Loading...
1991 05 20CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR HEETING MAY 20, 1991 Mayor Chmlel called the meetlng back to order at 8:40 p.m.. COUNCILHEHBERS. PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman O£mler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Scott Hart, Todd Hoffman, 3o Ann 01sen, Dave Hempel and Scott Harri and Mark Koegler from Van Ooren-Hazard- Stallings. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Counc/lman Mason myued, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the fol[o~tng additions under Council Presentations: Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the Hetropolitan Council and bring up an item from Willy Holnau; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss ~est 78th Street Detachment, RTB and a recent editorial in the Villager; and Councilwoman Dtmler wanted to discuss the possibility of regulating billboards in the city. voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENT$: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution ~91-44: Southwest Corrldor Transportation Coalition, Resolution Supporting Continued Federal Funding for New U.S. Highway 212 Project. e. Resolution ~1-45: Award of Bids for Construction of Auxiliary Turn Lanes on Trunk Htghway 101 at Sandy Hook Road and Choctaw Circle; Project 89-26. h. Resolution ~91-4&: Resolution Approving Gambling Permit Application for Chanhassen American Legion Club Post 580, 7995 Great Plains Blvd. i. Approval of Accounts. 1. Clty Code Amendment to Section 19-142, Surface Water Management Fees, Second and Final Readlng. m. Resolution ~91-47: Herman Field Park Gradlng and Surfacing, Award of Blds, Improvement Project 87-07. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICAT~QNS FIDR IHPROVEHENT~ TO #EST 7~TH STREET, EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 101; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS; PRO~KCT ~&-8. Mayor Chmiel: This ts where we're approvings plans and specs for improvements to West 79th Street east of TH 101, authorizing bids for the project. I'd 11ke an explanation as to the amount of total dollars on this. Would you like to address that? City Council Meeting -- May 20, 1991 Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I will defer that question to our consultant engineer, Mr. Scott Harri. Scott Harri: Mr. Mayor, members of the Councll. It just seems like I was up here explaining some costs to you just a few weeks ago. On thls particular project, and which ls the normal course, following the preparation of a feasibility study then you orderlng the improvements, the preparation of the final plans normally includes a more detailed look at all the work activities that would be associated with the publlc improvement. And during the feasibility study there's a line ltem that gets lumped in to miscellaneous engineering and administrative and legal which is part of the contingency of unknowns for the project. The unknowns for the project are normally those that shake out as far as the small minute details. In this case a separate factor was added to thls and we've seen recent blds come in on other projects in the southwest area right here. Recent bids that show that the unit prices for work activities slmllar to what we're experiencing here on West 79th are hlgher than what we had anticipated based on historical costs comlng into this. So the combination of those two factors, we recommended a 11ttle hlgher budget than what was in the feasibility study. Mayor Chmiel: That was my question Scott. Why $4,000.00 higher than what was in the. Scott Harri: Well, the contingency that was in the feasibility study however will cover this new construction cost that we have in front of you so that the total project cost of $75,000.00 some odd dollars that was in that feasibility study, that still is a realistic number. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Scott Harri: And that we're seeing just a shifting of some of the costs here. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess I just have some concerns about throwing our estimates out and having the bldders get an opportunity to take a look at it and telling us and trying to get a lower bid and I don't know how we go about those klnds of thlngs. Hopefully the bidders comlng in wlll have sufficient numbers to have maybe a lower bld than basically what we're going in at. Scott Harri: We keep the engineer's estimate quite confidential on all these projects. If they took the time they could come and research the public record on what these estimates were but we, at thts polnt in the project, keep that number confident until after the bid opening. Mayor Chmiel: Right. We don't know if there's someone sittlng here in our Council chambers or depending upon when you're going to have the bids come in, if they slt at one of their frlend's home and watches our monltors and TV. I get a little concerned with that. I think ue somehow have to be very cautious in a11oulng our blds golng out. That they're golng to be a good flrm bid of something that's not overly estimated. Scott Harri: Okay. Very good. And anybody got a question? City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, I'll move item 1(c). Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Resolution ~91-48: Ha¥or Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Plans and Specifications for I,provements to West 79th Street East of Trunk Highway 101 and Authorize Advert/sing for Bids; Project 91-8. All voted in favor and the ,orion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: By the way, don't throw these out. They need them back and you can save another tree somewhere along the way. Councilman Mason: I do have a question. How come things are never printed back to back with you guys? With a lot of your stuff. Scott Harri: The back to back printing is ali of the boiler plate material that never changes. The stuff that we print that's newly created for each specific project when we print it, it's more time efficient for us just to print one side. Councilman Mason: At what point is time efficient as opposed to environmentally conservative? I'm just throwing it out Scott. I mean you know. I think of the thousands of sheets of paper that are wasted. Scott Harri: True and uhen we do, when ue are presented with a thicker volume, we just simply don't have the practical binders large enough to do that and that's ahy we use the double sided copy but i'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your comment. D. AWARD OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO, 6; PRO3ECT NO, 9[-X. Mayor Chmiel: As I looked at this, proposal for the project has been scheduled to take place Friday, May 17th and at the time I was not in the position to even move this. I would have tabled it because I wanted to see what the bids are. But we were furnished the bids just this evening in the Council chamber and ue about know where we're coming from with the total cost. The estimate that was proposed and it's proposed to the bidders coming in, I will let David. Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The bids were received and opened up Friday morning for construction of Well and Pumphouse No. 6. The City received a total of 5 bids. The range of bids ranged from $147,000.00 to a high bid of $178,411.00. The engineer's estimate for this project was $158,000.00. It's recommended that the low bid be awarded in the amount of $147,482.00 to Gilbert Mechanical Contractors contingent upon executing contract agreements and performance bonds and certificate of insurance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's $10,000.00 lower than the engineer's estimate. He came in at about $158,000.007 Dave Hempel: That's correct. City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: We're right in the ballpark. Okay, any discussions on this? Hearing none, I'll make the motion to accept the bid for Well No. 6, Pumphouse Control, City of Chanhassen to be awarded to Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Incorporated, 3012 Clinton Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN in the amount of $147,482.00. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ~91-49: Nayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the contract for construction of Well No. 6, Project 91-1 to Gilbert Hechanical Contractors Incorporated in the amount of $147,482.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. F. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 7TH ADDITION. Councilman Workman: This is very, very trivial. I won't take up any more time than we need to. Do we already have a Flamlngo Drlve attached to thls? Dave Hempel: That's correct. The Flamingo Drive is an extension of the existlng Flamlngo Drive for the 3rd Phase. Councilman Workman: Are there any residents... Dave Hempel: There are existing homes on Flamingo Drive already. Councilman Workman: Is it too late to get it changed? My point being Flamingo, I don't know what it evokes in you but. Mayor Chmiel: A very graceful bird. Councilman Workman: I think we've got Thrush Court near by, King Fisher Court. We've got that Flamingo doesn't seem is indiguous to the Chanhassen street scape that. A flamlngo just doesn't, thls lsn't Florlda. Mayor Chmiel: It just doesn't grab you. Councilman Workman: And I'm hoping the rest of the Council kind of sees that it's klnd of, I may not live on a street named Flamingo just for that reason. I mean ls that? Councilman Wing: No, I feel the same way about Dogwood. That's too late. Councilman Workman: It's a tree. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there an alternate that you'd like to recommend? Councilman Workman: Well no I don't but just about anything. Flamingo just doesn't seem 11ke it belongs in what we have here in Mldwest Chanhassen. I'd like to make a motion if posslble to ask the developer, and I'd apologize to the developer for whatever reason he named it that, if in fact there couldn't be an alternate. Mayor Chmiel: That would be strictly up to the developer I thlnk Tom. City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Dave Hempel: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. We do have the 5th Addition with approximately ~ or l0 lots already fronting Flamingo Drive with a few new home construction under way. It may be possible to work with potential new home owners here to see if we could change that or work with the developer in changing that name. Mayor Chmiel: That would entail each of those people making changes in everything they have. Councilman Workman: But are they living there? Have we given Certificate of Occupancies on these homes? Dave Hempel: We may have on a couple of them. There's a few more under construction at this time. Councilman Workman: Well maybe we leave it up to them. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, because it would be. Councilman Workman: Woodchuck Drive or something. I don't know. I guess we maybe can't at this point enforce it but maybe contact them and say if you'd 11ke to, it can't be that blg of a deal. I'll make a motion to that regard. Councilman Wing: It may be the only bird that starts with the letter F so we may have no alternative. Councilman Workman: No, let's leave it up to the neighbors. ! don't know. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I'll be happy to second it because I think it's a polnt well taken but I look to you for advice here prior to doing that. Mayor Chmiel: Well, have we had a platting on that already and signed off on that plat? Dave Hempel: Yes. Mr. Mayor we have. Mayor Chmiel: Meaning it would have to go back through the County and get that all redone at an expense to that individual and I don't thlnk we should incur those costs or have those people incur those costs. If some of them have already have their residences in, they may have that address on there which would have to go through a change again with their banks and so on. If they've already changed thelr credlt cards. Councilman Workman: And that's what we don't know. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. Well that's something that we don't know. Councilman Workman: If we can check that out and then. Mayor Chmlel: But I would say then that we should have. Councilman Workman: I mean 50 new residents are going to have that for a long time too. City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: We'll leave that up to the developer himself to see if he so chooses to change it. Is that what you're saying? Councilman Workman: Well yeah. My desire would be to approach the developer in the possible residents there currently and say we would help to expedite that change if possib].e. Hayor Chmiel: Expedite without cost to the City. Councilwoman Dimler: And without cost to the residents. Councilman Workman: If they so choose. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the final plat, construction plans and specifications and development contract, Project 91-9 for Lake Susan Hills 7th Add£tion with the addition of approaching the developer and residents currently living on Flamingo Drive to see if they're interested in changing the name of the street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FESAIBILITY STUDY FOR DRAINAGE IHPROVEHENTS ON LONE CEDAR LANE AT TRUNK HIGHWAY 5, PROJECT HO. 90-9. Mayor Chmlel: I had calls from two of the adjacent property owners and before I asked them to come forward Z would llke, I had some discussions with Dave this afternoon with some other considerations that I looked at. My suggestion ls that in looking at what we had seen on the drawings, it appears as though 90~ of the runoff ls really attributable to the Hlghway Department. Rather than having the Highway Department fund 2/3 of that as they proposed, I think they should plck up 90~ of that cost because they're causlng the water runoff onto it whlch would lower the total cost of the project in itself. I've asked Dave to contact MnDot and dlscuss thls wlth them and see whether or not they would be amendable to accepting our position which would mean less dollars spent. Do you have anything more to add to that Dave? Dave Hempel' No, Mr. Mayor. That's basically it. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. I'd open the floor for either Joe or Scott to come up and present your portions. And if we could limit it to. Joe Mitlyng: 5 minutes? Mayor Chmiel: That's great. Joe Mitlyng: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, good evening. I'm Joe Mitlyng. My family and I live at 3800 Arboretum Blvd.. I've been here before talklng about the problems we have wlth our property wlth the access dlrectly onto TH 5. You have a copy of the letter that I sent to the Mayor dated May 6th in the packet and if you have any questions about the letter, I'd be happy to do what I can to try to address those. Since sending that letter, I've had time to glve some additional thought to this project. And as I have, lt's occurred to City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 me that as you think about the problems of the assessments, perhaps one way of addressing this project, if you look at those who benefit by the project. The Mayor is correct and David Hempel and others are able to work out with the State so that a significant portion of the assessments are covered, then I think that's just fine. But failing that, thinking about who benefits from this project may give us a way to get around the assessment issue. That's really the only issue that's left. People have raised questions from a year ago when this project was brought before the City Council and it was brought at a meeting of the community, people raised questions. You may remember at that time the idea was to close off Lone Cedar and it would have required the citizens of Lone Cedar to pay a portion of that cost because of the drainage issue. Their drainage was going to come into this project. And as you think about this project, what we've done now is create a plan that addresses the concern that the neighbors raised at that meeting. As far as a right turn lane off of TH 5 and it provides a frontage road for my property keeping Lone Cedar open. Let me give you a handout because there's three points I'd like to make. First, what are the elements of the project in total? Secondly, what are the assessments for? Thirdly, who benefits? In terms of what the project entails, there's actually three parts to the project. One is, did you all get a copy? Mayor Chmiel: Coming slowly but surely. Councilman Mason is having a problem with his coughing and I happen to have a cough drop in my pocket and I was going to assist him but he had a handful there. Joe Mitlyng: There's actually three parts to the project. One is the frontage road that picks up from our driveway and goes up the hill here to Lone Cedar. The second part of the project then is closing our access to TH 5. The third part of the project then is, with that closed, to build a right turn lane that comes up to hook into Lone Cedar. As I thought about it, there are really two questions. One is what are the assessments for? Well, they're not for either of these roads. The State is going to pay for the entire cost of the frontage road and the right turn lane. The assessment costs are for the storm system that has to be built in the bottom of the ditch because they're filling in the ditch to build these two new roads. Eventually narrowing the size of the ditch to fill in so the storm drainage system that comes through here and there's a short dogleg that comes up into the bottom part of this property if that's where the drainage comes. That's the only part of the project that ties the drainage off of these lots. The rest of this is just replacing the ditch drainage and the highway... Here's for the assessments are for. The assessments are for a drainage system which is really incidental to the total project. The question is who benefits from the project. The last line. Well clearly I do. My family does. Instead of having the access directly onto TH 5, ue would access through this frontage road to Lone Cedar and through that, Mtnnewashta Parkway and they're going to put a light I understand. Minneuashta and TH 5... We can get away from the direct access onto TH 5. The residents of Lone Cedar have asked the State for a number of years nov to develop the right turn lane. For a variety of reasons...up until now been unwilling to put the right turn lane... Even the Gauer's benefit. If their wish is to eventually subdivide this property, they need to have a separate road access as part of the city requirements for subdivision. So this road would provide the separate road access to the subdivision of this property. So in summary, what are the costs for? They're for the drainage system. I think the Mayor is accurate. Right on the mark when talking about the highway drainage system. Most of that... Who City Council. HeeLing - Hay 20, 1991 benefits? I do. My family does. The neighbors and residents who use Lone Cedar do and so do the Gauers. So are there any questions about the letter or these comments? Mayor Chmiel: Any questions by Council? If not, thank you Joe. 3De Hitlyng: Thank you. Scott Gauer: My name is Scott 6auer. I live right here. We bought the house about 2 years ago and this is, I don't know how familiar you are with this but this J.s all city land right here. Our concern is that when we bought our lot we intended on subdividing here but we need some more land to do that. We need 20,000 square feet for a lot. That had been approved I think in September... What we're looking at is if they build this road, then the city and the State propose to vacate this area in favor of us and that would give us enough square footage to subdivide. And if that happens, that's great. I guess the reason I',~ here j.s to just make sure that that goes through and if there's any debate or any problem with that, I'd like to have that said up front... With the road going through, we're losing a lot because this is TH 5 right here. This is our house. Our kids play right i~ here. they have a suingset and sandbox and things like that. What we have now here is a big berm that protects our house from a lot of the sounds from the highway. When that road was going through, the State said we can take that berm out... And through here there's a row of Russian olive trees and...that they're going to have to take out to put the road in so we want to restore some of that. Haybe put a berm here to block our circular drive. Put a berm here and plant some mo~'e, some kind of barrier. Put a fence up. ~hatever we can do to try and restore... Basically about the assessments, I think whoever benefits should pay for them. I agree everybody benefits from the turn lane. It's going to be... ~s for the road here, clearly...and it basically detracts from us... Hayor chmiel: Are there any questions? Dave, do you have any comments on that? Dave Hempel: Yes Hr. Hayor. As indicated in the staff report, Hngot is in favor of the right turn lane. In favor of the frontage road and in an effort to eliminate even one driveway access, will provide the funding to do this. The original intent was to close off Lone Cedar. However, due to the opposition voiced from the neighborhood meeting that we held back in September, the decision was to leave it open for future and construct a right turn lane. HnDot has also indicated though, without that frontage road or alternative access to Mr. Mitlyng's residence, they will not be able to close off his access to TH 5. Therefore, not put in that right turn lane so they are, the two pro~ects are essentially tied into one. The frontage road and right turn lane. You can't have one without the other essentially. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why, we stopped at the Hitlyng's. Why not continue, if we're worried about TH 5 and access, why aren't we talking about continuing down and picking up the remaining house? Getting rid of that driveway which is probably one of the blindest ones there. Picking that up onto the service road also? Dave Hempel: That's correct. HnDot and staff also reviewed that. However, limited right-of--way to construct a frontage road aZong with the ditch section City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 that's currently there and also the placement of Mr., I can't recall the gentleman's name there. East of Mr. Mitlyng would use up too much of the resident's front yard. Therefore, the frontage road was not feasible to extend it. Sight distance from that resident's driveway is considerably better than Mr. Mitlyng's. Councilman Wing: What will the State do then wthey come out TH 5 on the improvements? They're not going to allow that driveway to exist are they? If we're talklng about whenever thls project would hit this portion of TH 5. Dave Hempel: Yes, the right turn lane project actually starts after the drlveway of Abe. I can't recall his last name. Councilman Wing: That's not my point. When they finally come westbound on TH 5 with the improvements such as they're working on now, and they do the portlon from TH 41 westbound, they're not going to tolerate that access at that point are they of that driveway? Won't they have to address it at that tlme and then won't we have done all this other project in the meanwhile? Dave Hempel: That's correct but the timeframe for the extension or expansion of TH 5 west of TH 41 is not really even conceived yet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? If hearing none, I'll move, make the motion to authorize preparation of feasibility report for the frontage road improvement of TH $ and Lone Cedar Lane, Project 90-9. Is there a seoond? Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution ~1-50: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize the preparatLon of the feasibility study for Drainage Improvements on Lone Cedar Lane at Trunk Highway 5, Project 90-9. Al! voted in favor and the mot[on carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF HINUTE$: Councilwoman Dimler: Real quick. Just in the Minutes on page 19. It was the Council Minutes. Page 19. I have a quote there. 10 lines up from the bottom, or 9 11nes up from the bottom. We're talklng about the safety concerns in the new development there by Kurvers Point and it says, I'm told that our emergency vehlcles are 4 wheel drives and that they can go over rough land or lawns. Not logs. I just didn't want anyone to read that in the future and. Mayor Chmlel: It's really nice to see that you did read this. I went right over it. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you? You didn't catch that? Mayor Chmiel: No, I was just checking out to see what I said. Councilwoman Dimler: Just for the record please. I think 4 wheel drives would have a tough time going over logs. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that motion? City Council Meeting -- May 20, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Please amend the Minutes as stated and I move the Minutes of the Council meeting of May &th. Councilman Workman: second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Minutes: City Council Minutes dated May 6, 1991 as amended on page 19; Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1, 1991; and Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 23, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. K. APPROVE RESOLUTION REGARDING DNR SHORELAND ORDINANCE GRANT. Councilman Workman: I saw 30 Ann face to face today and I didn't talk to her about this. I apologize. I don't know really what we're dolng here now and ~ always get nervous when somebody's going to match money for us and we're going to pay some more. I thought, two thlngs. I thought we had a very good shoreland ordinance and then, secondly I thought we were going to be dolng an awful lot of thlngs with the storm water utlllty so I'm wondering what are we going to be doing to justify the other half of this? Jo Ann Olsen: There's a revised Shoreland Ordinance of rules. Councilman Workman: But we don't have a copy of that? Jo Ann Olsen: I've got a copy of that upstairs if you want me to go get it. The Shoreland rules that we now have adopted are old so we have 2 years to adopt the new regulations. If you see the letter that's in the attachment, we are ordered to do this. Councilman Workman: Okay, but if we've got a copy of that and what we have to do and we're being told to do it, it's going to cost us $10,000.007 Jo Ann Olsen: Not necessarily. That's if we hire the consultant to do all the work but there's a lot of comparing what they are giving to us versus what we want to adopt or do we want to make more stringent rules? So we have to go through it pretty thoroughly. There's going to be public hearlngs in front of the Plannlng Commission. We have to go back through all of our designations of the lakes. Councilman Workman: Can you give me an idea maybe what they're gettlng at? I mean further setback requirements or what are they getting at? Jo Ann Olsen: There's not that many changes but the PUD section is all new. Where if there's a PUD within the shoreland district, now there's some really definite regulations that we would have to enforce. Most of the typical ones that you're lnvolved with like the lot area within the shoreland district and setbacks, those haven't changed. Nor do we really have any intention of it changing. But we do have to bring it for public hearing to see if there are thlngs that we want to change. We'll be going in front of the Planning Commission. There's going to be a lot of staff time involved. Councilman Workman: So this is pretty much a State government mandate? 10 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 30 Ann Olsen: Exactly. And it's money that we will be spending but half of it will be paid by the DNR. Mayor Chmiel: Can I piggyback on yours? review the proposed ordinance? Do we have the expertise in house to Jo Ann Olsen: I belleve so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I don't see us, I can see us getting $5,000.00 from the ONR but I don't like to take $5,000.00 out of the City's coffers. I think we could offset. Is it absolutely necessary that we go out and hlre a 'consultant again to do this? Jo Ann Olsen: No. It's up to $5,000.00 so if we only spend $200.00 of staff time on the public hearing notices, that's what we would pay and that's how much we would get. Or we'd pay $100.00 and we'd get $100.00 back from the BNR. It's up to $5,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. To me free money is not free money. Somebody's puttlng it out there and we're doing this all the way through the legislature and every other place we look because lt's something we want and lt's something we must have. Or it's good for us. And they spend those dollars and I guess I want to watch those kinds of dollars from the Clty aspect. Just as I know the balance of the Council does as well so I guess that's the reason why I asked the question. I'd 11ke to see that klnd of direction be glven. If we have the time to do it. Richard. Councilman Wlng: I'm glad Tom brought thls up. I just made an assumption that this was going to do with shoreland setbacks and one of the variances that was granted down on Lake Rlley recently allowed a house I think closer than 75 feet but Paul's rationale was that the setback was going to be changed. Altered. The State was golng to change setbacks on some circumstances and most likely this wouldn't be a requirement in another 6 months. Now is this? Jo Ann 01sen: That would be what it ls now. Whether or not, I haven't gone through those... Councilman Wlng: But thls ls the document? 30 Ann 01sen: But that's what affects that. And the City has the ability to put that into the regulations. If the DNR accepts thls. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Workman: So how will the Council be watchlng whether or not we spend $5.00 or $200.00? Jo Ann 01sen: Really all I see us spending agaln ls the staff time and the public hearing notices so we'll just try to keep track of the hours. We will keep track of the hours. Councilman Workman: Can you just as an amendment to approval, can you maybe give a rough idea of what this might cost us in dollars~ I'd move approval for 11 City Council Meetif]g -. May 20, 1991 free money. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Resolution ~91-51: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a Resolution regarding the BMR Shoreland Ordinance Grant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: REALLOCATE YEAR XVI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO UNDERTAKE SENIOR HOUSING/SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY. Hayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Jo Ann Olsen: Essentially what's happening is Paul's been working with Larry 81ackstad and he's requested us to take some of the funds from one year and put it into another year so that he meets his allocation. Essentially we're getting all the same money. It's still going to the same things you voted on before. Nothing's changed. It's just different years. Mayor Chmiel: I was with Paul the day that we had this discussion and yeah, I know what he's saying. Although I do have some just a couple concerns here. Again we'll be looking for requests for proposals and having someone do the research for this to go through some of the proposals that we're looking at in some of those discussions. I'm wondering if we are checking with other cities to find out what they have done. What some of the thoughts are. Acquire some of their information and take it from there rather than getting another consultant come on board starting to look at it and coming up with some of our own ideas before we hire that particular consultant. Or if we do hire. I guess Z just don't want us to run too fast with this. I want to really stand there and know exactly what we're looking for those senior housing needs and to come up with a feasibility study for this. But I want us to be a little cautious in doing this. Walk but don't run. This is what I'm saying. Ursula? Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I have some of the same concerns and I just wanted to make sure, and Z think you've already said it but I want to make sure that what we're doing here is we're not taking any money away from Sojourn or from the other projects or programs that we already allocated money to. Jo Ann Olsen: Everything remains the same. Councilwoman Oimler: Everything remains the same? But we're talking about $26,000.00 plus dollars that are being allocated to a study. Is that correct? 3o Ann Olsen= Right. That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: Is this coming out of year XVI or XgII? 3o Ann Olsen: I think it's coming out of both. The $23,000.00 is coming from one of the years and then $3,000.00 is coming from. 12 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, as you're looking here on page 2 Jo Ann, it says that senior housing feasibility study would be funding $23,112.00 of the Year XVI plus an additional $3,000.00 out of the year XVII. Jo Ann Olsen: So it's kind of split now with the two. Councilwoman Dimler: Out of XVII though, I don't understand how we're not taking any away from what we've already allocated then. Jo Ann Olsen: Actually what's happening is that we're being able to use some of the money sooner. It will be available this June. The XVI money rather than waiting for the year XVII. So what you're doing ls taking some from the Year X¥II and giving it to Year XVI. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would also like to express my concern about allocating $26,000.00 plus dollars for a study when the Met Council has already done a study that ls available to us and a lot of the information ls in there. Also, again I have this concern about paying consultants Usually if we allocate $26,000.00, they will use up $26,000.00. So if we need a consultant, I would like to put a 1id on that, say maybe $10,000.00 or put out bids for a study. I just can't see arbitrarily saying $26,000.00 for a study. Because I'd 11kw to see some of that money go to programs and I understand that it can be used for that purpose. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: I think what's happening here is that we have said that it will go to the feasibility study. Now whether or not we can use $10,000.00 towards the feasibility study and $13,000.00 towards something else, I don't know if that ls possible. Councilwoman Oimler: Would you check into that? Councilman Wing: I guess I was just questioning where did this dollar amount come from for the feasibility study? Why was that amount chosen? Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I ~anted to know. Councilman Wing: I agree with Ursula. If that's the amount available, that could easily be spent. On the other hand, it mlght be $6,000.00, $14,000.00. It's an arbitrary number. Why have we put that number out as an amount that wlll be spent, could be spent or won't be spent? Jo Ann Olsen: i believe that mas the money that was available to us. Councilman Wing: Total? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. And there's only a certain amount that we can put towards capital expenditures so we had like the $26,000.00 Ieft over that we had to put towards something else and that's what we chose to spend it on that. I think it's kind of meets the requirements. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and that's the kind of public spending that I absolutely abhor when we say we have to spend it on this. I mean we're talking about trying to save tax dollars and stuff and then we have to spend it on a City Co,]nail Heeling lie? 20, 1991 feasibility ct,tdy. It just doesn't make any sense when the feasibility study could very us.II, only cost you $10,000.00 or less. Councilman Wing: Especially when this Council supports the Seniors, the Senior Center, the senior Housing. What do we want to accomplish and how did we do i.t? That's the f~asiblllty study. I can't put a dollar on that. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I certainly support the study but I think, like I sald the He[ Councll study can certainly be used for a lot of your data. And Paul also mentioned something in the Hinutes that Z saw that he thought that maybe the FIRA would get lrl~olved with t helr funds. I'm not sure as a Councll that we can make thai recommendation. For more for the study. You know Z mean we're asklng for more for the study. Z thought that was klnd of unusual. Councilman Wing: Ursula, this is grant money. If we don't spend it, someone eJ. se wl11. Councilwoman Dimler: That's the kind of reasoning that got us into trouble. COUl~cilman Wing; Thank you. I wanted that clarified. Mayor Chmiel: Continuation of dollars that are provided to the City and that's true. If we don't use it, someone else will. But I just don't feel taking grant dollars just because you can get it and do something, whether you do something with it or not. Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I said I'd love to see the rest go towards expanding the programs for the seniors. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know if that's possible. I'll have Paul check. Councilwoman Dimler: Or maybe we could put some money down for purchasing the land where we're golng to put the buildlng you know instead of just wastlng it o1~ a study. Mayor Chmiel: Before I contJ, nue on down the road, I apologize. I should have asked if there's anyone withln the audience uho'd like to possibly address this as well. Seelng none, I'll move back to Tom. Councilman Workman: We're all. kind of in a cranky mood and boy there's a lot of plaflners and consultants in the audlence that are saylng, man it's open season on us. We're trying to undermine their livelihood. We talked about this, or I talked about it a little bit at our goal settlng session about let's go. Let's find out about ~his and certainly maybe this kind of a thing takes a study and spending some money but whel~ it starts to get bigger like that, $26,000.00 in that traffic study we did downtown went just like that. What I fear ls that we're not, and that's what I want to flnd out. It's a nuance. Are we, and maybe we can't find this out without a study. Are we anywhere near ready capltal wlse to bulld something 11ks thls? And if we're not and we can flgure out rather inexpensively whether or not we're really going to go or should go ahead wi. th this, then I see this $26,000.00 study getting old and then in 3 year's a new Council or whoever will have to do it again based on new 14 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 demographics and everything else. I don't know if the Met Council, z think have a copy of that. Maybe that's old but who knows? Councilwoman Dimler: No, it was September, 1990 study. So it's not that old. Less than a year. Councilman Workman: So my biggest fear is that the report will get old and then ue still won't know if ue want to build it or not but do we not spend free money? Councilwoman Dimler: It's not free. Councilman Workman: But then I'm not being helpful by not having a suggestion except other than waterlng it down a blt. Mayor ChmieL: Well yeah. I think Ursula's right in saytng what's there. We can charge a lot of tlme to thls. Basically there's a lot of things that we have to take into consideration. Number one, location. Where should it be? Number two, how many residents wlthin our community are willing to, if we go into housing, wllling to move into this kind of facility? Does It even warrant lt? Do they want to move out of their own homes? There's a whole bunch of kinds of questions that have to be asked. Councilman Workman: Make it big. Make is accessible. Make it low cost with a lot of amenities and people will come to it like flies to honey. Bees to honey. Z mean we know that. We know put it ina central location. There, give me 10 grand. Councilman Wing: Does that include operating in the black? Councilman Workman: Well I don't know if a study can do that either. Councilwoman Oimler: A study can check with other existing facilities I suppose. Councilman Workman: I don't know. I suspect we're going to approve this anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, let me try it. I would move approval of the reallocation of the funds from the years, whatever way you want to work that out. XVI and X¥II but if possible, and if this is allowed, I would allocate $10,o00.00 to the study and the remainder to the expansion of programs for the seniors or whichever way it would most benefit them. Councilman Workman: Could we, because I'm not sure Ursula where the $10,000.00 is. 15 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Councilwoman Dialer: It's a number I picked out of the air. Councilman Workman: Why don't I second your motion so we can talk about it. That's what I'm worried about. Councilwoman Dialer: 2& was picked out of the air too. Councilman Workman: Can't we approve the $26,000.00 and say. Councilwoman Dialer: Have it? Councilman Workman: Because we don't know or how or what and we don't have enough details. Maybe we need to table until we know. Councilwoman Dialer: Well I would prefer to get bids on the study and then make our decision from that but that's assuming that we can use the remainder on something else, and we don't know that at this point do we? 3o Ann Olsen: We don't. I would think the answer's no because I think we've gone through this before. T think the answer's been found out to be no but we can check into that. Z don't know that there's a deadline on this that has to be. approved tonight, Do you remember Don? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. Mayor Chmiel: I would think that there isn't any real hurry presently if we can get soae of the clarifications that have been brought up right now. And I think that's true and we should before we even decide to move on it. If you would withdraw your motion. Councilwoman gimlet: I will withdraw my motion. Mayor Chmiel: Will the second remove that motion? Council. man Workman: Yes. Councilwoman Dialer: Then I will move to table. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the reallocation of Year XVI Community Development Block Grant Funds for more clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIHINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 39,885 SQ. FT. PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAHILY LOTS WHICH WILL REQUIRE A LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE (LAKESHORE _WIDTH), ~541 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN LUND AND DANA JOHNSON, WASHTA BAY COURT ADDITION. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicants are proposing to subdivide one existing single family lot into two single famlly lots. It is a shoreland lot so it gets into the Shoreland regulations. You have to have 20,000 square foot for each lot and 75 foot width at the lake. The ordinary high water mark. The Planning 16 City council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Commission did review this. There are variances involved and staff had to go through whether or not a hardship exists. We found that a hardship didn't exist because it was a self created hardship and we had to recommend denial. It was pointed out that the variances are very small. The lots are just under the 20,000 square feet and just below the 75 foot width requirement. The Planning Commission recommended denial with a 4 to 2 vote against the subdivision because it did create two non-conforming lots. The applicant is here with plans showing that the homes can meet the setbacks. We are still recommending denial because it does create two non-conforming lots. Mayor Chmiel: please state your name and your address. Ken Lund: Ken Lund, 395 Highway 7. Dana 3ohnson: Dana. Johnson, 6301 Greenbriar, Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, City Council. We come here tonight to ask for two small variances. And they are small. We know that we're short approximately 12 inches and we don't meet the City ordinance per lot of the 150 square feet. Plus we're short about the size of a walk-in closet for each lot also. That needs to be 20,000 square feet so they are very, very small. What we wanted to do here is pass out, what we've done here is we plotted out our house on the lot. Where it would be sittlng and the setbacks from where the clty ordinance wants us to be at. Now like I sald, we know that we don't meet the city ordinance on the lot size but we do fall way wlthln the restrictions of the clty ordinance with the setbacks of the lot. Toward the creek. Toward the lakeshore. Toward the road. Toward everything and we wanted to glve you an 1dew of where our houses would slt. And we also on the back put the type of homes we would be building also on that. Where they would be sitting right in the lot also. Some of the things that were brought up and some of the concerns of us too that I'd like to address or concerns to the ONE and I'm sure you people too. On Lot 1 there you see a creek. That would be on my side and first of all, I'm concerned about the creek too because I'm a very environmentally conscience person also. Where our 50 foot setback, we're very far from that. Or I should say we're set back to the City ordinance and I have no whatsoever are going to ask for a variance for that because I've got plenty of room with my house on my buildable area right now. So I'll always be 50 feet back from the creek. Another thing that was brought up at our last meeting was the dockage. We're definitely only going to have one dock. We've always planned to have one dock to share between Lot i and Lot 2. So that will eliminate some dockage and so forth out there also. The next dock to us is about 14,000 literally square feet down the shoreline so. Yeah, 14,000 square feet of shoreline so there isn't anything to the left of us whatsoever. You know Ken Lund and I have been out, Ken have you lived here about 25 years? Ken Lund: I've lived in Chanhassen for 24 years. Dana Johnson: And I've lived here about 15 years. I take a lot of pride in our lake and I'm sure each and every one of you have had a dream before and that's 11vlng on the lake. That's one of my dreams. I mean thls has been the goal of, one of my goals in my lifetime to live on the lake. This was the first affordable lot that we could afford to be able to build on. I know the variances, I know we don't meet the city ordinance but the variance, the square footage ls so short. The 12 inches and the size of a walk-in closet. Bo you have anything else to add Ken? 17 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Ken Lurid: Well one of the concerns at the last meeting by one of the residents, Mr. Anding, which I've talked to several times afterwards, was how close we would be, or I would be to the private beach there. I've laid the house out where I'll be well over 40 feet away from the private beach so there will be quite a distance between my house and the private beach. Mr. Anding's house is a little less than 12 feet from the beach so I'll have a fairly good setback. That was one of his concerns for that and he did have some concern about that and if he weren't on a business meeting right now, he'd be here tonight in support of our development. Dana Johnson: And as you can note there, we'll be 45 feet from the road literally. Well within the lot lines. The City ordinance plus the footage from the iake and the creek and aii the city setbacks. One other thing I'd iike to show you too. I don't know if you've been out there. I just wanted to show you some pictures of the house that's existing that we would be tearing down and be building on there. You know somebody else could come in too aisc and iive there too. I guess we're trying to improve the area also you know by building two singie family homes. Also when there are pictures of some homes surrounding it also. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anything else that you'd like to say? Dana Johnson: No, not at this time. Mayor chmiel: I'll give you these pictures back. Okay, we'll move this along. I guess does anyone have any questions? Tom? Councilman Workman: Why is this not in front of the Board? Jo Ann Olsen: When variances are part of a subdivision, now it goes in front of Planning Commission and Council. Councilman Workman: I guess I knew that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard? councilman Wing: I don't have a comment on it. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, do you have any? Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot of problem. Okay, Mike? CounciJ. man Mason: I read this over a number of times. I've talked to a number of people. I've gone back and forth a number of times on it. It's so close to what's acceptable and I know now someone's golng to say, well how about 38,000 feet? Well, I guess you'd have to deal ulth that one on a separate lssue. It looks 11ke lt's very well thought out. It looks 11ke these guys know what they're talking about. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a question. I want to make sure that this subdivision will require no further variances in the future? Is that correct? 18 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Dana 3ohnson: That's fine. That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: And also the one dock you already said you both agree to that. I guess those were my two concerns. I feel that the homes that are proposed would definitely leave the area better looking. The only problem that I still haven't resolved in my own mind is that I can find no hardship so can you explain to me what the hardship is. Dana Johnson: Well I guess there isn't, you know just financially. I don't know if you can consider that. Councilwoman Dimler: No. Dana Johnson: No, you can't. Then no Z guess. Hayor Chmiel: I guess I sat at the Planning Commission meeting and listened to the pros and cons of the issue. More specifically I looked to the Chairman of the Planning Commission who reviewed rather closely and indicated that he did not have many concerns regarding that one foot setback. I think I sort of agree wlth that particular position. The small amount here and of course where do we stop and where do we go. Oftentimes the problem exists where people come in and say well I'm only 2 foot and lt's only a foot more from what it was before. But I think we have to address each one of those specific problems as they come to us and reach a conclusion. I guess I don't really have that much of a problem with this. So I'm going to suggest and make a recommendation that we approve the proposal as indicated. As we've discussed and that the two additional conditions that Ursula was concerned about. One being no additional variances and the other utilization of the one dock proposed on elther slde would be included with that. Councilman Wing: Hr. Mayor, does that condition continue onto new ownership then? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I would think that we could include that as a permanent part of that. Councilwoman Dimler: That would be my intention yes. Mayor Chmiel: And all the other conditions that we have recommended conditions wlth the acceptance of this proposal. Councilwoman Oimler: Right. I'll second that. Nayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Preliminary Plat ~1-3 as shown on plans dated Apri! 1, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the proposed house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and approval. The final plat shall reflect a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the northeasterly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, to protect the stream bank from further alteration. The City shall waive the requirement for a development contract due to the fact that no public improvements are required for the subdivision. 5. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to 11mit the access polnts out onto Mlnnewashta Parkway. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed Dlstrict and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any. 7. The existing home must be vacated and utilities permanently disconnected before approval of the lot split. 8. A demolition permit is required before demolition beglns on the dwelling. 9. No additional variances will be granted in the future. 1_0. Only one dock shall be permitted for both Lot I and Lot 2 to share. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RELEASE OF TEMPORARY UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOT 12, BLOCK 1, SUNSET VIEW) PWO52E. Dave Hempel: I've recently been contacted by a resident, Hr. Richard Powers at 20 Hill Street. This request is similiar to the request the City Council addressed I belleve 2 weeks ago regarding the adjacent property next door. Hr. Powers is in the process of refinancing and his title company discovered a temporary easement, blanket easement over the parcel. Thus had some problem financing. The City was previously granted this easement back in April of 1987 alorlg with the storm sewer project that was constructed. The Clty was to release this temporary easement contingent upon a permanent easement being conveyed to the City by the property owners. However, through the paper shuffles or whatever, the permanent easements were never obtained. Therefore the current owner, Hr. Powers is requesting the City release the temporary drainage easement over his property and he is willing to convey to the City the permanent easement at thls tlme. Staff would be preparing the legal description for the permanent easement to be conveyed. Hayer Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? It looks like a normal kind of thing. Resolution ~91-52: Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to grant a release of the temporary drainage easement conditioned upon the applicant, Mr. Powers executing a permanent drainage and utility easement with the City over the appropriate utility and lot lines in Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset View Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2O City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER, CONSIDER 1~1 BUDGET AMENDMENT. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and Council members. As noted in my report, the intent of the action to table on April 22nd was to allow for public comment on thts item. A variety of conclusions can be made based on the response to the recent publicity on thls project. Among them really indifference. I have recelved no calls to date voicing any negative reactions to the publicity on this item. Council members w111 have made thelr own conclusions. However, I belleve thls represents basically a stamp of approval by the public for this project. We should also remlnd ourselves that the Clty has the obligation to lnvest the money which has been collected through the Park and Trail dedication fees in publlc facilities whlch beneflt the general publlc. These investments lnclude a variety of activities. Among them the acquisition, planning and development of both neighborhood and community park sites. Agaln, the construction of a park shelter building at Lake Ann Park is one more step in the City's desire to develop a quallty, pleasant and fun park system within the city. In conclusion, after 8 months of planning, investigation and refinement by the Park and Recreation Commission and the staff members, we have the opportunity to move forward with this public improvement project. The efforts put forth¥~ln this regard have been substantial. Well planned and the recommendation to approve construction of this facility and associated utilities is based on the conclusions reached during that planning process. You're well aware that Mark and Scott are here if you would have any desire for further comments on the details of the particular information whloh you have before you tonlght. We'll welcome any questions from Council members at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ! was just trying to remember exactly the location of the interceptor. I guess that's probably out but I was thinking rather than trylng to go to the lift station at Greenwood Shores, we could tap into that source but... Todd Hoffman: We had taken a look at that but the tree cover in that area and then the adjacent property, it would be a difficult task. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I have a couple of comments that I'd like to just hit on. One of the things that we're just mentioning here would make water available in the future if the City decided to lnstall irrigation in the ballfields. I don't think we'd ever want to do that. Not only from a standpoint of watering but also from a safety aspect in runnlng around out there and some of those things normally will pop up and stay up and if no one takes it down, there could be some problems with it. But I'm just looklng at it from that standpoint. One of the things I can address is the electrical capacity. And in here I thlnk you put an estimate of about $10,000.007 To run additional capacities from the existing facilities that you have there presently would not be the way to really go. I don't think you're going to have low capaclty down to that park, or to this particular building. I say that because once the load capacity ls used, you're golng to have a separate feeder line to be fed back in through that particular area in order to feed this particular building. $o the $10,000.00 I think is going to be a little low. Todd Hoffman: Okay. I believe they may wish to address that because I specifically talked about your interest and knowledge in thls area and had Mark 21 Ciiy Council M~eting -- Hay 20, 1991 or Scott doubJe check those figures. So we might want to. Mayor Chmiel: If you have any questions, you can probably get a hold of Merle Peterson and dlscuss that wlth hlm to see what additional capacities would have to be used. And that means you'd probably have to have another transformer down in that locatlon depending on what capacity you have and I haven't looked at it that closely b~t it's just reviewing what was here. Sanitary sewer which we're looking at roughly anywhere from $14,000.00 to $50,000.00 is rather hefty. As we're looking connection to Greenwood Shores, estimated cost of another $33,100.00. Does that particular sewage 11ft pump have enough capacity to accept tho additional discharge? Have we checked that out? Todd ~lof~man: At Greenwood Shores? Yes. Mayor Chmiel: It will? Todd Hoffman; Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's about all I had right now. Ursula? Co~llciluoman Dimler: Thank you Hr. Mayor. Todd, I want to kllow you sent out some letters to businesses to get some financial help. Dld you have any results from those letters? Todd Hoffman: No response personally back to my office. Councilwom~zn Dimler: That's a shame. Because one of our big concerns here was Lhe cost of the project. Too bad we can't get any help from prlvate businesses and it was my understanding Dick that, dld you call for a public hearing on this? Was that your intent? Councilman Wing: No, I just wanted. Councilwoman Dimler: Public input? Councilman Wing: Media coverage to alert the public. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're satisfied with the coverage? Mayor Chmiel: And it was advertised, or excuse me. It wasn't advertised was it? It was an article on it. Free advertisement, let's put it that way. Councilman Mason: I'd ii, st like to comment. I didn't receive any negative feedback elther. In fact I dld recelve some favorable. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. The only comments that I heard was on the, they 11ked the building but they're concerned about the amount of money belng spent on the sewer and water. And I having sat on the Community Center Task Force, one of the reasons, we wanted to put it out by Lake Ann but we were constantly being told that it was prohibitive to put it out there because of the sewer and water costs. And now I find that I'm belng asked to approve it for a mere park shelter. Excuse me but it is, I mean the community center would have had more use. Now a park shelter is a seasonal, maybe $ months out of the year and so 22 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 I'm having trouble adjusting my thinking that if it was prohibitive for a community center, why it isn't prohibitive for this park shelter. I also went through the numbers here of after, if we took the lowest possible price on everything and the building was at $173,063.00 and the utilities, water is sG,o00.o0 to the holding tanks at $14,300.00. The electric at $10,400.00 which you're saying might go up now, but that's basically a total of $203,700.00 instead of $258,963.00 basically saving ourselves about $55,000.00. And I'm thinking that we can clean those holding tanks out a whole lot for that money plus that money can be in a savings account drawing interest which would take care of cleaning the holding tanks forever. And it is seasonal. I don't see it being heavily used. Unless we're going to put another facility out there in the future, we'll never have another thing hooked up to it. It's a huge expense. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We can't put in a septic system because there's really not an area. But with that holding tank, I'm not sure, bring in a honey bucket to do the pumping, I'm not sure as to what it is and what those costs are. Councilwoman Oimler: Well that was one of the options they had down here. Option l. Todd Hoffman: Estimated cost at $200.00 per pumping. Total cost over the summer of just over $5,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was in there. Councilman Wing: Except we have a honey bucket. We have a, and I don't know why that couldn't be used for holding tanks but we use it for sucking the sanitary sewers now. The Fire station holding tanks. They've got that enormous suction truck, that's got to be adequate, I'm assuming. I thought the City could in fact do the suction. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, there's another savings. Councilman Mason: Well, but what happens when the holding tank goes bad that close to Lake Ann? Councilman Wing: But you can't put it in if it would go bad. Mayor Chmiel: It stands for a considerable period of time. Maybe somebody can address that. Scott? Holding tanks. What do they consist of and what's the reliability of a holding tank on site and how long can they be used without deterioration or havlng a problem. Scott Harri: Well typically a holding tanks are made from precast concrete and the walls are approximately 5 to 6 inches thlck. The estimated 11re on concrete holding tanks...maybe 50 years. 75 years. I mean it's long. Long life. And if installed properly wlth care taken on the foundation so it slts and wlthout it settling and stuff like this, one would expect it to last fairly long. Don Ashworth: What about the concern that it would, what happens is somebody goes in and somehow has a toilet continuously running? Can you assure that this thing is not going to put 50,000 gallons of sewage into Lake Ann? 23 c~tx Cour, cJl Meef. im.] ~ May 20, 199]. Scott Harri: One of the properties of a holding tank is they're not meant to be, say under pressure. They're meant to only liquid will come up to a certain level and then flow out or have to be pumped out. And the higher it gets, there are seams then along the top where the cover sits down and that's where the potential, you get into an overflow situation where the effluent would leak out of the tank then and flow into the upper ground water level. That's where the risk comes in. Ali '[he rest of the basin below the cover is all an integrally poured and constructed sort of thing but if it does get up and overflow, well that would be the problem. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but we're proposing to clean it twice a week. Is that adequate? We've got two tanks, 1,500 gallons each. Scott Harri: That should take care of it. ~nd again, one of the risks is if you have some sort of a water leak, whether you have a well or a watermain system there, if the water runs continuously from a lay or a sink or from a hose bib or something, it gets into a floor drain and continuously goes as it catches the people by surprise and that's when you would have the risk of a spill if you will. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmie).: Yes Todd. Todd Hoffman: T believe we're somewhat off on a tangent that has some problems, potential problems associated with it as well as it deals with State Building Codes. Minnewashta Regional park looked to this same issue. They were forced either to hook up to sanitary sewer or put in a drainfield. Septic system. Holding tanks were not acceptable at Minnewashta Regional Park. For the cost savings to take that alternative may end up to be not possible in the long run. Councilwoman Dimler: But you're saying a drainfield, Option 2 with $19,000.00 approximate is okay? Todd Hoffman: It has better potential than the holding tank but again, having grown up with a drainfield, potent.iai problems in drainfields are a dime a dozen. ~nd to look, we really need to look to the future, the long range, the next 50 years at Lake ~nn Park. What are potential, tile expansion of the building that is currently at the ballfield to facilitate bathrooms at the baJ. lfield locatton. The potential for the expansion of building of an open park shelter building with water running to it for picnicing and for other utilities within the park site. Mayor Chmiel: I think I see less of a problem with the holding tank than I do with the drainfield. Because the drainfield could cause some problems and we'd have to implement some kind of maintenance program with that as well. But I think that some of the things that I understand with it is that you could have that effluent going right back into Lake ~nn too from those drainfieJds and I don't feel comfortable with that. Todd Hoffman: A drainfield would take up a considerable amount of land area. You really have to have a dedicated use. The seepage and that type of thing. 24 City Council Meeting - May 20, i991 Lake Ann is large but not that land rich that we want to be taklng up a large area with the drainfield. Councilman Mason: I hope we don't become penny wise and a pound foolish over this issue. I see Lake Ann as a marvelous opportunity for this city and we're talking about monthly or yearly fees. Certainly with the holdlng tank, as our report states. Metro Waste fees are going to go up and up and more people are golng to use Lake Ann as the years go on. It seems to me, yeah the Greenwood Shores connection is more expensive up front. I suspect in the long run over, as Todd said, over 25-30 years, my guess ls it w111 end up belng cheaper. Councilwoman Oimler: That's assuming you don't have any problems in those years with your pump lift. I mean that's expensive repairs too. Councilman Mason: It's also assuming you don't have problems with the holding tank or the dralnfleld too you know. Councilwoman Oimler: Just maintenance on those two. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I look at those two particular issues and you're right. With the holding tanks, it probably wouldn't be bad but when you do your discharge, once you get the honey bucket there and put it back into the metro system, you're going to be charged for that one more time so those costs are golng to be double. I don't know how we can calculate what the cost is for the MWCC but there is some. That would also be there so you're going to be duplicating costs again. Maybe that might be the best way to really go with lt. To the Greenwood Shores connection. Councilman Mason: I certainly see some places that, as I look through this, that I wonder if we couldn't cut back on. I wonder if I could ask, deleting the landscape lighting? What landscape lighting is that? Mark Koegler: I can respond to that Councilman Mason. The landscape lighting that's shown there ls simply bollard type lighting that would go along the sidewalk down to the parking lot. It's not integral to the building itself so lt's sort of a site amenlty if you wi11. That's something that could always be added at a later date. So the lighting that is part of the building itself for securlty and safety, those are st111 in there. Mayor Chmiel: As much as I liked the lighting aspect, I think it's just another thlng that can become a problem within the park. Llke replacing the standards on a continuous basis with kids. Mark Koegler: Kids and baseball bats and things. Councilman Mason: Also this addition 6 for the substitute framing. It's my understanding that if we deleted that $6,000.00 we'd get a fake beam right? Mark Koegler: Right, which we could mask and virtually make look like real timber. Heavy timber. Councilman Mason: Well, there's $8,500.00 right there. 25 City Council lie~.;tin(j - Hay ~layor Chmiel: Flow sturdy is that? Mark Koegler: Equally ars .'-~trong. Certainly. Tile steel beam would be fine. It wottld slmp]y be boxed 1~ for conlestic reasons. Councilman Wing: The other...number' ? was the substitution of the heavy shingles. Wlth ali. clue respect to the cedar shakes. Z've got them on my house and they're, depending on what the shade is, t~hat the runoff is, even if they're the heavy shake, they're a nuisance and they're a hlgh maintenance 1tern and they're not as vzndal proof. Z guess Z do~l't think we Call lose that much aesthetics but we gale a lot of practicability by going ulth the heavy shingles. That's one. recommendation T. wanted to make. Z like the look of the cedar shake. ~'ve got it and it will never happen agairl. Councilman Mason: Don't th~; othe~' park buildings have cedar shakes on them? lodd I-Iofflnan: correct. Both the Lake Susan shelter and the concession buildlng ,'-~t tiaa beach blzilding. In the 8 years that, of 10 year:; that the building at Lake Susan has been there, I'm not aware of any maintenance replacement. Mayor ChmJ. e]_: It has .~ little higher fire rating. [)on Ar.~huorth: Hr. Hayer? I was just talking with Scott because I wanted to verify what I ~hought migllt b.'; some numbers but you take an average stool and if a kid came in the're wlth cherry bomb. Dropped it ln. Blew it up. You're talking about 3 to 5 gallons pet' minute which means on one stool alone, within ,-.tn hour you could be up to 300 gallons. If they hit 5 stools, that's 1,500 gallons per hour. If that occurred at 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 at night and that was not discovered until 10:00-11:00 the following day, you could be puttlng 20,000 gallons of sewage into Lake A,n. I'm golng tl'lrough this because we've gone thro~gh enough horror storles wlth so many of our lift stations that it just really scares me. Any type of thoughts that might lead to ~ome type of pollution to the lake. The other slde o'f that is we've put in a very expensive telemetry system for all of our ~.;xisting facilities. The ability to add one additional remote site to say ls there any problem occurring wlth that pump is very minor. But I don't know of anything yOl.~ can put on to, I suppose you cou].d. Put some type of an alert onto that type of tank. That potentially wou].d be possible but again r,,-~.alize that it'ss going in there up to 1,500 gallons per hour. We've got i hour to get there. Mayor Chmiel: What',~ the cost differences between a stool within that facility from a chlna as opposed to a steel, as they have in institutional buildings uhlch would probably withstand alo[ more abuse? Is there a considerable difference in cost? Do you have army 1dca? Hark Koegler: To be honest with you, we dorl't. We could certainly compare float. I'm not aware of any comparable facility that anybody has used anything o[he~' than ctlina.., but we can certainly look at that. Hayer ChmJ. el: I'm thi,king about the Justice Center that we're looking at at the County. Hark Koegler.' Yeah. That's a little different cliente].e. City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: So are the kids that we have hanging around here. Not all kids are bad. They just like to have fun. But I'm thinking from the standpoint of safety, the same thing I was thinking about with the beam. Encasing that beam, how much of a problem would that be as far as weight or withstanding weight. I was more concerned with what abuse it could take with long hockey sticks and whatever else. Mark Koegler: The beam I can assure you is not a problem at all... Mayor Chmiel: It's just a thought that I've had. How can we eliminate the maintenance and upkeep of it over the long run. But you're right. Every one of those facilities normally have porcelain. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor if I may, a point on security. Per se the building has been designed so all door frontages can be locked and secured. Now if somebody would break lnto one of those doors they could galn access to the facilities at that tlme but durlng the day the building will be staffed by a person at the concession rental area and we'll have some indlrect type of supervision for the bathroom areas. Mayor Chmiel: 'Do we have an ordinance in the city whereby we could post and indicate that in the event something were to happen, a fine can be imposed up to x number of dollars? Just to make them stop and think a 11ttle bit about lt. Elliott Knetsch: You wouldn't even need an ordinance. Oamage to property is already a crlme. It's a misdemeanor and punishable by up to $700.00 flne. You could also tailor make an ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm thinking. Put it up high enough to make them think before they start doing something and having it posted on that particular facility. Whether it works or not, that's another question. But lt's just something that I was thinking about as well. Todd Hoffman: We have in the past, in the case of vandalism at Lake Susan shelter pursued restoration. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and all the broken bottles and broken lights and fixtures and things of that nature. Councilman Workman: So have we found a solution to the sanitary sewer? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we're looking right now at the potential of taking it to the sewage lift pump at that $33,000.00 cost. Councilman Wing: I would just like to get a, are we just at a discussion point Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We're still in discussion. Councilman Wing: I acted impulsively at one of the prior meetings and looked at that $300,000.00 and Z felt it was wrong. It's gotten good media coverage thanks to the Villager. I've had no one. I mean Minnewashta Parkway I can hardly get to my phone fast enough but thls lssue which lsa blg dollar lssue City CounciJ. Heet.[~]g -Hay 20, 1991 and ~,o o,e has addressed J.t. i've met with Todd at length and I'm convinced that if I had been in to buy a car, I would have walked out with air conditioning to boot. I found that Todd had...he had done his homework, He had a ].et of good explanations. He was able to counter every question I had, T. just fee]. comfortable that Todd has done his homework and done a good job and the, my rea]. fallout is if I really feel panic striken, I call the City Hanager's office and I say yes or no. Should this be done? And if starts out by saying wel]., then we'v,': got troubles. But if he says yes of- no, that's it. So _T. just think staff has really looked at this. I would not support any overages. That would bother me because I remember my building a ~ruck i;~ this city and I went over a lot and got away with it and this type of expenditure would like to see the tine held. But ~ would move approval of this 1992 budget amendment using Option 1, which is watermain extension. Option on the electrical, Do, you had a comment on that but I think that's something that's going to be, we have to see what happens. On the sanitary sewer, I would support Option 3 whicl, is the 6reenwood Shores connection. And now I get a little bit lost as we got into the item. The only one I picked up on was that we substitute the steel beam in lieu of the framing which I wouJ. d offer as part of this motion and then I would ask, did I miss any specifics? Councilman Mason: Landscape lighting? Delete that, Councilman Wing." Oh, landscape lighting was deleted also. ~nd with those, I would move acceptance of this 1991 budget amendment. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Hayof' Chmiel: ~ny further discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes Mr. Mayor. I just have one question I'm going to ask Bon Ashworth in good humor. He had me so convinced when we did the community center task force that we. couldn't put the community center out there because of tho prohibitive costs for sewer and water. What has changed? Son hsi~uorth: Well, I don't think it was solely sewer and water. I think it was the road connection, if you recall. £ouncilwoman Dimler: It was mostly sewer and water. Oon Ashuorth: Well, sewer and water maybe. The other difference is that this ,location for this facility, I mean we looked at the option of going out to TH 5 for that sanitary sewer. Tho community center would have been out on that TH 5 location and so we would have carried the sewer and water over the other direction so yeah, there would have been a higher cost being, what are you? Maybe o00 feet back towards Greenwood Shores. Run from there over to Greenwood Shores ks what, ~,000 feet? 1,300 Councilwoman Dimler: I was jesting but I'm just saying that, you know that was aJ.ways the big thi,g. We could have found a good location for the community center but the sewer and water would have run about the same... Oon Ashworth.' If you look back at some of those notes, the cost of that frontage road connection was a big factor. If I remember right, it was 28 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 estimated like $500,000.00. But I think $300,000.00 was associated with that road. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying that I would like that point clarified because you did have me convinced. Mayor Chmiel: There's another used car salesman. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess he's good. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: One clarification? Does this now, sewer and water for this building expedite water and sewer to other parts of the park in a much less costly manner? In other words, can we get the sewer and water to the ballfields in the very near future? Todd Hoffman: Correct. This is the grandfather project. The other ones fall into a more streamline type of cost. Councilman Wing: There is actually probably heavier use and a greater need up on that hill for sewer and water where the ballfields are than there is maybe for thls bulldlng rlght now. Todd Hoffman: Or yeah, at least equal. Correct. Councilman Wing: What's the timeframe on that? Todd Hoffman: It's in my mind at this point. We'll take a look at the capital improvement budget but to expand that buildlng whlch ls currently there to include bathrooms in the back of it is there. Councilman Workman: If I could quickly. Maybe as Richard eluded to, there has not been a lot of commentary on this thing. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I've not received one call. Councilman Workman: And so therefore there must not be a lot of screaming needs out there and thls ls the blggest bang for the buck and lt's just 11ke free money again. It's like free money all over the place. No, so I mean why not. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motlon on the floor and I'd 11ke a reclariflcatlon of that motion to make sure we're going to get what we're proposing to get. Councilman Wing: It included the 1991 budget amendment but then under the specifics from discussion was watermain extension. We went with watermain extension versus wells. Under electrical, I did not follow your comments but you left that as ongoing at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that might be a low estimate. Councilman Wing: Right. Sanitary sewer was Option 3. The Greenwood Shores connection. And we deleted the landscape lighting and substitute framing for 29 City Council Meeting -, May 20, 1991 the steel beam. The steel beam versus the heavy timber beam. Did I get that right? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Mayol' Chmiel: Was there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes. Resolution #91-53: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1991 budget amendment for the Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Shelter with the following specifics: watermain extension versus ~ells, Option 3 for sanitary sewer connection to Greenwood Shores, a steel beam in lieu of the timber beam, delete the landscape lighting and the electrical portion ~ill be looked into further for clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to bring up that the Comprehensive Plan was proposed to the committee. They recommended everything we asked for, which was rea].ly sort of neat. It goes to the Metropolitan Council this Thursday afternoon at 4:00 and I plan on being there and some of the staff plans on being there. They dicln't think it was absolutely necessary that we have a large entourage of people but nonetheless we want to make sure that we're going to have that opportunity to at least make sure that what we requested that we get support for that. Z must say that Bonnie Featherstone representing the Oily of Chanhassen on the Metropolitan Council who resides in the city of Burnsville, did an exceptional yeoman's job for us on this as well. That's what I wanted to talk about on that. The other one was ~rboretum Blvd.. Z had a call from Willy MoZnau having some concerns. He was here the last time but he missed the Visltor Presentation. It appears as though a lot of the road is, the ditches are still not taken care of. I'd like someone to check that out. He brought up another thing about sidewalks of which I think we've already put in what we planned oil putting in but he was saying that a connection could be made with some additional carved irl sidewalks so we have a ring through there. There's a lot of people utilizing that area. But Z would like to have it checked out and if there are some additional discussions, someone contact Willy and make sure that everything is done according to tile contract. That's all I had. Tom? Councilman Workman: ...kind of suspended in space and it's having a rather ma.ior impact on [hose properties down there. They'd like to get the stuff going. They cannot even begin to sell their property or develop or other because nobody wants to buy a property [hat's got highways on three sides under construction and so they'd like to get this stuff moving along and hopefully we can maybe ask engineering to do so, or at least give us the details on what's going on there. We haven't heard about it. Construction season's flying by and some people would like to go. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get a report back by administrative presentation by nex~ Council meeting? Tom, RTB. 3O City Council Heeting - May 20, 1991 Councilman Workman: I also was before the RTB people. I guess what I wanted to say was thanks to everybody. Ursula and Don and everybody who supported my nomination on this. It looks like we might find out on Thursday. It went very well. Rather than 6 applicants, I found out there was 12 of which apparently it has come down to two of us. And wlth that it looks very favorable. Bonnie Featherstone again doing, Dirk DeVries and I think Mary Anderson even had something to do wlth it but it felt real good to know that a lot of people had a lot of support and Diane Harverts and Southwest Metro and everybody else. That doesn't mean it's, I mean politics being politlcs anything can happen but we'll know probably'shortly. It looks good so in advance of any decision,, thanks for the help. That's a11. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula? Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I did want to mentlon something on the editorial quickly. I was a bit stunned at the editorial that Tom Lapka did write. I do perhaps have an intention to wrlte a written rebuttal [ guess to it. It's not the perception that I had. I guess the title is, the Council should wear one hat. Well, I had three meetings tonlght. This one, Board of Equalization, Board of Adjustments and talking about giving up who knows how many hours for the RTB. I'm a businessman in town and proud of it. I go to church in town. I raise my family. I've got about a milllon hats. But what this editorial does is not only for me but I think for the Council and why I'm responding to it in this way for you guys is I think it challenges my integrity and the integrity of the Counc11. Because without integrity, I might as well pack it up now and not go to any of these meetings and once I compromise that integrity, then I may as well glve it all up because I'm worthless after that. I not only think I showed integrity in the way I handled the situation. My personal situation but I think the Counc11 dld and I don't think that thls editorial makes that clear. It makes it look like I in some way duped the Council. Had special privilege with the Counc11. I dld not contact any Council member on this issue prlor to lt's coming and somebody can tell me. I had a conversation with Mike at the Planning Commission meetlng about a couple things for about a mlnute. I did not call anybody and say hey, how are you going to vote on this? What are you going to do? You've got to help me or anything else. And that's the way I left it but when it comes to my personal business in town, there's nobody that's going to defend my buslness the way I'm golng to. Bob Copeland ls neither my employer or a co-worker of mine and neither is Brad Johnson. They had separate issues with the Counc11 and the Plannlng Commission, as did I. If I can no longer approach the Council on matters that affect my personal livelihood in this city, just as any Counc11 member mlght sometlme need a varlance or something speclfic from the City Council, that City Council member cannot approach the Council the way I dld, then we've got a serlous Constitutional problem. I thlnk. ! think thls editorial and it's an editorial because it certainly is not news, is laden with presumably's and there may very well be good reason's and nonetheless and hopefully's and everything else. I think it's a pile of crap. Again, without integrity I'm worthless to thls Council and I think that seriously challenges this. On the same note, I want to apologize and I think I did apologize to you guys about the situation you were placed ln. The flrst vote came 2 to 2. I think that shows that I'm a poor lobbyist on this situation. We had many votes. I don't think we've ever left a vote tied. The new edltor of the paper obviously didn't know that. I don't think we've ever left, we've always-sat unt11 1:00 a.m. to make sure we decided the lssues. We don't leave lssues City Couf~ci]. Meeting -- May 20, 1991 sitting. What I want to make clear is that the decision, what I got from tile council did ,lot create a variance situation to an ordinance or change to an ordinance. It changed a plan on a building which is changing in a changing downtown. For changing needs. For changing businessmen of which I would have done. the same for anybody else. I think this Council would have too. I don't think I got preferential treatment. When I came to the meeting, I knew that it could go either ua/. It was based, a lot of the decision at the Planning Commission level and City Council members was based on personal preference. Z don't like the way it looks. I don't like the ua/ it's going to fit into the downtown, which is their perogative but it did not violate any ordinance or need a variance to any ordinance. Unless somebody can tell me that I did wrong, I would do this again. Z don't think I'm going to have to have this happen again. It seems like I hit the mother lode. I got everything Z wanted an/wa/ but this thing is about as bad as I've seen since I've got on. None[heless in a small town this type of thing is to happen. Which type of thing? What did I do wrong? That's an accusation. Avoid giving the appearance of preferential consideration. There may be very good reasons for approving the proposed signage. You're damn right there is. I excused myself but then I approached the podium. Did I do something wrong? Z don't think so. Presumably the Council was ultimately swayed by the strength of the arguments and not who presented them. Presumably you guys did that. Z think I ended up in better shape in this editorial than the Council did and Z think it's a slap for the poeple who spent time looking at it. Z don't appreciate it. I'd like to get that off my chest. I did. I had lunch with Ursula a couple days later. She voted against me on it. She ended up voting for me. Councilwoman Dimler: And you didn't slap me. Councilman Workman: We didn't even talk about it. And we had a lunch and a conversation that was based on mutual respect that I've had wlth everybody and I maintained my integrity on the whole thlng and enough sald. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess as I saw it too, is just one person's opinion. I've not received any objections to what we have done from anyone. Councilman Workman: Council members haue. Hayer Chmiel: Have you? Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want us to comment on it? Our own feelings? Mayor ChmieJ.: Well, no..~ think more than enough has been said. Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a comment if I could because I, with all deferernce to Councilman Workman, I did not read the editorial that way at all. I dldn't feel like I was being accused of havlng a lack of integrity and I didn't feel as though you were either. I quite honestly, when my wife read the editorial she sald, well he makes some good polnts. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Mr. Lapka or that I agree or disagree with Councilman Workman but I do thlnk that one of the, the needs of the community ls to have people raising those kinds of issues. I think it's something, particularly with the all the hats you wear and all the hats all of us wear, that we have to be aware of those things. 32 City Council Meeting - May 20, L~L Councilman Workman: So you admit that I wear more than one hat? Councilman Wing: That's not the issue. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Z agree with Dick on that. ! don't think that's the issue. I mean certainly you have legitimate business interests here just like I have legitimate business interests here. Who doesn't but I do think the editorial raised some good points. I'm not again, agree or disagree I don't know is the point but if it makes us think about what we're doing, maybe it will help us to continue to do a good job. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Ursula, you wanted to say something. Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. I guess now that it's brought up. I wasn't going to say anything but to me a tie vote is actually a failed voted because the abstaining member, an abstenance counts as a no. So I guess that was never brought to the forefront and so then because it was never said motion fails, we then decided to reconsider. I voted the first time with my head. The second time I voted with my heart. And just to be honest about it, I don't like to be put in that position. I just think that if the Council member that has an issue before us has a relative or someone else that has an interest in that as well, make the presentation and then leave the room. Granted you can read the Minutes but we all know that reading the Minutes is a totally different thing than being at the meeting. I didn't feel quite free to make the comments that I would have wanted to make. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: I learned a new word out of this. It was called special pleading and I felt that after hours and hours of the Planning Commission work and a lot of opinions went into this, at the very last minute I was subjected to rather substantial pressure. I'm like Ursula. I feel the first time I voted with my head and the second time Z gave in. The tie should have killed it right there but I just want to say publically Tom that I don't criticize what you did. I would prefer not to see a Councilman approach the Council on Council to Council, one to one basis. Council to Council based again for special interests. I did call the paper today. Z just got this in the mail today and I read it. I read it and I felt it was reasonable and I did call the paper and I did say thank you. I found myself in agreement. I'll leave it at that. Councilman Workman: Well because again, you're saying to me, and I can tell you where other Council members have had issues pertaining directly to them where they voted on the issues. I chose not to vote on it but that does not mean that I cannot, and you're going to tell me who. I'm a one man business. Who's going to represent me? Councilwoman Dimler: Dale could have come. Councilman Workman: Dale is not in my business. And Dale could not make it apparently. So what I'm saying and maybe it's a Constitutional question. Who represents Tom Workman7 When Tom Workman has an issue, you're right. It's 33 City Council Meeting -- May 20, 1991 difficult and I apologized for the situation. But if there was any way around the situation because we all know how. Mayor Chmiel: Rather than continue on. Councilwoman OimleT': Can I just have one more comment? Mayor Chmiel: I would like to address the billboard issue. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Okay, no more comments about that. The billboard issue. I was looking at our upcoming meeting on June 8th where we're going to take the TH 5 corridor trip to see how the future of this corridor should look ~tnd I think we're all concerned about the aesthetics of it. I think that's the reason that we're doing this and so I would like to look in advance and to the possibility of having a billboard moratorium in our city. And I'm talking about these big advertising billboal'ds. And I know that we have a few of them already and they would be grandfathered in but I would like to know about the legality of a moratorium and how the other council, members would feel about this and b~sically get started on doing something if we can. I know other cities have done it and I'd like Chanhassen to be one that joins that. Mayor ChmJ. el: That would be Lady Bird Johnson's position on signs. Councilwoman Dimler: Beautification of our highways, right. Mayor Chmiel: If hearing no other discussions, I would entertain a motion for adjournment. Councilman Hason moved, Hayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth city Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34