Loading...
1991 10 28CHANHA$$EN CZTY COUNCIL REGULAR HEETING OCTOBER 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meetlng was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILHEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch and Jo Ann 01sen APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wlng seconded to approve the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: Mayor Chmlel: We don't have any. I wish I would have thought of it sooner but we should have some kind of a proclamation for the Minnesota Twins. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution ~1-101: Accept Utility Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition, Project 91-2. b. Resolution ~1-102: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 4th Addition, Project 90-14. f. Resolution ~I1-103= Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force for 1992. i. City Council Minutes dated October 14, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated October 2, 1991 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 27, 1991 j. Approval of 1992 Meeting Schedule. k. Approval of Accounts. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. APPROVAL OF GAHBLING ORDINANCE, FINAL READING. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, is this accomplishing, I'm not sure if this is golng to be accomplishing what we want it to accomplish. You know I think the people who contribute the most input on this has been the Leglon and we probably have less to fear from the Legion than anybody. But what are we baslng dropping it from 75~ to 50~? City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that there was a discussion between the Leglon and ourselves to see if they felt comfortable with it. Don Ashworth: Scott is present. Mayor Chmiel: Scott, maybe you'd like to address that. Scott Hart: Well after a number of meetlngs ulth the Leglon in particular as well as consulting wlth the Chaska Lion's who's been the other prlmary donater to Chanhassen, the Llon's slmply dldn't have a concern and the Leglon felt qulte strong about the issue as set forth by Chuck Oimler at the last meeting that it was discussed. Z met wlth the Commander and the Gambllng Olrector and they sald they'd feel more comfortable with the 502 wlth the possibility of increasing it ifa problem arose as opposed to starting hlgher and decreasing it ifa problem dldn't arlse. So that was a basis for returning it wlth the 502. Councilwoman Dlmler: If I mlght add to that too, Z thlnk one of the concerns was that when they looked at their budget they discovered that if they wanted to even glve to something on the Natlonal level for the veterans they couldn't do it because 252 is operating budget and then ?52 would have to stay within the local area so they couldn't even send to the Natlonal Veterans Administration if they wanted to make a donation. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, that's true. Councilman Workman: So that makes sense. That I didn't know. Who's golng to argue against the Veterans? Not this year. No, that makes sense because that was one of the primary reasons we uent into this and I dldn't really have an explanation as to why we were comlng down. But Ursula are we not, a 502 or 252 is based on after expense or in other words it's based on the net? Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure. Did you discuss that wlth them? I just remember they said about 252 for operation and then ?52 if it had to stay within the local area, they couldn't make a contribution to the Natlonal Veterans if they wanted to. I dldn't feel that was right in case some project came up that they wanted to donate to. Scott Hart: They were just concerned about additional controls over thelr money and really it's just 502 is what they felt comfortable with. And we talked for several hours about it at the Legion. Councilman Workman: Okay. Well I guess I'd like to make maybe one change. It was very, very minor on page 2, Section 10-152. Each organization 11censed to conduct gambllng ulthin the City of Chanhassen shall contribute to the City for distribution by the City for lawful purposes an amount equal to 10~ of the organizations net proflts. Can we inject in front of that to say in an amount equal to at least 10%? Mayor Chmlel: Equal to 10~ is saying that it's there and you're saying at least? Councilman Workman: At least. In other words they can give more and we prefer t hey did. City Council Meeting - October 28, lggl Mayor Chmiel: Well that doesn't change the intent of it. Just leaves it open for a little more additional contribution. Yep. Roger Knutson: They can give it all to the Clty. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I don't want the 10~ to be construed as something gee, golly we have to do that but rather. Councilwoman Dimler: You don't want the 10~ to be the ceiling? Councilman Workman: Right. Councilwoman Olmler: You want it to be the floor. Mayor Chmlel: Roger or Scott, Subsection (b) indicates to that 10~ contribution required in subsection (a) above shall be considered as part of the $0~ expenditure. Councilman Wlng: Doesn't that klnd of cover lt? Councilwoman Dimler: I thought it did but I can see his point too. Councilman Workman: No. Councilwoman Dimler: Explain. Why doesn't it cover it? Councilman Workman: Well the 10~ lsa contribution to the City. The 50~ lsa contribution to organizations withln the City. Mayor Chmiel: We're not contradicting ourselves by doing that are we? Roger Knutson: No. I think we can clean up the language. We're not requiring lt. Zf they wanted to, we certainly will accept it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dlmler: And the 10~ ls considered part of the 50~? Roger Knutson: Correct. Or if they give 15~ or 20~, whatever they decide to glve to the Clty, that will all be lncluded as part of the 50~. Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like, why don't you make that into a motion. Councilman Workman: Okay. Approval of the gambling ordinance, flnal readlng with the change as specified in Section 10-152, paragraph (a), at least 10~. Mayor Chmiel: At least lOX of the organization's net profits. Okay. Derived from lawful gambling. Just keep it as such? Councilman Workman: Correct. Just addlng the at. least. Mayor Chmiel: At least. Is there a second? City Council Meeting --October 28, 1991 Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final reading of the Gambling Ordinance as amended in Section 10-152(a) to add the words "at least" in the phrase, "an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits derived from lawful gambling." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: If you could just bring that to the Legion's attention. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Don Ashworth: The Council regularly goes through, or the staff looking at our utillty accounts. At thls tlme of the year we have the opportunity to certify any delinquent accounts. Those delinquent accounts would then become payable wlth that property owner's taxes in the following year. Approval of the certified list is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval. Mayor Chmiel: We'].l have to close the public hearing first. Is there anyone wishlng to come forward on this? Thls is a public hearing. If seeing none, can Z have a motlon to close the public hearlng? Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: I would move certification of delinquent utility accounts. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution ~91-104: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the certification of delinquent utility accounts as recommended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE II, LIQUOR ORDINANCE. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, very briefly. During a recent revlew of a 11quor license at the Seven Forty One Center, it became clear that our public notification process, or lack of one for liquor licenses, was something that you asked to have rectified. What we've done is basically I brought a draft up for public hearlng notlce requirement...so we mail notlce to everybody wlthln 500 feet of the request. In a related matter too, we got a consideration of an ordinance amendment speciflcally...11quor 11censes in neighborhood buslness districts. That's a separate ordinance that's now before you tonight. The City Attorney has drafted for one for revlew by the Plannlng Commission. We're holding off on that to try and coordinate the Public Safety, Scott and I have been talklng about Public Safety wants to examlne the... So Z hope thls City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 responds to your immediate concern. From now on this...any liquor license request will have public notice requirement. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. As I said, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address it at this particular time? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? 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 Chmiel: Any discussion on this? Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's a great idea. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul has explained and is covering the concerns that we had with the square footage of which we will see in a short period of time. Can I get an approval of the first reading of the attached ordinance? Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. Approval of the first reading of the ordinance of Chapter 10, Article II of the City of Chanhassen Code concerning liquor licenses. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading of Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10, Article II of the Chanhassen City Code Concerning Liquor Licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADOPT ASSESSHENT ROLL FOR FRONTIER TRAIL IHPROVEHENT PRO3ECT 89-10. Mayor Chmiel: This is something that we have reviewed for the past several Council meetings. I guess that unless there's something someone has in additlon to what we've already previously discussed, we'd be more than happy to listen to it at this particular time. But if lt's going to be repetition from what we've already discussed previously, we have the Minutes before us and everything contained in here. I'm sure that everyone has had the opportunity to go over it so I'll throw thls open for discussion. Some time that you might want to say something regarding thls, just raise your hand and I'll recognize you. Tom? Councilman Workman: Have we found the $50,000.00 yet? Mayor Chmiel: Not to my knowledge. Councilman Workman: There has been some discussion on how beachlots were being treated and were they being treated falrly. I guess I would ask the question of the Attorney how are beachlots treated in a legal sense in other communities or statewlde on an assessment basis 11ke this? Roger Knutson: For assessment purposes, there's nothing unique about recreational beachlots or any other property. That improvement benefits the City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 property, the street serves the property, it's assessed. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot to discuss on this. I guess I've stood by the 60/40 split on a futuristic and hopefully fairness basis. I guess the staff report further delves into that and I don't know if there's a whole lot we can do on that. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard? Councilman Wing: I thought the staff report was rather thorough. I don't have any additional comments. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: Well I've got a lot of comments. I guess in order to get this settled, like I said last time, I thought ue should have put it to bed but I really do want to put it to bed this time. I know that the citizens are really tired of it as ue are, I'm sure we all are here too. Concern the beachlot and I don't know if this was ever made clear but apparently I have been told that the City owns the front footage on the beachlot in the fact that Mr. $choler did own it and we got it for back taxes. In that case then, if the City owns it, the City should pay the assessment. The beachlot then does not have any front footage. Yeah, that's what I've been told. Mayor Chmiel: We're having some high level discussions behind here. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. While they're settling that though, I guess after having analyzed everything I am in favor of staying with the front footage assessment. I believe the petition is still valid. Using the unit basis as was proposed would increase 38 properties and only lower ~3 so I would guess that the majority would want to stay with the front footage basis. I do believe that we are later in this agenda considering a pavement policy as ue have seen on the back of the agenda. To me that is establishing a policy for repaying our streets and it does cover reconstruction. It cover's all kinds of street maintenance and clearly now Frontier Trail is before us, before this policy is before us so therefore I would still maintain that we should not make Frontier Trail the example but that we should go on our existing policy which is case by case and as I stated in my discussion last time, in this case because the street was never resurfaced, it was sealcoated 2 or 3 times in the years I've lived there but it's never been resurfaced. Therefore I believe that because of a lack of maintenance, that it would qualify in this case for a 70/30. Finding $10,000.00 for the next 5 or 6 years does seem to be difficult but I guess when I think about it, I'd rather give our citizens a break on their assessment than to purchase anymore city vehicles or seasonal equipment at much higher costs. Those are just my priorities. And I still don't have the question answered as to Outlot ]. and 2 it's not assessable but who is paying the assessment? I'm sure that somebody has to pick this up and I'm wondering if the neighbors are doing that. And then the beachlot I brought up and I think we're going to have that clarified in just a few moments here. But those would be my final comments. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can have some input on that beachlot as to what Ursula indicated that the City owns the frontage of the beachlot. I'm not sure what the City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 frontage is. If that's the basic boulevard section or what but maybe you can answer that Roger. Roger Knutson: If I understand the beachlot has only one access out into the world is on this street. Between what is understood to be the road right-of-way and the beachlot was another strip that the Clty acquired. My thinking... acquisition by the City of the strip doesn't make any difference whatsoever. It's just 11ke we have a wlder street now. More boulevard. The beneflt, the use has not changed. It's like we don't assess the street project. We wouldn't assess thls 11ttle strlp whlch we now own which functions as part of the street. Councilwoman Oimler: But are we charging the beachlot for it? Roger Knutson: We're charging the beachlot for thelr frontage along the road. Mayor Chmiel: Just for the frontage. Not anymore than what the width or the depth ls. Roger Knutson: They're not going to be charged more because of this strip, or less. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Scholer, did you want to address that? I guess don't really clearly understand. I spoke to Mr. Jenkins about that. Robert $choler: I'm glad I don't own lt. Councilwoman Oimler: You don't own it but the City owns it. Well, if the City owns the frontage to the beachlot, then the beachlot has no frontage that it can be assessed for but the City should pay that portion. Robert Scholer: I think you've got a legal question that I would prefer not to answer I guess. I've got a conflict of interest here as well so I think I'll defer to your legal counsel on that one. It's true that I did own that lot at one time and I had absolutely no use for it. Paid taxes on it for a number of years to sort of control the access to be sure that everybody had equal access from my subdivision. When it became apparent that everybody did have equal access in all of the subdivisions ii 2, 3 and 4, I could see no reason to continue paying taxes and I just let it go. But the rest of your question I have to defer. Councilwoman Dimler: You think that's a legal matter, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: I usually can get my brain and my heart in sync on these things and I can't on this one. I've used this analogy before. In negotiating contracts for the teachers, and as I'm learning in trying to help govern this city, there are pockets in the city or teachers that you agree with. Unfortunately we have to slt back and look at the overall picture. I 11ke the idea of 70/30. With all the information I have in front of me, I'm afraid that the damage that would be done to the clty now and lnto the future outweighs what would happen to the Frontier Trail and that's a tough one for me. With what we have thls pavement management needs report coming up I think addresses some of City Council Meeting · October 28, 1991 that. Z hope we can do a better job of educating people in the future on what needs to be done. Z would much rather see tire 70/30 and Z thlnk I could go along with that tonight and then Z could say well, Z voted for it even though it dldn't pass or uhateveT' but I think in the best interest of the clty, I think probably the 60/40 ls the better of the two. ~nd it does not help the Frontier Trail people at all but Z guess Z think the 60/40 ls the best for the City. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I looked at the same situation, we talked at that time was the 50/50. We dldn't think that was quite to the point where we thought it should be. We dld move it to the 60/40. In looking at the long term commitment that we were making for the city and puttlng that lnto deficlt over · the long haul, to me it just doesn't make sense. Sure, you'd 11ke to glve everybody something for free but there's no free lunch unfortunately. I am at least st111 slttlng ina posltlon of the 60/40 spllt on thls. 60 Clty, 40 for the residents. And I think that's about where at least Z'm at wlth it right now. Z know lt's not a very popular thlng to do but we have to watch out for the city's interest at heart and Z think if Z were there I probably wouldn't like it but nonetheless Z dldn't like the assessment Z had on mlne and mine wound up at $10,000.00 for my piece of property as well. So with that I'd like to ask for a motlon, or ls there discussion? Tom. Councilman Workman: In the staff report it says tire front, and it's talking ~bout the outlot in question. Zt says the front footage for Outlot 2 and Lot g were added together and qualified for the large frontge curved lot reduction. Are we st111 uslng reduction? Charles Folch: That's correct. The latest addition of tile assessment roll contained in your packet still includes the accommodations made for the large foot frontage lots on curve. Councilman Workman: But was that an origlnal part of the agreement? I thought that was a deviation and one that hadn't been approved? So those who have a larger lot are being subsidized on the front footage rather than by the other residents? Charles Folch: No, they're not belng subsidized by the other residents. We maintaln the same per unit front foot cost rate if you wl11. The additional amount uill be plcked up by an increase to the clty share but not dlrectly to the other' property owners on the Frontier Trail assessment. Councilman Workman: Is that something we're going to be able to pattern the next time we do a road? That's a method we're going to be able to use in the future and we're golng to be able to apply just as equally in those situations? Charles Folch: I think we'll be able to. It's a method that we've been applylng to corner lots if you will and it works very well in applying to these curved lots uhlch basically are sort of functioning as a corner if you will so think lt's very logical and prudent and I thlnk we can contlnue to employ it in the future. Councilman Workman: Well we know what a corner lot is but a curved lot can be kind of deceptive so what are our crlteria to declde whether somebody's in that hardship situation or not? City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Charles Folch: Well in this particular case we looked at what was the average frontage if you wlll for a residential lot on the tangent or straight sectlon of the road. That appeared to be 110 feet. Most of your properties fall withln that category of 110 feet plus or minus, give or take. There are some that are somewhat smaller and there's about half a dozen that are larger that end up falling in the 220 foot category. The lots may not be in total square footage any larger than one of 110 foot of frontage and therefore it was brought to our attention that maybe we should look at this as far as applying a fair method of assessing the difference between the two types of parcels and therefore we developed this method and it appears appropriate. Councilman Workman: Okay, so 110 is the average...220, or whatever. Charles Folch: Well in this case. I would say in general most of the properties fell at well, 110 was the average size and Z would say probably the majorlty outside of the handful that were the 220, were under 130. There were a couple Z thlnk i or 2 at about 150-155 but the ones we primarily dealt with were on curve and were in the 220 range. The couple that were at about 150 were larger lots to begln ulth. Zf you look at their square footage, they've got some pretty good size to them. Councilman Workman: Z just get a 11ttle uncomfortable because now we've got a lot of little offshoots for the next time to try and figure that out. I've been trylng to say all along I guess that Z'd 11ke to make it as uniform as posslble and as fair as possible and clearly the people who have curved lots and lots that are no bigger than anybody elses are in a unique situation. Z don't want to but I don't know that I see how that, I don't see that as a scientific formula that we're golng to be able to apply everywhere. So the people ulth the 150 foot lots are kind of stuck in the middle. Charles Folch: That's not necessarily true. Councilman Workman: But they're maybe not on a curve. Charles Folch: Rlght. They're not on a curve and if it was their short slde and in both cases it was their short side and there was no break glven. If we do a street reconstruction on the long slde, there would be credlt glven at that time. Yeah, it's a policy we do apply to the corner lots and from our standpoint it seems to work fairly well here for the curved lots by establishing an average front foot. On a typical lot and block where you have all north/ south, east/west streets, if you look at them, pretty much all the lots uill have the same frontage across the street. And so you really don't run into that problem but when you do have a curved type road, you will have lot 1ine$ that don't go north/south, east/west and perpendicular to the road right-of-way. So then we have to deal wlth these cases. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd like to come up with a conclusion on this. In fact I'm golng to call a questlon on it. I'd like to even make the motlon that we accept the front footage assessments and go with a 60/40 split. 60~ city, 40~ residents. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second it. City Collncil Meeting - October 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel; It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution #91-105: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt the Assessment Roll for Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 based on a front footage basis and with a 60/40 split. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Hayor Chmiel: I think you've indicated your concerns. Councilwoman Dimler: My position is well known. LUNDGREN/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST, WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH, OF LAKE LUCY ROAD: A. REZONING REQUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RSF ([RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN__T). B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20+ ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALTER CLASS A__AND B WETLANDS. Jo Ann Olsen: This was tabled after the last meeting after it was brought up discussion of parkland on the site. There were also some lssues ulth the representative from Lundgren Bros. for the road width, 3 trees per lot and the posltion of utilities on the properties. The size of road wldth...only be 26 fee'[ wldth near the wetland areas. That the rest of it remain at the normal width. The 3 trees per lot we feel...large caliper trees, that it justifies to have 3 trees per lot. Also for the cost of providing utilities. Typically the developer does provlde that and pay for that share of the cost... Another concern was off site drainage. There's an exlstlng off site dralnage in the Greenwood Shores area. We are convinced that what they're doing wlth the pending on the slte uill malntaln the pre-development rate of the storm water runoff. It will not increase any off site drainage at all. If there is an exlsting problem we are recommending that that be a separate public works project. Mayor Chmiel: 3o Ann, when you say that should be a separate public works pr-eject. Meaning the City should pick up those costs? Jo Ann Olsen: It could be assessed back. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor' if I could respond to that briefly. I think the City Englneer...some additional work on that dralnage area but we're convinced that we're... There is no pr'oblem comlng from this development. We're not certain there's an exlstlng problem. We know there are some individuals who's properties get real wet in very heavy rains but when you look at their yard areas, a lot of their lawn area ls former wetland. There ls an elevation established for the outlet for that pending area. Zf that elevation was established too hlgh...evaluated in a comprehensive way... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. 10 City Council Meetlng - October 28, 1991 Jo Ann Olsen: ...so as far as this development itself, the pre-development flow will be maintained. We also added a couple sections from the oZd staff report about the revlsed road alignment. Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Wlng were concerend about that the road should go back over towards the wetland to preserve the trees on the h111. So agaln we added where we did...the two different alternatives for the road... There was also questions about the wetland area for lot...net upland area ls actually larger than what ls required. The final issue was the parkland. We added a memo from the Park and Rec Director, Todd Hoffman who again stated that the reasons why they are not requesting parkland...the area is not parkland deficient. They'd rather have the money to support the existing parkland areas so they dld not feel it was necessary to provide parkZand for this development... So we are recommending approval as before wlth the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: That's it for us. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Terry Lundgren. Is there anything you'd 11ke to add to what staff has indicated at this particular tlme? Terry Forbord: Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. My name ls Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd.. Mayor Chmiel: Terry tundgren. Thank you. I appreciate that correction. Terry Forbord: We've been before you before and presented our concerns and staff has worked hard in an attempt to respond to the questions of the Councll and we are here in the capacity this evening to answer any questions that you may have. The owners of the property are here if you have any questions for them. Mr. and Mrs. Ortenblat and Mr. Ersbo in case there were anythlng about the past or anything that maybe they could add that we aren't able to. So they are in the audlence if you have questions of them as well. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any discussion that you'd like to carry through? Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a questlon of Jo Ann. In you conditions l didn't see the issue of the north watershed drainage addressed. They were proposing to plug it up. Do you see anywhere where you've covered that? I couldn't flnd it. Paul Krauss: Condition $4 on the preliminary plat. Jo Ann Olsen: It's also where it's discussing raising the water level of the wetland. Councilwoman Dimler: I see where you're talking about them raislng the water level of the wetland there and protecting the road but does it say anything about shuttlng off the north? Jo Ann Olsen: ...100 year flood elevation. That's the one. 11 Ci~.y Council Meeting -. October 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, if I might. We're getting into, this is a very complex issue. We sort of punt when we get to that. Councilwoman Pimler: When you say modify, you're talking about shutting it off? Is that the word you're using there? Paul Krauss: We're saying we laid this out...we're saying that drainage plans h~vo to be modified...there's a lot more that's in the staff report and we're referring back to that. Councilwoman Dimler; So 'tha~ is the section that covers that? When you say modify .it could mean close it off? Paul Krauss: Could be closed off... Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Thank you. Mayor Chmie]: Was that? COUrlcilwoman Dimler: That was my question. Mayor Chmiel.' Okay. Let's move it right down that way. Councilwoman Oimler: Did you waist me to address all the concerns? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what I thought you had at that particular time or questions that you may have of the developer as well. Councilwoman Dimler-' Okay I say yes to the PUD with the conditions as outlined in tile staff report. I do not favor tile 26 foot road. For ,safety considerations I thlnk we should go wlth the standard street slze except for in those areas where you felt it was necessary to preserve tile environmental conditions. ~ would like to see us get 3 trees per lot to replace the trees being destroyed by tl)e development. Z think that the developer should pay for the utilities to be extended because they're benefitting from the utilities that are there on Lake Lucy Road. So just to extend that further. And T do agree that there should be no increased off slte dralnage to the Lake Lucy or Greenwood Shores people south of there. And I do believe that their proposal wlth the Walker Pond will control the dralnage and that yes, there was definitely a problem down there in Greenwood Shores. Those people were allowed by former Counclls to build ina wetland basically and that needs to be addressed but I think it should be addressed as a separate project. I wouldn't be opposed to the elevation of the water level 1ri the Class A wetland to 976.5 to try to increase the water, the quality of the wetland as well as the wildlife and vegetation. However, I thlnk it's a good ldea [o get a financial security for a 3 year period of the amount that you determine in case it does do SOnlething to the subgrade of [.ake Lucy Road and then we're covered there. 8~sJ_cally that's my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: This has been hashed over at length and I certainly go along wlth othe~' Councilmembers. Been out and toured the property and walked it and 12 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 talked to staff and worked this through. I see two options. Either move not to develop and be illegal in doing so or approve what's basically a pretty good project as I see it. In regards to the raising of the lake, it would be ideal if we could dredge the depth we want, remove the nutrients at the same time. I thlnk that's the only really possible way to do it ls to dredge the nutrients out. Get the depth ue want and go. With regards to raising, I klnd of have to go along with staff and Charles, our englneer in saylng that it may be a potential problem. He's concerned about the road. I don't have the expertise to make that declslon or even question this so if the engineer's recommendation is not to exceed g75.5, then I have to assume that's a proper decision so I would be qulte pleased at anytlme to move approval as is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom. Councilman Workman: This is a unique parcel with a unique wetland. I guess I'm concerned that what we've done is, it used to be if there was a Class B wetland and it just had maybe something that resembled a plece of wetland vegetation in it and there was no water there, it was sacred ground. I think we're doing, I thlnk we're movlng an entrance here by, I thlnk you guys are all golng wlth the filling of the wetland rather than, no? Councilman Wing: No, because we've been out and walked it and there's a list of what you're going to lose and you don't gain or lose anything. Councilman Workman: So we're going to leave the entrance where they want it? The developers want it. We're not going to be filling the wetland? Mayor Chmiel: I would say not to. I don't like filling the wetlands myself. Councilman Workman: It just sounded like we were kind of, somehow trees got ahead of wetlands and I dldn't want to thlnk about fllllng and moving. I'd 11ke to try with a development and I know that Terry and Lundgren have done, I'm impressed by what they've done up north. I don't have any reason not to trust that they're going to do a good job here. I don't know how the question of road uldth should be addressed. I guess I'd be wllllng to go along ulth it. It's going to be their neighborhood. Those people are going to be driving through lt. Have ue answered the questlon on the cost of providing utilities to the next parcels? No? Mayor Chmiel: Not at this particular time but Ursula indicated. Councilwoman Dimler: I said being that they're benefitting from what's already there, that they could pass that benefit on and the next developer would be required to pass it on. Councilman Workman: Yeah and if that's the way we've done it in the past, don't know how we can deviate from that. Mayor Chmiel: That has been precedent previously. Councilman Workman: I would assume they're tapping into what Charles? Underneath from Curry or from Lake Lucy? 13 City Council Meeting --October 28, 199]. Charles Folch'- From Lake Lucy, that's correct. Councilman Workman: But we put that in? Okay. $o I guess I don't really have a whole lot of problems with it. I guess I keep thinking that we're, I don't know if up in the eight additions up there for Near Mountain if we had all of this stuff, revised landscaping and all the different things that we're requiring from them that I think they already know they would like to have and the future homeowners are going to want to put in and we've gone over this discussion as part of our discussion on the landscaping ordinal~ce. I think our discussions about requiring 3 trees per lot or one or none is relevant to this question too. Just because it's a PUB you know, I think it's some of the same questions about what should be required and what shouldn't be. I don't really have ~tny further questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with the 26 foot width road with no parking on one side, It seems to me that's kind of a compromise there. I understand I tl~ink what Terry's saying about 26 feet there and I also understand the safety issue. I know the street I live on certainly isn't 26 feet wide and it is an issue but that's essentially a closed loop there. I mean it isn't going to be getting the Carver Beach, Nez Perce kind of traffic, I would guess. So I think if we're going to have parking on both sides of the street, I'd go along with what you're saying. I think J.f we would say no parking, I wouldn't have any trouble with it. I'm concerned about the pond. If the nutrients aren't going to be removed from it, what wi].l the City's liability be ~0 years from now as the nutrient level increases and the runoff increases and it has to he cleaned up? It seems to me if we're not going to take the nutrients out of t hat pond. Paul Krauss asked a question that wasn't picked up on the tape. Councilman Mason: Well the big one, I mean the one that we're saving. Paul Krauss: The big one is a wetland. It's not going to be a managed water body, We did investigate the possibility through the ONR of going in there and scooping out the muck on the bottom...and they were adament that they wouldn't let us mess around with a Class A wetland,,. So we're doing what we think is the reasonable thing to do. There's an existing nutrient rich bottom in that thing but the bigger problem seems to be coming from off site. It's drainage from the road. It's the phosphate rich salt and whatever else is going into there and what we're going to be doing is intercepting all that, The water that's being introduced to flow through that system from here on out is going to be a lot cleaner than it was, I'm not sure if ultimately that means the wetland will purge itself but that's basically the limits of what we're able to do with uh~t the BNR allows,., We think we're going to get a much better system for it. Now those Walker ponds that we're constructing will have to be maintained and managed by the City. As we have to maintain storm drainage ponds.,.ue're going to have to go out there every 5 years or 10 years,,.and clean out the muck. That's where the active management comes in. Councilman Mason: Council kind of seems, this financial security thing I guess I'm also concerned about. If we do go along with raising, letting them raise 14 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 the water, who will be held accountabie and I know we can't do it indefinitely. I'm not suggesting that but if something goes wrong with Lake Lucy in a year and we can prove it's related to raising it, I don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: I believe they had a mechanism in there where we reverse it then. Did I read that in the report? Charles Folch: That's correct. I guess that was the thought I had. Given there appears to be differences if you will on what will or potentially could or could not happen to the road. There's nothing cut in stone that says the road will receive no impact if we raise it up the full 2 feet. A compromise to that would be if the developer's willing to provide some sort of cash escrow OF letter of credit whlch would have to be in effect for let's say 3 years whlch ls certainly ample amount of time to see some sort of impact. Detrimental impact to that portion of the road segment. Now we're looklng at probably only about 100-150 feet of that road that would be impacted. Potentially impacted by that high water so it's not a significant length along the road if you wi11. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I just had one question. We're assuming this is a Class A wetland and where I live on Lake Minnewashta we're at an all time high. Fall of the year and we're at an all time high. We'rq assuming this is a Class A wetland with normal rainfall. Would there be anything in this lake that, we're talking about raising it a foot or two. In fact in normal rainfall years, would we be raising anything or would it just be a dry wheatfield? Charles Folch: Well currently, well the normal water level is estimated to be at 974.5. Currently it's at about 975.5 and it's been that way throughout most of the summer. It's been a foot higher than normal and that's related to a couple of things. One being the downstream canal which is probably silted over and is holding the water back and the other is the culvert to the north. So there is the difference that the developer's proposing to raise it to above what's currently out there is only a foot but after the development occurs, the man made control structures if you will that will be in place on the north and south end here will do a better, will serve to better function and control the water level and keep it at a more stable level throughout the year. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think the water level in this lake is an issue and if more water would provlde in actual water surface more of the year, I guess Z would support raising that if you were in fact comfortable, which you haven't been to this polnt, that it's not going to take care of Lake Lucy or this dollar amount being set aside. I've got to feel comfortable Charles that the declsion we make ls golng to be a reasonable decislon in regards to that road. Ideally I'd prefer to raise the water level just to provide open water more of the year. During more years. That'd be the flrst thlng. Then the other thing is the 26 foot road. If there's a majority of Council that would favor that, I thlnk thls lsa delightful neighborhood and I'd 11ke to see a 26 foot road. I don't see a safety issue on a loop like this. I thlnk it would tend to make the neighborhood qualnt and it's worth looklng at in this particular development. Councilman Mason: Just one more question.. Terry, refresh my memory. It seems to me I read way back when when this all came up that you people were proposing puttlng, plantlng cattalls in or am I just off somewhere right now? I guess the 15 Cit~ Council ldee[j, n9 - October 28, 19~)1 reason I'm asking that is with that water depth, I'd be concerned that cattails would take that whole thing over in 3 to 5 years or whatever. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the Clty Counc11. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros.. We were not proposing to implant different types of species of plant types 1nrc the wetland. The consultant that we used, Mr. Frank Svoboda who's here this evening and he can answer specific questions certainly better than Z. He prefers to let thlngs naturally occur in their own manner and the way tha[ he believes that can be done ls if we establish the water level. That things naturally u111 occur on thelr own and different types of aquatlc plant material w111 develop there. Right now because the water level is so shallow, the only type of plant type that's really predominant there is what is called a duck weed. What typically has ls it creates a mat because it lives and then it has a dylng cycle and it klnd of keeps coverlng the water. The way Z understand it the sunlight can't break through the mat that's created by the duck weed so lt's our intent that cattalls would grow around certaln parts of the perimeter of that open water area. But Z know Frank uould be glad to speak eloquently about thls because I'm not qualified to do so and he can tell you how that all works. If you'd like because he's here and Z'm sure he'd be happy to tell you. Mayor Chmiel: Being that you have him here and he's sat here for such a long time and he hasn't had the opportunity, I think you'd better get your money's worth. Frank Svoboda: My name's Frank Svoboda. Zn response to your question. As far as the growth of cattails. One w~y to limit the intrusion of cattails into areas ls to lncrease the water depth. The deepest that cattalls generally wlll grow is in about 3 feet of water. $o if you c~n maintain certain parts of a wetland wlth water depths greater than 3 feet, you're almost virtually lnsured of no c~ttail invaslon into that. In response to your other question or inquiry about whether or not we were going to do any planting. What I've learned over the years and in fact there's two schools of thought here. One school believes that in order to re-establish aquatlc vegetation, you plant. Z prefer to subscribe to the other school of thought which is you allow n~tural conditions to occur. And the reason Z belleve that ls that aquatic plants respond to the forces of the environment. Soll chemistry. Water chemistry and hydrology. And so it's, you can make moss grow in the desert if you want but if you don't maintain those conditions, then after you quit creating that manipulated environment, eventually nature's golng to re-establish some sort of balance and that's what ~ see happening in wetland environments is that sure, you can force some sort of plans to grow in there but what the research has found ls eventually it's going to achieve it's own balance and that's balance is going to be in response to those three things that I mentioned. Hydrology, soll chemistry and water chemistry. Councilman Mason: How wlll the purple loosestrlfe fit 1nrc that? Frank Svoboda: Well the purple loosestrife will, when an area is initially disturbed that's when you're most apt to get purple loosestrlfe showlng up. So one of the ways that you control that is to maintain a falr amount of diligence the flrst couple of years and then certainly there's ongolng, because of the growth habits of purple loosestrife. It's very prolific so you still need to 16 City Council Meeting ,- October 28, 1991 maintain, well it's just like controlling any noxious weed. So you just basically have to monitor it from one year to the next and if you can keep it under control when there's only i or 2 plants, lt's a lot easler than when a clone gets established and starts going to seed. So what we would do is the flrst couple of years is monltor the site for any growth of new plants and spot control. Councilman Mason: You will be doing that? Frank Svoboda: Right. Councilman Mason: Okay. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Frank Svoboda: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm still looking at it from the water quality and the nutrient loading analysis that's going to be on the site. I don't know, when you lncrease in the activlty wlthln the wetland, usually results in the acceleration of the aging process thereby causing changes within the area. Troplc status, which is part of lt. Of course development can cause an lncrease in the two major nutrients which is nitrogen phospherous in the system and these two nutrients in excess amounts can accelerate aquatic plant and algae growth and cause some problems within that wetland. Eutrophication which would probably be part of lt. And of course there agaln nitrogen comlng back in can be transported in what's termed as the gaseous phase within. And across the air/water interface or flxed transport to a biological useable form by blue green algae. That blue green algae in itself creates that and bacteria within lt. The nltrogen environment ls usually in the form of a nltrate and of course nitrate sources include the fertilizers that will be put on those lawns and I don't know what varylng effect that's going to be wlth 37 homes wlthin that respective area. I think that's correct. That could cause some problems within and I guess I'm wondering what reactlon really occurs wlth it and how it sort of how this ammonla binds to the soil itself and gets into the wetland area as well as the pond. As you mentioned Paul we can't, the DNR won't allow us to get in there to take out what we feel we want to do. They're just saying no. Is that right? Paul Krauss: That's what we've been told, yeah. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe that if you wanted to dredge they would allow it but again lt's one of those things... Mayor Chmiel: Eric? Eric Rivkin: I have a question. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up to the podium. Eric Rivkin: I got here late. Is this still a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: Well it's not a public hearing but we're open for some comments. 17 C.tty Councj.). Meeting - October 28, 1991 Eric Rivkin: Okay. I have a question for' .lo Ar, r, here. Related to you'r question here to the ONR. Did the ONR measure what's in the bottom sediments as far as hut rients are concerned or was it just a guess? 30 Ann 01sen: The applicant made a study of the wetland. ~.:ric Rivkin: Were the bottom sediments measured for nutrients? Terry, were the bottom sediments measured fol- nutrients? Terry Forbord: YOLtr Honor. I think we should let our wetland consultant answer that. Frank Svoboda.' Frank Svoboda. We had Braun Intertec Environmental go out and collect water' samples and the water samples were analyzed for nutrients but ue did not collect the bottom sediments because we felt that, our concern was more with the qual.tty of the water. Th,~t if ue could improve the quality of the water, [hen we would be able to re-establish some of the more desireable plant species that we wanted out there. The other aspect of the pro.~ect history is that, and one of the property owners could address this better than 3: could, but as recently as ]: believe 1974 and perhaps more recently than that, that wetland was actually cropped as agricultural field and there was corn planted out there. Mayor' Chmiel: But tile question that I've always had and no one's answered, what was it prlor to that tlme as well? To it being corn. Belng productive land. It could have been in a wetland stage as well. Frank Svoboda: Right. We looklng at the topographic features, it probably as a depressional area within the landscape. Zt probably did not look as it looks today ulth that much standing water in it but it was probably seasonally flooded lust based on the drainage area that's feedlng this depressional area. The fact that there is now a shallow dltch to the south. That ditch was not there so I think it was basically ,~t a hlgh point in the landscape and it collected very localized runoff. Mayor' Chmiel: Thank you. Eric Rivkin: Is there going to be a public hearing? Hayor Chmiel: No. We've already gone through tl~at particuZar process. This is beyond the public hearing stage but if you wanted to make an additional comment. Eric Rivkin: Okay. Would this be a good time or after you're done? Hayor Chmiel: Well, either now or later. Whatever you feel comfortable with. ~f you'd like to wait for a little bit until we finish some more of this, that ~'m at least addressing, then Z can have you put something 1nfo it if you'd like. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the C~ty Counc11. Terry Forbord wlth Lundgren Bros.. Your Honor, one of the difficult aspects of the drainage issue or this drainage basln ls that, how many acres of land Charles do you know that i~ part of the watershed that goes lnto that ONR wetland? Oo you have any idea? 18 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Charles Folch: I don't have an exact number but it is a fairly significant area that does contribute. Terry Forbord: Is it maybe 100 acres? 200 acres? Charles Folch: I couldn't even venture a 9uess actually. Terry Forbord: Rick, would you know? Rick Sathre: Right now before development occurs, it's about 20 acres drains lnto that basln. After development it u111 be about 25. Terry Forbord: Okay, but how much of the surrounding area that is off site? Rick $athre: About 4 1/2 acres. Terry Forbord: Okay, so that DNR wetland I believe, are you saying that the watershed just for that wetland ls just slte specific because I don't belleve that's true. The point I'm making I think is that a large part, because a lot of the water flow comes down Lake Lucy Road, and that's been addressed by staff. And the point is that I'm trying to make is that as much of the contamination or the nutrlent loadlng that is in that pond has not come from the site. And the existing problem that has occurred prior to development, the contamination or what's killed the wetland ls not necessarily just from the slte. And so obviously this wetland we believe shouldn't be treated any differently than any other wetland in the clty. If a watershed, let's say there's 60 acres or 100 acres that have contributed to the decline of this wetland, maybe the fair way to deal ulth that would be that whenever the City adopts thelr storm water plan, is that everyone within the drainage basin of a wetland is assessed for what they dld to the wetland so it can be flxed. But for somebody new comlng in to develop it to be required to fix what somebody did prior to us coming here, we don't thlnk that's really fair whether the problem exists or not because the problem was there long before Lundgren Bros. came and probably certainly longer than the people who have even 11red there on the property because it's not just their property that's been loading the nutrients in there. It would be like if you had a little pond in the backyards of your homes and it was determined that the nutrient level was a little higher than what is probably perfect and that you were requlred to fix it and pay for it yourself when it was determined that a lot of people had watershed into that. What we've done is we've tried to flnd out what was wrong ulth it and then we've trled to flgure out, belng that a lot of it comes from off our site, how do we establish a mechanism to try and control it so it doesn't get any worse than it ls. And the way I've been explained by our consultant is that over time through the continual flushing of this, that the water quallty wlll improve. However, the sedimentation that ls in the bottom that exists there now will probably stay for perpetuity and I'm not trylng to suggest that it's golng to change that. But the point I'm trylng to make is it really fair or equitable for us to repair damage that's been done by all the neighbors who live in the area? We don't thlnk that that's really a fair situation and besides, we have not been given any indication by the DNR that they would allow us to do it. It's a lengthy permit process and we don't know if they'd even allow it. 19 City Council Meeting -. October 28, 1991 Councilman Wing: I guess I tend to agree with Lundgren Bros. only because if we're going to discuss water quality, and that's out-real issue and choose to raise it to protect it, then I guess we ought to be buying that parcel and turning it into an experiment on the park and guard the land around it because not only are 37 homes going to go in here, that's not going to improve water quality in my opinion. But there's property [o the east and the west that is soon to be developed. We'll assume it and this little pond is in the middle of a ~)ory large area of development. Whether Lundgren Bros. illcreases that water quality or the properties on the east or west, we're going to be draining a lot of homes and pollutants in there uhether we like it or not. So this uetland thing gets beyond me because you can't have a wetland and surround it wlth high density homes and people and improve water quality and go hand in hand. Mayor Chmiel: That's very true. That was one of the other points I was going to make as weIi...because of movement uithin a particuiar area, the roaduay itself is going to increase those concentrations of flourides and salts and oil from the roadway which is also going to be going in there. That I have some real concerns with as well. But it is, it's a very complex situation and it seems to me that Z like basically what's being proposed. I'm not overly excited with total numbers of lots that are there but nonetheless the project doesn't seem that bad. I still have some real col~cerns within the areas of the Greenwood Shores area. Making sure that there is not flooding that takes place for those people. They've not really had that problem but is it going to increase it with additional flows or more uater? That's one of the other concerns that Z still have with it. ~nd if Z could be assured that that's not going to cause that problem, then ~ think I'd go along with it because I was in the same particular position, and I mentioned this before uhen I lived in another city. Water came into the backyard and just kept coming and coming and coming until it got to the door. find it's just because those concerns weren't taken into consideration at that time by the City and I guess ~ don't want to cause that problem for the people as well. I know uhat Z went through. It's not a fun thing. I've seen those situations happen within our community here. The uater has come into the back door and people have flooded because of some considerations were not given. Two, I don't know what the City's liabilities are on this. I don't knou if you have any ansuer for that either. Because I want to make sure whatever happens that we're not going to cause an encumbrance on someone else's property and for them to have that right to come back against the City to make that correction of whatever it is. Roger Knutson: That isn't exactly what happens but generally when the City floods someone's property because of uhat they do, the Clty's responsible... Mayor Chmiel: That's one of my other concerns. Councilman Wing: I kind of feel Mr. Mayor that in this case, having walked each of those yards, I'm assuming that the engineer, City and developer have reviewed that liability. It seems to me the very uorst that could happen here is accelerate necessary evil. If the backyards and the basements are at or belou the wetland level, there's going to be a problem. The houses are on substandard soils. In a drainage area. When I looked at them I was startled to see them there and then when I hear that a neighbor is blocking the outlet to boot, I sort of can't put a lot on Lundgren Bros. for this issue. I think they've been very responsible and responsive to that problem. ~nd if there should 20 City Council Meeting - October inadvertently beyond the engineer's control increase the flow rate, I think the city's going to have to acclerate a public works project that's really in the light into doing anyway. I don't see that being avoidable. Hopefully not on my term on Council because I don't want to go through the assessment hearing but certainly a real likelihood I believe. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. I guess I wanted to, you know Richard and I were out there and that was the conclusion I came up with. Those people should have never built their homes there but we can't change that now. A former Council allowed them to do that and those are existing problems. I'm quite satisfied that this may not add to it and if it does, a lot of the neighbors felt that it would only be in the length of the duration that their property was wet. Not necessarily increased level that the water would come closer to their basements. And I feel badly about having a wet yard for a longer period of time because they'd like to use their backyards too but again I think that this is too big of a problem that we can't expect them to fix it. The City has to fix that. Roger Knutson: I should just point out that in our standard development contract we do provide that as a result of development of the property, other property is flooded or damaged or whatever, that the developer, in this case Lundgren Bros. would have to hold the City harmless... They're asklng you to approve the project and if you decide yes... Councilwoman Dimler: Would they have to prove it's as a result of their development? Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. Councilman Workman: I'm ready to make a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just address one more? One more issue here. Real quick. I'm going to put ina plug for why I believe we need the 3 trees. I agree with Tom that in general I wouldn't but slnce this is a PUO. When I went out and looked at it and saw that probably using the existing drlveway and going towards the trees was the better proposal than filling in the wetland, although from my perspective as I get more enjoyment out of those trees when they turn color in the Fall than I would out of that little corner of the wetland that does absolutely nothing for me. However, the DNR has certain requirements for the wetland and they also have a tree preservation ordinance and I think in this case thelr own rules and regulations are glvlng us something that is probably less desireable but I'm not going to argue with that. I was told that we would lose some of the trees anyway even if we filled in the wetland so I dldn't feel that we were saving significantly. Again.I felt that because this is a PUD and the Clty should get something back for the removal of those trees that I would in thls case support the 3 trees per lot. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Councilman Wing: Do we have to do the individual motions? City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Hayor Chmiel: Yes ue have to do that but I did say to Eric that if he wanted to have something to say. Hopefully it's not going to be a long discertation. Eric Rivkin: Response is based on what I've heard here and I have a couple of comments about some things that you've said. I like what I hear so far. From what I'm hearing there's a lot of talk about water nutrients and water quality and that's great to hear that. If the City really wants to put water quality in the front seat, it would make sure that water quality predictions are sound. This is most important since what I've heard is that the City's going to be left holding the bag is water quality decreases even over a 3 year period. And to determine whether or not this project will increase or decrease the water quality, you need a good base to start from. That includes water chemistry and bottom sediment data outlined in the PCA's Class 2B handbook for water quality parameters. I didn't see, get a chance to review the proposal as it has been revised up to this point but you know water quality experts will tell you that most of the nutrients that are tied up in a muck type of water basin are tied up in the muck. I'd like to see some kind of second opinion here as to what proportions are tied up in the muck and which is in the water and which is going to end up in the predicted water runoff. It's especially important. They should be measured, the certain water quality parameters we're talking about. The nitrogen. The nitrates. The bottom sediment data as well as the water quality from top to bottom and the vegetation. As you said, past history revealed that this body of water seemed to me more like a water filled cornfield than a real bonafide wetland that would cause it to be classified as an A type wetland. It seems to me since somebody put a dam over it, it's an artificial wetland. Well you can do it artificially right or you can do it artificially wrong. I think we have a chance here to do it artificially right. If we're going to go ahead and approve it, I agree with what some of you have said and find out what proportion of nutrients are in the muck. If most of it's in there, the best chances Lake Lucy has, and I speak from Co-Chair of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. The best chances they have of keeping the water quality improved in all our watersheds and this particular watershed is to remove nutrients at the source. If they're in the muck, get the muck out. You have of course as you mentioned, some benefits to that. The water level stays the same and not jeopardize the roadbed and the 4 foot depth can be maintained wlthout havlng to as well. I thlnk thls solution wlll be acceptable to the Lake Association. I'm sure the DNR can be made to understand this approach because there's many slmilar stateuide wetland re-creation projects that fall under the RIM program and about a dozen other klnds of programs that are funded by public monles. It's posslble that the developer wouldn't even have to or the City would not have to foot any of the bill at all to recreate this wetland. Or make it into a real good wetland. I thlnk that should be looked a[ very seriously and maybe with a different tact. Wlth lhis 3 year liability window. I don't think that's enough. You could have 3 years of drought or 3 years of completely super wet years and really not tell much. I think you ought to go to 5 to ? years on that. Wlth regard to the tree replacement. Since you are removing valuable native trees, I talked to the, I think you should replace, the replacement condition should be of natlve specles and the 11st is free of natlve specles. They should not be exotic species. Anythlng over the 3 trees limit is up to the owner's discretion. I talked to Bonnie Harper Lohr who's a Resource Director of the Natlonal Resource Wildflower Center. She is really resource for the native plant information clearinghouse for thls region of the country and she would recommend to the City, free of charge, any advice to lead to resources 22 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 for the developer or to the City in this matter and what natural vegetation should be planted. Councilman Wing: That's been done. It's part of the Landscape Ordinance. The University of Minnesota Arboretum supplied a native tree list. Specimen trees on down through hardwoods. Eric Rivkin: This could be listed then in the conditions. And I didn't review whether or not there would be any wetlands being filled in for lots but true to Mr. Forbord's statements in one of the first presentations he made back in July that they're not shoe homing in houses just for the sake of, wlthout sacrificing wetlands, Z believe true to that statement that there should be no lots or houses permitted to be filled. Wetlands filled just for putting in houses. Z thlnk they'll be making plenty of money wlthout having to do that. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: Well Don you know, we've talked about this an awful long tlme and I thlnk we've talked about this issue it seems 11kc longer than any other development we've talked about all because there's this pond in the middle of lt. I think we can sometimes get so extreme that it does, and maybe we're not as advanced in the treatment of wetlands. I think we are, I think the City ls above lt. Ahead of it's tlme in sensitivity to these lssues and I think that's why it's taken so long. I think there can be a point where we get so extreme that it becomes almost impossible to develop thls site. I'm afraid that's kind of where we're getting to the point where if I had to concern myself wlth every snail in this pond, I would sleep at night and there's going to be a few trees knocked over and there's probably going to be some impact to the pond. I thlnk the sooner we get it over with the better because it's golng to happen here sooner or later. I don't know how much more advance the City needs to be and I thlnk we're learning and growing wlth the rest of the world on how to do this. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have just those kinds of concerns yet. The density within this bothers me and that has some of my concerns. Putting in this development, is it the best thing for the City? What are we really getting from it and I haven't really found out what are we getting from this? Or would it be best to have those two individual property owners develop it accordingly to how they'd like to see them and do something as they so choose as well. I think uorklng with Lundgren Bros. lsa lot simpler because they know what they're doing and they do stand behind what they've done. I'm not trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth but I still have those concerns. Is this going to be the best thing for us and what are ue getting from this? Maybe Paul can tell me. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't know that we're always trying to, we stamp PUO on it and then what are they going to give us? Well I think they're going to glve us a nlce development and some more tax base. I'm bulldlng a home currently in a PUD and I have probably one of the larger lots and I don't think it makes 15,000 square feet. The upland areas on these, if they're correct, I don't know what the average is but I mean it looks like lt's probably around 17, 16, maybe higher. Just on the average so there's some rather large ones. That doesn't say anything about what the lot areas south of the pond and everything 23 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 else. I guess I just feel like we're getting down to, like I said before, we're getting down to additional quaking aspen clumps and things that I know that this developer wants to take care of. I think we have plenty of examples from this developer about how they choose to do things. I don't think he's ignored, they have ignored either the wetland issues or the neighboring or surrounding areas. I think the City's full, or there's a whole area that's full of how they've done that and it does look nice I think. I just think we've gone on and on here and I think with the proper securities like protecting the road into the future. I don't know how long that should be done but if we can protect the neighbors to the south of the wetland or high water conditions, I think we've done that with other neighborhoods and we can protect the road with security, I don't see what other. Mayor Chmiel: If we had that hold harmless clause in there. I don't want this to be put back onto the City. I think if ue have that hold harmless clause contained in there, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with it as well. Councilman Workman: Well, we've got an engineering staff that's supposed to tell us whether there's going to be a wetland or a water problem downstream I would assume based on the... Mayor Chmiel: You may have a 100 year flood or 1,000 year flood such as is happening all over and that's what I'm concerned about. And that's what we still have to address. And to come up with that, sure they can do the calculations and come up with it but is it going to eliminate the problem. Councilman Workman: I don't think anybody's got assurances against 1,000 year floods. That I know of. I'd like to. Mayor Chmiel: Have your rowboat ready. Councilman Workman: I'll run that insurance company. Councilman Wing: But there's no controls now. Councilman Workman: I know what you're saying. I'm saying if we get the proper securities in there, then there's no problem. I just thlnk we're klnd of golng on with this thing and when we're trying to get somthing from the developer, I mean they've. He. Terry Lundgren. I thlnk they've provided. I don't know how many developers show up with a hydrologist and I thlnk they've gone and tried to provide for us maybe some unlque ways of handllng thls thlng but I thlnk what we're getting from them. This is not that pretty of an area or wetland rlght now. This is not. Councilman Wing: Whoa. Mayor Chmiel: Eyes of the beholder. Councilman Workman: I mean it's a lowland. A wetland that I've drlven by for 4 years that unt11 thls year has been a mucky, duck weed lnfested whatever. Z did pick up a big mud turtle and throw it back in there one day off the road. But groceries were tlght. I thought about bringing it home. But thls lsa unlque area and that's why it's a PUD. That's why the lots are changing. I just think 24 City Council Meeting --October we've gone on and we're probably going to go on until midnight tonight talking about some of these points. Let's either defeat them or get on with them because I think we've spent so much time on this it's gotten. Councilwoman Oimler: I do think we should take it point by point though because I hear many different things. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I agree. I think what we should do is go through the process of this and take each one separateiy making sure that everything that's contained in here is as to what the Councii is iooking for. Let's take that one by one. The rezoning portion. And if there's anything in addition to what you see or what shouid be there, this is the time to put it in. Councilman Workman: Can I make a motion to approve the rezoning? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded for the rezoning portion. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Where should the concern that you had with the disclaimer go? Should that go under here? Mayor Chmiel: That will be in the contract itself. Councilwoman Dimler: Good. So yeah. I'm fine with the PUD. Roger Knutson: The one subject to the conditions set forth in the planning report? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Each of those are contained within. Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second for the recommendation of approving the rezonlng. And that contalns each of the three 1rems as indicated in the staff report. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Rezoning ~91-2 property zoned RSF and RR to PUD-R with the folloaing conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submlt all requlred financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the property. 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ~91-9 and Wetland Alteration Permlt All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmlel: Preliminary plat. 25 City Council Meeting -, October 28, 1991 Councilman Hason: What about number 17 The parking. It's a biggee in here isn't it? Z mean the 26 foot. Mayor Chmiel: Well it's either 26 or 28. Councilman Wing: I would propose the 26 with no parking signs posted on one side. Mayor Chmiel: Can I just inject something on that? With no parking signs on one side. Of course thls is not going to just have them in and out. It's not golng to be connected to anythlng that we're aware of at thls time. The only concerns I have about that is with children within the area. And you're golng to have a sidewalk. But still when kids play there's not a place for them to play. Lot depths is not going to be there because of the wetland. So consequently they're golng [o be out there playlng in that street. From a safety aspect is 26 sufficient? And I guess I'm just throwlng this out for discussion more than anythlng else. I'm not comfortable with that. Where do the kids go? Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too and I don't know if this is even, will the curb be surmountable or insurmountable because that makes a lot of difference on the parklng. If it's surmountable the car can klnd of pull up onto the grass a little bit and provide more passage. If it's not surmountable, that makes a huge difference because now Frontier Tra11 ls not surmountable. When people park [here I notlce a decrease in the road wldth even though we wldened lt. Charles Folch: Our standard includes surmountable. However, I believe from the section that was supplied by tile developer, they are proposing a barrier type curb. Correct me if I'm wrong on that Rick. Rick Sathre: We're proposing surmountable. Charles Folch: Okay. It's shown on. Councilwoman Oimler: It would be surmountable? That's better. Rick Sathre: Because we don't know where the driveways will be... Terry Forbord: I just have one comment. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros.. do not know whlch way the Council is golng wlth thls but I thought it mlght, at least appear fruitful. Lundgren Bros., or home buyers that would like to live in our neighborhoods based upon surveys that we take of everybody that comes through. If the Council desires to have a 26 foot wide street and a sidewalk, then we would rather go to the full slzed street and not have the sldewalk because our home buyers do not want sidewalks on their property. They don't want to maintaln them. They don't want to be assessed to replace them. And so ~'m not sure where you're going with that but I did want to let you know that because thls ls something that we've probably talked about before. Our home buyers do not want to have them. So I wanted to let you know that. If you're thinklng of puttlng the sldewalk ln, we'd rather have the wlder street. Councilman Workman; Terry, could you stay there? City Council Meeting ~ October 28, 1991 Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Mayor Chmiel: Just a second. I'd like to have Paul respond. Paul Krauss: I guess I'd like to get a clarification...26 foot in the most critical sections where we need to put the road between environmentall sensitive areas. So those areas we've got a sidewalk... There's no other sidewalk we propose here. I heard one of the options was going 26 foot throughout. Possibly putting a sidewalk or possibly... The other alternative is to go the full width street. But even if we go with a full width street, we still...26 foot sections in those environmentally sensitive areas... Terry Forbord: We wouldn't be opposed to what staff is recommending but I did hear some other comment of a 26 foot street width. A circuitous sidewalk through the entire. Mayor Chmlel: As it reads here, it's a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard in the staff recommendations. That's item 1 under preliminary plat. Paul Krauss: We should clarify that because in the text you find that only occurs where we've narrowed the road width down. So yes it is where the street is narrow. Terry Forbord: Counseler, did you have a question? Councilman Workman: No. I just throught if we're going to go through these individually, it might be easier for you to address them as we go through. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my other comment would be, I agree with the Mayor that we're not talking about big back yards here. We're not and what is, a lot of it ls wetland. I don't thlnk klds play in wetlands. I don't know, maybe they do but it's a danger. We're also talking about not having a park. So where do the klds go to play in the street. Mayor Chmiel: Across the street. Councilman Wing: The same as Lake Lucy, Nez Perce, Minnewashta Heights. Mayor Chmiel: It goes down to Greenwood Shores Park. Councilwoman Dimler: Those are wider roads. Councilman Mason: But now Nez Perce, Carver Beach, that area is now only feet. Mayor Chmiel: That's the problem withln that area. .They've lived with it too long and that's one of my concerns. Councilwoman Dimler: That's something we can avoid here. That was something done in the past. 27 City Council Meeting ~-Oci:ober 28, 1991 Councilman Wing: Is there a~yway to poll the Council on this issue? If the majori~.y says 28, let's move on. Mayor Chmiel: That's [he poir~t I'm saying. Councilman Workman: I would so move. Councilwoman Bimler: I would be in favor of 28, without a sidewalk. Councilmar~ M,zson: So condition number 1 as it stands then? Cou~'~cilwoman Dimler: No. Mayor Chmiel: Condition I with the 28 foot wide road without a sidewalk. Councilman M~son: Without a sidewalk except in these particular areas? Paul Krauss: Condition 1...the way it is right now because the way it is right now, we have a full width street everyplace except those two areas where the curve is. M~yor 6hmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, you're saying only where it's reduced to 26 and it's 28 everywhere else. Paul Krauss: So that cond.itio, is correct and it reflects what you. Councilwoman Dialer: Does it make sense to have just small sections of sidewalks? Paul Krauss: That was always the discussion...They're around tight curves and it ~r, akes it somewhat unique... Councilman Mason: But he~. If I'm a 9 year old kid and I'm walking down the street, I'm not going to hop on the sidewalk. You know. Paul Krauss: ...where that tight curve goes around the Ersbo property, a sidewalk is kind of ne~tt because it drops down... Mayor Chmiel: I see that on Laredo right now. The sidewalk is there. Councilman Workman: But the sidewa].k would be on the wetlands side? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but kids are on the street rather than the sidewalk as well. Councilman Workman: But I thought we were narrowing it to 26 feet because of the sensitivity to the wetland? Mayor Chmlel= Right. Jo Ann Olsen: ~nd the boulevard. 28 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: See you're not putting the sidewalk in the same elevation as the street. It's golng to come down the slde slope... Mayor Chmiel: Contours within the respective area ls what you're saying ls happening. Okay. So does everybody feel comfortable with it? Councilman Workman: Not yet. So I guess I don't understand. So we're golng from 28 with it reduced to 26 feet and 6 foot wide concrete sldewalk in the areas uhere it's 26 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't see where we're gainlng anything wlth that. Councilman Mason: Well isn't the whole point those are sharp curves? There u111 be access to get onto the sidewalks there. That's flne. Mayor Chmiel: You don't have any drawings showing anything like that? Paul Krauss made a statement that wasn't picked up on the microphone. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Because I see some confusion here and not really understanding. Paul Krauss: It did work and it dld work without impacting the wetland. The critical thlng was with that full 28 foot boulevard, you can't do your side slope gradlng and you wind up pushlng dlrt into the wetland. The 2&...further down the slope and it fits. Councilman Mason: Wlth the sldewalk w111 there be an access to get onto the sidewalk or are they going to have to hop the curb with their strollers? Paul Krauss: Well lt...around the curve. Mayor Chmiel: It's right there. Right adjacent. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay, so I move approval of condition I as ls. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 2. Revise landscape plan. Councilman Workman: Are we going to vote on these separately? Mayor Chmiel: I think you should go through them. If what you suggested at the tlme, we'll be here all nlght. I don't see any problems ulth some of the ones we have here. 5 was that the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide necessary financial security, which we had some concerns with. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, number 4. Did you decide to go ulth the raised level? 29 City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991 Councilwoman Oimler: That's why I think we should go with. I heard different things from different people. Mayor Chmiel: Each one that you have a concern with is the one that you pull off and address. Those that you have a concern on, and I'm sure you've looked at 'this. Just take each one that you have concern with and address it and then go fi'om there. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of condition 2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Workman~ For discussion. I guess I would. Mayor Chmiel: Let's go through all of these and then we'll get done and approve it with what has been added. Isn't that right Roger? We don't have to go through each individually. Tom. Councilman Workman: Z guess maybe with 2(d), tile 2 trees. Z guess again you've heard my discussions on that. M~yor Chmiel: Yeah, except in this particular location wlth removal of the trees that wlll be golng, to make up for the loss of [hose. You get the 37 at 3, that brings you... Councilman Workman: Z guess my polnt here ls, lt's a development and to develop. Mayor Chmle].: That's one of the pluses you get out of a PUD then. Councilman Workman: I will vo~e against lt. Councilman Wing: Z'm golng to vote for it Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to vote for it. Councilman Wlng: Thank you. Councilman Mason: I'm going to vote for Mayor Chmiel: Me too. Councilman Wing; Any other discussion Mr. Workman? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's keep golng with it or we're golng to be here all nlght. Item 3? Councilwoman Dlmler: Approved. Mayor Chmiel~ Okay, item 4. Someone had some concerns with this. 01ck, you dld? 3O City Council Meeting - October 28, 19~1 Councilman Wing: Well I'm relying on staff. I think I heard the Council being content with the higher water level here. If it ever attains that level so I would favor raising it if Charles would approve that recommendation to Council. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Charles Folch: Well, as you mentioned before. I guess if I had my true choice it would be to lower the, given the constraints with the road would be to lower. Actually to dredge the pond but if that's not really something that would be feasible of going through the permit process with the DNR, the next best thing I guess in order to achieve the water quality aspects that they're trying to do here which I think are a good idea, is to raise a level to what they need. But ue should protect the road with some financial guarantee if we're going to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't disagree with that. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Shall ue change that period of 3 years to 5 or 7? Councilman Mason: I certainly wouldn't want to go any longer than 5. Councilwoman Dimler: Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think 5 would probably be sufficient. If you're going to see something that's going to take place by that particular time. Unless it's a dry period of time. Councilwoman Dimler: And who determines the amount of financial security? Mayor Chmiel: That's determined by staff what that should be. That should be their responsibility. Okay? Councilman Mason: So we're at 975.5 then? Mayor Chmiel: We're at 975.5. Normal water level. Paul Krauss: That should go up to... Councilwoman DimleF: 976.5. Councilman Mason: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 5. I don't see any problem. 6. I don't see any problem. 7. Don't see any problem. 8. Those all look like they're in our interest. All the way through (h). Number 9. I don't find that as any problem. 10. Councilwoman Dimler: No problem. Terry FoFboFd: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. City Council Heeting -- October ?.8, 1991 Terry Forbord: I have a question about number 10. 10 foot clear space around fire hydrants. If that's a 36 inch oak tree, would you like us to remove it? I'm just curious. Hayer Chmiel; I think you know the answer. Terry Forbord: But I mean. Councilwoman Dialer: Place it where it doesn't. Terry Forbord: So it's our understanding for the record that you would like us to put the fire hydrants in a location approved by the Fire Marshall however that would be sensitive to the existing conditions? Hayer Chmiel: Charles, are there any concet'ns or problems as far as rooting of those trees and what problems they can cause to those hydrants? Of course you have it all over anyway so if they're down deep enough, that shouldn't be a problem should it? Charles Folch: No. Typically where you do have your problems is after the line is in and you plant a new tree above it and the roots then migrate down and put pressure on it. Hayer 6hmiel; Okay. 11. 12. 13. The outlet at the south end of the Class ~ we).tand. I don't see that as a problem. 14. Councilwoman Bimler: Do you want to put in there at the cost of the developer? Or is that understood? Mayor Chmiel: Yea[,, that's the norm. Okay, so we've gone through 1 thru 14 wit h revision. Councilwoman Dialer: Bid you want to add a condition 15 here then for that? Mayor Chmiel: For what? Councilwoman Dimler-' That other one that we were talking about. Hayer' Chmielr The hold harmless? Councilwoman Dimler': Yeah, the hold harmless. Hayer Chmiel: That's gOil]g to be contained within the contract in itself. So that's not necessary here. CoUllCilwoman Dimler.' Oh, we don't have to approve that. Okay. Councilman Wing= I would make the motion then approving Subdivision ¢91-9 as shown with I believe the only change was in item 4 allowing the level to raise t o 976.5. Councilwoman Dimler: ~nd for 5 years instead of 3 in the financial security. 32 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Councilman Wing: That's right. Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval of 2. No 3. Well whatever. Mayor Chmiel: 4. 4 with those respective changes. Okay. But I still need the full approval in acceptance of the balance of what's here with those additions to lt. There's a motlon on the floor. Was there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Nason seconded to approve Subdivision ~1-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 and subject to the following conditions= 1. Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall be "no parking" signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" signage. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following: a. One additional quaking aspen clump shall be provided directly north of the Class A wetland and east of the proposed quaking aspen clumps. b. Landscaping, acceptable to staff, shall be added to the area between the publlc road and the Class A wetland. c. The berm and landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the edge of the wetland and the westerly access area dlrectly north of the proposed pond area shall have increased landscaping to replace existing vegetation that ls being removed, if appropriate. d. Three trees (2 hardwoods and i evergreen or ornamental) shall be requlred per lot. (Credlt for each tree over 6 1riches in callper on the lot shall be granted. For the lot however, a minlmum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided. e. A landscaped berm shall be provlded on the north right-of-way Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes. 3. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and eroslon control plan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for all slopes steeper than 3:1. 4. Drainage plans are to be revised as recommended by staff. Calculations shall be provlded demonstrating that the revised Walker Ponds are sufficiently sized to provide acceptable nutrient removal. Orainage calculations must be provlded demonstrating that runoff from the site maintains predevelopment rates. The applicant shall submlt final road, dralnage and utlllty plans and specifications for revlew prlor to final plat review. The normal water level in the DNR wetland lying south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 976.5. Should a higher normal water level be approved, the applicant shall provide 33 Ci~.y Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 appropriate financial securlty for a period of five (5) years to repay any related Uamage to Lake Lucy Road. In addition, the downstream control structure shall be of the type to allow manual control of the water level, should the need arise. The developer shall modify the existing storm sewer outlet/inlet, located on the south slde of Lake Lucy Road, to become a flood control structure constructed at the 100 year flood elevation. The proposed development will not increase off-slte dralnage to surrounding properties. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security. 6. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits. 7. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trall construction. 8. Provide the following easements: a. Dedication of all street right-of-.way. b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and pondirlg areas. c. Access easements as required to service the "Walker Ponds". d. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outslde publlc rlght.-of-way. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. f. Standard drainage and utility easements. g. Provide a conservation easenlent over all established wetland buffer areas. Such easements shall be marked ulth permanent vlslble monuments and the location of such easements shall be provlded to city staff for approval. h. The final plat shall convey an additional seven feet of right-of-way on the south side of L~ke Lucy Road to provide the total width of 40 feet lylng south of the centerllne. The applicant shall indicate the allowable type of duelling, the house pads and the lowest floor elevation on the gradlng plan. 10. The existing hydrant between t.ots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be relocated 75 feet to the south. The Fire Department must approve street names and a 10 foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. Additional hydrants are needed at the intersections of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed public road. 11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permlt $91-4 and Rezoning $91-2. 34 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 12. The applicant shall provide propoer restrictions (subject to city staff approval) on those lots havlng entrance monuments and/or landscaping. 13. The outlet on the south end of the Class A wetland shall be a variable crest structure with stop logs and adequate outlet channel to allow the draw down of water levels to or below present outlet elevation (974.5'). The developer be required to remove existing purple loosestrife from the basin and to monitor those sites and sites distrubed by construction for loosestrife invasion. 14. Municipal sanitary sewer and water sePvice should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel and sanitary sewer shall be extended to the Coey property. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the mot/on carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Workman: And the reason I am is because the developers aren't going to pay for any of this stuff. Trees, water. Mayor Chmiel: Property owner will. Councilman Workman: Property owner and the future neighbors are going to pay for thls. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if Mr. Workman's going to continue on this anti-tree state based on bottom line dollars, then I'm really upset that we're requiring i tree. But more important, there are ways without impacting the buyer. My intent with this whole tree issue to begin with was that it would lmpact as minimally as possible. Wholesale. Retail hurts the buyer. No questlon about that. There are ways to go about this wholesale where the developer has to provlde chitz for a nursery. Plck up x trees. $1,500.00 for three trees in 1 year or 2 years or $ years. I couldn't put in a tree right now if I had to wlth 3 klds in college. But if I could get 3 chltz up front on a development that allowed me to go to a nursery and pick up those 3 trees and put it on a 30 year mortgage, I'd approve that. I have got some comments if this ls going to continue. And Mr. Workman's got some very valid points and I don't want to in any way put Tom down for hls comments but the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and I'm really envisonmentally concerned and I think my posltion has some valldlty here. Councilman Workman: Well, I voted against it so I could state why I didn't and I dld and I think my polnts are valld. It's not just the trees. It's every little thing that goes in for developers. We need to keep an eye on developers because there's bad developers out there. I don't conslder Lundgren Bros. to be one of them. They could end up to be on this project. I don't like the tone that the city sets for not only the developer of a parcel but people who are going to move into the parcel. When we start discussing where a skateboarder's going to play and Z thlnk what we're doing ls we're starting to get too far lnto the process and we're worrying ourselves with things that are going to work themselves out naturally. Whether lt's plannlng bushes or trees or where a kid's going to plan on their 20,000 square foot lot or other. I don't think that klnd of stuff ls really our concern to an extent. The safety of new City Council Mee~,ing ~ October 28, 1991 residents obviously is. But a yard is a yard is a yard and so they're going to have to figure that out. ~nd I just, I love trees and I'll say it again and I'll say it again but it does put another burden and the Hayer told me that he talked with somebody that had a quarter million dollar home and he made a comment that that tree thing tipped him over the edge. It can do that and I just don't like the tone that we set that Chanhassen's going to be exclusive and if yet! can't afford to play here then get out. It's not something we want to yell too loudly. Hayer Chmiel; I think the point being here Tom, again as I mentioned before, this is a PUD. I don't think this goes for every other place that gets a new home going into the city of Chanhassen. This is something that we're able to get by having 3 trees within each of those lots and that's one of the pluses we get as a city. Councilman Workman: But the developer, he's obtaining the PUD. He's not paying for those trees. Hayer Chmiel.' That's right. I'll agree. Cour, cilman Wing: It's a difficult issue and I think we should address it. Hayer Chmiel: Well unless you'd like to change the motion and say that the developer is respo~s.ible for putti~g 3 trees in each of those lots? I don't 'think you want to do [hat either. Councilman Wing: But I think that needs to be addressed. Even if we... Hr. Hayer, I think that 1 tree should be addressed at that level because if we're that worried about the bottom line, that's $250.00 may break someone's back. I believe that should be with the developer. For future discussions. Mayor Chmiel: If you have someone that feels strong enough to make that into a motion, we still have a position before we move on to the wetland. Councilwoman Bimler: When I ask about condition 14 at the cost of the developer, it was assumed. I just assumed that (d). 2(d) was also at the cost of the developer. Mayor Chmiel: Well of course they have different ways of covering that Ursula and when you purchase a lot, the cost is there. Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I voted for it. Hayer Chmiel: So if there is no other motion. There's no other discussion on it. We have accepted the item 1 thru 14 under the prelimLnary plat. We voted on that. Move on to the wetland alteration permit. ~ll wetland areas protected during construction with Type II erosion control. That's fine. 2, Z don't see any problem. 3, I don't see any problem. 4, the Walker Ponds that will go in. Does anyone have any concerns with that? 5, with the permits from DNR and Corps of Engineers. 6, ail conditLons of the subdivision. ~ny discussLon? Councilman Mason: Number 2. Where uas the figure of lO feet picked out for the buffer strip there? How was that arrived there? 36 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: During the weigh out of the plat...shous a variable buffer strip... Councilman Mason: Okay, how was 10 feet decided upon though? I mean as opposed to 5 feet or 20 feet. Jo Ann Olsen: It was proposed by the applicant. Paul Krauss: Based upon the recommendation of the Wildlife Biologist...visit the area...to provlde additional protection for water quality... Councilman Mason: Right and I understand that. I'm not going to argue whether it should be 5 feet, 10 feet or 20 feet tonight but Z do have a concern in the future, I wonder if we do at some point need to get second opinions on things 11ke thls. Terry Forbord: Your Honor? I think I could probably easily answer that question. That's a good question. When ue were looking at this, we were uorklng wlth staff and staff had come to us and said we have a concern on that there isn't a universal agreement from the way I understand it. There is no set number that if you're thls far from a wetland you have the perfect situation because a lot of, I think I talked about this before is determined by what is between the wetland and the structure. The slope, etc.. And so belng that there was no perfect science to this, what we've tried to do is we went out on our own to come up ulth a minimum. Now how dld we get the 10 feet? If you look at the wetland like Paul described, it meanders all over. The closest, the very closest polnt on the entlre slte that have our setbacks so ue dld have backyards and by the way, there are backyard spaces on these homes. We're not going to have decks right up to a preservation area. We have slzed each lot for the largest home that Lundgren builds in it's repertoire. Okay? We don't do it the other way. And there was one or two places in the entire development on all 37 lots that where the very closest part to a portion of the wetland, or excuse me the preservation zone to the wetland was 10 feet. And so that's where we came up with that number. Now there is no scientific evidence that says well 5 feet's better or 40 feet's better but Z belleve there's maybe 2 lots. And I'm not talking the whole lot. I'm talking maybe where for 10 feet the preservation zone ls only 10 feet but then it wlll expand and get wlder. So we declded that we had to come up with a measurement for the city so we could put it in that table that staff worked on. The majority, the vast majorlty are greater than that. Some of them I think are as high as, pardon me. Oh they're even more than some of them. Z know some of them are, on some of those longer lots that are around the west slde. So that's how ue came up with that. We thought ue should have a minimum and it was our suggestion. Mayor Chmiel: I like some of the things you said but also you mentioned the fact of decks. Hopefully when these homes go in there's going to be sufficient amount of depth to the wetland so those decks can go in without them having to come in here for variances. Terry Forbord: Ursula and I spoke, excuse me. Counciler Dimler and I spoke about that and we realized that the City oftentimes is put in a compromising posltlon where a future home buyer. Haybe not the lnitlal home buyer but a future home buyer comes in and says well nobody told me so. That's a difficult City Cow,ici]. Meeting - October 28, 1991 situation that I see oftentimes when I'm in the audience at various Council meetings. Unfortunately tile Council is in a position where they have to deal with these things. I'm not sure if that will ever change ever. I think the Council in every city is going to be in a position where people come in with variances and periodically they're going to say well nobody told me that I couldn't do this. Wh,~t we do when we design our neighborhoods is that we design them, the homes are what we call the building envelope. That's what we call them. We design the envelope to accommodate decks and to accommodate a three season porch under what are normal situations. Now that doesn't preclude a future home buyer comlng in and saylng well geez I'm going to take the window out on the slde of my house and put ina patlo door and then want to put a deck on the side of my house because that could happen maybe 20 years from now and they go to Clty Hall and say well geez, you're not supposed to put it on the s[d~. of your house. You're supposed to put it on the back of your house. Well those are the thlngs that Coun¢lls typically end up havlng to deal wlth. See we can't do that. So lt's impossible to design a buidlng envelope for every posslble situation, whether it be a swlmmlng pool or something 11kc that. It's literally impossible. However, we do size all of our envelopes for the largest home that we have in our repertoire of particular product line at that tlme. Mayor Chmie].: Any other discussion? If not, let's call a question. All those in favor. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to make a motion? Hayor Chmiel: I thought we had one. Councilwoman Dimler: Did we? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dimler= Okay. I move approval of the wetland alteration permit ~91-4 as shown on the plans dated ~uly 29, 1991 with the following conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Councilman Mason: Second. Hayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit ~91-4 as shown on the plans dated July 29, lggl with the following conditions: 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The eroslon control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. 2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in tile compliance table for each lot uill be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland setback less th~n 40 feet will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement. 38 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 3. Aiteration to the wetlands must occur when it resuIts in the ieast impact to the wetland and not during the m£gratory waterfowl breed£ng season. The "Walker Pond" and wildlife wetland areas must be designed to the standards proposed in the applicant's submittal packet dated July 30, 1991. 5. The applicant shall recelve permlts from the DNR and Corps of Engineers. 6. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ~91-9 and Rezoning ~91-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Can I just make a quick addendum comment on this? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I just wanted to mention something too Richard. The reason I went through each of these as we did, it took a 11ttle more time. Thls is a number one for us within the city and I wanted to make sure we were going to follow accordingly to make sure we're going to get exactly what we were to get with thls. Making also sure that each of the conditions were described as such and havlng the developer 1lye up to that particular. So wlth that Z thlnk that that pretty much takes care of this particular item and we'll move on. Terry Forbord: Thank you Your Honor. I'd 11ke to thank staff. The engineering department and the plannlng department for their cooperation with us in trying to help us solve many of the problems that we were faced with wlth this proposal. CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT AHENDHENT REGARDING THE FENCE SCREENING HEIGHT FROH 8 FEET TO 15 FEET, 7851 PARK DRIVE, LAKESHORE EOUIPHENT, STEVEN WILLETTE. Paul Krauss: This has come up before you a couple times and lt's been klcked around in the city for almost a year now between Planning Commission and Council. I thlnk you're all famlllar with this so I'll sklp the background. The last time it was on your agenda there was a desire to go out...some folks from the Counc11 went out wlth staff to meet wlth Mr. Wlllette at the slte and try and work out an accommodation that everybody could live with. One rainy day'in September or August we dld get out there and look at the slte .... letter to Mr. Willette September 13 outlining the conditions that would be... Basically the fence sectlon as it faces the public right-of-way to the west would be allowed to remain the full height. It was a well designed section that looked good and was screened from the lot. Around the south and east sides it was golng to be requested that that top section of fence be removed. There were some other conditions that I put in that letter to Mr. Wlllette. I dld ask hlm to take down the section of fence that... It looks like, I've not been out there...but I heard it was taken down several weeks ago. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Two different sections. Paul Krauss: So what we're coming before you tonlght wlth ls to resolve thls matter. Hopefully finally resolve it and to go with a recommendation that basically consisted wlth the, I belleve the understandings that we developed on the site that day. City Council Meeting ~ October 28, 1991 Mayor' Chmiel: Very good. Steve. You had an opportunity to review the comments that Paul indicated? Why don't you come on up here. Steve Willette: Yes I have. The only thing that I see as far as the fence goes is that Jf we go from vertical to horizontal it's not going to look very good and in my best interest I'm better off taking the lower boards and dropping down the vertical part so the fence all looks alike and it holds to it all the way around instead of it looking hodgepodge like I just threw some boards on the side over on the south side and on the east side. And the fence right now to the west is higher than 8 feet.. We do have to try to conform to the contour of the land a little bit so what I would like is a little bit of flexibility there to make it look appropriate. Maybe 10 feet. I just want to reiterate for everybody's knowledge, if I do go down to those heights that you will be able to see in from the highway because of the difference in the elevations as well as I will conform to the 8 foot. Stacking of docks no higher than 8 feet. You will be able to see some of them. I guess it's not much different than the lumber yard down here or anything else so I do want it to look nice. And as far as replacement of the trees that I had in there, I don't see any problem with that. As far as the other landscaping that was proposed, when the height of the fence was going to be at i5 feet, I do not feel that is necessary if we drop the height down to 8 feet because I've already got more landscaping in there than what w~s required by when we went through the initial building process. Mayor Chmiel: That's where you come from your approach right at your parking area? Steve Willette: Right. Well, the additional landscaping was going to be to the south and to the east when the height was at 25 feet. I don't see a need for vines and everything on the fence and all kinds of additional landscaping. I do have a few trees that did die and I do feel that those should be replaced. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Army discussion? We'll start with Mike. Councilman Mason: I'm okay with it as it stands. I guess I'm inclined to agree that I think if Mr. Willette's willing to replace what's dead, maybe ue should let it go with that. Mayor Chmiel: Replace the existing trees that have died? Yeah. There's also those piles of wood that's out the fence line. Has that been cleared? Steve Willette: fhose will be dealt with. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, because the last time I looked when I checked the 8 foot height, it was still there. And that will be moved. Okay, good. Steve Willette: I would like to ask one more thing. If I could have some time to do this... Mayor Chmiel: I don't see that as a problem. Steve Willette: Mr. Mayor... 4O City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, why don't we put it down as June 15th. Compromise between the 1st and the 30th. And that would be as condition number 7. Okay. Tom. Richard. Councilman Wing: We were the committee that went out and this is our recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Pass. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion? Councilman Wing: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: With the addition of number 7? Councilman Wing: Number ?. Denying the conditional use permit 88-17 and with the seven requirements. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Paul Krauss: Further clarification. You're not denying it. We're recommending amended but also you would have to modify 5 for 1nfl11 landscaping. If that's your wish. Councilman Wing: That's right, the lnf111. Paul Krauss: Steve, basically as I understand the Council's in agreement with you that additional landscaping won't be required. You just have to modlfy the condition... Steve Willette: How about the difference in you're saylng 8 foot but the existlng fence of the west is higher than 8 feet right now...dropping down to something drastlc. Mayor Chmiel: What I would like to see you probably do ls work that out with Paul. Steve Willette: Okay, and then the other thing that Z had was the horizontal board. You had that...in there. I would much rather see it be consistent and have vertical boards. Councilman Wing: The verticals are coming down. The 8 foot horizontals are staying. All we're asking is, the verticals are gone. Forget that. That's what you're taklng down. Zt's the 8 foot of the horizontal that we're concerned about and those on the southeast corner need to be allgned coming around that corner so ue don't have thls awkward shape out there. Steve Willette: That's great except for the only problem that I have with that ls we've got the vertlcal boards in the remaining part of the fence and what proposing to do is drop it down to an 8 foot height and just...all the way around the fence and bulld the same style fence around the whole perimeter 41 City Council Heeting - October 28, 1991 lnstead of havirl9 two different style of fences because it'~ going to look crummy. Z want it to look nice. Councilman Wing: Take the whole fence down? Pau]. Krauss.' So they all, all the boards go vertical then? Steve Wlllette: No. You're going to have, 11ks on the other ones, you have ones that are horizontal. These are only 6 foot hlgh vertlcal so you have 2 or 3 deep of horizontal boards and then you go...and that's what they dld when the architects deslgned the fence... Councilman Wing: Going back out? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That too I'd like to be worked out with Paul to something that's satisfactory. Any other discussions by Council. I'm gettlng lost here. It's getting too late. We have a motion on the floor uith a second. Councilman Wing: Amending conditional use permlt 88-17 and changing item 5. Mayor Chmiel: And amending item 5. Councilman Wing: And item 7 with the June 15th tlmellne uhlch Z belleve ls for completion of the project or just the landscaping. Paul Krauss: That's for completion of the entlre project. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I would say for the entire deal. Is that alright Steve? Counc£1man Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend Conditional Use Permit ~88-17 and to require the applicant to reconstruct the orig£nally approved fence to an 8 foot height meeting the following conditions: Picket fence sections along the south and esat walls of the storage yard shall be removed. The exlstlng plcket fence sectlons along the west yard entrance and along the northern exposure adjacent to Lakeshore Equipment would be allowed to remaln. The transition between the picket fence sectlon along the west slde and the proposed area along the south, where the picekts shall be removed, shall be acceptably falred. 2. All horizontal boards shall be realigned so that they are fully horizontal and in line wlth one another. 3. The applicant consider removing the southeast corner gate. All materials stored lnslde the yard area shall be subject to the original 8 foot height limitation. The exception shall be dock canopy supports which would be allowed to extend over this helght when they are attached to assembled dock sections. The outdoor material storage rack located near the bulldlng must be reduced in helght and made to conform to the orlglnal conditional use permit approval. 42 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 5. The applicant will replace the dead material in the exterior landscaping on the east elevations and the southeast corner area to provide ample screening. 6. Remove the plles of wood that ls dumped outside of the fence line. 7. All work on this project shall be completed by 3une 15, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REVIEW RESULTS OF OCTOBER 14, 1991 LAKE ANN pARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER BID OPENING, AND CONSIDER AWARD OF LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER UTILITIES. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. As you are aware, all blds received on October 14th for the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation shelter were rejected. The low bld of $279,000.00 was $?9,000.00 over the budgted amount of $200,000.00 initially approved on May 20th of this past spring. Speculation as to the circumstances whlch led to thls discrepancy is endless. However, a large portion of this difference was attributable to the under estimates in the area of stone and masonry materials and insulation. It had been anticipated that a mansory contractor would bid thls project. However none did for whatever reason. In addltlon 15X of the difference may be attributable to the season in which the project was bid. It remalns clear that the community deserves and that the Clty Councll has supported the construction of a shelter utilizing quality materials and construction methods. The plans and specifications prepared for the shelter paralleled thls deslre. However, there are areas in the construction and furnishing of the buliding which can be amended at a substantial cost savings to the the project. These alterations in materials and construction methods wlll not jeopardize the integrity of the shelter. Four areas of reduction which haven't been identified are using cedar shakes versus a metal mansard roof above the concession area. The substitution of Indian Creek Thln Wall stone lnstead of using the Indian Creek Ashler pattern. The Ashler pattern would be lald typically like bricks behind you. The thin wall laid... The deletlon of portlons of the building's cabinetry and the use of the keystone or equal retaining wall in place of a stone faced retaining These changes account for an estimated cost savlngs of $3?,500.00. When coupled with an anticipated favorable change in the bids, this may add up to $45,000.00 or $50,000.00. As well a number of $500.00 to $1,000.00...look at to evaluate their corresponding value to the project. For the most part, deletion of these types of ltems is not in the City's best interest. We have at the Lake Susan building... The settlng at Lake Ann Park is one which few communities that are avalled. I think you're all well aware of that. Although most contain covered buildings of this nature. I'm aware of the City Council's position on expenditures wlthln the ¢lty. With thls knowledge well in hand, a recommendation is made to the Clty Council to...an additional $40,000.00 in park acquisition and development fund in reserve to accomplish thls project. In doing so the budget and expenditure for the shelter would then cost $240,000.00. Again the $40,000.00... Hayor Chmlel: Okay. I guess I just have a couple questions. How many dollars are there in the reserve? City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Todd Hoffman: At this time there's over $500,000.00. Mayor Chmiel~ Okay. One of the questions I have, I think I'd like to leave it open. Is still rebid this for roughly the $200,000.00. See what the bids come in and if it got to the point where that bid is not as such then we may go up with it accordingly to that additional 40 and take it out of the reserve. But I would like to .lust rebid it at that $200,000.00 or just keep that in our mind as to what we're looking for because I think as I see spring coming next year, there may be some people out there that are golng to be a little hungier at that tlme then they were presently and therefore those blds should be much lower. At least I'm anticipating that and I see that happening rlght now. I thought by having that vast amount difference betweeen what we had and what the bid ls now, maybe we should have that come out of the consultants of the proposal. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor you're saying that what you would like to see is when it's rebid to not do any of these changes? ~ust leave it as is? Mayor Chmiel; Right. Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: But if those changes do come in with those additional costs, then that's something we can then review and pass on and move in the direction that Todd's indicating. Councilman Wlng: Are you suggesting we may have a better bid climate? Mayor Chmiel: I think so. The market is soft. Councilman Workman: So you're saying table this until spring? Mayor Chmiel: Well just keep this and let Todd proceed with it and put this bid out in sprlng and see what we get on it. Councilman Wing: It might put the bidders on guard too that we're looking for an item here. We're not about to let them start. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. And it's just that oftentimes they hear what these bids are and ~'m not too happy when they come in ulth thelr prlces accordingly. Especially from what we estimate out as to what they come out with their bids. They thlnk you have deep pockets and Z think our pockets are being sewn up by the State. Consequently we have to watch our spending. Okay, I think would you like to follow through wlth that recommendation as to what Z suggested. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to direct staff to send out for bids in the spring of 1992 for the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 44 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiei: 7(b). Award of bid for Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Sheiter Utilities. Todd. Todd Hoffman: The utilities portion of the Lake Ann Park Shelter were opened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 8th. The low bid for the picnic shelter utilities were received from B & D Underground, Inc. of Maple Plaln, Minnesota in the amount of $108,057.64. The second low bid was $113,465.75 and the highest bid was $231,357.00. The engineer's estimate was $133,480.00 so you can.see the bids... Corresponding with tonight's action and hopefully...summer of 1992, staff ls recommending that you award the bid to B & D Underground in the amount of $108,057.64 so they can get on with the construction yet this year. We'll try to close it up and...in the spring so lt's in some order prior to the season beginning. Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that. As I look at the cost on utilities, the bid is not bad really. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just have one concern. I was thinking we should hold off on this one too because what if we don't get a reasonable bid for the shelter and you've got the utilities out there? Mayor Chmiel: Well at least you always have... Councilman Wing: I think the utilities are, 20 year project as Todd brought up and even if we only put in one bathroom and one drinking fountaln I think it's a start and we've got to get golng on this. Councilman Mason: I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Can I have a motlon on thls? Councilman Mason: I will move approval of the award of bid for Lake Ann Park Plcnlc/ Recreation Shelter Utilities. Councilman Wlng: Second. Resolution ~1-106: Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the bid for the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter Utilities project to B & D Underground, Inc. in the amount of $108,057.64. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to l. Councilwoman Dlmler: For the reasons stated before. If ue don't bulld the shelter, don't award bids. We'll have utilities out there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The only difference in putting utilities in now is that you're not going to goof up the park when it comes time for the useage of it in havlng a lot of problems havlng it at that particular tlme and it does make sense from that standpoint. Councilman Mason: I'm firmly convinced that there will be a shelter there Ursula. It might not be quite what we have in mind but I think it's going to be there. 45 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 PRELIHINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LAKE RILEY WOODS SECOND ADDITION TO CORRECT PLATTING ERROR. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we became involved in this last year. Lake Riley Woods Second Addition is a small single family plat on a cul-de--sac in a rural development area. Last year it became clear that part of the City's accepting the streets and...that due to a surveying error on the developer's part that the cul-de-sac vas put in the wrong spot... At the same time there's one home that's been erected there. After this problem arose we refused issuing building permits but there's one home and at that time the homeowner vas quite upset that their home had been built essentially in the wrong spot because the street vas not where it was supposed to be and it took part of their drainfield from their on-site sewer system was located on the adjoining property. When ue made everybody aware of these concerns, the applicant's engineers at first...ue'll just give you the variance to make it good. We took exception to that solution and at that time the purchaser of the home vas quite upset and vas unwilling to accept that as a solution either. Since that time there's been a lot of discussions behind the scene...involve the City. Just between the developer and the existing property owner or homeowner and the engineer. And they seem to have reached some sort of accommodation. We tried to contact the homeowner ourselves and were unsuccessful in doing that. I spoke to Councilman Workman earlier tonight and he's been telling me that the homeowner now is satisfied with the solution that's been proposed by the applicant. We still have a bit of a problem with the premise that...broke it so the City has to fix it by giving a variance. On the other hand, if all the individuals nov are content with this arrangement, if the homeowner is comfortable that the settlement is a comfortable one, you can ask validly is this going to hurt anything? I don't like the idea of variances being given out to fix survey mistakes but this is a 2 1/2 acre lot... It's really not going to be...neu home sites so while I'm not a real fan of this solution, it seems to be probably...opportunities to resolve this. So I'm not going to come before you and recommend approval of this thing but due to the fact that the homeowners are comfortable with it, we could live with it if you approved it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is the property owner here? Yeah, why don't you come forward and just state your opinion. Charles Frazer: Right now with the agreement that we've come to, I have no problem with a house over there on that lot. I only had one concern vas more or less the location and that's been resolved with the developer. We're worked it out and honestly I have 2 1/2 acres nov. It's plenty of land for me and I'd rather have a house next to me. I've been living on a cul-de-sac with nobody else there for a year and a half now so I'm totally pleased with the solution we've worked out. Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me, the solution then that you're proposing is that the Lot 5 would be a variance to the 2.5? Paul Krauss~ Councilwoman Dimler, that's not what we're proposing. That's what has been proposed by the developer. Right .... variance to give the...to that lot. 46 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but now, my question was, why can't we take from Lot 8 as was proposed earlier which I believe is 3 acres and could glve to Lot 5 whlch then would not requlre a variance and would not affect the buyer. The home buyer here. Paul Krauss: Counciluoman Dimler, Jo Ann Olsen mentioned that concern to me earlier this evening and to be honest I don't remember the exact ansuer. I know ue did a review of that when thls flrst came up and because it was owned by an individual... Councilwoman Dimler: I understand it's not sold. Jim Peterson: Can Z answer that. My name is Jim Peterson. I work for the developer, George Nelson Associates. We looked lnto the possibility of acquiring Lot 8. We sold Lot 8 to a private party who is not attempting to resell the lot on his own. We no longer own Lot 8. Lot 8 contains 2.6 acres. It says 3 acres on the preliminary plat but I believe by the time they did their computation calculations it came to around 2.6 and so there wasn't enough land on Lot 8 to combine with Lot 5 to avoid the variance question. $o it's one solution we did look at. Councilwoman Dimler: So it is no longer an option then is what you're saying? Jim Peterson: No. Mayor Chmiel: Which is 1/10 of... Councilwoman Oimler: Well I was told it was 3 acres and hadn't been sold which seemed 11kw a wonderful solutlon to me. Jim Peterson: Well we tried. We looked at all the solutions that would help us out of thls. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Anyone else have any discussion? Councilman Workman: Well I guess, you know in talking to the engineering firm about thls and it really seems like the simplest idea. Her Council's current revamped status on density like this is as long as this platted plece of property averages 2 1/2 acres. I suppose all of these 5 houses could be all on one corner on 173 acre lots and they'd be okay so it's sort of a variance Z guess. To me tearlng up asphalt and everything else based on well they made a mistake so now they should fix it isn't cooperating I think as far as we could. Or even going that way. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Hike, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: I just basically agree with Tom. I think the only thing is that's a pretty major mistake for somebody to do and in this situation, it looks 11kw lt's working out to everyone's benefit and I don't have any trouble but you know, if people are, if surveyors are maklng that kind of mistake, that's a pretty blg deal. But that's klnd of water over the dam on this one I thlnk. Hayor Chmiel: Richard, do you have anything on this one? City Council Meeting .. October 28, 1991 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I did not have an opportunity to go down there. M~yor Chmiel: Ursula, you've J. ndicated yours. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, as long as that when that number 8 was no longer an optlon I guess. I agree that we should do something to help the situation but I don't want to have thls happen in the future that the Clty balls them out. Mayor Chmiel: Well once you establish precedent then of course you're there. But it can be a case by case and consideration ls looked at thls and if the property owner's happy with what's being proposed. Councilwoman Dimler~ See ue may in the future may not be able to ball them out because not everybody would be happy. Mayor Chmlel: That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: And that would put us in a real bad position. Councilman Wing: Not necessarily. I would be happy to vote no. I think as Zong as people are happy hei-o. Mayor Chmiel: That's right and I think that's the key. Councilwoman Oimler: So this should not be precedent setting. Councilman Wing: Hopefully not. Mayor ChmLel: No, but it could be considered by the opposition to come in and support thelr case. So can I have a motlon? Councilman Workman: I would move approval of Preliminary Plat to replat Lake Riley Woods Second Addltion to correct plattlng error. M~yor Chmiel: Okay. And with this, Roger do you get involved in this? Roger Knutson: This type of thing is done. I get involved when you come back with the final plat and development contract. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat to replat Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition to correct the platting error. voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 5ira Peterson: Can T take this opportunity to ask you one more question? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Jlm Peterson: One of the things that was beneficial and helped brlng thls to a head is the fact that we do hsve a letter of credlt in effect with the City with 48 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 regard to our current development agreement. With the replat approved, now that ue know the road will remain in the same place we can go ahead and finish the road and hopefully get it inspected by the Clty thls fall and clean this off the books. I believe staff is under direction from the City. We did have a time deadllne that dld explre wlth regard to the letter of credlt and ulth, by an extension of the complete the work now we know the work can be completed to the orlglnal specs. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that. Do you? Paul Krauss: We don't have a problem. As long as the letter of credit remains. Jim Peterson: I think it remains in effect until the end of the year. Okay, thank you. ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AHENDMENT TO AMEND S[CTIONS REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REOUIREflENTS, FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Mayor Chmiel: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman: I move approval of it. Councilwoman Dlmler: Second. Mayor Chmlel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Of what? Only what, that's all [ want to know. Councilman Mason: The landscaping. Councilwoman Dlmler: Zt's been cleaned up. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I think we've already gone through this Paul a couple different tlmes and that's the only reason Z'm saylng this. Do you want to clarify something? Paul Krauss: No. I thought you approved this at a speclal meetlng but... Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. At the meeting we had with the special Council meetlng and we also had the budget was the nlght that we did approve lt. To make it formal if it wasn't then. We didn't take Minutes and so consequently, all those in favor say aye. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Reading of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements and to approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor except Councilman Ming uho opposed and the motion carried uith a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Wing: I think what we did was a grave mistake. City COLLnCi]. Meeting --October ;?8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: We know your sentiments because you expressed ii the other day. Councilm,'qn Mason: Those Minutes are transcribed though Councilman Wing. You're goJ. h9 to Kook reaJLly poor OT1 that. RECEIVE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT NEEDS REPORT. Charles Folch: Hr. Hayer, members of the Council. I would like to introduce to yom.' iflr. D~vid Hitchell, the project consultant engineer with OSH. Dave is here tonight to glve you a brlef presentation on the baslc theories behind pavement Ba l'la geme l~ t . David Mitchell; Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Councll. With your permissiol~ ~'11 do a very quick presentation. Primarily paraphrasing part of the report in that the Clty of Chanhassen has developed very rapldly over the last 10 years especially which has ol~ly compounded the problem of I thlnk some of the thlngs that have been discussed already tonlght at the Councll meeting. Wh,'.~t I've heard. I think what we're looking at here is a continuing growth ulthln the city of Chanhassen uhlch ls only golng to lead to more management p'robJ.ems fo:' th~; ?'ebuilding of the i~fras~ructure tl~at's in place. I guess some of ~he theory that we look at between behlnd pavement management ls that lt's cheaper and more effective to extend the 11re of the pavement if at all possible. I thlnk some of the reports state in here whlch is common practice uitl'lin engineering is that typical life of pavement is approximately 20 years. ThJ. s is a pavement life cycle curve that shows that typically 40~ of the quallty of pavenlent is lost over the first 75X of the life and that's 15 years. The next 40X of quallty ls lost over the next 12~ of the tlme whlch shows a very dr,'.~stic decrease in that 15 to 18 year time range. The theory behind pavement maintenance, pavement management 1~ to extend ~hls curve out because if I can do this, sealcoating and overlaying typical!y...this curve i]'l terms of ,about the same pattern and...see if by giving it that boost the theory is that somewhere down here we do the same thing. We exter, d this out. Z mean something that's very pertinent is that for every dollar spent back on the curve further, if that dollar is not spen~., it's going to cost $4.00 ~.o $5.00 down the line. If we can extend that out, it just gives us more options as far as finance goes. The City h~s ~ very good sealcoating program from what I've seen at tl~is point. I guess this is some of the areas that we want to see continue. These are typically some of the things that happen along that s~me life cycle curve in that we want to do routine maJ?.tenance and functional improvements over that first 75~ of the life.. Routine m~intenance again is the sealcoating. Functional improvements. Patching. Maybe some leveling. Structure improvements. That's where we want to get 1nrc ~n overlay situation. Preservation. There's a point on the curve where we get lnto a very steep decllne and at that polnt economics and it's more efficient just to in essence s~y tile heck with it. Let's do what we can to keep everyone satisfied unt11 we can actually flnance the reconstruction of the street. Getting into what we did for' the City of Chanhassen, we set up some p;-iority or I should say California Pavement Hanagement System sets up a priority r~nging and I'l]. go ~hrough this real quick. Primarily all the streets that we surveyed wlthin the clty are less than 1,000 ABT. I guess to answer that or to ,~nsuer a question tl~t might arise from that is we did not get onto sonle of the County State hld highways. Apparently those are county roads and then I believe some of the State roads ulrich are not at present actually surveyed, but agaln thls 11 belng the hlghest prlorlty that was found in the 5O City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991 City of Chanhassen and what that points to is it's a poor ride which then gets into a safety consideration. It's got some serious structural defects. Some of the more, another area that's a big concern is this Priority 13 which has some severe structural problems but it has a little bit better ride quality to it so it's not as high of a priority as the Priority 11's. The data base system, we divided the city into 4 separate zones primarily for ease in making the computer work faster than anything else. As you can see, Zone 2 is probably the heaviest developed area at this time and it's going to continue to develop a little faster than any of these other zones. Some of the things that the report points out, if you can get into it and look at it and then Charles can summarize it in his report is that kind of shows some of the problem areas that we've got. The Priority 11, 12 and 13 are primarily areas that are going to be taken care of by bidded projects. Some of the Priority 14, 15 and 16...will be handled by the city maintenance programs. Some areas of concern I guess are the Western Hills area and that's a Priority 13 which is the green line. It's kind of tough to read oil a map of this scale and it's Priority 11 which are again high priority areas. The second area of concern is the Chanhassen Estates area which is primarily all 11 and 13 areas which in the California pavement Management Program that's calling for a structural analysis for the reconstruction kind of mode. There are some isolated areas out in some of these other zones but again they are areas that can be addressed by residents that voice that concern to the City. I think some of the areas that the primary concern now are the Chanhassen Estates area and Western Hills area. The maim reason that those are of concern is the financing that has to be done to accomplish this. And if you can kind of remember where the zones are, again as I stated before the 11, and this is all in the report too. This chart is but I'll just kind of briefly go through it. Priority 11, 12 and 13 are items that would be engineer projects. The Priority 14, 15 and 16 in areas of city maintenance programs and as you can see there are some fairly hefty dollars involved in those Priority 11 through 13 areas totaling in the neighborhood of I think $2.4 million or something in that neighborhood. As the report recommends and as Charles' report recommends, the City should look seriously at adopting a CIP program for the next 4 or 5 years that would address some of these higher priority areas. I can't stress enough the important of doing that because the Priority 14 areas are going to eventually move higher up on the list and it's only going to get worse. It's Very prudent that this be addressed at this time. ~ guess with that I'll turn it back over to Charles to see if he has any closing comments. I'm free to answer any questions that you may have. Charles Folch: As you can probably tell from the findings of the report, they indicate that the majority of our city's streets are in average or better condition. However there are a few problem areas as Dave has mentioned, primarily concentrated in the Chanhassen Estates and the Western Hills subdivision. As David mentioned, the need for reconstruction work in these areas is estimated to be about 2 million dollars worth of work, possibly undertaken over a 5 year span. In addition it is also apparent that the annual sealcoatin9 and maintenance operations need to significantly increase in order to properly maintain our street infrastructure. This increase would also be controlled by tile annual funding source. Now this report is intended to serve as a guide to prioritize street rehabilitation programs. As I have noted, there is an inherent time window of validity for this report. There are many factors which affect the lifespan of a street and streets that are currently in what I would call a borderline condition may or may not worsen and move up the priority 51 C~ty Council Meeting -. October 28, 1991 ladder within the next 5 years. Therefore I would also recommend that another report be undertaken a( the end of a 5 year term to re~-evalua~e all those streets ~galrl and also implement any new pavement ~echnology that has come about. Zt is therefore recommended that the attached pavement management report dated October 28, 1991 prepared by OSN be accepted as a management took for the clty street infrastructure and that consideration be given to £ncrease funding for the annual sealcoatlng program. And finally that staff be dlrected to develop a 5 year capital improvement program for which City Council could approve to accomplish the needed reconstruction projects. Mayor Chmiel; Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: How does this parallel the comments from n meetlng or two ago? Trying to get the neighbors up front on these projects and the cost established so there's no hldden agendas here. If we're golng to go to Chanhassen Hills, they know we're coming. They know what we're golng to do and [hey know how much lt's golng to cost rlght now. Does thls resolve that problem or is this just tile start of your trying to put that together? Charles Folch: Yeah. What thls does ls basically help us to determine where the problems areas and which ones are worse th~n others and to hopefully e,~:t&bllsh like I recommended, a $ year capital improvement program of projects for which we could then approach the neighborhoods. Let them know the findings that we have basically generated and get some indication from them up front based on cost and b~.~sed on the scope of the work whether this is something thz~t's feasible or not to do. If not, we could certainly move on to a next priority project on our C~P and attempt to accomplish that one. Councilman Wing: But if Chanhassen, do I have it Chanhassen Hills? Councilwoman Dimler: Chanhassen Estates. Councilman Wlng: Chanhassen Estates. If that's a top prlorlty and the roads are the worst in the clty, wouldn't you as engineer and Clty Manager say this is a project we're golng to do? Do we ask or do we just do lt? Charles Folch: Well, I guess there's a fine line there. It becomes a combination of need. How much concern ls raised by residents. How many complaints we get on the condition of the road. It's sort of obvious, one of the thlngs that stands out too ls the condition of the road in it's present state that the routine sealco~tlng and street repair operations that we do. Any more investment of a street such as these ls basically a waste of money. It gets down to a matter of we either do the project and improve the streets or the residents 1lye with what they have. Councilman Wing: This project in ilo u~y addresses tile assessment issue or problem? Cl~arles Folch; No. Mayor Chmiel'. No. Just basically where the exlstlng problems are and how do we ~ddress them ¢.tnd wh~t do we have to do to take care of that problem. 52 City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991 Charles Folch: This gives us an idea of, a ballpark estimate as far as what we're looking at to do about 5 years worth of projects, ~nd from here I guess we'd have to take a look at in the process of preparing the CIP, how ue can fund these and support these programs financially. Mayor Chmiel: Basically some of these we can prolong the life of the street just by having a maintenance program. We can extend them maybe 10 years, maybe even 20. By doing this it's one way that we don't have to go back into those areas and do those re-assessments. David Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, if I could add to that. I think the point it's something you want to extend those streets at a very early age in that first 10 to 15 years. The Chanhassen Estates area is on that downhill slide already. When it gets into that point where'you do what you have to do to get by until the residents in a sense scream loud enough that they want it taken care of or the City dictates that that's what they're going to do is take care of it. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Councilwoman Oimler: I have a few concerns and that is,'I want to know if we approve this, is this going to be our Bible? That ue absolutely have to follow this because as I see you having my street here, Kioua Circle. The way I read that, you're saying lt's 13 which means lt's pretty high on the prlority list. And under cost, what does that 44 mean? Is that multipled by 1,000 or something? So it would be estimated at $44,000.00? Oavid Mitchell: Yes. Councilwoman Olmler: We have 4 residents there whlch would then come to $11,000.00 a piece. I don't think that's feasible. I know you're going to... but again, very hlgh costs. I would hate to approve this and then say well here it is and we've got to do it. That's why I want to know is this going to be our Blble? I know that the comprehensive plan for the park was used to hold us, not ask for parkland and I don't want to, I want to approve this and then have the, say well ue have to do thls and Counc11 no longer has an optlon here wlth the public as they come Ln with their concerns. Charles Folch: As I indicated in my recommendation that thls lsa gulde, if you ui11. A tool to sort of get us on a track. Even a CIP is developed, 5 year CIP is. Once you develop a 5 year CZP, once you approve that certainly is not golng to cast in stone that a certain project is definitely going to be done this year. There's st111 a lot of things that need to be accomplished and we have to go through all the hearing process and such. The due process before we can even order a project to even take place. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, but also again by putting a 13 on this, are we saylng that it wlll never be sealcoated and it u111 not be a bituminous overlay which is probably...Are we golng to let it deteriorate to the polnt where a structural analysis has to be done and we have to spend thls exorblnate amount of money for restructuring? Mayor Chmlel: I think as Dave said, untll you start screaming. 53 City Council Meeting -. October 28., 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Well I would rather see it then, put it as for a bituminous overlay for regular maintenance. Charles Folch: Basically an overlay, because of the inherent structural problems of that particular street, an overlay is not going to do more than get another year or two out of the existlng surface. It's not to say that we wouldn't go in and do anytlling in there. We certainly from a safety aspect would want to patch potholes, crack f111 certaln cracks if you w111. We certainJ, y can't take care of the severe alligatoring if there's ally extent of that but we do what we have to do to extend or to malntaln the surfaceabillty I guess if you want to call it on a roadway if it needs reconstruction work and there's no support from the adjacent property owners to do the work. So we certainly would do improvements from safety aspect but it would not entail a full scale overlay because it's clearly not going to solve the problem. Councilwoman Oimler: But you're going to do routine maintenance then so you don't have to go to a huge construction project? Charles Folch: Well, we'll do what we have to do to keep it serviceable but that involves crack f1111ng and sealcoatlng and such but probably nothing more than t hat. Mayor Chmiel: We have to start somewhere and we have to have a plan. This is giving tile direction as such. Councilwoman Dimler: But let's say now in Chan Estates if everyone comes screaming against the project and say no way am I going to spend $5,000.00 like we just dld to our Frontlet Trall frlends, we're golng to say okay. You don't want it. Just regular maintenance then. Don Ashuorth: We've done that twice before on that in Chan Estates. There were two previous feasibility studies. Costs were $5,000.00. People did come Sald they dldn't want to spend $5,000.00 and we dldn't do the project. 5 years later they came back in ~nd sald we need it fixed up. We did a feasibility study. $$,000.00. They Canle in and sald we don't want Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but has routine m~intenance been done? That's my point. We just leave these roads go. Hayor Chmiel: That's wily we're setting this up. Councilwoman Dimler: But you've got it on a 13, you're never going to do the routlne mail,tenance. Charles Folch.~ Well actually, from visually looking at those roads in that subdivision, there's been actually an awful lot of patching, section overlay and such that has occurred throughout the years. You can see that. The road base is shot. There's a fine line in doing enough maintenance to keep it surfaceable and keep it from belng a road hazard but you also don't want to spend money unwisely on something that you're pourlng money down a drain when you could use it somewhere else and extend the 11re of a road that's in the rlght condition. City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 Councilman Wing: How's this paralleling our request then to get the assessment pollcy established? Mayor Chmiel: It has nothing to do wlth assessments. Councilman Wing: Well I know. What's the intent then on that request? Because it has a lot to do wlth this. Thls ls our guideline to get movlng. What's your intent now? Number one to select projects but most important, what's our assessment policy plan? Do we have headway on that request? Charles Folch: Well, as you can tell, we've got a ballpark estimate as far as what the projects are golng to cost. The next step would be to establish how we could fund these projects. That's part of that, how we fund that is what share is going to be assessed. So a pollcy ls going to have to be developed for that. Don Ashworth: I'm hoping that wlll be a wintertime project and as we approach next spring that we wlll have in place a 5 year capltal budget that makes sense to the Council and uses a report like this to make some of the decisions as to what ltems are golng to be in there. What wlll not and to have in place an assessment policy. Policy document. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I want to get to the point where those residents know up front what their costs wlll be and they can base their decision on whether to approve the project or not approve it for what they want from us based upon that assessment~ Not like Frontier Trail is handled where it became a surprise. Charles Folch: Oh absolutely. We certainly want to be up front. I would imagine any of the long term residents in Chan Estates already have an idea of what that road improvement is golng to cost from previous feasibility studles. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If'hearing none, can we get a motion just to recelve the pavement management needs report? Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to receive the Pavement Management Needs Report as presented by OSM. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE, FIRST READING. Scott Hart: Before you you have the draft of the Noise Ordinance. It's been interesting to develop to try to cover all the concerns and that's why Z sent out a copy of the draft to all of you 2 weeks ago to take a look at it to let me know if there were any specific concerns. The only things that have come up in consulting wlth the bulldlng inspection department and contractors ls what will citizens, as they did ask to define the holidays that construction would not be permitted on rather than just publlc holidays. Specifically Z'd 11ks to submlt the draft specifying that the following holidays would not have construction allowed. New Year's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day City Council lte~'ting -. October 28, 1991 and Christmas Day. There are some other public holidays that customarily contractors are uorkil~g. There was discussion about tile I~ours of construction. As drafted, construction is permitted 7:00 a.m. to 9'.00 p.m. on the weekdays. 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no construction permitted on Sundays or holidays. Obviously the contractors would 11ke those hours expanded. I've had suggestions from &:O0 in the morning until 10.'.00 or 11:00 at night but I've had residents concerned wanting to tlghten it up even more. What we've reached here .T. think is a good compromise. The only other one that I heard seem particularly good was sunrise to sunset. But agaln that could be awfully early during certain time'.-; of the year. So the ?.'00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. oil Saturdays and no Sundays or the holldays 11sted seems to be the best compromise. Mayor Chmiel= Very good. Thank you. I think that at least as I had read it, covers a lot of the concerns that we've had and tile phone calls and so on. Yet we're taking into consideration people who plan on worklng on thelr homes and doing tilings as such. I think it was well done. At least that's my approach. Jean Burke~ Play I speak...? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Why don't you just come up and state your name and your address please. Jean Burke: My name is Jean Burke and I live at 225 West 77th Street. Mayor Ch,lie1 and Council members, T'm here because Z've had irritations with nolse problems in chanhassen Z've contacted the Publlc Safety and been told that there is ~o ordln~llCn for th~; issues that Z'11 be discussing and Z would like the issue of bug zappers looked lnto ina par[icular ordinance by ltself. T talked to Bob ~ the Public Safety last spring a,d he f. old me to contact my neighbor about this problem. Well if you have a nelghbor that 11kes bug zappers as mlne does, he installed 3 last spring. These are on 24 hours a day. April when you open your ulndows, the neon 11ghts are on and he has them installed and operating through September 8nd October. Z can hear them in my backyard by the poo]. Zn my kltchen. Zn my bathroom. Zn my bedroom. He has these installed b~.cause he likes ~o kill bugs, He has no recreation area outside of his home, He does not have a deck. It is Mt'. Gavert the place in the city that is a dump. The City's been after him for Feat's to cleall up his yard. He likes to kill bugs and I have an article here printed by the DNA that states that bug zappers actually are 8tt'racting bugs. They are killing the insects that out' song birds need and only 3~ of the bugs, Z'11 leave thls artlcle here with you. YOu can read it at some future time. Only 3~ of tile insects kill~.d by bug zappers are actually lnsect blting lnsects. So lt's alterlng our food chain. So environmentally they're not...besides tile aggravation it causes. Now I think this problem should be looked into when you have a nelghbor such as mlne who decldes he does not want to take down his buo~ zaPpers. In fact he's got the deluxe bug zappers. He's now installed a fence, Z don't know next spring if this man, he now has put a wooden fence around his y~rd. Z live in fear next sprlng he may install 50 of them. Z don't know. The man, he sald he loves to .'se~e those bugs or, there and what can I say. Out' city does not have a back up ordinance. I would llke to say our city has said in their ordinance that you cnn have your bug zapper on at certain hours or if you're in your back yard recreating. If you honestly feel that you're being biten less because this thing is on, fine. But the man .iS Ilot (~Vell in his yard. I'm the one that has 56 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 to suffer. Another issue that should be looked at for noise poliution is the leaf blower. Now Z talked to Councilwoman Dimler and believe it or not she has never heard a leaf blower. Well praise God. I wish I were in your shoes. The leaf blower, in fact Z just happened to have this magazine and it says in this artlcle that a leaf blower ls extremely loud. They are rlght along with the chalnsaw. My neighbors and every year in our neighborhood, when I first moved here ? years ago there was one leaf blower. Z remember belng outslde thinking, someone's operating a chainsaw. Are they cutting wood here or what. I mean this man, and he blows leaves across hls yard. He starts at one end of the yard. They can go as long as 4 or 5 hours at a time. When people use leaf blowers for the purpose of blowlng leaves on a lawn rather than I thlnk what they were created for, I don't really know but I thlnk in rocky areas I can see the purpose of the leaf blower. To blow your leaves off of a rock landscape but to use it in your yard and start at one of the yard and just keep going continuously. My nelghbor across the street is a landscape person. When he moved there, bingo. He's out there with a leaf blower. Finally I went over to him. He has ear plugs in hls ears. I'm shoutlng at my children inslde my house across the street. He wasn't even aware that possibly this was disturbing his neighbors so I think untll the Clty addresses these problems and makes people auaro. If nothing else, put it in your statutes as an etiquette. As an etiquette to your neighbors, try to use your leaf blower as little as possible. Start there to make people aware of these nuisances that other people have to live wlth. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I feel bad because I have a leaf blower. But I do have landscpaing that is all rocks and that is how I get the leaves out. Jean Burke: You know if a leaf blower is actually easier to take than a bug zapper because you know there's an end to it. But I'm saying in neighborhoods where many, many people are gettlng leaf blowers, it can be continuous. One person uses his leaf blower on Monday. The next person uses his on Tuesday and you can hear thls nolse. Z mean all thls fall I heard leaf blowers almost continuously in my neighborhood so I think it's something that really can be looked lnto. Hollywood has banned them completely so some communities are starting to look at the noise pollution and take steps. I'd l~ke to see Chanhassen do that. Thank you. Councilman Workman: Jean you also in the past had a problem with outdoor concerts sponsored by the Clty, etc.. Is that st111 a problem? Jean Bl~rke: That wasn't a problem this summer. You didn't have concerts. Councilman Workman: Jerome Carlson wasn't crooning down by the. 3ean Burke: They didn't have, unless I was out of town but I don't belleve they had that Herltage Square concerns here did they? Because that was, yeah and that went on late. The rock music or the bass from that concert rocked our neighborhood until 11:00 at nlght. Councilwoman Oimler: But in this ordinance, Scott wouldn't they have to get a permit to do that? Scott Hart: Yes. $? City Cou~cJ], Heeling - October 28, 1991 Hayor Chmiel". Permits are giver, for that. Jean Burke: But there again that's something, you know it was like a one night thing but I thought, if this is going to be a habitual thing once a month a concert, people should know it's allotting the neighbors living in that area. Scott Harr: Now Jean are you talking about you called about the Fire Department dar, ce too? Councilman Workman: No, the old Heritage Square Colonial Church. The concerts in there and then it would blow down. Jean Burke~ I don't know and in fact I thought of that when I looked at this I)eW proposal about music over by City Hall. I couldn't tell from that small map where the bandshell, where it was facing but that's something that should be considered because there are residents that live close to the Fire Station in that area and they might not want to particular be at a concert some nice summer eve)~ing. So that's something that you should look at. Don Ashworth: Z think where ue got into trouble, I don't think like the Jerome Carlson is a problem. It's more subdued but I think we did one up like more of the hard rock ones over there. They had a lot of feedback on that one. Councilman Workman: You can't discriminate thou.gh. This brings up the issue and when we orlgina!ly, T know Scott was gingerly brlnging thls up and he was amazed I think when some of us said yes because it was such a confrontational issue wlth the past Council and it klnd of does get down to, what bothers one neighbor doesn't bother another and you can't pick your neighbors. Jean Burke: I will next time. Councilman Wing: But you have the same problems. Councilman Workman: Those bug zappers are irritating but you know, the reason w¢.'re talking about it was because of a barking dog in a cage and then when the police came out and there was no bar klng dog and lt's a real problem and how do you juggle without restricting people but if at 9:00 or 11:00 on weekends you've got to turn off your bug zapper, I suppose it can be pretty slmple. You know it does get to be kind of a question of, and I think I at the time gave the example of midnight one nlght I could hear Elvls singlng somewhere off in the neighborhood. Councilman Mason: He's dead. Councilman Workman: No, no. He's somewhere in my neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: And I had a saxophonist that did that. I also get calls from the citizens at 2:00 in the morning saying Mayor Chmiel? I say yes. I want you to know because I can't sleep, you're not golng to elther. We have a problem. We have noise. Of course those were situations that we corrected. This is something in itself a little bit different. It's hard to say that what do we do in eliminating zappers or blowers because then you get the snow blower and lawn 58 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 mowers and a lot of these other things that are used within the yards themselves. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think on the bug zappers we could add a condition. Hake (d)(e) and add (d) inbetween (c) and (e) then under the hourly restrictions on certaln operations and just have the bug zappers to be used only when the people are recreating in their yard or something of that nature. When it's actually keeplng the bugs from blting them which lt's lntended to do. Councilman Wing: In his case it will be from 9:00 in the morning until about 4:00 in the morning. Don Ashuorth: I think there's an additional problem, and I'm sorry I dldn't catch the name. But Hr. Gavert also has gone through periods where he likes to keep junk cars in hls yard and we actually put through an ordinance that trled to address that particular. Jean Burke: Yeah, I know what you're thinking. He'll go the other way. Don Ashuorth: Oh yeah. There's no question in my mind. I mean we've had him in Court enough tlmes. That's why I...even mentioning to hlm because I thought just to spite me and you know he says well I like them. He laughs. Said I've got the deluxe klnd now. Councilwoman Oimler: The point is though, we're not writlng this for one individual and I think it's going to be. Jean Burke: No we're not...even on the Statute whether or not I would even confront him and say, here's what ue dld. Hy husband talked to his son and he unplugged that was the worst offender and the other two stayed on. And live with that much better but I think for everyone in Chanhassen, I'm sure there are other people who mlght 11ke thelr nelghbor and just feel embarrassed to say something unless there's something on the books. A lot of people are embarrassed to speak up... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but like Richard was saying, if they're out at 4:00 a.m. in their backyard recreating then they can have it on. That isn't going to happen a lot but. Councilman Wing: I wanted to ask on Section 22, under General Prohibition. What does that give us Scott? Does that give us, the CSO's any credibility at all to go in and say you're bothering someone? Scott Harr: It's really used to set the tone of the remaining Statute for the ordinance. Jean Burke: You could regiment the bug zapper on environmental issues from that standpoint...because it's affecting the... You wouldn't even have to use that as ...the research shows it's doing that, you could make people comply from that standpoint. Councilwoman Dimler: But you're right, the general prohibition does cover the peace, safety, welfare, comfort and it's disturbing and annoying to you. But 59 City Council H~:.'.t~g - Oclobe~' 28~ 1991. I think we should name it in particular. Councilman Mason: The bug zapper, yeah. Councilman Workman: Is this a first reading? I'd move approval. Councilwoman Oimler: With the bug zapper in there under condition (d) and make (d) (e)? Councilman Wing: What about hours for lawn, the blowers, the mowers, the chain s,'~ws? Perhaps we need to have an hourly restriction. Councilwoman Dimler: That's in there. Cou~rcillnan Wing: Under recreatio~al vehicles. Mayor Chmiel: You have a time frame there that governs that. Scott Hart: Section 2(c) includes maintenance. Councilwonlan Dimler: And it's right after that that I'm proposing to make (d), bug zappers Ca~l only be operated when people are recreating. Councilman Workman: Well I guess I would like to pass it with the bug zapper but not just include that but maybe include a list of other things. Hayer Chmiel: I think uhat we should do is adopt this to what we have and have this reviewed prior to the next re~ding ~o come up wlth some kinds of words. Here we are legislating again what you can do and what you can't do and I know it becomes annoying. Jean Burke: Can I read one more thing from this article from Family Circle? l'his article and you may be interested in readlng it says that when stress like this from noise is put 1rite your 11fe, it goes beyond annoying. The blood pressure goes up. Your- heart. Your adrenalin goes and you know, I mean it's really a health [hlng and I've experienced that wlth the bug zapper so I don't thlnk we should look at it as telling people uhat to do. I think we should look at it as improving the environment of Chanhassen so people can 1lye here and feel healthy and be happy. I don't thlnk telling somebody that their bug zapper ls bothering you comlng from the City Hall is going to upset them as much as it's going to redeem somebody that's in slavery lo somebody's inconsideration. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it is basically that. Councilman Mason: You know I really do think that noise pollution is something that we deal with. You know we're deallng wlth water pollution. We're deallng with air pollution. We're not dealing with ,else pollution and while Mr. Mayor I hear what you're saylng about legislating those klnds of thlngs, I thlnk those of us who are concerned about noise issues also have just as much right to quiet. I hear what you're saying about we're puttlng all these laws on the books and that but there is tile other side of that. When tile person is running thelr table saw at 10:30 at nlght in thelr garage. Or the bug zapper is golng off outside you~' window. I mean this weekend, 1'11 admit it. I heat wlth wood 6O City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991 so I had my chainsaw going. Yeah, maybe that's an issue. The blowers are an issue but that bug zapper thing, I mean noise pollution is maybe something we should be looking at a 11ttle more carefully. Councilwoman Dimler: But I think this addresses both sides in that it limits the hours. It doesn't tell you you can't use them. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Councilwoman Dlmler: So I'm lncllned to go along ulth thls. I thlnk from what Tom referred to earlier, what ue were dealing w£th years ago with a different Counc11, lt's really been cleaned up and I really appreciate that you've taken into consideration all the input that we've had. And I'm inclined to go along with this because I thlnk these are stressful times and people are entitled to some peace and quiet. Scott Hart: Councilwoman Dlmler, could Z make a suggestion as far as the bug zapper. Lord knows I tried to hit on every possible noise there was and just as Z thought Z had lt. Mayor Chmiel: I think you sort of covered it here. Councilwoman Dimler: I was going to call you last week. Mayor Chmiel: Because it says here, no person shall engage in or permit construction, maintenance, repalr activities creatlng noise including, but not limited to the use of any kind of electric, diesel, pneumatic or gas powered machlnes or other power equipment. Now if we just had something inbetween there. Scott Hart: Well I'd like to suggest that we consider simply stating, and I can develop the uordlng that bug zappers are included within the definition of maintenance or something. That way there are hours. I don't thlnk I could effectively enforce it by saying people could only use it when they're recreating because. Councilwoman Dimler: That's true but 9:00 p.m. and summertime parties in the yard might go until midnight or 1:00. Jean Burke: Well how many people have parties that often during the summer? I mean do you live next to someone. Host of these people that have bug zappers have them on round the clock. They never unplug them. Councilwoman Oimler: You could have a pool. You'd be limiting the pool parties. Things like that. Would they have to get a special permit. If you're going to have a wedding around your pool. Our neighbors did that. You want to keep your guests bug free. Councilman Wing: We're saylng they don't work. From the articles I've read said they don't work. They attract the biting bugs. Jean Burke: Let's educate people so... Ci. ty Council Me,;tin9 -- October CouncJ. lwoman Dim].er~, 8,,.tt that doesn't mean they won't buy tl',em. That's like ~J,~'vo e. ducatr-;d people on the haza]'ds of smoking arid there are still some people that buy them and smoke them. That's what I'm saying. I don't think we can s~op people from bLty~lg them regardless of what they know about it. $o the best ue can do is limit them somehow. Mayor Chmiel: Le.t us make a motion on what we're proposing at this time for the f.irst readlng of t hls. Councilm~n Workman: I already did. M~,yor Chmiel: Okay. And then have staff review this and come up with something :.~.nd bring it. back down... Councilwoman Oimler: To address our concerns, right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had a motion on the floor'. Is there a second? Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman D£mler seconded to approve the first reading of the Noise Ordinance with direction to staff to review the issue of including bug zappers. All voted in favor and the mot&on carried unanimously. ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: One other thlng that I'd just like to have Bon mentlon, under Admin Presentations which we didn't put on the agenda but I'd just like him to discuss lt...the coming up thls coming week. Could you just read that to see if there's anyone interested in attending it. Don Ashworth: Accept for Thursday, November 7th and I think the Mayor had merltioned that you were thinking of going. Co~ncilwonlan Dimler: I'll go. Do you want to make a reservation for me? Oon Ashworth: I'll do that. It's in your packet if you're interested in going. Mayor Chmiel: He'll take care of it anyone that wants to go. Don Ashworth: The other one was I passed out the expense forms so I'm assuming for llke the trl¢ to Las Vegas, you've already charged your airline and you want reimbursement,.. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.. Submitted by Oon Ashuorth CJ. ty Manager Prepared by Nann Opheinl 62