Loading...
1989 11 06CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1989 Mayo~: Chmiel called the meeting to orde~ at 7:30 p.m.. The ~eeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Dave Hempel, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerha~dt, Jim Chaffee and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss a letter to the Met Council, Lake Ann Park fees and Frontier Homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING AND PRESENTATION OF CHECK TO RECYCLING PRIZE WINNER: Mayor Chmiel presented a check in the amount of $5~0.00 to Mrs. Angela Sit,ions for recycling. Then Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling drawing. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's reco~m~endations: a. App,:ore Addend~m~ to Develotm~ent Contract for Reed Addition. b. Approve Addend~_m~ to Develolm~ent Contract for Seven Fourty-One Crossings. g. Resolution #89-115: Approval of Administration Subdivision, Lots 4 & 5, Block 3, Kurvers Point, Robert Conklin. h. Approval of Accounts. i. City Council Minutes dated October 9, 1989 City Council Minutes dated October 23, 1989 Planning Co~m~ission Minutes dated October 18, 1989 1. Resolution #89-116: 1990 Property Tax Levy, Certification to Carver County. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. CounciLn~an Workman: Mr. Mayor, couid I make a couple co~m~ents? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wo):kman: One, in talking it ove~ with the City Manager that perhaps we could expedite our schedule by placing the consent agenda items we pull off to the end of the meeting. Is that sc~ething that might be a deviation that would maybe help us out. City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Co~lnci]mlan Johnson: That's how we ~]sed to do it except for when people were here for the Consent Agenda items, they'd have to stay until midnight. Councilman Workman: I don't think these would be tonight but we could do that too. We co~lld be flexible b~]t then we co,]ld take these 4 items and then we would be done by 9:0g discussing these or sc~ething. Is that a legitimate concern? Councilman Boyt: Why don't we see if there's anyone here to discuss them? Counci]mlan Workman: If I could make one other comment too. As we proceed with the ~eeting tonight, I'm not sure who maybe all knows but Tom Hamilton's father passed away this weekend and we could all think of him tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone specifically here for item c, d, e, or j? If you're not familiar with what's on the agenda. Gary Carlson: Yo~]r Honor, I was wondering if item (f) could be p~]lled off for a brief disc,]ssion... Councilman Workman: I'd p~]ll (f). F. APPROVE AMENDED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR MINNESfASHTA MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2. Gary Carlson: My name is Gary Carlson. I'm the owner of Minnewashta Meadows and as you recall, all of our meetings with the developer from Minnewashta Meadows, which is ~self Gary Carlson, have been brief because of the terrific work that our city staff does. As you can recall at the ].ast meeting we were at, there were 3 items and they were discussed very thoro,]ghly and very completely as yogi can see by the staff's report and so once again rather than take ~]p the Co~]ncit's time, it was able to rely on it's staff to resolve those iss~es. The one thing I would like to point out is based on the original Co~]ncil's action that caused that problem, was the majority of the residents on Ch, Itch Road wanted sose J~provements. They wanted some sewer and some wanted sewer and water: and so that Co~]ncil elected to provide the service and some I think are on a public hearing here tonight to accept their part of the assessments and I accepted my part of the assessments. That Council elected a couple of residents not to have any assessments and basically I'm being asked in that explanation by the city staff to pay for their ~provements. The onlv way to now resolve that is as explained in your papers there from staff is to credit me when they sell. I think that's a simple resolution. Of course I wo~]ld rather have the Council correct the previo~]s Council's error in what they should have done is the majority of the residents wanted the improvements and clearly the other two properties in this case benefit. They should have said well you're going to be_ assessed. Yogi're the benefitting properties. I don't know if this could be resolved. I'm willing to accept having to pay for their improvements and .wait for a f~]t~]re but it might be noted that both of those residents have sold. That that original Council had exempted for some reason that they not accept their assessments. In other words those residents have sold and I think the Council could correct that problem by going ahead and assessing those properties for those benefits. Or basically n~mff~er two, City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 6~ 1989 assessing them so I'm not rec~]ired to pay for them now and then deferring those assessments or n~m~er three, at least letting that amount that I'm paying for them to have sewer and water available to their property which is already to their property provided for by ~ payments of their assessments is to at least let that have interest applied to it as well as being a set amount which staff didn't present that idea. I didnt have a chance to mention it to Gary but of course the amounts and the projects he's dealing with, he can't take up evenly little concern but I would like to at least have that added. At least the inter, est for the fact that I'm paying for their improvements and at such time as they decide to sell again or they require sewer and water, that those rei,~ursements will be cc~ling back to ~. That I would at least receive interest on that amount. Other than that I don't know what the resolution could be. It should be that they should be called in and given an assessment for their benefits on those two lots but if we're going to resolve it the way the staff has, I am perfectly willing to live with that because it does at least provide for some relief in the future. But again, as you can see the staff did an excellent job and the project is still in ~ hands but soon to be sold to a builder who's going to again, build it out. I didn't come away, I did provide a f,]ll 17 foot strip all along Church Road so that Church Road could be widened to a full city street and none of the other residents that are here taking assessments had to give up any right-of-way. I gave up the full 17 feet on ~ side and I did take down a $30,000.00 plus ho~ so that I could have one home on each lot so I 'ye done quite a few things to improve the neighborhood up there but again, the City's done a lot of help ~m so it's going to be a better neighborhood up there because of both of our work. So again thank you to the City. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, do you want to enlighten ~ a little bit more? Gary Warren: The Frizzel property and the Kerber property are the two that Mr. Carlson's refereeing to. As he accurately referenced, they were deleted, not included in the assessment roll when the Council initially authorized the imp~ovement projects. This was based on their arguments about hardship and not needing sewer and water and such at the time. In order to have those properties assessed at this time we would basically would have to go back and rehold the public hearing to include the~ into the process. It was with that in mind that I figured that the best route here would be to utilize the City's connection ordinance which allows the City to cc~ up with an appropriate assessment for those properties so that when they do connect, that we then would have the opportunity, they don't get by scott free. When they do connect to the system, they will pay their fair share for that utility service. From an interest standpoint, similar to Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain project, I guess we do have the ability to utilize an interest, apply an interest rate to that from the date of levy. To recognize whether it's a year or 10 years down the road, that there's some inflationary impact on that fee. I guess that wouldn't be unreasonable. Mayor C?m~iel: You're saying basically from what we have here, we'd have to go through the process again once more of the public hearing. Reopen it and I'm not sure whether that would be an advantageous thing to do at this particular time. Maybe Council has some. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, have those properties changed hands or are they still Kerber and Frizzell's properties? City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 6, 1989 Gary Warren: It' s my understanding, based on what Gary Carlson has said, that they have changed hands. I don't know that for a fact. Co~]ncilwc~lan Dimter: So we're dealing with different owners? Mayor Chmiel: Two different property owners. Councilman Boyt: I think it would be very easy to resolve this by simply adding the interest costs. We don't have to hold a public hearing to do that and we could finish this iss~]e. It's his money and it's tied up for who knows how many years. He certainly deserves to acc~m~ulate interest on that so I would move approval of item (f) with the change indicating that the assessment roll will acc~]late interest at whatever the City's normal charge for that is. Councilman Workman: I'd second it. Councilman Johnson: What is o,u: policy on connecting? Now that they have sewer and water available to their property? Gary Warren: The policy reads that if they're within 15g feet of service, which they should be here, that if their systems fail that they would have to hook into the system. They co~]ld not sink a new well nor a new septic system. Councilman Johnson: If their syste~us fail but if their system's fine, they can contin~]e on? Mayor Chmiel: Indefinitely providing they're 15g feet. Gary Warren: If they're farther than 150 feet, then we have sc~e discretionary. Councilman Johnson: So what is the possibilities these people are going to want to connect in the next 2g years? Gary Warren: Each of the properties could subdivide. Councilman Johnson: Kerber's is real s~all. He's already got two houses on it. Gary Warren: Well, it's c~_]estionable about what type of structures they are. Don Ashworth: I should note that we can't rec,.lire the physical connection literally going onto so~ebody's property and making that type of connection you end up with all kinds of suits and claims and whatever else. But we do have an incentive in terms that we do start billing that property monthly sewer and water bills. In fact I think you'll recall it was maybe less than a year ago when the appeal came in 2 to 3 months ago, if I reme~oer properly. A property owner up off of Lake Lucy and c~]estioning that entire policy. We did keep it in effect. In fact it may be in this adminstrative section where he has a follow-up note saying he's not going to be able to i~ediately connect. It will be this next spring but he is paying the monthly sewer and water bills, or c~]arterly so I should note that for the record. Additionally, if the City Council approves this, what we're really doing is authorizing staff to enter into an agree~ent with M~. Carlson whereby reimbursement to him based on our connection charge policy wo~]ld occur. That should also have so~e type of a City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 clause in there that states that he has to really help us in that process so if for some reason we fail to collect the money, that we will try to collect it but we're not going to be responsible if for sc~e reason we fail. And secondly, his reimbursement must, the requestion for rei~urssment must be within let's say a one year period of time of sale or connection or whatever else. That way it won't go on indefinitely. I've talked with Mr.. Carlson on this and I believe he's in agreement to both of those statements. Councilman Johnson: Would a sewer connection charge of $6,000.00, that'd be half of this $12,000.00. $6,500.00, whatever. Would that be those areas or whatever? I mean that sounds a little high to me. Gary Warren: Sewer and water. Counci]m~an Johnson Sewer and water? Okay. Don Ashworth: It goes by area though. I think Kiowa was like $11,000.00 just for sanitary sewer. Councilman Johnson: To connect? Gary Warren: Because of lot density and everything else. Don Ashworth: It was very expensive. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Resolution #89-117: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the amended assessment roll for Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project No. 88-2 with acctm~ulated interest at the City's no~al rate. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the agenda to move the consent agenda items that were pulled off to before Council ~:esentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CHURCH ROAD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-5. ~_fl~l ic Present: Name Address Merlyn Wanous Harry Campbell Gary Carlson 6231 Church Road 6241 Church Road 3831 West 62nd Street Gary Warren: I'll just give a brief introduction here and get everybody oriented. This is the Church Road project area. The line on the map here shows City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 6, 1989 actually the routing of the Lake Virginia Forcemain that was constructed down Church Road by the Metropolitan Waste Control Co~m~ission. At that time the City looked into the rec~lest from a n~_m~oer of the residents in the area on servicing them with sanitary sewer and we also looked at the watermain in the feasibility st,]dy. The project was split into project areas. Ym-. Carlson's project, which we just discussed was the southern half and the project that we're having the assessment hearing on this evening to cover sanitary sewer which was installed for the north half of the project area which affects the Wanous, the Campbell and the park property. The feasibility study that was prepared looked at the assessment rolls from a n~m~oer of standpoints and the front footage standpoint and the unit assessment standpoint was basically the roll that I think appeared to be the most reasonable. It looked at buildable units on the property. The roll which was included in the packet and the assessments notices which have been specifically sent out, are as we're showing here, which we are sutm~itting for approval. Basically the park property on the west side...units assigned to that property. The Wanous property makes up basically 3 parcels or a total of 7 units and the Wanous property which we've had discussions with Mr.. Wanous. It is a subdividable property so there are 2 units there. The unit price, the unit assessment which has been established is $3,343.g4 for each unit. The assessments are shown in the total col~n. Mayor CTm~iel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this item? If so, please co~e up to the podi~m~ and state yo~]r name and address please. Merlyn Wanous: My n~e is Merl? Wanous. I live at 6231 Church Road. I have been assessed like for 4 units. I do have 3 units, 3 lots. I'm just wondering, do I have to go through a [m]blic hearing or everything else in order to divide this into 4 lots or what is the procedure? Gary Warren: You would have to go through the platting process which would rec~]ire various hearings to subdivide. Merl? Wanous: I was just wondering how you could make 4 lots out of 3 lots. I do have 3 lots that are there. Now I'm being assessed for 4 units. I mean I'm paying my share. I'm not saying that but I'm just kind of wondering how in the world, I mean why they put in an extra st~b there when there's only 3 lots there. Gary Wa~ren: We looked at similar to Mr. Campbell's property, what is the minim~, density allowed by the zoning ordinance for subdivision. While you're right, you do have 3 lots established now, you could come in and res,]bdivide the property and end up with 4 lots so we use the City's minim~m~ require~ents which is 9g foot of frontage and 15,g0~ sca]are feet of land for a per lot assessment. Mayor Chmiel: I don't q~]ite understand that. Gary Warren: The dark lines on this map show the current subdivision as it stands. As M3~. Wanous has mentioned, Lots A and B and C and his residence I believe is... Merl? Wanous: Is C, correct. City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 Gary Warren: Are the lots of record. Likewise, M~. Campbell's property here is one lot. However, when we applied the minimum subdivision requirements for this area, a lot can become 90 feet of frontage on a roadway and 15,000 s~]are feet and other requirements with lot depth but basically if Mr. Wanous or Mr. Campbell or both care to come in and go through the platting process and resubdivide their property, the lines in blue basically do reflect that there are an additional 3 lots on this side in addition to his current lot and M3~. Campbell could basically get another lot out of his. Councilman Boyt: Aren't those lot lines drawn differently though? Haven't you co~ined A and B and then split theme? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And you can do that because they're both under the same ownership? Is that the thought? Gary Warren: No. We're just looking at the land as to how it could subdivide. Even if it were separate ownerships and the two owners got together and joined and platted, they could s~.~divide the property. Councilman Boyt: So you put in a stub every 90 feet? Gary Warren: Roughly. Counci]_,~an Johnson: Currently there's only 2 houses on all those lots? Merlyn Wanous: That's right. Gary Warren: The unit assessment process, if we would have... Merlyn Wanous: Right, it would be the sa~. Gary Warren: If we would have only given him 3 and him 1, the cost would have gone up accordingly and probably would have been about the sa~ price. Councilman Boyt: Now what would be the possibilities of going on existing lot lines and only putting in the stubs to serve existing lots and then later if someone comes back and says I want to subdivide, how does that complicate it? Gary Warren: It complicates it from the fact that what we are doing at this point in time is distributing the total project costs that we've incurred to install the sanitary sewer. If we put in say 2 less units in this assessment, the per unit assessm~ent will go up. You will still cover the City's cost in this regard and if in the future if it actually does subdivide and we do get the extra ~its coming in, the City will ,~e it's connection charge policy to collect an additional connection s~iliar to our discussion with Mr. Carlson. Although those proceeds, the project is already paid off, will not be redistributed. They will come back into the City's treasury. So we try to I guess take the best shot at reflecting what the potential for subdivision is. Councilman Boyt: So we could go either way? We couid charge him for having 4 lots there or we could charge him for having, what is that 6 lots? City Co~ncil Meeting - Novem~oer 6, 1989 Merlyn Wanous: Three. I've got three now. Councilman Boyt: Well 3 and 1 would be 4. We could charge that way or we could charge for having, it looks like 6 lots to me when I count the blue lines. Gary Warren: With Campbell's property. Councilman Boyt: And if we charge for 4, then the City's going to walk away with $12,000.g0 at some point if they ever s~bdivide. Is that the way you want it to work? Merlyn Wanous: Well I just wondering why the stubs are there. With the property as indicated now, I've got it divided. I've got lots and everything else and I'm s~re that, well I don't intend on ever subdividing it but so~eone else might so I guess it's just, I was just curio~]s as to why, the lots are there. Why an extra st~]b was put in. Extra cost. Mayor Chmiel: For the f~]ture. Merlyn Wanous: Well okay, for the future. Gary Warren: very s'L~iliar to the Frizzell and Kerber property where we drew up 2 stubs for each of those lots because we don't want to have to go back and dig up the street, among other things, in case they do subdivide. Mertyn Wanous: Oh, okay. Councilman Johnson: If you do try to s~]bdivide in th future and those stubs weren't there, then it'd be more expensive even. Merlyn Wanous: Thank you. I was just wondering. Councilman Johnson: Did we ever look at this on a per foot basis? I think we did back 2 or 3 years ago. Gary Warren: We looked at it every different way you couid I think. Actually the assessments frc~ the feasibility st~y to this point in t~e have come down because we're very fortunate we had some good construction environment out there and the unit assessment or the current assessments are considerably down from the feasibility study estimates. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address this? Counci]m~an Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the p~]blic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Workman: I just have one note. Gary, do you realize there's an error on the assessment roll for Lot C? I don't know that that will make a difference but... Co~_mci~an Johnson: Under total assessment. Councilman Workman: Under total assessment for one unit. City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Gary Warren: Oh. Sa~ bottom line but that's... Councilman Workman: Is that how slush f~ds start? Gary Warren: Not unless you direct it. Thank you. We'll correct that. CounciL-~an Johnson: Does that total now?. Councilman Workman: Yeah. Now it does. Resolution #89-118: CounciL,~an Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt the Assessment Roll for Church Road Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 87-5 with the correction noted for Lot C. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF PC~ERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION (VINELAND FOREST). Paul Krauss: As you're aware, the City Council's reviewed this item~ on several occasions in the past. Access considerations have been one of the primary issues that were surrounding this parcel. The primary issue culminating in the acceptance of an overall access plan that would have served the site by creating a thru street running from Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce up to Peaceful Lane eventually e~ptying out onto Pleasant view. The access issues have been largely resolved. The applicant managed to ac~ire a parcel located up here at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road which was a concern at the last meeting. That parcel was needed to provide sufficient right-of-way to build a street. That lot would be reduced in size slightly to acco~m~odate the street but it can be done without causing a variance. We're also reconm~ending that the unused portion of right-of-way up in this area be vacated which would have the effect of enlarging that lot as well. Drainage issues have also largely been resolved. The 3 sm~all ponds that were previously illustrated have been deleted in favor of a single larger pond located in the northeast corner of the property. The pond can be acco~m~odated without impacting the building site which the former arrangement would have and it would also be easier to ~mintain from the City and Watershed District standpoint. Staff is comfortable with the concept of the pond but has recommended that modifications be made in it's location and design that would be intended to i~rove tree preservation. Additional data has been provided on tree locations and conditions have been reco~m~ended to ~rove preservation efforts. As noted in the last meeting, there continues to be 2 variances associated with this proposal. The first is to allow for a 10% grade on the new street near Lake Lucy Road. Staff supports this variance primarily due to envirorm~ental considerations. Lowering the road grade would rev]ire the grading of a more s~bstantially larger area which results in additional tree loss. We believe that the road design being proposed can safely acco~m~odate the traffic that we anticipate having on it and enviror~ental concerns as well and are recc~ending that the variance be approved. The second variance is to allow only 30 feet of frontage on Lot 2, Block 3 which is a neck lot accessed by Pleasant View Road. Staff supports this variance as well. We note that the lot complies with all RSF district standards say for lot frontage in that the lot City Council Meeting - Noves_~oer 6, 1989 would be accessed by a private drive. As we've noted in past meetings, the s~.flodivision ordinance allows lots to be accessed by private drives although it does require a variance in the RSF district. ~]rthermore, we note that the variance that's being introduced on this project stems not from the developer's desires but rather from the City's in terms of where we intended to place the road alignment. To adec~]ately serve this site and the adjoining sites, it's necessary that that road alignment be held to the south which makes it impossible to provide adec~]ate frontage onto that lot. Based upon the foregoing, staff is reco~ending approval of the plat with the two variances s~floject to appropriate conditions. Mayor Cbmiel: Is Mr. Van Eeckhout here? I don't see him. Okay. Is there any further discussion by Council? Councilman Boyt: Sure. I'd like to see a map of the proposal as it stands. As I understand, we don't have one. Pa~]l Krauss: A map of the proposal as it stands in what way? CounciLman Boyt: This is it? Paul Krauss: That's the lower half of it Councilman Boyt. Basically what you've got is two separate plan sheets. The one that you've got there is an updated one that only pertained to the south end of the property since that's where the road realignment was and the ponding configuration. The other sheet was provided in the last packet and that is this one here. It was so large that it didn't fit on, it had to be p~]t on two sheets. They're of a different scale. Basically though if you can take, it doesn't really line up that well but on this sheet here, that shows generally how that layout occurs. Councilman Boyt: You're talking about the, how wide is it? It's in here somewhere. That extension off of Pleasant View. 16 feet wide, is that what you're talking about? Paul Krauss: The extension off of Pleasant View right here is 3~ feet. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't think we've got an accurate plat map of what's being proposed. In the first place I think that it's off is in the holding pond. I don't think that's accurately reflected because the one I've got is 8 feet deep and I know that's not the current plan. Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, this is the current plan. This is a reduction of the one that you have before you. That pond is 8 feet deep at this point and we've reco~ended modifications that will shallow that up. Councilman Boyt: Okay, well I want to see the plat drawn the way it's going to end up and ~ first one concern is of course the pond. I don't want a pe~.~anent pond 8 feet deep created in somebody's backyard. The other thing is, this shows a road going through a 30 inch maple tree, a 2g inch maple tree. It shows a proposed ho,]sing site on top of a 30 inch oak tree. I'm not prepared to accept that so there's something wrong with this layout if we're putting it through a 3g inch maple tree. Paul K3:auss: If I could respond to a couple of those things. We did note the City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 location of the ~oad relative to the trees and think that the plan can be modified to save those 2 trees which occur right in this area here. We've reco~ended a condition that would do just that. I'd also have to add that this is a preliminary plat and that these refine~.~nts we intend to have introduced prior to final platting. Councilman Boyt: Well I'm glad you're doing that but I guess I'm pointing out, I know the staff report was sensitive to sos~ of these issues but when I look at Block 3, Lot 11 and see what I can only imagine to be the proposed areas of housing sitting on top of a 30 inch oak tree, that's just not going to work. Paul Krauss: Counci]_,~an Boyt, those are illustrative building pads. 5hat is not to infer that the house would look exactly like that or be placed in that area. Co~.~cilman Boyt: The oak tree's right dead in the center of it Paul. Mayor Chmiel: The 30 inch oak is yeah, what he's saying. Councilman Boyt: That 30 inch oak tree is probably 200 years old. Well, in ~ opinion they're not going to cut it down. That's just ~ but I'm saying that it's 200 years old, it deserves to live a while longer and I'm sure not going to let a house cos~ in there and arbitrarily lay out a piece of property so they cut it down. Mayor Chmiel: I sort of agree with you Bill but also the property owner, if he wants to develop that property and put a house on there, is he going to reshift the entirety of the plat in order to acco~odate that? Councilman Boyt: It's not an easy issue. I don't reach a knee jerk conclusion here. I'm saying that we've got a fairly sizeable piece of property and this piece of property has sc~ unique trees on it. Mayor Ctm~iel: I agree. Councilman Boyt: And so we ought to take every possible opportunity to save a tree that's 30 inches in diameter. That's all our lifet~s added up and we don't probably accumulate the nt~er of years that tree's been sitting there. So I think that's a serious issue. I think that the public wants landmark trees protected and a 30 inch oak tree looks to ~ like a landmark tree. Councilman Workman: Paul, when we're talking about this 10% grade, are we talking about it on Vineland Court? Paul Krauss: No. It's on the street that he's identified as Vineland Drive. It occurs right in this section here. Councilman Workman: Right as it comes up to Lake Lucy Road? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Workman: And we've also got one on Vineland Court don't we? Paul Krauss: No. Vineland Court ~t the 7% standard. 11 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Councilman Workman: It comes close but not close enough. Paul Kra~lss: I also have to add that in accepting the 10% grade, we insisted that it be designed to have a landing area at the top, at the intersection so you're not approaching the intersection on an angle but rather on a flat. So the grade is introduced after you're moving away from that intersection. Councilman Work~an: Didn't we originally, wasn't the original proposal for 1 pond and then staff reco~ended 3 ponds and now we're back to 17 Paul Krauss: No. I believe the last one was 3. There was a pond right in behind those homes over there. I believe there was a ~aller, I'm not sure where the third one was but one of the, the third one was in the ~avine. There was a d&n~ proposed in that ravine that raised sc~e issnes for ns. Do you recall where the third one was? Dave Hempel: Yes. It was just north of Lot 8, Block 2 in the backyard there. I believe it's Lot 5, Block 1. Counci]m~an Workman: But did we go from 1 to 3 and now we've decided on 17 Paul Krauss: No, we went from 3 to 1. We were concerned with the 3 ponds that they had proposed at the last meeting. The ponds intruded severely into the backyards of these homes with the result that there would have been a 'drainage easement as you come out the back door and they co~]ldn't have built decks on them. Having 3 sm~all ponds also raises sc~e significant maintenance and function problems in terms of maintaining water storage that we need. Councilwoman Dimler: I gl]ess I just want to ask Paul to put my fears to rest about that lg% grade in the wintertime. Getting up and down, is that going to be a problem? Paul Krauss: We don't think so the way it's been designed but I guess I'd leave that to the engineering department to expand on. Gary Warren: We have ~mfortunately several examples of that. Near Mountain, the next phase is built with the understanding that it's going to be a lg% grade. Lake Riley Meadows I believe is a lg% grade. A lot of the roads in Carver Beach are close to that. We'd prefer not to have to go to that but I would say realistically we have ranged from a half a percent grade up to 1~% as reasonable. Councilwcm~an Dimler: No accidents? No problems? Gary Warren: Well even a 1% grade can be a problem if people don't use care during hazardous conditions but it's still manageable from our maintenance standpoint. CounciLman Johnson: Tom brought up a real good point. How are we going to maintain that pond back there? Having that pond kind of in everybody's back yard, if we have to go in to do maintenance, we've got to go through yards similar to what we did in Near Mountain to go in and maintain in the winter. 12 City Council Meeting - November 61 1989 Dave Hempel: Councilman Johnson, we are rec~]esting a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 4 and 5. Between Vineland Court and the pond to gain access with our vehicles. Co~mcilman Johnson: Right where the storm sewer goes thru? Dave H~pel: That's correct. Council~an Johnson: I have concern also on that one lot. A good builder might be able to work around those trees. The building pad is not shown as, it shows a 3,700 square foot building pad there. I guess I'm not very near the mic today but he's oh, 75 foot from the back lot line a~d they've rearrange microphones here. Qlite easily he could build further to the one side of that lot and with sc~e care ~mybe save that 30 inch oak but at least those 2-18 inch oaks could be saved without any trouble. That's a big lot. If we don't have a full set of drawings here, we don't know what the size of the lot is but I would venture to say, do you have those lot sizes anywhere? Councilman Boyt: We've got a scale here. I don't think it's all that big Jay. Paul Krauss: It' s 18,700 square feet. Councilman Johnson: With the existing homes and access and everything else in there and the topography, there's not much else to do other than not put a house on that lot. That doesn't make a lot of sense either. I don't know how to resolve that issue. Council~an Boyt: I think the way to resolve that issue is have them come up with a building pad that doesn't knock out those ancient trees. Councilman Johnson: How big is Lot 12 and 137 Paul Krauss: 12 is 15,750 and 13 is 15,000. Council~an Johnson: There's no room? Paul K3~.auss: There's no roc~ to shift it to the south, no. Councilman Johnson: They'd just have to build the house on the south side. It'd be an odd house. Would the front of that house be facing the Vineland Court or Vineland Drive or it's up the~ Paul Krauss: It's really up to the builder. Mayor Ctm~iel: Mr. Van Eeckhout is here now. Just to update you. What we're looking at is Lot 11. There are several trees of consec~]ence in size. One that Council~an Boyt has brought up. A 30 inch in diameter oak and has some real concerns about that as well as a few of the other trees adjacent to that one specific lot. Can that existing house on that lot be shifted in any way? Chuck Van Eeckhout: I've instructed the designer to use very large, oversized footprints so, because as a builder, I really have trouble with very nice lots but there's no place to build except to destroy the whole lot and the narrow 13 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 frontages have given us tro~ble so we do have more frontage on these lots than many lots do. With regard to trees, as you're I'm sure aware, the ability to save a few trees on a lot can very, very greatly enhance the value of that lot. Both to me as a developer and builder and to the hc~eowner coming down the line so we' re going to do everything we can to work aro~nd the trees. Any person that buys the lot, virtually all the time they're going to be working to design around the trees. It's impossible sometimes to save, and I've gone through this so many tJ~les where you work and work and work and save these 4 or 5 or 6 beautiful trees and 2 years later they're dead. There is no good answer to that problem. The thing that we have to do is stay as far away from it as you can. Dist,]rb them as little as we can and with a little luck we'll save hal~ or two-thirds of them. The good mature trees on the lot. It's just a bad situation. We just have to do t_he very best we can with it and we will do the best we'can with it. Where we have say 8 or 10 good trees on a lot, I don't feel so bad about that. I think 3 or 4 nice trees on a lot is all a lot really needs if yogi're talking about the big mature ones. Also we have a very good supply of native trees of the 2 and 3 and 4 inch size that we' re going to move around so we'll have a very nice wooded subdivision when we're done with it. How we get from here to there is something we' re going to work very hard on but trying to figure it out at this stage is a little diffic~]lt. Mayor Ctm~iel: So in other words wlnat you' re saying is there's no way that you can say that you can save that 3g inch oak? Chuck Van Eeckho~lt: Well if that were the center, if that were the only one in the area, well, I can't say, no. There's not a way that I can tell yogi how we' re going to do that to save that tree, that's correct. I may feel, you may or ~y not agree with me but I have not done an analysis on it J.n that detail yet° I may feel that that tree should go for the benefit of 3 or 4 others so we have 4 or 5 nice trees b,]t not that particular tree so I guess until we have a finite boundary to work with and have done some more detailed design work on the house as to what we should put in there, it's a little hard to say exactly what you can or can't save. ~t keeping in mind everyone has the same intent. There isn't a hc~eowner anywhere that would prefer to have a tree taken down. I guess just appealing to the basic value of the situation, there isn't a builder that should want to have a tree taken down unless necessary because he's really hurting the value of that lot. A lot with nice trees on it can be worth $1g,0gg.g0 more than the lot that's just bare so we really have an interest in saving those trees. Councilman Johnson: I think something you just said was very interesting. We had the forester in here last year talking to us about trees and how to save the~ and have to protect them. He's a good resource. You can talk to him. One of the things people do will say okay now we're not going to take this tree down but then they drive the delivery trucks underneath the tree and everything else. Once you compact the soil on top of those roots, anywhere underneath that drop zone, that tree will die in the next 2 years. Just exactly what you explained is probably what happened. You tried real hard to save the trees except for all the builders came in with their pick-up trucks and drove up there and parked underneath the trees and the delivery tr,]cks and everything. You really have to c~.]adrant off, if you really want to save it, you have to put up your stakes and your yellow tape all the way around the drip zone of that tree so you don't sc~_lish the roots. The roots have to breathe so you have to have loose soil on top of the~ rather than compact. 14 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 6, 1989 Chuck Van Eeckhout: If you can protect the entire drip zone of a tree, you can probably save it but there are a nu~er of factors involved. Like we had a very dry s,mmer. That stresses a tree. Then you dig close to it. Somebody says, you can call one guy that says you can dig up within 10 feet. Well you're chopping off 20%-30% of the roots and that stresses a tree. Then you get into species like red oaks are very sensitive. Ash, you can do about anything to it and a lot of other trees you can abuse fairly well without... Councilman Johnson: back. Yeah, willows you can cut th~ down and they'll still co~ Chuck Van Eeckhout: ...to kill them and maples are somewhere inbetween. We've had pretty good luck with maples. The red oaks are extr~ely sensitive. If you've got a dry season going and you stress it a little bit. You drive on it over here and so... Councilman Johnson: Hopefully next year won't be a dry season. ~nat's the only co~ent I wanted to ~ke there. Councilman Boyt: If I might, there's a couple things. I'd like to see a change in the conditions. Condition 6 which deals with tree preservation. That there's going to be sc~e sort of site review. I think the DNR forester should be included in that. A development of a tree preservation plan. I think that all trees to be preserved should be staked off at their drip lines. So I'd like to see those changes made to Condition 6 for approval. I think that you can take that housing footprint. You can turn it 90 degrees to the way it's turned right now and you eliminate most of your problems with those trees. But I don't have your faith in developers. You know you but I know developers from what I've seen and they'll cut down a tree if it's in the way. That's just the · nature of the beast I think so I think any tree, you j~t look at this tree map and you've got 30 inch maples. 30 inch oak trees and we ought to bemoving everything to not cut those down. To not cause them to die because we've gone in there. So I'd like to see a separate condition that says that those 30 inch trees will be preserved. I'm sure that the DNR forester can show you how to preserve th~ and you can develop your piece of property and they'll still be there and be healthy. You turn that housing footprint and you've saved yourself a lot of problem with those trees. Chuck Van Eeckhout: Basically the way it would work, instead of that typical housing footprint is we'd put the setback boundaries in there and within those setback boundaries we'd search for a place to do the least possible damage to that lot which gives us a great deal more flexibility than an arbitrary footprint which we're showing here. Councilman Boyt: I don't think you've got the setbacks in there now and I'd sure like to see that. With that lot particularly in mind. And I sure want to know how you're going to save that 30 inch ~ple tree on Vineland Court. Councilman Johnson: Is the storm sewer directly underneath it? Councilman Boyt: Well, run it down the other side of the road. Move the road to the south. 15 City Council Meeting - Nove~floer 6, 1989 Paul Krauss: We think that that can be taken care of in the final design where you shift the curb line of the road a little bit to the south. R~n the utilities on the other side and if you need to, change the grading and use a short wall on the north side. Councilman Boyt: The pond, whatever you're building back there, designated as a wetland. So maybe that's condition ntmfloer. I think you've got a great piece of property. Obviously you know that. I think the City has dantonstrated that they want to work with you to be able to develop the property. In exchange for that, I'd like to see condition 12 read that the 30 inch oak tree will be preserved and condition 13, that the ponding area will be designated as a wetland. I think it is any-way. No? Paul K3~auss: There' s nothing there right now Councilman Boyt. It' s basically an open field. Councilman Boyt: It will be. As soon as we put water in it. Councilwo~an Dimler: Then you have to meet the setbacks. Councilman Boyt: We don't even know how big the thing is. Is it going to take the sa~ surface area when it's 4 feet deep as it does when it's 8 feet deep? Paul Krauss: Conceiveably a little bit less but we're going to take a drainage easement over the entire pond in it's final configuration anyway. Councilman Boyt: Okay, once the houses are in place, the wetland is going to develop and so I'd like to see sc~ething worded so once the wetland develops, it is in fact a wetland. It's going to be an~vway. Paul Krauss: Well, the design though is basically to promote open water and even if they shallow up the pond, their intention is to have an open water amenity in there and not really a wetland. There are ways to achieve that but I'm not sure at this point whether this thing's going to take on wetland characteristics or not. Councilman Boyt: Well if you put water in there Paul, I think and we can sure get some expert to give us infot~ation here but if the people living there don't tear them down, it will become a wetland. Councilman Johnson: Cattails will grow. Gary Warren: M3~. Mayor? The other concern I guess that I would have is we're looking at this as a storm water retention basin and also as a sediment pond to obviously protect the Lotus Lake on the dop~stream side. If we carry it through with a wetland distinction, the City will have to get it's own alteration permit if and whenever we need to go back in to remove sediments to see that this pond retains it's water quality characteristics. Councilman Boyt: We're going to have to do that all over the City Gary because we've been doing this pretty regularly with holding ponds. Councilman Johnson: We've been [~]tting tha,~ in wetlands. 16 City Council M~eting - Nove,~er 6~ 1989 Co~_~ncilman Boyt: We don't have to designate it a wetland because I can assure you that as soon as it gets water in it, it's going to become one. I'm just saying to clarify things, let's call it what it's going to be. We can give you the housing footprint approvals and avoid future variances but it's eventually going to become a wetland. It's just a matter of whether we let it grow, filtering vegetation or not. Mayor Chmiel: One of the concerns that we might have here is that if we designate that a wetland, with one of the lots here you have to have a 75 foot setback as well minimt~...meet that? Councilman Boyt: I think we should word this so it allows that house to be built without a variance. I'm just saying that eventually this water area will ce~tainly turn into a wetland. I don't want to create a situation where the lot becomes unbuildable because they can't get a variance. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that's what we're looking at. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that but I also don't want to create a situation in which, and we've got an area which would certainly naturally become a wetland and we don't let that happen. Councilman Workman: Isn't that a larger issue that we're basically heading in the direction of right now with the Curry Farms situation? Does it need to be a part of this really in that we're addressing that-right now? Council~an Johnson: Over there we put conservation ease~ents around the wetlands and they were mostly existing wetlands before we modified them into open water wetlands. Paul Kra~s: Councilman Workman, there is a little bit of that issue that's entering into this. I guess I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable though if the pres~m~ption is that every retention pond in the city automatically is a wetland and particularly in this case in advance of it showing any kind of characte~istics of one so we don't know what to classify it. This is a functional pond. It's designed to hold standing water. It's designed to be an amenity. If the standing water function works right, it won't be growing a lot of wetland vegetation. At this point in ti~m it does not have any wetland characteristics. It's not even wet. I think there's a dange~ in deluding the wetland ordinance with the prescription that every ponding area is automatically a wetland. CounciL,~an Workman: So then I'm correct that it is of a larger nature that we're looking at and that it probably shouldn't be a part of this until the future when we decide as a city how we're going to characterize these individual. Paul Krauss: I believe so yes. CounciL.~an Boyt: We have, I'm not trying to make this into a larger issus than it is. The City has quite a record of every ti~ we create one of these things, trying to make a wetland out of it. If they had more space here, I'd be pushing for the 5 characteristics of the Fish and Wildlife area. We have as a County 17 City Council Meeting - Nov~oer 6, 1989 and a City and a country a record of draining 80% of our wetlands and they' re gone and every once in a while we get a chance to create one. And yes, I would make the pres~m~ption that every time we get to create one, we'll create it. I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just saying, this is an opportunity. We can enter it with a plan on how they build the houses and I don't know. If you think it's impossible, okay. Mayor Chmiel: I think what Paul is saying is that it's just basically to be used as a functional pond and not basically as a wetland pond. I sort of agree with his analogy on that. And that I'm not sure whether I would like to see that indicated as such at this particular time, just as Tc~ is saying. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a concern there too because I don't want to see a whole lot of variance situations created. You know we're creating variance situations and then we're having to make decisions on variances in allowing them to enjoy their lot and all that just beca~se we designated it as a wetland. Councilman Workman: Bill, I don't know if I disagree with you that we're going to be creating a wetland and that that's good. I'm just saying, I don't think we should call it a wetland until it first of all is one and even before that, allowing the ho~e to be built. We don't have a 75 foot setback against putting a wetland near a house but. The other way aro~nd we do so we get the house built and then we get the wetland and it beco~_~es a part of the bigger picture that was surfaced with ©_Iffy Farms a little bit and then we can take care of it. I don't know that it needs to be a part of that. I think it's going to create more problems right now with this. That's all I'm saying. And Pa, Il said, it was an amenity but I think at this stage it's a little early for a field that isn't even a wetland yet. Co~mcilman Boyt: I think Near Mo~mtain is a good ex~ple where they went out, created ponding areas and we created conservation easements around th~. Just a year and a half ago. Jo Ann Olsen: Those were wetlands to begin with. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: How about Saddlebrook? Councilman Johnson: Those were wetlands except for the one on the north. Councilman Boyt: I think it's s,]pposed to be dry. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think we should probably move on with this. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask Paul one c~.]estion. Why do you believe we'll have a pond there? Is the water table that shallow? Paul Krauss: Councilman Johnson, it's designed so that the outlet is set so there's going to be water below the outlet. You can design a pond to hold standing water. You can put plastic... Councilman Johnson: I realize that, oh! 18 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Paul Krauss: They're not showing that but there are ways to keep the weeds down if that's their intent. But it's designed to have standing water. Council~an Johnson: Do we know it's not going to leak out the bottom? Do we know enough to say that this is going to be standing water? In Canada they built this multi million dollar dam that never held any water. The same thing can happen with these things. Depending upon what the geology is in the area, during a storm you get a lot of water and then it slowly just seeps into the ground and is gone because your water table is way down below and the porisity you know so like you say, until it's there and it's functioning, we don't know if it's going to hold water unless it's designed. If you put in a liner and make it hold water. If you design it to hold water, you bring good clays in and make it, but I haven't heard any discussion that they're going to put any extra effort to make this thing hold water. Gary Warren: The tendency would be with our clays here that normally we see retention. Evaporation also plays a role as far as how much water stays in those ponds and by expanding the surface area of this, you would tend to encourage more evaporation. CounciL,~an Johnson: Right. When we go shallower and bigger, we'll have less tendency. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can we have a motion with the concerns that you have. regarding the trees? I think if we'd just drop the other portion of it and just have that as a functional pond right now. Councilman Boyt: Okay. We can drop item 12 or 13, whatever it was. I can see it's not going to pass. I still think it's a good idea. What I would like to do then is I'll move approval of a preliminary plat with two changes. Item n%m~oer 6, change to read DNR forester review and all trees staked off prior to any grading. Councilman Johnson: To the drip edge. CounciL,~an Boyt: Yes. Staked off at the drip line. Councilman Workman: What do you mean all trees? Councilman Boyt: Everything that's going to be saved is going to be staked off. That way it will be safe. Councilman Johnson: Designated to be saved. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to designate what size you want to save? Councilman Boyt: I think that's what the DNR forester and city staff are going to do. Then as a separate item, I'd like to indicate that the preliminary plat is approved conditionally on a saving of the 30 inch oak tree and the 30 inch maple tree. That's item 11 and it's also Vineland Court. Or, Block 3, Lot 11 and the Vineland Court road. Councilman Workman: You' re saying it ' s condition 127 19 City Council Meeting - Noveg~er 6, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Condition 12, yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Even if the DNR forester's review doesn't rec,_lire that? Mayor Chmiel: The DNR fo~:ester's opinion will be accepted. Councilman Boyt: Well, he's not going to go out there and say cut that tree, save that tree. He's going to go out there and look at what you're building and say, you're going to lose that tree. Chuck Van Eeckhout: One possibility and I have not examined that particular tree or those two trees. The health of those trees could be a factor and if a professional evaluates those tIees as not being long for this world anyway, maybe it's better to sacrifice them. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that I would rather not be locked into that finite position. I'd rather be locked into a position where the staff and forester co~]ld decide which trees have to be saved or other representatives but I think J.f we lock ourselves into a certain corner, we face the probability or possibility of having to cc~_te back to Council for further review. Councilman Boyt: Well it's going to come back anyway. This is just the preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's going to c~,te back. Chuck Van Eeckhout: Okay. Councilman Boyt: It's going to come back and I'm just saying that I think our intention should be that it's going to take an overwhelming reason to cut that tree down. Chuck Van Eeckhout: And I agree_ with you 100%. Mayor Cb~iel: You have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary Plat #89-8 for Vineland Forest with the following variances: V1 - Variance to allow 3~ feet of lot frontage for Lot 2, Block 3 V2 - Variance to allow a 10% grade on Vineland Drive and subject to the following conditions: 1. Obtain final plat approval and enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the i~tprovements. 2. Final design and approval of ,ttility, drainage and street plans, incorporating cc~tents contained in the staff report and attached report 2~ City Council Meeting - Nove,~er 6; 1989 from the Engineering Department. Plans for retention pond are to be modified by relocation of the pond to the w~st, and by revising the grading plan to create the minimum sized pond required for water storage and quality. ~:ee preservation shall be taken into acount during the redesign. The pond shall be equipped with a ski~.~er device. Detailed construction plans and specifications, including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sutm~itted for approval by the City Entineer. All construction shall be in accordance with MnDot specifications except ~nere modified by the City's standard specifications. As-built n~lar plans will also be rec}~ired upon completion of construction. 3. Comply with all requirements of the Watershed District approval. 4. Change the name of Vineland Drive to Nez Perce Drive. The street shall be paved up to the western property line. A barrier shall be erected at the edge of the pavement indicating that "This street is to be extended in the future". Notice of the street extension shall be placed in the chain-of- title of each lot in Vineland Forest. 5. Dedicate 0~]tlot B to the city for access and utility purposes. 6. Provide a t3:ee preservation and erosion control plan prior to grading the site. The plan should strive to minimize tree loss. The plan should be revised to protect the two maple trees along Vineland Court, protect trees around the retention pond, and minimize tree cutting in the ravine while providing for it's reforestation. Walk the site with staff prior to grading to mark preservation areas. Protected trees that are lost due to construction will be replaced by suitably sized trees approved by staff. A financial guarantee covering the cost of landscaping should be provided with the develop.lent contract. The DNR forester will do a site review and all trees to be preserved shall be staked off at their drip line prior to any grading. 7. Provide the following easements: a. ROW dedication for all platted streets. b. Temtporary road easements over the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Vineland Drive. The easem_~ent would be vacated whenever the street is extended. c. (l]tlot B should be dedicated to the city for access and utility purposes. d. Drainage and utility easements over all storm water retention areas, access to these areas for city crews and over storm sewers. e. Standard drainage and utility easements over each lot. f. Ten foot roadway ease~ent over Lot 8, Block 2, Carver Beach Estates and such grading easements as may be rec}~ired. g. Temtporary grading easem~ent over property located east of Vineland Drive near Lake Lucy Road. 21 City Council Meeting - Noveo~er 6, 1989 h. Utility easements over sewer lines located o~ltside the public right-of-way, including 2g' wide easement between Lots 4 and 5, Block 3. 8. Park dedication and trail fees are rec~lired in lieu of parkland dedication. 9. Upon final plat approval the applicant shall supply to the city two ~la.r copies of the plat, one reduced to 1" = 2gg' scale and the second at 1" = 50g' scale. lg. Provide a comprehensive erosion control plan for the project. Type III erosion control is to be outlined as required. Seed and mulch all disturbed areas J~ediately upon completion of rough grading activity. 11. The City Council review the vacation of the unused Lake Lucy Road right-of- way concurrently with final plat approval. 12. That the 3g inch oak tree on Lot 11, Block 3 and the 2~ inch maple tree in Vineland Court road be preserved. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST TO USE TETON LANE FOR SCHOOL BUS ACCESS, MINNETONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT. Mayor Chmiel: Is there someone wishing to present that? Is there anyone here from Minnetonka Schools with their proposals? If not, Don? Don Ashworth: We did receive a letter from the School District asking the Council, or at least info~m~ing the Council of the problem they're having regarding getting school buses into that area and has asked the Council if that will remain closed or if there's a possibility that it would open. We also received a request frco~ the neighborhood, a petition that the access be considered, that Teton be re-opened. I should note that I have not contacted neighbors, either representing the petition or those people likely to be against simply because I wanted to have this opportunity for Council to dete~m~ine what type of procedure you wanted to follow. I wo~]ld make the assumption that if there is going to be ~ny form of reconsideration, that you would want to do that in so~e public hearing type of a fok~at. Again, this item is solely being presented to t~ly to determine what type of process the Council wo~]ld like to look at or ~mybe simply to have myself wlite the school district and saying that it's going to remain closed. Mayor Chmiel: I know there a~e a few neighbors from that specific area. Is there a spokesperson for the neighborhood? If you'd like to state your name and your address please. David Ewald: M~. Mayor, my name is David Ewald. I reside at 637~ Teton Lane. Perhaps if you'd like I co~]ld give a few remarks on this item unless you decide you want to defer it to a different time. Mayor Chmiel: I tho~ght maybe if you so desire, to just reiterate your position on this. I know that I received a call last night to take the opportunity this morning to see the b~s maneuver. Last night I had driven the area several 22 City Council Meeting -November 6~ 1989 different times and have done a lot of sketches all over. I wasn't able to make that meeting only because I had a meeting at 7:30. Maybe you'd just like to state your position. David Ewald: Basically MT.-. Mayor, m~ers of the Council, we're here to propose that you r~ove the barricade or permit the barricade to be re~.~oved between the pre-existing Teton Lane and the part of Teton Lane that was put into our neighborhood part of the Curry Farms development for three reasons. Safety, convenience and practicality and from a plain, I guess what strikes us as a common sense standpoint. What's most important to us is the safety issue because we've got 18 homes up in that part of the neighborhood and virtually all of thsm have little children. I know everybody here, just about everybody that's here with my tonight has small children. I have two small children and we're looking at th~ getting onto the buses in the morning and we did want to offer that opportunity this morning. We realize that it was short notice to co~e out and see what the bus has to do when it comes up into the neighborhood but it does have to come up and the kids get on the bus and then the bus, which is a long, full sized bus, has to back up across essentially a T in the road which we think is hazardous. It would be particularly so in the afternoon once it drops children off. I like to think that both of ~ children who are little girls ages 1 and 4, that they're bright kids but when they're outside and with their friends I call th~ feet without brains because they tend to just, you know zoom all over the place and I would truly hate to see and I think everyone would hate to see so~ sort of an accident because of a bus having to back through an intersection like that. It just doesn't seem to make sense. That probl~ I think is only going to get worse. Most of the children now are in the 2, 3, 4 year old range. There are several children that are in junior high school. Several that are in kindergarten and several that are in elementary but we've got a lot of children coming on line that are going to be using the bus in the years to cc~e so I think that problem's going to get worse. The second issue is convenience and practicality. Right now, if the barricade goes back across Teton and we won't be able to go out that way anymore, the only way up into our neighborhood is going to be through Bretton Way. That's the way that most of the people, even if Teton was open all the way. Everybody would go out that way to go to Chanhassen which is as you know is where we'll all go to shop a~d to do all those things and we'd only go out the other way to go towards Excelsior if we had to go that way for sc~e other reason but it just seems like it would help to balance out the traffic flow where s~e people have to go that way. It just se~s to make sense. The other issue with that is the ~ergency vehicles. Having one other way into the neighborhood and out just seems to make sense. To be able to have those fire trucks be able to come in and go out another way or to co~ in frc~ two different ways or whatever. When our oldest daughter was 6 months old we had an ~ergency vehicle cc~e and save her from choking to death one ti~ and I'll never forget that and I was really grateful that the way in was close and we happened to live on a real major road then but anybody who's been in a situation like that before can certainly identify with it. The last issue is just a plain kind of co~on sense. The road's already there. We feel that we've already helped pay for it in the price of our house and whatever lot premiums we paid. It was I think about $18,000.00 for Centex to put the road in. It's already there. Kind of a nice road. It's I think what they would call been ~pgraded to rural standards. I'm not an engineer so I won't pretend to talk authoritatively on that but it's there and all that would really need to be done to have just a perfectly reasonable functioning road is to have it smoothed out a little bit where the two curbs meet so that you could 23 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 j~]st drive smoothly through so it just seems like it would be relatively easy to do. So just to reiterate, I guess safety. Convenience and practicality. Co~m~on sense. It seems to us that it seems like a pretty good issue. So that's all I have to say on that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Marc Simcox: I'm Marc Simcox and I live at 216g~ Lilac Lane and I've been here many, many t~les concerning this particular issue and there's several things in some of the information that's been put out that I'd just like to clear up some apparent misinfo~lation. I don't want to appear to be insensitive to these people that live in the Centex Fak~s neighborhood but there are also several small children under the age of 6 on the north end and the primary reason that we didn't w-ant Teton Lane to be used as part of the access to Fa~mis in the beginning was safety. Exactly the same reason that they're saying that they don't want the traffic going down through their neighborhood. Yesterday, one of the neighbors observed a car passing another car on Teton Lane. This is exactly what we talked about 3 years ago when we started this. There are sc~e things out that was put out in a infok~tion packet that are incorrect and they sho~]ld be clarified. One of the things is, I think this is frc~ Don Ashworth to the City Council and it bears a clarification because it is incorrect. It talks about at one point that Don did not know when this would be open to thru traffic and I believe in the original resolution to close Teton Lane as act~]ally a money saving measure that was suggested by Centex. It was stated that it wouldn't be opened again until there was significant development either on the west or the east side so it isn't a c~estion of whether or not it's going to be open. It's when the develoim~ent occurs. That's the answer to that c~lestion. Also, there was some discussion here that if it turns out that the neighbors to the north file a petition to open Teton Lane, it would be ironic because they'd be paying for easements for those owners and then in turn opening that road up for those owners. The fact is is there was absolutely not one red cent paid to anyone on the north side of Teton Lane. The only easement holder there was Frank Natoli. Frank Natoli turned his easement over at no cost and also gave the City an easement onto his property to turn around vehicles so there is no cost to the City for easements for the north side of Teton Lane. The easement costs are going to go to the hc~eowners on the south side of the Teton Lane closure. Another one is the third one that comes to mind when I read this is that the c~_]estion is wt~ich city Lilac Lane is in. Well Lilac Lane, an extremely deep grade and a very sharp left turn onto Teton Lane, all of the existing Lilac Lane, the pave~ent area is in the city of Shorewood. 17 feet of Lilac Lane is in the City of Chanhassen. That's just to clarify that and the 17 feet that's in the City of Chanhassen is the hillside on the south side of the road. It's not, it has no pavement on it at all. Another thing that was brought up, I think that the problem that the homeowners are having on Teton Lane with the bus proble~ also stems back again to the developer. Several points were made in the letter that the homeowners brought out. One was that the streets are dark. Another one is that there's no sidewalks. Another one is that the road was closed, it was necessary to close the road due to the condition of the pavement on the north end and that the traffic flow would be, is to reduce the traffic flow. That's exactly the arg~m~ent that they're making why they want the Teton Lane opened to relieve their neighborhood of their own traffic flow. They don't want their own traffic going through their own neighborhood. I think it's an alak~ist attitude. I don't know, this isn't the City of Minneapolis. We_ don't have the sidewalks on every street and I think 24 City Co,~cil Meeting - November 6~ 1989 that the homeowners were aware of that when they moved in and if they weren't aware of it, it's not the former Council's actions fault. It's the fault again of the developer. Failure to notify them. The barricades were up prior to the construction of the h~es up there. There was never a question as to whether that road was going to be closed from day one and when they moved in there, they knew that. I think that everyone that's concerned with this on the north side of the road that is largely affected by this, hasn't changed their position one iota since day one. The closure of that road should go forward just as we've fought for the last 3 years to finally make it happen. ©iffy Fa~s Resident: Mr. Simcox? Are you a resident of Chanhassen or a resident of... Marc Simcox: I'm a resident of Shorewood but it doesn't make any difference. O.lrry Fa~s Resident: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: It's nice to see your friendly face again. Florence Natoli: Yes. I prc~..~ised you I wouldn't come back again. I thanked you all at the last meeting because you had solved by problem. Okay, I've got this petition here and I hope you notice that sc~e of th~ are double names. The husband and wife both. It does not say how many children are involved in this school bus business but yesterday and today, it just happened this morning and tonight we happened to be going in and out and the~ bus had 4 children on it in front of our house. If it's going to be such a problem for this big bus to go down and make a turn in front of Rescuer's on the cul-de-sac and he has to do all this backing up and everything they're talking about, does the Minnetonka District have a mini-bus which could come up there and pick up those few children a~d turn in the cul-de-sacs? There's one at every turn up there and they wouldn't have to use this great big huge bus. As I say, there was only 4 kids on that bus. Now before Centex built the hc~es there and when we first moved there, there were a lot of children going to school. The Johnson's had kids. There was a duplex next door. There were kids there. There were kids in every house up there that's still there of the old ones. Those kids went out to Lilac Lane and CR 17 to catch the bus and they were little kids too. They weren't big kids but the whole thing here is, this was passed over a year ago and I don't want to see the Council now turn against what they already passed and that was that it was going to be closed. As far as the Fire Department and the police getting through, we were going to have th~ co~ through there anyway and as I mentioned at the last meeting, the fire plug is right across the street and it's on Ashton Court. Right on the corner so really they w~uldn't have to come through on Teton Lane at all. They can cc~e right up Ashton, Bretton and all the other streets but this is what's discouraging to us...the way it was supposed to and we agreed and Centex agreed to close it if we allowed them to use it for emergencies. Now we went along with it and I'm sorry now that we didn't make them build that $250,000.00-$300,000.00 road going out onto CR 17 because it would have been more expensive for th~ than what this has been. They're fighting it all along and they're talking about kids. Franco Loris signed this petition and he has no children and I doubt if he's ever going to have any. So anyway, I do think that there 'is a solution. Close that thing the way it was supposed to be a year ago and get a small bus for these kids that can turn on a cul-de-sac. Thank you and I hope I don't have to come back again. 25 City Council Meeting - Nove~ker 6, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Steven Dome: My name is Steven Dome, 6398 Teton Lane. With due respect to t/ne lady that was here previo~]sly, I myself was blessed with the birth of our third child. Within the houses on both sides of my and myself, there are over 10 children under the age of 5. The children that grew up in that neighborhood are perhaps grown and gone and had to ride the bus at their time but we have the children coming up, growing in our neighborhood. I think that is a prime safety factor. A mini bus is not going to do it in 5 years when there's 15 children getting on that bus instead of 4. I also recognize the fact that this is the City of Chanhassen. We want to work together and the fact that our neighbors that perhaps don't live in this co~unity, don't pay their taxes in this county or city have such a concern when this is our co~m~unity. Mayor Ck~iel: Thanks Steve. Anyone else? If not, we'll have any disc~]ssion fro~ Counci 17 Council~an Boyt: Sure. Maybe I can give you something to react to since Jay and I were here the last ti~e this ca~e up. I'm beginning to lose my faith in c~promises. The developer came in. There was a preferred way out of this development. We were very determined as a Council to have a second access. That method I think was going to be c~.]ite expensive as I recall so we began looking at other alternatives. It was clear that we were not going to put this road through. We don't have the council minutes in our pack but I think if you review those, we were trying to come up with some way to mini~ize the risk to the people that lived on Lilac and that little bit of Teton and still give the neighborhood an emergency second access that the Council was co~m~itted to. I believe if we go back in the plans far enough, this thing was one proposal was just to make it one long cul-de-sac. We didn't want that because there would be no opportunity for a second access. Teton Lane, when the developer came in and upgraded that as part of the agree~ent, it wasn't u~ugraded to do anything other than serve as an emergency access and I believe kind of a long driveway to some of the people who were going to live on the end of it. Teton is close to some existing homes. There's not a right answer here from a safety standpoint. I certainly ~nderstand the new neighbors. I would like to think that your developer was open with you when you bought your house. It was certainly the Council's intention to u~ake it very clear that that was going to be closed off. I think we've seen the issue with the sidewalk. Don't talk to me about a sidewalk in that development. The developer wasn't very open with people about that plan. I'm not convinced the developer was probably open with you about the plan to close off Teton Lane. The City made a co~itm~ent to those people and I think that when we did that we said there will be an opportunity to open this up but it's going to wait for development. If we go back in there and open it up now, sc~eone, either Centex or the Minnetonka School District or somebody is going to pay to make that urban standard road and it's not going to be the people that live on Teton Lane. I would suggest to the Council men,bets who are new to this that this is an action that shouldn't be overturned. The Council entered it as an atte~pt to balance the forces of the existing people who lived there and the people that we anticipated coming in. To try and give them a second access without putting the people who lived there prior to that at additional risk. Now because of the developer and I gather some of the neighbors out there having difficulty reaching agreement, we're sitting here 2 years after the fact trying to explain to people why we still want to close it off. It wasn't the best solution at the time. It's probably not the best 26 City Council M~eting - Nov~er 6~ 1989 solution now. Maybe we should make the developer go ahead and buy that property out to Pleasant View and build that road the way it was supposed to be built but we sure as heck shouldn't put Teton Lane through prior to the time when we co~itted to putting it through back with the develolm~ent contract. Councilman Johnson: I think Bill covered it pretty well. We did a lot of compromise, it was about 2 years ago I guess when we started on this one. This was a real tough one. Some people have already turned over their easements for this road under the understanding of what that road was going to be. If we change that, I think we've got a problem. We're going back on our word and I don't like to see that happen. This reminds me of moving in next to an airport and asking them to close the airport because it's too noisy. You move into a neighborhood that's there. We've already taken the sidewalks away from the neighborhood because the residents don't want sidewalks in their neighborhood so we've taken the sidewalks out. That was put in there for public safety purposes. I don't see any reason to change this at this time. I do feel for the people here. My kids actually walk all the way to school which is about the same distance as what your kids are going to have to walk to the school bus because we can't get school bus service because we're too close to the school so they have to walk to school. My one son did that for 5 yeas without sidewalks before the city finally put sidewalks in for the last 200 yards of his trip to school. Now he goes to middle school and he does walk 2 blocks, catch the bus and drive to middle school. We're not taking anything away because there never was anything there. I think we should just continue our existing action. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would just like to ask Dave Ewald the question, what did the developer tell you about Teton Lane? I'd like to have an understanding of what your understanding was when you bought your property. David Ewald: Councilwoman Dimler, once again I'm David Ewald. It was never an ite~ that we discussed. I didn't ask about it. Frankly I ass~ed with the barricade up there and there was a sign tha said no construction traffic, I just ass~m~ed that the barricade was there to kind of hinder that and never asked. Perhaps that was my omission but nothing was ever told to us one way or the other about the road. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and was that true for all the other neighbors as well? David Ewald: Evidently. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you think after the construction then automatically the barricade would come down? David Ewald: That will sound self serving. That's what I assumed. That it was there to kind of prevent construction traffic and with that being over, it would be opened Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Mr. Natoli: Nobody paid any attention to that anyway. There were trucks going through there all the time... 27 City Council Meeting - Nov~oer 6, 1989 Florence Natoli: There are so many cracks on that road already, it's never going to last the lg years they thought it wo~lld. Mr. Natoli: You should inspect that road. It's cracking all over already. The garbage trucks are coming down from Centex now that aren't s~]pposed to be... We have 8~ to 2~ cars a day and some of th~ are going 5~ mph... You can't even walk out there without being scared. Counci]m~an Workman: We_il I went through there this morning. I went through the bar r icade. Councilman Johnson: Did you pass somebody on the way? Counci]m~an Workman: I guess first I'd like to start out Jay, Bill, the sidewalk issue's dead. I don't know who you're scolding. Either myself and Ursula and the Mayor or the neighbors. Maybe we're all being scolded but that's a dead issue. What we have before ~hs is a bus problem. I did get a chance to get up there this morning and there is a problem and how is the Council going to resolve it or help them resolve it. Basically telling these people you've got your bed, now sleep in it isn't t don't think what we want to do. Since Jay tells personal stories, I'll tell a little one. As a UPS person in my younger days, driving that truck, supervising drivers, the n,.m~er one hazard with driving a UPS truck is back it up. Do not back it up whenever you don't have to back up a truck because you're going to run somebody over or so~ething and it happens all the time. We have a full length bus pulling ~]p here, moving towards the new addition of Teton Lane and backing up towards the barricade and then going back down Bretton right? Bretton? So there's a problem there. The barricade would be one very easy way for that bus to make one loop right thro~]gh there. We seem to have a very, very serious problem with removing that barricade and I think Mr. Simcox told ~ that there's a 99 year trust on the property to the north there that's undeveloped and so probably won't be developed for 99 years or sc~_~ething. Am I correct in that Don? Gary War}~en: That's the Donovan property. He's alleged that he has a long term trust. Councilman Wor~m~an: So the barricade will still be there when our children's children are here? The probl~ is still the bus. How are we going to get a bus, short of a minivan to come up there and t~rn around? That's the issue. It would appear as though I have an answer but I don't. Short of driving it on the sidewalks that are there. I'm not exactly sure and I'm proud to say I didn't have a part of this initial development of all of this b~]t there's a serious problem here and how are we going to resolve it? That's the iss~]e. I feel for the Natoli's and everybody to the north also. I just can't understand how we would take a road, point it and line it up directly with another road and then throw a roadblock in front of it any different than we would with any other road J.n the city. It would appear to me as though the barricade should come down. That's to the detriment to the people who've been there and it would seem common sensical to have the barricade down but we have all sorts of legal problems with that. That doesn't diminish a bus proble~ that we have to get rid of. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to lm]t a plug in here. I don't know how many times I've asked Gary Warren abo~]t the size of our cul-de-sacs to allow buses to turn around and maybe we o~]ght to be ~]tting that in our codes. 28 City Council Meeting - Norther 6~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: They can. They won' t. They can turn around in the cul-de-sacs and they won't. They can and they won't. I'm just telling you that's the fact. We can turn a snowplow around a cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Dimler: Can you make them really big enough, don't you think if you make th~ big enough the bus won't cc~e in and turn around? It'd rather back up? Councilman Boyt: That's right. Gary Warren: That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: They would rather back up than to come into a big enough cul-de-sac and turn around? Gary Warren: I can't speak for the school district except when you had brought the iss~ up a while back we had checked into it and their policy, it was explained to ~ that they do not go down cul-de-sacs. Even if it was the size of the Metrodome, to turn around. That they would not go down. The thinking on a cul-de-sac is if it's short enough to be a cul-de-sac, it's short enough for kids to walk to an intersection to be picked up. Councilman Johnson: That was Chaska school district? Councilwc~an Dimler: That's right. Have you checked with Minnetonka? Gary Warren: That was Minnetonka. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought it was Chaska. Councilman Johnson: Chaska has said that in the past many times. Gary Warren: (~]r cul-de-sacs, our new cul-de-sacs of which Teton Lane is one, has sufficient turning radius to acco~odate your average bus. Councilman Johnson: Mr_. Mayor, there was one option that we considered 2 years ago that did get tossed down. We'd have to talk with the Natoli's and the Lilac, which was a barricade like they have at the airport that swings up and swings down with a remote cont3~ol that the snowplow can have and the bus driver can have but nobody else can have. So that we could have that. Now it does becc~e a maintenance problem. If that thing breaks down and the bus comes in and the bus driver has to be bright enough to know a different way to get in. In 9 years now of parking in a remote parking lot out there at the airport, it hasn't broken down anytime I've gone through those. They may do a lot of maintenance on them, I don't know. We tl-ied that one before. I'm not sure what the affect of a school bus twice a day on Teton Lane would be. It'd be a lot better than 200 cars a day. B~]t that is an option but I think we'd need to see what the compromise with the Lilac and Teton Lane people w~uld be on that and maintenance records and the cost to do it. Mayor Chmiel: Has anyone frc~ staff had any discussions with Minnetonka? Don Ashworth: I've talked with them yes. 29 City Council Meeting - Nov~oer 6, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: And is the reasoning for their not t~]rning in a cul-de-sac, did they indicate that? Don Ashworth: They stated to me that they have a policy that they will not allow their bus to go down a cul-de-sac road and the reason is that they've had too many instances in the middle of winter where the b~]s gets down to the end of the cul-de-sac and finds stalled vehicles and they literally then have no way to maneuver to get it back out and they've had to send another bus in to take and bring the kids in, etc. so that's becc~e their policy. Councilwc~an Dimler: So a minibus wo~]ldn't be the answer either. They wouldn't send a minibus down. Mayor Chmiel: Policies change too though. I mean there's one way for them to relook at this as well. I think maybe we should have additional discussions with them. Councilwoman Dimler: Check the possibility of a minibus? Mayor Cbuiel: But I think for right now, we will have to respect the previous decision that was given on having the barricade in that specific location and that hopefully we can come up with so~e kind of resolvement with the school district and the bus company in utilizing the cul-de-sacs for t~]rn around. There's two different ways they could make those turns and I also looked at that. Right going onto Ashton and Teton, there's a cul-de-sac there that I'm sure the bus can turn around right before the barricade. Make a right, go back around and come back out. Or to go all the way up Teton Lane up to that specific cul-de-sac to make it's turn also. So with that I would say we should proceed in that particular manner and come ~]p with a conclusion hopefully on it. Thanks for coming. Appreciate it. I' 11 make that as a motion. Councilman Boyt: I' 11 second it. Councilman Workman: Is this sc~_~ething we need to vote on? Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. Councilman Johnson: So you're moving not to reconsider? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Counci]m~an Boyt: Well it's really not a reconsideration because this is...so they're just bringing it up. Mayor Clm~iel: There's a motion and a second. Councilman Workman: Could you repeat your motion? Mayor Chmiel: You' re kidding. Councilman Wo×kman: I mean is it just a motion to negotiate with the school district? City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: To negotiate with the school district to see if s(m~ething can be resolved with it and I don't see any reason, they have specific rules and regulations and those rules and regulations are not cast in concrete either. I think they'd have to show due cause as to why, just what Don said because if there's a vehicle in there and they can't make that turn, if there's s~eway they can make that within those cul-de-sacs. They're large enough. More specifically that one, you're not going to have cars parked on it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to direct staff to meet with the Minnetonka School District to see if a resolution can be worked out for a school bus to turn around in O]rry Farms. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT OF 100 FOOT LOT DEPTH FOR A DOCK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT A, STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE. Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments approved the appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance. It was unani~Dus approval and it can be discussed. Mayor Chmiel: It can be disc,_~sed by Council but having ~nanimous approval the action is to review that. Councilman Workman: So we'll look to amend the ordinance? There wasn't a variance? Jo Ann Olsen: No variance. Councilman Workman: So they can build a dock now? Jo Ann Olsen: They were given an appeal to that decision,.correct and also as part of this, then we will process an ordinance amendment to clarify exactly what the intent is. They agreed that the way the ordinance is written right now, it's not clear that they have to have that lot depth. They do have a 100 foot depth as it is stated so they meet the ordinance. Councilwc~an Dimler: It was ~ understanding that Council would have input onto the clarification? Jo Ann Olsen: Correct. Mayor Ctm~iel: Okay, any discussion? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have the Minutes because I was just getting back frc~ the airport so I wasn't able to get here to hear it. I'd like to have the minutes as c~]ickly as possible. There's a timeframe upon which, I forget how many days it is before it can be appealed but I'd like to see the minutes first. Jo Ann Olsen: The ordinance states by either the owner or somebody within 500 feet. I don't know what the past policy has been. Councilman Johnson: There's something else in there because we can do it too. 31 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Any citizen can do it' Councilman Johnson: Any citizen can do it and that's how we've done it in the past is a me~Der of the council saying we're also a citizen and we are appealing it. Mayor Chmiel: Don, you're shaking your head yes. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Workman: We don't have the minutes though do we? Councilman Johnson: No, it j~]st happened at 7:gg tonight. Councilman Boyt: They don' t take minutes. Jo Ann Olsen: I write them down. They're not verbatim. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see this appealed. As a citizen I would challenge that decision. Min~]tes or no minutes, I think it's a decision that bears investigation by the Council as a whole. And personally, I think it's the w~ong way to go about changing an ordinance. If we want to change an ordinance, we ought to put it through a public hearing and change it. We shouldn't have the Board of Adjustment and Appeals w~iting ordinance changes for us. Ail you have to do is read the minutes from the first time the Co,tacit made this disc~]ssion to see that Barbara Dacy, Roger Knutson and virtually, well that was the staff that spoke on it at the time, made it real clear how they were defining that lot depth issue. So to come back now and say that the City Attorney and the senior planner did it wT~ong is and given that was a Council action, not a Board action, I think the Council ought to review it. If we're going to change the ordinance, let's change the ordinance, l~lrn the thing down. Change the ordinance and do it right. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: Well Bill, you're right. The City Council is the only one that can change the ordinance but what the Board can do is act on the interpretation and that's what we did tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Tom? Councilman Workman: I don't have any co~ents. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I went back to Jo Ann was your letter of Nov~er 12th of 1987 and in there you indicated, the c~.]estion was if the Co~,ission wants to be able to permit the applicant to have a dock on a recreational beachlot and how can they do it. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals has the ability to grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend the ordinance. I think I agree, we should probably have the public hearing to amend the ordinance and go fr~ there. Jo Ann Olsen: That will still be done. What the Board did tonight was the way the ordinance is wT~itten today, that it still can be interpretted differently. And they agreed t_hat it was not inte~pretted correctly. 32 City Council Meeting -Nov~er 6, 1989 Councilman Boyt: I think that it's amusing that an appointed board can say that, officially say that the City Council's decision was wrong and that's what they' re saying. Mayor Chmiel: Everyone has an opinion. Councilwc~an Dimler: No, we didn't say the opinion was wrong. The interpretation, the way it was written, it was left open to a different interpretation. Maybe Elliott could you address that please because you're the one that gave [%s that direction. Elliott Knetsch: I think what the question was, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is the. proper board to look at an interpretation of the ordinance that has been made. Interpretation was made that since the ordinance did not specifically say lot depth, it was sc~ewhat vague or a~iguous and the applicant did appeal that interpretation. So the ball was in the court of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they looked at it and because it does not specifically say lot depth, they felt that since the lot is 100 feet at some point and at a point close to where the proposed dock would be, that that does meet the way the ordinance is written. They were not trying to say what the original intent of the City Council was and I don't think it's their job to say what the original intent was. They were looking at how the ordinance reads. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right and now we can, like you say, the Council can decide the new wording but at this particular time, the way it's worded, the interpretation could be different frc~ the intent of the former Council. Councilman Boyt: I'm sorry I got upset about it. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss it so. Elliott Knetsch: Certainly it's within your rights as a citizen and a council m~er to bring up the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision for review by Council. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think the Council does have to handle the new ordinance wording. That was not the intent of the Board to do that. We didn't try to do that. What we were doing was interpreting the loopholes so to speak that the present wording leaves. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Beck, it looks like you want to say something. Peter Beck: The only thing I wanted to say was...the Council hasn't ever been presented with this issue before tonight. They haven't decided... During the discussions, the last time Mr. Pierce requested a variance and everyone kind of agreed the doc~m~ent made sense but they preferred it be allowed by means of an ordinance amendment instead so then he rec~]ested the ordinance amendment and there got to be different versions of it. Because there were different versions of it, the prior City Council didn't adopt any of them and the result was no dock. During that discussion on that ordinance amenc~ent, Councilme~er Johnson pointed out that he probably complied but that issue wasn't before the Council so they didn't really decide on it. All we really did this time was say CounCilm~er Johnson has a point. Let's present that issue to the City and the only way we can do that is through the Board to d ~ecide if the lot cc~plies and then the dock can go ahead in with the conditional use permit. It hasn't been 33 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 to the Council before. If the Council wants to take it up, by all means they can. We can do it tonight or any other time. Mayor Chmiel: W~nat is total lot size? Peter Beck: It's over 31,000 square feet and 550 scm~e feet of frontage on the lake. The general consensus I think of all the public bodies has been the dock isn't, the only c~]estion has been how to put it there and really the right answer was an ordinance amendment but the prior Council just co~lldn't get 4 votes for one particular version of the ordinance. We just present this as one way, fairly simple way to resolve Mr. Pierce's problem so he can go ahead and sell those lots beca~]se the homeowners...and then we couldn't agree more that the Council should take that opportunity after that to clear up that language in the ordinance. Councilwoman Dimler: Does that clarify? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Are we going to have a motion? Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I know what Bill's getting at other than the ordinance, doing something against an ordinance. Do you feel there's something wT:ong wi th thi s dock? Co~mci]m~an Boyt: Well, I think what we're doing here is we're talking about, we're setting precedent in terms of how we're going to wT~ite this, rewrite the ordinance. And I think rather than set precedence on this one iss~]e, we should not do that. We should go through a public hearing. We should give people a chance ~{no want it, to have input on this and then we should resolve it in a reasonable fashion. All yogi have to do is read the Minutes frc~ May 31, 1988 to see that apparently there's been c~_]ite a reversal in the part of our Council's thinking about what we meant here because Roger Knutson very clearly says, it's my understanding that they're talking about lot average and he did not have a 100 foot average lot depth. Councilman Johnson says, it doesn't say average lot depth. Barbara Dacy, that's defined. Roger Knutson, the lot depth is an average. Now for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to turn around and say well, they didn't get it right. I think that's a big decision. Councilwc~an Dimler: Jo Ann, would yo,] address that please? Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the lot depth, it doesn't under the regulations for the recreational beachlot does not state lot depth. Councilman Johnson: It just says depth° Counci]~*~an Boyt: I understand that and I don't dispute that. Jo Ann Olsen: I know but that's where the discrepancy lies. I'm the one who w~ote the first report, the variance report and that's how we did define it and interpret it. I guess you read lot depth or 100 foot depth, when you really look at it, it doesn't say that. Councilman Boyt: There's another iss~]e somewhat related to what we're going to do with the ordinance. I think that a case could be made that this is not a buildable lot as it sits so it doesn't have, when we come around to discussing 34 City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 this for an ordinance change, I would suggest that we do not want to create a situation in which a recreational beachlot is entitled to water rights that wouldn't be there if that was a private home. And so, I think the issue is more complicated than we want to plow into as a Council and ~mke a binding decision tonight on. And if we overturn, if we go along with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, then we have in fact given these people the right to put their dock in and said you're grandfathered and then when we look at the ordinance itself, we no longer have an opportunity to control this. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you explain why that's not a buildable lot? Councilman Boyt: It doesn't have the depth. Councilwoman Dimler: For a beachlot? Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about, can somebody put a private home on that lot? Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilm~ers. Before Mr. Pierce purchased the property a~d subdivided it, this property was part of a larger lot that had the right to a dock and it had a dock and boats and that's exactly why we l~ited our re~]est to only what the property w~uld be allowed if it was still in a single lot which is the 1 dock and 3 boats. He'd like to have 4 boats because he's got 4 waterfront or Lake Minnewashta Parkway front lots but I told h~-, let's keep it at the 3 boats because that's what it always was allowed as a single family property. Now standing alone, just the portion that is the beachlot, is you're right, is not buildable as a single family lot because it doesn't have, it couldn't meet setbacks and a nu~er of things wedged between the parkway and the lake but ~nen it was part of the bigger single family property that went back to the west of Minnewashta Parkway, it was allowed and did have a dock. Councilman Boyt: But as I recall, that dock was reproved and wasn't replaced until, it doesn't have a dock now. Peter Beck: It does not have a dock now, that's right. Councilman Boyt: And when it was subdivided, it wasn't created as one lot on two sides of the road, reasonably enough. The ironic thing Mr. Mayor is that May 31, 1988 I argued for giving Mr. Pierce his dock. I'm just saying now that I think the way to do it, as you've indicated, is to change the ordinance and I don't think given that we're talking about a~ost 2 years, well a year and a half later, that the couple of months it's going to take to rewrite the ordinance is going to be that critical. I'd rather see us do it that way. I guess I'm through debating. Councilwoman Dimler: But I think the fact remains that they're here before us now and we're acting on the ordinance as it's written now. That's all we could do. Mayor Ctm~iel: Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: This dock isn't a permanent dock? It's not going to be built now right? It's a permanent dock but it won't be built until next spring? 35 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Peter Beck: It will be a seasonal dock just like any other dock in the co~unity. Mayor Chmiel: Not a boardwalk? Peter Beck: No, no. It's not a concrete pylon, no. It will be just a regular like any other hc~eowners dock with room for 3 boats on it. Elliott Knetsch: Before they put in the dock, they would need to ccm~e in for a conditional use pe.~_~it and you can see the proposal in more detail at that time. Peter Beck: It's not a matter of that it wo~]ld go in this season of course but the subdivision is developing now and has purchase agree~ents on a couple lots and they depend on whether there's a dock or not. What kind of a spec house he builds on the third lot depends on whether there's a dock or not. That's part of the reason b~t really the main reason we went this route is because we tried everything else. We tried the variance. It was denied because he should get an ordinance amencl~lent. We tried the ordinance amendment and Council just didn't click on a version that they liked so really there wasn't much else to do except to look at what the ordinance said and as staff and the Board said, when you read it, it appears to allow a dock on a lot like this so that's why we went this route. Councilman Boyt: When was the ordinance amendment discussed by the City Counc i 1 ? Peter Beck: That was that M~y 31 meeting that you were reading to the Minutes? I'll get my notes. Councilman Johnson: It's where we argued to get the right wording in there. Councilman Boyt: Okay. What we did pass there, I knew we passed something, was canoe racks and then discussed at great length this issue about lot depth. I didn't sense that we turned anything down there. I just throught we passed part of it. Peter Beck: The ordinance was not amended as reco~ended by the staff and the Planning Cc~m~ission that would allow a dock. That part of the ordinance amendment was not adopted so the dock still wasn't allowed and still isn't unless this appeal is upheld. Counci]_n~an Boyt: I guess I don't see in here, the ordinance where there was even a suggestion about lot depth in the proposed ordinance. Peter Beck: There wasn't. It dealt with it in a different way. I'm trying to re~e~oer. I think the staff reco~ended one approach and I can't reme~oer exactly what it was but the Planning Co~,ission c~n~e up with a different approach and I believe that was to include the right-of-way in the lot depth and the Council had both of these suggestions and, well you can read the Minutes yourself but the end result was that none of them were adopted that would allow a dock on this partic,]lar beachlot. But in the meantime, nobody had ever really said that wo~]ld it be_ inappropriate to have a dock in this situation. It just never got to a solution that imple~ented it. 36 City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 Councilman Workman: Peter, can you guys be patient until we got our ordinance amended with the intent that that's the direction we're heading in? Peter Beck: You know, you'd have to talk to Bob about that. He's been that route before but be it with a different Council but it takes 4 votes and I think it will be easier for the Council to consider it and discuss it without carrying the baggage of this particular project along with it. I just think you would find it an easier task to deal with it on a more city wide scale than in reference to this particular project. CounciL.~an Johnson: Jo Ann, who was public noticed on this variance? Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the paper and then all the property owners. Counci]m~an Johnson: There was a Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association? I mean they're the ones that were in here yelling about the dock in the first place. Were those people, was Jeff Bros informed? Jo Ann Olsen: It was all the same list as before. CounciL.~an Johnson: Did you give us a list in here of wlqo? Jo Ann Olsen: No. It's not in the report. Counci]m~an Johnson: Because I'm surprised that they we~en't here. Were they here for the appeal? Jo Ann Olsen: No. They were sent a notice. No, they weren't. Councilman Johnson: Well what exactly was decided by the Board? Jo Ann 01sen: They agreed that the interpretation using the lot depth definition was incorrect and that the way it's written could mean that the rec~eational beachlot had to have 100 feet in depth and it does have 100 feet in depth. CounciL.~an Johnson: So they agreed with what I said a year and a half ago but the rest of the Council didn't agree with me? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. That wasn't being discussed at that time. They weren't discussing the appeal of the interpretation, which is what they did tonight. Councilman Johnson: Who made the first interpretation? Jo Ann Olsen: Staff did. CounciL,~an Johnson: But then the Council affirmed that when we told him he couldn't put in his dock? Now he has to come before us for a conditional use permit? Jo Ann Olsen: He would still have to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 37 City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Councilman Johnson: How long does that take? Jo Ann Olsen: A couple months. Councilman Johnson: So we've got a co~]ple months to change the ordinance one way or another. When he cc~es before us with a conditional use permit, the ordinance could be different one way or the other. So the time's there? Peter Beck: But in the meantime if we get into this log jam on the ordinance, at least he could proceed. Councilman Johnson: He can advertise his property any way he wants to advertise his property but he does not have a conditional use permafit for a dock. If he wants to advertise his property as having dock rights, you might want to do that. But when it cc~_~es the tJ~e he gets his conditional ~]se pen~it, he better be ready or the ordinance might be firmed up to say average lot depth at that point in time and he won't get his conditional use permit. That's a possibility. Then again, I argued the other way last year. But I'm pointing out the possibilities. I'm pointing out the possibilities. I'm not pointing out what I'm going to vote for because I probaby made it pretty clear what I thought the purpose of the lg0 foot was last year. Peter Beck: And I think really we are proceeding because it did appear that all the public bodies didn't think the dock was unreasonable. The real hang-up was how do you accomplish it. The Planning Co~mission has recommended it a couple times. The Board of Adjustments and the City Council discussion, it wasn't really an issue that they didn't think a dock should be on this 31,~g0 sc~_]are foot beachlot. It was only, how do you amend the ordinance to accc~plish that and it didn't agree on an amendment. CounciL~an Johnson: I think what really happened was we never got around to really getting at that issue. The issue just kind of. Peter Beck: The 10g feet? Councilman Johnson: The 1~ feet issue. Peter Beck: Absolutely. 7hat's why we brought it up tonight. You brought it up but it wasn't really decided. Councilman Johnson: At that point it wasn't. They didn't want to talk about the racks and not the... Peter Beck: That's why we brought this rec~est to focus people on that as a clean way to resolve this particular piece of property and recognizing you would probably want to go ahead... Councilman Johnson: If you looked at the development pressure that was on staff at that time, the amount of work they were doing and o~]r consistent !:gg in the morning meetings that we were having, you can tell why something like lot depth change on this ordinance slipped through the perverbial crack. I think that's probably enough for this issue. We can go on and if anybody wants to appeal it, they've got their 5 or 10 days, whatever it is to appeal it. 38 City Council M~eting -November 6~ 1989 Co~]ncils,an Boyt: I intend to appeal it. I already have indicated my intention to do that. Elliott Knetsch: It's 10 days. Filed with the zoning adminstrator. Councilman Boyt: Can I borrow a piece of paper and I'll make it easy. Elliott Knetsch: It doesn't say written notice so. Councilman Johnson: So the zoning adminstrator is here tonight and Bill has said he's doing it so it's filed with the zoning adminstrator. That will be on a f~lture council agenda. CounciL,~an Workman: So we don't have anything to do? No motion? Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any. CounciL,~an Boyt: If you guys want to vote on this, you're w~lcome to vote on it tonight. CounciL,~an Johnson: I'd rather wait. CounciL,~an Boyt: But I'm just saying that I want the Council to vote on it and I'd really like the Council to do an ordinance am~endment process. I think we've got the couple months to do that. Councilwoman Dimler: We're going to do the ordinance amendment if possible. Councilman Boyt: Well we should turn this down and do it through an ordinance amendment. Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was any affect on this because he still has to co,~ in for a conditional use pe~it. Councilman Boyt: Can't turn it down Jay. CounciL-lan Johnson: Why not? CounciL,~an Boyt: If we agree with the appeal, he's got the right to a dock and we can tell him ,~3ybe something about the conditions of putting it in but we're not in a position to turn it down. Councilman Johnson: Okay. CounciL,~an Boyt: Okay? We support the staff and Council's previous position and deny the appeal. Now we consider a zoning ordinance. We change the zoning ordinance. Co,~cilwoman Dimler: But this staff had a different position this time Bill. Councilman Boyt: Sure. I read the report. Councilwoman Dimler: They were in support of approval. 39 City Council Meeting - Noveo.~oer 6, 1989 Mayor Ckmiel: I g~less I'm looking at either entertaining a motion or go on your intervention portion for the 10 days and appeal that accordingly. Councilwoman Dimler: You mean uphold the position of the board now and Bill can still appeal. Mayor Chmiel: If you uphold t/he position of the Board. Councilwcr~an Dimler: He can still appeal it. Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Boyt: I don' t think so. Councilman Johnson: Once the Council votes on it, he can't appeal it. Councilwcr~an Dimter: I tho~]ght you said any citizen has lg days to cc~e in. Counci]m~an Johnson: That's because the Council's been doing it wI-ong for a mm~oer of years. I argued this point 2 years ago with the prior Council. We cannot hear the appeal the night of the Board's decision. We have to wait to the next Co~]ncil meeting as far as I'm concerned. We should not be affirming or denying the Board's position at the same night that the Board hears it because that's the way it was done when we were a township ar~ it's always been the way it's been done. That w-as another interpretation of the ordinance that when I came on the Council I said I didn't agree with the interpretation. I think that we should get the Board's Minutes before we decide. I'm not going to decide on what the Board said when I wasn't there and I don't have the Minutes of the meeting or anything. I have nothing in front of me to confirm or deny. How can I do that? Was I there to listen to you? No, I was on an airplane. Councilwoman Dimler: You're not going to get verbatim Minutes anyway. Counci]m~an Johnson: I'm going to get scr~e kind of Minutes. The official Minutes. Councilwoman Dimler: But I will tell you what the motion was if you want to know what it was. .Councilman Johnson: No. I want the official Minutes approved by you as a me~er of the Board. You approve your Minutes every time. Then I' 11 hear this. Councilwoman Dimler: Etliott, what do we do? Councilman Johnson: What's the hurry? Elliott Knetsch: Briefly I think, to s,m~arize ~aat your options are, n~er 1, you could tonight vote to affi~, reverse or modify the Board of Appeals decision now that an appeal has been filed. ~, you couid wait to a s~%bsec~lent Council meeting to have a hearing on the appeal at which time you will vote to affirm, reverse or modify the Board's decision. Co~mcilman Johnson: You see sc~ebody else can appeal tomorrow? 40 City Council Meeting - Nove,~er 6~ 1989 Elliott Knetsch: That's correct~ Councilman Johnson: It doesn't make sense for us to affirm an opinion before the 10 days has expired. We'll just have to do it again in 10 days. Ell iott Knetsch: I think the purpose of waiting to a subsec~]ent meeting would be so that others who nmy feel aggrieved by the decision would have a chance to come to the hearing and present their ideas. We already know that there is an appeal filed so there will be Council action either affirming or reversing the decision. Councilman Johnson: What's the hurry? Councilman Boyt: Well, let's decide sc~ething. Mayor Chmiel: I don' t see any. Councilman Johnson: I move we just close the discussion and move onto item 8. Mayor Chmiel: I guess we couid. Councik.~an Boyt: Whatever you want to do. Mayor Chmiel: 'I'm sort of twisted inbetween here. I can understand the position of the applicant as well. Wanting to proceed with his lots but on the other hand, I also feel that we should review and change the ordinance as per se and go through that process I think of a tm~blic hearing aspect and getting the input from the other people within the co~unity. Councilwoman Dimler: I agree 100%. My only point is that they are before us now. The only ordinance we have right now is the one that we have interpretted. More loosely perhaps than the 'intent was but that was the decision of the Board and that was the right of the Board to make that decision. Now, when Council goes back, and they should have the benefit of the timing here that they're here before us. That's ~ arg,m~ent. When Council gets together now and we interpret the wording any way we want to. We can change it. We can leave it the s~,~e or we can make it looser or whatever we do with it, they would no longer be affected by that because the benefit of the timing that they're before us now, that's the ordinance and the interpretation that we're using. Council~an Workman: One c~]estion. How is that to our advantage? Councilwoman Dimler: It isn't. But are we always here to benefit ourselves o~ do we want to benefit our citizens? CounciL. lan Workman: I think when I say us, I mean... CounciL,~an Johnson: The citizens he's talking about. CounciL.~an Workman: I agree with Jay on that. I think we can wait and finish this up in January and then we can do it. Councilman Johnson: See if there are any other appeals filed. 41 City Council Meeting - Nove,~oer 6, 1989 Co~mcilman Workman: I'm not worried abo~]t that. I'm just saying, let's get... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, proper action for this would be? Ell iott Knetsch: To schedule the appeal hearing for a subsec~lent co~]ncil meeting. Mayo~: Chmiel: Okay. Council~an Boyt: I wo~]ld ask that staff begin pursuing the ordinance change along the lines of the discussion we've had tonight. Start that at the Planning Con~ission at the next agenda and see if we can't make progress on this thing. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know if staff can go ahead because they don't know what our, my intent is not to have it ~miformally lgg feet. I don't know how everybody else feels. I mean we don't have a consensus on that. Councilman Johnson: We can take a straw poll right now. I believe at the point the dock is at you should have at least 1~ feet. Councilwoman Dimler: But not ~]niformally throughout? Councilman Johnson: Or even the average. Councilwoman Dimler: ...lots are just not that perfect. Councilman Johnson: No. I don't think the average should be in there. I think at the point that the dock is at, you should have at least lgg feet at that point. Councilwoman Dimler: And they would meet that. They could meet that. Councilman Johnson: They could meet that by putting the dock in the proper position. That's my opinion. Councilwc~an Dimler: And I agree with you. Councilman Johnson: Well that's 2. It takes 4. 3. CounciL,~an Boyt: I want public input. This is one of the most contested ordinances in our city. Councilman Johnson: I agree. Councilwoman Dimler: That's because we make it so. Councilman Johnson: No. Co,]nciLn~an Boyt: We're granting rights to a beachlot that we don't now grant to a single family residential lot on a lake so I'm just saying, what we've talked ~bout, I think you can draft something. If nothing else, start where you ended up last time and let's get this thing in the hopper and see what comes out. 42 City Council Meeting - Nov~fl~er 6~ 1989 CounciLn~an Johnson: I think we have 3 out of 5 me~bers of the Council saying that at the point of the dock we need 100 foot. Bring that forward to the Planning Co~m~ission. Mayor Chmiel: I guess that' s basically where we' re at. Councilman Boyt: Sure. That's sensible. Councilo~an Johnson: So there's sc~e kind of direction at the end of this. I move we put the appeal on the next Council agenda. Mayor Ck,~iel: Is there a second to that? CounciLn~an Boyt: You can't do that. I would prefer you not do that. I can tell you, I'm going to be out of town on the 20th. You can hold that over until the next meeting in Decanfloer or I can wait 10 days to file my appeal. Councilman Johnson; I'm going to be out of town on the 20th too but I'm flying back for the meeting. Councilman Boyt: I 'm impressed. CounciL.~an Johnson: Just because the schedule worked that way. I only have to be there until noon. Mayor CPm~iel: I'd just like to keep this moving. Council~an Boyt: Well I would like to keep it moving. Let's do the ordinance amendment. Rlnat thing in a month and a half will be up here in front of us and we can straighten it out and get it done. Jo Ann Olsen: So you don't want me to continue the appeal? Councilman Boyt: Well yeah. You have to continue the appeal. I'd prefer you to do it to the first meeting in December. Elliott Knetsch: The action of the Board of Adjustments is vacated pending the outcome of this appeal. The City Council will have the final decision now. Mayor C~iel: That' s right. Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move that the appeal is heard the first meeting in December. Councilman Boyt: Second. CounciL. lan Johnson moved, Council~an Boyt seconded to place the appeal hearing for the interpretation of Zoning Ordinance requirements of 100 foot lot depth for a dock on a recreational beachlot until the first City Council meeting in Dece~fl~er. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 43 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 6, 1989 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK IN A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JEFF MAY. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on the north side of Lotus Lake. It did go in front of the Planning Cc~ission. They reco~ended approval of the wetland alteration permit for the installation of a dock and boardwalk. Basically...has been used and they replaced it with a new dock which rec~.]ired them to receive a wetland alteration permit. They have not altered the wetland anything beyond what already had been with the existing dock or previous dock. The Planning Crmu~ission did reco~.~end approval with the conditions in the report. Staff is recommending that the City Council also recommend approval with the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: M3~'. Mayor, do you have anything else that you'd like to add what the staff's report is or take a position? Jeff May: No. I think they had a rather lengthy write up on it and we understand that those... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Discussion by Council. Jay? Counc i lman Johnson: None. Mayor Chmiel: Bill? Council~an Boyt: I'd prefer to v~it a few minutes. Maybe we can drift this way. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll go with the next one. I don't have any real concerns over this. I was down to the site. I reviewed it. It's being used in the existing location of an existing dock. I should have worn my overshoes. Mm'. May and I were slipping all over there. Co~_mcilman Johnson: Did you get so~e wet socks? Mayor Chmiel: No. Thank goodness. Just mud but I g~]ess I really don't have any real concerns. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I don' t have any real concerns either. In fact I think we should grant it. Mayor Chmiel: Tom? Councilman Workman: Nope. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Bill. Counci]m~an Boyt: I guess we're back to me. I just want to clear up, when did you initially talk to city staff? Jeff May: There was c~_]ite a wT~ite up on that too. What happened... Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can save us ti~ then. Do yogi agree with the staff report on this? 44 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 6~ 1989 Jeff May: Absolutely Councilman Boyt: So you agree with the fact that they came to you and talked to you about needing a wetlar~ alteration pe~it before you started any work? Jeff May: No. ~nere's a bit of misunderstanding about that. It's yes and no in a sense. I want you to understand that I took the initiative on this. I had Jo Ann out. I talked to her. We talked about 2 things. We talked about the fact that if we put out a dock there, okay? We would have to have a wetland alteration permit. We also talked about the fact that if I wanted to do anything other than to put in stairs like we did on that slope, that I would have to have one also. We went ahead and t~]t in the stairs so that we wouldn't have to change the slope at the time and here's ~nere the bone cc~es in. At the time when I talked to her, I did not know that there was a dock there. I had been told that there was a dock there. I hadn't thought that there was a dock there. I hadn't even been done there. Okay? I talked to her. I went down there subsec~]ently after the area dried up down there. I went down there and I saw that we had a dock in down there. Now it was an old dock. It was less than 50%, just like she mentioned. I was not aware of that ordinance. That's ignorance on my part and I'm probably guilty of one thing and that is talking to neighbors. Talking to people who I felt should know and the universal reaction I got is, well you're grandfathered in. You don't have to worry about it. So I erred. We went ahead and we put the dock in over the existing dock and we left the remnants of the dock that was there there and I found out that I was wrong. That there was not an intention to just violate the ordinance in a sense. And we fouDd out that we were in violation of the ordinance and that's why we're here. We didn't intend to be. It was to me logical Bill you know and I was w~ong on this but it was logical that if you have a path to a dock, a built up path to a dock that's been there for years. There's been a dock there. It's been used by the people previously. I really didn't think based on what I was told that there'd be a problem. I found out subsec~]ently that there was a problem. Councilman Boyt: What I'm really after I guess and I'll ask one more question and ~ybe you can be thinking about where I'm trying to go here is, as we have this probl~m~ it seems like from time to time With it seemed logical so I did it. And yet it's not, sometimes it's in rather serious non-cc~pliance with city ordinances and I'm just wondering, having been there, what the best way is to inform people about this. There is in our staff report it says on July 31st there was a follow-up contact with staff in which you were told that the dock was a non-conforming ,]se and again it would rec~]ire a wetland alteration permit. Jeff May: Yes sir. That's also covered. It was also indicated that I had a certain amount of ti~ in order to put that in. If you'll go through the Minutes as I had explained, we were told we had several months to do that and I travel very extensively and I was over in Hong Kong and China for a good portion of that time. I was in the process actually of submitting that or writing it out when we got that certified letter. Now I don't recall that there was a date that was given. It was you've got several months to go ahead and get that in. So we went ahead and put it in. If you notice also, when I received a notification f~om the DNR, I responded i~ediately on that. 45 City Co~lncil Meeting - November 6, 1989 CounciLman Boyt: Well the DNR notification, which was in Septeu~oer, is c~]ite a while after J~]ly's contact. I'm really not, and maybe this is not the right venue. Maybe we can talk about this afterwards. I'm not trying to ~]blically flog you here. Mayor Ckmiel: Yeah and I think that that would be something that would be discussionary after the meeting if you so choose. CounciL~an Johnson: It's an old issue. Mayor Ch, li. el: Yep. Cot.mciLman Boyt: Well not for Mr. May but it's an old issue for the City. Mayor Chmiel: It's an old issue for ~]s and I think that M~:. May's intent wasn't trying to do anything that he wasn't supposed to be doing... Jeff May: Bill, there is one issue and I don't know how you solve it. Okay? Because it's not very easy. It was brought ~]p at the Planning meeting. People in this area who have lived here for a long time really believe that if you've had a dock, that you're grand fathered in any situation. Now I don't know how to, you can say that they should know better and I should know better and you' re right but it's not co,~on knowledge. In other words, and there's a tendency for all of us, or most of us. Maybe not all of us. There's a tendency when you move into a new area like I did, there is a tendency to listen to your neighbors that have been thence for a long time because they should know. Or to listen to people 9Jqo have a dock on any lake because they should know. I'm not claiming that that's right. That's not right but that's in a sense what happened to me and I don't think I'm alone in that area and how you solve that I don't know beca~]se a lot of ti, les people won't intend to knowingly violate something and they end ~]p doing it anyhow. Mayor Chmiel: I wo~]ld like to make a .lotion that City Council approves ~etland Alteration Pe~it #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated Septe~oer 27, 1989 and sllbject to the following conditions: 1. The existing path shall shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2. The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. 3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland shall rec~]ire a wetland alteration pe~.~it. 4. The portions of the dock that is within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. Is there a second? Counc i lman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27, 1989 and subject to 46 City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 the following conditions: 1. The existing path shall shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2. The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. 3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland shall require a wetland alteration permit. 4. The portions of the dock that is within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: C. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO. 5. CounciL-~an Johnson: I'd like more time to review this. I found some inconsistencies in the report. I move to table item l(c) until I've had a chance to talk to Gary. Councilwoman Dimler: I ' 11 second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table authorization of plans and specifications for construction of Well No. 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried. D. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR LAKE DRIVE/TH 101 PROJECT 88-22. E. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PHASE II OF DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 86-11B. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to take item (d) and (e) together because my concerns are the same. Actually I just had a c~]estion. These are both HRA projects and I did talk to Don today about my concern about bringing HRA projects back to the Council when we really don't know what the original, what we're amending here and I don't think we have the background to know what the originals were and so forth. I guess in the future I w~uld like to see these go back to the HRA and then the City has the responsibility to make the assessments and that money can be turned back to the HRA or if we can work out something of that nature rather than having Co~mcil deal with it all the time. Discussion? Co~mcilman Boyt: Yeah. There is, I think with regard to Lake Susan Park, the City Council spent a lot of time working on that issue and... Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not talking, I'm just using these two as an example of being HRA projects. 47 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 6, 1989 Councilman Johnson: They're city projects[ Councilman Boyt: I agree in terms of I'd love to separate the HRA business from the City Council business and stay out of the HPA stuff. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's u/nat I'm getting at. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you on that. Don is the guy to speak to this but I think there are unfortunately parts of this in w~nich the City does in fact have to be the deciding body. Councilwoman Dimler: Well yes. On the assessments. Councilman Boyt: But I agree with the part that says let's not having the City Council vote on something that the HI%A can do all by itself. I think these are things that we have to do. Councilwoman Dimler: And my concern is, you know as we saw with the downtown that the HRA approved it and the City Council approved it and they didn't know what they were approving and we had all this with the downtown as it was. If we can clarify somehow who's responsibility is what instead of mixing it. Don, would you address that? Don Ashworth: It does become difficult because State Statute as it deals with public improvement projects has those responsibilities back over to a city and it gets back into some of special assessment things that we talked about before. This partic~llar project and if I'm hearing you correctly, you're using this more as an example more so. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm not really concerned about... Don Ashworth: What I can explore with the City Attorney is literally on f~]ture contl-acts, ensuring that if there is HRA involvement or responsibility, that in fact the contracting authority then would go back to the HRA. In some instances if it's going to be a [m]blic improv~ent project with special assessments, we may have to get into so~e form of an agreement that would exist between the HRA and the City where we would be acknowledging that they are the contracting agent on that particular project. It sounds to me as though that may resolve sc~e of the concerns that I'm hearing from Council me~oers and still meet State Statute. I talked with Roger about that briefly but this elaboration, Elliott if you would carry that back and make s,~re maybe that Roger gives me a call sc~etime tomorrow. Eliiott Knetsch: You bet. Councilman Johnson: Can i throw my 2 cents in? ~ayor Chmiel: Yeah. Go ahead. CounciLman Johnson: So what you're proposing is HRA does all the contracting, builds it and then we have to assess it? The HRA has no assessment authority to assess people. So this is where we as a group go back and we assess these people for this money. I believe we've handed off all control over how that 48 City Council Meeting - Novemfloer 6~ 1989 money's spent to the HRA and do you feel good about that? I have a slight gut level feeling right now that when I go for an assess~_~ent hearing, I would have wanted a vote on that contract because it's my vote that's assessing them, not the HRA's. They don't have to be here at the assess~ent hearing. Don Ashworth: The only thing that I could see that may help would be, the initial impr.ovement hearing, call people and say what it is that's proposed to be done and how much money it's going to cost to do it. After that period of time, the HRA would be responsible for doing it in accordance with the way that hear.lng was conducted by this City Council. When you then move into a subsec~]ent special or the special assessment hearing, if they in fact have goofed up in the process, they become accountable then for. why those goof ups occurred. It still doesn't, there still... Councilman Johnson: If they double the cost of a project, double the people's assessments from what the regular assess~ent hearing is, you know. They're at home watching the NFL football and we're here. Don Ashworth: I'm ass~m~ing that you would not accept that t~vpe of a report from them. You would not... CounciLn~an Johnson: We've already spent the money. Councilwoman Dimler: No. Don't ~ set the parameters beforehand? DOn Ashworth: That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Council would set those parameters and if they... Councilwoman Dimler: And they can't go outside of those parameters. Don Ashworth: I'm sure there's so~ pitfalls. Again, Ursula called me earlier today and I've been scra, floling in terms of thinking how this might work. There may still be some pitfalls. Councilman Johnson: And in this case, they have let these contracts through the City so we have to vote on it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, my point is that I want to have some more accoun tab i 1 i ty. Mayor CPm,iel: What you're looking for is more information so you can base your decision on it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And also that when things go w~ong, we want to know who' s accountable. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe our representative on the HRA could clarify this. Councilman Workman: Ultimately our. option is to do away with the HRA and have an economic develotm~ent conm~ission. Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a wonderful idea. CounciL,~an Johnson: We can appoint ourselves as the HRA too. 49 City Council Meeting - November 6; 1989 Councilman Boyt: Let's talk about the current opportunity to see this happen right in front of us and that's on the tree plan. If we started out 4 months ago or 5 months ago, the Mayor, Mm-. Workman and myself met with the consultant from the Arboret~_m~ and BRW's latest tree expert. We worked through that and I thought resolved a plan that the 3 of us were willing to be accountable for. Okay? Now it should have, in my opinion, it should have stopped right there. If they had adjustments, they could have come back to the Council but we had the authority, responsibility and accountability to have a good tree plan in downtown. Instead, it's gone to the HRA. It's about to go to the ~]blic Safety Coumission. It's gone to the County. I can tell you that it's again, we're going to have s~e sort of octopus here in which everybody's got a finger in it and nobody's accountable and that's a real visible item there and I think the City Council, if in fact we have control over that, ought to take it and make the decision and then stand behind it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that. Councilman Johnson: On the trees though, it is a public safety issue also. Mayor Chmiel: That was being reviewed from ~]blic Safety. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, so I'd want to hear fro~ our co~issions as to their opinion. Councilman Boyt: You know, get all the data you want to get. I'm just saying that the decision belongs in one place and if we try to make everybody happy, we'~e going to end ~]p with a clock tower down here on West 78th Street ~nich is the same kind of thing. We can just go on and on about the things that s~]ddenly nobody wants to own around here. I think the tree plan, the City Council ought to own it and we do it the way we are willing to stand behind it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: But then we lost control. Councilman Boyt: Well right at this minute I co~lldn't tell yogi who has control over the tree-plan. Councilwonmn Dimler: Exactly. How would you propose that we make the HRA more accountable for their actions then? Co~mciL~an Bo]~t: I personally think that that's the City Manager and the Attorney get together and they say, the HRA decides this one. The Council decides that one and we don't both decide the same darn thing. That simplifies it sc~e. Councilman Johnson: There may be some times when due to contracting and state law we both have to vote on something. When it's a joint project between the city and the HRA. Some items may be joint projects. These particular items, the Lake S,]san, the park definitely is not an HRA function. It's a city function so it's a joint type matter. Anyway, I move approval of (d) and (e). Councilwc~an Dimler: Why don't you let me do that since I pulled them. 50 City Council Meeting - Novem~oer 6~ 1989 CounciL-lan Johnson: It didn't seem to be happening so I was pushing things along. Mayo~ Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: But I do want those concerns looked into so I move approval of items (d) and (e) with the understanding that we will get a report back from staff. CounciL,~an Johnson: I'll second that. Resolution #89-119: Councilwoman Di~uler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Contract k-~endment No. 1 for Lake Drive/TH 101 Project 88-22. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #89-120: Councilwoman Di,~ler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Contract k,~endment No. 1 for Phase II of Downtown Redevelolm~ent Project No. 86-11B. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AUXILIARY STRUCTURE FOUNDATION. Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I pulled this one. I talked to Gary Warren about this today. I guess I don't see the urgency of this thing wanting to get put in right away. I want to remind us that we do have free storage from Chaska and I would like to see more detailed plan with costs and all that before we go ahead with anything on this. I don't see the ~rgency and I guess i want to table it. Councilman Boyt: I think that's what this is all about is getting that detailed plan. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, if I could. As Ursula mentioned, we had talked earlier about this. The September 25th meeting, the item with the sale of the property was presented to Co~ncil and in that staff report there was a cost range presented of $136,000.00-$150,000.00 for the new facility. That's still the ballpark range that we're looking at so hopefully the Council will from that meeting was at least made cognizant of the dollars that were involved with replacing that facility. The foundation we're trying to do, worked out well for us on the previous expansion of public works and that is to get the foundation in ~ing public works staff as much as possible to beat the weather so that we have a little bit more control in the springtime to get the facility underway. I would agree that it's not a life or death situation at this point but it is not convenient for us to r~un down to the auxiliary buildings that are available to ~ in Chaska, even though we're t3~ying to utilize them to store seasonable ec~]ipment. We still have equipment that is down there that we have to go down to get to ~%se such as our elevator t3~uck for replacing stop lights and such on TH 5 so that's the reason why we brought it to the Council at this point in time so that the building foundation at least could be ~nderway. We'd have control of our destiny so to speak and indeed detailed plans and cost estimates are being prepared as we speak here so we can formally b~ing it back to the Co~acil for the next phase. 51 City Council Meeting - Nove.~oer 6, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I was just taking this, what are we talking about, 4,800 square feet for the building? Gary Warren: Roughly, that's correct. Mayor C~ie!: Roughly at abo~]t $23.00 per sca]are foot comes up to about $110,g0g.0g and $23.00 I feel is a pretty strong figure and you and I had some discussions on that. Gary Warren: Construction costs you're using? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Gary Warren: We've got some engineering and soil testing and s,]rveying and stuff so when you add it all together, you're in... Mayor Chmiel: I'm using a high fig,Ire and I think that that might be just a little high but I still thing that $13g,000.00 is still high. Gary Warren: We certainly don't need the Cadillac and that's not the intent here. Mayor Chmiel: Right and we're not doing that. We're just putting tine bare minimums, dirt floor. Two doors. Electrical and 1 or 2 lights and that's about the extent of it. Gary Warren: Right. We have to do a block building. We can't do a metal building so there are sc~te limitations there that we're dealing with but a foundation should be under $15,090.0g of that total ~nd that's not going to change really no matter what we decide to go up from there. Mayor Ctm~iel: Block buildings we're finding, we can build those cheaper than we can metal buildings. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to say, my concern here was exactly as the Mayor said. We only got $100,000.~0 for the property and we're planning to spend way above that and I don't see that for the storage that we need, that we need a Cadillac type of a building and I can just see in the future here that once we get the footings in, then we'll come back with cost overruns and all that, that's my concern that we don't do that. Gary Wa~ren: Council will have authorization on the next step for the f~]ll building so if it's not acceptable at that time, dollarwise or otherwise, you certainly wouldn't have to proceed with it. Councilwo~an Dimler: But once you have the footings in there, you don't make the building any smaller? Gary Warren: Sc~_]are footage though really wouldn't be that big of an impact on it. It would really be the type of construction as Don referenced here. How _~any windows. Are we going to heat it. Things that really add to the cost are above the ground. 52 City Council Meeting - Nove~er 6; 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: Yes sir. Mr. City Planner. If this were a regular business coming in for this, wguld there be anything other than a building permit rec}~li red? Paul Krauss: The~:e would normally be a site plan review. Councilman Johnson: Before we let th~ put in a foundation? Paul K~auss: That' s correct. Councilman Johnson: Are we t3:eating ourselves differently than we treat.·. Paul K3~auss: Gary and I had a discussion on this and it was determined that in past city buildings had not been subject to that procedure. This was a rather diminutive structure hidden in the back of the site· In the interest of expediency and trying to get the footings in, we determined that we really did not need to go through that procedure in this case. Council~an Johnson: In other words, what's good for the goose but this gander doesn't want to do it? It's not the first time I've brought this up either. The City does things slightly different than the rest of the world. ·..interpretation of our own rules but you know, there has been many times when we've granted gk-ading pe~its in advance of the site plan review and things like that so it's not that te~;ribly unusual. We've done it for several developers. Even M~:. }~]rdick I believe we gave him permission to grade his area before we platted it. In one hand we're kind of stepping on our own rules but it's similar to what we've done quite a few other times and to me I see the necessity of getting it in and I also see that we're going to build this to all the rules and regulations and when the site plan review cc~es in, we're not going to have any choice but pass it because you're not going to be asking us for any variances are you Gary? We don't like variances. You'd have a real tough time. Gary Warren: We haven't asked for any yet. Don Ashworth: One ~]ick comment. I'm unaware of any city structures that we've built that we have not gone through the full planning process· This structure I recall that we applied the variance process.·. Councilman Johnson: What about the wetland alteration permit that we d%m~ped dirt down into a v~tland and then came back and asked for the wetland alteration permit later? It was done under an smergency and we figured that out later. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not aware of the situation but I think the City should. Don Ashworth: The facility there. The fire station. When we did this additional addition here, we went through all of the steps. So again, all of the structures that I'm aware of, we have followed all of the rules. As I had understood this, that this was a ~aller structure and was being interpretted as being allowed to be issued a permit in this particular instance. I did not know or I guess I still don't that we're treating ourselves really any different than anyone else. 53 City Council Meeting - Nove~fioer 6~ 1989 Ga~:y Wa~:ren: When Paul and I had talked about that process, asking if we should rrm it through. It was considered, I forget the te~_~ that Jo Ann used but auxiliary building or whatever and we weren't looking to ignore any of the procedures. That was that it fell into the class that it didn't dictate a full site plan review. Correct me if I'm ~ong. paul Kra~]ss: Jo Ann did make that interpretation. Frankly I'm not certain of using that interpretation that Jo Ann was. We were confronted also with the fact that here we had a rather small building that needed to get into the ground for public purpose prior to freezeup and if we put it through the procedure, which we could do, it obviously couldn't be built until next year. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that was my point Paul. There is no rush. Councilman Boyt: Yeah there is. Councilwoman Dimler: No there's not. We have free storage from Chaska. There's no rush to get going on this b,]ilding. Councilman Johnson: Except we're supposed to diligently go after a new buiiding. Paul Krauss: We could also go through the site plan review procedure after the footings are in the ground. That also is a little bit uncomfortable since you'd be asked to approve a building who's shape and location is already predete~ined. CounciL~an Boyt: What wo~]ld you like to do? Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should go through the regular process since there's no urgency and no hurry. CounciLn~an Johnson: I see the urgency personally. Councilwoman Dimler: You do? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: What? Councilman Johnson: So we can get his up and our people don't have to continue driving all the way to Chaska to pick ~]p and do their ec~]ilm~ent. CounciLman Work~an: It's not going to be ~ until spring right? Councilwoman Dimler: It's an inconvenience, I agree. It's an inconvenience but it isn't an urgency. Councilman Johnson: Right, but if we don't start building the foundation now it's not going to be up ,]nti! stl,~er. Councilman Workman: If we put the footings in now, it will be up one year from now? 54 City Council Meeting - Nov~r 6~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: In the spring~ Gary Warren: The size of the building with the exception of the office space that we added on to public works, that's a year long process by the ti~ you get it all tm_Inched out and done so I don't think we're looking any luxury of time here. If we don't do it this spring, then the pressure will be even on to make sure that it's done by next fall. We're looking at about a year. Councilman Johnson: We did a whole site plan review and everything on that. Gary Warren: I'm talking construction. CounciL.~an Johnson: It took a year? Gary Warren: And we did the foundations ahead of time in order to expedite the~. CounciL,,an Johnson: That seems like a long time to build a building like this. Mayor Chmiel: A bare bones building. To take that period of time, as you're saying a year. I think I could get a contractor in there to do it within about a 4 month period. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move that we table. Councilman Workman: I' 11 second it for discussion. Councilman Johnson: There's no discussion on the table motion. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table approving plans and specifications for public works auxiliary structure foundation. All voted in favor except CounciL,,an Boyt and Councilman Johnson and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Gary Warren: When would be an appropriate time to bring it back? CounciL-~an Boyt: How about the 20th? Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have some more details? Paul tO~auss: Could I get some clarification too. If we have a delay in the process, do you want ~ to go through the site plan review on that? Councilman Johnson: Would United Mailing have to do a site plan review of this buiding if they were building this building? Councilman Boyt: It adds to cost doesn't it? By quite a bit too. Mayor Chmiel: That's a good c~]estion. 55 City Council Meeting - Nove~f3er 6, 1989 Pat]l K3:auss: It col]id not be on the 20th. It would have to be scheduled for a Planning Co~ission meeting which would put it into Dece~oer which raises that problem. Mayor Ctmtiel: I don't know if that's a rec~]irement that we would have to do. Council~an Boyt: Not when it means more money. Not when there's no variances. Mayor Chmiel: I wo~]ldn't want to spend any more dollars. And we'd make s~lre that we do all our own inspections and everything is in accordance. I don't see the need. I really don' t. Council~an Workman: So we're just waiting then in 2 weeks for... Councilman Johnson: I'm j~]st saying, does our ordinance say we have to do it or do we see the need? I don't see the need either but I also want to do what the ordinance says is supposed to be done. Mayor Chmiel: What have we done in the past? Don Ashworth: That's what I mentioned. All of our buildings we have gone through the full process as it dealt with the primary structure. As we approach this, and I don't know if there's a slight interpretation issue between Jo Ann's interpretation and maybe Paul's but at least I until 5 mintues ago was led to believe that as an auxiliary structure, that we did not have to go through that process. I'm trying to think of any other sort of auxiliary structure where we may not have gone thro~]gh the review process. Gary Warren: What about a well ho~nse? Councilwoman Di~ler: Couid you do sc~_~e research on that and let ~]s know? Don Ashworth: I don't think that the little storage facility out in Lakeview and that metal building that's out there, I don't recall that ever going through any process. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get staff to do some research on that? If we can go by that process, I would be in favor of that. Let's do it legally. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: Okay, these are 3 items, 2 of which are pretty ~.]ick I think. The letter to Met Council. In the Admin Pack Paul wrote a letter to Met Council and I'd like to see the City Council endorse the mailing of that letter. It looked real important to me. That's the one on the develoim_~ent in Eden Prairie. The neighborhood business zones which is a change in their zoning. The extension of the use on the MUSA line. Issues that really J~pact our city and I think Chanhassen should take a stand with the Met Council about this. Paul K3~a~]ss: I _~tight add that I spoke to Mike Franzen who's the City Planner in Eden F£airie later this afternoon and reiterated our concern about the addition of 30,000 s~*~e odd sca]are feet of cc~ercial ~]p on TH 5 at Dell Road. He indicated that that's also a concern of Eden Prairie's staff and they were 56 City Council YL=eting - Nove~er 6~ 1989 probably going to look to scaling that back if possible but he appreciated our concern as well for the reason that it may damage the downtown. CounciL,~an Boyt: So I don't know if we can vote on anything tonight but I think maybe a show of support would be appropriate. Is there that support on the Counc i 1 ? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I read it. Councilman Johnson: Who's the addressee in that? Paul Krauss: It's addressed to Ann Hurlberg who's the director of the Comprehensive Planning Section. It's her office that reviews the envirorm~ental assessment worksheets. I also proposed copying Mike Franzen in Eden Prairie, Marcy Waritz, our Metro Council representative and the Minnesota Environmental ~]ality Board. Mayor Clm~iel: I would like to establish a precedent i~m~ediately that on any info~ation that we're sending directly to the Met Council, that Marcy be included at all given times. She represents us and I think she should know about it beforehand and possibly just even a phone call to let her know what's coming. Councilman Johnson: Who's the RGU on this? Paul Krauss: F~en Prairie. CounciL,~an Johnson: So have you send a letter to them? Pa,il Krauss: I've spoken to the~ and they'll get a copy of this as well. Councilman Johnson: So they have an EAW?. Paul Krauss: There's actually 3 of theme. CounciL,~an Boyt: Yeah, they're in the pack. CounciL, lan Johnson: Yeah, I see the~ in here. The last thing in there. Councilman Boyt: They're brutal. That's going to have a big i~pact on Chanhassen and ~3ybe this is worthy of future discussion but I think right now time is of the essence. We need to get the letter off. Councilman Johnson: What's the date for public comment on the EIW?. Paul Krauss: I didn't have a specific date and the correspondence that was forwarded to the Metro Council simply said that they were going back over the next few w~eks and if we had a concern, we should get it back to them in ~i ting. Mayor Ck-~iel: Yeah, I would think that probably just by Council's position to saying to support this. By having us sign it would probably be. 57 City Council Meeting - Nove~floer 6, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Couid we put this on o~]r November 2~th agenda so we can have a little time to review these EAW's and inform the RGU that we will be providing the City of Chanhassen's opinion on their EAW following our Nov~fl~er 20th ,~eting? Basically info~m~ the RGU that's going to be considering this that we've gotten it too late for it to be considered at this point. That we would like to express an opinion. Maybe express them as individuals too. Mayor Chmiel: The EAW is j~]st a 3 sheet is all it is. CounciL,~an Boyt: There's a co~]ple of them in there. Mayor Chmiel: All the others besides but the one that I had looked at here. Council~an Johnson: If you can do one in 3 pages, you didn't do very much on the EAW. Mayor Chmiel: That's probably tr~]e but sometimes some of them don't take that much either. Councilman Boyt: They're proposing c~]ite an increase in density. They're talking about going right up on our border with this sort of thing. I agree Jay that it's probably worth f,]rther discussion but I think the letter that Paul is sending is just pretty straight forward stuff. Saying that we have a concern about this. We want Met Council to know we're concerned about it and that's about the size of the letter so I'd like to see that go forward without delay if we can. Mayor Clm~iel: I don't see any problem with that. Councilman Boyt: Okay? Next item, Lake Ann Park fee. The reason I bring it up is it's apparently going back to the Park and Rec Co~ission and I'd like them to have a bit of input frc~ the Council. The Park and Rec fee stirs debate it seems every year. Last year I think the previous Council might have made this decision but the decision was made to reduce the fee. There is I believe the reason-motivating that was by the majority of the Council was that there was some sentiment in the co~unity that no one should be charged for using a city park. I don't agree with that. I think this is a ,~nic~_]e city park and it costs a lot of money to keep it up and we ought to restore the fees we were charging before in my opinion because we've gone from raising $23,0g~.0~ to $11,~0g.0g which nets us $5,ggg.gg. I agree with the staff to some extent but even $5,0gg.0~ with the budget pinch that our city has got is money that's going into maintainng that park that we won't have without that fee. That's just my opinion. I'd like to have the Park and Rec people have the opinion of the rest of the Council when they discuss it. If you've got any off the cuff co~ents. Mayor Chmiel: I guess my off the c~]ff cc~ent w~uld be that I see ~nat the existing charges are. I don't think we should go back to the previous charges. The higher cost. Councilman Boyt: $3.g07 Mayor Chmiel: Some people, well I should say maybe a few that can't afford it. I know you'd give the $3.g0 Bill but I don't know. I want to see the park costs be covered by the people that are utilizing it as well. 58 City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 CounciL-~an Boyt: There are two sides to that. That's right~ Mayor Chmiel: And those front out of town who also utilize that park, are the ones that should pay for it as well. Councilman Johnson: What do you think about the youth sports that utilize it? The Little Leaguers that cc~e in? Mayor Ctm~iel: Nah. Councilman Boyt: I kind of think it should be built into the fees for the softball people and the swi~m~ing people and some of those folks. An annual pass is what, $6.00? That's the best bargain in town short of our meetings. Councilwoman Dimler: What are other parks doing? Do you know what other cities are doing with their parks? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. CounciL, tan Johnson: I don't know of any other city that charges. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we should ask the Park and Rec to do a little checking with so~ of the other adjacent co~m~unities and see what those charges are. Everything's going up. Everything escalates. All except our_ salaries. Councilman Johnson: We could d~op those. Councilman Workman: I'd say keep the fee. Get as ~ch of the darn fee as we can. Use it for milfoil. Mayor Chmiel: That's another good point. Councilman Workman: And ~]t a big sign up at the front gate. R~nank you for paying your fee. You fee will be used for milfoil and/or other, mowing or whatever. CounciL,~an Boyt: A sign wouldn't be a bad idea at this point. Counci~tan Johnson: Your fees pay for the maintenance of this park. Councilman Workman: And hire a big thug to stand at the gate and pay him $20.00 an hour. Councilman Boyt: Okay, third item. Frontier Homes. I think it's time. We've had, I 'm sure since Jim is moving, that he probably has something to say about this but we have had one of the principles in Frontier Homes has cc~e in and lied to ~. We've had a record, I think it's probably Jim has it in here somewhe~e of the 6 or 7 homeowners that are still dissatisfied. We have at least one local resident or one local merchant who says Frontier Homes owes them money and they can't get it from them. I think we ought to put an ad in. I think we ought to put it in the Sailor once and we ought to put it in the Villager one time. It doesn't have to be very big but I think the wording is in 59 City Council Meeting - Nove0~er 6, 1989 here somewhere. Is it Jim? Have yogi got the wording in here again? It's pretty Jim Chaffee: Yeah, the wording' s going to be just Notice, Frontier Hc~e buyers. City of Chanhassen is rec~]esting you contact the Chanhassen t~]blic Safety Department prior to p,]rchasing a Frontier Home to find o~lt if any complaints have been filed. Wordage to sc~..~ething like that. Like Bill said it's pretty innocuous. I guess the long and the short of it is, Frontier Homes did not acknowledge any of our rec~]ests. Paul Oaks has not gotten back to us. One of the memos in there fro~ Scott s~]ggests that Frontier Homes have washed their hands completely of this whole ordeal. In a previous Council meeting the direction was to place an ad once we had reached this point. I think we're ready to do that. My question before the Council is, how do yo~ want to proceed doing that. The last two pages of the ma~o I just passed out indicated the types of ads that I've choked with at the Villager. The second to the last page, if you r~otice the Jersey Store ad. That's a $19.gg ad. It's a 3 inch ad that we can put one tJ~e into the Villager. The second one down, Country Western Dance Lessons, and we're talking size of ads, that's $38.gg and then the last page is a fairly large ad and that's $236.0g. I talked to the Villager editor, Dave Peterson and he says if the Council wishes to place an ad that would be noteworthy, he would probably have an article in the paper indicating that the Council so desired an ad be placed in the paper so we'd kind of get double coverage. The citizenry wo~]ld read the news report and then consec~_]ently, I hope go look for the ad. Then my other suggestion in the memo is that we can go on from there. If the $19.g0 ad doesn't illicit any response from Frontier Homes, then we may want to go to the $38.0~ ad the next week or two and then after that maybe the $236.g0 ad. If we did the 3 of them together, the total cost would be $283.gg. I don't know if that's going to do anything. I don't even think the ads are going to rest Frontier Homes o~]t of their nest. I just don't think we're going to get any action. It maybe just to place the $18.g~ ad with the newsworthy ite~ from Dave Peterson and let it go at that. Councilman Word,an: What do you suppose the ad will accomplish Jim? A warning to buyers and a warning to Frontier? Jim Chaffee: Right. It's a warning to potential home buyers of Frontier Hooves to check with Chanhassen Public Safety to see if we have any complaints on file. ._Now those are factual issues and I don't think we can get in too much tro~bte liability wise if we say that. Elliott, do you have any tho~]ghts on that at all? Roger did. Councilman Boyt: Well Roger drafted, I wish we had it in here. He drafted a statan~ent that we could put in. Jim Chaffee: Right and that's what-it was. To check with Chanhassen t%]blic Safety prior to purchasing your Frontier Home to see if we had any complaints on file. It's not saying they' re bad. It's not saying anything except to check with what we have on file. Councilman Boyt: Well we do have complaints on file. JJs~ Chaffee: We certainly do and that's what they would find out. Councilman Boyt: Why don't we put that in there? 60 City Council Meeting - November 6~ 1989 Jim Chaffee: That' s [m]bl ic information and that ' s factual and I don' t think we can get in too much trouble for that. Elliott, I know this is fresh to you. Ell iott Knetsch: I would support what Roger's already told you. I don't think we would want to put specifics of cc~plaints in the ad in the paper. I think this should alert anyone and if anyone does call, they will get that information. I think that going beyond what the language suggestions, it might just open liability that we wouldn't otherwise have a case and it won't help us get the job done that we want to get done. Councilman Johnson: If each of these homeowners puts the exact same warning in their front yard, it'd probably be a little more effective than in the newspaper that the potential homeowners don't read because they don't live here. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I think that one of the issues here is that we send a signal to all the home builders in Chanhassen that we're not happy about this kind of building. I don't think most of the home builders in Chanhassen a3fe happy to have a Frontier Homes building here. Councilman Johnson: Have they violated any building codes that we can, it's j,~st not quite finishing h~h? Jim Chaffee: It's custc~er service. Councilman Johnson: It's nothing that we can get on their side and go after Frontier Hc~es in a legal? Jim Chaffee: If there was, we would know about it believe me. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we place the ad one time in both newspapers and that we place, I don't know what Chris' newspaper charges for an ad but we place a half a page ad at $236.00. Split it and put whatever that will buy ~s in each of the two newspapers. Run it one time and kind of see how that feels. Co~it to it once and as Tc~.~ said, we've shot a fire across their bow. (~, we fired a shot, that's what we did. Jim Chaffe: Chris, if we bought an ad in the Sailor, what kind of coverage would we get? Just specifically to Chanhassen or would it go to other areas? Chris Burns: An ad? Jim Chaffee: Right. Chris ~lrns: It would go in the Excelsior. Excelsior residents would also see the ad as well. You could also buy Eden Prairie and Minnetonka...Shakopee. Mayor Clm~iel: How about two $38.00 ads and call it c~_]its? Jim Chaffee: Is that the direction I hear Council saying is split the $236.00 for that big ad? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we want to go that much. 61 City Council iv~etJ, ng - Nove~.~oer 6, 1989 Counci]~*~an Johnson: Well there's 3 papers. Why do we keep ignoring our third paper here? !~ayor Ch~iel: How about if we had two of the $38.00 ones rather than $236.00? Councilman Workman: Why don't we split 25g.00 3 days. $24~.g0 3 ways. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be even all the way around. Councilman Workman: A~d we should compare all the ads afterwards and say, know that corqe January our services are up for review again. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we just say 3 of the country western ads in all 3 newspapers? Council~an Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to place the $38.00 ads in all 3 newspapers regarding Frontier Homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEXT BUDGET WORKSESSION, UPDATE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashwo~th: I'd like the City Council to consider setting up a Work Session for this next Monday night to ~alk about upcog~ing bonding so I'd have Springsted here. The Bl]dget worksession, where we currently stand on that and the amended redevelopment plan basically shows all of the things .that have occurred within the downtown area. The City Co,]ncil decided to meeting on Tuesday, Nove~oer 14, 1989 at 5:00 p.m.. Mayor C~m~iel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion ca.t~ried. The meeting was adjourned at ll:0g p.m.. Sutm. titted by Don Ashworth City Manger Prepared by Nann Opheim 62