of cl~lorine does not get into the wetland, that Lt won't do it any h~'rm, Agsin there is a reduced setback standard established in the surrounding neighborhood. Approval of this varLance uill I~ot set a precedent nor establish new reduced setbacks uithln the neighborhood. We are recommending approval of Lhi,s' variance with conditions outllned in the report, l'hank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anything that you wish to address on this? Or do you accept what st.~ff basically has .indicated? Kevin Norby: Mr, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Kevin Norby. I'm a ].andscape architect ~nd I've been retained by Bob and Anna Santos to put together time plan for these improvements and to help ti~em understand this va'riancr~ process, One thing I'd like to polnt out I think is that they didn't build the house and at the tlme they purchased it were under the impression they wouldn't have a pf'oblem purling in a swimming poo~ or any sort of an accessory strttc:ture o~ the. lot. It was no fault of theirs that the home was built wlthout a variance and I tllink this problem will occur again if any of the other residences on the wetland [ry to put in all accessory structure because they extend into th~s wetland. I guess we would obviously ask you to consLder the recommendation of the staff. When we met on the 14th, Ms. Watson and Johnson expressed ;t concerl~ about the chlori~le. Between Sharmln and myse].f we've spoken wlth the State Health Department, Pollution Control Agency and the LINR and tlley've all given us their blessing to go ahead ~ith the pool. We have moved the pool equipment and the backwash equipment outside of the 75 foot setback to take care of any of those OOllCerns $o that we will not be puttlng the chemicals directly onto the wetland. Mayor Chmiel: Vory good. TI,ank yOLt. Councilmen Workman: You have my comments from the Board. Mi]yo~- Chmiel: Maybe you'd like to. Councilmam'l Workman: Well I sort of thought the Santos letter did kind of summar'ize some of tile points. It kind of cen[ered on I Lhi,k we're all kind of trylng to center on what an accessory structure and what was allowed and maybe what wasn't allowed a,d which I think really maybe wasn't pertinent discussion J.l~ that. The other two members of the Board felt that a deck was okay but a pool wasn't. I think we're kind of getting inLo a discussion about what we felt people should do and shouldn't do and I don't know if it was based on anythlng concrete so the word, using the word dumping in front of chlorine when you're talking about a wetland always scares people too and that, as the staff report l think proves, is not exactly what's happeni;~g there so ~ based it on exactly why we kind of relaxed that one provJ, slon of the Board of Adjustment and variances to allow these people to do what all their i~eighbors have been ~11owed to do. Mayor Chmiel~ Very good. 18 City Council Meeting -- November 4, 1991 Councilman Mason: I agree with what's been said here. Mayor Chmiel: The only additional thing that I'd like to see added to the staff recommendations ls ltem number 4. We've discussed that one of the concerns wlth the backwash but I'd like item number 4 to be that the backwash equipment be set back 75 feet from the wetland as one of the conditions. Additional conditions. Councilman Mason: It already is set back? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, but I want it spelled out. So wlth that. Councilman Mason: With that I'll move approval of variance request ~91-18 with the conditions stated in the report plus 1rem 4. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request ~91-18 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant uses Type III erosion control along the edge of the wetland. The applicant remove the sandbox/totlot located within the utility and dralnage easement and restore the wetland to its original condition. The applicant shall re-establish vegetation in ail areas disturbed by the construction of the pool immediately after work ls completed and prlor to flnal inspection. 4. The backwash equipment shall be placed 75 feet from the edge of the. wetland. voted in favor and the motion carried. A. ZONING ORDINANCE ANENDHENT REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, ALLOWING TWO PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE LOT, FIRST READING. B. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF AD3USTNENTS AND APPEALS~ REOUEST TO ALLOW TWO PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE L~T AND A 28 FOOT FRONT YARO VARIANCE, C.W. FREENAN, 7431 DOGWOOD. Jo Ann Olsen: I should just state that item A you can't act on. Mayor Chmlel: Pardon? Jo Ann Olsen: Number A. Letter A. You don't have the 4/5 vote. Mayor Chmiel: No, so we can't do that this evening. That's right. Unfortunately we have one of our Council people flying his 747 to London tonight. He wasn't setting up for this meeting and our other Council member is also sick. So I would thlnk that what we should wlnd up dolng with thls ls just tabling it to our. Councilman Workman: Can't we do 6(b)? City Cci.Il-iCi1 MeeLi~g --November 4, J.991 Mayor Chmie].: We commld do 6(b) if you'd like. But if we don't al. low the first part of .i.t., th:~ s,econd pa~'t doesn't fall. into Councilman Mason: This lsa tough issue, I'd be more comfortable with 5 people he, re than 3. Mayor Chmicl,'- Well we have 'to have 4/5 on item Councilman MasO)'l ~ Right. r. ouncilman Workman: Are you saying we can't do B unless we do A? Ju AI~11 015e11: No, you can do B. Mayor Chmiel: You could do B if you so choose but then you're cutting the other two Council people out f~-om the discussion. Councllma~l Workman: Well you know I never' 11ked those guys. Sharmin Al-Jaff: One of the conditions of the denia], of this variance is that they rip up all the plumbing system that they have rlght now so if they do that, I. guess they lose their chance to be included within the amendment. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Councilman Workman-' Yeah, but a variance earl always be approved outside of that t'ight? I do~'t know. .T. guess Z came p'~'epared to act on it but. Mayor Chmiel: I would think, as I'm really looking at this, I would think we'd I.~.; b~-:s[ to just, unfortunat~;ly you're here this evening. You drove through not too pleasant streets. Hopef~lly they're better than what they've been now. But ~ thi~mk that would be the positlon w,e should lake. But I'm open for discussion. Cralg Freeman: I don't know exactly how to present this under the ci~'cumstanc~'~.s, I gather from what you say that. Mayor Chmiel: Please just state your name for our records. Craig Freeman: Okay, my ll,~me i~ CYaig Freeman. I live at 7431 Dogwood Road and we've been discussing thls for ~ome tlme now. Are ~,e discussing ltenl B now? ltayor Chmiel: Yes, we could. C~'aig Freeman: Well if you'd prefer to hold it all over untll later, if you'd good enougl~ to put i~ at the front e~d of the nleeting, that would be alright. Mayor Chmiel: Good point and I do~'t disagree with that either. I think we should. Councilman Mason: I do too. Ct-~i.g Freemal~: That's fine wi~h us but. 2O City Council Meeting - November 4, 1991 Councilman Workman: Old business usually comes before new. This would then be old wouldn't it? Craig Freeman: This is very old. Mayor Chmiel: It's getting really old. Okay. Councilman Workman: You still have time to try one of our fine restaurants in town. Craig Freeman: I have and they are good. Mayor Chmiel: So with that we'll table item A and 8 until our next Council agenda. Councilman Workman: Second. Craig Freeman: Can I make one other comment? Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Craig Freeman: In my reading over this material and reading over the proposed change in the amendment to the ordinance, one thing appeared to me that might solve everybody's problem. That ls if we add to the number 3 1rem on the ordinance. I don't know whether you have it in front of you or not. Number 3 1rem says the accessory dwelling must have been constructed at least 10 years prior to the construction of the principle dwelling. Now if we add to that and lt's useage shall not be altered, then that leaves the dwelllng as it ls. Nobody can turn a chicken coop into a guest house. Only guest houses that have been there for 10 years can be used as guest houses. And ours has been there for 40 years. So you might consider that in your discussion. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding accessory dNellings and the appeal to the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to allow two principle structures on a single lot until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Don Ashworth: I showed November 21st as, are you ready for the Administrative? Mayor Chmiel: Are we ever. Don Ashworth: I had shown November 21st as the date that we had selected for the next TH 5 Corridor meeting. That's with people from the University, Bill Moresh. They are preparing a presentation to or for the task force. That is also the night of an HRA meeting so both Tom and the Mayor will have a conflict at least after 7:30. The question is, how early can we pull Council members or task force members in to give as much time as possible to the presentation by Bill Moresh and Lance Niccard and st111 meet your schedule? In other words, 21 City Council Meeting - Novembc'~' 4, 1991 they would like to do it at 5:00. I said no way. The question is 5:30 or 6:00, /. think we talked about 6:30 but that really squeezes them in~.o a 1 hour time slot. So if you could do a 6:00 or 5.~:~0 would be preferable. Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to be in St. Cloud and Vickerman that day. I could probably try to push for 5:30. Don ~shworth: Okay. I'll be putting out a memorandum. One of the areas that they would like to do is they I~ave like a mini-group of mini-cameras and they have picked out areas along the corridor and they would like to have assigned one of those areas to each task force member and sometime during the next week to 2 weeks we would actually be giving you this camera along with you might say instructions in what it is that they want you to look at at that particular location and then literally take pictures of that location. They will develop thosr; and then use thos~, as examples of what it is that you're seeing. ~hat it is that should be preserved and why and how. I'm not quite sure if what they have in mind is going to work but I thought it was kind of an innovative approach. ~gain I think that they have a purpose in trying to have the Council or task force members looking at these areas so that when you come in. Councilman ~orkman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ,as adjourned at 8:55 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 22