The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 01 14CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR MEETING 3ANUARY 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Jo Ann 01sen, Todd Hoffman and Roger Knutson Mayor Chmiel: I know it's not part of our agenda but with the intenseness that we have in the East, I'd just like to take a quick minute for each of us to reach a conclusion within our own mlnds and hopeful that President Bush and Saddam Hussein reach a successful agreement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following additlon under Council Presentation. Mayor Chmlel wanted to dlscuss Hwy 5 rlghts of entry. Councilwoman Dimler wanted to appoint two Counc£1members to the Employees Advisory Board after item 9(a). All voted in favor and the motlon carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: flCCEPT DONATION OF $500.00 FROH THE CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB, PROFITS FROH OKTOBERFEST CELEBRATION. John Daniels: Thank you Mayor. I'm John Daniels, President of the Chanhassen Lion's Club. I live at 7478 Saratoga Drive in Chanhassen. It gives me very great pleasure to donate some money to the City of Chanhassen, the Park and Rec Department, to help incur expenses for Oktoberfest and we want to wish you, hopefully thls money wlll be used to expense future association that the Lion's will have w£th the city of Chanhassen in future Oktoberfests. So with that in mlnd, Todd Hoffman, I'd like to present to you a check for $500.00 from the Lion's Club of Chanhassen to be used. Thank you very much. Those are always good news when the City does get money in donations. And as a city that's grown, we want to participate in any other type of fund ratsing events. That is the purpose of Llonism and keep us in mind and forever we want to work with you. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John on behalf of the City. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEHS: Don Ashworth: It's really a questlon back to the Mayor, if I may, in terms of would you like to act on each of these separately so I go through a brief report on each one or do you wish to take them as a group? Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk if we were to just hit each individual one. I'm sure that Counc11 has completely reviewed the document as I have and we can go from there. City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Don Ashuorth: Rules of Procedures, these are the procedures under which the City Council operates each year. Staff is really unaware of any changes that may be necessary from this past year. The City Council has already established a meeting schedule for this next year so that function is taken care of. Official Newspaper. Although we did receive a request from the Excelsior paper, they do not have an office in Chanhassen as required by State law. Accordingly we're recommending the Villager. Offlclal Depository. We contlnue to malntaln a good uorklng relationship with Chanhassen State Bank. We would again recommend that flrm. The Clty Attorney. Campbell, Knutson, Scott, Fuchs ls recommended. Bond Consultant. We went through an extensive process this past year. We feel Sprlngsted has done a good job for the clty and would contlnue to recommend that firm. Acting Mayor lsa designation that the City Council needs to consider. Staff does not typically make any form of recommendation. Mayor Chmlel: Right, and I'll take that one right now. As Acting Mayor, in the absence of my presence, we need someone to carry on the meetings. I'm going to. make a motion that Tom Workman be appointed as the Acting Mayor. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Tom Workman as Acting Mayor for lggl. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Don Ashworth: Under Weed Inspector, State law requires that the Mayor actually be the Weed Inspector. We would recommend that the Public Safety Dlrector be appointed as the Deputy Weed Inspector. Fire Chief. Procedures in the previous year has been that that lsa two year appointment. Dale Bregory ls starting the second year of that position. The firemen did vote this past year to select Dale as Flre Chief and we would concur wlth thelr recommendation. Health Offlcer. Or. McCollum has continued to serve and would serve agaln this next year. The posltion pays $1.00 per year. Clty Auditor, similar to the Bond Consultants, the City did go through an extensive effort in looklng at Auditor selection. As a part of that ue entered into a 3 year contract. We're in the second year of that contract and we're again recommending Deloitte-Touche. Appointment to Board of Adjustments and Appeals ls agaln back to the Clty Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being that we have had several members on this, it is due time that Councilman Tom Workman take the position on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and I u111 serve as a sub. Wlth that I would 11ke to have a motlon. Councilwoman Dimler: I move Tom Workman as our appointee to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mayor Chmiel: Seconded? Councilman Wing: Second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Councilman Tom Workman to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Congratulations Tom. Tom couldn't wait for that one. Being we have all these organizational items before us, I would also like a motion on each of these items a thru k. Councilwoman Oimler: I move items a thru k on Organizational items 1. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Organizational Items as follows: a. Resolution ~91-1: Rules of Procedure as presented. b. Official Neuspaper: The Villager c. OfflcIal Depository: Chanhassen Bank d. City Attorney: Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs e. Bond Consultant: Sprlngsted f. Acttnq Mayor: Councilman Tom Workman g. Weed Inspector: Mayor Don Chmiel with the Publlc Safety Director as Deputy Weed Inspector. h. Flre Chlef: Bale Gregory i. Health Officer: Or. McCollum Clty Auditors: Oeloltte & Touche k. BQard of AdJustment and Appeals: Councilman Tom Workman All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dtmler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Resolution ~1-2: Accept Utilities in Walter Paulson Subdivision, Project 90-21. d. Resolution ~91-3: Approve Contract Amendment No. i for Audubon Road South, Project 89-18. e. Resolution ~91-4: Approve Contract Amendment No. 3 for Country Hospitality Suites Hotel, Project 89-25. f. Resolution ~91-5: Accept Utilities in Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition, Project 89-19. h. Resolution ~91-6: Accept Storm Sever Improvements for PMT Addition, File 90-13 LUR. k. Review Specifications for Public Works Vehicles and Equipment. 1. Approval of 1991 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract, Caret County. m. Approval of Accounts. n. City Council Minutes dated December 10, 1990 Plannlng Commission Minutes dated December 12, 1990 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Park and Recreation Commission Hinutes dated December 11, 1990 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated December 12, 1990 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE 1991 PARK ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Councilman Workman: Since Todd was here and this is probably all Todd maybe has. As I was going through here, again it appears as though we've got more thlngs to do than money for parks and for acquiring thlngs and I'm a 11ttle disheartened that we're not going to be able to get to say the Chanhassen Hills development done for a couple years or whatever and boy it sure seems 11ke we move at a snail's pace. That has nothing to do wlth our staff's performance as nfuch as it does, we don't have the dollars to do a lot of things. Todd Hoffman: Initially, you're speaking to Chan Hills and possibly Lake Susan Hills West and the new parkland whlch ls currently comlng on 11ne? What the Commission's viewpoint, as those neighborhoods begln to develop and you start seeing houslng develop around a neighborhood park, that we get in wlth an initial phase. Develop a play area. Get the area graded and seeded. That type of thlng and start wlth an lnltlal development. Then since we do have some of those new parks coming on line, they really have to sit a year then with no available fundlng so we can start those other parks... Get those park development projects going. Get those areas graded, seeded, etc. and then jump back to the other park the year after. So we're really on a every other year basis with funding for new parks currently. Councilman Workman: Any idea where we can come up with some more money besldes raising fees, etc.? Todd Hoffman: Really we're bound by the dollars which are coming in for park development and trail fees. We have a fairly aggressive yet obtainable and flscally responsible budget of $175,000.00 thls year. I feel if we contlnue that to a 2 to 3 year basis, you should be able to see some good development in these neighborhood parks. These new parks whlch are comlng on 11ne. Then at the same time we'll have to jump back to the older neighborhood parks whtch are somewhat outdated and start fi111ng in the gaps there as well. Councilman Workman: Other than that we're going to basically continue on a program of Peter paylng Paul and back and forth and the new neighborhoods are paying for the parks for the old neighborhoods sort of? Todd Hoffman: That type of thlng, yeah. If we ever do run 1nrc that dead end situation where we would be out of funds in the park acquisition and development budget, then we would have to look to a referendum...complete neighborhood or community parks. Councilman Workman: You said referendum, I didn't. Quickly then Todd, Chanhassen Pond Park. Correction of erosion problems. $3,000.00 in 1991. $2,000 in 1992. Is that golng to be an ongoing thing? Is that around the trall or what ls lt? City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Todd Hoffman: It would be on the south end of the trail. The south'end of the park just as the trail comes around and goes into the wooded section. There's some erosion problems there. Originally it was budgeted at $5,000.00 in 1991. We feel we can correct the problem with the $3,000.00 which are available but if it does fall over and we need to do some additional corrections in 1992, then that $2,000.00 would be used. Councilman Workman: Is it interferring with the trail? Todd Hoffman: It does interfere with the trail but also it causes sedimentation into the pond itself and it's just a problem that should not exist in a natural area inside a park. Councilman Workman: Okay. And then I was a little bit confused by, and this is just showing my lacking of time today. I could have talked to you earlier but it's not bad to get this stuff in the public record. The 5 year capital improvement program, 1991 land acquisition west of Lake Minnewashta, $100,000.00 in ~990. $100,000.00 in 1992. Todd Hoffman: That $100,000.00 is a reserve. If it's shown in 1992, it's just showing that it will exist in ~992 as well. It's not $100,000.00 in ~991 and ~992. It's a reserve there. There is a park deficient area west of Lake Minnewashta that if land does become available which we need to purchase, we need to have some funds available... Councilman Workman: What about the $100,000.00 for 1990 then? Todd Hoffman: 19907 Councilman Workman: Yeah. Todd Hoffman: It was there in 1990 as well. It's just a reserve which keeps moving forward. Councilman Workman: But we didn't do anything? Todd Hoffman: No we did not. Councilman Workman: Okay. I bet you they're excited about that out there. And then the last thing I had is our Governor has recently, or ex-Governor has left office. I brought this up to a couple of Park and Rec people. Can we get some botchy ball courts somewhere? We have a lot of people with botchy balls and they're going around their yards, wrecking their yards. I thought that might be something rather inexpensive that might entertain. Mayor Chmiel: Are those second hand sets? Councilman Workman: No. Mayor Chmiel: Being that the Governor's gone, I thought those might. Councilman Workman: Maybe we can talk about that. City Council Meeting --3,zl~uary 14, 1991 Todd I-Ioffman: Certainly we can. Councilman Workman: It seems like it'd be pretty cheap to do and don't we have some Eagle Scouts that need something? Mayor Chmiel: I have one particular question that I should have talked to you about before but on page 5, South Lotus Lake Park. Under 1991 you show $1,000.00 for a total of $11,000.00. I'm not sure where that additional $10,000.0o would go. Under teller or tennis courts? Todd Itoffman: That $10,000.00 was written in under totlot. I apologize for that. I missed your copy there. Councilwoman Oimler: I wasn't going to pull this but as long as we have it pulled. I'm kind of curious about the Bandimere Youth Park and you've got $310,000.00 for 1992 and beyond. How are you projecting that money to come in? Todd Hoffman: Those projections for 1992 and beyond just show, as the Commission works through it's budget, it discusses what potentially should be being developed in the future. It would take approximately $300,000.00 to complete the development of the athletic facilities for the youth age at Ba))dimere Park. Whether that becomes, whether we take that and start banking $50,000.00-$100,000.00 a year out of the general park acquisition and development fund or if at some point in time ue go to another referendum process to develop that parkland. It's just showing that there is going to be a large sum of money necessary to complete that parkland. We have the land itself but the development is yet to come so the revenue source for that is still up in the air. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you're not projecting to spend it all in i9927 Todd Hoffman: No. It's just there to show that it will eventually happen. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. Councilman Wing: Todd, do additions to or improvements to trails show in this packet or would that be a separate item? Separate budget? Todd Hoffman: Basically as trail segments become available, or if we need to incur some costs to complete some trail segments which the opportunity becomes available during the year, they'll be pulled out of the park acquisition fund balance and approved at that time by the Park Commission and then by the City Council as a separate item. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve 1991 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 B. AM£ND COHDITIOH OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAl, 955Q GRE~T PLAINS BOULEVARD. PET£RSON/BLANSKI SUBDIVISION. Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled item 2(b). It has to do with amending of a condition of a subdivision that we approved some time ago on Great Plains Boulevard. I would like to have an explanation. This one seems real complicated and I thought maybe Jo Ann or Paul would explain it to us. Jo Ann Olsen: This was a metes and bounds subdivision that the City Council approved. It's on TH 101 just south of the Northwest Nursery. It created two parcels and the two people involved in it are Mr. Peterson who owned the property and subdivided it and Mr. Blanskt bought a parcel from Hr. Peterson. A condition of approval is that they had to combine driveways so they couldn't each have their own separate driveway. That's just pretty much a policy on TH 101 because of the sight dlstance and curves and sometimes lt's really dangerous. So they did have provide, they did share the driveway and ue were called by one of the residents lnformed that a second drlveway was belng created by Mr. Blanski. This just shows Mr. Blanskt's property for his driveway. Now we've got two driveways. Staff did contact Hr. Blanski and put a stop work order on his property...condition of subdivision approval and that the drlveuay...thls was in violation. When Mr. Blanskl came lnto the office he stated that Hr. Peterson had stopped his access crossing Hr. Peterson's property. Had closed off bls access and not allowing him to cross his property. There wasn't an agreement that was recorded with the County...I know their optlon was to create hls own driveway. So we did allow him to complete lt. He's really done it mostly over the weekends and we allowed him to blacktop it ulth the condition that it would be brought before the Council and that if you chose not to revoke or remove that condition, that he would have to remove that driveway and contlnue to share it across Mr. Peterson's property. In talklng with both parties, there's different stories on what the situation is. After the city reviewed it, I guess ue felt pretty strongly that Mr. Peterson is still responsible for upholding the condition of that approval and that he must still provide the easement across bls property and to allow for that shared driveway. So with that ue were recommending that the condition be reaffirmed and that it st111 be a condition of approval .... Mr. Peterson and Mr. Blanskl happen to show their own documents saying that there was an easement, there wasn't an easement. Hr. Blanski ls here tonight and I'm sure he'd like to give hls slde of the story. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that Mr. Blanski has to remove his driveway? Is that what we're affirming? Jo Ann Olsen: If you chose to say that the condition stays in place, yes. Don Ashuorth: Or at least a portion of it. Mayor Chmiel: I viewed that on Sunday. I drove it and the driveway where it's located, I guess I really don't have too many concerns. In fact I find where it's probably a safer approach going in and out as opposed to using that existing drive because of that hlgh clump of dirt with the utility pole right there. It creates a problem or a glven problem that ! can see tn the cars coming from north going south on TH 101. If you can call that north or south but I'm using directional as such. As far as going out from that particular City Counc.i. 1 Meeting --January 14, 1991 driveway coming from the south going north with the turn, there's sufficient amount of lead time for a vehicle to get out, even on a slippery day as I found out. Because there was a car just coming around at that particular time but there was still enough time to get through there because of the slower speeds that they have to have as they make those turns. As you all know, whoever designed TH 101 was either out at a party the previous night or whatever because I'm sure he didn't see quite straight as he should have. But I just wanted to interject what I had seen. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you think that the two driveways are no safety hazard on TH 1017 It's okay to leave them the way they are? Mayor Chmiel: As I look at it, I don't see that as a given problem. Councilman Workman: How about in as it affects the previous agreement? Conditions? Mayor Chmiel: Well the previous agreement condition basically is something that should be, I feel, worked out between the two parties and the City should not really be involved in that particular discussion. That's a legal, I think a legal question isn't it Roger more than anything else? Roger Knutson: There's certainly a lot of legal issues involved with it, yes. Councilman Wing: What's the lssue of the wetland being filled? To me it looked ].lke the wetland had been partially fllled. Is that true? 3o Ann Olsen: Well we had reports that yes, it has been partially filled and so we're trylng to investigate what exactly was there to begln wlth and we'll be looklng into that. Dave Blanski: I can address that if I may. Mayo)' Chmiel: Sure. Why don't you come forward to the podium and please state your name and your address. Dave Blanski: Sure. My nanle is Dave Blanski. I live at 9350 Great Plains Blvd. and in regards to the wetland issue, I had an engineer do a preliminary survey before I bullt the driveway. I don't have coples but I have the orlglnal work here and you can see from the cross sections that I did not f111 the swamp. The other lssue about the wetland ls, wlthout belng facetious, lt's a wetland as much as you're hockey rlnk is a wetland because I have an inch and a half PVC plpe feedlng that both summer and wlnter to keep it wet. If I turn the water off, lt's dry and I c~n mow lt. So if I wasn't puttlng water in there so the ducks had a place to swlm, it would be dry. So I thlnk the wetland issue may be moot, I don't know. I would like to say that when I purchased that property from Mr. Peterson, as God ls my witness, there was never a discussion about havlng to share a driveway. I never received any communication from the City that we had to share a driveway. There is nothlng in my Tltle. I've got a copy from the Title Company Lhat spelled out any easement. I got a letter from Mr. Peterson, I've got a copy of it here, where he gave me a month beginning September 24th to vacate his property. Well as you know, the construction season ls about at an end September and October and I dldn't have much tlme. I City Council Meeting - January vent to my attorney. We did have a very limited easement. When we got the original access agreement for TH 101, and I can read you the ent£re th£ng. Bob wrote it. Robert Peterson and David Blanski do hereby affirm that they have granted each other easement to the portions of their properties commonly referred to as the driveway entrance. This vas written to satisfy the State. They wouldn't let us have a joint driveway unless ue had some sort of agreement that we were going to share the portion that the State had an easement on. Otherwise there were no easements. There was no discussions. At that time ue worked together. We were good friends. I honestly don't know who suggested the common driveway but at the time it seemed like a good thing to do. I've got $2,000.00 of my money in it and Bob's driving on it. I felt I had no recourse after talking to my attorney. He said this easement agreement is not legal because it wasn't signed by the wives who also have an interest in the property. He said if ue go to District Court, you'll spend ,5,000.00 and it will be winter and you'll be parking out on TH 101. I'd advise you to put a driveway in and just let life go on. So nov I've got ,5,000.00 in my new driveway. Before I commenced work on October 12th I visited the City and talked to Vicky who I understand is in Planning. Explained to her that I had a problem with a neighbor and that he was going to put a fence up for one thing and I got a copy of the fence ordinance from her. Talked about putting in the driveway. Asked if any permits were required. I said no setbacks, no nothing. Even as she walked away I asked her, are you sure because this is a problem. I want to do it right. She assured me I didn't need anything. I got MnDot's number from her and got an access permit from the State of Minnesota and proceeded to put the driveway in. About two days before, I worked nights and weekends, put the thing in after I got the permit on the 14th of November. Had it ready for paving and then on the 19th in the morning the stop work order was up. Met 3o Ann in the afternoon. Discussed the situation. This vas the first time I was ever made aware of that Peterson was supposed to, that we were supposed to share a driveway. At this time I still had mostly sweat equity in the thing. I'd been hauling the dirt at night and doing the laboring my,elf and I said to 30 Ann, well this is great. We can force Peterson then and she said, no. We made a mistake on your's. There was no paperwork filed. The City can't force him to do anything. My wife is witness to that. She vas there with me. I didn't feel that I had, there was no choice. It was either park out on the highway or put the pavement in. The asphalt plant vas going to shut in two days so I paved it and nov I'm at your mercy. I tried to do everything right. That's all I can say and I'll take any questions. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm a little bit confused Mr. Blanski. How long did you live there? Dave Blanski: We purchased the property in February of 1986. Built in 1988-87. Moved in the spring of 1988 I think. Something like that. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you've been living there since the spring of '887 And have you been sharing the driveway up until that point? Dave Blanski: Until November of this year. Councilwoman Oimler: So you were aware of the, I'm confused because you're saylng you weren't aware of the condition that we put on there that you shared a driveway? City Council Me~:f. ing January 14, ].991 Save Bla)~ski: I learned of the condition and got a copy of the letter from the City on the ].gth of November of this year and that was the first time that I kr,ew a.yth.i, ng about i6. Cou)lcilwoman Dimler: So you were sharing [he driveway but you had always planned to do your own? Dave Blanski: Not necessarily but the main, really the crux of the thing. Why rather than fight it and t:zko 8ob to Court because the original driveway is a terrible situation. There's no other way to descrlbe it. It's very steep and the sight lines are difficult. I took some pictures this afternoon. They dldn't come out very well and I'll be honest wlth you, I didn't measure the distances. .T. scaled them off but you're welcome to look here. I've got at least twlce the slght dlstance now than Z had before. There are 5 vehlcles in our famlly. That's at least 10 trips a day and everybody knows you run in and out. A hundred times a week we're golng in and out of there and we've all been almost hi~ and lt's much safer, ~ was willing to spend the money, be done with the thing. I felt Peterson had already stolen $2,000.00 from me. Common sense doesn't tell you to go back and share even the entrance to his property because the next thlng he'll, cut that off. I didn't feel I had any alternative. Here's the sight line. Councilman ilason: I would have to say, Z drove out there on Sunday also and certainly you)- driveway appears to be a whole lot safer. Coming around that corner I was a 11ttle amazed at how close it was. councilwoman Oimler: It's right across from Bandimere. Okay, so does somebody want to make a motlon? It was recommended that the origlnal conditions of approval should remain but it sounds to me like we're going to go in the opposite direction. Is that what I'm hearlng klnd of the consensus? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think from what I had seen with what's existing, I guess the only concern I have are what our legal ramifications are, if any. I guess from what ~ see with the existlng driveway it is, I have to agree, it is much safer. Cottrlcllwoman Dimler: Okay, I have no qualms with that but I would like to see something done here to get it somehow registered or whatever it needs so that as you go to, if either one of you sells your properties, that we don't run into this agaln. Dave Blanski: Well, if you approve it as it is now, you won't have a problem because we're each on our own property. Mayor Chmiel: Right. They were sharing it before. Paul Krauss: If I can comment on that. Late)' on tonight there's a proposed fee schedule for 1991. One of the items in there is a proposal that we talked about on several occasions which would have the City Attorney be responsible for filing plats and making sure that easements are properly recorded. I think here you have an excellent example of what happens when we don't control the process. 10 city Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely. So does that take care of this situation and all other situations? Paul Krauss: Well it should make sure that this wouldn't happen again. Mayor Chmiel: Right. This is one of my major concerns too. That's right. That should be. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I would make a motion. Councilman Mason: Can I ask a question here? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Councilman Mason: According to this letter that you got on the 19th, you had to go back and get a complete grading permit and all that's been done right? Dave Blanski: Yes. I did it the same day. I filled it out and gave Jo Ann the money and she told me there's no problem. It's going to be fine. Councilman Wing: Can I just comment? I also looked at this and I think the spirit of this entire thing to begin with Paul was just to limit access to TH 101 and the more driveways on TH 101, the more dangerous it is. ! agree. The Peterson driveway doesn't have the line of sight that your's does but I'm sure it's just my being naive and the junior member here that would say that it would be ideal to resolve your problem with Mr. Peterson for the better of this access. Everybody on TH 101 simply can't have their own driveway. That was the point of this thing originally, even though Z understand it didn't get filed. It seems to me that the best and simpliest thing here, if we were to solve this problem, would be simply to tie his into yours because yours is better now but it sounds like that's not going to happen. Dave Blanski: I don't have any problem with that. I honestly don't. When we put the driveway in, that's initially what I suggested but in my heart Z really believe that Bob had this alterior motive all along because he didn't want any part of that. I don't know tha{. I shouldn't even say it but he just got his driveway paid for is what it amounted to. Councilman Wing: I just wanted to put it on the record, having looked at it, that I'm opposed to the two driveways. I think that's wrong. I think that goes against what the intent was originally and certainly your driveway is an improvement and if there was going to be a solution, I would hope to tie Peterson's into yours but that's not a recommendation. It's just my thoughts on it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And I agree that that was the original intent and I do still want to uphold that so other people don't come and put driveways on TH 101 saying that we did it for Mr. Blanski. However, in order to get you out of your condition, I would then move that we amend the condition of the subdivision approval and allow you to have your own driveway. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 11 City Council Meeting --January 14, 1991 Councilman Workman: Seco~d. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Workman: Can I say something? This is one of those welcome to town kind of things and I can see it in your- face and I can hear it your wife's voice earlier on the phone that this is one of those things that is just about as irritating as they get for the city. I don't know what caused the discord amongst neighbors out there and I probably don't want to know. Oave Blanski: I don't know either. My daughter who's an engineer was on one of Bob's projects and... Councilman Workman: Lots of things happen when the temperature stays at 30 below for a while. I don't know but I don't think, I hate to hear you say you're at our mercy because I don't think we're kings and queens up here because I hate to have citizens in that position and I know it's just bothering you to be in that positJ, on. I hope you don't feel that way. I don't think ue have any recourse. I think we're at your mercy, or whoever else's mercy out there. Legally I don't think we have recourse. I would hate to be at the mercy of a neighbor that wanted to shut me off but I just want to make the point. ~ hope you don't fee]., I know you feel uncomfortable and maybe we naturally do that to people but I hate to have somebody feel that way that have lived here that long SO. Dave 81anski: I appreciate your comment. I'm scared to death is what I am. I'm not uncomfortable, I'm scared to death. Councilman Workman: Well we are too. Mayor Chmiel: Except you can't see our knees shaking. Councilman Workman: No, I think this is one of those situations that we've seen over and over and we uill continue to see over and over. Where there's a little gap here and there and Z thi~k thls Council has done a good job in trylng to recognize a situation where we're, how would you say it in the army, but out of luck. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you agree with the motion? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the condition of approval for the Peterson/Blanski Subdivision and allow Hr. Blanski to have his own driveway onto TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Can I ask one quick question of Paul? Nayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: Paul, every one of these that seems to come up, including other items tonight, discuss wetlands. I think we've got two other ones coming 12 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 up tonight that's going to involve wetlands. We passed the utility district and one of the items of the utility district is a wetlands map. It seems to me that that maybe ought to be the priority for your staff at this time in that utility district project and when could we possibly have a wetlands map so we can talk about these things from fact, not guesses? PauI Krauss: Councilman Wing, it's kind of tough to determine exactly how Iong that's going to take because I need to have, we're putting together a request for proposals right now for the consultant to work with us. I'd like to see how, it's kind of a new area to combine all the three elements that we're doing and I'd sort of like to see what their approach is. We can certainly stress that we want a wetlands map as one of the earlier work products because in fact they're going to have to go out and survey every water body in the city anyway for the base data for this entire study so I think it's reasonable that we can probably' get the map done quickly. Or at least the background map. The ordinance will take a little longer. Hopefully, we may be able to get one this year yet. I. EXTEND LETTER OF CREDIT AND EXPIRATION DATE FOR INSTALLATION OF IHPROVEHENTS SEVEN-FORTY ONE CROSSING, HSZ DEVELOPHENT, PRO3~CT 88-17, Mayor Chmiel: I have item (i) that I wanted to puli and that's extended letter of credit. Expiration date for the instaIlation of improvements on Seven and Forty-One Crossing in the HSZ Development. Back in December we did grant a request of an extension of a compIetion date by July i of 1990. It appears as though the developer would like to extend this just a little longer. I guess we've gone through on this same specific project time and time again. I wouId like to say we can work with the developer but I would like this to be the last extension to be granted for this. I think it's time that we get it compIeted. People have been promised things out there for some time and I feel that we shouId accompiished what was set out to do in the first place. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I'll move to allow this extension with the one addition that it be understood that this will be the last extension considered. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to extend letter of credit and expiration date for installation of improvements at Seven-Forty One Crossing, Project No. 88-17 with the understanding that this is the Zast extension that wil! be considered. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried. 3. EXTEND LETTER OF CREDIT DATE FOR ~NSTALLATION OF IHPROYEHENTS, LAKE R~LEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION, PRO3ECT 89-.1.5. Mayor Chmiel: This too, I just feel that we have to work with developers but there's a certain time that I think we have to call a halt to it. I see this specific one, they're asking for a year extension. The position that I see this would be to give them a 6 month period to accomplish what they have set out to do and that being that the letter of credit used as a guarantee completion of the improvements shall be maintained for a similar time period as well. I would also like to recommend that we go a 6 month and this be a last 6 month extension 13 City CouncJ.]. IJeeting January 14, 1991 that we have. Dld you want to say something? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add something. This one's got a lot of background to it and Z don't want to waste tlme golng lnto it but for those of you who recall, there was a house built on this lot that was mlslocated because of the survey ls botched up and thls cul-de--sac isn't where lt's supposed to be. We have an interest in moving ~hings along and not wishing to make it any worse. We've refused to issue bulldlng permlts in thls subdivision as soon as we became awdre of this last summer. What came to our attention however Ls that there are two blocks ~n this subdivision, one of which ls completely removed from, thls ls Block 1. Block 2 is quite a dls[ance to the east and they do wlsh to be able to pull bulldlng permits on thls one in the future. Thls block lsn't involved in this issue. Basically it was a staff decision to refuse to issue building permits. Z guess Z just wanted your blessings or to let you know that we would like to go ahead and ~ssue bullding permits on Block 2 but we're going to contlnue to withhold them on Block 1. Mayor Chmiel: I guess Z don't have any objections to that Paul. The rest of t he Councll? Councilman Workman: Why Block 2? Paul Krauss: Block 2 ls completely separate from Block 1. It's not even contiguous ~nd there is no issue on Block 2. All the clty improvements are already J.n place. The street's done. The utilities. We've already accepted it so those lots can be served. It's this block over here. These lots are served off a completely different street. Our problem here ls that the cul--de-sac isn't in the right place. I shouldn't say utilities are in. They're...but the issue is not germane to Block 2. Councilman Workman: I was confused witll Lot 2, I'm Councilwoman Dimler: I have no problem with it. Councilman Mason: I have a question with this 6 months to a year. What happens if litigation hasn't been resolved? Does that affect the extension of that letter of credlt at a117 Paul Krauss: We retain the letters of credit so that if the utilities or the streets in this case are not installed in accordance wlth approved plans, that we can wlthdrau the letter of credlt and use that money to make it rlght. We wouZd still have ~hat opportunity here theoretically. We stiZ1 have not taken possession of that street and lt's st111 in the wrong place. We had hoped that they could work out something where they could leave the street where it is and dedlcate Jt and fix the lots but so far they haven't been able to. Chdrles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment on that? On the time extension. The origlnal development contract called for a completion date of August 30th of 1990. If we are granting only a 6 month time period extension, that would, I guess maybe we should clarlfy if it was from that origlnal tlnleframe or ls it frOnl this time forward? 14 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm looking from this time forward for the 6 months. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll make that as a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to extend the letter of credit for installation of improvements for Lake Rtley Woods 2nd Addition, pro3ect No. 89-15 for 6 months from today. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRESENTATION: None. PUBLIC HEARING: HETES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION TO ADD n PORTION OF LOT Z, BLOCK 2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES TO LOT 3, BLOCK 2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES; AND VACATION OF EXISTING UTILITY IHPROVEHENTS, WAYNE LARSON. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting approval'for a metes and bounds subdivision to add a portion of his adjacent property to...for the addition to a garage. Typically we requlre a straight line subdivision but that would have reduced the lot to below 15,000 square feet and he dld not want to create a non-conforming lot so instead he's proposing just a section of the lot that would st111 give hlm the setbacks requlred for the sldeyard setbacks and still maintain the 15,000 square feet on the adjacent parcel. Along with this he's also requesting vacatlon of an easement where the proposed dlvlsion u111 be located across. There are new utilities through there and he is replacing that easement as part of the subdivision and we are recommending approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I say, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this speclflc 1rem? Once again this is a publlc hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dtmler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: I'll bring it back to Council. Any discussion? Tom? Councilman Workman: Just one of a general nature again that I bring up everytime we have one of these things. What are the conditions for metes and bounds versus a plat survey or, plat? Paul Krauss: That's a question I always ask the City Attorney. Roger Knutson: I don't have my City Code with me tonight as I was telling Jo Ann. It's in my offlce. We deflne it in the Clty Code. There are certaln situations where we allow plats and others we allow metes and bounds. Generally speaklng if you have one plece of ground and you're divlding it 1nrc two pleces, you can do it by metes and bounds subdivision. If you're golng to do a multiple lot, you've got to do a plat. That's over simplification. We've got two pages describing the process. Councilman Workman: The reason I bring it up is because somebody was burned a few years ago. Six years ago on this kind of a deal and it was a multiple lot deal I think and that's basically how I explained it and that more simple, two lot kind of deals would be metes and bounds. The person dldn't feel they got 15 City Counci]. Meeting - January 14, 1991 treated very well by the city and everything else and so I wanted to, again I ask '[his everytime. I think we have 3 or4 of these maybe a year and it just it was brought to my attention. It had nothlng to do specificaIly with this one but maybe so people understand a little bit. 3o 4nh Olsen: If it's a simple description, you know a real long detailed one, tl~en we usuaJ. J.y require it to be platted. Mayor Chmiel: Don, did you have a comment? DO11Ashworth: Yeah. I think that's the key point. A typical metes and bounds may be a page long. It will start with, starting at a rock and walking 600 feet a certain direction. There's no way you can find it. Our people here have a very difficult time trying to find a metes and bounds. It's over a page long. If it's a simple descriptio~ like Lot 1, Block 2, Western Hills and you want to make a simple subdivision where you're going to buy the east 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Western Hills, everyone can kind of figure that out. But again if you're doing one where it would be subdividing the west half of starting at a rock and walking 600 feet and going on and on and on, who knows what you just divided in half. You just can't find it. Roger Knutson: If anyone is further interested, it's spelled out in Section 18-37 of the City Code. Mayor Chmiel: okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I would like a motion from the floor. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move the approval of the Metes and Bounds Subdivision ¢90--19 ~nd the proposed easement vacation ~90-8 of the 6 foot utillty and dralnage easement with the two conditions as listed on page 3 and also with making sure that our leg~l counsel is going to do the recording at Carver County. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ~91-7: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman ~orkman seconded to approve the Heres and Bounds Subdivision ~gO-19 and the proposed Easement Vacation ~gO-8 of the 6 foot utility and drainage easement with the following condition: 1. That the new metes and bounds subdivision with the description of the new dralnage and utility easement be recorded at Carver County by the City Attorney along wlth a development contract listing any conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan showing how drainage will be accommodated between the [wo homes (Parcel A & B) and withln the new dralrlage easement. ~ Certificate of occupancy will not be lssued untll the clty Engineering Department approves of the drainage plan and on site improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 City Council Meeting -- January 14, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT HETLANp SETBACK FOR EXISTING DECKS, AND 641 CONESTOGA TRAIL, COSTA AND HAAS. Public Present: Xane a~klress Oiane Haas Kelly Costa Mark Toulkey Hark Niederluecke Own Revsbech Lynn Stokkee 641 Conestoga Trail 661 Conestoga Trail 7251 Sierra Court 651 Conestoga Trail 7241 Sierra Court 7221 Sierra Court Jo Ann Olsen: In the report, if you viewed the whole story, the two deck variances klnd of got lost in the mlddle of a lot of other issues. Basically what happened, this was part of the Chanhassen Vista PUO which we found that they had a Class B wetland during the preliminary plat approval process. So we went out with the developer and staked the edge of the wetland with a representative from the Flsh and Wlldllfe Servlce. The survey that was then presented to staff, during the rest of that process approval, was a wetland shown in thls location. That was the wetland...surveys for the slngle famtly homes that were developed there and any addition of decks and other structures. Last year we went out when thls home was belng developed because there was some grading actlvity near the wetland. What we found was that there was, the eroslon control fence was way lnside of the wetland. That the house, this house and then we went and measured all the other ones, were way inside of the 75 foot wetland setback. So golng back we found that it was an incorrect survey. It was not the correct wetland boundary. We then had the developer resurvey. Well we went back out and restaked the boundary of the wetland. Had the developer have a surveyor come out and resurvey it and this shows the location, the actual locatlon of the wetland. What we have now ls an existlng situation where there's non-conforming structures. They're within the 75 foot setback of the wetland and decks that are also wlthln the 75 foot setback. The two decks, the variances that are before you tonight were built without a permit and so we still have to pursue that individually in that they had to be required to receive the building permit and meet codes. One of the decks does not meet code and ls unsafe. As part of that there's a double buildlng permit fee. As far as the whole situation for this whole block, we will be proposing to bring this back in front of the Board of Adjustments for thelr comments. Back to the Clty Council after we've contacted all the other lots that are lnvolved in this and to possibly have a blanket varlance to make them conforming structures. The residents there are really not at fault. They felt they were being, the homes were located in the right location. That the surveys were showlng them meeting the 75 foot setback. Staff also, the surveys that we were signing off on showed 75 feet. We dld not go out individually wlth each of the lots that were belng developed to measure them and so this is the exlsting situation. So I guess what we wanted tonlght was for your comments on how you'd 11ks to see thls addressed and whether or not you would like us to bring it back for review and to pursue a blanket variance. Rlght now they're non-conforming structures whlch leaves them kind of in limbo. 17 City Council Meeting -- Jantlary 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Jo Ann. Is there any discussion Council? Giving any sense of direction. Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking about taking down homes here if we don't, is {.hat what we're saying? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that sounds reasonable. Why don't we go ahead and do that? Mayor Chmiel: They have a right to develop their properties and as it appears, it's been just one goof up against another here and it's really not. Councilwoman Dimler: Well obviously we needed to move in to the direction of givir,g a blanket or seeing the 8 applications come in as a blanket application giving the variances. I do thlnk we need to make sure that the residents know what they can and can't add o, in the future you know and make sure that they understand that. What our expectations are. I'm not real sure and I'd 11ke to hear comments from other Council members what to do about the deck situation. Mayor Chmlel: I'd like to open this up and if there's anyone who's 11ke to address this issue. Neighbors that are livlng there or the residents 11vlng there. Come up and just state your name and your address please. Diana Maas: Hi. My name is Diana Maas. I live at 641 Conestoga Trail. I came before you last November after hitting a lot of dead ends. Not knowing what to do. I guess I agree with Jo ~nn. I'd like to see the varlance passed so that we could contlnue to use our homes and our decks. On the 11st of thlngs in the report that was provided by Jo An~, there's some pages that contain 11stlngs of when permits were lssued and when notices were sent out. One thlng that that do,,;sn't show is that during this whole time, as first time homeowners ue called the c~ty and said how do we got about t hls. We were aware of the setback ordinance and we sald this is what we're dealing with and they said, well you won't get a permlt. You need a variance. It doesn't mentlon the numerous tlmes I've talked on the phone to staff or sat in their office and said okay, what's the varlance procedure. Well, you have to prove hardship. Well you're not going to prove hardship. You're not going to get a variance. This all was golng on at the same tlme that the home that ls shown where thelr back of the house is right up agalnst the wetlands was being dug and built and construction was golng on. It happened at the same tlme the house next door to them was buildlng their deck wlth a deck permlt that the city issued them and all of this was golng on. Our next door neighbors the same tlme we were saylng, can't we j~zst get our variance or our permit to build our deck. If you go out and you vlsually see our yards, my personal yard lsa greater vlsual dlstance from the wetlands and it made no sense. My home is one that is a smaller home. There's the front door rlght next to the garage door. I have no other access out of my house other tha~ the s].iding glass door ? feet off the ground. We went ahead and built the deck at the same tlme the other was going on assumlng that there was some sort of error and it would all come clear in the future and that's why I came to you after continuing to hlt dead ends in November. I'd just 11ke to see you know the permits and everything be issued and everything legal. That was our intent. 18 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Kelly Costa: I have the same thing to say. My name is Kelly Costa and I live at 661 Conestoga. Basically that's the reason that we built our deck also was because we have 3 very small children under 6 years old and we built out deck back in 1988 and this has been going on since then. To not have a deck and sliding glass doors 6 1/2 feet off the ground is just, it's not safe for them so we figured let's go ahead and build it and we'll hope that this will all come to a head. That's about all. Good evening. I'm Mark Toulkey. I live at 7251 which is the house that was pointed out as 40 feet away. When they were building our house they noticed this problem. I think I'm correct when I say that all of us certainly want the wetland there. It's one of the things that when we bought our lots that attracted us to it and we don't want to destroy that in any way. At the same time there was a mix up from the very beginning. I haven't been sure of where we stood since we've known that until today really and we've been visiting with the people at the City. Jo Ann and it's been a slow process until tonight and hopefully I know that all of us would like to see the blanket variance go through. We'd like to do some things like perhaps put decks on in the future, Certainly the space that they would go on would be within the 75 foot setback as it currently stands but so is our house. The other way I look at that is we're using that property right now as yard space and placing the decks there probably wouldn't change that in that it would just add that extra structure. So I guess we'd like the variance. We also want to be somewhat careful of what happens to the wetland at the same time because we enjoy it. Thank you. Mark Niederluecke: My name is Mark Niederluecke and I live at 651 Conestoga inbetween the Maas' and the Costa's. I currently have a building permit for deck and I'm lnbetween there. Now I got my deck just thls past summer. We've been going with this issue for probably close to ~ years. I had a little more tlme on my slde because I'm single. I don't have the family. I dldn't have the need for the extra exit and so forth. What I'm particularly concerned about ts seelng that we all recelve some fair and equal treatment to the difference uses of our land. I currently have a deck which at this point I'm looking to put another sectlon on but I'm holdlng up until some decisions are made here. don't have steps down from mine because the part that I would 11ke to build on would brlng me to probably wlthln about 65 feet or 70 fQet of the variance that we're talklng about. My main concern is simply that given that there are certain houses that have been glven rlghts to use upwards of possibly 35-40 feet of their deck, that we all be given at least the opportunity to build a reasonable deck on our property and to be given equal opportunity to use that land in the back of our house while still preserving the very nature of the wetlands. I know one house ls actually put up next to me a wall to help preserve sediment from going back into the wetlands and changing the nature of that and I think we're all very active in maklng sure that we malntaln those lines while at the same tlme asking you at this particular time to offer us all the same opportunity to use those lands that are in front of us. Thank you. Dan Revsbech: I'm Dan Revsbech and I live at 7241 Sierra Court and live right next door to the house that was being built. I had the deck that was being built at the tlme that the Maas' were putting up their deck. I have lived there for about 2 1/2 years now and in that time I've seen an erosion barrier go up around this property. Around this wetland area 3 times. I've seen it move a multitude of tlmes. I've seen clty people out there. I've seen Novak-Fleck 19 CJ. ty Counc.[.~. Meeting -. J~.tnuary 14, 1991 people, the bLt.ilders out there moving in to meet their needs. There's been confusion be(ween th~~. city and Novak ~nd we were assured by both the city and Novak informalJ, y that all of th£s was belng done on the up and up. Host of us ~s first time homeowners ~re looking ~tpo~ this in good faith. ~nd as was already stated, you know a lot of us gave up a lot of square footage of land in order [o build b~ this wetland and certainly the last thlng we want to do is see that destroyed. But on the other hand, this wetland as the variance was moved inw,~rd, I'r, not sure what the legalities are of .it but as it's moved inward, I think it better states what area of the wetland actually is. Until this last year, of course we were facing some drought situations, we have had no standing water. In fact we could mow. I could mow all the way back to where that last variance was, stilt could today. It gets a little we during the rainy time. That goes away. It dries out and there it stands. ~nyone who has sodded, has sodded up ~o the base of where this wetland realisticallF starts and wh~t I'm hearing today is that this outer erosion barrier includes area that's been sodded. I ha~en't seen, or never saw during the building process any land movement that would have destroxed any of the wetland that was existing at the time that we chose to build there. So I guess I'm a little confused as to how that initial barrier was also established and where realistically that should be pl~ced. It appears tha~ it's placed in the appropriate position at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I.ynn Stokke: Hi. ~'m Lynn Stokke and Z live at 722~ Sierra Court. _T happen to be in the corner lot where Z can overview everyone's proper[y that has decks and whatever J.t may be and Z think one of the things that the people or my neighbors are [ryin.g to achieve is they're just trying to beautify theJ. r property. Build decks and additions and whatever that will su~t their needs and Z don't think that they're asking for ,~nything out of the norm. Some of the properties that we ta~ked zbout, the>' had no fire exits if they had a fire ~n the front of their house and by, Z believe ~t's the St,zte Fire Code, you should have a fire exit in two opposite directJ, ons. There's 3 houses that don't even meet that so there's a lot of issues through the whole thing that have realty been back and forth and ~ Jot of the homeowners that are first time home buyers had no idea of that. Z happen to work in the building industry so Z knew wh~t to ask for. Knew wh~t to do but Z sit back on my deck and Z look at all these problems that they're h~ving and %. just hope that out of compassion or whatever, that sor0ething would be resolved so they can get back to finishing their property and not destroying tho wetlands. Thank you. Mayor Cl~mlel: Thanks Lynn. Is there anyone else? Oi(~na Maas: In taking into consideration Jo Ann's proposal is that you will doubJ, e fine us for' the permlt fee and for a flne. ~ith t hls whole lssue golng on and not gettlng consistent answers and stuff and in fairness to how permits were issued to some neighbors and not to others and how we've tried to comply wlth what's been put before us, I would hope that you would take that lnto consideration when you conslder if you're going to do that double flnlng or not. Thank you. 20 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Mayor ChMiel: Any discussion? CouncilMan Mason: Yeah. As I read through this and hear these people talking, it seems to Me there are two problems. There was an incorrect survey which we've run into before. And building decks without a permit, I Mean people, what does that say for all the people that do take the time and put up with the inconvenience? I feel it's something that needs to be done about that. I'd like to see something done about both issues but I don't know if we can. The incorrect survey and building without a permit. Councilman Workman: With that I would move to close the public hearing. CouncilwoMan Dlmler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: This is not a. CouncilwoMan DiMler: Yes it ls. Mayor ChMiel: Yes it is. Okay. CouncilMan Workman: Is it one? Jo Ann 01sen: It started out as a public hearing to act on the variances and that's where we realized it was a11, we're going to brlng in all the other properties and do it again. Roger Knutson: Thls lsa discussion item lsn't it? Jo Ann 01sen: It's under public hearing. Roger Knutson: But you're not approving a variance tonight? Jo Ann 01sen: No, not anymore. CouncilMan Workman: So lt's not one? Councilwoman OiMler: So is it a public hearing or not? Jo Ann 01sen: It was published that way. Mayor Chmiel: Was it published as a public hearing? Jo Ann 01sen: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I dldn't see that as a publlc hearlng 1reM. BUt if it was published as such, then we have to make a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmlel: Now let's have some additional discussion. 21 City Council Heetil]g - J~inuary 14, 1991 Councilman WorkmaTl: Mlke, I'm not sure I understood what you're saying about t h~~. building permit side oF .it. Couilcilman Mason: Well, according to the report we have, there were two decks built without building permits, plain and simple and everyone else that has a d~.ck around there did apply for a permlt and recelved lt. Now for whatever reason they didn't, and that may be right or wrong. Z'm not making a comment on that. Two decks were bullt without permits. Mayor Chmiel: You're s;iying that tile fee, establishment of the double fee you feel should stand? Councilman Mason: Well if that's standard procedure, yeah. I guess I don't want to make a motion to that ,i~. this point. I want to hear what other people have to say about it. Councilman Wing: I've only been here since November. I think this is the second time I've sat on this one and the Hayor took the words right out of my mouth. Goofed up ls what I wrote down on my paper and then you chose those same words. I think it kind of specifies how I feel. I Lhink this is old news. I think lt's done. I think lt's been gone on long enough. I think that the people in good faith tried to find out what was golng on. Other people getting the permits right next door and they were told they had to get a variance. I guess after listening to all tile confusion, I support pursulng the blanket variance. T. support the permlts belng pald but I would suggest waiving the penc~lty and I support that the deck that's not in conformance, that isn't meeting Clty Code, that either has to go and be brought up to City Code. That one wo~zld be unacceptable. Blat I ti'link this has gone on long enough and I'd 11ke to see it be handled tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, what is the standard depth of each of those decks? Paul Krauss: From the house to the edge of the deck? I'm not sure. Jo Ann Olsen: Approximately 12 feet. Mayor Chmiel: 12 feet. Are most of you in conformance with that 12 foot depth? paul Krauss: itt. Mayor, I think tile way we came up with the idea for the blanket varlance ls we took the most extreme example of what's out there today with a house and ~ deck and figured that that probably sets the standard and it didn't appear that anybody else would be any worse than that. Hayor ChmieL: My concern is that we don't add deck to deck to extend it farther than what's existing. That's why I'm trying to determine or if we can come up with the number of feet with the depth from the edge out. From the edge of the house out. Does that make sense? Paul. Krauss: ~ think we proposed a 46, was it 46 foot. Jo Ann Olsen: Approximately 36 foot. 22 City Council Meeting - January Paul Krauss: 36 foot from the edge of the wetland to the house so it will give people more latitude actually. Jo Ann Olsen: $o they could add if they wanted to with that. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just want to tie it down so people understand that's what we're looking at as well. Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor? I guess I just have a few points of clarification. Are we saying here that, I agree with most of what Richard said but I want to know if we're sure, are we saying here that in the future then we give this blanket variance, can they add on in the future? Can they put decks on if they don't have one now? They can't. 30 Ann Olsen: If you approve of a reduced setback to say 36 feet, then yes. They could go up to that 36 feet. Councilwoman Oimler: If they meet that? Okay. Councilman Wing: With a permit. Councilwoman Dimler: Also, has anyone checked the condition of the wetland? What has all this activity done to it? 3o Ann Olsen: It still is in pretty good shape. I mean the development hasn't altered it too greatly. It hasn't been filled too much. If you compare the topo before development and after development, it's still approximately the same. Councilwoman Dimler: So no restoration needs to be done in your estimation? Jo Ann Olsen: No. What I would like to do as part of the blanket variance is to set some conditions on what can be done and maybe some retaining walls where necessary. Mostly just to educate where the edge is and what can and can't be done but it's still in pretty good shape. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. And then I just have one other concern and that is that you know most...have been here before and know that there's all kinds of decks being built without permits that are without variances and I just don't want to set a precedent here and I don't know exactly how to go about making this a particular case non precedent setting for other decks. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we could do is work that through the buildings department. Is provide them something as they develop their particular property and plan on building to indicate that that is a requirement of the city if they intend putting a deck on it. Prior to any construction they must come in to the city. Maybe somehow that might alleviate the problem. Jo Ann Olsen: I think they're aware that they needed the permits. Mayor Chmiel: But are they given something in hand to say? 23 C. ity Council Meeting -- January 14, 1991 Jo Ann Olsen,' They're aware that they need a permit. Something in hand, don't know and with that double fee, that's also, I don't know if that's bui].di)~g department. Mayor Chmiel: lhat's a building department charge when you're not in compliance wJ.t h th~, ordinance. Councilwoman Oimler: Well. see that's where I'm worried that if somebody reads this in the paper now and they say we did the same thing, give us that. Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern too. Councilwoman DJ. mler: And pretty soon we'll, have all of them come forward and want that waived. I don't know. Jo Ann Olsen: I can understand their frustration but the fact is that it was a problem that we've been trying to resolve and yes, they do have to go through tl~e vari,'.~nce proc. edu're but there still was a violation of not receiving the permlt. Don Ashworth: Are you talking about waiving the double fee? Councilwoman O[mler: Waiving the penalty, yeah. Mayor ChmJ. e]: Taking care of this one but for army future use with any new homes being constructed, t. hat they be notified at that given time upon the issuance of their building permit. .Tf they're plannSng on putting on a deck, they be fully aware as to what tho setback requirements might be from wetlands or property l~nes or whatever. Z think it needs a clarification because it seems like we're getting more and more of these and soloehow we have to get... Don hshuor'th: I totally agree. Paul and I and Jo Ann can take a look at what it is that is given to the applicant at the time the building permit. That's a good suggestion. To the best of my knowledge ua're doing a portion of that r~ght now though. Am Z not right? Paul Krauss: We do give out information. The problem is we give out, you know i['s the builder that gets the building permit and they leave and the homeowner moves in. What we've tried to, first of all it's a standard procedure anywhere itl the Twin Cit£es that generally if you do more than $50.00 worth of work on your house, you need a building permit for something. Whatever you're doing. We've tried to get at that as well. We've been having articles in the newspaper. I think you might recall last spring we ran an article with a deck that had fallen off a house that didn't have a permit. It was kind of an interesting picture. We intend to do that every year but it's tough. You know we are going to have a city newsletter going out in the near future. We would like to use those sorts of methods to contact the individuals directly but it's tough to intervene when we don't have, you know the only way we find out about these things i.¢,, if somebody goes ahead and does it and we find out. Somebody tells us. Mayor Chmiel: And that's what I'm trying to come up with a conclusion. How can we eliminate that given problem? 24 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Paul Krauss: Well I think the newsletter is the ideal source because people don't build these things tn the winter and ue can get it out to them early spring and the newspaper's been helpful with that. Councilman Mason: I think the idea of a blanket variance is a good idea here. I mean yeah, what Rlchard sald. There was a goof up. I still am unclear as to why we would say for these two decks, for whatever reason. Oh, you guys didn't get a permlt. There lsa flne in place for dolng that but we're golng to let you guys off the hook on this one. You htr it on the head Ursula. What's going to happen? Councilwoman Dimler: The precedent being set. Councilman Mason: Two months down the road when that happens again. Councilwoman Dimler: As much as I'd like to do that, I'm just fearful of what will happen in the future because then you might as well not have that rule in there because they're golng to say, you dld it for them. Now thls ls discretionary action. Roger Knutson: Maybe to put the subject into perspective on how severe this terrible fine is. I was just asking Paul and 3o Ann how much a normal building permlt fee ls. We're not talking a lot of money by most standards. I mean 50 bucks. 20 bucks, Something on that order. Paul Krauss: Well I think it's based on the value of the deck. We're not sure of the exact thing but they aren't that valuable. Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it's not that much. Roger Knutson: So we're not talking $1,000.00 fine or SSO0.O0 fine. It's probably more on the order of $50.00 or $20.00. Jo Ann Olsen: Less than the variance fee. Councilman Wing: In which case I favor keeping with the penalty and withdraw my comments. Councilwoman Dimler: Well and I hope that Diane and Kelly understand that we'd love to do it for them but it's going to set a precedent and we can't afford to do that. Councilman Workman: You know when you can still drive into a small town, or a township and you see that sign right at the border. It says, building permit requlred and I'm the only one the reads them but qulte frankly I thlnk if you try to cover and make sure everybody knows. If you put it with their first b1111ng statement on their utility. If you put a notice in there that says they've got to get a building permit or if you put it in a newsletter or you put ina full page ad in the newspaper, it makes for very boring reading and I don't think people are going to read it anyway. But I think people generally know, and maybe generally ls opening a hole there but I think people know that they've got to get a building permit for this stuff. I don't know, we've done some different thlngs before but in the same sense, we mlght as well not have the 75 25 City Council. Me~ztino --January 14, 1991 foot setback because the way we shoot holes through that thing monthly, but Z will say for th~. storm uator utility. Not 60~ funding. Not 100~. 150~ funding so that ue can get that map going and about 16 staff people so we can get this done because ue don't have enough people to follow and catch up with this stuff. People can, you're right. There's probably 25 decks going in the city right now thal we don't know about but ue rely on people to either tell Council that has to tell staff or whatever. We can't keep up with it. Councilwoman Oimler: .T agree with you Tom except I'd say for the 60~ funding, [he priority would be to get the wetland map done. Councilm~.~n Wing: I'm not convinced that 60~ won't cover ali. of it. Councilman Workman: I know 150~ will but anyway. I think that the Board of Adjustments il, their great wisdom and they're newly acquired wisdom, should have a look at thls and I think Willard and carol should be brought in on t hls and we :should think about, it agaln and I don't know what we can do to keep up with everything but. Councilwoman Oimler: Are you making a motion? Nayor Chmiel.' We have a motion on the floor. Dick has done that. Dick, do you Wahl to rephrase your motion? Councilman Wing: Well...I think I wanted to withdraw my heartfelt concern. i[ guess I have to withdraw it because Z in fact changed 1ny thinking and would go wlth the penalty. Hay I ask just a quick question? On the non-conforming deck. For Jo Ann, for the deck that's non-conforming or not meeting City Code. What's your intent with that, permlt or not? What's the status of that particular deck? ii (~ Ann Olsen: Well the building department has contacted them to bring it up to Code ~nd has made them aware that it needs to be brought up to Code. [:ouncilman Wing: That's a separate issue here and I don't think we should consider that at a11. Jo Ann Olsen: oh yeah. That would be part of getting the building permit they would have to do that. They can't get a building permit without it belng brought up to Code. Councilman Wing: So that deck is going to be up to Code or out of there one way or the other? Okay. Councilman Workman: So Z make a motion to. Hayer Chmiel: Okay, I'm open. Roger? Roger Kr, utson: One last comment. Councilman Workman: Well we don't need to make a motion. Councilwoman Dim]er: Yeah we do. 2_6 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Roger Knutson: We know that. Councilwoman Oimler: What? Roger Knutson: ! was just pointing out Jo Ann tells me you already know is that the Board of Adjustment does not pass on wetland variances. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. So it doesn't go to the. 3o Ann Olsen: But we were going to bring it to them and actually amend the ordinance because we know that the Board has reviewed those in the past and would like to continue to do so. Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, and ! have a concern for the time delay too because I think the neighbors, we would all be more comfortable if it were resolved ASAP. Paul Krauss: We'll bring this one straight back to you because we haven't amended the ordinance yet to require that, Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Councilman Workman: Bo we even need a motion on this then? Mayor Chmiel: I would say yes. Councilman Workman: I think they know what we're thinking. Mayor ChmieI: Okay, I'm open for a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I move that we direct staff to pursue the blanket application for the 8 lots to give variances to the decks. The homes. Whatever and then also that the Costa and Maas permits plus penalty would be installed or whatever. Have they paid for their permits without the penalty? 3o Ann 01sen: Not that I know of. They must receive the building permit and pay double fees. Is that what you mean? Councilwoman Dimler: Pay the double fees, yeah. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. CounciIwoman Dimler moved, Councilman #ing seconded to require the applicants at 641 and 661 Conestoga Trail to receive a buiIding permit, pay the doubIe permit fee and meet any conditions of the Building Department. Also, direct staff to pursue the blanket appIication for a variance to the wetland setback for the 8 lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: Can I just ask about that incorrect survey? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 27 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Mason: l'his crops up every once in a while too. Does the City have any recourse in a situation like float? Mayor chmiel: Not really. Do we have Roger? Roger Knutson: The landowners, if they suffer damages as a result of an incorrect survey can go after them. Z assume there was, I don't know how this error occurred. I have no reason to believe there was fraud or ill intention. It was just a screw up so if the landowners have suffered, they certainly could with their legal counsel go after. Councilman Mason: But the City has no recourse? Roger Knutson: Probably not. Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. Thank you for coming. AWARD OF BIDS: EHERGENCY REPAIRS, PUHP ON WELL NO. 4. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Let's hear just a few dollars with those words. Don Ashworth: I understand from that comment then that the Council is fully aware that we did have a down in Well No. 4. We do have Jlm Bullert who ls here from Bruce Leisch. They did take quotes. Jim, if you would mind going through those real quickly. Jim Bullert: Okay, I am Jim Bullert fronl Bruce Leisch Associates. I don't think I've met anyone here but you've probably seen my name on some of the reports that have come through. Especially the water planning report that came through in November. In that water planning report, one of the things ue recommended to upgrade your system was to change Well No. ~ so that it no longer pumps out of the ground with a well pump and then into a booster pump, through the booster pump and into the watermaln system. We've got two 75 horse power pumps there in series. This was originally designed for future additlon of a water treatment plant. Something that w111 never be added out there. We suggested in the report that you replace the well pump with a 125 horse well pump and eliminate the booster pump so we're actually dropping from 150 total horse power to 125 total horse power resulting in some energy savings and eliminating a lot of operational problems. Wlth the two pumps that are there now in series, if they are not perfectly matched, if something in the system drops the pressure such as a fire or uatermain break, the well pump can't keep up with the booster pump. You get into a surge condition. It kicks both pumps out and we've got the well down. Then usually that's when you really need the water. During a fire or during a watermain break or whenever the pressure would drop. Recently we had a leak in this well house. The leak is in the canlster that holds the booster pump. It's not an easy thing to fix. It's not extremely expensive to flx it but I think we're looking at several thousand dollars at least to flx it. We don't know exactly what's wrong because it's under the concrete floor and that's going to have to, we're golng to have to get down 28 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 there through the canister to see where it's leaking. We recommended in the report that whatever that well needs any kind of maintenance at all that you just go ahead and put the new well pump in. Eliminate the booster pump. ! did get some quotes on doing that. If you look on the third page of that handout that I gave you. We could put in a submersible well pump or we could put in a vertical turban well pump. If we put in a vertical turban well pump, we'd also have to install this surge tank. Our best price was from Bergerson-Caswell who did the last well. Well No. 5 and has done other work in the city. Total cost is $16,571.00. We'd also need to change the electrical to eliminate the two 75 horse starters and put in a 125 horse starter and the corresponding wiring. And that's $8,663.00. That was a quote from Bentech who has done ali your electrical over the last several years. I guess at this point I recommend that you go ahead wlth thls. If you absolutely don't have the money, we can stick another $3,000.00 in it and get by with this problem of having the well pumps klck out when we need them. Mayor Chmiel: On that, being that we have two 75's as you say connected in series, what is the gpm's on that? Jim Bullert: 1,000 gallons a minute. Mayor Chmiel: 1,000 gallons. Jim Bullert: And that's what the new well pump would be. Same thing. Mayor Chmiel: So we are not losing anything? Jim Bullert: No, not at all. Mayor Chmiel: So we're reassuring ourselves that we're not going to have a well go out? Jim Bullert: Right. We are margtnal at this polnt until we do get another well in I think as far as the overall water system so we don't want a well pump going down if we can avoid lt. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Can you just talk real briefly on the difference between submersible and vertical turban? I mean other than $10,000.00. Jim Bullert: Yeah. Submersible well pump has the motor down in the well. This well is 300 some feet deep. The pump actually hangs down about 180 feet down. The water level ls only 80 feet down so wlth a submersible the motor's down in the well. With the vertical turban, the motor's up above ground with a shaft golng down 180 feet. Rlght now all your well pumps are vertlcal turban except the new one we just put in is a submersible. No 5 is a submersible. Submersible's are a little more expensive but most cltles are going to submersibles now because you don't need a well house which saves a lot of money. Councilman Workman: But we've got a well house? 3im 8ullert: You've got a well house now so it doesn't matter. 6%Ly Council Meeting -, 3anuary 14, 1991 Mayor Chmie].: Any other discussions? Don Ashworth: I should make a quick note. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to know what the current balance is in the fund Don, Do you happen to know? Don Ashworth: I don't. The amount, a year ago as far as projections within the water availability fund to how we actually close the year, we took in more than thls proposed expenditure and I can't recall if it was, I believe it was rlght ~round $50,000.00. I should have gotten the specific numbers for you but I feel very comfortable that from what you looked at a year ago in terms of the anticipated ending balance for- that particular fund. You ended up with about $50,000.00 more than what we had initially seen. Councilwoman Dimler: Do we have any other troubled areas that are likely to come up in 19917 Don Ashworth: Well, we are funding a number of repalrs or a number of items for 1991 including finishing the cost associated with Well No. 5. We have, I'm trylng to think of under that capltal budget but we have established a 5 year budget. I feeJ. comfortable that that 5 year budget addresses the water needs w~thin the community and we have the resources to carry those out. We are not shorting ourself in terms of being able to carry out other improvements by funding thls particular replacement. ~ should note that thls 1rem was, normally you go through a formal bidding process. ~ talked with [he City Attorney. He feels comfortable that thls does represent an emergency repalr so in other words, even though the cost exceeds the $15,000.00 required under State Statute for formal blddlng, should the Clty Councll act to approve it as an emergency repair, we can accept one of the two, or the low quote in place of the formal bldding process. Mayor Chmiel: As also a resolution? Don Ashuorth: I believe that probably should be in a resolution. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and could you clarify what makes this an emergency please? Don Ashworth: Simply recognizing that we do have that well literally down. If we do not carry out the repairs, there is a potential. It is leaking underneath that well house. The sooner we can stop that leaklng condition, the les8 chance there is for a potential permanent damage to the structure itself. In terms of just the flre fightlng capabilities, if I'm hearlng what Jlm ls saylng correctly, with that well out, if we lose another well, we could be in trouble. Jim Bullert: That's right. Councilwoman Dinller: Alright so I would say that in order to prevent further damage that we could require this ~n emergency and that we go with Alternate B with the Bergerson-Caswe11 proposal of the total of $1~,571.00. Mayor Chmiel: And this being a resolution? Establishing this as a resolution. 30 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilwoman Oimler: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. So are you going with the submersible or which one was more expensive? Councilwoman Dimler: Alternate B. Jim Bullert: The vertical turban is cheaper. Councilman Workman: The above ground? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Because we have the pump house there. Resolution ~91-8: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded that in order to prevent further damage, to approve a resolution for emergency repair to Well No. 4 with Alternate B from Bergerson-Caswell in the total amount of $16,571.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIHINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO ~5 SINGLE F~HILY kOTS, LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VTFW RO~D ANO VINELAND FOIST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDL£ ADDITION. B. AUTHORTZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IEXTEN$ION OF NEZ PIE;RCE DRIVE FROH PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PI,.,IEASANT VIE# ROAD. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to divide a 8.7 acre parcel into 15 lots. You reviewed this at a meeting in November. The Planning Commission had recommended approval. There was a concern raised by the neighborhood regarding the potential extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View and when that might occur. We were asked to then research that issue further and report back to you. We met with the developer and the adjoining property owner and basically concluded several items. Staff outlined the City Council's goal of extending Nez Perce to Pleasant View as soon as possible and we basically got the understanding of support of both individuals. They didn't oppose the concept. Mr. Owens did indicate however that although he's not presently in a position to develop his property because of a bankruptcy proceeding, that in fact it may be some sort of a long term goal on his part. Both individuals indicated that they were at this point unwilling to undertake the cost of the feasibility study. That they did not believe that that would be their responsibility if they had an ability to pay for it. Concurrently we also said that we'd go out and get an estimate on cost of the feasibility study and we've done that and under a separate action item tonight, you'll see that there's a proposal to do a $3,700.00 feasibility study. There's basically two legal issues that we investigated relative to this issue. The first concerned Mr. Owens' bankruptcy. There was a question as to whether or not we could. If the City Council wanted to finish this road project at this time, you'd be in the position of needing to condemn the property. Mr. Owens has no ability to sell it to us at this point, and undertake financing of the road and basically absorb that portion of the expense that we can't assess back to the Troendle Addition and sit on that until Mr. Owens develops his property and you can then 31 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 levy assessments. The. City ?~ttorney did corlfirnl that we could probably condemn land thai u~zs needed alt. hough we may need approval from the bankruptcy court. However, J L's not clear if we could sustain assessments against that property. .-Go ~gail~ [hat puts you kind of behind the 8 ball. You need to finance of- front end the cost of the feasibility study and the actual road construction in the expectpttion that at some point ill the future you'd be reimbursed, The second legal issue that we want to investigate .is who[her or not the extension of Nez Pefco can rightfully be tied to the Troendle ~ddition. In there there's kind of a mixed answer' and the City ~ttorney can clarify this if need be but basically you can only limit or connect the two items to the extent that the Troendle Addition needs the extension to proceed. Beyond that we would have difficulty doing that. After we had an opportunity to review the issues that were raised a .lJ. Ltle bit further, we also have some concerns that ue have some extraordinarily long temporary cul-de-sacs that would result as currently proposed. As currently proposed, if Nez Pefco was built up to this point and a temporary dead end provided, by the time you came in off of Lake Lucy, came up Nez Pefco and got down to the end of Troendle Way, you're going in approximately 1,400 feet. Nez Perce itself is approximately 1,~00 feet. Now we don't have a specific standard in OLtr ordinance, as ,,any ordinances do, about how long a cul-de-sac should be but that's quite a bit longer than most cities would find comfortable and the teaser,s are several. Emergency vehicle response time gets rather lengthy. Streets like tl~dt ,sro expensive for us to maintain and snowplow because you have to go all the way up and all the way back. You're always doubling around. They provide less than adequate or optiloal access and there is a concern that when you add i;~ the number of homes in this addition to the r, umber of homes in Vineland Forest that would get access off this, you're up to I think it's 32 homes. What we did is we had some meetings on this late last week or some conference calls with the Ci(y Manager, myself and the City Attorney to kind of work our way through this and what we came up with is kind of a rovise(J i'ecommenda[ion. If you'll recall., the applicant indicated that it was not their intention to proceed immediately with construction of homes on this plat. That their primary goal w~ts to take title to the property and get the plat recorded so they could do that and that they were planning on developing at .'~o~,e point J.n the future. ~Jhat we've worked out and honestly ~ have not had an opportunity to speak directly with the applicant about this. W'o came to this decision last Thursday and I tried to contact him since then and was unable to. What we've come up with is a recommendation that you sort of make. this into .~ two phase proposal whereby Phase 1 would be north of this line. Phase 2 south and Phase 2 would be under our proposal platted as an outlet. Phase 1 would be allowed to develop initially with Nez Pefco constructed up to the Art Owens property. Two of those homesites access off of Pleasant View so they're not really a concern coming off of here. There will be 4 new potential homesites and that fourth homesite does not occur until Mr. Troendle vacates the life estate. What we're proposing is that outlet, as a condition of platting for that outlet iht he future, that when the developer' wishes to plat it, that they have to petition the City Council for the extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View. In that manner we'd be tying it together with the completion of f. hat street so by tl,e time we add in the full component of 32 homes, we'd have the street completed. Now if in the meantime the Owens property is sold or developed and the road's built, then obviously ue meet our goal and the subdivision of that second phase can proceed unhindered. We think that that ,lccomplishes 6t Few things. Zt limits the ,imount of homes that are going to go in there intially so I think we've addressed the concerns of the traffic 32 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 concerns on Lake Lucy. It gets Mr. Beddor his plat as quickly as possible in recognition of his timeframe. And finally it provides for the ultimate construction of Nez Perce and what we think is an equitable manner and avoids all those issues that we have in dealing with the bankruptcy of Hr. Owens property that makes me a 11ttle concerned and I don't know if I'd advlse dealing with the front end of those costs because I couldn't guarantee you when we'd recover that. As I said, we did get an estimate on a feasibility study and there's another action tonight on that but if you proceed with the recommendation as proposed, you wouldn't need to act on that feasibility study. We wouldn't undertake that feasibility study unttl we had a proposal to develop in mlnd. There were a oouple other lssues that were raised at the Council meeting. The first one concerned the location of an existing barn on Mr. Troendle's life estate relative to the extension of the new street. It requires a variance to leave that in place. Staff had recommended against it and the Plannlng Commission had as well but there appeared to be some deslre on the part of the City Council to approve it. There was no action taken on it. Now staff continues to recommend against lt. We think that whlle lt's a relatively minor issue, that new subdivisions do create a lot of financial benefit for individuals and that typically in the past we've recommended removal of impending structures. However as I indicated in the report, we don't view this as a life and death issue. We are not recommending lt's approval but we did provide revlsed language in there should you wish to approve it, that you could adopt that would basically allow it to remain in place as long as Mr. Troendle's on the property and that that would be filed against the property so that it would be of record. It's a 11ttle clunky. I can't ask you to approve a temporary variance because there is no such animal but I believe we can work it out that way. There ls an error in the report though. The language that I added in there, if you do wish to approve this, and it says added to condition number 11. It's actually condition number 12. There was a second lssue of concern raised by the neighbors and we don't have a good response to this one. For those of you famlliar with the area, there was a concern raised about the curve between Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. It is a tight curve and it's not an optlmal design but in talking with the former, I guess, City Engineer about that, he indicated to me that it was a design compromise. That when the road was connected, that there was a desire to minlmlze the impact on adjoining properties. Now we can look at fixing that curve but fixing that curve is 11kely to requlre the taking of somebody's lawn or you know, it's golng to lnvolve some property acquisition. Also, and our opinion is not linked to the Troendle Addition. It's qulte a ways away from it. To give you a feel for it, it's about 300 feet down this way so you basically have to go all the way through Vlneland Forest. It's a worthy 1dew to pursue I guess but I wouldn't tie it to the Troendle Addition and I'd exercise some caution if you will in terms of who mlght absorb the cost of that. The last item ls we received several letters from Frank 8eddor relative to the staff proposal that we take 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. The response is quite lengthy. ! won't go into that in detall but suffice it to say, we still think the idea has merlt and we thlnk that in terms of settlng a precedent and based upon what we know today, that the 7 feet doesn't sound like a lot but we are continuing to recommend that we do obtaln it at the time we can obtain it which ls during the plattlng process. I'd reiterate that nobody envisions a major upgrading of Pleasant Vlew Road that would disturb that residential environment.that's klnd of unique that we have over there. All we're anticipating at this point is at best some safety related improvements that probably, in our oplnion, w111 have 33 City Col~ncil He~.~.tJ.~g - JallUar-y 14, 1991 to be undertaken at some polnt as traffic continues to bulld there. Wlth that we are recommending approval of tl~e preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor- Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to address that? Oary]. Fortier: Good evening Your Honor, Councilmembers, I'm Daryl Fortler. I'm here to represent Hr. Frank Beddor, ~r. Also with me tonight Ls ~ules Smith. Of the 15 items on the staff report we are in agreement with 11 of them. The first one we would 11ke to dlscuss that presents a problem to Hr. Beddor Ls item number J and that Js a suggestion that thls be a dual part plat. Zf we are uncertain of tile objectives. We have not been able to talk to staff but Lf the apparent objectJ, ve ls to get some petltion or someone to request the city to try to proceed wlth Nez Perce, I'm sure Mr. Beddor has no objections to joining the residents along l.ake Lucy Road and flling such a petition. We don't qulte ~znderstand wh~t is behlnd it but ~ guess on first glance we would join with the residents Jn fJllng such a petition. We see no difficulty in that. The second thlng we'd 11ke to point out is some of the issues that ~re being raised or justification for the splitting of the parcel 1nrc two plats if you wl11. We're uncertain of, 1~ does present a difficulty to Nr. Beddor in his execution of the 11fa estate to Hr. l'roendle and that's one of hls prlmary reasons for dolng thls plat. We are not in a particular hurry to develop. That's true. We would even be wi111ng to say that we wlll not file the plat or the City need not sign the plat until January oF next year. Therefore you could be assured we couldn't proceed and actually in January of next year we lntend to come in here and ask for another year's extension. We realize you cannot grant that tonight but if you could, we would request it tonight. But in order for Hr. Beddor to proceed with his life estate Ire must be able to make sure that the value of the plat is there and that the plat wlll be approved by the Clty as lt's belng submitted. In other words, a plat wlth 6 lots on him cannot be accepted to the other party when they are anticipating 15 lots. The value ls not the same so it does present a severe problem to Hr. Beddor. Regarding the safety issues that are being ralsed, we're not certaln that a good case can be made or no compelling case Call be made at least that thls presents, this extensive cul-de-sac presents a significant problem to health, safety or welfare ulthin the clty. The lssue of plowing and turning around. Whether you go the extra 300 feet you're proposing to cut off seems to be really a minor polnt. You would be going that extra 300 feet on any cul--de-sac which comes off a main thoroughfare. As far as the amount of trafflc comlng off, over at Fox Chase you have, immediately adjacent to this, you have 52 residents off a much longer cul-de-sac. Now we're not suggesting that you repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past. We are simply pointing out that at Fox Chase where there are 52 residences, there ls no chance for a second outlet. Zn thls particular plat we are proposing a maxlmum of 32 which uou~d include the VLneland Estates. And any tlme the clty sees that as a problenl, the physlcal wherewithal to solve the problem and the political wherewithal is all wLthln the control of the city. This ls not another Fox Chase situation where you wlll be stuck ulth lt. Any time the city choses, they could proceed to condemn the land across the Art Owens property and execute the concept study that was previously agreed upon and complete Nez Perce all the way through to Pleasant View Road. That's within the cholce and the discretion of the clty whenever they see that problem which may ~rise. We cannot do that of course as a prlvate party. So I guess that really sums up the difficulty we have with 1. Agaln, if it ls slmply an lssue of who's 34 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 making a request that we proceed with a road, we would be pleased to join with the other residents and request Nez Perce. If that is not the issue and you are seeking some other solution to it, we think we don't understand it and we would simply ask that you approve the plat because we don't think there's a compelling reason to deny it based on those reasons. We think it is always within the city's realm to solve any problems that have been suggested. We agree with 2, 3, 4, 5, G, 7 and 8. When we come to point 9 regarding right-of-ways, we agree with the 2 of the 3 points in point 9. We disagree with the right-of-way for Pleasant View Road. The additional 7 feet being requested. We have prepared a brief little graphic here. If you can see this small map, what I've done is shown the Vineland Estates. We are immediately next door and the areas along Pleasant View highlighted in red are those areas where 66 foot right-of-way has within the past 7 or 8 years or how long I've been representing Pleasant View Homeowners Association, been approved. Those are the only plats approved along this road and all of them have been approved with a 66 foot right-of-way. In the future if you decide that you need an 80 foot right-of-way, you will have to go back against all of these properties and all of the properties in white and request that you get an additional 7 feet from all of them. We are simply saying that an issue of fairness, treat Mr. Beddor the same and in the future take the additional 7 feet from Mr. Beddor if that's what you decide to do but take it in the future when you address those issues with the rest of the property owners. Do not do it now. It is a straight away situation. This is not a curve. This is not an alignment detail that you are sure you're going to need. It is the safest part of the road and we don't see any justification for taking it now. The reason we are objecting is one of fairness as Mr. Beddor has stated in his letter. We have been involved with the City on a separate issue where we have installed a portion of a public improvement and we have found in the future that when the rest of the public improvement goes ahead, that there is no way to recoup the loss that the client puts in initially. For example, the value of the 7 foot that he gives up now will be lost to him. In the future he will still get assessed including the value of land taken from other people and he will have to share an equal share of that. He will be paying twice for that land. We think the way to solve that is either to adjust your assessment policy or to defer it until the widening of the road or the improvements of the road are incurred. We think it is unfair to do that at this time. The next point we'd like to point out is number 12. We are in agreement with 10. We are in agreement with ll. Point 12 suggests that the variance for the garage setback not be approved. We would just like to make it clear that we believe there is ample grounds for granting a variance. Of all of the projects we've been in front of you with over the past l0 or 15 years, this one is the easiest to justify for a variance. It is a condition not of our making. It is an alignment of a road that we cannot change. We have tried. We cannot change this. We are being forced to put the road into this location. It results in a non-conforming use. We agree but there is nothing we can do about that. We cannot move the road. The City may have that authority. We do not. We are suggesting however instead of requesting a variance, that we would certainly be willing to set Lots 1 and 2 aside on Block I and we would put into their deed that no improvements would be made to either lot until such time as Mr. Troendle vacates his property or that the garage structure must be moved to be in conformance with the 30 foot setback. Either or. We will put that on the title of the deed of both properties. In that case Mr. Troendle's driveway will stay where it is. He will not be permitted to connected to Nez Perce Road and we will not be permitted to sell or build Lots 1 or 2. Those are 2 lots we'll be 35 City Council Meeting --Ja~luary 14, 1991 tying up for Hr. Troendle's benefit. The final condition that we would have some disagreement with is, we agree with 13. We agree with 14. Point 15 is perhaps only a minor disagreement also. It is requesting that we agree today that in the future we will not argue about some future assessments or we will not contest them. We would agree that if assessments for any public improvements in this area were to be uniformily shared, equally based on square footage or lot area with all those parties participating who are benefiting, we would have no objection but the recommendation does not say that. It simply says that we will not object. We cannot make such a statement for future homeowners. We think that their rights to object to assessments should be kept with them. 4s a developer we can certainly make the agreement that we would put onto a deed ~ restriction that all of these lots are subject [o future assessments equally based on the shared value of the improvements in that area. Specifically I have a feeling we're talking about Nez Perce as it goes to Pleasant View Road. We agree with that but we think the person on say Lot 2 off the cul-de-sac benefits equally as a person off Uineland Estates or the person off the 4rt owens property and we are simply asking that for the benefit of future residents, that these assessments be uniform and equal. Therefore that one causes us some problems also. I'm sure Hr. Smith can, Jules here can address it more eloquently than I certainly can. I'll be pleased to answer any questions. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat again what did you want for condition 127 I didn't quite catch that. Daryl Fortier: For number i2, rather than seeking a variance, we would agree that both Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 would have a deed restriction precluding their development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage is brought into a conforming use. Conformance with the setback. Councilwoman Dimler: How do you propose to do that? Ju.l. es Smith: Because the way you've stated it, the Troendle's life estate...go ahead and do something wlth it even though the garage ls st111 uithln. What we're really saying ls, we will not do anything to those two lots for as long as Hr. Troendle has a 11re estate. There after ue won't do anythlng untll that garage is removed. I mean we will take down the garage after he...or after his life estate... Councilwoman Dimler: Is that what you were saying in your substituted wording? Paul Krauss: I didn't link in the second lot but it basically does the same thing. Jules Smith: All we're saying about Lot 1 is that, just the way it is now, his driveway would just stay the same as long as he's uslng lt. As soon as he doesn't use it, then that lot would have to go the other way. And there wouldn't be, as a matter of fact, an easement over Lot 1 that ue would execute in his 11re estate ls only for hls 11re so it would be turned automatically but however we want to put it on record, we would put on record that easement would terminate on Lot 2 as soon as he dles. It would be on record anyway but we would put it in the developer's agreement or anything you would want to put it on record. 36 City Council Heeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Workman: That would still be a temporary variance of sorts. Jules Smith: Well it's not going to be a variance. Daryl Fortier: We're requesting that you delay implementation of compliance until the life estate lapses. Councilman Workman: We ail butter our toast a little differently. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Does anyone have anything to discuss regarding the additional 7 feet right-of-way? Roger Knutson: Can I ask a question? You're resisting just final, platting Lots i thru 4 and maklng the rest of it an outlot because you want the City's assurance that the whole layout is acceptable? Is that my understanding? Oaryl Fortier: We need some way of, Hr. Beddor is concerned about Vineland Estates lots off Pleasant View. The owner of Vineland Estates has indicated a willingness to swap lots. In order for that to occur, we must have some klnd of platted lot that we can swap. That ls one difficulty. The other difficulty is he, in establishing the value of Troendle Addition, Hr. Beddor's realtors or hls financial advisors and Hr. Troendle's must reach agreement as to how many lots there can be. Therefore some understanding that the Clty will lndeed approve something is critical. Roger Knutson: If the City for example were to, I don't know that they would, but approve the preliminary plat of the whole thing as you have £t set out there and then in terms of the development agreement that you flnal plat four lots now at stage 1 and you've already approved the concept of the preliminary for stage 2 if that's what happens and the rest of lt, stage 2 w111 be developed at such time as Nez Perce is constructed for example. Daryl Fortier: Unfortunately we only got the, I only got the staff report at about 6:20 this evening and I have not had a chance to contact Hr. Beddor as to what other difficulties that would enta11. I do know of the two difficulties I've been mentioning. As to whether or not Hr. Van Eeckhout next door has some difficulties wlth it, lt's a very uneasy situation for me to say yes or no to slmply because I see this being connected to some future event for whtch this developer has no control over. Don Ashworth: Could we pose the questlon to Mr. Smith? I mean do you see what we're trying to get at? I think a preliminary plat for the entire parcel, a phaslng plan fully protects your c11ent and yet provides some assurances that the City is looking for as far as potentially getting that road through at a future point in time. Jules Smith: If you're saying that, and as I read this, well before I answer that one there's just one other Itttle minor problem. If we were to put in Nez Perce and that little punch down of the road because this says those two lots have to go on Troendle Way or Troendle Clrcle or whatever it finally ends up belng called, and we don't do the rest for a while, that's a very, that's kind of an expensive way to do it. Obviously when we go in there to develop that eventually, you know we should do it all at once. The grading of the roads and 37 City £ounc~l. M~.,-e~.ing ..- January 14, 1991 I. he whole thing. So you don't really, we would real].y think long and hard before we would develop that separately. Z mean put sewer and water and roads in at two separate times. That would be really expensive. But as Z read thls, and correct me ~.f Z'm wrong Paul. As I read this, what you're saylng to us is okay, we'll do that and we'll do this as an outlet. We'll approve it but we wlll not let you actually. We'll let you subdivide it when you petition to have that road put ln. Is that what I'm reading? Well as I say, I haven't had a chance to talk to Frank. Zn that sense, Z don't think we'd have, I don't want to categorically say thls because I haven't talked to hlm about it because Z only saw this thlng at 4:00 thls afternoon but Z don't thlnk we would have a problem wlth that just as the filing of the petition. You know, gee I'd 11ke to see the road come in and here's a petitlon but Lf the petLtlon is tled to the number 15 that says we have to pay for the whole road, yeah .~ think we'd have a real problem with that because Z don't think we should pay for the whole road. The whole thing may be mute, well moot. Z may be mute on lt, because if Art owens p].ats .~nd the road is built, hey that's .f.t. Z mean it's going to be part of hls plat. He just builds it just 11ke we bulld our sectlon of lt. He builds his section of it. It never comes to assess. I mean it may be a moot point. Z don't have a problem I don't think. Z'd want to talk to Frank. T really...do that but all we have to do is petition and we're going to be assessed just like everybody else is assessed, I mean we're not opposed to paying our share of the costs that are involved in that and I'm sure there are some costs over and above the typlcal platting costs because of some other problems on, what is it Peaceful Way and some of that. You know they'd be more than say you would require from the developer platting that. Art Owens property so you might have some additional costs in there. We wouldn't be opposed to that. But Lf all we have to do ls petltlon for it, T thlnk we'll petltlon for it tonight. Don Ashuorth: Zf Z may. One of the reasons that staff went in the direction that we dj.d, recognizes that if you provlde a preliminary plat approval for the entire subdivision, you're ,jusranteeing them x number of lots. You're a11owing them the right to move ahead with the flrst phase. They literally are guaranteed that tilex can do a second phase if thex do it within some period of tlme. One year or two years. That klnd of buys the time necessary that Mr. Smith w~s orlginalJ, y looking at. On the other side, if you do ~ final plat for the entlre lots, hypothetically Hr. Beddor could sell that plat to whomever tomorrow and you h,zve really no assurance that we're going to have an opportunity to look at that road extension at a future polnt in tlme. Before he moves ahead ulth Phase 2, at least he has to come in and see you and at that polnt in tlme we can look to agaln forclng the petition, or at least instituting that process as it may go against the Owens property. I do not agree with Hr'. Fortler's posJtlon that you can literally put that remaining road sectlon in at any time you want and assess the full cost. I really believe that they should be looked at concurrently. Thls recommendation allows you to do that. Z think to go in, put in a road on one singular plece of property whlch is what you'd have left at that polnt in time, at least if it were me, Z might questlon the public purpose that w~s being accomplished but that's nelther here nor there. personally th~nk that the recommendation has been glven. Hopefully can meet the needs of Mr. Beddor. ~'d like to see that occur. T'd like to see us help Troendle sell the property. Z'd 11ke to make sure we protect the interests of the property owners in that area that would want to see that road go through and Z thlnk it can be done ina fashlon that protects Mr. Beddor, Mr. Troendle, Mr. Owens and the City. 38 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I guess I basically agree. Paul, did you want to say something? Paul Krauss: Just to clarify something briefly. Maybe Roger will jump in and this ls on a different lssue though. Mr. Fortier commented on the equity of assessments that might result from a road being built in the future and lt's kind of tough to second guess what you or future counc11 might do in that regard. However, I think it's fair to state that as we see the benefit distributed from thls road extension, the beneflt it seems to us to be distributed across the Troendle lots and across Art Owens property. Vineland Forest has already bullt a rather extraordinarily lengthy street so that Troendle Addition can hook in. I mean it went further than it needed to in that subdivision basically to give access to the next lot ina coordinated manner. You know I fail to, I'm not certain but I don't think we could sustain assessments to show beneflt in Vlneland Forest. As far as the equity of assessments goes I guess, maybe I'm naive but I take equity for granted. I would envlslon some sort of an area assessment. Again, we can't blnd a future Council but an area assessment that's based on lot area would probably be the most equitable way of dolng that. Without having a feasibility study, nobody's willing to front end the cost of the feasibility study. I have a difficult time asklng you to do it because I don't know when we'd be reimbursed. If we took a feasibility study, if we actually went ahead with the project, we would know exactly how much each lot's golng to pay. Unfortunately we don't seem to have that option open to us. Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Please state your name and address. Terry Barke: Good evening. My name is Terry Barke and my address is 960 Lake Lucy Road. I'm here tonlght with a number of my neighbors from Lake Lucy Road. I addressed the Council in November, you may remember. I'd just ltke to make this statement that it may not be obvlous to you but my neighborhood, or just to confirm that my neighborhood, my neighbors and myself, we basically like the staff's recommendation. If there was any question, we have no problem with that whatsoever. It seems to us to be actually a very good solution. It sounds like it does solve a lot of people's problems. What's being discussed tonlght in terms of making sure the plat's get laid out so that these folks can proceed and get what they want and agaln if that proceeds that way closely according to the plan here that the staff is recommending, that's great with us too. It sounds like a good way to go. So I just wanted to make sure that if there are any questions, we like what we're hearing from the staff and it sounds like it's golng ina direction that we feel good about. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other discussion? Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Nothing shows on this tonight but the road that has been proposed to go through Art's property shows a big sweeplng curve as it comes into Peaceful Lane. Now we're trying to get rid of the big sweeping curve on the other side and it doesn't seem to make sense to put a big sweeping curve coming into Peaceful Lane from that. I don't understand why that can't be a squared off corner like a normal corner would be. I just want to get that on record now before it all gets made permanent as they say. Yeah, this corner here that shows a big radius corner coming in. If we're trying to get rld of the big radlus corner on the other end City Council Neet in9 - January 14, 1991 of us to slow the traffic dour,, you know this is just going to be the same thing coining the other way. Paul Krauss: We laid that out for a few reasons. The reason for constructing Nez Pefco is clearly so that it becomes a connection. A thru street. Now it's a very minor collector but it's just basically made for that neighborhood but what you want to do is promote the flow of traffic through here and out. Now this is not a final design and we've indicated to the gentlemen that, this house is over here, that ue try to take pains to...to shift the road as far away from his home as possible. Right now there's a wide curve right through here off of Pleasant View and the way we're showing it is that that piece of road would be knocked out and it could turn back to lawn and ue could vacate that for all we care at this point. But we don't have a final design. ]: mean that's what the feasibility study's supposed to do. What will probably happen if Peaceful Lane needs to extend further south to the Owens property or whatever, it would probably come in at a T intersection as us'ye envisioned this but again this is a little hypothetical because it hasn't been designed. Jim $tasson: I realize J.t hasn't been designed but when you start showing curves like that at tl~is stage, you know I live right on the corner of where the other curve is anti if we're going to try to slow the traffic down that way, it makes sense to try to bring them into a regular T type corner down there. I don't understand why they can't come to a stop and make a turn rather than come around like a racetrack. Paul Krauss: I guess the point is that on Peaceful Lane there may be i or 2 homes south of that intersection. We don't know at this point. If there's considerably more homes than that depending on how the Owens property develops, maybe it makes sense f.o do that. But we want to promote, tile thru movement through there. Now there would have to be a stop sign. Jim Stasson: I want to unpromote the thru movement. Paul Krauss: There would be a stop sign over here and if the road came in like that, there'd be a stop sign over there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there would. You'd have to. Councilman Wing: It doesn't solve his probleln though. He's talking about just the general speed and flow of trafflc with that type of curve. I heard what you said. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Jules Smith: If I may. I'd just like to make a quick other point and that is on the ? foot matter. ~e're on a straight away and Paul now says we're not talking about wldening the road. We're talking about some safety features and what have you. That's the straightest part of the road except maybe way, way on the other end, I'm not sure but it certainly is. It's in the center of the straightest part of the road and it just seems to be, nobody knows what they're going to do. Nobody knows whether anything's needed there other than the 66 feet you already have whlch ls plenty wlde enough to put in an extra lane for parking o~' anything else. A 36 foot or whatever of paving surface and it just 40 City Council Meeting -January 14, 1993. seems to me to take the 7 when you don't know if you're ever going to need it doesn't seem v. ery right in addition to what Frank says. But beyond all that, before the whole matter becomes moot, we really would like to proceed on this plat rather than have it either tabled again or whatever because we're running into some time problems. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one question. Since we were talking about linking this to Pleasant View and that's going to be done through Peaceful Lane. As I mentioned before, Peaceful Lane is basically a driveway and at this point I hope that we're planning to upgrade Peaceful Lane at that time. Is that what we're planning to do? Paul Krauss: Again, I can only tell you the concepts that we've developed. The concept would require, I mean you look at that street. It needs to be rebuilt all the way out to Pleasant View. Councilwoman Dimler: So are we going to change the name at that time? paul Krauss: Presumably the entirety of the road would be called Nez Perce. Now if Peaceful Lane continues to drop down south of here, I guess Peaceful Lane would start here instead of starting there. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Thank you. 3im Duchene: I have a question. I'm Jim Duchene. I live on 961 Lake Lucy Road and a couple questions for Paul on the cul-de-sac. You said the length was quite long. What were you recommending on that? I didn't quite follow you. Paul Krauss: The cul-de-sac, Troendle Way or Lane or whatever it is runs about 1,400 feet. Now our Code basically says that we should exercise judgment and care of some such language when we have overlengthed cul-de-sacs. A lot of City Codes set an arbitrary 11mlt of 500 feet on a cul-de-sac and there's some real reasons to set some kind of a llmit. You know 1,400 feet in my professional judgment ls clearly beyond what you'd prefer. Now that's on a temporary basls. At such time that Nez Perce is constructed as a thru street, the entirety of the cul-de-sac length ls from here to here and that's a permissible length in the long run. Jim Duchene: Okay. My other question was, up on Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce, the other direction, will there be stop signs up in that direction? You pointed it out on the other end, the north end, but how about the south end? On Lake Lucy and Nez Perce where it comes into the development. Paul Krauss: Lake Lucy and Nez Perce is a curve. It's not an intersection. We do have a stop sign, I mean that's something I suppose we could look at but I'm not sure where we'd put it. I guess I'd defer to Charles on that but Vlneland Forest does have a stop sign where it enters onto Lake Lucy. Jim Duchene: Is there a stop sign up there? Okay. And could we not address Nez Perce coming onto Lake Lucy by putting a stop sign coming north? 41 City Councl]. Meeting -- January 14, 1991 Charles Folch: Paul, that's certainly something we could look at if directed so by the Counc11. At t hls polnt Iny gut feeling is that the alignment that Lake Lucy Road has curr'ent].y joinlng with that portlon of Nez Perce, lt's intended to be a thr~z moveme~t and not necessarily stop but that's something we could certainly take a look at. Jim Ouchene: That is a total blind spot if you've been up there. I think a few of yot~ had commented you had, Dick I think you were up there. You stopped at tile house. But as you come around the corner, you cannot see down so that is a blind spot and ~ noticed when we read the report, tile inltial report, I thlnk a lot of you had walked up there and had seen that that road, I believe it was 18 feet is what that road, the width ls that I measured up there so, on Nez Perce prior to Lake Lucy. Councilman Wlng: Don, isn't this a completely and separate issue totally unrelated [o what we're discussing tonight? That particular intersection? Jim Ouchene: Well it is tied on to what I've got here. Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. It eventualJ, y is going to connect. Paul Krauss: Well, I guess in terms of conditions on the Troendle plat, my recommendation would be that you call consider it a separate issue. In terms of tllis being a valJ. U lssue that you want to pursue that just happens to be ralsed at the same tlme, yeah. That's flne. JJ.m Duchene: Thank you. Councilman Wing: I'd just like to recommend that the last comments be referred to the Public Safety Commission and possibly addressed at that point. Hayer Chmlel: Okay, that's fine. Jim Stasson: I'd just like to make, Jim Stasson at 6400 Peaceful Lane again. Why would Peaceful Lane have to change to Nez Perce? Can't Nez Perce end at the intersection and we still be Peaceful Lane? Paul Krauss: Generally when you lay out a street that connects Polnt A to Polnt B, you want the same name on the entirety of the street so people can. Jlm Stasson: But if you made that a real intersection where it came into Peaceful Lane, then it would be just like Peaceful Lane coming into Pleasant Vlew Road. Otherwise if you use that loglc, every street would have the same name. Paul Krauss: Every street that has continuity should have the same name. guess, you know you're asking me to comment on your concept that has that coming into a T intersection. Right now Z don't feel comfortable wlth that T intersection but if it did deslgn that way, yes. 31m Stasson: What's the reason that you don't 11ke a T intersection there? 42 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Paul Krauss: Because you're introducing a turning movement on the street that's going to carry more traffic and you're providing a thru movement to a street that oniy has two houses on it. Jim Stasson: I didn't catch that. When you come up on Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View Road, you've got a T intersection. Paul Krauss: Right. Jim Stasson: What's the problem with having a T intersection two houses further back? I guess I don't see why that, Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think it's really beyond the scope of what we're doing right now and I don't thlnk that's a discussionary thing but I agree with what you're saying that you don't want to change from Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce. Jim Stasson: Right. Mayor Chmlel: I guess I agree because there's a lot of given problems that you have to go through as an individual. Jim Stasson: Well yeah. I have to change. Mayor Chmiel: Everything you have. Jim Stasson: I have to change everything I have. Mayor Chmiel: And that does create a problem. I would just as soon see that remain as Peaceful Lane rather than call it Nez Perce. Paul Krauss: Certainly, if there's a way to work that out. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to make that decision right now. Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. I think we have discussed this substantially unless someone else wants to throw something else ln. If not, Roger? Roger Knutson: Just one last point. I think it is germane. Considering what the discussion has been about petitioning and what that significance ls, maybe I could suggest. If this is the direction you want to go in. I don't want to put that in your mouth but ls the wording of condition 1. I 'could suggest rewording the first two sentences, the second sentence after the first sentence ls flne. The second sentence of condition 1 to read. Third sentence. There we go. Notice shall be placed in the development contract as a condition of plattlng the outlot. Then Nez Perce must be constructed thru to Pleasant View Road as a condition of platting the outlot. I'll do it again. Notice must be placed in the development contract that as a condition of platting the outlot, Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. I think that's what the lntent is. That doesn't answer the question of finances. Mayor Chmiel: That might also pertain to the specific one discussion we had here. If we're talklng Pleasant View, the Clty construct Nez Perce through to City Council Heel:i~g - Ja~uary 14, 1991 Pleasant View Road, Z think it'd be fi'om Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View. Councilwoman Dimler: Is '[hat alright? Roger Knutson: I think as Mr. Smith aptly pointed out, filing a petition doesn't really do much. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That doesn't look, I think that's reasonable. Jules smith: I just have a question. We have to file a plat within a year and say we get a year's extension. Two years or whatever it is. In two years not a lot is happening. What you're really saying is, we would have to, well there's no way we could control the construction of that road. What you're really saying ls, well we'll glve you preliminary approval of this plat for 2 years, or whatever. For how long as you extend it but if the road lsn't there, you lost tile second phase. You can't build 1~. Well that gets rlght back to where we were wlth Daryl's problem. The land lsn't worth that to us. We don't have the lots, there's no way we can force it. We can't make it. We can't bulld a road. We can't make the city build it. We can't do anything. We just lose our plat. That's essentially wh~t you're telling us. ~s that it? All I can do as an owner of that property is ask the clty to build lt. If they thlnk the road ls necessary, hey they've got a petltion in front of them. Let's build it. I mean you guys are in control of that, Z'm not. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see where that's the responsibility of the City. Jules Smith: Well, the point is, the City doesn't have to do it because obviously if Art Owens plats or if that land is ever platted, whoever plats it is going to bulld it and that's probably as it should be. What I'm saying ls, essentially we're gettlng approval for 4 lots or 6 lo-ts tonight perlod because we have no guarantee we can do the rest of them ever and lt's beyond our control to do anything to get ~.hat approval. We can't force a road to be built. We can't pay for the road to be bullt. We can't do anything. Roger Knutson: We can certainly put in there, I don't think the Council would have a problem wlth lt, that if you want to pay for Jules Smith: Well, that's outrageous. Roger Knutson: You just said... Jules Smith: What you're really saying is we're not going to approve, we approve ~ lots thls evenlng. That's what we'll approve. Boll Ashuorth: Jules, let's see if we can't work something that's reasonable. I think that havlng a requirement in there that they slmply agree that they'll petition the City to have the feasibility study completed, etc., that does put the authority back to us. That glves us the ability at that polnt in tlme to commission the study and potentially assess. I think we should look at it though in terms that there's a possibility you may have sold those 6 lots. If that is the case, those people are not going to want to pay for any costs associated with Nez Perce. In fact, they're going to come back in front of thls City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Council and say, no. We like this cul-de-sac condition. We don't want you to do that. Jules Smith: I have no problem with saying that those lots will be subject to some approval. If there is an areawide assessment for those that are benefitted by that section, they're going to be covered. I have no problem putting that of record. Don Ashworth: Or something to the effect that if you've already sold those, and that's really beyond your. Jules Smith: ...they're still stuck with it whether we own it or they own it. Don Ashuorth: Well again, it gets kind of back to like Kerber Blvd.. When ue went to put through Kerber and you had people in the Saddlebrook area, Chart Vista. Those people surely didn't want to pay for Kerber. They bought that lot and the last thing they wanted. I've got to believe though Jules that we can come up with some reasonable language that says that those lots, excluding those lots no longer under your control, that the developer is willing to pay his fair share. So he might end up with a situation where you don't have what I'll call is a uniform assessment roll in terms of you may, those first 6 lots. Jules Smith: Those that have already sold? Don Ashworth: That's correct. And I've got to believe that we can come up with language that is golng to protect Mr. Beddor but still protect the city...and I would recommend that you accept the language of slmply having them petition but I think that we do need to work in the section of the development contract that talks about thelr willingness to potentially accept a portlon of those assessments and as that may apply to lots that are still under their control because agaln they could potentially have sold those lots between then and now. Roger Knutson: How about petitlon and pay for the cost of the feasibility report? Don Ashworth: What? Roger Knutson: Petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility report. Don Ashworth: Well, we can make a determination at that point in time that we want to lnclude the costs of the feasibility study. Jules Smith: If you're going to build a road, it's usually in the cost of the road... Don Ashworth: That's correct. I don't have a problem there elther. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we know where we're at. I would look for a motion in regard to proposal for a staff recommendation and maybe with some mlnor revisions which we just discussed. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll attempt a motion here. I need some help. Okay, I move item 6(a) to approve the subdivision, the Troendle Subdivision with the 15 45 City Council Me~.~'i.'i. ng --.]a~u,.~','y 14.. 1991 co)~dJtions with condition number 1 to be worked ou[. Okay, it's a preliminary plat ¢90-15. With [I've following co~ditions. Condition number' 1 with language to be worked out with staff and legal counsel in a way 'that protects the City. I.s that enough to go on? Roger Knutson.' ge have the intent of the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Yep, Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay. Condition number 2, condition number 3 as ls. CondJ. tion number 4 as ls. Condition number 5 as ls. Condition number Condition number ? as ls. Condition number 8 with the addltlon that thls, to make sure that it does get recorded so we don't have another Peterson/Blanski situation. Condition number g (a) and (b) and (c) as ls. Condition number 10, condition number 11 with a substitute for condition number 12 and here's where I need help. With the intent that yes, Mr. Troendle can 1lye there as ls and when that terln[nates, ~hat the building, the barn garage gets removed and that something about the drlvewa>, at that tlme, the easement ls vacated. Jules Smith: The easements go on.,.access onto Nez Perce. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, do you understand the intent? Jules Smith: The easement would ~erminate upon the life estate terminating. Mayor Chmiel; Also a deed restriction in there of some type. Councllwonlan Olmler: Ah yes. Wlth a deed restriction acceptable to the City. Council. man Workman'. On what, Lot i and 2? Councilwoman 01ruler: On Lot 2. Do you want to add Lot i and 2? Mayor Chmlel: Right. Jules Smith: Yeah. It'd be 1 and 2. You want to make sure the... Councilwoman 0imier-' Alright. So a deed restriction acceptable to the City shall be drafted concerning the garage/barn and Lot 1 and 2. Roger Knlztson: You said deed restriction. That's really, you really put those in the development contract. Jules smlth: You just flle what's there. You just want something on record. Mayor Chmiel: That's rlght. Just protection. Councilwoman bimler: Okay, you understand the lntent of that one? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Untll the end of the 11re estate, yeah. Condition 13, 14 and 15 as is. 46 City Council Heeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Workman: First can you reiterate Councilwoman Oimler: 9 as is with the (b) part there that was being discussed. I would like to see us take that because I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask for right-of-way and easements with the subdivision and preliminary plat approval plus in the future if we don't need it, we can always vacate it. Councilman Workman: Paul, was Daryl's map with the red ink correct? Paul Krauss: Well I didn't have a chance to review it but it looked accurate. Councilman Workman: In light of that and his comment that they'll pay twice. In other words, we won't pay hlm for it and then when the assessments come out he'll have to pay for those. Is that a situation that's? Paul Krauss: I guess maybe the City Hanager can respond to that. Councilman Workman: I mean we're going to have to pay for everybody else's on that road if this map ls correct just about. Councilman Wing: We have to look to the future because we're trying to be consistent now. I mean they can say we were inconsistent years ago and I would dispute that but we're trying to be consistent now that anything that occurs along that road from this day forward ls going to be in that same position. It's going to be an automatic request for the easement. If we are inconsistent this tlme, then we mlght as well be inconsistent from there over to TH 101 from thls point on. The only question I would have is why even go 80 feet. Why not stay with the 66 feet on this. Hayor Chmiel: I guess that makes sense too as far as I'm concerned. Councilman Workman: But you know what I mean. I mean the other ones are developing. They're not going to do anything else but we're going to take thls here. Granted we're going to start to be consistent although it would appear from thls point we're being inconsistent but we're taklng lt, whlch ls our right, but we're not golng to be able to get the other ones without paying for them. Councilwoman Dimler: Or if they come in to subdivide we can take it. Councilman Workman: Yeah, but that's done I think isn't it? Councilwoman Dimler: No. Paul Krauss: If I could. You know you pointed out you do have the right to do it. That's unquestionable. You have the right. I guess you're looking for the moral ground in doing it and I can't sit here today and tell you that wlth great certainty that we need that 7 feet because I'm not sure. ~hile we don't anticipate any significant rebuilding of Pleasant Vlew, one of the thlngs you need to look at when you improve a street is sight distances and you know, the road starts to curve down as you're just golng past that property. Now it could well be that you need to skim off a knob on the road or something else that requlres grading to do that in the future. As to the moral hlgher ground on 47 City ¢,our~ci]. Nee%imj-- January 14, 1991 this, when somebody ~ubdivides property, I think tl~ere's a presumption that tl',ey'r':., doJ. n.q it foi- some financial, gain ~nd clearly when you subdivide off lots, you're going to be making a profit on that. ~oes that compensate for the public cost tl',a~ ue woul(I e. ntertain in the future? ]' don't know. Z think it does. I mean we're talking about a relatively neminal amount of land here. I guess fo~' th~. same re,~son though ~'d be relunctant to set a precedent whereby ue burden the ~ublic in the future with a higher cost of doing the improvements that are ~eeded when we could have gotten it basically for free at some point in t he past. Councilman Workman: I guess in relationship to that I just don't see this road ever having the ability to widen the way we want it to widen and so i~ that case we might take it but it seems moot. Councilwoman Oimler: We can always vacate it. Mayor ChmJe]: Yeah, if that need's not there. Councilman Workman: I just, in driving that road, I don't drive it. I think Frank is probably the biggest flag waver on that road and nobody should drive on the road and he's probably correct, I don't drive on that road if my life depend~ on it. Councilwoman DJmler: But see to me Tom it's inconsistent. Mayor Chmiel: I drive on it all the time Tom. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's inconsistent to say that we're going to add population here and at the same time keep the road the same way it is. Plus you're going to have Crosstown. Councilman Workman: But I'm just saying the development in those corners is so tight and maybe we're going to be removing houses. Mayor Chmiel: I doubt that. Cottncilwoman Dimler: But TH 101 might go to 4 lane. CR 17 might go to 4 lane. I think you're going to see a lot of traffic in tJlere in the future. Mayor Chmiel: Well you may see an increase. I don't think you're going to see all ~ . . Councilwoman Oimler: Well no, I'm saying it's going to increase. It's not going to decrease. And safety concerns on that road as well. Councilman Workman: But there's going to be places where we can't widen it so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have that motion on the floor and we have a second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary Plat $~0-15 for Troendle Addition without variances subject to the following conditions: 48 City Council Heeting - January 14, 1991 1. Final plat shall be limited to Lots 1-4, Block i and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 of the Preliminary Plat. The remaining area is to be plat%ed as an Notice must be placed in the development contract that as a condition of platting the outlot, Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. 2. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the house pad and utilities will not be permitted. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 5. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. The cul-de-sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. 7. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. 8. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 2 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided and recoreded with the County. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10~. 9. Provide the following easements and rights-of-way: a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the pondlng area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. b. Additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. c. Standard drainage and utility easements. 10. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and pondlng basin. Eight 1rich sanltary sewer at a minlmum rate of 0.4~ shall be constructed on this subdivision and servlce locations for all of the lots on thls plat shall be shown for flnal submittal revlew. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Clty Englneer for review and approval. 11. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland dedication. 49 City Count.ii. Meeting --J~nu,.try 14, 1991 12. So that no variance is required, l.ots 1 and 2, Rlock 1 wJ)l have a cleed restriction precluding development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage/barn is brought into a conforming use. Lot 2, Block 1 sha].], be serviced I)y Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. 13. The temporary cuJ.-de--sac should be provided with all easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sLgn ii~d.tc~tting the road will be extended .tn the future. 14. I. ots 1 and 11, Block 2 are re¢luir'ed to have access 'from Troendle Way. l'he d~velopor bJatVO~ tile right to contest area assessments that may be placed upon all lots platted in the TrOerldle Addltlon relative 'to the complet.'[on of Nez Perce through adjoining parcels to link with Plesant View Road. Thls condition shall be placed in [he chain--or-.title of all lots in tl,e plat.. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE FROM PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. Oon Ashworth: In light of your las[ actioll, this is moot oil this. Mayor Chmiel.'. .ll ttltnk it is. Won't need to go. ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE. P,:~U]. Kraut:$: Hr. ldayor, 1'11 try to be brief with Mayor Chmie].; I certainly hope so Paul. Paul Krauss.' I often try, '[ dOll't always sttcceed. Basically upon my arrival at the City ~ operated under the exJ. stin9 fee schedule for quite some time and it gradually dawned on me that our fees haven't kept pace at all with general ~.nflatjon,.try costs and also they have~'t kept pace witl~ a new trend that appears to be developing ~herehy communities try to put some of the cost of the Clty r¢.~vlew of devulopmellt proposals back on those development proposals. Near as Z can telt, thn last tlme our fee schedule was revlewed ~as 5 or 6 years ago but rmobody's quite certain. Now I've taJ. ked to you on several occasions about trying to update that but what Z did is Z surveyed a number of communities to find ou~ which of these communities are actually trying to defray clty expenses and revlew of new development back on those developers. Right now we basically thai'ge very lmomll~al permit fees whlch is fine and it encourages growth and all that I)ttt what it basically does is my time and the engineer's 'time and everybody ¢,lse ;s pCtid ou~ of tl~e gener~l fund to review new developments and there's an equj. ty issue: wlth that. Z found a number of communities, the one's Z surveyed are in fact trying to recoup some, not all because you can't, it's very tough to do some of the costs of staff time armd reviews that are associated wlth those permits. Sonme o'f the cities, a lot of the citles required the escrowing of funds. Bas]caJJy you draw down that escrow but every community Z talked to that did that had problem..~ wi(h it and there were probtems wlth accounting. Eagan in 5O City Council Heeting - January 14, 1991 fact is quite behind the 8 ball. They are several hundred thousand dollars in the hole because they had expected to generate fees and they didn't keep up with their escrows and now the developers won't pay it. The long and the short of it is, Bloomington had an approach that I appreciatedJ They looked at escrowing of funds. Decided not to do that but rather to try to false the one tlme permit application fees to more closely approximate the cost of developing. What we're proposing ls not a major, in my oplnlon, ls not a major lncrease in these fees. We're not going all the way to try to recoup all our costs. Just to make them a 11ttle more reflective of what we're actually spendlng on these things. Plus to account for 5 or 6 years of inflation since we've never done that. In proposing the fee schedule too, there were a lot of 1rems that we had never clarified what the fee should be. The new grading ordinance for one. The administrative site plan revlew for another. We touched on earller this evening, we want to have a process whereby the City Attorney's responsible for the filing of all plats and documents. I thlnk it became painfully clear that we need to do that and lt's going to stand us in good stead. Roger developed a fee schedule for filing those documents that really ls very nomlnal. It passes the filing costs along. Oepending on how much work, you know if they give us completed documents, it's really not a cost that they wouldn't have encountered anyway uslng thelr own attorneys and I think it gives us a lot more control over the process. One thing else in preparing the fee schedule ls I tried to separate out those application fees that the normal homeowner might encounter from those that a developer might make to us and I think the ldea behlnd it ls we wanted to keep those application fees for homeowners reasonably low. If it's a variance or a wetland application or something or a slmple lot division, we're not looking to make them pay the price. In fact what we're proposing to do is in essence subsidize those wlth the larger developments paying something that more closely approximates our cost. I can touch on these, you know I don't want to go through the whole 11st. In dolng this I reallzed that we never had a 11st 11kw this before so the fee schedule was not, at least for planning items was not laid out ina slngle place as ls thls. A couple of thlngs that we changed, apart from raising the fees a little bit are PUD and Subdivision fee applications are real clunky right now. You pay for a concept. You pay for a preliminary. You pay for final. I'm not Just saying toss that out. Let's make one application fee. Hake that application fee accurate. It makes our bookkeeping easier and we'll collect the funds. We're not always collecting them consistently now. $1te plan revlew. We charge nothlng. If somebody comes in here with a 70,000 square foot building, we were charging them $150.00. Now that mlght lnvolve 8 meetlngs of staff tlme. Hlght lnvolve 2 or 3 reports. The engineer's report. We're proposing that there be a sliding fee on that. That it be based to the size of the bulldlng and agaln, I compared these, or trled to compare these to other communities. I can tell you that we're not going to float to the top of the heap as being the most expensive community to develop in. In fact I think we're still maintaining a reasonably low fee schedule for them. If you look through the tables that are in there, the new one as I sald is the fillng fee cost. The Attorney's fees. That's laid out in there. I strongly encourage you to go ahead with that. I thlnk that's imperative. One other new thing that, oh! Two other new things that are in there. Consultant fees. Host cltles when they retaln a consultant to revlew a development pass those costs along to the developer. We don't do that. Now we don't use that many consultants rlght now but let's say we have a proposal that comes along that raises some serious traffic issues and we want to have more expertise brought in for us on that. We should have a mechanism. Host cities do, to say 51 C[izy ¢OUl~CJ. 1 ~l~;o[ill9-.-,]anu,~ry 14, 1~91 to ~hc develol)e'r, >'ow escrow those funds with us. We'll get a contract. The consultallt's working for us. Nol for you btzt you're goJ. n9 to p~y the bi11. ~t s~:ems that we shouJdn't have to pay to prove that the developer's project is ok~.~y. That :should be ~h~;ir obli~j~tlon so that's in there. And the last thing that's new but you reviewed it and approved it l~st summer ls you may recall tl~at to :~ot t.h.,.,, wv'rd olzl. on new developments better th,an we do right now, we embarked on a program of requiring the posting of slgns orl properties that are going to have do. velopment$. We neaf'Jy got the signs. I saw a mock up of Lt a couple of weeks ago. We should have them ina week and we're establishing a fee schedu.l.e for those that basically covers our cost Ln maLnt~zining the program. wi. th that. M;.~yor chm.i, el: T. see where our original costs on those was might higher than what w~-; ar, ticJp~.~ted and we were ~ble to buy them for less dollars. Paul Kra~ss: Y~;s. Yes. And we got it through a local sign company too. Hayo~' Ci~miel.' Goo(I. A:s I alii sort of used to looking at fee schedules, more speclfica].ly 1~ other communities. In some cases we do go through rezoning. We d~n't go through the PUO's and so on but many of these are very consistent to what .T. h,.~ve S~Cll in charges that we have to pay as a company. One thlng that's .sort of, to go tl~ruugh the process. The only thlng I don't understand Ls why we don't have something for the zoning ordinance amendment. P~tt[ Krauss: Ah! Okay. One of the things T. did Hayer .~s rezon£ng. Rezoning Js a major action for us arid T. put the rezonlng fee, '.[ upped that from $250.00 to $500.00. Also Comprehensive Plan Amendment we only h~d at $100.00 and when we're golng to amend thls Comprehensive Plan, where we flnally get it in place, it's goJ. rlg to be a lot o'[ work. A lot of neighborhood meetings and everything e]r.~e .,.:o Z r~.~ised that to $500.00. Now specifically the zonlng ordinance amendment, Host times when we get somebody to re. quo.st a text change in the ordinance amendnlent, lt's either because we dldn't conslder it originally and our ordinance just never dealt wi. th it or a lot of tlmes they're just appealing for us to change a policy. Z guess Z felt that slnce it uasa pollcy type of matter, that Z rea.tly didn't uant to, I do~l't know. ]: dldn't fee]. it was ~ppropriate for us to charge them. We're going to charge them for the development that r. hey're proposing but the ,'~mendment to the ordinance, the ordJ. n~rlce ls kind of our deal. I'layor Chmie~l: Yeah, I guess .T.'m not much for increasing because it burdened by the people coming into f. he community I)ut Z think we have: to realZze that we're operating as a clty and we're having shortfalls. Thls is something that we ~'e,~.1J.y have to look ~t rather strongly so it's paying for itself rather than costing t~s ¢lollars. Z sort of agree with what's belng proposed here. Any other d.f. scussion? Councilman Hason: I'1] agree completely with what you're saying. Cot.tncilwoman Dimler: Z move approval of item number Councilman hlason; Second. 52. City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Resolution ~1-9: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to adopt the Development Fee Schedule as presented by Staff on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the staff report dated January 9, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS RURAL AREA DEVELOPHENT, 2 1/2 ACRE HINIHUH LOT SIZE. Mayor Chmiel: If you could just hit this rather lightly because I think many of us have had an opportunity to revlew that. Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, as you're aware. This is kind of a different anlmal. Thls ls not an ordinance that we're talklng about. Thls lsa contract that we entered into with the Metro Waste Commission and Metro Council to get the Interceptor pipe approved and we found out that not too long after they required us to change our ordinance to require a minimum of 2 1/2 acre lot in the rural areas, they changed their pollcies and everybody else can go down to 1 acre. Now nobody's proposing to change the density. The density is still 1 per 10 in the rural area and we fully agree and support wlth that but what we'd like to do is have the flexibility so that when development does occur in the rural areas, that it can be clustered. As long as it can be served with on slte sewer adequately and we have a very strong ordinance in place to do that, we wanted that flexibility so that hopefully whether you feel that the large lot subdivisions we have now are good, bad or indifferent type neighborhoods, that they do make it very difficult to brlng lnto the community as it expands and hopefully if we cluster the housing in the future, everybody would be better served and it would be less expense and less disruption. So Planning Commission reviewed this and strongly requested that the City Council direct myself and Roger, Roger did a contract amendment, to forward this to the Metro Council for action. Frankly I don't know the procedure for this because I've never heard one of these before but if you give us the go ahead, I'll get it over there and we'll get the ball rolling. Mayor Chmiel: See what happens. Okay. Any discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. I'm just wondering, you know the Carver County, the rest of Carver County has a density of 4 and 10 instead of 1, I mean 4 in 40 lnstead of 1 in 10. I'm wondering if we can ask for that to be changed simply for the reason that if you have 4 in 10, or 4 in 40 you can have your homes all grouped in one section and 36 acres of that, say a 40 acre plot, that 36 acres are left undisturbed and are ina better posltion for future development. If you have it I in 10, their homes are scattered and you have more roads and more of the land disturbed and maybe not beneficial for future development. Would Met Council go along with that? Paul Krauss: I think they would Councilwoman Dlmler. You know I looked at the Carver County program and ue a11, both Carver County and Chanhassen and Chaska and a number of other communities, we're represented by John Bolin in the Southwest Communities Group and John carried forward a written commentary from us on that. Basically Carver County and Chanhassen were supportive of one another's positions but when it came at it from a different point of view. You're qulte rlght. I mean if we were, what that would do though, you know lt's environmentally beneficial and there's less roads and less scattered development so I wouldn't necessarily oppose it but what it does ls it takes away the right 53 to develop from 'those who have less than 40 acres, Now Carver County's actually thinkil~g aboLll, 9oir~9 .[llto a, '[ don't, know what the ratio is but figuring it over ]60 acres. Our situation is somewhat different from the large ag holdings that you find out pa:~t Chaska in that a lot of our property has already been st~bd~vidp, d so that maybe somebody has 20 ~cres. If we went with a 4 per 40 rule, £ouncilwoman Dimler: You'd have 2 per 20. Paul Krauss: Wo].]., if you interpret it that way, tl~en it ha:sn't changed anything. Councilwoman Oimler.' That's true. Okay, I understand. I see what you're saying. So you think tl~at the Met Council would have a p~'oblem with that? Paul Krauss: I don't think they'd have a problem with it. I think that we might have some upset property owners who thought that they could get one or two homesites and then find they couldn't because they don't have 40 acres. Councilwoman Oimler: That is the problem with it. You'll have some unbulldable lois. Out basJcal].y I support tho i acre and I'd like to see the density remaln the ~me then. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I think we should submit the proposal and ~ee what hapl~en~. Paul Krauss: Oo I rleed ,-.~ resolution on that? Mayor Cl',mir}l: I don't think .so. I think basically what you drafted here would b~: probab].y enough. Roger' Knutson: ...execute the agreement. Mayor Chmie.1.; Okay. Can I have a motion? Somebody. Councilwoman Oimter: I made all tile motions tonight. Somebody else do it. Mayor Chmie].: Ye~ you did. Richard? Councilman Wing: To adjourn? Mayor Chmie].: Close. Col~nciJ. man Wing: So we did need a motion? Hayor Chmiel: Yes, We shoLtld have one. Roger Knutson: Just a motiol~ authorizing the execution of this proposed contract amendment. CounciLman Workman~' I move that what Roger just s,'~id. Mayo'r' Chmie].: Okay, is there a second? 54 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct staff to submit the proposed contract amendment language to the Hetropolitan Council for approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick touch I wanted to hit on, right of entry on Hwy 5 and discussion with the proposed construction. As you are aware that MnOot indicated that if we did not have all our rights of entry, that they would probably delay the project by a year. We had a coupIe that had not come in. The others I made contact and staff had cleaned up the baiance but I did make contact with two additional ones, Amoco and Sinclair. We are not able to get that. Amoco first submitted theirs with a hold harmless clause which MnDot would not accept so I wound up calling Amoco on Friday. Had some discussions with Chris Kristufek and asked him if there was some way we can pursue this. I didn't want us to hold up or lose a year on the construction activity. He in turn immediately, and I explained to him why we needed the right of entry and it was still protecting him from a standpoint of if they wanted to go to court on the valuation that the highway department set on their property. He understood that and he then called, as I said, and got back to me and indicated that in talking to the right people they were abie to air express to MnDot the acceptance without the hold harmless in it. So that cleared up Amoco. Sinclair, I also caIled them and talked to them. That is right now yet in discussion and the City Manager is going to follow up on it to make sure that that comes in. My understanding, if we have just one parcel we can continue with it and MnDot is willing to proceed with the construction activity. Is that right? Don Ashworth: Yes. In fact I think the Mayor is understating the area. His involvement from the standpoint that there were the four parcels and we did get McGarvel to submit his and that was after Don had talked with him. Same way with the Chun Holding Company. They had taken an objection and Don talked with them. Earl Howe had taken a very strong position. The project would not move forward unless ali of these parcels were taken care of and with the involvement that has taken place as of discussions with Earl on Friday, work that Don has done, we are virtually assured that that project will move ahead or be moved up by nearly the one year period of time which means they are moving into plans and specs and there will be an award for that project April, May of this year for most of the completion in 1991. Councilwoman Oimler: To what point? Mayor Chmiel: To County Road 17. Or excuse me... Don Ashworth: Park Road. Councilman Workman: Lake Ann huh? Mayor Chmiel: Right at the business area there. 55 C.j. ty ~o,[nc:.¢1. ll¢.;~tJ, ng .'l',;:tllU.,:.J.l"y J4~ 1991 n(:,~ AsJlwof'th.'. H]!'~i :'-~torage. ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: APPROVAl. OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN PERSONNEl, POLICY, ASST. CITY MANAGER. Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's consideration is the proposed personnel policy for the Chanhassen City Employees. This doc:ument is a combi~at.i, on of i~o.licJeu th,.tt T.'ve received throughout cities throughout the met'r'o area and also those policies that are mandated by both state and federal governments. The ~eed for' this document has come about, it's with the increased number o'~ employees and keeping those employees advised of policy changes, written o~' unuri, tl. en, tll,~, the City h,'.~s imp.1emented over the years. And it provides to those employees in black and white a document that they can have in their I~and.3 and 'review it anytime. I'm pretty proud of this document based on the review aspect. W~; started approximately 1 year ago in reviewing this document with a.1l our employees. From that we got comments back. Hade revisions. Her with the department heads. Reviewed additional changes that they felt were important for them to administel' and manager the.ir employees. ~nd after those. 'r'euisions, we sent those on to our City Auditor. The Auditor revirCwed thJ. s to make sure we were .i~l compliance with the regulations that they have to implement and review. ~ lot of the benefits and health and employee b,;~¢;fits and those aspects. Fl'om that we did pass that onto the City ~ttorney who [las been encouraging us to have a policy adopted by 6oul~cil when dealing with personnel issues. I'd just like to conclude that the attached personnel policy is in compliance that we feel with ,-zl]. State and Federal guidelines and would ask fei' your approval of it to,light. Don Ashworth: I should have had, if I may, I should have had one additional .!ira.,. on th~. bottom of Todd's and that lo, my rea~ling of that document, there is, ue arc not providing o'r modifying any of tile exlsting personnel pollcies that would have a monetary implicatlo~. For example, we are not increasing vacCztion d,-?,ys. We are not changlng severance policies. We are not changing any other section fhaL Z am aware of that wouZd have ~ molletary side to it. Zn other words, where agaln if you're pi"ovidJng addltlorla], vacation days, there's a monetary affect in providing tl~ose addj. tZonal days. And so the policies as the app].y, let's say the vacation schedule ls the same that lt's been for the past 10 year.s. It's simply putting it into one spot so everyone knows where it's at and they can find lt. Right? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Mayor ChmJel: T just had one question Todd. I think it's a well developed document. T. ].ike what I see and it does specifically spell out the Yequlrements from probationary right on through employee benefits. The only thing I have one qu~;.,;tlon on j.s in relatio~shlp to slck leave. As it indicates here, regular full f. ime employee shall earn 8 hours of sick leave for each month of employment whicll b~sic,~lly boJ. ls down to 12 days per year. Is that where that can build up ~o so many and then at tile end, if an employee so chooses after termination with the clty, tha[ he is then compensated for that? Todd Gerhardt: Tile employee would have to put if~ a minlmum of 5 years of employment with tile. city to recelve tl~at bel~efit. That's correct. It lends to 56 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 a couple of things. One, it takes away the abuse of sick time that we've seen Jn the past and it also provides I think a part of our severence program for employees that if termination should occur after that 5 year period, you know that's what they get. Don Ashworth: It's one half of accumulated sick leave and again that policy has been in effect for close to 15 years that I'm aware of. Todd Gerhardt: Similar policies as they have in Hinnetonka, Woodbury, and in St. Louis Park also. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Some industries don't have the specific amount of hours for sick leave. It's done sort of on a basis of past performances. How much sick leave there is. For instance if someone needs up to 30 days, they wind up giving them that many particular days but it's not specifically spelled out per se. Don Ashuorth: A long term disability policy that we have in place requires a waiting period of 120 days. In the past we have had some problems where we've had even long term employees, Vic Coleman was a good example who had what appeared to be accumulated a lot of sick leave days but he ended up, what was the illness? Anyway, he was repeatedly in the hospital and there towards the end, in the final waiting period, he went without pay even though he had worked for the City for more than 20 years. Had never abused sick leave in any way so there's the other side of that coin too. That having allowance for a person to build up sick leave, especially recognizing that you do have this longer waiting period for policies such as a long term disability, I guess in some ways makes sense in my own mind. Diabetes. That's what he had. Todd Gerhardt: It's basically a short term disability policy that we encourage the employees to accumulate those sick time because of that 120 day ualtlng period. The City doesn't have to pay them for short term disability policy. A lot of clties have both a short term and a long term disability. We conslder the sick day accumulation as the short term. Councilman Workman: But that isn't always, the situation I'm thlnking of specifically is in the case of a pregnant person. I'm not sure what the rest of the lndustry does, the school districts and everything. Zt seems to me, my wlfe in the school district has a pretty good situation. I'm not sure, but a younger employee, female who's golng to have a baby that works for the Clty of Chanhassen and needs some time off doesn't get paid unless she accumulates sick days. She probably hasn't accumulated many slck days because she newer. She has to, while that's a situation where she's not getting paid for let's say it's an extended time. An amount of tlme, 2 or 3 months or so. She's not gettlng paid by the City. She's also in a situation where she has to pay for her health care portlon the City doesn't pick up. Has to continue to pay for her benefits. There seems to be a situation where the person is kind of put in triple jeopardy because not only are they not working and they're not getting patd, but they have to continue to pay for benefits. There seems to be a lot of increased costs. Maybe thls lsa nationwide problem but it seems 11ke the Clty's beneflts don't quite come up. When you're talking about short term disability and keep in mlnd that insurance companies are real hesltant to insure clty employees, government employees anywhere near to full salary on short term disability 57 situation, fl~ybe 3o;'~ max indttstry wide so 'they have a difficulty even picking Ltpa ~ho'ct term disability policy. They did tull ~nt.o problems say with a pregnancy. Should pregnancy, should we be lookin9 at something7 It just seems to me we"re a little rough when it comes to. Don Ashuorth; For short term policies you're thinking of? Todd Gerhardt: If you';'e looking at it and the only benefit, I mean really in t l~a~. would be a pregnant woman, I would say modify the, instead of paying the premiums For' short term disability policy over a length of time, that you just, the City pick up the benefits of that pregnant woman over that period. I would i.h.il~k jr. WOl.tld be cheaper going that route. ~ know you're taking the risk of that employee may not be comlng back after a 3 or 4 month period of time if that person's off but in the long run. bOrl Ashuoi"tl'l: This gets to be a real difficult area and it's one in which you I~ave to en.'_-';ure [hat you treat the male class the same ~s female so it's zll treated as .illne.~s. 6enerally, if Z've looked at the past perlod of time, our emp.l.oyees here who have Looked to a 90 day leave, 3 month period of time, have generally been able 'to be paid for that period of tlme but ~ctually they can go upwards oF (, mom~th~. C. ouncilman Workman: How are they able to get paid? tlon Ashuorth: Through accumulated sick leave. Now where you have multiple pregnancies, where they've had 2 or 3 chlldren over a shorter perlod of ti. me, you're right. They Ii~ve not built up to the full extent. To the best of m~ k~ouledge, Karen Engelhardt for example dld have full sick leave durlng her whole tenure. I believe ~hat both Vicky and Kim, at least on the first 90 day. When they got into the second chlld '[hat's where they started having problems. They d.i.d not h~ve, even as they went into that second chlld. Maybe we ~hould look into that. Councilman Workman: The newer employee and I'm speaking of female. I don't mean to exclude the m,.al.'.:s and I really am a sensitive guy. If you have to say you're sensitive, you"re not. But so I would have to have about 6 or ? years in to accumulate 6 months of sick days and not have used any of them to accumulate ail that [1me. Are we talklng about, if we're talklng about a younger woman and I'll say younger woman is about Ursula's age. 22 or so. Let's say 22, out of college. Well, tl~at's the tlnle nlaybe when if she's married she's golng to have childrerl and she's going r.o have to wait untll she's 30 because the darn Clty Manager, but I mean. You know what I mean? It just seems 11ke. Councilman M,ison: School Districts, I mean both working in the public sector and it's falrly common, gets 30 days of paid and that is accrued sick leave. If you've ,~ccrued [ha( time, you get it. Anythil~g after that is unpaid. Coul~cilman Workman: You have to accrue the sJ. ck days? You don't get anything? Co~tnc[lman M,~son: Yep. Now you'~'e given 12 days as sool~ as you start cmp.loyment which .~ suppose is the d~fference because here you have to earn the 8 hour.s to get. the day. Z mean you start out, when you sign a contract for 12 days blt[ J.t'.~; very common in school districts [hat way and 30 days ls, 6 weeks 58 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 is very common paid. Anythlng after that is unpaid. Don Ashworth: You know I misspoke. I said I think 90 days and the 6 month perlod. I guess you can look to an extended if you have some type of problem but I'd say the typical maternity leave is 6 weeks. With many people trying to go to the 90 but I know that 6 weeks ls not uncommon and a woman could return to work typically after the 6 week period. That's working for like a 2 and year period of tlme and that's maklng the assumption that there weren't any other days that they could have used during that timeframe. I mean it's not loglcal that there would have been no normal holldays durlng that timeframe. They could have used some vacation days. I guess in my own mind I don't think that our pollcles are that harsh. Councilman Mason: Can they use vacation time for that too7 Don Ashuorth: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Normally, yeah. Councilman Wing: I heard you ask a question I didn't feel got an ansuer and that was the question of accrual. Is this an open ended accrual? Is there an accrual limit? I mean lt's not in here. They can just accrue, after 35 years they could just accrue right straight through? Councilman Workman: We have guys that have about 2 years accrued don't they? Don't we have people that have. Mayor Chmlel: There's a maximum up to so many years though normally. Councilman Workman: I have a very liberal policy but there's a limit. Todd Gerhardt: Is there a limit on the accrual of sick time? Councilman Wing: It seems like somebody could. Todd Gerhardt: There's not in this policy. Don Ashworth: We did have and what happens, actually it's Jerry Schlenk. What happens ls that every time, a couple years would go by and then we'd take and kick up the overall accrual basically to insure that Jerry stayed within the overall 11mlt. There are State Statutes though in terms of it associated wlth severence. The maximum that can be paid. Maybe that's what you're referring to. Councilman Wing: That's the only thing I didn't understand. If Jerry Schlenk at the end of 35 years has accrued 25 years of sick leave. I mean not to be sllly here but did you say we're paylng off? If he has a year's sick leave accrued or 6 months or 3 months? Don Ashworth: No. What had occurred for a few years is we just, let's assume that the maximum was 280 hours. Well then we moved it to 292 and then we moved it to 320. I guess in kind of looking at lt, Jerry is by and far kind of in a class by himself and I really couldn't see. 59 City r.:,uun,-.:i] qeci.[nO - January 14. 1-991 Councilman W.]r,o: You wg~ni. ~L motion on that? [~nn A,.'~hworth: We].l you know, he's really tile only one we're, really affecting by that cap thing and ~ couldn't see pe~alizing ~hat Z considered ~o be a good cm~loyeu forc~ Hayor Chmiel: Okay, gLT']F addJtiona], discussion? Cou[~cilwom~n Oimler: I have ~t qu~*.stion on page 6, Sectioli 5 ~.~nde. l' ~he c.:ompcl~s,--}tio~. Number 2 it says here that tile City Council supposed to approve plan established by tll,': appointed authority. I'm just wondering, I don't remembc, r app'roving anytl~ing. Have we approved that and when was the last time Todd r.-,erhardt: You approved it during the budget process this last December. [~o~ Ashwo~'th: ,qr:; you talking ~bout the pay compen:~,~tior~? Todd ~el'hardl: PosJ. t.j. ol~ classification plan. Coun¢i~mar~ Work,lan: You gave ¢-:veryone ~ 25~ raise. Oor, AshworLh: Cai] it different names but that's basically what it was. Counci]woman Rim[e.'r': Ok&y, tl~at's i:he pay compensation? Okay, so you present that to Lt.?, every year? Id~yor Chmiel- Yep. Todd Gerhardt; It's a boul~ct booklet that has all the job description, goal. s, n~'.w m [df:o.[lll:s. f:ottncilwoman bJmlor: I was looking at one document... Okay, also on the, I ~oltid 'recommend th~; est'~b.lishment of an employee advisory board with (a), (b), (c) and I would recommei~d that it be 2 Council members instead of a Council memhe'r and the City Cot.t'~lcJ.].man Ha.~o1~: Where are you Ursula? EOU~lcilwomi.t~ bim.i, cr' On page 19. Todd Gerhardt: I was going 1o save that for the t'~e. xt meeting but that's fine. Co~tl~cilwoman Olm].ar; Not that I have anytl~ing against Don but because I think a::~ the appointing authority as he's referred to, he's got quite a bit of power already. Boll ¢~shworth'. I don'[ have a problem wlth that. C:~unc'..[.lwoman [l.im].ef': Okay, I:ouncilman Workman: I'd like 'bo be on that. 6O City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Mason: I would too. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I would too. Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that we have someone involved in insurance, which is Tom and Mike has handled many of these things for the school district. Put those 2 on it. Councilwoman Dimler: That leaves me out. I think you should have a woman on there representing the women employees. Councilman Workman: Didn't I just speak to the maternity? Didn't I just mention that? Mayor Chmiel: You can be the substitute in the event someone is not there. Councilman Mason: I just took two months off for parental leave in my school district. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mom. Councilman Mason: Can I just ask a question about employment at will? Does that mean if you don't like somebody you can just say you're out of here? Like that? Councilman Workman: It's not that easy I'll tell you. Believe me you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you were making, yes Tom? Councilman Workman: I'm sorry, Ursual? Councilwoman Oimler: That was all the comments I had. Councilman Workman: If Ursula would like to be on that committee, that advisory committee, I would move myself off. I'd like to make that point. Todd Gerhardt: You could modify this document to lnclude 3 Councll members. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, ue've got 3. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. Don Ashuorth: It's always nice with an odd number for ties. Councilman Wing: Where does the Clty Manager fit in to it then? Does this exclude him? Mayor Chmiel: He should just slt back and watch lt. Councilman Workman: I could shou up as a Board of Adjustments member. One other thing, maybe not related. 6i Hayer- ChmJe]: Okay, wou].d you just keep moving it. Co~t~c.ilman Worknmall'- Yeah. Thanks Don. One quick thing, very, very light thought oI, thin right ~mow. Wou].d it be prudent and I'm tt~lnklng of we should m,~ybe star~ another commis~iol~ wh~le we don't have problems irm this ,:wea. Would .!'t bi.,, ~v:~n if the commission met once a year or on an as rmeeded basls. Would it m'mo~ be I~l'~oov~,. u:~ to st.~'~ a c.{.viJ, rights commJ, ssiorm sometime? To have a formdl ['ramework, Much as we have a sexual harrassment thing here. Naw, it doersn't ~'ealJ.y I'mappcn you know but we ~houid have the framework there, Would it be ~-;ometh.ing that th~ C.i~y a~ we grow and diversify with different people to maybe star( thi~mki.~g about somothLn9 like that? Todd Gerhardt: Itl [he Affirmative Action Plan. Councilman Workman~ Well, I~m I]ot tl~inking in relationship to the City's hiring practices, ~nd ~ do have ano[her [hJ. ng on that. But Z'm talking about cltywide. CLtywide~ Tml we~. to s~hoot .~.n St. Cloud ~nd ~l'~ey c,'.~11ed it Whlto Cloud because tnc. y v~ had a lot of nrob]ems up there~ We don t have those problems but do we have to wa.t~, until we've gel bl~tant problems to ~hink about something like Lh~'t? I du~'t think we mm~ed ~ de,is]on on it. It's just something I wanted to bring up a~d maybe we ca~ do .it. ~on At:hworth: Me had an ordirl~llCe on the book actmmally establishing that type of commission. Z'm not suKe how lon,j i'L h~(I been tl~ere but whem~ we went through ti~e oodtfJ, catjo~ process, no one ha(t ever served on it for more than 10 years 41-~t Z wars ,:~war~ of and basically we just eZZm.Lnated it. councilman Workman: Well I think maybe the City Council. could become that ~;,~mmis:siol~. N,~t that tilex have. to meet but ~u~t have the framework and the :.'.irucl. urr., together 111 case there's a problem. Ron hshworth: (ioc)d idea. COUl',C.i.]ma~'m Workman-' So '[hat way we don't, I mean people are not hey, I'm on tl~is Colnmiosion and we neve]' mneel. Then lastly quickly, I'd like staff to maybe fei. low the lead of ].Jberal St. Paul on their hlring praotice~ for employees that smoke and their denial, of employment for anybody that ~mokes based o~ health ~nsm.~rance costs, ~tc.~ [lave you guys heard that? The City of St. Paul has parse;ed ~.~ orclirmall(':e, Todd Gerhardt'. I't was for tt~, rite 'fighter.s. IL was a fi. re fighter that they would not hire a i~.re fighter, Councilman Workman: No. Yeah, but it's city wide... H,'-tyor Chmiel: It's also e].iminating them from smoking in company vehicles or f.iretrucks or any oF that nature. I don't know how Constitutional that ls. Roger Knutsoll: ~l.'s a Fairly complicated subject. Some cities have done it. I work ulth one clty who did it for a flre depa'rtment. ~ don't know, personally Z I'~ve not been 1tirol_veal with ~ny oth~;r department that',s gone beyond that. You have collective bargaining9 issues and things 11ke that. Zt's something if you City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 want us to look at it we can look at it but. Mayor Chmiel: You can get your insurances cheaper... Councilman Workman: It's a proven absence from the workplace problem with cigarette smokers. Right Don? I mean there's proven studies. Todd Gerhardt: Jerry Schlenk smokes though. Councilman Workman: Yeah, but I think it's been proven and that's why St. Paul was able to go ahead and do it because there's proof all over. Let's keep an eye on that because I know I will. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion for approval of'the City of Chanhassen's Personnel Policy and appointment of the Employees Advisory Board consisting of 3 Council members? Councilwoman Oimler: Three? Is that okay did we decide? Roger Knutson: I'll just point out when you've got 3 you have to comply with the open meeting law requirements. Councilwoman Dimler: It's open to the public? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, they're open to the public. Councilman Mason: Well would they be though with employee problems? I mean you can't have. There are State laws about that too. Mayor Chmiel: You can also have closed meetings if it's in relationship to personnel policy. Roger Knutson: It depends on what you're dealing with. There's a government... practices act that allows you close the meeting under certain circumstances but you have to go through a process to do that. Don Ashuorth: You know, maybe there's an area we should think about a little blt more because most of the grievances you might hear, as I would see it would be minor but hypothetically someone could make more of a to do out of it. I guess I 11ke the ldea of simply belng able to meet with the employee and not have to have the, well the open forum where it might be his statements regarding another employee he's worklng with. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll eliminate it. We'll put two councilmembers. Ursula and Mike and have Tom serve as an alternate. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think this is an area that excludes the City Manager in an area that's really I see hls responsibility and I guess I'm certainly favorable to 2 councilmembers but I'd like to see the City Manager also 11sted as an Advlsory Board member. I think lt'd be inappropriate to exclude him. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought he was. 63 City Co~ncil Iteetin~--.~anua~'y id, 1.991 C;ounuilma~ Wing; I thought we I~ad taken you off ir, lieu of. i.~o~ Ash~ort 11: No. CouncJlmar~ Wi~g: Thell I misunderstood. CoLtnc.L1woman f)im.ler: No, wc tlave t~o councilmembers and tile City Hanager rather than jttst, one counr..:~lmember and the City Mal~ager. Mayor Chmie.l.: Can I have that motion? cn~tncJ, lm,}n Horkman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the City of Chanhassen's Personnel Policy and to appoint Councilaoman Dimler and Councilman Mason along ~ith the Ci. ty Hanager to the Employee Advisory Board and appoint Councilman Workman as an alternate. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. pOTENTI~[. FALSIFIED SURVEY, 6285 ~UDUBON CIRCLE, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Purl. 1 Krauss: Mr-. Mayor, those of you who were on the Council last fall will i-emember that we found what we thought to be a falsified survey for a single family home. He'f-,'.~ pretty su're that it was a false SLtrvey. That there is in r,~cl, a va'fiance i'hat resulted o1~ this house but we've tried to run it down though and our CZty Attorney has counseled us that the legal option is probably ,'atl~er rlskx and :lot ].ikely to result in success. At the Council's request ~ COl'l~acte(I ~he State Licensing Agency ill the AG's office who thought would have the ablllty t,o il~vestigate thls. It turns out, they don't have the ablllty to (~v:~st(gatr-., tho buiZder who ~e think was the cuZp.~ble party but ra~her they Call only investigate the surveyor who we thlnk has been above board. Therefore lt's my 'recommendatioll that we ask the AG's office to drop this. Z see no rectSOll to defame the character of a surveyor who ~ thlnk has been above board on thls. Unfor~unat:ely thls is one of those things we don't have a lot of ability to co]-'rP..ct, but Z think we can learn by it. Mayor Chmiol; I agree with that position and I would like to somehow make sure that we don't have alterations of additional filings and that's my only real concerli. I ~hink if we ~t least .1. et them know that ~e know that it's there, wh~[ do we do with what's ex.i. stJng? Paul. Krauss: You mean with the fact that rather take it by easement? I don't know. I think this t'laS a.l. erted '[he fo.l. ks doing revlews of building permits and my department and e.r, gi~eering that they need to double check and reflect back act.iai photographs and other means of getting at that. You get stung by one of these once, you ]-emember it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay and next time we'll have a little map so we can find that as t,;elt. Thank you. 64 City Council Heeting - January 14, 1991 Councilman Workman: I move to adjourn. Hayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we first approve that he drops the case or whatever? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to have any approval. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adJourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adJourned at ll=O0 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Hanager Prepared by Nann Opheim 65