Loading...
1991 09 09CHANHASSEN CZTY COUNCZL REGULAR HEETZNG SEPTEHBER 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmlel, Counoilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Counc£1man Wing and Councilwoman Oimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashuorth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al-Jarl, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman The meeting was opened APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: under Public Announcements Mayor Chmlel added Carver County and exchange of household hazardous waste collection date; under Council Presentations Councilwoman Oimler wanted to present some concerns of the Lake Lucy residents about the construction on the Troendle property; and Councilman Workman wanted to dtscuss the County Assessor's offlce. All voted in favor of the amended agenda and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: Mayor Chmiel: We're having, or I should say Carver County is having a paint exchange and household hazardous waste collection day which ts going to take place on Saturday, October 12th at 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and this ts going to be at the Carver County Courthouse at Chaska. It's going to be tn the parking lot just the far slde closer to the sewage treatment plant. What they're going to wind up doing, it's going to be a special clean-up opportunity for Carver County residents to properly dispose of household hazardous waste such as pesticides and herbicides, rodent baits, oll base paints, automotive products, except tlres, chemical household cleaners, solvents, turpentine, and wood preservatives. They're going to do a real good thing wtth this too. If you need palnt for anything, check out your colors there. It's going to be free. It's useable latex paint. Half gallon or more w£11 be accepted on that day and residents who useable latex palnt may bring it to the collection bay and residents who need paint can come and get it free of charge. Now they say there's nothing free these days but this ls. The only reason is lt's going to cost the County $25.00 per gallon to dispose of patnt and consequently lt's better if you can use it, come and get it. End of testimonial. Is there anyone else with any other public announcements you'd like to make? Seetng none we'll move on to the next agenda 1rem which ls the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve One Day Temporary Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, September 28, 1991, Oktoberfest Celebration. City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 b. Resolution ~91-83: Approve Plans and Specifications for Trunk Highway 5 Frontage Road Improvemen[s at [.one Cedar Lane; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 90-9. c. Resolution ~91~84: Accept Street Improvements in Vineland Forest Addition, Project 89-Z7. d. Approval of Accounts. e. City Council Minutes dated August 26, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated August al, 1991 Publlc Safety Commission Minutes dated August 8, 1991 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jim Borchardt: Jim Borchardt, 7331Minnewashta Parkway and it's regarding Minnewashta Highlands subdivision. The drainage problem. Basically when the Counc11 gave their approval of the plot ue were told that the drainage would meet the requirements of the neighborhood. I did meet out there with Gary Warren and Blll Engelhardt shortly after, probably a couple months after and it was agreed at that time that all the drainage off the property would be routed lnto Lake St. Joe. Gary Warren dld make the suggestion and did follow through at the tlme. I've talked to 8111Engelhardt a couple times since then and some of the village members, staff members, and it's just, well I belleve last Wednesday or Thursday I got a call from Dave Hempel. I came in Thursday and revlewed the plans and half the water ls comlng down lnto our area. Ltke I have talked to several of the members of the Council, the Mayor and we just can't take any more water. Since Maple Rldge went ln, I dld some rough numbers and before Maple Ridge went in we were getting in a downpour say like last nlght somewhere between 50 and 100 gallons a minute of water runnlng through there. Now we're getting somewhere between 600 and 800 gallons a mlnute. Now to give you an ldea of the amount of water coming through there now, Gary Warren dld sugges[ I put some rock by the beach by the outlet of the drain tile. I dumped a uhole...truck load in there and wlthln one year most of it had washed down, dug right in and the rock were rock like this. Not little pebbles. So we are gettlng, we're taking the water far more than ue should have. Now we just can't take any more and the Council did at that time say that we would be protected when thls development went ln. There are two other neighbors here. I believe they wish to speak too. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Jim, I did try to get a hold of Dave and Dave is on vacation so consequently he hadn't gotten back to you today but yes he dtd contact me on Frlday and we discussed thls. I left a note in hls offlce Saturday mornlng because I had open forum here for anyone to come in. He hasn't gotten back to you because he's gone so that's the reason. I wanted you to know that. Jim 8orchardt: oh, okay. Mayor Chmiel: But I guess we're going to have to probably look at that and address that and see because you shouldn't have those encumbrances causing you...problems as well. City Council Meeting - September 3im Borchardt: Well even last night I got up twice and went outside once. The water was starting to build in Mr, Jasin's ponding area and our main concern you know ail it takes is a kid to throw a beachball in that holding pond. If that gets into the small part of that culvert, we're done in about 5 minutes. Steve Bainbridge: Good evening. My name is Steve Bainbridge. I'm at 7351 Minnewashta Parkway just south of 3im's house just one slot. I'm relatively new in the community, 3 years and yet my parents were in this community years and years ago and we built out west and it seems, the most shocking thing I've found when ! came to Minnesota is they seem to bulldoze acres and acres without saving a single tree and just sort of compounding on Jim's concern is that apparently they're going to do the same thing with this approximately 2 acres above our place. So I just sort of second 3im's concern. My lawn typically, if there's a freeze and my drain tile freezes up in the spring, I'll typically have 4 to & inches on my lawn of water so I'm horrified to think of anything more that's going to be added to it on the property above so what we're talking about here is a property that abuts three lots that are along Lake Minnewashta all draining down on it and what we understand is they're going to sort of level the property of all trees and actually take what used to be an old nursery and take out fruit trees and everything else and sort of leave a bare hillside there so we're just worried about one of these either august of what, 1986. That rain storm and certainly last Saturday night was pretty serious in terms of what happens to our basements in our homes. Mayor Chmtel: You're right. The 100 year flood is here but I think we hit the 1,000 year flood. A lot of communities have. Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin, 7301 Mtnnewashta Parkway. Live next to Jim Borchardt and the water down flow down through my lot and it's getting heavier and heavler and some of lt's golng to be resolved with Maple Shores Drive gotng under the road and into Lake St. Joe but it looks like now we're going to be plcklng up water from the new subdivision, Mlnnewashta Highlands that we weren't planning on getting so I guess I'd like to ask the Council just to look into this and see what can be done. Mayor Chmlel: Good. Thank you. Paul, are you aware of Minnewashta Highlands with their proposal and what are they planning to do or have they talked to you at all on that? Paul Krauss: I received one phone call about a drainage problem over there and referred it over to the engineering department so I think that's how Oave originally came on board wlth that. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. I think we probably twitched all of our ears up here indicating we're moving all the trees. We've got a very strong ordinance tn this community with trees and hopefully we don't have bulldozers going through and removlng but Charles, maybe you can take thls back to Dave and maybe dlscuss that with hlm and come up with a conclusion as to what's betng proposed because as Mr. Borchardt told me, if he had 2 more acre feet on thls property he's going to be having a flood problem as well. Charles Folch: This project was approved, went through the approval process before my time but it was recent enough that it should have fell under the City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 conditions where the pre-developed runoff rate would have been maintained for the development. We'll make sure that that criteria is still met. There's also the possibility that ue may be able to divert some of this water in cooperation with the Hinneuashta Parkway improvement project. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, good. Everybody satisfied? 3im Borchardt: See what happens. I'll call you back. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Staff w111 prepare a report and it w111 be in the next packet. Each of the property owners u111 receive a copy of that. If they feel that it needs to be brought back further to the Clty Counc11, it wlll be placed onto the next City Council agenda in hopes that staff will work directly with the partles and resolve the lssue. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate that. Okay, is there anyone else? Eric? Erlc Rlvkln: Erlc Rlvkin, 1695 Steller Court. There's a culvert, storm water culvert underneath Lake Lucy Road at the bend rlght across from the Steinkraus property where storm water from the Lake Lucy Highlands development concentrates down and goes underneath the road and empties out into a Class A wetland with no sedlment retention pond or anythlng 11ks that. Zt was put in I thlnk about 1985-1986. And according to the plat agreement that was approved by the Council at that tlme, quantity was established that could not exceed I belleve 2 tons of sediment. I don't know how they were going to determine that but there was a quantity determined that it could not exceed that as a condition of the plat. And whether the figure is justifiable or not, there ts a considerable amount of sediment, even in mlld storms that runs lnto the Class A wetland brlnging along all the nutrients. 3ust straight, raw right into there and I would like to request that if Counc11 could direct engineering to investigate that and see if it is meetlng the requirements of the plat first and also if there's any remedlal actlon that could be taken to solve the nutrlent problem with maybe a project from the storm water utillty fund uhlch I believe is supposed to be used for. Charles Folch: Where is the locatlon of thls culvert? Eric Rivkln: It's on, well it's rlght next to A1 Flnsted's property and across the street ls Meryl Stelnkraus' property. Right at the bend of Lake Lucy Road where it turns and goes to Galpln. Mayor Chmiel: Just beyond Jim Mielke's there? Eric Rtvkin: No. Well past that. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, you're talking up further where that property's for sale7 Eric Rivkin: Right at the edge of Gutmiller and Finsted. Right there. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. You'll check that out Charles? Charles Folch: Yeah. City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? PUBLTC HEARTNG: VACATTON OF A PORTION OF KIRKHAH ROAD R%GHT-OF-WAY AND a PORTTON OF A DRATNAGE AND UTTLTT¥ EA$[HENT, AD3ACENT TO LOT 35. RED CEDAR POINT, KENNETH SHTTH. Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'll open the public hearing at this particular time. Sharmin. Sharmin Al-Jarl: This is a simple application. Just some background as to how this proposal got in front of you today. The applicant originally applied for a lot frontage variance. The lot is located south of Cedar and east of vacated Kirkham Road. It has 48 feet frontage on public right-of-way, 11 feet of that ls on lmproved public right-of-way. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the variance with a condition-that the applicant provide a turn around. The turn around would provlde adequate frontage for a total of 42 feet on improved public right-of-way as well as adequate turn around for emergency vehicles. In order to achieve that turn around we needed to, to achleve this alignment the application is dedicating a portion of his property...and in return he's requesting vacation of the portlon...Klrkham Road. The applicant is also requesting vacation of a drainage and utility easement. Currently there's a...utlllty and drainage easement running to the west of, I'm sorry, east of this property... The natural drainageway takes place on the westerly portion of the slte...ls dedicating a 20 foot easement on the westerly portion of the site centered on the property line. gesterly property line. ge are recommending approval of this vacation proposal. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Mr. Smith is here. Is there anything you wish to add to that? Kenneth Smith: No, I think the staff has done a pretty darn good job. I suffered a 11ttle at the cost of puttlng the turn around in but it's in and working. And it even drains right. Mayor Chmlel: That's something in itself. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? This is a public hearing as I indicated. If seeing none, can I have a motlon to close the public hearlng? Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Oimler: ! move approval. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Resolution ~91-85: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Vacation Request t91-1 to vacate a portion of Kirhap Road as described on the survey and vacation of the westerly 10 feet of the easterly 15 feet of the drainage and utility easement as shown on the survey dated 3uly 26, 1991 with the following condition: City Council Meeting ~ September 9, 1991 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of Variance Request ~91-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unaniiously. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR ASSESSNENT ROLL, PRO3ECT 87-35 (CONTINUED FROH AUGUST 12, 1991 HEETING.) Public Present: Name Address Eric Rivkin John Waldron Lisa Notermann Clarence Haile Ted Coey 1695 Steller Court 1900 Lake Lucy Road 1450 Arboretum Blvd. 1675 Steller Court 1381 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Chmiel: I will now re-open the publlc hearlng once again. Charles, do you want to glve a qulck overview? I thlnk everyone is aware as to what we have talked previously but maybe you can brlng up some of the other proposals that we've come up with for that. Charles Folch: Okay. From discussions following the August 12th City Council meeting it was your recommendation that a revised assessment plan be developed that would relleve the immediate financial burden lmposed on property owners, address other relevant concerns raised and also importantly satisfy tile financial obligations that the Clty has for thls project. I've had the opportunity to review the City Council Minutes and it's apparent that there are primarily three concerns that were ralsed by the residents. Number one, residents stated that they would not be able to connect to the city sewer immediately and questioned thelr benefit. Number two, some stated that the assessment schedule would be a financial burden and would potentially force some of them to sell or develop their property prematurely. And also many questioned the total amount of buildable acreage on the property. In an effort to meet these previously discussed objectives and address these relevant concerns, we've revised, we formulated a revised assessment strategy. The key factor of this proposal would be the replacement of the per acre assessment rate wlth a slngle trunk assessment of $850.00 per existing dwelling on a parcel. This amount has been derlved on two separate methodologies. One is based on the current slngle family residential home connection charge whtch is $600.00. Of that it would be fair to estlmate that approximately 50~ or $300.00 of thls ls used to maintain, operate, repair our existing sewer system facilities and the other portion typically be used to offset trunk faclllty installation cost and pipe overslzlng costs. The previously presented assessment rate was established at $539.00 per acre of useable land. Glven the deletlon of some of the recently sewered areas, Crestvlew Orive and also recognizing that the Ches Mar Farm properties west of TH 41 are outslde the MUSA area, the actual needed per acre increase to balance the account would basically be about $550.00. Allocating $300.00 of a typical connection charge if you wlll to help offset thls cost would yelld about $250.00 remaining. This $250.00 is considered a direct interceptor beneftt, if you wl11, to the service area. Therefore it ls proposed that the assessment amount be revised to $850.00 per existing dwelling unit. Parcels without existing City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 dwelling units at this time would not receive any assessment. It should also be noted that the Clty's current sewer connection charge of $600.00 has not been revlsed or updated slnce the mid 1980's. If thls $600.00 connection charge ls adjusted by incorporating each year's construction cost index factor for the last 6 to 7 years, the current charge in today's dollars would approximate the $850.00 per unit. Thus given this fact it appears that the current sewer connection charge that we're currently uslng in terms of today's dollars is short of those dollars needed to adequately construct and maintain and repair an exlsting facilities. So therefore it would seem appropriate for the Council also to take a separate action, if deemed appropriate to increase the City's sewer connection charge to $850.00 per unit. At this time I guess we can open it up to public discussion again. Mayor Chmlel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address the revised proposal? I guess I had some concerns with the cost that were belng lncurred by a lot of the people and I asked staff to review thls. To come up with a little more successful ktnd of dollar contribution and I think we've done that but most importantly we st111 satlsfy the financial obligations of the city for this particular project. So with that I'll just throw it open. Anyone wishing to address it at thls time. Just please state your name and your address please. Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court. I have some questions based on some new information here. Is this, you satd if there's no dwelling, there's no assessment. Can you elaborate on that? Charles Folch: At this point in time that's correct. If there's an individual parcel whlch does not have an existing dwelling unit on lt, there ls no assessment at this time. The $850.00 is not assessed at this point in time. At some polnt in tlme in the future that the parcel ls subdivided, the charges wlll be acquired at that time. Erlc Rlvkln: That means there won't be even an $850.00 pending assessment on a vacant lot? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Until a home is developed on that property. Then that assessment comes automatically. Eric Rivkin: I see. And if you've got 100 acres and you divide it out, you paid $850.00 per dwelllng at that tlme plus whatever costs are lncurred to hook it up? Charles Folch: That's correct. The connection charges would be additional at that time also. Eric Rivkin: I see. To my knowledge there were in discussions that I had after the August 12th meeting with Engelhardt and Associates who prepared the assessment ro11, it came to my attention that there were areas outside, I don't know if you have a map with you on this but the line that you drew or the new MUSA 11ne ls now, that there are properties to the south and west of that that City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 would benefit from this project but were not on the assessment roll. How are you dealing with that? Charles Folch: Who pointed out that there were some areas? Eric Rivkin: A1 Larsen. Charles Folch: Those areas outside the MUSA at this point in time, and therefore don't receive benefit at this point in time for the interceptor. Eric Rivkln: Well I don't know how many are dwellings and how many are vacant lots but there are lndeed lots that would, or property that would benefit outside of that 11ne there that were not on the assessment ro11. And if lndeed that is true, then I would expect that the $850.00 would come down to spread out a 11ttle bit more. Mayor Chmiel: Alright Don, go ahead and then I'll address something else. Don Ashuorth: I believe the areas that Eric's referring to again are south and west as you described. Those u111 requlre sub-trunks to get to those areas. At thls point in time ue are not sure if some of those uill be brought back up 1nrc the Lake Ann Interceptor or head down closer towards the buslness park and make a connection into the existing interceptor at the lower point. But the fact is that this sub area ls benefitting and the cost associated with lt, we've dlvlded those out to come out with those costs. Those people will also be paylng that $850.00 at such future time as there would be sub trunks put over lnto those other areas. Those are the only ones that I'm aware of Eric. Llke south of TH 5. The area over where the new Shopco or whatever it was purchased property. Eric Rtvkin: Mr. Larsen did indicate that those would indeed be fed by gravity to thls interceptor. Don Ashworth: From his calculations it could be fed by gravity unless they would go back the other direction towards the Business Park. They could not go up 1nrc the Lake Ann Interceptor area that Eric is currently belng served by. Charles Folch: That's correct. Eric Rivkin: The MUSA line was, at that portion a political line. Not necessarily the 11ne that divtdes exactly where the people, the properties that would beneflt and wouldn't beneflt from that particular. Don Ashworth: I would disagree with that statement. The original boundary was set on a contour 11ne and Metro forced the clty to establish a physical line that closely approximated that topography. So we had to pick out a quarter sectlon 11ne, a half sectlon 11ne because that was the only way they had of describing it rather than a particular elevation. But it was very close to that elevation 11ne. Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'm asking that the truth about that be found out and in light of the information that was told to me by them, to find out what fatr share... City Council Meeting - September Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're saying is the same things that some of the people put into sewer malns and it paid for them and other people to connect £t to have not pald some of those same charges because they came on at a later time. Those things happen. There's no way that you can stop that but I think with the new assessment that we're coming through with the those total of $850.00, that has to have a resident on it. Once anybody's property, as was said before, becomes subdivided and a home built on there, that's an automatic assessment. Those that are outside the MUSA line is the same conditions that you were in a position at one time not affected by because you were outside the particular MUSA line at that time and no charges were established back to you. Eric Rivkin: Okay. Thanks. I just want to be sure that my point was made. If anybody is made to paid for some share of the project, it's only fair that all those that would potentially beneflt be found out and it would be a slmple enough thing to do. It would share the cost because that's what we faced before the MUSA 11ne changed. We had pending assessments put on and the bank took money away from a lot of people. I also for my own reiteration from the August 12th meetlng, if anyone is made to pay for some share of this project, I thlnk it's only fair that those who will benefit from thts project with absolute certainty should pay thelr fair share whether lt's $850.00 or whatever the formula turns out to be. It's my opinion that unless the City can prove that wlth absolute certainty our new over engineered septic systems or thelr replacements will endanger the environment at some point in the future, then there should be no absolute certainty that we pay for a servlce that we might use or not at a11. It's not fair to assume that sewer service is right for all situations. It may be rlght for a crowded lakeshore homes like on Lake Minnewashta with old septic technology where there's a high risk of environmental damage, but lt's not rlght for a lot with wlde open spaces dictated forever because of the unbuildable terrain with tlme tested septic systems wlth 11ttle or no rlsk of environmental damage. So wlth that, thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this particular time? As I said, this is still a public hearing. It's still open. John Waldron: Good evenlng. My name is John Waldron at 1900 Lake Lucy Road. I was at the August 12th meeting also and I'd like to speak in favor of those recommended by staff, even though it would be a lot better at the tlme we actually received the benefit, that's the time we paid the $850.00. It's a lot more palatable. And also I 11ked it because of the last meetlng when they had large amounts of money that were going to be hit, especially on the larger parcels, there was a falr amount of talk going around about those people might be forced to develop and I think it would wreck the aesthetics of the neighborhoods we already have and that sort of thlng. So I would be in favor of it. The last question, the only question I really have is the amounts that aren't covered of the $550,000.00, would those be comlng out of the general tax monies or would those be coming out of the future $850.00 amounts? Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that? Don Ashworth: It is our calculations that additional developments will come in wlthln that are which w111 have sanitary sewer and that the $850.00 generated off of those will provide sufficient cash to pay off that project. City Council Neeting- September 9, 1991 John Waldron: So we wouldn't be paying the $850.00 once and then be paying through the general tax rolls another portion? Don Ashuorth: You will not be paying through general tax rolls a second time. It's our belief that this subdistrict area will be paying it's fair share but you're also correct, the new methodology has been put in trying to insure that ue do not force people off the property prematurely. We recognize that sewer lines starting on one side and potentially by the time it gets to Eric Rivkin's property, he may be the last one to develop and his two additional lots may occur in the year 2003. And those dollars will provide the last debt payments at that point in time. John Waldron: So they would have the $850.00 plus whatever the hook-up, lateral charges would be at that time? Don Ashuorth: He would have the $850.00 charge today or yourself and if you were able to get an additional two lots off your property in the year 2003 when the sewer came by, or Mr. Rivkin, and he decided to subdivide that, he would have to pay those two additional units, John Waldron: Okay. Appreciate staff taking time to figure out something that's workable. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Lisa Notermann: I'm Lisa Notermann. I live at 1450 Arboretum Blvd.. I just have one question. Everyone that was assessed originally, wlll they all be charged this $850.00 or will there be some exceptions? I mean did you look at every case? Because I personally st111 don't know how we're golng to hook up because you know and I don't know that we should be charged if we can't hook up. It's st111 on the other slde of the creek so I don't know how we're golng to hook up to it. And so I don't know if that was looked at or not. That's my questions. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that Charles? Lisa Notermann: We live, that house right by Lake Ann Park. Charles Folch: Right. I'm looking at the plans that we have. It shouldn't be a problem to make the connection at that point and location. Lisa Notermann: So will we have to pay it before the hook-up is available to us? Because is my house going to be there forever because when TH 5 goes through, is my house golng to go? And so are you golng to make thls hook-up just for me for one year maybe and then my house be ripped out for tile expansion of TH 5? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the thing to keep in consideration and negotiate with the Highway Oepartment. Keep that $850.00 in the back of your mtnd. Lisa Notermann: But isn't that, Z'm trylng to thlnk of a better word than what's coming to my mind right now. 10 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Councilman Workman: TH 5 isn't going on the north side at that location is it? Isn't it swerving to the south due to the park property? Charles Folch: Those plans actually are being worked, well they're golng to be worked on at this point in time in the future so the final plans haven't been put together for that. At thls polnt my gut feeling ls that well it probably wouldn't. The road will end up being close but I don't think it would definitely enta11 having to take the house out. Don Ashworth: I think this is one particular assessment that we maybe should take a look at because there have been discussions wtth the State Highway Department. I believe you wrote a letter a year or two asking that the State literally take the entlre parcel. Lisa Notermann: My house is going to be worth dirt when that highway goes through. Don Ashworth: I think that if there's a general understanding that there utll in fact be a taking, that there no longer wtll be a house, I think staff should work a 11ttle bit with Mrs. Notermann and try to come back. Lisa Notermann: The thing is too, you'd have to spend money, a lot of money for us to be able to hook up and lt'd probably cost more than the $850.00 that you're going to charge us. I guess it doesn't make much sense to me that you're golng to spend more than that $850.00 to enable us to hook up. You know I don't know how you're going to be ahead that way. That's a11. Thank you. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Yes slr. Clarence Haile: My name is Clarence Haile. I live at 1675 Steller Court. I thlnk the question of the benefit to the people in this assessment area is still a very serious question. We've talked about the issues that were brought up last meetlng. Certainly the questionable benefit. The economic burden which you've reduced very kindly. And the questionable amount of buildable property. Zt's very obvious that through re-evaluation of the amount of buildable land there's been a realization that there was a serious over estimate in the amount of buildable land that's available in thls area. You have reduced economlc burden. Z have to wonder how much of that is due to the fact that there was serlous opposition at thls meetlng previously. But st111 the lssue is that there's a lot of question concerning the benefit to the people in this area. We have a lot that we developed just a year ago with a very heavlly over engineered septic system and yet we're still going to be asked to-spend although less than before, we're st111 golng to be asked to spend monies for a sewer system that we're not likely to be needing to hook up to for quite some time. I think it would be much more equitable if the charges were made at the tlme that hook-ups were available and if people actually hooked up and were able to take advantage of these services. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Would you wish to address that at all Charles? Charles Folch: Well I guess I would like to make a point. I guess I've heard it twice tonight about over engineered septic systems. The septic systems that the City currently, the Bullding Department enforces the installation of ls 11 City Council Meeting -. September 9, 1991 required by the State Building Code. It is not a special type system that the City of Chanhassen requires. It is required by the State Building Code. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Also backed up by the Department of Health. Don Ashworth: If I may add a couple of points. Right in that same area is one that we dld have a number of septlc failures. Septlc system failures and the people involved were back to this Council looklng for some type of relief and we were able to get sewer to them but that's qulte a dramatic situation when you go through that and you do have sewage in a basement. The sewer, the interceptor in this area does provide the ability, kind of an insurance policy you might say that at a particular point they can make a connection. Financially the City would be in a much stronger position if we would have put the full assessment amount against each of the parcels. After listening to the concerns and meeting with the Hayer and discussing do we really want to see that or is there a way in which ue can try to reduce some of these concerns with the interest clock and the compounding of interest. Is there a way that we can make some reasonable predictions as to which area may come in first versus which area may be second? I don't disagree with the gentleman that just got through talking. His area may be third, fourth down the line but the fact is from an overall financial security standpoint, the plan that was developed is one which staff believes creates the least financial difficulty for the property owners in that area does represent a charge back against that area as benefitting property owners and I guess is sound. Staff continues to recommend it. Ted Coey: Ted Coey, 1381 Lake Lucy Road. I missed the first part of this little portion of it but I guess I understand that what you're doing is you're charging $850.00 for each exlstlng house? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Ted Coey: And that's going to be assessed whether or not you've got availability or not right? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Providing you have a home on that piece of property. Ted Coey: Like I say that's a heck of a lot better than where we were at before but I still would like to see it set up so you were assessed upon availability. I still contend that the people in my area, we're never golng to see the sewer down there. It would be too costly to go down where we are. I wouldn't mind paylng for, if you subdivide $850.00 a lot uhlch obviously was what you've got in mind but ~ think there should be some feasible time limit that you've got that the people would probably hook up. I just can't see havlng the sewer come down where we are. I mean it's such a long ways and we're at the far end of where, where I know personally I can hook up east. I think I talked about that before with Tom and with you Oon so I'd still like to see that the $850.00 was assessed when you hooked up. Or when the sewer's available on the street so you can at least have a chance to see it. It's a long ways away from where we are. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Did you win? 12 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Ted Coey: Oh we won, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If seeing none I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Well, let's start down on the far end. Councilman Mason: You always pick on me. I'm quite honestly being somewhat new on Councll I sometimes have some trouble grappling with why people get charged and some do and some don't. In my mind, and this is something I guess I'd like talked about a 11ttle more is why are they belng charged for it if, as said, they're so far away from it the chances of them using it are minimal. Why aren't they charged until they hook up? Tom just whispered to me because lt's already in the ground. And I understand that and that expense is already there but something tells me, but walt. I'm not uslng something. Why do I have to pay for it? I guess I'd 11ke to hear a little more discussion on that. Mayor Chmiel: I think basically from what I see, the City has been assessed from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission such as Eden Prairie and also Victoria. Those assessments that are made, it's just like puttlng in that interceptor. You're putting it in for 20 years from now. In that 20 year perlod there's golng to be a lot of connections that will eventually go for it but we had to put it in now. In the ground now and consequently now that the MUSA has expanded, these people will eventually be utilizing that particular facility at some time but somebody has to pay for something somewhere and at some time. In order to offset our lnitlal investment that we put in that and it was how much? Don Ashworth: $550,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: $550,000.00. We have to get those dollars to pay for those kinds of services that are going to be needed. $o consequently that's one of the reasons behlnd lt. It's the same thlng that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission did with their initial sewers that they had to put in. They built those for the year 2000. The year 2000 ls coming and a lot of people have gone through those same kind of assessments as well. Don Ashworth: Part of the answer additionally lies from the standpoint, staff recognizes that as that development comes on board again, I'm not sure which areas ls golng to develop before another area. So which one ls golng to generate 100 $850.00 charges versus another one but the fact is that that area does beneflt solely from that. Your house really does not beneflt from that sewer. In going through the calcuation staff said, well we know that we need x number of dollars to make payments for the next 2-3 years untll developments start coming on line and again not knowing if it will be x, y or z. We felt falrly comfortable in saying that the x's, y's and z's would cover the payments '95 '96 and on out But it seemed fair since we knew there would in years '94, , . be a shortfall in those early years, that everyone who we know had an existting home and at some time would benefit even though staff would be the first to 13 City Council Heeling -, September 9, 1991 agree, you can pick some outside areas, Mr. Coey's of' Mr. Rivkin's. They may very well be tho last ones to connect in. 8ut they also are within that service area and it just seemed like a reasonable methodology that you would have an initial stake in this financing for the overall project while simultaneously not being forced off of your property prematurely. Some of those people who had $15,000.00, $17,000.00, $20,000.00 assessments. There's no question they'd have to sell. Staff knows that there's still some inadequacies as far as the proposed assessment but of all of the different scenarios we worked out, this seemed to be the fairest. Councilman Mason: Would it be safe to say then that in order for the City to meet their financial responsibility it needs to be handled this way? Don Ashuorth: Yes. Councilman Mason: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas. Councilman Workman: Thanks to Councilman Mason for his, my logic is usually very, very simple. It's almost so simple it's confounding. I guess to further back up what I had sald to him, lt's you know the darn thlng ls in the ground. Now it has to be paid for. We're not sending it back C.O.D. and we're not going to reject it and we don't have any optlons and we have to pay for lt. The clty has to pay for it somehow and so therefore it creates tile situation and it's why we have a Clty Counc11 and Mayor because we're elected to deflect all thls grlef from staff see. That's all we're here for. We show up once-every 2 weeks and we take the grief. And so there really isn't a whole lot of options. I would say that particularly, and I know there's others. I don't mean to exclude them. Lake Lucy Road people, why do they, why would they, why could they have a deslre to bring sewer on when they probably will never have a problem. That is the confounding part of all thls. For example could Erlc Rivkin split hls lot and develop it? Don Ashuorth: Not without sanitary sewer. But he is within the MUSA area and hypothetically through the extension of sanitary sewer he could spllt hts lot. Councilman Workman: Could his neighbors all up Lake Lucy Road to the east split? I mean are we literally talking about some road coming behind their homes? Between thelr homes and the lake and something could happen there? What I'm getting at is they don't seem to have as much potential to develop. Their homes are bullt on their lots and situated in such a way that it would not appear as though they would ever split their lots. Ill fact dolng so would maybe ruin thelr lot. So that is a tough part about it and I do have some hesitancies towards that. ~ do however' understand how we arrlve at the area so I don't mean to set your logic Oon. But I do appreciate the Mayor's efforts in trying to keep this down. $850.00 in sons spot sounds like an awful lot of money to me. Spread out it st111 ls and when you have something that's a 11ttle blt intangible, it's tough to pay for it no matter how much it ls. I have a questlon in regards to, let me take out a specific. John Hennessy. He sald to me that he paid a slmilar charge for a sewer project that went in in pleasant view Road. Would that have been possible? Would it be posslble that any of 14 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 these persons on thls assessment roll would have already paid for a sewer system that maybe they were a part of before? City wide assessment? Don Ashworth: The trunk charge is nothing new. I mean when I built my home I paid a trunk connection charge and I paid for the interceptor coming into my area. Councilman Wlng paid as a part of the Minnewashta project. The Mayor paid as a part of the Greenwood Shores project, so the trunk charge is nothing new. The amount of lt, I think when Z pald it was $350.00 and today as Charles mentioned it's $550.00 with recommendation that it go to the $850.00. Councilman Workman: Has Eric Rivkln paid a trunk charge? Oon ashworth: It's my understanding that he was required to put money into escrow for this project. I'm sure that he would like not to have it go through so he could get the money back but he'd have to answer that question. Councilman Workman: Okay, so a person with their o~m septic system dldn't have to pay so let's say John Hennessy who's home is much, much older, before this project's tlme, probably never pald this charge? Don Ashworth: Mr. Hennessy never paid for the property that he currently lives on. If he used to 1lye off of Pleasant View and if that area has sewer, he would have paid a trunk charge on Pleasant View. Councilman Workman: Z'd 11kw to know how much Eric Rivkin has in that account. I guess it makes sense and again it's a tough decision to make and however we've come down and we've arrlved and as Mr. Mason would say. Boy, when people complain we react. That's probably a good slgn because this looks like a much better plan, however not the best one. I think we have to go with something that resembles something like this. Mayor Chmiel: The best plan I think we have Tom is no charge at all but we can't get there. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I'm not convinced that this maybe isn't the best plan. These assessments are certainly frightening to me and I don't want them. I remember our sewer assessment and I probably fought it and tt was very costly back then. As a matter of fact I'm sure I was here fighting it. I'm glad it's there. My well, I'm on city water and sewer and ctty sewer and water is here to stay. It's just a thing that's going to exist in this particular area, on Lake Lucy and that area we're discussing ls klnd of an island. ! mean here's this City that's developed around them and here's this island that doesn't have it. During the Comp Plan discussions thls septic system was a big discussion polnt and I distinctly remember those argments that here's this Comp Plan. We're outside the MUSA line and we're thls far away from it and we're putting in these expensive septic systems that are going to last for the next umpteen decades and are you golng to leave us alone? I think there was an attempt at that time to say yes, we're going to hopefully leave you alone. We're not going to run sewer right by your house the week after you put In the septic system. Well, here we are. It's done. It's in the ground. It's unfortunate that this little tsland exists. It is in the middle of the city and the septlc system certainly isn't new and that was really a big concern of mine as we discussed this. However, as it comes down to push and shove now and having to be paid for, there's two rules 15 City Council Meeting .- Septelober 9, 1991 that I have. ki~ld of come up witl, in my short time on the Council. Number one, the issue of taxes ,znd cost. I don't think they can be burdensome and I think on Minnewashta Parkway there was a need for something done out there and I think the Council reacted and got that under control cost wise so it was a very fair, equitable assessment. And I think the Mayor and staff has done that in this case. They've taker~ this down from a tax roll, you know ue all saw that $28,000.00 or $10,000.00 that I wouldn't want. ~ wouldn't want any part of that. I wouldn't have even voted on it but we're now back down to the first rule where we have a very fair, equitable price involved here. Secondly is that I wouldn't support anything that was going to force sale or development of open land. I think we should do everything we can to protect it. ~nd this again, thanks to Mayor Chmie]. and staff clearly addressed that issue. ~e're going to tax just those homes that exist. That are buying, what we're really doing here. True, a lot of these people aren't going to hook up but they are buying a future, they're buying a right in the future to use this if they choose to. They're buying a future option for $850.00 and Mr. Rivkin or anybody else could tomorrow come in and decide to develop this property. There's nothing to stop him. He may choose to. Or the septic system could fail for whatever reason. ~t may be very uniikely in most of these cases so the arguments on those issue are vaiid but I do think that the City has been extremeiy fair and very conscientious and I would have no choice but to support it at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: Thanks for letting me go last. Everything's been said. I do want to compliment the former Council for making what I believe was a correct decision to have the Interceptor put in and I am pleased to see what staff has done. I think it's a benefit to everyone. I do~'t want to by my decision however encourage or discourage development so I would like to see that be market driven so if there's anyone here that would on this assessment go ahead and come in tomorrow as Richard has said, I wish you'd let me know. I guess from, I had a question about whether the City could carry the cost of the interceptor until properties hooked up and I understand from the former discussion that that is ~o. The answer to that is no. I would like to see us give speci,'~], consider~tior~ to Mrs. Notermann's prope~'ty because of the encroachment of TH 5 and I guess just to satisfy the question of benefit in my own mind. I wonder iF someone could answer the question for me. If the valuation of the raw land went up just because the interceptor was put in. Was there just a benefit from the fact that it went in? Do you know Don? Don Ashworth: To meet the test of State law it has to and in this particular instance, there is no question in my mind that that entire area saw a significant increase in it's value to having sanitary sewer out there. You went from being only able to develop into 10 acre parcels down to ~5,000 square feet. There's just no question about it. councilwoman Oimler: Okay. So I guess that settles that question in my mind and I would not have any problem supporting this proposal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I guess you more or less have seen my position as to what I have seen with all those high assessments that were there and to bring it. down to that particular number, which I thought was reasonable. I didn't want to see anybody really get hurt because I've seen it done before in other communities. In other cities. Z too, like Richard, got assessed for my street and a few of the other things. Sewer and water and thank goodness this 16 City Council Meeting - September is one of my last payments that I make next month. That was over a 10 year period for a total of $10,000.00 so it does make a tad bit of a difference. But nonetheless, I am feeling strongly with this and I'll call the question ! guess. mould someone like to make a motion? Councilwoman Dimler: I would move approval of the assessment roll for the Lake Ann Interceptor as received on September 9, 1991 with the exception of the Notermann property to be re-evaluated by staff. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. What about city sewer connection charges of $600.00 to the $850.00? The one that Charles brought up previously. Councilman Workman: Wouldn't that be kind of a natural extension of this since we are doing this back for these people? Councilwoman Oimler: I believe that should be a separate motion. Don Ashworth: It should be a separate motion. Mayor Chmiel: It can yes but. No, it should be a separate motion. Don Ashworth: Staff wanted to make sure we brought it up because it seemed as though number one, the charge for the entire community, it's been such a long time since it's been brought up. Secondly, you are going to have properties that will be back to back, one on one side of this line that pays $600.00 and the other side of the line they're paying $850.00 and that just does not seem reasonable. It may be well if the Council's generally in agreement that this is a good idea, that it'd probably be better if staff brought that back as a separate action and potentially have it set as a separate time frame because you'd have certain builders who are already planning on building a house, like Councilman aorkman's, who've already figured in the $600.00 and maybe having this become effective 3anuary 1st. Councilman Workman: Let's make it effective immediately. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if ! might add one thing. One item that was left open for your decision and discussion was the term of the assessment. The original assessment roll specified an 8 year term on the payback. At this point in time we're sort of leaving the door open. It might be appropriate for us to recommend something like a 3 or 4 year payback given the substantial reduction in the assessment amount but I'll leave that up to you. Mayor Chmiel: That's something to be considered in your motion. Councilwoman Dimler: We haven't discussed that. I would like to hear other council. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was brought up in the staff report in here that if that were to go to either a 3 or 4 year as opposed to the 8 year because of the substantial drop in the assessment. Councilman Wing: How many years did we leave the parkway? I think that stayed at 8. 17 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Don Ashworth: I'm sorry. Councilman Wing: Minneuashta Parkway I think stayed at 8 years? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's an 8 year. Councilman Wing: And that was roughly an $800.00 assessment. Don Ashuorth: I don't recall what we did. Z mean realize we've gone through the public, we're at little different stages. This is an assessment hearing on thls one. That was a public hearlng ordering the project. You wouldn't have had to have made that declsion and I don't recall that it was really discussed. Councilman Wing: I just remember the $800.00, roughly $800.00 and the 8 years was what was stated to the people. In some cases there were hardships created and so being able to pay it off over 8 years may in fact be very important to someone now so to reduce it from 8 years on down then, for those who may have to pay it on a yearly basls. Anybody can prepay anytime they want any amount they want to but by leaving it at 8 years, should thls by any means create a hardship, it does allow that person the option to pay it off ina smaller amount over 8 years and is there a real disadvantage to the City that might outweigh that thinking? Don Ashuorth: Well if you recall one of the thoughts on staff was that ue would need x amount of dollars in the first three years before you saw other subdivisions come on 11ne. Quite truthfully most of these will be pald off in an earlier time frame. I see very few of them golng over tile 8 year period that you're referring to. If you wish to leave that as an option for those people who felt that would better sult thelr financial needs, I guess I'm not concerned that that's golng to somehow break the city or put us lnto financial burden. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think in looking for it here as to what staff had indicated and what it reads as such. It's saylng that the term of the assessment is recommended to be for 3 to 4 years given the substantial reduction of the assessment to property owners. However, the decislon of the term for this assessment i$ left open for Council action. It's also recommended that Councll take separate action to approve, that's inmaterlal but they had indicated 3 to 4 years and I think 3 to 4 years probably is not bad. But you may have a point that people can't afford lt. I'd leave it open. Councilwoman Dimler: What was the percentage rate? Mayor Chmiel: Councilwoman Dimler: 9~. Charles Folch: Over 4 years is what, about $200.00 some dollars a year then? Little more. Councilman Wing: I don't wlsh to make thls an lssue. Just a thought. I thlnk wlth some of the folks on Minnewashta Parkway are in fact planning on what we suggested in the feasibility study. This may not be the case here. 18 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I would say we should probably go with the 4 year on it. Anyone who wishes to pay for it much in advance can do that of course. Would you like to lnclude that into your motlon Ursula? Councilwoman Oimler: I'm sorry we closed the public hearing. I'd like to hear what they have to say. I mean if they were counting on 8 years at 9~, then hate to at this point. Mayor Chmlel: I don't think we had discussions at 8 or 9 or 8 years previously. Councilwoman Dimler: That was never in the original proposal? Mayor Chmiel: No. Not the last time that you weren't here. And it is contained within the staff report here. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay, so the motlon then would be for 4 years at 9~? Councilman Workman: Could the option be left open where somebody if in fact they wanted to? Don Ashworth: No, the roll has to be uniform as far as the number of years. Councilwoman Oimler: What if there's a hardship? Is there any possibility? Roger Knutson: The possibility of deferment for financial hardship, yes. But they're very strict standards set by State law. But you have to decide whether lt's going to be a 4 year assessment roll or 8 year assessment ro11. If you decide on an 8 year roll and someone wants to pay it off in 4 years, they certainly can. Sooner. Or pay it off immediately. Councilman Wing: Would there be anybody in the room that might be concerned about this lssue? Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address that at this time? A little out of order but I'd just as soon hear that. Councilwoman Dimler: We'll re-open the public hearing. Ted Coey: Don, I don't think $800.00 over 4 years is out of the question. I think that's a falr amount. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright, then I'll say the motion to include the 4 years at 9~. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Resolution ~91-86: Counciluoman Dialer moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the assessment roll for the Lake ann /nterceptor Servtce Area. Each dwelling un/t be assessed a cost of $850.00 at 9~ /nterest over a per/od of four (4) years H/th the except/on of the Notermann property ~h/ch is to be re-evaluated by staff. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried unan/mously. 19 City Council Heeting - September 9, 199]. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL ASSESSMENT ROLL, PRO3ECT 89-10 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 1991 MEETING). Public Present: Name Address 3im Hady Don King Helen Loebl 7338 Frontier Trail 7200 Kiowa Circle 7197 Frontier Trail Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to re-open that for the Frontier Trail assessment roll, Project 89-10. Charles. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The project consultant engineer, BiIi EngeIhardt and myseIf have reviewed the comments and the letters received following the assessment hearing on August 12th and per Council's request offer the following responses to each of the noted comments. Dr. Craig and Debra Luehr had a question regarding their driveway. This has been resolved. Luehr's driveway is one of the two driveways that was completely, had to be completely replaced during construction due to slope problems. This driveway has recently been redone by the contractor and this issue should be taken care of. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Differding had a similar situation with their driveway. This was also replaced within the last two weeks and is up to acceptable standards and should take care of that situation. Mr. and Mrs. Zambrano questioned the cost of the assessment related to the method. They are one of a handful of properties which are on pie shaped lots on curves and we've formulated an adjustment for that which I'll discuss in just a few moments. But the bottom line is the Zambrano's assessment was reduced to accommodate the large frontage. Bill and I also met with the Zambrano's regarding the drainage issues that they had brought up. The Zambrano's had their driveway completely overlaid under private contract and thus we have no authority over the work that was done under private contract. They also questioned the drainage on their lot and it's in our opinion that the drainage problems that they are currently experiencing were not accelerated or caused by this improvement project. But were likely existing problems that had occurred, ge offered several suggestions to the Zambrano's to try and correct this problem and will continue to help them with suggestions if they need it. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Mader had a question on the cost split. The cost of the project was broken down into four areas. Street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and uatermain. The assessment for the street construction is based on a 40/60 split between the benefitted property and the City. The 40~ cost reflects only the street construction cost and is related to the share of indirect costs. The storm sewer is a 50/50 split as is in the past and is policy, City policy for this type of improvement project. Again the storm sewer cost reflects it's share of the indirect cost based on the construction of the storm sewer. The sanitary sewer and uatermain cost including the proportionate share of overhead costs were paid out out of City trunk funds. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Pavelko provided both verbal and written objection to the assessment amount which were previously discussed. They also stated that they were never notified of the project. Numerous meetings and hearings were held during the preliminary and planning process where all property owners were notified. They also had questions on the quality of work. The contractor completed hls project in an orderly and timely fashlon and we 20 City Council Meeting - September 9, 199l believe the quality of work was as a minimum comparable, if not superior to other projects similar in nature that did not have the construction constraints or working conditions that this project had. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pzynski had an objection to the assessment based on benefit. The Statutes allow for an appeal to District Court if a property owner believes that their property did not benefit equal to the assessment amount. The total cost of the project as previously stated was broken down into 4 areas with direct cost and indirect cost for each area separated for financing purposes. The total cost presented on the August 12th hearing was as follows: street reconstruction, $352,644.40; sanitary sewer, $93,479.85; storm sewer, $146,902.88; and watermain, $47,371.77. These costs are not determined until the assessment roll is prepared at which time all project costs are compiled. Mr. J.J. Waletski had an objection to the assessment amount as.not receiving benefit. Ms. Arlis Bove¥ again objected to the assessment amount. Mr. and Hrs. Oavid Wollan objected to the assessment amount. They were also one of the pie shaped curve lots and as I mentioned before I will get to the method that we have developed to try and accommodate that situation. Mr. Peter Huber and Deborah Van Dyke objected to the assessment amount. Questioned over payment for driveway work. As far as that issue goes, all quantities for materials and labor were itemized throughout the project for accuracy and no "double dipping" occured on any driveway work. Mayor Chmiel: ! was concerned with that one because I had quite a few people call me on that. Charles Folch: Mr. and Mrs. Jim Mady questioned the quality of work. No specific items however were given as to what quality problems they had observed but we can say that the contract, in our oplnlon performed the work in a superior manner as we stated earlier. The standard construction practices for a project of this nature were adhered to strictly and following our visual walk thru of the project again last Wednesday we observed no workmanship or quality problems from our inspection. We also reviewed the Mady drlveway in the field and found it to be very acceptable. There was a question as to cars backing out of the driveway that were scraping as they backed into the street. The car we used was a full sized vehicle and also had an extended trailer hitch. We backed out of the driveway in and out several times and did not scrape on the street so apparently it was at least for the vehicle we used, which we thought would be a typical large slzed vehlcle, dld not create a problem backing in and out. Mayor Chmiel: Was that a 4 x 4 or regular car vehicle? Charles Folch: This was a regular 4 door sedan type car vehicle with a trailer hitch. They also questioned the method of assessment which was previously addressed wlth the split. In addition the assessment terms are consistent with other projects that we've had in the city. Mr. Don King objected to the assessment amount and method. There was also a questlon he had on the length of frontage for his property and we've discussed this with Mr. King and we've basically arrlved at a tangent footage which ls acceptable to the City and to Mr. King which fairly represents the footage he has on the roadway. There was also a question on Klowa Circle as to some damage that was done due to the contractor allegedly, Kiowa Circle was originally included in this project but was deleted at the tlme of the orderlng of the project. In preparing the feasibility study Kiowa Circle was found to be substandard tn terms of it's structural capacity and in need of repair. In our opinion any construction 21 City Council Hee(ing -, September 9, 1991 vehicles that use this roadway did not really cause any additional problems that already existed on this roadway. The sanitary sewer repair that was undertaken on Kiowa Circle to help eliminate the inflow, infiltration problem. The pavement area that was disturbed was patched with the same existing section that they had on the road and we observed that even through one cycle of winter here that even that patch is failing, It's just poor subsoils in that area. And we also observed Mr. King's driveway which was also overlaid under private contract and it appears that the problems that he is experiencing are on the private sector of the driveway which again we don't really have any authority or jurisdiction over. Mayor Chmiel: The same contractor that was there who did a portion of the City is tile same contractor that probably did the driveway as well. Charles Folch: That's correct. It was done all at one time. Mr. Ed C. Jordan objected to the assessment amount on such a small parcel. Thls agaln is a pie shaped lot if you wlll that abuts, has large frontage being on a curve. Hr. and Mrs. Joel .7enkins objected to the assessment amount by letter. We also received a letter from, a comblned letter from Mr. Joel Wlens, Mr. Gary Boyle, Mr. James Kraft, Hi'. Don Huseth, Mr. Harold Kerber and Mr. and Mrs. Steve Berquist which was all Orl the same form letter whlch was a letter slmllar to Mr. Joel Jenklns objecting to the method of assessment. We also received an objection from Mr. ~nd Mrs. Wllllam Loebl who objected to the amount of the assessment. Ouestioned the driveway quality. We also inspected the Loebl's driveway in the field and found that there was no out of the ordlnary conditions on thelr driveway. There again they also hnd some of the driveway that was constructed under private contract. What ue dld notlce is they dld have some cracks that had developed on the driveway towards ~he edge of the pavement and this we found probably occurred due to cars drlvlng close to the edge and there's no lateral support if you wlll on the ].awn to hold the blacktop in place. But ue do not feel that this ls severely impacting or damaging the integrity of the paved drlveuay surface. Hr. Loeb1 also addressed the cost of the project but was inaccurate in saying the cost or method of calculating the amounts. The watermaln costs as stated earlier was not ~ssessed. The sanltary sewer portion of the project was scaled down as suggested and was not increased lr, scale. And the fact ls, more of the work was completed under the city's infiltration program which helped to reduce the scope of thls project. That was what we accumulated of urltten and verbal responses that ue received since August 12th. One of the last items to touch upon was the handful of homes or lots whlch were ple shaped on curves and incurred large frontages on the roadway. We took a look at the situation and developed a methodology that we'd 11ke to present to you for your revlew and opinlon and comment. The method basically is derlved from a typlcal assessment method for a corner lot if you wlll which has a road improvement project on two sides. Typically under that circumstances a corner lot would incur assessment to the full frontage orl the short slde plus one-half of the dlstance of the long slde. So if you sort of use that methodology and apply that onto a curve lot radius, we looked at what was the average lot uldth on a tangent lot or stralght lot uldth if you uill oil the project and ue found that to be 110 feet wide. Therefore employing that wlth the slmllar corner lot methodology we took these pie shaped lots and proposed to assess the full 110 feet as representative of an average tangent lot plus one-half of the remaining excess footage. Thereby reducing these pie shaped lots by, in most cases, 25%. About $1,000.00 off the assessment. Last and certainly not least agaln the questlon of the 40/60 cost 22 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 split and I think we've sort of touched upon this a few times in the past. The 40X assessment for the street improvements represents costs for the road improvements which were not currently existing on the roadway such as the widening, the curb and gutter and some of the subgrade structural work that was done. So therefore there's some basis for determining that 40~ ratio. As far as storm sewer, the 50/50 cost split is city policy and it's been typically employed on projects such as this and thus we recommend standing by that. As requested again these are our responses to the relevant objections and questions we've received. At the close of tonight's discussion, if there are no further outstanding issues to be addressed or resolved, it would be staff's recommendation that the Council adopt the revised Frontier Trail Improvement Project 89-10 Assessment Roll which is dated September 3, 1991 and that the term of the assessment be set for 8 years at an 8~ interest rate. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wlshing at thls tlme to come forward and either dlscuss the issues that were brought up on each respective individual. Jim Mady: Jim Mady, 7338 Frontier Tratl. Mr. Mayor, City Council members. I'm quite distressed tonight. I'll remind you that at the August 12th meeting I asked you Mr. Mayor polnt blank if our neighborhood, the roughly 30 people who were in attendance at the meeting that night and the rest of the neighborhood would be notifled of the meetlng that was to occur so that two way communication could take place on this project. You stated it would. I saw in the paper that thls meetlng was being held so I'm here. In looking in the audlence I think there's 4 houses represented in my neighborhood. We weren't notified. I'm real upset about that. We have no knowledge of what's going on. I would have liked to have been with you when you walked down my driveway. I could have pointed out a couple of thlngs 11ke the patch that I had to make on it just to make the thing level. It's distressing to me that this is happening this way. It looks 11ke one way communication. It was brought to us that we would have two way communication on all these problems. We're not seeing it. I'd like to hear from you guys as to why all of a sudden it's here. Nobody was notlfled about it and there's 4 of us here and we're not going to get anything done. It's real obvlous. It's golng to get shoved down our throats and I'm not real happy about that. I'm not even going to address any of the comments that's being proposed to answer the assessment because I think you guys owe us notification that you promised us. That you told us was going to happen during the meeting because that's why there's no one here tonight. They didn't even know it was golng to happen. Mayor Chmiel: Did you send notification out? Don Ashworth: I'm not aware of a separate letter that went out. I guess what I was golng to look through was the Minutes. My recollection on each one of the assessment hearings that we conducted so far we stated to the people this wtll be brought back and we plcked out a particular date. No we can't make it by August whatever. It w£11 be on September whatever the particular date was. Again I would 11ke to go through those Minutes to see if I can flnd those comments or any comments from the Council that said there'd be some type of a separate notice sent out. That is not a typical procedure. I mean you have an lnltial hearing. If it is tabled to a subsequent ttme, we typically tell the people when that subsequent tlme and place will be. And again, until I can go 23 City Council Heeting -- September 9, 1991 through these, I can't tell you that that's true or not true in regards to this project. Mayor Chmiel: I know we did at that particular meeting indicate that tonight's date was going to be held. 3im Mady: You also said you were going to have a meeting inbetween time for the neighbors to get together with staff to handle the situation and discuss it. That comment was made after you guys voted to table so it may not be part of the Minutes but it was made and I k~ou it's on tape. It's on your video so you said you were going to do it. It never happened...and now all of a sudden we're hearing things. Mayor Chmiel: Flow's memory on the rest of the Council? Councilman Workman: I guess maybe what he's getting at is what I thought maybe Bill Engelhardt and staff would be approaching individual property owners about their specific problems. I don't know if that's been done. Certainly assessment questions or the assessment is too much, I don't know how much further discussion can be done on that. But individual driveways, etc., I was under the impression that we would be reviewing that personally. I don't know about a meeting that would be called but. Councilman Wing: I thought there was a neighborhood meeting going to be called because I asked to be notifled of the date. I wanted to be sure I was included. Jim Hady: That's what we were going to get. We didn't get it. Mayor Chmiel: I really don't recall what that specific. Councilman Mason: I wasn't here. Mayor Chmiel: That's an easy out. Councilwoman Dimler: I do remember we did say September 9th at that meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I recall that myself. Councilwoman Dimler: And I know that we wanted staff to address the particular concerns because I talked to Chuck in the meantime too. As far as a neighborhood meetlng, I'm assuming because people were on vacatlon it just got lost in the cracks. Jim Mady: I called staff three times the last week because...ue were going to be notified and I was told it was going through. I'm still waiting to hear from staff about my driveway. I hear tonight that my driveway's acceptable and normal. Don Ashuorth: If the Council may recall, I was not here that night. Typically we do a staff meeting following a Council meeting whlch we discuss the various follow-ups so agaln I'm not prlvy to that. We st111 have time. If thls were to be tabled 2 weeks to allow for an additional notification be sent out, opportunity for the neighbors to dlscuss, that should not be a problem. 24 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Charles Folch: I guess we should probably define tonight what the directive is. To have a meeting or just meet with the people individually. It seems like the only, from going through the Minutes that were in there, as far as related to driveway issues, it appears that most of these driveway problems are occurring on the private segment of the driveway which is beyond the construction limits of the project. The only two that were really relevant to the project we overlaid Differding and Luehr's. Those were completely redone. As far as going through the Minutes and looking at the Minutes, it didn't appear to be any other things outside of whether it's a 60/40 cost split or the methodology is what I guess appears to be the main focus here as far as I'm concerned and certainly we can have a meeting to try and address that if there appears to be again questions why we arrived at the 60/40 and such. Councilman Mason: l'm hearing two different things here. Ail the people that are here said, now Z wasn't here that night 1'11 admit. I was camping but they said there was going to be a meeting called and there was not. That to me is over and above anything else that's going on right now. I think the thing about the notification, they were told when it would be and it is in the Uillager. Notices of public hearings. Living in Carver Beach, I make a habit of reading those things even before I was in City Council. But I'm concerned. I guess 1 certainly think we should table this if they were told they were going to have a meeting and it never occurred regardless of the format of the meeting. That's just not right. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We can't table it. We can just carry it over and keep the hearing open. Councilman Wing: I don't know how to get your attention. I don't mean to cut in. I'll just reiterate my comment that I had specifically made a comment, Z think that will show in the Minutes that I be notified or that we be notified of that meeting. I wanted to know what the date was because they asked that Council members attend if possible. I remember that was an issue as I remember. But I would like to try and get this for my own piece of mind, get this into perspective for this assessment. Frontier Trail has been redone, improved. Historically it is assessed back to the property owners. I don't think there's going to be any exception in this case. There's going to be an assessment made. l'd just as soon get that established now so we don't have to fight this anymore. We're going to have, we're not going to ram it down anybody's throat but we are most likely going to pass an assessment against the property owners. I don't think there's anyway to avoid that. Z'm new on the Council. I wasn't involved in this but I'm not going to be able to say, well just put it in the general revenues. That's not going to hold water and staff isn't going to support that so as we come back into the public hearing's final stage, I think people should come in knowing there is going to be an assessment made and in all fairness there's not any way we're going to avoid it at this point. The road's there. We're not going to just ignore it. It's going to get paid for and we're going to have to be responsible for that and I think is there any question that it's going to go to those property owners. ! think we're being real fair. Everything you've touched here since 1'ye been on the Council has had the people in mind. I think it's been very fair. I see this as fair again and if we could just clean up these loose ends, I think it's going to make everybody a lot happier. And this meeting, neighborhood meeting for communication purposes is 25 City Council Heeling - September 9, 1991 probably an excellent idea in this case so I would second Mike's suggestion that Mayor Chmiel: Ursula? Councilwonlan Oimler: I have always had a problem with how the 60/40 was arrived at. I still maintain that Council never voted on it and that we discussed options but we never voted on it and I don't understand who made that declston but I do thlnk that that is probably the issue that we're gettlng at. I don't thlnk the neighbors object to paylng ail assessment but I think they would like the 70/30 versus the 60/40. Mayor Chmlel: Sure, Z would too. Councilwoman Oimler: And I did ask and you did address it somewhat in saying the overall cost addltlon would be $50,000.00 but I dldn't have the questlon answered as to can tile city afford to absorb that cost and where, out what fund would the money come? I would 11ke to see that addressed as well. I thlnk we should go ahead and have a meetlng with the residents in the fact that they have not probably seen t helr new assessment ro11. Oon Ashworth: Tabling to our next meeting, September 23rd I think is what I'm hearlng everyone say and I thlnk that's a good ldea. The questlon as to neighborhood meetlng, getting back to charles' point. I guess at this point I'm wondering if it uouldn't be better for 11ke 31m to be able to call dlrectly into Charles and set up a tlme where he could come out and meet with you rlght on tile property. I wonder how many questions we have ifa general meeting, meetlng down here is really going to meet some of these concerns or if it's not better that durlng thls two week period of tlme that the englneer go out and vlslt wlth these people on their property. I think the issues such as (he 60/40 or 70/30 are going to come back here. From a staff standpoint Z don't think we're golng to resolve those, whether it be standlng on a person's yard or sitting in thls type of a session. Does that seem acceptable? If you have a concern you would slmply. Jim Mady: The problem Don is that there were roughly 30 people here and they were expecting there was golng to be a meeting and they ~.old thelr neighbors. Nothlng's taken place and we don't know what's golng on. We don't even know, untll ~ saw what Mrs. Loeb1 had, I didn't have any idea what was being talked about tonight, z was still expecting to talk to staff and we were going to talk about this spllt. ~e were going to talk about how the Minnewashta Parkway assessment was arrlved at. We were going to talk about the situation where in the feasibility study this proposed assessment was shown and the pro~ect came under cost yet my assessment went up. I'm klnd of concerned about those kinds of question,s. I'd like to find out the answers and ~ think it's best to handle it on a neighborhood level lnstead of comlng up here and taklng up an hour of Council's tlme. ~e can get a lot of that stuff talked and discussed and... lnstead of taklng an hour and a half. Don Ashworth: Do you thlllk a 5:00 or 6:00 timeframe would be acceptable to tile neighborhood? Z guess what I'm thlnking about ls. Don King: Pretty tight, City Council Meeting - September Don Ashworth: Too early? You prefer later than that? Jim Mady: 7:00 so people can get home from work. Don King: It's almost impossible for me to get home that early, close to 7=0o would be about the best. Don Ashworth: We have Charles attending a number of night sessions. I was just trying to see if there was any way that I could, on a night when he might normally be here for Planning Commission be able to start at 6:30 or something. But we'll talk about it. You will get an individual letter. There will be a set meetlng. That's if the Council so deslres. Oon King: Mr. Mayor, may I approach? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Come on. Don King: Don King, 7200 Kiowa Circle. I just wanted to reiterate a few things here. Of course the 60/40 split and I'm glad we're going to do something about that in the meeting that Jim has brought up. Z do not accept the fact that the road construction equipment did not destroy Kiowa Circle. It did. It's obvious. There's oil. There's footprint marks from it and now just this past week somebody did something again in front of my place and tore up part of my sod and destroyed more of the street again. Down in front of where Ursula lives is where they put some blacktop down and that is even just sloughing off. I thought that was a wasted effort. It maybe was some leftover blacktop they had. So I think you need to revisit that issue. That is not done right. The other problem I've got is I've got 172 feet. You're saying anybody over 190 gets roughly 110 and I'm not quite understanding your math here completely except your tangent. So that means if I don't have 190 feet, I've got to pay from 172 instead of 110 that someone else is getting because they live on a bigger corner lot and they did both sldes so I thlnk you need to vlslt that lssue agaln also. Those are the key issues and I think this whole information thing. We started from the very beginning, all the people that 11red on Frontlet Trail. We had a lot of meetings. We met on Saturdays and everything and we in good faith have trled to stay wlth thls. I would expect you, the Council would stlck wlth us in good faith and continue to communicate. Yes we all agree we're going to pay an assessment. We have no argument over that. It's just how lt's arrlved at and we all when we go home we're happy. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. I think as, Helen? Would you 11ke to, go ahead. Helen Loeb1: I'm Helen Loeb1 from 7197 Frontier Trail. I didn't really intend talklng tonight so ! don't have any notes to refer to but this method on the circle or the curve that he's talking about, they're going to reduce those assessments ~ assume. Charles Folch: That's correct. Helen Loebl: Okay. Where does the money come from that you're reducing those assessments? 27 City Council. Heeting -- September' 9, 1991 Charles Folch: In making this proposed revision we are maintaining the 40~ assessment ratio and we are not proposing to change the previously addressed $23.95 per foot ad3ustmen~. So all of the property owners will not be increased based on thls modification. Helen Loebl: But what I'm asking Charles is where is the money, you're going to be minus x number of dollars on these people that you're glving a break to so to speak. Where ls thls break money coming from? charles Folch: Whatever is not assessed is paid for by the City. Helen Loebl: Alright. If you can give these people a break, it is just as difficult fo~' all of us with the regular sized lots ol- smaller sized lots to make these payments as it ls for the ones wlth the large lots. If you're golng to give them a break, then it is only fair that you give a break to all of us. That to me sounds 11ke a democracy. I have our foot frontage ls 78.8 feet. There cannot be a car parked in front of our how:se because of the no parklng slgn. I had a serviceman out there to do some work. He got a tlcket for parklng there. I don't have any use of the street at ali.. But then my next door nelghbor can get about a 20%--25% reduction in his assessment. Does t hls seem rlght? Well. alright, we won't go into that. There has been some comments tonlght about people who had thelr driveways done on a prlvate contractor and the City not belng responsible for it. Our driveway was disturbed I belleve it was roughly 63 to ~5 feet. The reason we determined, declded to have a new driveway put in was because we did not want 65 feet of it new and the balance of about 90 feet old. So we really dldn't have any cholce except to have Nissen do it because and we took, thought that the City had used good judgment in having Mueller who in turn should have used good judgnlent in Nissen. So for the Clty to say they don't have any concern about these private driveways, ~ don't think thls ls very nice. We took your word that we had good workmanship and good faith in the contractors you supplied us with. But I would 11ke an explanation as to why these people can get breaks and other people can't. That's it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Don King: I heard a comment on this paving thing under Hueller. I called Hr. Nissen again tonight and he swore a four letter word in the alphabet you can come up with and told me to go wherever Z wanted to go. Now that's the klnd of contractor that Hueller works with, I don't think the City wants that. Mayor Chmiel: I think you're probably right. Don King: I want my driveway taken care of whether it's private or not. 15 or 12 foot of it belongs to you the Clty and about a foot and a half lnto it on either side. If I can't drive by truck a foot and a half from the edge without hreaklng apart and not on the edge, then there's something wrong wlth that whole project. I think it really needs to be looked in total. This individual. If he can talk to Helen that way and talk to me a~d other people that way, he is not a responsible businessman. I think he ought to be banned from this city. Mayor Chmiel.' That's something we conceiveably could well do and I think I'd like to probably ask Charles to look into it because I think Helen had a good 28 City Council Heeting - September 9, 1991 point. If we get that contractor to put a certain portion of that tar in their driveways and the balance is being done by that individual, it should be done to satisfaction. T don't know what legal ramifications we have. Z don't think we have any but I think it's something we can talk to him on and see. Helen Loebl: Further about what Don sald. I have never in my life been subjected to the phone calls that I had from that Hike Nissen. He was abusive over the phone. He used words over the phone that no one should use to any other person. Very well, I won't go into any details on that but it was a most disturbing experience. They referred to the cracks in our drlveway and that it came from driving too close. No. We don't drive close to the edge of the driveway. We have qulte a wide driveway and there's only one car goes out of there at a time. There are never any cars parked in our driveway and those sldes are cracking and for the people to slt here and say well, lt's a prlvate contractor. What choice did we have? Mayor Chmiel: I realize that and I think that's something we're golng to try to address and see what we can do. Provide any pressure back to that particular contractor. Helen Loeb1: Mueller or somebody. Mueller should stand behlnd the work that he did. Mayor Chmiel: Whether or not it's going to be done or not or whether or not we can get it to your satisfaction, that's another thing but we're going to at least try. Helen Loeb1: Okay, thank you. Councilman Wing: Could I ask Charles a quick question? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this. One thing that disturbed me that I just wanted to mention on this corner lot. Hrs. Loeb1 has 78 feet. She's paylng for 78 feet. She's paylng less than the 100 foot lot and the average lot was 110. There's one corner lot Charles that had a major assessment on it because it went out and he had all the frontage. I was just wondering to be equitable here and not tmpact people in a way that's going to affect them financially that might have a corner lot like thls, if we couldn't just assess the longest lot length on one side rather than come up with some formula. That's one unlt. One house. The same servlce. He just happens to have a corner lot of 200 feet. I just wonder if it wouldn't be fair to assess the longest slde. Charles Folch: Which lot are you referring to? Councilman Wing: I couldn't dig it out now but one of the gentleman who was in here with a substantial assessment last tlme. It was one of the larger ones but it had the corner lot. I think the 7200 block roughly. That area of Frontier and even the curved lots. I think everybody ls gettlng the same servlce and whether you have a 35 or 21 foot lot is the small one up to the 160 some feet, it's just one house gettlng the same service and I agree with you're trylng to 29 City Council Meeting ,- September 9, ].991 find a formula to tone them down. I don't think we're giving one person a break and another. I think we're trying to be equitable for everyone but that corner lot is the one that stuck out. It was just a suggestion to try and assess the longest side and not try to come up with a formula for the rest of it. Charles Folch: Going back through the Minutes of the feasibility stage for this project it was very clear that the people out there, a good large majority of them brought in a petition to have the properties assessed based on a front foot basis for stre~;t and not based on a unit basis. Therefore when you have that situation you're certainly going to have property owners with longer lots than other property owners that are going to feel that they've been unfairly assessed. There's both methods of assessing for street improvement are certainly acceptable. It's a matter of which one we prefer or the majority prefer that ue use. We're going on based on what the majority had presented during the feasibility and that was presented as a front foot basis for street. Mayor Chmiel; Alright. Okay, thank you. I would like to have a motion to continue the public hearing to. Councilwoman Dimler: Can I make one comment? Mayor Chmie].: Certainly. Go ahead. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to address the comments by Hr. King and to clarify a point here that Kioua Circle was originally included in the project and was deleted because it created an additional $85,000.00 cost to the overall project and it only benefitted four properties. So everyone else would have had to pay, your assessment would have been higher in other words if it hadn't been taken out. But I also fi,d it kind of curious that they say the road was substandard at the time, and ~ agree it is, but then that's all the more reason [o me not to park ~his heavy construction equipment on it because it just makes sense that that would crack up the road more than the cars and the vans and even if you have pick--up trucks. The heavy equipment that they parked there definitely did do damage so I disagree with that statement. I also would like to point out that Hueller and Sons have been parking their equipment on Kiowa Circle even as late as 3 months ago and they continue to use that street as a place to park their equipme~t and I don't know what project they're working on. I know they're not working on Frontier Trail so I would like the City to notify Mueller and Sons that they can no longer park their heavy equipment there because our street is being damaged. Mayor Chmiel: ~gai[1, I'd like to have a continuation of the public hearing to, rather and I said September 23rd, to October 14th. That would allow enough time for staff to get togetl~er with each of the individual people and hopefully resolve that specific problem that exist and a letter will be sent to each ind£vidual property owner setting up a meeting with Charles, either individually or as however Charles feels he can accomplish this. So we'll have a motion to continue. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Wing: second. 30 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Frontier Trail Assessment Roll, Project 89-10 until the October 14, ].991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Helen Loebl: When is that meeting? Mayor Chmiel: October 14th and you'ii get a notification prior to that to sit down with staff regarding some of the problems. AWARD OF BIDS: SOUTH LEG TRUNK HIGHWAY 101, PRO3£CT )0-2o, Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, August 12th bids were recelved and opened for the south leg TH 101 realignment improvement project No 90-20. The confirmed low bidder is Wm. Mueiler and Sons, Inc. at a total contract bid of $402,540.85. This is approximately 18~ higher than the revised engineer's estimate and after further investigation we found the primary reason for thls lncrease was due to the cost of the granular borrow. Evidentally the material available has to come from some distance and a15o I think most of the contractors were a little uncertain about weather conditions they mlght experience this Fall in trying to get the project done in time. Also as a part of thls bid proposal each bidder was asked to submit an alternate pricing for postponing of the wearcourse paving until 1992 should late Fall weather construction not be favorable to complete. Wm. Mueller's bld for thls work was an additional $4,000.00. As we mentioned previously, we previously talked about the basis for dolng this temporary road improvement is to number one, allow MnDot or enable MnOot to redesignate TH 101 out of the downtown area vla the Dakota Avenue/TH $ and Market Blvd.. Also with the uncertainty of the construction of the TH 212 improvement project which would then construct the permanent TH 101 section, not knowlng a definite timeframe for thls improvement, TH 101 could stay in it's present condition for another $ or 10 years. It's not known at this tlme. So given that need and the commitment that the City has made to both MnDot, Carver County and Hennepin County to do this temporary construction project, we feel it is still a cost benefit to the city to proceed with the project. Therefore it is recommended that the City Council award the South Leg TH 101 Realignment Project No. 90-20 to Wm. Mueller and Sons at a contract amount of $402,540.85 with an alternate bid price of $4,000.00 for paving the wearcourse in 1992. We would contingent upon receiving the remaining outstanding agency permits which MnOot, Carver County and DNR by September 20, 1991. The significance of September 20th is that we still feel that if we receive the permit approvals by that time and can allow the contractor to start approximately within that timeframe, the project could still be completed this year. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: I hope they're not going to ask Mike Nissen to do the work. Mayor Chmlel: No, but I notice it's Mr. Mueller. Councilman Mason: Well that caught my eye too. Councilman Workman: I guess that's my baslc question. What's wrong with this plcture so soon after our discussions on Frontier Trail? I think the next bid 31 City Cou~lcil MeoWing - September ~ ].991 was like $9,000.00 more or something. Charles Folch: That's correct. Councilman Workman: What kind of conditions can we put in there to guarantee that we're not going to have a problem with this? Obviously it's a different roadway system and won't be deallng with so many individual neighbors but how do we gel tile point across to them that you've got a problem with ~ubcontractor$? CharJ. es Folch: We can certainly point that out to them at the pre-conference. Although I do feel personally that the problems associated with Frontier aren't cllrectly related to the work that they've done or thelr intentions to perform satisfactorily on ti'lo project. In fact, Wm. Mueller is currently dolng the ?gth Street project and they're doing a very good job at lt. Councilman Workman: I guess I would, I don't know how much we can discuss this. I would hlghly doubt that Mr. Nlssen would be dolng a whole lot more work in the city if we know about. But secondly I guess I would like to make it a part of the approval that Mueller and Sons selection of subcontractors in the future could serious1/ put in jeopardy his abillty ~o get contracts in this community too. Please lndicate to them that we have to put up wlth bad decisions. Bad business practLces of developers all over and contraclors and somehow I guess I'd 11ko that polnt made out. We do I'd say mlllions of dollars of business ulth Mueller and Sons and I'd like them to know some of the emotions that we have to go through even though we don't have a whole lot of options wlth selectLng ~ higher bidder, Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Tom. Anyone else? Ursula. Councilwolnan Dilnlert I have a question on this is 18~ over the engineer's estimate and the reasons glven are that because of the granular borrow has to be brought in from a long distance. Is there not a closer supplier is my number one question. Number two talks about the uncertainties of the Fall weather conditions. We h,~ve that all the time. I mean that's just part of the contracting game. I don't understand why that would have to increase the cost. ~ wonder if we can go back to them and tell them we didn't accept those two conditions and if they could come in with another bid. Charles Folch: Those two issues weren't really conditions of their bid. In ].ooking at all the blds that were received, all but one were in the same ballpark price for the granular borrow. The only contractor who was lower than the rest of the pack happened to be Sharer Contracting becuase they had a source, their own source closer by and of course they're currently mobilized hero on the TH 5 project. They however were significantly higher on thelr overall bid and thus were not recommended for this project. As far as weather conditions in the Fall, it's been my experience that Fall projects typically do have a factor of cost added into them that the contractor feels comfortable wlth to protect them in case of rain delays, because they're obligated under this contract to complete under a certain timeframe. If he cannot do so, there's liquidated damages that can be lncurred that the CJ. ty can recoup. Therefore they have to protect their interest and this is naturally a cost factor that they bulld lnto thelr prlclng. It's not spelled out in any one particular 1tom. 32 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 It's not a condition of their submittal bid. It's just a relative notice that you can take on the cost of the prices for the work items. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and then I wanted to ask you too. I know I called you on this today. We're talking about spending over $400,000.00 for a temporary road here. Could you just explain to those that may be interested in what uill happen to that road £n the future. Is it going to be a total loss of $400,000.00 or ls there some way that we can recoup some beneflt? Charles Folch: Well I guess at this point in time that may be a difficult questlon to answer glven that the exlstlng road lsa temporary, or the exlsting TH 101 is a temporary trunk highway. If and when MnOot decides to give back the road and to whlch agency, local, clty or Carver County or whomever, that will sort of dictate, have a blg impact on what future needs and services the road is going to be deslgned to handle and that will affect the design for any future improvements. At this point it's not know. The total project is about 1,400 lineal feet of roadway of which about 100 feet w111 remain as permanent continuing on from the existing permanent section adjacent to the Rosemount plant. I don't know if that adequately addresses your questlon but there's too many unknowns at this point in time to really determine who, number one is going to have the jurisdiction over the hlghway in the future, and then two, what needed improvements, will be incurred. At this time it's going to be constructed to a rural sectlon whlch will enta11 ditches. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Mayor Chmlel: Anyone else? Councilman Wlng: Z'd just like to follow up Ursula's questlon a little bit. Until such tlme that this project is ready for a total completion, north and south TH 101, why not just leave it alone? Why are we worrled about anythlng right now? Why not just do this when it's ready? Not even be bothered at this polnt. I don't see any trafflc lssues involved. You could clean up the curves on south TH 101 if you really wanted to do something constructive. For now leave it alone untll we're ready to do the project and do it permanently. Charles Folch: I guess that's a decision you know. Mayor Chmlel: What does this really do to us Charles if we were to just let this sit as opposed to waiting to finalize the balance of the rest of TH 1017 Would we get a better bld flrst of all because there's more work going to be there? Charles Folch: I suppose quantity is typically, quantity of work typically does tend to give you an opportunity to get better pricing. The only advantage I guess to doing it now ls to get it completed and get the redesignation out of the downtown as quickly as we can. Don Ashworth: I thlnk that's the key issue. As a part of the negotiations with the State we agreed to redesignate TH 101 and to literally take it out of the downtown. To carry out construction from the east end which includes the apartment building, Taco, Red-E-Mix, that leg. They would then redesignate that trafflc all the way down TH 5 to Market Blvd. whlch would then be redestgnated 33 City Council Meeting -September 9, 1991 as TH 101 and would move down and get rid of at least a number of those curves as they cu'r'rently exist north of the bridge because the touchtone point on this is the bridge. So all the curves north of the bridge and the bridge itself get taken care of. Councilman Wing: 4utomatically on this project? Don Ashuorth: Right, because you've already constructed half of it as it goes down to the entry of Rosemount. So now it's from the entry of Rosemount to the bridge. The other issue is that although only 100 feet is considered as permanent and I agree with charles' statement that you don't know specifically what future demands might be, Z don't recall any roadway that we have built to a rural section, meaning it has the ditches and then you have the pavement section and then another ditch. ~hen the final roadway has come in, Audubon, Lyman, I don't care which roadway it happens to be. CR ~?. There's been additional costs as the ditches have been filled in but I'm unaware of any time that we've simply gone in and totally wiped out the subbase of the road and all of the paving, etc.. So I cannot tell you that out of the $500,000.00 that we're going to be wasting $50,000.00 or $100,000.00, but I do know that we're not going to waste $500,000.00. I mean the roadway and the subbase, etc., in all likelihood wil]. continue to be used. Filling in of ditches may be a question. Councilman Wing: And what's the penalty if we don't get the designation? Don Ashworth: I'm fearful of that because again I'm really worried about that the agreements tha~ we basically have entered into with the State could say that we wlll carry out that jolnt project along TH 5. That ue wlll carry out the reconstruction of TH 101 north of TH 5 and that we will carry out the improvement south of TH 5. The other factor was if the project can move ahead thls Fall, we look to having the least amount of conflict wlth Sharer and that whole TH 5 contract because they're taklng down the intersections and if we can get this segmen[ of TH 101 up and operational, we don't have to be concerned that old TH 101 and CR 17 and then Harket are all taken out at the same time at which time the Fire Department comes in here and says, hey we can't get down to Rosemount. The employees can't get to Rosemount. So we were really pushlng to get this work done yet this Fall so we did not end up with those double conflicts t hls next sprlng. Councilman Wing: I think there's a clear public safety hazard on old TH 101. With the completion of this new portion then, that will immediately be abandoned? That wlll cease to exlst at that polnt? We won't be responding to personal injury accidents on those curves anymore? Don Ashuorth: TH 101 will become, new TH 101 will become the primary route but you do have a small road section there. I don't thlnk that the road can be totally abandoned. There are like four homes that are just south of the ~ gas station in there. I think ue need to continue the service there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Workman: I move approval of award of bids for South Leg Trunk Highway 101 Project No. 90-20. 34 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to have the South Leg Trunk Highway 101 Realignment Improvement Project 90-20 to Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. for the contract amount of $402,540.85 with an alternate price of $4,000.00 for pavlng the wearcourse in 1992 contingent upon receiving the remaining outstanding agency permits. Resolution ~91-87: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the South Leg Trunk Highway 101 Realignment Improvement Project 90-20 to Wm. Hueller and Sons, Inc. for the contract amount of $402,540.85 with an alternate price of $4,000.00 for paving the wearcourse in 1992 contingent upon receiving the remaining outstanding agency permits by September 20, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF AD3USTHENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 35 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 3 DECKS (AFTER THE FACT), 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE~ RON HARVIEUX. Paul Krauss: As you indicated the applicants are appealing a denial from the Board of Adjustments for the lake setback variance for the three decks that were constructed. The applicant obtained a permit for the first deck which had an 80 foot setback from the lake, 75 feet being the required setback. He then called for additional inspections. He built on two additional decks and the building inspection department erroneously gave additional inspections which seems to have led the property owner to believe that they were acceptable. Before the decks were completed the building inspectors realized their error. There was a stop work order posted and a variance was applied for. Staff reviewed the matter. Looked for neighborhood standards that might permit some deviance from ordinance requirements and really couldn't substantiate one. We also checked with the DNA, since the DNR shoreland regs come into play here. We came in with a recommendation to the Board that we allow the second deck to stay, which had a 75 foot setback. A 5 foot variance but we're recommending that the third deck be removed. I think we have to acknowledge that the inspectors did make an error on this. They caught it. They caught it too late. There is some financial expense involved. The 8oard voted to approve it but the approval failed on a 2 to ! positive vote. It needed a unanimous decision and consequently it's being appealed to you. There's been some discussion about the DNR's interest in this and are you're aware, there's a letter in our original packet and I think you've got a revised letter tonight, where the ONE says that they reserve the rlght to undertake legal actlon to have the Clty enforce our setback variances. There was some indications at the Board of Adjustments meetlng that the DNR did not in fact have the rlght to do that. The Clty Attorney has researched that further. We believe the ONR does have the right for legal recourse and Roger can explaln that further. However, I've got to say we think it's pretty unlikely. Given our relationship with the ONR, given the nature of thls, I would suspect lt's pretty unlikely that they would pursue it to that end. In any case, Mr. Beck, the applicant's attorney has indicated that they are w1111ng to undertake any legal liability should the DNR pursue it. Based upon all thls, staff is continuing to bring forward our original recommendation that the second deck be allowed to stay and the thlrd not. However we do realize that there's some significant extenuating circumstances wlth thls. With the building inspectors having gone out there. It's a rather 35 City Council Meeting -. September 9, 1991 unfortunate situation. We've been assured that their procedures have been changed so this would not in fact happen again but it's one of those tough situations where we're asked to deal with a situation that has occurred. In view of the fact that, well that there was a positive recommendation, although it failed at the Board of Adjustments, we have given you conditions and findings should you wish to approve all three decks tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Paul. Has the applicant seen the letter that we've gotten back from DNR? Paul Krauss: We just got that faxed to us this evening. We gave it to Mr. Beck. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. P~ter Beck: Mr. Hayor, members of the Council. My name is Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. In answer to your question, yes. Staff provided me with a copy of that BMR letter as I came in this evening. And I might say first of all that I never said the DNR doesn't have the right to bring an action. What I said is they have no ~,ore right than any other citizen, which I think is the case and is in fact what this letter says. ~lthough I don't want to dare them to do it, I concur with Paul. I think it very unlikely that they would and that is why Mr. Harvieux offered as a condition to this variance that he would defend it if the BMR did bring ~n action. I think Paul in the staff report has the background pretty accurately. It's not a situation where somebody went out with an intent to violate the Code. Mr. Harvieux came in and asked what he needed to do to build a deck and he was told he needed a permit. He applied for the permit. Unfortunately, he's doing this on his own and he didn't really have a complete plan. He vas kind of deciding what he wanted to do as he went and by his failure [o understand he needed subsequent permits and his failure to understand the 75 foot setback applied to the decks, he went ahead and kept building into the setback and then as Paul pointed out, staff, the building inspectors erred in inspecting without a plan or permit and erred in approving construction within the setback. So it's a mutual mistake if you will but the result is that as a result of the incorrect procedures that were followed, the deck is there and it would be a great hardship to have to remove it. And I guess we feel real strongly that this is an appropriate hardship under the variance standards where the applicant, the property owners is put into a positiol~ of hardship as a result of city action or inaction. We don't feel that there'd be any precedent set here as Paul pointed out. The procedures that the inspections department have been corrected so that this doesn't happen again. Hopefully it won't. ~s long as it doesn't, there's no precedent here. That's the technical stuff on hardship. We think the standard is met but ue also wouldn't expect you to approve something that would be harmful to Lotus Lake. have some pictures that I'll pass around. The first 4 pictures are of this deck. As you know, it is up. There's just the one small section of rail that isn't installed so what you see here is what you'll see if the variance is approved. And what you see is nothing. Because there's a large willow tree and some other big trees and vegetation, it just isn't visible. I've got a second set of pictures of other similar structures around the lake and we present these not on the theory that two wrongs make a right if you will. Because there's other decks or boat houses we should have one. 8ut we present these just so you know that this deck, as visible as it isn't, is not out of character. It's not 36 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 an abberation on Lotus Lake. The first of these pictures, the picture on top is the property next door uhtch does have a boat house and a deck attached to the boat house. Again, we're not suggesting that it's there Improperly. We're only suggesting that it is there and that th£s deck would not be £nconsistent with that property or the other properties around the lake. The other pictures are just different... Those pictures and I think most of the Council members are familiar with Lotus Lake and many I think have had a chance to visit this property. In terms of visibility, visual impact, aesthetic impact, this deck just isn't going to hurt the lake. Hore importantly, tt's not going to have any adverse impact on the Iake on water quality. As a matter of fact, the deck is covering an old septic system location and a bunch of clay and unsightly soil and will have some positive impact for this property in terms of aesthetics for this property. The DNR position is certainly well stated in their two letters. Again, the important thing is that they aren't making this decision. They aren't holding the public hearing. They haven't heard testimony. They are not annointed as the decision maker. The decision, it's a locai decision. It's a decision of this Council. I don't mean to suggest that their view should be ignored but I do mean to suggest that the reason these are local decisions is because the local decision makers have a better feel for what are the equities here. What is appropriate and what isn't and I think that's the decision that the Council has. One thing I did.want to mention is that the agenda indicates this as a 35 foot variance. It is not. It's about a 17 foot variance from the 75 foot setback. Is that correct Paul? The staff report says 17. Paul Krauss: Yes, that's correct. Peter Beck: But if there was any confusion, it's not a 35. One more point. In terms of balancing and weighing the BNR's position on this. Under the BNR reguiations, this deck wouid be aIIowed if it was detached. It wouid be aiiowed anywhere in the 75 foot setback area if it was detached from the house as wouId a gazebo, a screened house, fish house, a boat house. So again, when you're validating the DNR's position on this, I think you should keep in mind, under thelr own regs, something much more vlslble, much closer to the water would be permitted under their own regulations and we have suggested as a condition of approval, I might mentlon. All the conditions recommended by staff are agreeable to the Harvieux's and one of those lnclude, in fact I think they're all ones that we've suggested but the one we did suggest ts that they would waive any right to a detached deck or fish house, boat house. That sort of thtng if they could not have to tear down the deck. That I believe ls lt. The Harvleux's are here of course if there are any questions about the request. Appreciate your time. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else wanting to address this issue at this particular time? Councilman Hason: I'll volunteer. If the City had not made the mistake initiaIly I wouId vote that it needs to come down but I have a very hard time asking these folks to tear down something that you essentialIy, from what I'm hearing on both sides, you certa£nIy didn't mean to infringe or encroach. As has been said, the inspection process has been changed and it won't happen again, I don't see this as precedent setting. I certainIy wouId, with the Findings of Facts we have here, I personally think it shouId stay. 37 City CoLmnC.i.], Meeting - Septelnber 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Workman: My comments, the Harvieux's and Peter know where I'm sitting. I was one of the 2 who voted to approve it. I think it's merely here before us just because Carol wanted to give it one more shot so Council was aware. Not to give away the intent of her vote but I think it was apparent to most of us that it was a little late to be reverse inspecting. Councilman Wing: Welt with me that makes a quorum and I would move acceptance of this variance. Mayor Chmiel: We have two other' people yet to comment. Councilman Wing: Well can you take that into discussion? That happen in the discm~ssion phase or do you want to go down the 11ne? Mayor Chmiel: Let's go down the line. Councilman Wing: I agree with what's been said. I think the owner's are sincere. I think they did not do this intentionally. Z will say in general terms, I thlnk the City...out of 11ne if we want to look at the ordinance but then to detach it and still allow it, it gets to be sort of. Paul Krauss: That's a DNR regulation. It's not the City regulation. We would maintain the 75 foot setback, Councilman Wing: And I agree and I'm really concern about that and even in this case. The toss of that ?$ foot setback does concern me but with tile mitigating circumstances, T don't [tlink we should request that that be taken out. I would like to make one comment though. That meeting after meeting we're spending a lot of time on decks, and this ls for staff. It's specifically, not the manager and planner but our city inspectors I'd like to have notified. Mr. Hart. To me there's some big lssues in thls clty and one of them rlght now to me ls TH 5. Tile corridor task force and so on and so forth and we don't seem to have a lot of time to talk about that but we wind up a lot of tlme on variances and decks. Let's get these ordinances tighten up but let's get this, z think we've got a lot of inspection staff right now, if not excessive at thls polnt. T mean thlngs are down. Let's get the inspection staff up to speed so these mistakes don't happen. So these problems don't occur so we don't have to deal with them at tile Council level because I'm getting tired of being here late nlghts on these issues and not gettlng some of the really major issues that Z feel are more significant in tile city. So thank you. Councilman Workman: At the next Board of Adjustments we have 5 variances. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess just to comment on just exactly what Dick said. I know that years ago when I sat on the Board of Adjustments an Appeals, at that tlme I would already have liked an ordll~an~e in place that said anyone that bullds a deck without gettlng a permlt, here's the procedure. We st111 don't have that in place because this would certainly help in this case. I do acknowledge that the Clty dld make a mistake and I apologize to the Harvleux's. I think it's unfortunate but it does happen. I think this is a real tough situation but I do have my doubts that they dldn't, were completely unaware that the permit might be a little, that they were a 11ttle bit out of line in that 38 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 they assumed that the permit covered three decks. Now I can see one and two is stretching it. But I think three, that causes me to doubt. It leaves me ~ith some serious doubts. Although I'd have to compliment them for, I'm told that when they were told to stop work, they did and I congratulate them for that because I think it does show that they were working in good faith with the City. So no~ I've told you what I think on both sides of the issue here. I think it's really unfortunate but I think my bottom line is that ! don't think the City should take a chance to be involved. I don't think it's a proper way for the city to do business and I think that we're leaving ourselves vulnerable. So I would recommend denial. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess my turn. I was one of the three that voted for this particular project at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In fact I, in the event that it dldn't go through I offered to buy the balance of the wood for the deck so I could finish putting mine up. But it's one of those things that, that really happened and we did dlscuss it. But, I had one concern really wlth it. What happens if someone does this intentionally? I know what happens because we made the other person take a deck down. How can we eliminate these kinds of problems ks what I'm really getting at. How can we stop these from occurring? I know that their lntent was as such and I do believe them because as they progressed with that deck, it is a nice deck as well. But I guess I get to a polnt of thinking, what or how, if someone decides to start dolng this, how do we really stop it? What recourses are we going to take? In thts particular case I don't have any real, I have a feeling about it but I guess I st111 understand their position. Also in the event that the Oepartment of Natural Resources decldes to go through thelr process, I don't want the Clty to be tied in with any of those litigation. I don't know if it's proper or not Roger but I thlnk I would like to get a hold harmless clause if it's appropriate for this so we do not become involved in this. It's between, even though the City's going to challenge us, the applicant ls wllling to accept those respeotlve costs. Roger Knutson: That's listed as condition 6 of the proposed Findings and decision. If this is adopted by the Council, the next step would be to incorporate this into the variance form and they would have to sign a consent agreement to this. Mayor Chmiel: That's my only concern because I don't intend to defend the applicant's position with the DNR. Nor do I feel the City should waste those dollars. Okay, any other discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: I do have a question. There is a mention that the deck covers an old septlc site and that was one of the reasons given that it lmproves the property. Is it deck number 1, 2 or 3? Mayor Chmiel: Three. Councilwoman Oimler: It is three? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. In fact that's one of the points that I brought up because of the erosion, having that deck where it's at and there's a steep embankment. Thls has tendencies to alleviate any of the runoff from that particular area and cause some erosion and having that going directly into the lake as well. No 39 C~ty Council Meeting --September' 9, 1991 other discussion, I'll call a question. All those in favor say aye? Ha¥or Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Vartance Request ~91-g for a 17 foot shoreland setback variance to the 75 foot requirement conditioned upon the following: 1. Applicant obtain a building permit for entire deck. 2. All corrections, if any, required by Building Inspections Division to the exlstlng deck be completed prlor to completing construction. 3. Deck not be used until final inspection has been successfully completed. 4. No portlon of the deck uithln the 75 foot setback area be enlarged or added on to any time in tile future. 5. No water orlented accessory structures, J. ncluding boat houses, gazebos, screened houses eT' detached decks, utll be allowed on the property unless and until that portion of the attached deck ulthln the 75 foot setback area is removed. The applicants indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, suit, judgment, damage o~- cost tile City may 1hOUr, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of approving thls variance. ~]1 voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmie].: Maybe we'd best also indicate that that be consistent with all the requirements of the conditions contained uithln. Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, could I make a motion then that we direct staff to get rlght to deallng wlth the procedure that helps us to deal with after the fact construction of any sort? Mayor Chmiel: I'd like Lo see us try to avoid some of that maybe by having some kind of publications in the paper. Making people aware and also probably in our newsletters that we send out making people aware of the fact that there are permits required for decks ~nd specific requirements. ~ know ~ just had gone through thls same process ulth the clty for the one I'm puttlng up. Councilwoman Oimler: I'm just saying that if we had a procedure in place, it would make it so much easier for us to just go down the line. Would that be a problem? Paul Krauss: Well I'm not sure how you deal with a unlform procedure for all the variety of thlngs that come up. I mean this one, you know the building inspectors had some culpablJlty wlth thls but we've seen so many of them where were not even brought in to us until the thing's up and it's an after the fact sort of thing. ~ think you've come down much harder on those for obvious reasons. I'm not sure how you would differentiate between them. 4O City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Well how about just certain guidelines and still give Council some ability to vary according to the situation. But to have certain guidelines in place. Paul Krauss: Well one thlng you mlght also want to consider too and I'll leave it to Roger to put it in legalese but we deal with some very complex ordinances and we have enforced them to the best of our abillty and we're sometimes wrong. We try to correct our mistakes and simply because we did make a mistake doesn't mean that the ordinance ls lnvalld or that the thing that we had a problem with is improper. We have tried to put individual residents on notice about building permits. Every spring now for the past two years we've run articles in the Villager and I think this year we had in our local newsletter as well, since we have that now, we have a really neat picture that shows a deck that was built without a permit that fell off the house. So we do try to get the word out. Mayor Chmiel: Alrlght, thank you. Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, sorry. I'd just Iike to confirm that the motion was to adopt that draft resolution wlth the Flndlngs and conditions? Mayor Chmiel: That's what the motion was, yes and I just reiterated it to make sure. Peter Beck: Alrlght. If we end up defending this, the Findlngs would be important to us. CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUEST: NO PARKING ON YUHA ROAD AN~ WOODHILL DRIVE. Councilman Mason: Incidentally, I had nothing to do with this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We're going to just move that to the Admin Sectlon. LUNDGREN/ORTEN~LAT/ERSBO SUB~TVISION REQUEST, WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. A. REZONIN6 REQUEST FROH RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) ANP RSF (RESIDENTIAL SIN6LE FAHILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPHENT). B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE F~J4ILY LOTS. C. gETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER GLAss A AND ~ #ETLANDS. Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord Richard Sathre Frank Svoboda Harry & Nada Murphy Mr. & Mrs. 3im Ravis Ted Coey Joe Morin Eric Rivkln Ed 3annusch Lundgren Bros. Sathre-Berquist Wildlife Expert 1215 Lake Lucy Road 666 Old Powers Blvd. 1381 Lake Lucy Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road 1695 Steller Court 6831 Utica Terrace 41 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Paul Krauss' Hr. Mayor as you indicated, the proposal would result ir, subdividing a 30 acre site into 37 single family tots. Two of those lots would be occupied by existing homes, the Ersbo and the Ortenblat homes. The balance would be available for new construction. Access is to be provided by a loop street extending from one end to the other to Lake Lucy Road around that large DNR wetland. The site incorporates two underlying parcels as I indicated. The Ersbo site, which has been the subject of two previous plats that the City's approved but have never been developed, and the Ortenblat parcel which was one of the many parcels incorporated into the MUSA line with the Metro Council's action in Hay. Development of a single family plat on this site is fully consistent with city plans and policies and would not normally be a terribly complex matter. However in this case the level of the complexity greatly increased for two reasons. The site contains a series of Class A and Class B wetlands. Secondly, staff has worked extensively with the developer to attempt to utilize the latest technology to protect the wetlands and actually hopefully improve water quality over the existing situation which does have some problems while building attractive residential neighborhood. In a lot of respects these practices that us'ye adopted or proposing to adopt are on the cutting edge for us and for most communities in the Twin Cities. In essence us're holding this project to a higher standard than ue have in the past and we think that based upon what we know today, that's fully reasonable to do but it makes it a little more difficult. We have to feel our way through it. Due to the need to utilize some flexibility in development standards and our belief that an unusually high quality project should result from this project, ue ultimately recommended that this be developed as a PUD. We initially tried to do it as a straight subdivision and it really didn't work. There were just too many things that we had to squeeze and modify to make this thing work in an effective and efficient manner. It must be stressed however that the purpose of this PUD is not to permit undersized lots. We've had a history of problems in the city with PUD's developing on undersized lots. There haven't been many in recent years but it's been a source of a lot of our variance problems. In fact the Planning Commission which approved a new PUD ordinance has yet to approve a PUD ordinance specifically designed for undersized lot PUD's. They're still working on that. But the lots in this project are not undersized in any way. In fact the average lot size is over 31,000 square feet and when you eliminate the wetland area, the average lot size is 2.1,000 square feet which is still considerably in excess of our 15,000 square foot lot area standard. The PUD will allow some flexibility in lot dimension, home setback and street standards. In exchange ue believe ue get a well planned project by a developer who's got a good track record in our community. In addition we get permanent tree preservation areas. That's one of the new things we're trying on this project that we've actually blocked out areas where there's significant stands of trees and would put conservation easements around them so they'll be permanently protected. We've had a series of problems where we've desired tree protection plans and we get them written into the project but t he~ when somebody builds a house on it, they just build whatever- house they want ~o build and we lose all the trees. In this case the lot would be sold with the full knowledge that there's a conservation easement protecting those trees and you simply can't build in there. In addition we also get extensive project landscaping, preservation of a buffer strip around the wetlands which again is newer but it's commonly accepted technology now. ~nstead of having the straight 75 foot wetland setback, what we're doing is having a variable setback that would also protect permanently a buffer yard beyond the wetland proper which the DNR and most of the agencies tell us is a lot more 42 City Council Meeting - September effective than a simple straight setback that will allow somebody to sod along right up to the wetland edge and cause problems that way. We also believe we get higher architectural standards and a sensitive wetland and water quality protection program. We're also able to incorporate the Ersbo plat into this project which I don't know if you all remember the Ersbo plat but the plats were pretty well designed to fit that site but the site by itself is not a very attractive one and probably would not have resulted in nearly as high a quality of housing that I think is going to result from this. By incorporating the Ersbo plat into this project we think we get a uniformally better quality of project than we would have otherwise so we regard that as an advantage. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at the July 17th meeting and after extensive discussion they did recommend approval but asked that several areas be further researched. Staff has also used the time to refine our review of the wetland and water quality issues as well as getting feedback from all the agencies that we could find that we felt would be interested in this. As I indicated earlier, their approach to the wetlands is pretty creative and we think it's pretty much on the cutting edge and we'd be very supportive of that and wouldn't want to do otherwise but it has made it more difficult. It has taken more time to work with the agencies and get their feedback. In our current memo to the City Council we've attempted to respond to each of the questions that were raised tonight and I won't spend a lot of time on that but I'll just touch on that briefly. With regard to wetland and water quality issues, we've been informed by the DNR, Army Corps and Watershed Districts that they uill approve the plans as proposed. Some changes in the original proposal include limiting the increased wetland depth to the present 1 foot. Original proposals was to raise it 2 feet. The ONE wasn't sure that that really resulted in that much of an improvement. Because of some blockage in the outflow of this wetland, right now the wetland is 1 foot higher than it was originally. Our City Engineer has some concerns that raising the water elevation further might actually undermine the subgrade of Lake Lucy Road so we're settling on the l foot increase in the depth of the wetland which all concerned believe will better support wildlife than the existing situation. Will better support a variety of wetland vegetation and habitat. The outlet structure, the DNR has requested a variable outlot structure so that we can raise and lower the elevation of the wetland and get the plant material to establish better and alter in the future if need be, that is going to be incorporated. We spoke to Bonestroo who's a firm working with the city on the surface water utility program. You know we don't have standards yet developed for water quality but there are consultants working with us on developing these plans and they've already got experience in working on similar projects in Union and Maple Grove which are a little bit ahead of us on the water quality aspect. They made some recommendations to us that we carried forward here. They felt that the three Walker Ponds. The concept of the Walker Ponds to improve water quality is an accepted strategy. Bonestroo however felt that using three small ponds was not an effective approach and would have maintenance problems for the city. They did recommend deletion of the southern pond which is in this area right over here and an expansion in the pond that's over on Lot 2. Basically, not only expanding that pond for that purpose but also to try to run some of the Lake Lucy Road drainage through the Walker Pond. What we've got out there is a situation where the wetland appears to be fairly significantly degraded before developments OCCUrred. But keep in mind the developer has not done anything yet but there are water quality problems. Now some of that may stem from historic use of that area for agriculture. Some of it stems from upstream development. 43 City Council Heeting -- Septembe¥ 9, 1991 Dumping nutrients into the site. Some of it stems from Lake Lucy Road itself where the salts which apparently contain some phosphates as well are flushing right off the street and into the system. So what we're proposing to do is to capture a portion of those Lake Lucy Road flowages and run .it through an expanded pond with the goal that the total flouage through that area should be of a higher quality than it is today. We reviewed revised access plans at the west curb cut to save so,~e trees and I've got a series of documents. I'll put that up later if need be. There's a very significant stand of trees there and there's really only i or 2 good places to come out on Lake Lucy Road for the west entrance. The applicant spent a good bit of time trying to develop a plan that's the most sensitive to protecting those trees as possible but the Planning Commission wanted us to explore the idea of realigning the road so it sits on the Ortenblat driveway believing that that would be less destructive. We did look at alternatives to do that. What we found was that there was only a nominal improvement in saving the trees and in exchange for that we lost some of the bigger trees. In addition, doing that would wind up filling part of the ONR wetland. Now the DNR doesn't normally allow you to fill wetlands but they said if you could really demonstrate that you had substantial tree preservation they might consider it. Based upon what we know today, I don't think we could sell them on that. I think there was a net benefit of 40 caliper inches of trees which is hardly substantial enough to allow filling of a wetland, I don't believe anyway. An approved landscaping plan has been prepared. However we do have several changes or additions to that which were being recommended that we carried forward through the Planning Commission. Access and ut£1itles to adjacent to lots owned by Ted Coey and Jim Ravis were explored. We concluded that sewer and water should be stubbed into the Ravis property. The Rav£s parcel, if you could put the location map back up. The ravis parcel is just located to the east of the site in [his vicinity here. I bel£eve Mr'. Ravis has, if ~'m not mistaken, this lot and this lot back here. We did conclude that sanitary sewer and water should most appropriately be extended from this property into that area. Access into that area was another matter however. That if that lot does have frontage out on Powers, there are some alternatives for providing driveway access to it. We did conclude that a cul-de-sac however extending from the Lundgren property made no sense in that area. You lost a lot of trees to get it through there but by the time you got the cul-de-sac through the Ravis property, there's no Ravis property left to develop. So it really wasn't a very effective means of serving the property. The Coey property, we did look at various alternatives for realigning the western portion of the street through there hopefully to avoid those trees. Mr. Coey's not involved in ~his plat. He did talk to us earlier on about the possibility of becoming invoJ, ved in it and decided against it. But we did look at it from a topographic standpoint and again we concluded that it's not impossible to do things. Run things out to that property but you did incur significant environmental damage to do it and there really didn't seem to be any ~-eason to pursue it any further. As far as utilities go to the Coey property, we are recommending that the sanitary sewer be stubbed out that way. The lift station that's going to be built in the Lundgren plat is deep enough so it can provide some service to some of those properties west of the si~e for a short distance and we figure we might as put that in as long as we have the ability to do that. On the last matter, the Planning Commission did not make this a condition. They made a suggestion or some such language that Lot 14 be looked at as being removed from the plat. We're not sure really how to approach that. The developer can speak for themselves but they believe that the economics of the project are contingent ~4 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 upon maintaining the lots as they're shown but more importantly it's that we couldn't find a rationale based on the ordinance or plan to tell them this lot needed to go. There may be some lot reconfigurations that occur because the pond on the Lots 1 and 2 and 3 has to be enlarged but as far as this plat goes, the lots are larger by far than our average lot slze or minlmum lot slzes that we've had in most of the recent plats while the density in this plat is considerably lower than we've experienced elsewhere. $o we couldn't find any rationale to come up with one way or the other for that. And again that was not a condition. The Plannlng Commission asked that it be investigated I guess was the language. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the three requests be approved subject to appropriate conditions. I should also point out that the Park Board did explore this I believe a month ago and concluded that they would prefer to get the cash in lieu of land on this property. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Does anyone wish to present anything from Lundgrens? Terry Forbord: Your honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391. Your honor we probably have 3 hours of presentation if the City Council would like us to begin from the beginning. Staff has done an exemplary job in the staff reports both at the informational meetlng for the Plannlng Commission, at the publlc hearlng at the Planntng Commission and certainly in packet of information that you have before you. I was looking at thls thls morning. It's been a long tlme slnce I saw a staff report this thick on a project of this small size but every bit of the work that went lnto it needed to be done and it has been thoroughly analyzed in a very professional manner. But if the City Council ~ould prefer, I will deal specifically wlth the ltems that we feel are problems for us wlth thls and I will deal specifically with those. I would be happy to answer questions that anybody on the City Council may have about speclflc items so I guess I w111 take whatever direction the Council would prefer us to take. I know it's late and I know. Mayor Chmiel: I think I've sat in on this about 2 different times already and I'm sure some of the Council has as well so maybe it'd be best for you to go through your objections as to some of the conditions that were contained wlthln. Terry Forbord: I would like to say then in proceeding, many of the items that I'm golng to discuss with you tonight or ask you to review or reconsider, none of them are really earth shattering issues. However, some of them are significant enough where they may jeopardize the success of thls project and from a Lundgren Bros. standpoint, that's very important and we also believe from the Clty's standpoint that they wouldn't want us to proceed in a manner that would be something less than what the City would want as well. For the purpose of savlng tlme, I prepared a copy of the resolution for each one of you and highlighted the areas where we would like you to either modify or delete. I would like to just reiterate or elaborate once more that nobody in this room or in this city has more at stake in this proposed neighborhood community than Lundgren Bros.. Every single endeavor that we enter lnto we have our reputation and our economic vitality at stake and.I think it's only fair to say that we've enjoyed worklng in the clty of Chanhassen and I think they've enjoyed having us here and so the issues that I'm discussing are issues that we feel are important 45 City Counc.[.]. Iteeting - Geptember 9, 1991 enough to bring Lo your attention. The first item that you will see highlighted ill green is just an .item theft we'd like you to reconsider. Let me just tell you brJ. efly why. we had proposed initially a 26 foot wide street through this neighborhood community. There is a ver~ small number of homesites. The road that 9oes through this neighborhood community serves onl~ those home sites within the commu~ity and th[s particular site, as Paul has elaborated on and if you have read the material in the packet you surely discovered that this site very unique J.n the amount of wetlands and tree stands and slopes that it contains. So it was a very difficult site to design around because all sites h~ve physical constrains but typically they're concentrated in a particular area of the site. This particular site has them scattered throughout which made it very diffJ, cult. And so tl~ere was some consensus that let's t]'y to reduce the right-.of-way because as you know Chanhassen is the leader in trying to protect trees and certainly maximize in senisitivity to wetlands and so there u~s design parameters of the site. ~ttempts to reduce the right-of-way. Reduce the pzvement. Design this more to be sensitive as possible. ~nd as man~ of you may know, there certainly is a movement afoot nationwide on local neighborhood streets to reduce the rlght-of.-uay, not expand J.t. hnd so we had designed it in that manner'. However, there were some issue~ that were put forth by staff. Some conc~.~rns that they had relative to ~hat and so apparently a compromise reached that on certain portions of this site where there was a greater ;sensitivity than on other' portions of the site, that those points there would be a 26 foot right-of-way and at the other parts of the site ~ believe was, excuse me. Not right-of-way but pavement. The other parts were 31. Is that correct Rick? We'd like you to ~us~ reconsider this and maybe a as a pilot program, because it is our belief and ~ believe that staff wo:ld also suggest to you that it is their belief that sometime in the future in this decade, you are going to see probably within the city of CI]anhassen you're going to be reviewing stre6t uidthm and right-of-ways and things like that and should neighborhood communities be designed for automobiles or should they be designed for people and families, obviously on collector streets and arterial streets, those streets need to be of a greater width because the~ create larger amounts of traffic and so you may want to just reconsider it to allow this particular neighborhood to proceed wiLh a 26 foot wide street. There's reall~ no financial gain for the developer in doing this but it does impact the development in that there's less blacktop. Less asphalt. The streetscape, the street scene that you drive through the development does not, you're attaching more to the green than the black and so ue ask you ju~t to reconsider it. Item number 2(b). We would like to ask you to delete that item. ~nd I'm going to talk about landscaping illS'[ very briefly. In my 22 years .tn doing what Z do, there are a number of overused words that ~ hear' in Counc11 Chambers all over the Twin CJ. ties. O~e of them is bermLng. One of them J.s 1~ndscapLng. One of them is time work open space. And ~11 of those t Fmings are extremely important and we put lots of them in our projects. However, for the l~y person they're overused often tlmes. They're thought of as flx a11s and cure a11s and that if we berm th.Ls or l~ndscspe this, th~¢n everything will be wonderful and rosy and fuzzy and warm. ~ell Z think any landscape architect u111 tell you that it's as important of what you (!o not landscape as Ls what you do landscape. The best analogy I could think of on my way here, for those of you who have ever been lnvolved in ~tny form of marketLng 8t all or desLgn layout of advertising or whatever, they uJ. 11 tell you it's not so much what you put in the ad. Zt's what you don't put .in t. he ad and .it's c~11ed uhLte space. They don't want to have pLctures and words everywhere in the ad. They want to leave some thlngs open and t[mey want 46 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 to put the focus where it is most important to have it. And so in my line of work, one thing that we've done and you'll see this within your own community and projects that we have done. Oftentimes we have areas where there's intense landscaping and then you'll go around an area where there's none and we call them peek-a-boo corridors. For instance in Near Hountain you'I1 notice that we bring the roadway right on down to the pond and then all of a sudden you'll be able to see that pond. You'll be able to look for a thousand yards. Or hundreds of feet and you see these corridors. These view corridors. Well those are ail thought out very clearly and done intentionally. $o when we go into landscaping on our project and I think it would be fair to say of all the residential landscapers in Chanhassen, we probably have done more of it than anybody else. We take it very seriously and we're not trying to come in and propose something to you where we're trying to get by or sneak by. We have a hidden agenda of not doing any landscaping. That is not the point but we do want to make sure that wherever we do spend our money, that it's put in the areas where we think it's most appropriate. So item (b) where it says 4 trees of the type recommended by the DNR Forester shall be added to the area between the public road and the Class A wetland. In the staff report it said that staff was recommending that they wanted to separate the road from that wetland and they wanted to do it with some trees. We want to do exactly the opposite and Rick, if you'd put up a slte plan so we can talk a 11ttle bit about why. think you'I1 understand what I'm saying. If you've ever even driven around the Arboretum and I know many of you here do, you'll see where they do the same thing there. They want to bring the road right down to a very important part of the slte so people can see lt. If you'd polnt to the corner or the shaded area that I'm speaking specifically about. Right on the Ersbo curve is what I call lt. See that little shaded area. Now originally the discussion was that there wanted to be some landscaping there and the discussion further eluded that the main purpose of that was because there's a 2:1 slope there. We wanted to make sure there was no erosion, etc. and we wanted to establish ground cover there, which we thlnk ls very important as well. However, we want people coming in there to see the wetland because it's important. We feel if we put trees there, then lt's going to take away from looking at the wetland. They're going to be seeing trees. Now I'd rather take that money and put it at the entrance or put it somewhere where you're going to get more bang for your buck. Item number (c), there's a typo on the information that I've given to you. The first part of that paragraph states that the berm and the landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the edge of the wetland. Maybe you'd show where that is Rick. Okay right now you can see where it stops right there and that should be added on...Rick would you maybe draw that on there. There you go. Now if you'd use that other exhlblt, the overhead that would show what our concerns are there and I think these are small things but this is going to be the point of entry, point of arrival to thls neighborhood and we want to make sure we do this right. We haven't had a lot of chance to sit down with staff and go over these fine tooth detalls because I think staff would concur if we would have had the time and the opportunity to do that. Because I know they're very sensitive to the landscaping as much as we are. Thls is a blow up of the northwest corner of the site where the roadway enters into the property and Rick maybe you'd point to where that Walker Pond ls. Okay rlght there is a Walker Pond and that is one of the sedimentation ponds that is going to be collecting materials prior to it being discharged 1nrc the DNR wetland. And the large dotted 11ne, Rick, I believe that is the grading limits. 47 City Council Neeting - September 9, 1991 Rick Sathre' Right. This line is the grading limits. Terry Forbord: Alrtght, that is the grading limits. In other words, everything north, if north was at the top of this exhlblt, everything in the northwest corner is not going to be graded and there is existing vegetation there now. So it ls our lntent that we would leave that alone and left what is currently there and if you look on the tree survey, you will note that there is vegetation there. So rather than spendlng money putting it where there already 18 vegetation ill an area that isn't being graded or whatever, we think it's more appropriate to take those monles and to put them where they'll have a greater degree of impact. And additionally, we would like people when they come in to see that pond. There are a number of places wlthin that the City of Chanhassen that you know there are ponds and entrances and rather than screen them, we thlnk it's an important amenlty for people to be able to visualize them. Moving on to page 15 of staff report and it would be page, I believe the 4th page of the handout that I handed to you. That's all that I had to say about the landscaping and I do want to close in saying that it is again, and I think it's indicative of our neighborhood communities, it ls very important to us that the landscaping be done right. We don't take it lightly and we are not trying to escape what the Clty expects ~rom us here. We're just wantlng to make sure that it is done and it's well thought out. Item number 13. We're asklng to delete that item. That item, the Plannlng Commission had asked, I'm not so sure if it was a directive or if it was asked to look into. Paul Krauss: Could I respond to that? I would agree with Terry that that's a typo on our part. Now we were laboring with engineering and ourselves Wednesday and Thursday trying to figure out what our' final recommendation would be. The text reflects that our final recommendation for the Ravis property is, you know we can't substantiate a need to put through a driveway there. We left it open for you to decide whether you wanted to do it but we were not going to condition that and that should be deleted. Terry Forbord: Number 137 Paul Krauss: Well are we talking about access to the Ravis property or the two lots on the curve? Terry Forbord: Well I think it was the two lots on the curve. Paul Krauss: Alright. Then that's another issue. That gets to a concern that engineering had raised that we have a short area of, that's not the flnal. Terry Forbord: Actually I think it was an issue raised by the Planning Commission and their concern was, Rlck if you'd put the correct slte plan up there. That's an old. I [hink it's much easier to depict for members of the City Counc11. Okay maybe you'd polnt to Lot 6 and 7. Okay, that's Lot 6 and that is Lot ?. The concern of the Planning Commission was that the driveways to each lot may appear to be too close together' and so they had asked that they become combined driveways to serve those two lots. We just ask you to consider deletlng that because flrst of all we feel that most people who own a lot would want to have their own driveway. They would rather not have to share a driveway wlth a nelghbor and thls particular curve ls not unllke probably hundreds of curves within the city of Chanhassen and on cul-de-sacs already in the city 48 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 where people all have thelr same driveways wlth the same radlus that thls curve has and we think it uill make £t harder to sell those lots if ue tell somebody we have to share a drlveway with your neighbor. We don't think it's a hardship or an unusual situation here so we would just ask you to delete it. Rlck Sathre: The reason those driveways, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist. The reason those driveways are close together is because the tnitiaL plan showed an eyebrow cul-de-sac down here. Was just an extra asphalt belng put in that former project and I think we agree with the staff that maybe that wasn't necessary so we redrew the lot lines taking out that extra pavement. That brings the driveways closer together and taking out the street. Terry Forbord: Again we'd just like you to reconsider and delete it if you would agree. Item number ~$ on the staff report. The resolution deals with the situation that I'm not entlrely clear on how to discuss this or share thls with you. However we believe that it is prejudicial against Lundgren 8ro$.. I cannot thlnk of and I called other clties today and real estate attorneys. cannot think of a project anywhere in the State of Minnesota to my knowledge that has ever been a condition of approval where a developer is required to go out and pull Purple Loosestrife out of the site and then maintain that for a perlod of tlme and then also tell the homeowners that they have to do the same thing. If it's a position that the city wants to take, I think they should adopt an ordinance. They should make the people in Curry Farms do it. They should make the people In Greenwood Shores do it. And they should make every other citlzen who has any plece of property wlth any klnd of weed on it that is a noxious weed, everybody should have to do it. I don't think it is fair for Lundgren Bros. to be slngled out in thls particular project and as a condition of approval. Mayor Chmiel: Greenwood Shores I know have done that. Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: Their association has gone through and removed loosestrife as well as sprayed. Terry Forbord: I thlnk that's commendable and I th.ink that's something that all neighbors can do but I don't think there's been a proposal before the city where it's been a condition of approval. At least not to my knowledge. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think we got that condition from the ONR. The ONR occasionally overstates what they think we have an ablllty to do. As far as development though, introducing or helping the spread of loosestrife, that happens and lt's probably reasonable to thlnk that before the project ls done you go pull out what's there and make sure that we've got a clean site. Thereafter it becomes a city controlled problem that we have clty wlde. I don't see how we can permanently bind anybody with that when they don't have an lnterest but I thlnk lt's valld to look at if construction activity, disturbing an area around a wetland helps to spread of Purple Loosestrife, It should be removed when the construction is done and then let nature take lt's course. Mayor Chmtel: I guess I was trying to point out is that some of the people take this upon themselves as well. They went to the DNR. The DNR provlded them City Council Meeting - September' 9, 1991 materials to eliminate it and of course they did a great job. Terry Forbord: Yeah, I'm not arguing whether it's a noble cause or not because it is but a similar example would be if you made a property owner who lives on Lake Minnetonka, He came in for a build£ng permit and you tell him he has to take care of all the milfoil out in front of his property as a condition to getting hfs building permit but nobody else on his street has to do it. Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like not a bad idea. Councilman Mason: You've got to start somewhere. Terry Forbord: Well the polnt ls, if that is the case, then let us start. Let's make it an ordinance. Let's make everybody do it. Every developer. Every project and Z thlnk lt's prejudicial to single out this particular project. Item number l&. We would ask that you modify tile language in this resolution. Zt states municipal sanltary sewer and water service should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel. If so, we believe that the cost of extending the sewer and water servlce shall be pald by Ravls'. I would also like to point out that there's a lift station that's being installed on this property that's golng to service that area. Lundgren Bros. is going to be p~ttting in for the record. I would like it stated that we believe that those people should pay thelr falr share of that 11fl station. Paul Krauss: You mentioned it and I was looking. There was an omission on this too because we also wanted to extend the sewer over to the Coey property and I think that in fact is shown on your ortginal plan so it wasn't made as a special point. We certainly do, I don't know if that's a normal development cost or not but we certainly do want these things put in now. There's no question in my mlnd that if you don't do that and we just reserve an easement, somebody's going to plant thelr tomato patch there or their bushes and we effectively won't be able to get servlces to these properties in the future. Terry Forbord: We concur with staff on that. We ~ust want to modify Lt and make sure the proper language ls in there. Item number 17, we would like to ask you to reconsider. TilLs ts going to take some time to talk about this particular issue here. It states that the water level in the DNR wetland lylng south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 97S.5. Probably the most indepth part of thls proposal, the most discussion, the most research, the most money spent to date has centered around that wetland. And all has been intentional. I hope that each of you has vlsited thls slte recently or at least sometime tills summer. If so, you w111 see what certainly would not be classified by anybody, including the DNR, the Army Corps and by any consultant, as ~ healthy wetland because it is not a healthy wetland. It is rlght now currently as it exlsts a slew. Now sure there are some uildllfe that are living there. However, if that u~s a healthy wetland, you would see a greater varlety of specles and uildllfe and certainly a greater varlety of species of plant tile in there. ~e do ha~e wildlife and wetland specialists ulth us this evenlng that can address these lssues in greater data11 but one of the attempts when we looked at this site is that f£rst of all we thought, this thlng has got a problem and how can ue flx it. So we hlred a 11mnologlst to study the water quality. We conducted an anlysis of tile watershed because really a wetland ls only a picture of what the watershed around it ls. And we 5O City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 developed a methodology, the Walker Ponds of controlling runoff and sedimentation, all in the attempts to try and bring this wetland back to life. Now Z don't profess to be an expert in wetlands but through this process ! have learned enough and that part of bringing that back to life £s tnoreasing the amount of water in it and also increasing the flow rate of water that w111 go through it. I don't know how much background all of you have about this particular wetland but it was not a wetland until probably 15-20 years ago and aerial photos will certainly bear that out. However, over the course of time because what man has done to it, and that lnoludes the Clty because the city probably has polluted that wetland more than any other indiv£dual with the deiclng chemicals on Lake Lucy Road, what we have done to that over tlme ls we've almost destroyed it. So staff, planning and engineering department alike, one of the goals we all declded that we wanted from the get go was how do we bring this wetland back to life. Hake it everything that everybody probably would want it to be. Certainly make it something that a home buyer would want to live around. Well the way that it is right now, nobody would want to live around it or up close to it because it really doesn't look all that healthy and it's getting worse. So we developed, the engineers developed ways on ho~ we can bring that back to 11re. Now part of that involves more water. We are hoping to raise that water level by 2 feet. Now the ONR, I'm not totally convinced that the ONR sald that they don't thlnk that was a good idea because I met with them out on site. They weren't entirely convinced that by raising the water level would guarantee that the water quallty would lmprove. However they say that the wildlife habitat would be greatly increased. That's even in their letter. Now the people that were out there on the slte from the DNR were not water quality specialists. One was a wildlife, the area wildlife manager and the other was a hydrologist. So with all due respect to the ONR, they certainly have good people. However, they have not spent the amount of time on this that those of us who are trying to bring that thing back to life. They have come out and done what was asked of them to do. But the issue that I think staff had the problem with was not whether it would work or whether it wouldn't work. It was whether it would have a negatlve impact on the road base of Lake Lucy Road. Currently the outlet that flows I believe out of that is at 974.5. Because of sedimentation there's been a delta that has accumulated around that outlet and lt's somewhat plugged up so right now the water depth today ls at 975.5. Okay that is the recommended level that staff is proposing. So in other words, it's going to look the same way in perpetuity if we keep the water level the same. Now you can always say we're going to put in Walker Ponds and maybe over time wlth sedimentation oocurring in the Walker Pond, maybe over time the water quality will improve. Our wetland consultant and our engineer are telling me that they're very skeptical about that. That they think lt's going to probably look just the way it does today. If it stays at the same water level it is today, lt's going to look the way that it does today. And so we believe if we can raise that water level up one more foot which doesn't sound like a whole lot but in the scope of these types of things, one foot ends up meaning a whole lot. That we will be able to have something that we believe the city will like see£ng there and certainly what we believe home buyers will like having there and belleve that the little critters who probably live in that area will probably enjoy it as well. Now the city staff, the engineering department's concern about will it have an effect on the roadbed of Lake Lucy Road is obviously very valid concern. We asked 3H£ Soll Consultants to study the as bullts of that road. The pre-existing conditions of that road prior to it's improvement and we asked staff to asslst us in the assemblylng of those as-builts. 51 City Coul~cil Meeting - September 9, 1991 Unfortu,ately the city doesn't have them and staff helped us determine who it was that was the consulting engineer and we went to tile consulting engineers. Got the information. Took the information to a soils scientist. The soll scientist have written a letter to mzs and if you would like f.o put the last page of that letter up there that depicts what the conclusions are. It ls our, under di$cussio,, it is our opinion that an elevated water table will not increase tile lon9 term se'Lt].ement of the compressable soi15 because they have, maybe you can quit doing that because that's maklng it harder for me to read. Because they have previously undergone prlmary settlement and are currently undergoing secondary settlement and they are in a saturated condition. The change in water table elevation would not significantly change this condition or effect a clean granular fill soil which has experienced traffic loading and freeze thaw cycles over a perlod now of $ years. It ls al. so our opinlon that the increased water level, although extending into the .~tabL11zLng aggregate, should not affect the ~hear strength of the materlal causing premature pavement failure because the 3 to 5 foot separation layer between the ground water surface and the road surface wlll be maintained. Therefore, based on our review of the above information and tile assumption that tile roadway was reconstructed using materials meeting the project's specifications as we understand, it is our opinlon that increasing the water level .tn the pond to elevation 976.5 sllouZd not affect the performance of Lake Lucy Road. Rlck, Z think do you have any additional comments relatlve to that? Zs it your professional opinion that it will not? Rick Sathre: Yes. That's right. The raised water level will still be approximately 5 feet below the road surface and that, in my opinion Ls adequate separation. Charles Folch: If I might add in there that the actual low point of the road where these catch basin structures are located, the water level will be within 3 feet of the surface but as you increase on the grade of course you've got a greater separation but in that low point area it will be within 3 feet. The water level would be withln the structural granular soll correction that was done to the road base and o,e of the things that concerns me out there is that maybe drivlng that road you've all notlced thls too but there's been a settlement in that road. The low polnt is no longer where those catch basins are. There's been a shear fallure that's occurred even before thls project was even probably thought about. What that subsoil looks like at that shear failure point? I don't know. Is the fabric~ st111 integrated? I don't know. You don't know that unless you open it up. So intuitively my gut feeling is I have some concern with raising the water level into that structural corrected area. I agree that if it was maintained at the current level, it probably wouldn't have any differential lmpact on that super saturated soll that's there already. It's already like they mentioned, a secondary consolidation. Getting back into the granular corrected area, that does have some concerns of m~ne and I certainly don't want to come acro:ss as being a soils expert because I don't clalm to be that. Certainly GME are qualified people to take a look at thls issue but it's a gut feellng that I do have concern for. Rick Sathre: You honor, I understand the fear. The problem that we've got wlth not rai~i,g the level another foot, right now if that sediment delta were cleaned out there'd only be 2 feet of water depth in that wetland at the maxlmum depth. Host of it would be about a foot deep. Right now with the sediment holdlng the water hlgher there, the maxlmum depth polnt ls 3 feet and probably City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 the average elevation in there over the whole basin is a foot and a half. What we're trying to do is get some of that wetland area to have a water depth between 3 and 4 feet. The reason that's important, as I understand it, Frank Svoboda's here and he'd be better able to tell you this but if the water quality can be lmproved enough so that the lake can get to the bottom soils of the pond, we're going to start to get vegetation growing all over that basin. Where the water depth is less than 3 feet deep, we're going to get emergent vegetation. We're going to get reeds or something growing up through the water surface. If the water depth is all less than 3 feet deep, that whole basin, the whole area that's wetland would fill in with vegetation. So you won't have the diversity of the open water and vegetation. $o we need some area that's deeper than 3 feet in order to promote a diversity of habitat, ge're successful cleaning up though wetland that don't increase the water depth and eventually we won't have an active open water or partially open water. That's our problem. Terry Forbord: At times I think it's fair to say that that water level has been higher than 975.5 because there have been storms that have occurred. Certain events that have occurred where over a period of time that water level is higher than it is now so we believe that that pond has fluctuated. It's been higher and it's been lower. It's already been through those freeze thaw cycles now for 5 years and so, I'm not qualified. I'm not an engineer and I can only contact soil scientist and talk to other engineers and ask their optnions and that's why we hired GHE which is a soil analyst to review the as builts to tell us. And thelr opinlon, as I read to you just previously, they don't feel that it will impact it but I certainly can share in the city's concern. They don't want anybody to do something that's going to cause harm to lt. I think it's one of those things that you look here and you say in the big picture we're trying to accomplish a lot of thlngs. We're trylng to improve some things and what are the down sides and what are the up sides and we believe that the up sides here and the risk are minimal. Item number 18. We would like to ask you to modify that. That deals specifically with what Paul has discussed about plugging the catch baslns on Lake Lucy Road and running storm sewer lnto one of our Walker Ponds. I would like to point out that that is an off site improvement. That problem is not attributable to the subject property and because of that we believe that that should be a city born project and that the city should pay for that. The last 1rem would be on page 16 of the staff report or the last page of the document that I gave to you. It states that the applicant shall work with the engineering department to guarantee that increasing the water level of the Class A wetland will not affect the stability of Lake Lucy Road. Now this is an unusual thing because here we are. We're telllng you we think you should raise the water level because it's going to solve the wetland problem and we're asking you then to delete the fact that we're gotng to guarantee to you that it won't affect it. I know that sounds unusual but I'd like to just point out a couple of thlngs. When the city initiates a project anywhere in the city for any particular infrastructure improvement, whatever it may be, they never guarantee the project. There are some thlngs that the wording here ls just a little bit too strong. Because there are some things that could occur that Lundgren Bros. would absolutely have no control over and if the City's asking me to guarantee it, how can I guarantee something I have absolutely no control over? An example would be if there was a 100 year event where we had a 10 inch rainfall, or two of them over a 72 hour period like we did not so many years back. 3-4 years where I believe we had two 10 inch rainfalls. And if somebc~dy downstream between our subject property and Lake Lucy, for whatever reason, chose to plug 53 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 up the outlet. Both of those things would have occurred at absolutely no control of us and if something happened that would make that road collapse;, it could back and say well you guys guaranteed that nothlng would ever happen to this road. Well obviously those situations nobody can guarantee. So I just believe that t hls should be dlluted or it should be modified because the word guarantee .is stronger than even the City itself ever uses on any of it's own projects. Obviously L~e would work wlth clty staff as we have in an attempt to make sure that whatever public improvements goes in anywhere, whether' it be the storm sewer or it would be a water plpe or whatever, would meet the specifications and meet what is required of it. So those are the items that we ask you to consider, modlfy or delete and ue are prepared to answer any questions, once again we do have our wetland and wildlife specialist, Hr. Frank svoboda ulth us in the audlence and Rlck Sathre, the consulting englneer to ask any questions. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else ulshing to ask any speclflc questions in relationship to the project? Please come forward and state your name and address please. Nada Murphy: I'm Nada Murphy, 1215 Lake Lucy Road. Your honor Mayor and respected Council members. Our concern ks I can see that a lot of tlme and effort has been put lnto the project to preserve thls wetland. We do have a question as to the, we have adjoining property so we're just to the east of this slte. On behalf of the 11ttle area I can say there are deer inhabiting lt. owls and oth~.r wildlife so there is wildlife there that is worth consideration. And one of the concerns that we have ls how many lots are there that will be draining into this area? How many lots in the project? Paul Krauss: There's 37 lots in the plat. Now not all of those lots drain directly into the ONR wetlands. Some of them drain further to the south and into other water bodles. Rlck, do you know where the drainage spllt Rick Sathre: I've got a drawing in here somewhere that shows it but basically, let me use another drawlng. The water that goes in there would break about 11ke this. Nada Murphy: Is that where the h111, the edge of the h111 ls? Rick Sathre: The water would break about...ue're going ~o storm sewer into the DNR pond 11ke thls. Then there's certainly water running down Lake Lucy Road that goes in there. Nada Murphy: We're aware of that. Okay. With all those lawns dralnlng in there, what will the water quality be of that wetlands area when all the fertilizer and everything? Paul Krauss: We have no ability to really control what individuals use to fertil£ze there. Some cities have actually put ordinances on the books to regulate a homeowner's use of fertilizer. Z shudder to think how one mlght enforce that and you really want to use an educational effort. But we're doing a couple things here that we haven't done before that we thlnk u111 help that. We're protecting the, nobody's going to be allowed to sod their lawn right up to City Council Meeting - September '~, 19~1 the wetland which is currently the case. There's going to be a buffer strip permanetly established around all the wetlands-that will be allowed to grow £n natural vegetation. And all the evidence we've seen says that will serve to filter out a lot of what happens on the lawns before it gets into the wetlands. Also we've had a lot of problems in the past that people haven't understood exactly where the wetlands are. We've been working with Lundgrens to actually get monumentation on the property so a homeowner's going to know where that line is. Nada Murphy: That was my next question. How many acres do you actually consider wetlands or Class A or Class B wetlands? Paul Krauss: We had that number broken out. ! don't recall that number right off the top of my head. Nada Murphy: For instance, how much of it £s wet right now? Today. And then that would all be considered wetlands. Paul Krauss: Actually we're getting a net increase in the wetland area and I don't remember the exact numbers but we're netting something like .8 of an acre increase in wetland area so they've actually done better than no net loss. Nada Murphy: Then one of the other questions we had was all of the area from Powers Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road, from that corner all drain into that wetlands too and that's part of our, part of that is our property. Is that drainage, that's a natural drainage area that flows because of the grade of the land and so on, just flows into that area. How is that going to be maintained or is that going to, how will that be affected in this process? Rick Sathre: Are you talking about the drainage that comes across down in here? Nada Murphy: We're right on Lake Lucy Road. Our driveway is 1215. Harry Murphy: We're on the north end. North along Lake Lucy. Nada Murphy: Well we're on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road but just to the east of your project. Rick Sathre: The water right now is sheeting across this way. That would continue to be able to come there. Nada Murphy: That would? Okay. So that would not be disturbed then? What about all the fill? There's a huge amount of fill going £n on the corner of Powers Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road and that ls all draining too. We're also concerned about that changing the natural drainage across there and is that a permit situation? Mayor Chmtel: That's the Kerber's property. Paul Krauss: Yeah there is a. Harry Murphy: Kerber's have hauled in hundreds and hundreds of truck loads of fill and...that grade of that land is 20 feet higher in spots. 55 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: Well we're not sure what his intention is in terms of use on the property, z mean we've heard rumors from time to time that Mr. Kerber believes this an ideal commercial corner which is in no way, shape or form what city plans say. Harry Murphy: How could you permit this to happen? Paul Krauss: Well what he's doing, we've also heard from time to time that it's a potential church site but there are no proposals in front of us. Clty ordinances allow sites to be filled or earth work to be undertaken and it's presumably to make it more bulldable. I know he's got a permit through our engineering department for less than the amount. We have a 1,000 yard cap and he ls under that. Z know that Dave Hempel on our staff ls uorklng ulth Mr. Kerber on that and the natural drainage fZou is supposed to be maintained. Nada Murphy: 1,000 yard cap? There's 10, how many yards in a dump truck because there's many dump trucks going in there? Paul Krauss: About 10. Nada Murphy: Yeah. 10 yards. 12 yards. Harry Murphy: ...11ke 10 feet below the grade. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your' name and your address also? Harry Murphy: Same address, Nada Murphy: That's my husband, Harry Murphy. 1215 Lake Lucy Road. Okay. Our concern is also that this is drain£ng into this wetlands and if all that was being taken J. nto consideration because everybody's trylng so hard to do a good job up here. If there's some little thing that isn't being taken into consideration that's going to spoil all the great efforts that you are doing, it seems like there's just a, I th£nk it's highly complimentary as hard as you are trylng that it would be a shame if something was to spoil it. I'm just trylng to bring up these issues too. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Nada Murphy: And is it possible to flnd out uhlch trees are being saved in there? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. In fact we do have a map right here showing ail the trees on site. Nada Murphy: So we can get a copy of that? Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mayor Chmlel: You're welcome. 56 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Jim Ravis: My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 660 Old Powers Blvd.. I'd like to thank the city planner and their staff. Ordlnary cltlzens have somewhat of a problem deallng wlth developments. We don't understand the procedures. We do not have engineering firms at our disposal so I do compliment the planning staff in worklng wlth us on thls lssue. They've been very patlent and I'd 11kw to thank them for that. It's been brought up by the developer that they would expect us to pay for the sewer extension and I certainly would not dlsagree with that. Certainly would agree that we should pay for any increase in cost to the development. However I don't understand the request for falr share on the lift station. I don't know who would determine what a fair share ls. Would that be the city? The developer? The engineer? Mayor Chmiel: Charles, can you answer that? Charles Folch: I guess I was a little surprised with the lift station. It's my understanding that the lift station that's located on this site is over in the southwest corner and I belleve that servlng the Ravls property could be served by gravity sewer. So I think that, we can talk to maybe Rick, can you touch on that one a 11ttle bit. What was the rationale? Rick Sathre: Let me put another map to tell you. The red line is the Ortenblat and Ersbo property boundary. The Ravis piece is like thls. The Ortenblat property, when you get down toward the south end is too low to be gravity serviced off of Lake Lucy Road as is the Ravis property. But the alternatives to service Ravis were either to go gravity to the south in the pipe that's in Greenwood Shores down in thls cul-de-sac but there's no easement Z don't believe to do that. Or to come from the 11ft station...inside the Lundgren Bros. project. But the gravlty sewer in Lake Lucy Road isn't deep enough to gravity serve the south end of this site or the Ravts site. It's gets too low. Jim Ravis: The other issue is, what is fair share mean? What do you base it on? Oo you base it on the value of the property which is undetermined? So I don't understand that. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can try to answer that. Paul Krauss: I think we'd have to go back and see some prior city policies on some of this but we've often talked in the past about developer installed improvements or should the city install all the improvements. If we lnstall all the improvements it's quite clear. Mr. Ravis when he hooks would be paying us that SAC hook-up charge that we were talklng about earlier and whatever lateral cost there is. The developer wishes to install these improvements themselves and part of the down slde of that is that the City ls not tnvolved in that loop. We're not doing a project and we don't have the ability to assess Mr. Ravis for the cost downstream. In my past experience and thls ls in other communities, that's been the down side risk that the developer essentially eats because they believe they can put in the utilities or whatever cheaper than the city can. The lift station is going to be installed to serve the Lundgren property anyway. We're clear that that needs to be done. I don't know if lt's belng oversized to handle some off site properties or not but I fail to understand how we get a portion of the cost for that lift station assessed to either Mr. Coey or Mr. Ravis, particularly when it's not a public project. I mean we'll accept these thlngs when they're done. 57 City Council I~ee[ing - September 9, 1991 Hayor Chmiel: I agree with that analogy basically. Jim Ravis: Third concern I have is, if you could put a site map up there please. The map of the development. In the south part of the development and in the southeast corner there's a wetland. That wetland has never overflowed onto our property even in 10 inch rains. It's a known fact that on slopes, when you put them in a manicured sod, that you get much more runoff than you do the way the property slts today. And Z wonder if the proper analysis has been done to assure that that wetland u111 now overflow. I had asked about that before but Z had never gotten an adequate answer. Thank you. Hayor Chmiel.' Thank you. Could you quickly address that portion? Rick Sathre: This won't be very legible. This is the aerial photo of the site. The blue line ls the boundary. This is thls southeasterly wetland. Thls is Greenwood Shores down here. The Ravls' property ls over here. Zt appears that he's correct and the wetland really doesn't go onto his property. Or it's right at the edge. Our intention as far as the water flow, we haven't final designed anything because we're still in preliminary plat stage but the lntent is that we would start water in the DNR wetland hold it upstream to not lncrease the rate of flow off the site towards Lake Lucy. We would actually propose to hold the rate the same as it ls whlch may actually s11ghtly reduce the flow rate lnto the wetland that adjoins Ravis and is partially in Greenwood Shores. We have the ablllty as part of the engineering of thls subdivision to slow the water down and [hat's what we propose to do. Hayor Chmiel: Okay, thank yOL[. Anyone else? Ted Coey: I'm Ted Coey. 1381 Lake Lucy Road. I wasn't at the last meeting because Z was on vacation but a couple things that bothered me mostly ls the Fact that it seems that the land is being altered to suit the homes. I thlnk they're puttlng way too many homes into the site and I thlnk it wlll affect the properties to the west because of the slze of the lots and the type of homes. I know Brlan Tlchy has hls house for sale. It's in the $400,000.00 bracket. You're talking a hundred and some thousand dollar homes here. You've also got 30 acres but out of that 30 acres how much is actually buildable? A lot of that i~ wetlands, street area. Hayor Chmiel: It's about 17 acres. Ted Coey: And that's an awful lot of houses for that site considering what the properties are to the west. I'm definitely not in favor of the amount of houses going in there. I think that the slte should be, you should put the houses in [o sult the slte. Not make the slte sult the houses and that seems what's happening here. If you dldn't have the PUD, I think Joe checked it out and it was 11 or 12 variances they'd have to have. I don't believe in that. I just don't think that this type of project should go in on this area. I think that you should have the project conform to the rest of clty's statutes wlthout golng through with all these variances. Obviously you can get around it with the PUD. I'm also concerned about the fac[ that I'm going to be assessed for something else again as far as the stub. I have no intention of developing and obviously if I have to pay a portlon of the lift station, I don't thlnk that's right unless I'm involved ii] this thing and planning on subdividing. I'm also 58 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 concerned about how close that road comes to the property on my east side and as far as the impact on the pond and stuff on my property, which has a fairly large pond which is right up next to partically to the lot line. So I have a lot of concerns. Like I say, I missed the meeting that the Planning Commission had but I just don't feel real comfortable with the way this thing lays. I hope the City Council, I talked to a couple members of the Council and I hope this is all taken into consideration because like you said, this is going to set a precedent for other development like this and I feel strongly that the size of the houses and the size of the lots should be a lot larger than they are just based on what you have to the west of the property. I'd like to see the houses in the $200,000.00 range at least. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who has any concerns? Joe Morin: I'm Joe Morin and I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I'm Ted's neighbor and I support what Ted has said. I issued a lot of my concerns in a letter to the planning Commission. I'm not going to go over that here because I think it's in the record but there's a lot of unanswered questions and frankly I'm kind of surprised that this has really gotten past the Planning Commission and is in your hands today because there's still a lot of new questions that have come up yet tonight that I feel haven't really been adequately addressed. I also want to challenge Lundgren Bros. ascertation that no one has a higher stake in this than they do. I think the people in the surrounding community, the people who live next to this site, the people who are going to live in the site and the people gathered here today and you folks, have a far greater stake because your stake isn't one of economic interest. We live here and so I want to make it clear that I live here and I think that's a heck of a lot more important right now. Okay. We're talking about first of all the road. We discussed moving the road to avoid wiping out that stand of 150 year old oak trees. My question to Paul is, you said there's a net of 40 caliper trees. I'm not sure what that means. I do know that the trees to the rlght, there's a lot of them and they're little and they're scrub oaks and scrubby kind of brush trees and I know the trees to the left are big, mature oaks, aspens and blrch so I think the quality of the wooded area that could be preserved by moving it ls something that hasn't been considered adequately. Do you have a comment there? Paul Krauss: Yeah. It's kind of tough to relate it to you because you don't have access to this table but ue had our engineering department do a table for us to exactly what trees would be lost in the current proposal and what would be lost under the alternative. It's kind of hard to compare apples and oranges but the total difference in 1riches of trees ls 41 lnches. In terms of types of trees, yes there are quite a few oaks that we're saving under their proposal. Rlght now they're smaller. If we move it for example ue lose a 30 1rich oak and a 27 inch oak. It really dtdn't seem to be persuasive enough to do it. Plus the fact that the DNR has already told us that unless we brlng to them some really significant tree preservation issue, because they've never approved this kind of filling of the wetland before, they're not going to allow us to do lt. I can't honestly go before them and tell that 41 inches of trees is substantial enough to ask them for a permlt to move that road lnto the wetland. Joe Morin: If you could take them there and show them that knoll. 59 Ci~.y Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Paul Kraus.~;-' We've taken them there. Joe Morin: And show them the scrub oak and show them the type of wetland and the marginal impact that it would be I think, you've done that? Z can't believe that they would say don't move it. Paul Krauss: Well they've already told us they don't glve permlts for fi111ng of DNR wetlands ~nd that they could think of maklng an exception which they've never done before if we brlng to them that's incredibly different than what they see and Z don't think we have it here. Joe Horin: We talked about the impact on the wetland. I think Lundgren talked about the City's culpability here in deicing the road. Well that road's only been there for 4 years and Z think the pasture and the cornfield, the fertilizer from agriculture and the manure for the past 50 years have certainly created a far greater impact on that area than 4 years of delcing. But my main concern ls they are not doing anything here to improve the quality of the water. No matter how much we've talked about lt, we're back to ground zero. It's my minderstanding now that we're not golng to do anything, right? We once taZked about raislng the level of water and now we're saying no, we're not golng to do that? Paul Krauss: No, you're mistaken. What's at lssue here is how much they're going to raise it. It's already a foot above where it normally is because there's been some fllling in the outlet. That...1 foot higher than it was possibly. I don't know when this thing was plugged but it moves it I foot hlgher than it was before. What the applicant would 11ke to do and we've got ~olne reservations with is boostlng it another foot. But keep in mind that there's a lot belng done besides just ralsing the water level to remedy these problems. We're requir£ng this development to lnstall nutrlent and sedimentation ponds that we've never used before anywhere else in the clty and probably uill be using them consistently in the clty in tile future. But this is the flrst one to do it so we're taklng care of thelr additional increment of nutrients. We're coming in with a buffer strip around the wetland. ~gain is something that we haven't done before but it should be a beneflt. We're also asking them to modify their system so we're gettlng some improvements from the runoff from Lake Lucy Road and runnlng it through thelr pond. Now I'm not sure what else we can do at this point. 3oe Morln: Okay, let's focus on those Walker Ponds that you're talklng about a little bit here. ~ saw another change that was proposed here. Rick, could you put up a slte plan overhead? At one tlme we had talked about a Walker Pond at the south end of the Class ~ wetlands and I thought I heard you say in your recommendations to the Counc11 that that ls no longer golng to be there? Paul Krauss: We're recommending that that be eliminated because we've had advlce that lt's too small to be effective but in exchange this one's golng to be enlarged a comparable if not greater amount. Joe Horin: Alright but all of the surrounding properties that the other lady asked about are draining directly into the Class A wetland and then from there they're golng through a pipe into the Class B wetland. Is that correct? And just dumping right in there. 60 City Council Meeting - September Paul Krauss: It goes through another. Joe Morin: It goes where? Rick Sathre: A lot of the water that's runnlng down Lake Lucy Road from these properties and others goes into that catch basin system and right in there now. A lot of that will stlll happen. I guess the way I would resolve the lssue of whether the road and water would be piped over to this pond. Then when the water leaves thls wetland, it would be discharged first lnto this new expanded upland pond adjacent to the Class B wetland. Joe Horln: I thought that area was decreased to make room for Lot 11. That wetland is actually being filled is it not? R1ck Sathre: There's a flnger here that's belng fllled and there's a flnger that comes up into here that's being filled but there's qutte an expansion here. This wetland area stays about the same or I think lt's very, very close. Joe Horin: Okay, but it is dumping directly in there. Rlck Sathre: Thls shows the fllllng areas. Thls is an expansion of the wetland that we're proposing to enhance the whole area by recontourlng it so that we get a more dlverse sedimentation base. And with the water that comes out of thls pond would be discharged into this one to maintain water levels in there and then the water would run lnto the Class B wetland and on downstream to Lake Lucy. Joe Morin: But that is not a Walker Pond right there? Rick Sathre: It doesn't have to be because of the fact that the water coming out of the DNR wetland is, the flow coming out of there basically is... The settling and stuff would occur elsewhere... Joe Morin: Unless there's a event which causes more flow in which case it would get washed and dump directly in there. Rick Sathre: Well the more. Joe Horln: My concern ls that you have 37 homes dumplng more fertilizer into this delicate environment which is fIouing down into Lake Lucy, the headwaters of the Riley chain of lakes and no matter what you say here, we're adding more garbage into that deiicate environment and I think we're reaIIy overdoing it here with 37 homes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything else that you have? Joe Morin: Yeah, I don't mean to be. Basically I'm hearlng a lot of talk about Chanhassen being a leader from Lundgren and I really believe that we are. I'd really hate to see us set an example ulth thls klnd of a, in the name of a planned PUD to take these kinds of excessive variances I think in the surrounding area. We counted 11ke 11 I belleve and f1111ng two wetlands just to put a lot in. I really don't, there's one other point I'd like to make. Do you have that plat that shows the plattlng of this area and the surrounding 61 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Greenwood Shores area and the areas to the left? The one that you showed at the earlier. Rick Sathre: Well your point is that you think that these lots are smaller than everybody elses? Joe Morin: Yeah. I'd like you to put that up. I think the Mayor just said there's like 17 acres of land that's actually being buiJ. t on. That would be density of about over 2 unlts per acre. Those are the end of my comments. don't want to delay this any longer.. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you Joe. Anyone else? Rick Sathre: Before we leave that point, this is a tabulation of the lot areas in that subdivision. Total area and net upland area before and after the wetland alterations. I guess it's pretty self explanatory. The average area of the lots now, net of wetland ls 21,705 square feet and after the development ls completed they will be basically the same. That's well in excess of what the City's expectations of 15,000 square foot...zoning dlstrlct allows that. Councilman Mason: If the water level is raised 2 feet, according to the staff report, it becomes about 15,000 square feet. Zf the water ls ralsed the way you gLLyS want it. It exceeds 15,000 but it is less than 21,000 according to this report on page 9 of this one. Paul Krauss: No. What that says Mlke ls, we don't disagree wlth what you're saying but what we're saying is it's st111 substantially in excess of 15,000. Councilman Mason: Yeah, but. Rick Sathre: ~re you talking about that first line in the table? Councilman Mason: No. Where it says, average lot removing wetland, before raising water level is 21,?05 square. Rlck Sathre: That sentence says even after removing [he wetland area the avreage lot area is... Councilman Mason: Alright. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do, being that time is flee~lng. I'd like to 11mlt other comments to about 3 mlnute each. Eric Rivkin: Thanks Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: You're entirely welcome. Eric Rivkin: As you can see by the number of people staying late that this is a very important lssue. Mayor Chmlel: And we reallze that so please state your lssues. Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court and also the Co-Chair of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association representing 23 homeowners around Lake Lucy. We're City Council Meeting - September very concerned about the water quallty issues. I want to thank the City for making an effort about saving the trees and water quality and I do support what all the residents have said prevlous to me whlch wlll eliminate some tlme of what I'm going to say. I think there are too many houses on this site for different reasons. For environmental protection for one and removal of trees and the density I think we're being a little bit, it's being a little bit deceptive here if you put Curry Farms and Greenwood Shores and all the houses to the west and east surrounding this, you'll see that the distance between houses is extremely small in this PUD. I thlnk they should be spread apart farther and it's going to look very crowded. It's going to feel very crowded. It's going to be out of plaoe and inconsistent wlth the area. I reallze that it may eliminate some houses but the economics of it are no concern. Ithtnk it's just, lt's going to be way too crowded. The lot slzes may be, say they're larger but actually in area but that's just becuase they're very long and narrow. Z do have a lot of background in water quallty lssues. Investigated with our Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed Oistrict on the Riley chain of lakes project and I know that if you don't remove, it's my understanding that there's no nutrients being removed from this wetland and I think, in my opinion and the oplnlon of my biologist that worked for Lake Lucy's water quality, that if you add developments around the watershed, that you are going to have a net increase, a great net lncrease in nutrients loaded lnto a wetland that's immediately on the edge of the manicured lawns and driveways and streets and rooftops that are all going to drain into this. Unless you harvest the nutrients somehow, get rid of them on apertodic basis, you're not going to have a net loss of nutrients. Nutrients is the number one enemy of water quallty and everybody from the EPA a11 the way down to our own watershed district with a mandate to reduce the water nutrlent levels from our chaln of lakes and the entire watershed. I'm real concerned that if we are being sold on the basis that there's going to be an improvement in water quallty here, we need to put a condition on this plat that provides a decent baseline to measure from. From what I saw, to may knowledge so far, there is no decent water quality data that involves what's in the sediment which is where the nutr£ents are at. There's no water column, nutrlent data and Mayor you know what I'm talking about. You've got to have more than just an appearance, aesthetic measure of nutrients levels. You have to do a bioessay and water chemistry that's thorough enough based on U.S. Fish and Wildllfe and ONR standards. We did that on Lake Lucy and measured the sediment 40 feet down and the water quallty and it only cost us $1,500.00. Something of this size, I'm sure in a development that's going to be a million dollars of land and houses ls certainly worth, not golng to cost that much. But we need a baseline. We also need some kind of monitoring program and how do you know how you're dolng. What happens if it gets worse? What are the mitigating measures and who pays for it? There are no water quality goals. If you have a baseline data, you've got to have some goals. What are the nutrlent levels going to be 5 years from now? 10 years from now? Whatever in both the Class B wetland and the Class A wetland. I also don't think enough effort was made. I know Ceil Strauss, the hydrologist for our area and they do know a lot about water quallty. When they say that the land, they're going to get improvements by improving, adding trees and stuff, they're talking about wildlife improvement. They're selllng us on the basls of improving it for wildlife. Well that's what the DNR proposed. Let's put in some habitat that enhances that and that's what they suggested. ! don't thlnk that should be eliminated. Z also think that there may be some error in, I'd like to see some figures and maybe somebody can answer that for me now but I thought the wetland, the no net loss 63 City Coul~cil Meeting - September wetland stake could not be underseeded. In other words, lt's my understanding and Z have a copy of the new law that says in developments like this, there's supposed to be a 2:1 ratio of equal or better wetland quality and wetland quality is measured by U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification numbers and by what's there now for habltat and soll type and all that. I don't know what the numbers are but Z ulsh I'd like to see some real numbers on what's going on and check the law out. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I can respond to that last one I thlnk falrly easlly. Roger and Z and .lo Ann actually had a hand in writing the new law. We testified in front of Representative Hunger and met wlth hls staff several times and had some changes written in the law. To basically we thought improve it and glve it some local ablllty to do more than what the DNR was golng to ask in fact. But the law itself is not in effect. What is in effect is they basically said, and I think Roger tell me if I'm wrong because I know I had you look thls up, that there's a no net loss policy that they want to do right now and we in fact contacted the Board of Soil and Water Resources who's mandated to manage this and they said the way we've proceeded to date is perfectly fine. They have a 2 year perlod during uhlch they're golng to wrlte new rules. After that 2 year period, they're going to come in with a 2:1 conversion but for the time being, we're operating fully consistently uith what they're telllng us. Eric Rivkin: Which is 1 ~o 17 Paul Krauss: Yeah. Eric Rivkin: It's not 2 to 17 Mayor Chmiel: Best to my knowledge I thought it was a 1 to i ratio. By the way you're 3 minutes are up 7 minutes ago so maybe if you could just summarize. Eric Rlvkin: I think the cost of lift stations, catch baslns, storm sewers, whatever ls changed by the developer ought to be paid for by the developer. If Lake Lucy Road falls, I think there should be a guarantee by the developer that iF it fails, (he mi[igating expenses should be taken up by the developer. don't belleve, at the last meetlng thelr expert on wetland blology sald they want to reintroduce ca(tails lnto there. I haven't seen very many, if any cattalls in thls wetland. If they reintroduce that, lt's golng to be cattalls wall to wall in probably less than 5 years and it uill dlminish all and any galns in wlldllfe habltat for any open water. I thlnk that any f1111ng of wetlands to create a lot should be absolutely forbidden. I think with the understanding that we have in our wetland ordinance, I thlnk that isn't in the spirit of it. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Ed Jannusch: My name is Ed Jannusch. I live in Greenwood Shores at 6831 Utica Terrace. I have a couple of questions concerning the drainage of the DNR Class A wetland. Was it Rick? Was the Class 4 wetland going to drain entirely to the south, is that correct? Rick Sathre: Yes. 64 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Ed 3annusch: So presently there is a culvert going under Lake Lucy Road and Z just drove by it today after the last couple night's rains and there's water running through that culvert now. All of that water would then go into your Class A wetland and eventually drain out through the Greenwood Shores Class B? Rick Sathre: Historically we believe the water all drained off to the south through a man made ditch. When Lake Lucy Road was upgraded there was a pipe put under the road which allowed the water to really flow both ways. Now the proposal is to allow the water that comes down to the south, the water that's running on the south half of the road would go into this wetland and water that's running into the north half of the road would continue through to Curry Farms. Ed 3annusch: So the crown of the road then would determine which direction the water flowed? Rick Sathre: Correct. Paul Krauss: If I could expound on that for a second. It gets a little curious on this one because Lake Lucy Road is actually the dividing line between two watershed districts. We're not quite sure which way this was flowing. It seems to flow in different directions depending on how plugged up the pipe is. The watershed districts have asked us. Ed Jannusch: Are you referring to under Lake Lucy? Paul Krauss: Yes. There are various restrictions that have occurred. The watershed districts have pretty much asked us to keep with their dividing line so using the crown of the road is probably the most effective way of getting that split so there's an even burden. There could have been some point in the past when it all drains to the south. There probably was times when a lot of it drained to the north. We're just not sure. Ed Jannusch: Well I'm a bit concerned because after the last two nights of rain we've had water, I live on one lot south of the one that adjoins your property line there on the south and it runs directly over my property out through a culvert which ends in the lot next to my property, under the street and then into Lake Lucy. Rick Sathre: Here's a water flow. This is Greenwood Shores down here. You live, here's the cul-de-sac. A house here and a house and then ditch. Ed Jannusch: Yes. I live right next to that ditch. Rick Sathre: On the north side or the south side? Ed Jannusch: On the north side. Rick Sathre: This would be your home. Ed Jannusch: Several years ago when ue had the 10 inches of rain, I had water within 6 inches of coming in my basement door. I know that if you were draining all of that water from your DNR Class A wetland out through a Class B wetland, 65 City Council Nee'Ling -- September 9, 1991 it would have been in my basement or will be in my basement at that time. It seems to me th,it that should be split because some of that water is coming from the, as you showed on your earlier topographical map, some of that baler would normally drain to the north anyway and I think it should continue to drain that way. Naybe it could be split so part of it does continue to go north and the remainder of that drains south now could continue on that way. Earlier there was a slide that you had up. Rick .sathre: Engineers ca~ or are charged sometimes to make things work somehow. Figure out ways to make things work. Politicians and people that ue work for decide what might be wise and then we're told to 9o make it work. So engineers can make things work. What our proposal is here, water comes ir, to r. hat Class B wetland from every direction. It comes in from north, east, west and south. Not much is going west. The water that's draining in from the north, from the Ortenblat property, what I would do at the final plat stage, if we get preliminary approval, I would calculate out in a 100 year storm, a storm that comes every 100 years theoretically and calculate out what this property's runoff is to the Class B wetland and I'd size the pipe coming from the Class ~ wetland such that the water, the rate of water runoff down towards you would not change. ~n other words, we would hold the water upstream in the Class ~ wetland longer than it would be held now so that we don't increase the flow rate down stream. Ed Jannusch: It would .)ust flow longer then? Rick Sathre: It would flow longer, that's right. Ed Jannusch: So I would be under water on the rest of my yard for a longer period of time? Rick Sat hre: Well, I don't know what drainage problems there might be in your yard rlght now but what I'm saying is we wouldn't increase your problem. If there's a problem now, I thlrlk that's something else. We can't solve that. Ed Jannusch: You're telling me it would increase it or it would not? Rick Sathre: I'm telling you we would not increase the flow rate into the Class 8 wetland. If you have a problem now, we can't change that. That would be a matter of cleanlng out the culvert. I thlnk lt's clean. When I looked at it last time it looked clean. I don't know why the water got so high. If there was an obstruction or what but we wouldn't be increasing your problem. Ed Jannusch: It would just be over a longer period of time that I would have the problem. Rlck Sathre: The water would flow through the culvert a longer tlme. Ed Jannuscl]: Okay. Then tile next thing I had a question is, how would tile success or failure of the wetland modification be monitored or appraised? Would there be any assur~ltces in place to correct problems that may arise in the future from these modifications? And would Lundgren then after all of the lots are sold and houses built, does Lundgren just absolve themselves of any reponslbillty for the development and the taxpayer's left holding the bag to 66 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 correct any problems? Is there anything in place then to insure that you would contJnue to work uJth the new technology that you're proposing to mon£tor that? That's a11. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, would you like me at this time to address any of the comments that have been presented? Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we'll get to that very quick. It also seems to be we'll have some comments as well but maybe if would. Just address each of those repsective ones and then we can go from there. Let me ask one other question before we go very much further too. I notice that the drawings that we received for the preliminary plat, even though it's preliminary has not been signed a PE. Normally even in some preliminary plats that come through or drawings, the PE is normally signing his name to that. Is there any reason why that's not been done at this time? Paul do you know? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I know we look at that when we get the final engineering plans certainly and the final plat. In this case too we've been working with Mr. Sathre and I work with him on various projects over the years and know his firm is certainly one of the more capable ones so we really didn't raise it as an issue. Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes those things become an issue after the fact that it goes in and it's not signed. I would just as soon see some PE sign those particular drawings. I think that's been a procedure of the city. Paul Krauss: Certainly on all the final documentation. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and making sure that it is as such. Terry. Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. I'll do the best I can to just briefly respond to some of the items that have been raised here by individuals. First of a11, a tremendous amount of scrutlny has gone into thls and I say that not lightly. I think staff will say and tf each and every one of you read your information and I know you do, you wlll be able to say yeah, a lot of scrutlny has gone into this. Certainly more than the average subdivision. Each issue that has been spoke of here thls evening has been addressed and has been readdressed and readdressed again. I would suggest that it is certainly not correct to suggest that new thlngs have been put before you this evening. The questions have gone unanswered. That is absolutely not true because each item has been answered. Each one that's been asked of us has been answered and staff, I would certainly bet my money would support us with that. There are a couple things I believe maybe were mlsspoke. Maybe they were misunderstood. There are going to be no $100,000.00 homes tn this neighborhood-. The price range of homes as submitted in our documents wlll be somewhere between $175,000.00 and $275,000.00. In my experience, we butld 150 homes a year, that ls not a cheap home. That ls not an Inexpensive home. That ls certainly more than upper mid priced home. Lundgren Bros. has a 350 acre development, half of which ls in Chanhassen rlght now. Wlthin that development there are m1111on dollar homes within 200 yards of homes that are $150,000.00. Good land planning, a lot of thought go lnto creating a subdivision to protect property 67 City Council Meeti~g - September 9, 1991 values. A lot of it has to do with the type of land. There is absolutely no question about lt. Rick, do you have that exhibit that depicts tile pr'operty to the west? The one that you sahred wlth me prior to the meetlng. Because I thlnk this is an important issue and I'm not pooh poohing thls one bit. I think that the statements made by residents to the west about properties to the west ~re entirely true. I think they need to be addressed. I think they should be protected. Unbeknownst to a couple of the individuals who 1lye here, are 11vlng in some of these properties, every single other property owner in the area has contacted Lundgren Bros. on both sldes of the road and asked if we were interested in developing their property. And this has been going on for at least 18 months and so we've done a lot of analysls of thls area. More analysis tlc`an ~ would imagine anybody else has. Primarily because we are looking at some of these properties. The clrcles here represent, and this ls put up here based upon topography maps flown by the cJ. ty of Chanhassen and it was just meant to be a simple analysis to show the number of bulldlng sltes in the area that would go from our west boundary over to where I believe tile edge of tile Phillips property ls. Now you can see by the clrcles, the majority of the bulldlng sltes, if any of this area develops, would be on the Coey property. By the way the asterlcks represent exlstlng dwellings. And there's very few buildlng sltes that are shown `anywhere else. There's a total of about 50 acres of land in there. Tile purpose that Z'm showlng you that ls because some land ls designed, and thls is re:~lly pushing it trying to get that many in here because of tile steep slopes and the wetlands. Some land, because of the way God created it, ls more conducive to l`arger lots and the vlews and vistas associated with those larger lots often tlmes have more expensive homes. If you've been in Sweetwater at Ne,ar Mountain, if you've been in Trapper's Pass at Neat' Mountain, that bears it out and many of the other developments that are in northern Chanhassen or in the northern areas where there's site amenities that make it possible for that type of home. Now if you look at the Ortenblat/Ersbo proposal in front of you, the reason that you're seeing a housing product that's from $175,000.00 to $275,000.00 is because that slte dlctates lt. Now I would 11ke to suggest that ~ wouldn't like to represent to you that we don't know what we're doing. ~e've been doing thls long enough to understand the market. To understand the specific site and how that specific site may develop and work to it's best ablllty. ~e are certainly sensitive to property values because we deal wlth it within our own subdivisions. And by no means do we believe that this proposal lmpacts property values in any way in a negative manner to the properties to the ~est. In fact, like I said in my analysis of the one th`at you just showed on the exhlbit, that property should have been deslgned to have no more than the homesites that ~. just showed you up there oil the exhibit and we've conducted that analysis. Now 11ke T say, it depends on the type of land and belleve me we've looked at every single site in here, mainly because the people called us. About the wetlands. We can absolutely do nothlng there. The Clty can choose to deny this proposal. Lundgren 8roo. can go away and the existing conditions that are there rlght now wlll contlnue to get worse and they wlll contlnue to get worse and it wll]. be less than if we go ahead wlth the proposal. So the choice ls really somewhat clear. It can stay the way it is and continue to get worse or we can work cooperative in trying to make something out of something that has not, certainly has not been, ls not in the most pleasant condition. There's been some discussion about tile watershed. Th`at this site, what thls site is golng to do to the area. I would 11ke to remaln everyone that the watershed for this site is not within tile bound`aries of tile Ortenblat/Ersbo property. We're talklng about 30 acres here that we're impacting. Before we were here, it got City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 screwed up. We didn't do it so that watershed, I don't know how many acres it is. Do you remember Frank? Well it certainly is far greater than 30 acres. So the suggestion that maybe whatever we do here may have an impact on this wetland simply isn't true. It's what everybody does anywhere within the watershed of this wetland is what impacts it. As the lady who spoke first stated so very clearly to you. Somebody down the road, not even adjacent to the site is doing some filling. Yeah, you bet that affects it. $o the point is what we're doing here is we are putting in controls in an attempt to try to control situations so they don't get worse and in fact so they improve. I could go on further but I think I've covered the most important aspects of some of the comments. I believe there's been some smoke in mirrors and we've tried our best to respond to those. We'd be happy to answer any questions that the City Council would have of either our wetland and wildlife specialist or our engineer or myself would be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'd just like to make a comment on this. Being that there has been an awful lot of discussion on this, I think what I'd like to try to do is to have us review probably all the comments that have been said this evening. I think what I'd like to do is just table this for 2 weeks and come up with some some conclusions. At least base your decisions on some of the inputs that have been given on both sides of the fence. I think Lundgren Bros. have been well on every project they've had within the city has been excellent. This is something new that we're embarking on. I'm sure they've given a lot of consideration to what they've done but I think we should just then sort of re-review this and come back at our next Council meeting. Not only because time is getting late but I think you'll probably have another decision...so maybe we'll entertain that. I'd like to have someone at least make a motion if they so desire and then I'll open it up for questions. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. But we're still going to talk? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to ask Terry a question. Usually when we have a PUD consideration both parties are benefitting and I've gone through all your considerations and deletions that you've proposed here tonight. How do you feel that the City is still benefitting? I just can't see the benefit to the city here. Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, would you like me to answer that at this time? We have an overhead of each and every item. Mayor Chmiel: How many items are there Terry? Terry Forbord: Probably about 13. Half of them are in the staff report already. 69 City Council Heeti~g - September Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 'f think what I'd probably much prefer to do is to have you sit on this and come back with those answers to that particular question. Any other thoughts or' discussion? M.i. ke, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: I have three pages of questions. Councilwoman Dimler: Z do too. Councilman Mason: I do think Lundgren Bros. does what I've seen and I know some people liue in Neat' Moulltaill. ~t's good stuff. I don't think you can completely absolve yourself in responsibility of what's going on in the area. If this goes through, whether you created the changes lO years ago or not, some things will be forever changed and Z think sometimes we lose sight of that. Hopefully if this goes through and the wetland changes...ue don't know that. You will be filling in some wetlands. There are going to be some changes and I think we're ail a part of this. Lundgren Bros. certainly is too. I think the comments that the neighbors have made about the size of the project, there's been a whole lot of input tonight that I think ue need to thil~k about. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom? Co~ncilman Workman: I've only got a couple of things. The shoreland treatment for the existing wetlands and how these homeowners will treat their individual shorelands. Example Curry Farms. And then with ali the water and then half the lot being water, what are we going to be creating as far as variances as far as future decks and how will the buyers be presented wlth that. That's all Z have for now, Z think ue should table it because Z don't think ue can do it justlce. Mayor Chmiel: Richard? Councilman Wing: I'd kind of like to get an update just because I'm not real familiar with this on the optlons we have. T understand the PUO and the give and take and the variances but whether this ls rural residential or residential single fatally, small or l~rge lot. T_f we didn't do the PUD, I'd like a presentation on optlons. What mlght we gain by not going to a PUD. Mlght we get larger lots. The cost of the home doesn't affect me as much ~s the square foot, the actual lot slze. How else could we use thls land? What are the uses going to be put there under existing ordinances and how might we zone it other t hah PUD? Iiayor Chmiel: At one given time, if I remember readlng on thls, one of the property owners was going to develop hls segment, one of them, into ? lots. Is that correct? So I mean there's been some of that thought glven at that particular tlme? Councilman Wing: For this particular? Mayor Chmiel: Just for one of the property owners. There are two property owners ~nvolved. Paul Krauss: You're referring to the Ersbo piece. 7O City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Okay. Anything else? Councilman Wing: No. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have lots of questions that I've written in here as well and I think I'm just going to defer those. So we have a motion on the floor with a second to table. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to table the Lundgren Bros/ Ortenblat/Ersbo subdivision request until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could add just one more thing in there. My concern for pie shaped lots. I see three of them that could be a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comments. CONSIDER CITY COMPOSTING SITE. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm filling in for 3o Ann and Bill tonight so bear with me if you wi11. We're seeking approval to allow the opening of a temporary compost slte for leaves, grass clippings and brush. Due to the deslre to have it available for Fall clean-up, we're obviously running out of time so time is very short. Recycling Commission has revlewed several alternatives ultimately choosing to recommend a drop-off site be developed. Material would be placed in roll off containers and collected as it becomes full for processing elsewhere. We've got a proposal we received from R & W Rolloff to operate the site. There would be a nomlnal charge for dropping off at the property. Of course if you bundle up your material now and have your hauler take it, there's a charge for that in any case. The locatlon of the drop off site ls really an lssue. There were three sites that were looked at. Bandimere Park, Public Works and Lake Ann Park. Publlc Works slte has some problems. We need that slte as an operating use and it really kind of makes it difficult to work around it. Staff brought forward a recommendation to the Recycling Commission that they look at Bandlmere Park. Our concern wlth Lake Ann is that it's our most intensively used park. Our Park's Director here tonight to comment on that. It really stands a very high chance of causing problems with park operations. The Recycling Commission recommended agalnst Bandlmere and in favor of Lake Ann believing it to be more accessible and I think they had a concern with traffic safety. We're bringing forward thelr recommendation to you but we're continuing to recommend that it be a Bandimere Park and I thlnk our Recreation 01rector can comment on that a little further. As far as the trafflc situation goes, we all know that access to Lake Ann is really no prize as it is right now so we're not certain that the trade off ls all that substantial. So we are brlnging forward thelr recommendation. We're continuing to recommend that this be established at Lake Ann Park and that you authorize us to do thls hopefully as soon as posslble so we can get it up and running. Mayor Chmiel: Lake Ann Park, okay. Is the County going to do any substation for this? They do acquire a certain amount of dollars. I know that some of that's belng cut back. 71 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know Mayo)'. I know that 3o Ann was talking to them about ~.his. AL one point they indicated possibly yes and then we heard no and I haven't heard the latest. HayoF Chmiel: Z think we should pursue it because we're taking care of some of the problems that are existing that have been put on the responsibilities of the County and of course now they're throwing it back f.o tile City. Some of those dollars are appropriated out of Met Council as well as some of the other dollars that come back ~.o the County. So maybe we can check that out. discussion? Do you like the one site over the other? Do you like Lake Ann better? Councilman Workman: I like Band/mere. H~yor Chmiel: I do too but that's beside the point. Don 4shworth: If it is going to be considered for Lake 4nn, the Park Commission h~.~s not seen tills ~.o the best of my knowledge and I've got some real concerns with Lake ~nn Park. It's not really, we want to keep Lake Ann open as long as ue can keep it open. That means there's a lot of times when there's not a gate attendant out there. ~hereas wit[, any type of composting or any type of drop off area, you've got to worry about tires and all. of the other junk that goes out there. I think we need to talk about this one a little bit more before we jump on it. Mayor Chmiel: I think too that Tom mentioned the fact of Bandimere and I feel a little more comfortable with that because there's not as much traffic there and it's a better site and not combining two different things. It's wide open. thought it'd be any problem just as Lake finn but potentially I think ue could utilize that site more so than Lake ~nn. If we continue with this for a period of time with all tile things that §o on at the park, we could be opening ourselves for more problems than what we probably want. gouncilwoman DimleF: I do have a question though. This is temporary right? Hayor Chmiel: This is temporary. Councilworoan Dimle)': How long? Hayor Chmiel: Temporary lasts forever. Unfortunately. Councilwoman Dimler: How long do ue look at using this site? Mayor Chmiel: I think a temporary site, we should have a timeframe established on it. Paul Krauss: Yeah, T think basically we're looking, and Don correct me if I'm wrong but we're looking at this Fall. We need to get a permanent site. We need to get the cooperation of the County which has been 11ke pulllng teeth. Hopefully over the winteF that can be resolved. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're talking just this Fall? Okay. 72 City Council Meeting - September Paul Krauss: That's not to say next summer they won't make... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, we're not looking at developing the Bandimere Park at all? Hayor Chmiel: Not for a while. Councilman Hason: Why is it unsafe at Bandimere? Paul Krauss: Well, I think they pointed out you have the TH 101 and the curves. Councilman Hason: Lake Ann's not a whole lot better for access. Hayor Chmiel: With TH 5, no it isn't. And there too I think me can control the access to Bandimere. Councilman Hason: At Bandimere better, yeah. Hayor Chmiel: With some kind of a gate in that area which wouldn't be too difficult to put. Councilman Workman: I think if we're going to keep it open for non-residents, we ought to charge them double and have free for our residents. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should charge our residents as well. Hayor Chmiel: I would think that we should, I hate tabling things. Everybody knows that but I think there should be some more discussions on this as well. Or do you have another? Paul Krauss: I don't know Hayor. I suspect as it is we've got to get notice out to everybody probably by a mailing that this ks available. Councilwoman Dimler: Boes anybody know what the costs are that are involved? Paul Krauss: Well there's cost that Jo Ann had acknowledged with Rolloff and Z think it was $1.00 per bag and $2.00 per bundle and that would cover their cost. Councilman Wing: What about a pick-up truck? Councilman Workman: Why don't we pack it ali in that barn and torch that barn. Paul Krauss: Well this is with them putting those rolloff containers there so they're going to pick it up and just move it. Mayor Chmiel: Would anybody Iike to make a motion? Councilman Hason: Yeah. I'll make a motion. While as I understand the Recycling Committee's concern about Bandimere being unsafe, I think the consensus of the Council here is that Bandimere is probably better than Lake Ann so I would like to make a motion that we, on a temporary basis only, i.e. this Fall, make Bandimere Park the composting site. 73 City Council Heeting --September 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it. Councilman Workman: Ooesn't that leave off too much though? I 1oean the cost and who. Mayor Chmiel: But you're going to have to do it though. We're going to have to do something one way or tile other. Councilman Workman: Well ue don't have to do anything. Hayor Chmiel: No you don't but then wait until you start getting the phone calls. Councilman Workman: Well I've already gotten them. Paul Krauss: Be also have some funds allocated in our Recycling budget that any cost would be taken out of. Hayor Chmiel: Paul, what costs are we really looking at? Paul Krauss: The only one that I'm aware of, and I don't know about site preparatioI~, is that ue need to have somebody there so we need to have a part time person down there and Z talked to Todd possibly about gettlng one of his recreation people down there on a part time basis. Don Ashuorth: ...volunteers as well but anyway, if we could get the decision made that it should be Bandimere, we can bring back at your next meetlng cost implications, how we can make it cheaper, how we can whatever. councilman Win.q: Is it going to be, rather than transfer it, is there an area that could be fllled and left to just decompose? Do we have to move this? Mayor Chmiel: The only problem with that Richard is that there is a tremendous odor sometimes ulth these...and we have to be careful. Councilman Wing: No question about that but is there anybody that would be affected nearby? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. There's a resident neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel-' There's a few but they're far enough away that if we keep it on the far end. So what's your pleasure? We have a motlon on the floor wlth a second. ~ny other discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: This is with the understanding that we're going to discuss price and so forth at the next meeting? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We're just choosing the site to get some additional dollars r. here. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to designate Band/mere Park, on a temporary basis only, i.e. this Fall, as the City's composting site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 74 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor7 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: Under Adminstrative Presentations there are some items on here that I think are significant, major, that need discussion and though of the Council and I would suggest that we not have a special meeting but if we could start the next meeting at 6:30 to pick up this Administrative Section. Mayor Chmiel: Sounds good to me. Councilman Wing: Some of these I want somewhat detailed. Paul Krauss: I think since a lot of those items are mine, your concern is well taken but we have, Tom pointed out earlier, we have 5 variances on our next meeting so we're actually looking at starting that at 6:00 and going right through to when this starts. Mayor Chmiel: Therein lies the problem. Let me just move on to the next 1rem, item 10. Being that the Public Safety Commission's meeting is cancelled for this month, let's just table thls untll the next meetlng. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appointment to the Public Safety Commission until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, maybe staff could just try to make sure we keep the 23rd agenda as light as possible so you could pick up these items. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be good. Should we or do we really want to discuss your Council presentations as well? Councilwoman Dimler: I'll do that next time. Councilman Workman: I pass. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll put that onto the next meeting. The Administrative Presentations as we've looked. What about our traffic control7 Don Ashworth: You moved that to the Admin Section. Mayor Chmiel: That's right and that's been moved to the Admin Section. If we keep that wlth a 11ght schedule maybe we can do that at the next meetlng. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, two brief things. You and I have talked quite a bit about the slgn ordinance task force and the surface water management task force. We'd like to get moving ahead with those when we can and we've gotten some people requesting that they be on the surface water task force and I need to get you the names. I guess it might be helpful if the Council would indicate who'd they would 11ke to serve on elther of those and you could declde who the residents are going to be. We were hoping to have a first meeting with Bonestroo by the end of thls month. We can delay that but it would be useful to get on with it. 75 City Council HeeLing -- September 9, 1991 Mayor Chmie]: Yeah, Z think we'll probably delay that until we get really to it. That cai] be doi]e very simply the Ilext time. As long as you get people who are willing to serve on it. Paul Krauss: I think we need some Council representation on both. Mayor Chmiel: Anybody that would like to volunteer their time just raise your hand. Councilman Mason: Surface water. Mayor Chmiel' Surface water and there is also for. Councilwoman Oimler: The sign ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the other one as well. So with that if we're going to table this until the next meetlng. I would 11ke to have a motion for adjounment. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Ophelm 76