Loading...
1989 09 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1989 Mayor C~iel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MM~BER~ PRES~: Mayor Ch~iel, Oouncilman Boyt, Oouncilman Workman, Councilw~m~n Dimler and Oouncilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashw~rth, Roger Knutson, Jo Ann Olsen, Paul Krause, Gary Warren, Dave Hempel, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AC4~I~A: Oouncilman Johnson moved, Oouncilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: Gouncilman Johnson wanted to move its~ 13 to behind item 15; Oouncilw~man Dimler ~nted to discuss Adoption of City Values, Parkin~ in front of Chanhassen I~Ta~., Lake Lucy Boad parkirg pexmits, and Lake Lucy. access; and Mayor C~el ~nt~ to read a letter from the City of Greenwood. All voted in favor and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor C~iel drew a name for the recycling prize which is at $400.00. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor C~iel moved, Oouncilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City. Manager's reoc~mm~ndations: a. Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition: 1) Approval of Develolmment Contract 2) Approval of Plans and Specifications b. Approve Plans and Specifications for Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition. c. Approve Lake S[man Hills West 2nd and 3rd Addition Park Master Plan. · .8~- d. ~I-~aental Agreement No. 2 for the TH 212 EIS Joint Powers Agreement. e. Approve Develofxaent Contract for Extension of Sanitary Sewer and Water to Lots 9 and 15, Block 1, Chanhassen Hills 1st Addition. h. Resolution ~89-101: Authorize Feasibility Study for Upgrade of Audubon Road frcm Soo Line Railroad to L~%~an Boulevard. j. Approve Carver Beach Linear Park Master Plan. m. City. Council Minutes dated August 28, 1989 Park and Recreation (~ission Minutes dated August 29, 1989 n. Approve Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, Tri-Axle D~ Truck. o. Approve Resolution for Narcotics Control Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting ' September 11, 1989 F. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR ECKANKAR CHURCH2 Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I pulled item (f), approve develolm~ent contract for Eckankar Church. It would appear as though the tests frc~ the site, Council wanted from the property owner of the test completed on the site in regards to the underground storage tanks, etc., it would appear that their tests were either destroyed or lost or other and there's not a whole lot of detail as to what exactly happened but Council requested those tests and now we're being asked to kind of approve this even though w~ don't have the results of those tests. So I'm asking... Councilman Johnson: We_ had those in our adminstrative packet a few ~=eks ago didn't we? Councilman Workman: But there were tests destroyed or lost at the... Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Paul can address that. Paul Krause: Mayor, my issue is with the stipulations that were attached to the approval and not particularly this. Gary Warren: Pace Laboratories had a lab accident of some sort and lost some of the samples. Councilman Workman: Do we know how many were lost or their pertinance? Jo Ann Olsen: There were scme of the samples that weren't destroyed so we could tell and what they did have didn't show any contamination and the w~lls were abandoned so they could not go back into then to obtain more samples. Peter's here, he can probably further explain. Councilman Workman: So the tests that w~re lost and then taken, we don't have to worry about? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. What we did see was okay. And the wells cannot be tapped into again. Councilman Workman: I don't know. With approximately 250 gallons of water fuel oil present in one tank and 200 gallons in another, I would be kind of leery of doing that but due to an accident at Pace Laboratories, portions of the samples frc~n Well 1 and Well 3 were lost and only partial results were obtained. If this Council feels confident in moving on with this with that, then I'll follow that direction. Mayor Chmiel: Peter, would you like to address that? Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman. I came tonight in case there were any questions about the develol~nent agreement but I can tell you everything we know about the, whatever it was that happened at Pace Labs. Protox was our contractor to do the tests that Councilman Johnson suggestion requested and they pulled the samples and then abandoned the wells. Filled them with grout and delivered the samples to Pace Labs which is the pre-sminent local laboratory for that type of test in this market and Pace Labs had a lab accident. Of all the .. City Council ~eting - September 11, 1989 times for that to happen but believe me I was not very pleased to see that so I asked them to prepare the letter explaining it to you and to put in the back of the Protox report. That's all the infozmation w~ have. They had done, as I understand it, about 40% of the tests. There w~s 3 w~lls. One ~_ll ~as dry so there were no samples. T~ two other wells, they. had done certain of the, apparently this is a situation ~here they take different samples and test ~ for different types of substances, and Councilman Johnson knowa a lot more about it than I do. They had done some of those tests on one of the wells and none on the other. There was no indicatio~ in any of thsm of any ground water pollution and the depth and location from those underground storage tanks was such that they had no reason to suspect that there would be any. pollution so t~., Protox, as you read in your report, felt I think confident enough to give you the report that they did. It's unfortunate that Pace had that accident. It's unavoidable certainly from o~r point of view. Maybe not from theirs but the only my to get the samples would be to drill a new well because the wells are full of grout. Councilman Workman: Is that s~ething that's, you're more of a technical person. Is that something you feel comfortable with as far as. I don't know what percentage of the tests were lost? Councilman Johnson: Do you have the tests there? Peter Beck: I' ye got the report. Councilman Johnson: It's ~ a while since I've read it. Peter Beck: It's in the letter from Pace. Councilman Johnson: When I originally read the report it didn't bother me too much. Lab accidents do happen and as he said, Pace Labs is probably the pr~niere lab here in the TWin Cities. There's not a lot of arc~ about that. ~en s~uebody comes into town to open up a lab, what they do is say we're going to cxxapete with Pace. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Jay, while ~u have an opportunity to take a look at that and review it, Paul ~u had scmethirg you wanted to address with this as well? Paul Krause: Thank you M~yor. I wanted to ask the City Council to delete stipulations G through N that were listed in the agreement there, the developer's contract that you had presented. ~nose stipulations pertain to conditions of a conditional use pexmit ard are not specifically items that would normally belong in a developer's agreement. Frankly I was a little bit over zealous and included ~ in there. I want to assu~e you though that they are included in the conditional use permit that's filed against the property and in no ~ay are we going to overlook ~. We just believe they don't belong in the developer's contract. I've got a revised developer's contract here tonight with those itsms deleted if ~u'd care to see copies of that. Councilman Workman: Are you talking Other Special Conditions, itsn 8? Paul Krause: Yes. Councilman Workman: And that would be it~as G thru N? City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 ~ul ~ause: ~s. Councilman Workman: N as in Nancy? Paul Krause: Right. Mayor Chniel: ~nis would be recorded where if not within here? Paul Krause: It's recorded with the conditional use pemnit with the County Recorder. Mayor C~niel: Okay. Councilman Johnson: The primary things is the organics that w~'re looking at and it appears the organic scans were done. I can't find the metal scans here so it may have been the metal scans that w~re lost. Here it is. Some of the organics were lost. Councilman Workman: Jay my question is, and not to put you on the spot because you just happen to be a convenient engineer. We asked them to perfonm these tests and is a significant amount of these tests missing that we... Councilman Johnson: No. Not to the expense of going down to the aquifer that they ~.nt down to sample on this. ~nis is sampling the same aquifer as what we are drawing our drinking water from. Generally an underground tank is not going to, a small tank like this would take years for it to get down to this 'aquifer unless there was interconnection with the well itself. We sample fairly close to this and had that analyzed by ours. I don't have a lot of problem with it. It's unfortunate the lab accident did happen but of what's there, there's nothing. They didn't detect anything anywhere of the analysis that were perfomued. They didn't split tb~ sample. They only took one. Peter Beck: If it would ease your mind a little bit on the subject of the underground tank. When they removed that tank they did do their tests, tested the soil under it and around it and found no evidence of any leakage so in terms of that being a cause. It pretty well ruled that out in the renoval process. Councilman Workman: I just wanted to bring it out as something that might be, and I don't know if it's a large gap that's missing. Councilman Johnson: If we were going out to drill wells in this area, we would probably have not gone to this aquifer to test the water anyway. We would have gone to one of the higher up aquifers that have a more likely chance of being contaminated. Councilman Workman: ~hen I would move approval. Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Do you want to put in the deletion of items G through N? Councilman Workman: Yes, with the deletions. City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the DeveloI~ent contract for ~ckankar Church as smended to delete items G through N under itom 8, Other Special conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I. APPROVE REVISIONS TO HERMAN FIELD PARK MASTER PLAN. councilman Johnson: Actually, what I want to talk about is the access into Hezman Field. I r~r in my. far back m~aory that I thought we had solved the access problom but it appears w~'ve never negotiated with the people to obtain. access. I'd like to have that looked into as to ~at the step is here. Is Lori here or any of the Park and Bec? Do you know about that Jim? Jim Mady: I know w~'ve been called... Councilman Johnson: The h~meo~rs don't. I mean to get there we have to buy ~ property, from some people to get to the park. ~nis is just a plan to developer it, the way I understand it. Don Ashworth: No. I don't believe we need to purchase land. One of the options presented a public improvement street that would go down to the park itself. Some of the neighbors were not thrilled with that idea, believirg it would cost more money through the extension of ~, water and streets than they likely would receive back am~ they really were not interested in seein~ the property develop...just their lot and did not ~nt it developed. My recollection is that we then came hack agreeing to just constzuct a driveway into the facility and I think Jim is nodding that I'm correct on that. Councilman Johnson: That's do~n the public right-of-way we already have there? Don Ashworth: Right. Councilman Johnson: And then ~ turn and go through s~me property, that w~ own? So w~'re not in the Lang's property? I see the Larg's back there with both their hands up. As they're c(xaing up, ~at w~'re working on tonight is how we're goirg to set up the field. It really doesn't have a lot to do with access. Ken fang: Well we received this in the mail today and the road w~'re talking about here is this particular road here to get to the park. This is the property line between our lot and the adjacent lot. ~nat's the only way you can get into it from this end. Don Ashworth: So your position is the City does not own the street that is there? Ken Lang: No. ~his is a proposed road that was never developed. Or a paper road I guess you could call it. Councilman Johnson: But the City still owns it. Ken Lang: Right but to get from here to the park, you have to go through our property and oum neighbor' s property.. City Council ~3eting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: What about this strip right there? But that's a separate issue from what we're going after tonight. Tonight is to approve the general layout of it but I wanted to bring that issue up for staff to take a look at and get back to the Lang's and the other property owners in the area. Ken Lang: Okay, fine. Thank you. Councilman Johnson moved, Co[~ncilman W~rkman seconded to approve the Revisions to the Herman Field Park Master Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. K. ACCEPT DONATION OF VEHICLE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT USE. Councilw~nan Dimler: Item (k) has to do with a donation of a vehicle to our Fire Department. It is a 1982 Pontiac Bonneville, 4 door, 6 cylinder, new tires and 110,000 miles on it. It's in excellent condition. My concern with this vehicle is that if we do accept it, that it be with a stipulation that next year they don't ccEe back and say well we need to replace this vehicle so we end up adding to our fleet and replace what was a gift with taxpayer's funds. I would accept the vehicle under those conditions that it cannot be replaced.. Mayor Chniel: Any further discussion? Councilman Workman: So you're saying it can't be replaced? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. That it's not an excuse to add, next year come and say, we're going to need another new vehicle because this Bonneville is worn out and then the taxpayer pays for another vehicle when it was originally a gift. If s(x~ebody else gives us another gift, that's fine. With that, I ~Duldmake a motion to accept with that concern taken into consideration. Councilw~Ean Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept donation of vehicle for Fire Department use contingent on it's not being replaced in the future. All voted in favor and the motion carried. L. AOCOUNTS PAYABLE. Councilman Workman: Accounts Payable. I wasn't able to Jo Ann get here on Saturday morning to meet with Cenvesco again. Did anything occur at that meeting? Jo Ann Olsen: Accounts Payable? Councilman Workman: Tne reason I bring it up is because we're incurring costs up there and I want to know what we're doing. I didn't think this was-at the point that we were incurring... Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we're incurring any costs are we? Paul Krause: There was a charge to rent the van for that field trip. City Council Meeting - Se~r 11~ 1989 Councilman Workman: No, Allan Larsen. Well I'm not going to be able to find it now of course. Give me one second Pm_re? Mayor C~niel: ~ Councilman Workman: Are we currently incurring any engineering costs up there? Jo Ann Olson: He has worked on sc~e of the plan review. Gary Warren: Those are pass through accounts to the developer for Allan [arson's time in reviewing their plans. We process thsm through the City. and then make an accounts billable and bill the developer for that time. Councilman Workman: So what I'm saying is, so would he have, would that have happened up there for him? For Genvesco? Gary Warren: Yes, quite possibly as part of the plan review. Councilman Workman: It looks rather large amd now I can't find it of course but I can review that with you I guess. Those are fees that we're going to get back? Gary Warren: That's correct. That's Oak View right? That's ~hat I'm used to calling it. Ah yes. We've had numerous revie~ involved with that. Councilman Workman: Hare it is. Yes, 24 hours. $1,874.88 up there. Gary. Warren: We've had I think 3 or even 4 suhnittals on that where we've had to go back and forth and produce staff reports on it and Allan has been involved with it fr~ the start. The coding that's on that invoice is our coding wherein it is billed to the developer. Councilman Workman: Okay. Say no more. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Ch~iel seconded to approve the Accounts Payable. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VIS ITOR PRESENTATIONS: KEVIN FINGER, 9151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Kevin Finger: Good evening Mr. MaWr and Council msmbers. Do you guys feel powerful? You should. Mayor C~miel: Just relax. Just talk to us like ~u would anybody else. Kevin Finger: Yes. That's easy for you to say, you're on that side. I want to thank you for allowing me this evening to voice my. concerns in regards to the Conditional Use Pemnit No. 85-1 that was given to the property, at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. which is across TH 101 from me. I live at 9151 Great Plains Blvd. which is approximately 2 miles south on TH 101 from TH 5. 0n July 31, 1989 I City Council Mseting - September 11~ 1989 delivered to the Planning Department a letter that represents my concerns in regards to the Conditional Use Pe~it No. 85-1 with copies going to City Council, Mr. Scott Hart and Mr. Ladd Conrad. For time sake I will ass~e that you have read this letter. This evening I would like to just brush over the following points. Number one, I feel the Northwest Nursery Wholesale is not operating as a wholesale nursery as defined by the City Ordinance N~r~er 47-AY, Section 1. Number two, the nursery has not operated within the site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. NUmber three, my frustrations in dealing with city staff and related co~issions. Mr. Mayor and fellow council m~mbers. I am fully aware that the City Council is very busy and it's meetings already go on past midnight and scmetimes past 1:00. For that reason it is imperative that we as residents try to resolve our differences to the best of our abilities. I have tried this. For the past 3 years I have spoken with the nursery at least twice a year. These responses were filled with either lies or simply they just did not care. The City staff has had the same problsm that I have had. Quoting Mr. Brown, foz~erly from the engineering department, frcm the Minutes of the January 4, 1989 Planning ~ission meeting. I quote, "All 3 times after visiting with him, ~cing the problem, I went back over to the nursery and gave th~ notice that hey, you've got a problem over here. You need to take care of it. All my attempts to do so failed." End of quote. The nursery has chosen not to listen to either the staff or myself. I c(x~e before you tonight asking that the City of Chanhassen revoke the conditional use permit #85-1. The nursery is in violation of the conditions set forth in it's permit. First, the nursery is not operating as a wholesale nursery. The City ordinance defines wholesale nursery as follows and I quote, "an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance but not including power equi~m%ent such as gas or engine lawn mowers and farm implements." End of quote. Tt~ nursery has only 15 acres of actual trees growing in the ground. The rest of the operation is trees, evergreens and flowering shurbs that are brought in by the s~mi load and held only until sold. ~ne planning staff has asked for an opinion fr~ the City Attorney as to what constitutes growing. It was his opinion that because the ordinance was so loosely drafted, that any of the plants on their property could be construed as growing. I believe that one has to go back and determine w~at conditions and information was present at the time it was drafted to determine what Council had in mind. At the January 23, 1985 Planning Cc~mission meeting, Mr. Van Hoff and owner of the nursery stated, and I quote, he also wante~ the c~m~ission to know that they only harvest in the spring and fall and the storage would be for these crops. Burlapped until sold. He also noted that the greenhouse would be used for a propagation facility to take clippings, root them and then plant them outside. E~d of quote. I would interpret harvest to mean pulling plants out of the ground. It did not sound to me that he meant that they harvest the plants by picking them off the ground already in containers and putting them on trucks. That would be like saying a farmer is harvesting when he takes his corn out of the corn crib and puts it in the grain truck. Mr. Van Hoff in his August 14, 1989 letter to Jo Ann stated that he ~nted his nursery to be compared to Bachman's facility in Lakeville. I thought about this. I thought maybe the jargon in the nursery business was different than what I was used to so I called Bach~an's. Tne individual I spoke with said the Bactxm3n's Lakeville facility has two sides to it. One is that they grow trees, etc. on over 250 acres of land. Then they sell these to nurserymen, landscapers, etc.. He called this operation the wholesale operation. ~ne other side is where tt~y buy plants from down south, California, Oklahoma, Texas, where they can grow ths~ year round ard have im~igrant labor City Council Meeting - Septenber 11, 1989 come in. They can buy the~ cheaper that way. They buy the~ by the seni load~ bring then in and then they resell the~ to nurser~, landscapers, etc.. That's basically what Northwest Nursery Wholesale does. This he called rewholesaling. I asked him, is this a c(xmnon term for an operation like that or could that j~st be referred to as a wholesale nursery. F~ said no. Anyone in the business knows the difference in those terms. To best understand how the owners really planned on how this business was to be run, we should know more about them. Mr. Jim Wilson. Mr. Wilson owns Wilson NUrsery ~hich also offices out of the same location as does Northwest Nursery Wholesale. Wilson NUrsery owns growing fields in New (~ermany. ~here is only a pole shed in New Gexmany and no office. It see~s obvious to me that these plants are take~ fr~ t/x)se fields and sold at the 915~ Great Plains Blvd. location. That doesn't make Northwest Nursery sound like a wholesale nursery. It sounds like a rewholesale nursery .... I think that's where they get all the evergreens. It's obvious that these two individuals had a good business purpose in startir~ this operation. Mr. Wilson could supply shade trees and flowering shurbs and Mr. Van Hoff could supply the evergreens. They'd get great prices. However, ~y should not be allowed to do this to circ~uvent the law. They planned fr~m day one to ship in most of their trees and just have a holding place until they could get them sold. I cannot imagine it, but let's say you don't agree with me on this issue. Let's say you think Kevin, forget about th~ wholesale nursery issue. The City Attorney. says that growing is growing so forget about it. Don't think about it an~umore. Okay. The other issue I raise is black and whi~e and that's the issue in regards to their site plan. ~he nursery supplied this site plan, I know it's tough to see but they supplied this site plan to the Planning C~ssion and this ~s approved by the Planning Cc~nission and the City Council. The thing I want you to know is they've got the growing fields here. ~bey just have a holding area right here. Here's TH 1~1. Up here would be Llaman Blvd. okay? So that is north. So they just have this holding area here and this for growing fields. Okay? The site plan that was given to the Planning Omunission in January was this. F~re's TH 101. Here was that little area of holding area and this is the growing fields that was on that wrapped around to ~re. Now this site plan shows all of this as holding areas. It says balled and burlapped trees. This is interesting. Growing is growing right? This says tree growing field, tree growing field, tree growing field, balled and burlapped shade trees, balled and burlapped trees, balled and burlapped evergreens. I thought they all grew. Maybe not. ~hey also had this area here, here and all of this area here they used. This is what t~ use now. K~ in mind this site plan ~s not approved by anyone. On the original site plan they were told, right along here which is right along TH 101 is a scrc~n~ lng. I'm going to pass out a letter to you. Actually the last letter I had but the first one that's on top is a letter doted DeoHnbe~ 10, 1986 fr(xa staff. It was a certified mail telling the nursery that they have not _cc~np__~lied with their conditional use penmit site plan. T~y have. not put up a scrc~n~. The important part of this letter also is, it states to them that if they are not in cc~pliance with their site plan, flay're not in cc~plia~ with their conditional use permit. I think that's important, especially in their case. The next letter I gave you was dated December 18th. It was basically a confirmation from staff that evidentally they had talked to them and agreed that by June 1st the nursery ~Duld have everything taken care of. This last sumner, which is not June of 1987. ~his is June of 1989. ~hey just put in the screening along this front side. It consists of 5 very, very thin evergreens that I don't consider permanent because the roots are about 6 to 8 inches out of the ground. That's not the way I plant my trees. The other areas I'd like to City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 have you keep in mind is the difference in these two site plans. Hey that works nice Jo Ann. Notice how this one, this is the barn. Right now they go beyond the barn. They go all the way in back here with all of their balled and burlapped trees. Tnis is the house here. They c~ne from the house all the way out. They' re using all of that. They're coming way down to the road. Their original site plan. Here's the barn. Nothing behind the barn. Future site they say for storage. These are supposed to be growing fields. These are balled and burlapped trees. It's obvious that they're not compling with their site plan. The other area that should be of concern to you is that they started to fill in an area right here. Tney started this January 28th. I called Scott Hart at the office. He was very helpful. He got s~neone out. They issued a stop work order. The third piece of paper I gave you, Jo Ann was on vacation that day so it was a little hectic. Jo Ann got back from vacation on the 31st of July which w~s a M~nday. She w~nt out with Steve Kirchnann from the office and what you have there in your hand is an inspection report. Note, fill extended 20 foot since stop work issued. Stop work order moved. Then they didn't have in proper erosion control. These are the type of people I 'm dealing with. The other thing is, on I believe it was August 3rd, staff worte a letter to the nursery asking th~n to reapply. To redo their site plan for conditional use permit. I can't understand that. ~hy would you ask someone to apply to make scmething legal that they've bee~ doing illegally for 3 years when time after time they go be?ond. I think they first of all have to operate under the old laws, old plan before they can evex be considered the new, if they should even do that. I don't think they should. Through all this I had, as I 'm sure you can tell, beccn~ s(xNewhat frustrated with the city staff. It does no good for you people here to set policy if the staff does not have the time to enforce them. The problems I have had with the staff should not rest on the shoulders of Jo Ann. R~nember Barb Dacy was on staff when the first infraction site plan occurred. The Planning Omnnission admitted they were not informed as to who's job it was to enforce the conditional use permit. The City Council since July 31, 1989. Oops, I'm sorry. Scott Hart has had the same letter I sent to you, the City Council, since July 31, 1989. His response is, he has to get an opinion from the Planning Department. Does Scott Hart enforce the conditional use permits or not? As you can see from those site plans, anyone could see that they're not in accordance with their site plan. Engineering was told in January at the Planning Oarmission meeting, to come up with an idea to solve the drainage problem. The only solution they could come up with was taking land out of my use to solve the nursery's problem. Everybody is passing the buck. No one is willing to take the initiative and get the job done so I've come to you. Mr. Mayor, Council mem%be~s, I have had enough. The Co~%ncil recently w~nt on record that you will start to take a hard line on conditional use pemnit violators. I have sustained over $2,000.00 worth of damage to my property because of the nursery's total disregard of the law. How much more do I have to lose? If you really are going to take this hard line approach, this is your opportunity to send a message to the violators in other areas of the city as this truly is a blatant violation of a conditional use permit. Again I ask this Council take the initiative and revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1 that was granted to 9150 Great Plains Blvd.. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. Mr. Finger, would you explain the cost of the $2,000.00 to you. I guess I'm concerned about that. Could you tell us how you spent it? 10 City Council ~ting - Sept~ 11; 1989 Kevin Finger: I haven't spent it because I'm going to have anythirg fixed as long as the drainage keeps coming. ~at it entails is, I had a wind break along the, it w~uld be the northwest side of my property. I had a row of evergreens. I've lost 12 - 6 foot evergreens and because of the erosion and I know it sounds unbelieveable but unless you see it, just the erosion of the water comirg down underneath the culvert of TH 101, I have approximately 18 inches of sand amd bark on my property, that covers gosh, probably a 300 square foot area at least that ~s to be r~moved. Councilw~aan Dimler: And that ~uld be the cost? Kevin Finger: Yes. All those things. Councilwoman Dimler: But you haven't done it yet? Kevin Finger: No, because it w~uldn't do me any good. Council~c~an Dimler: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, is this place where they're filling here, is the saue place that was before us last year where they. were filling without a wetland alteration permit and we went after them last year for this? They're doing it again? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. What happened is that it w~nt in front of the planning Cc~nission. What staff did was to take th~m back through the conditional use permit, wetland alteration permit process to bring the violations in front of the Council and Planning Oc~mission. It was tabled at the Planning Oommission until they could c~me in with revised plans. The applicant sukmitted a letter, this was while I was on maternity leave, that t~. wanted to wait until their busy season was over so it got tabled. So l~-s, it is the same issue that ~s initiated last year. Councilman Johnson: So their busy season got over. It did get brought back up and now their busy. season is about to get over again. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. When I realized what had happened. ~hat it had ~ just forgotten about again, then we did initiate the process again. So yes, it's the same issue. Councilman Johnson: That was right at the time Barb ~ms quitting. Jo Ann Olsen: They do have a deadline in the letter that Kevin Finger mentioned. The most recent one that wa sent for the next deadline is Se~r 25th, the next deadline. That tt~y have to make application and t~ know exactly what is required for the site plan this time. 7~at's been some of the problem. We've ~ getting incomplete applications and things like that. Councilman Johnson: Now, in order to enforce a conditional use permit, we're telling him to make an application for a new conditional use permit? Jo Ann Olsen: What we do sc~eti~ is, they want to expand obviously. ~hey already have done that and so what we have alwaFs done in the past is to bring then back in front of the Planning Omanission to revise the conditional use 11 City Council M~eting - September 11, 1989 permit. Not necessarily to approve it but to show what has happened. What they want to do. If they agree to it, then they can you know. Otherwise, they deny it, then it would go, they would have to take it back to what was originally approved. Councilman Johnson: ~nat's a policy, type thing that, that is the way the old, previous Council's ran thing. It's something I've objected to in the past because w~ never w~nt after violators in the way that a cop or a judicial t.upe syst~n would go after a violator. We said, c~x~e in and apply. If somebody filled the wetlands, w~ said c~ne in and apply for the wetlands alteration permit and then we gave them a tongue lashing. Big deal. I would like to see this on the September 25th agenda as a revoction of the conditional use permit. Councilwcman Dimler: Is Mr. Yon Hoff here so we could hear from him? Mayor Chniel: That was my. question. Is he here? Jo Ann Olsen: No. I don't believe he is. Councilwoman Dimler: There's somebody back there. Jim Wilson: I'm just Jim Wilson. Owner of Northwest Nursery Wholesale. If it pleases the Council and Mr. Finger, if I could take a few minutes to respond to some of the things. If it's the appropriate time. Otherwise I believe we are on the agenda for September 25th. One thing I would like to mention as owner and President of Northwest Nursery Wholesale, I wouldn't have known Mr. Finger if he walked up to me and punched me in the nose. He claims that twice a y~ar he has come to the nursery and talked to us about a problem. He has not talked to me one time. We've been there 5 years. I believe he referred to a January 23, 1985 meeting where Mr. Von Hoff and I were in here for I believe it was a final vote on the amendment to the zoning ordinance where they allowed the conditional use of a wholesale nursery, in that zoning district. Mr. Finger and his relatives were here for the variance on his property across the street. That same night we were prepared with a complete slide presentation. Further detailed, whatever presentation that my. partner had put together, Mr. Von Hoff, showing slides of the various other wholesale operations around the Twin Cities. At that time nobody seemed interested in taking the time to look at it including Mr. Finger. If the wate-~, the drainage problem is the only thing, apparently it isn't. ~nere' s a lot of, I'm flabbergasted. Taere' s a lot of other issues brought up here that I'm not aware of. I knew, and I believe the gentleman I talked to was Mr. Finger's father who lives in the house right on the road. Kevin I believe lives in the house behind it. Taere's a question there whether the property he's talking about that's affected by the drainage is even his. Kevin Finger: I own both pieces of property. Jim Wilson: He owns both pieces. His father lives in the house on the road. He lives in the house behind. On a couple of difference occasions... Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Wilson? Can I have you just come ~p here so we can get this on tape please? Councilman Johnson: Is this going to be on the agenda the 25th already? 12 City Council Meeting - Sept~ 11~ 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: No. The application deadline is the 25th. It wouldn't be in until October. It would be in front of the Planning Commission. It wouldn't be front of you until the end of October unless you move for us to bring... Councilman Johnson: tk~less we look at it as a revoction. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. The~ it could be on a public hearing and I don't know if w~ can get it on the 25th. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that has to be a public hearing? Jim Wilson: The one thing I'd like to mention before I get back on this is, Mark Von Hoff, my partner ~ho's the Vice President of Northwest Nursery Wholesale has ~_n handling this whole thing with the City. I ca~e here tonight just because I knew, I got it through the grapevine that Mr. Finger was on the agenda and I figured it was pertaining to our nursery so I showed up here. I'm not prepared with any plans or whatever. I don't know if this in fact is .the approved conditional use penmit plan. It could be. I'm not denying it but I'm not sure that it is. The second plan that he presented is a proposed plan, as be stated. We were in scmet~ earlier this spring. There again, my. partner handled it. I believe it was going to be rec(m~ae~ed by. the Planning Oan~ission that our request for wetland alterations and what expansion that we wanted to do pertaining to the wetland property. Ms going to be approved. I believe that was tbe public hearing. It was a public hearing and Mr. Finger and his family showed up amd raised all these objections and whatever ~hich was first knowledge to L~ on that and it was tabled at that time. I believe that is the correct thing but anyhow, getting back to this. Again, I'm flabbergasted. Mr. Finger has never talked to me personally. If he's talked to anybody at the nursery., it's probably e~plo.u~es but I'm there every day. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor? I don't know whe~ this is going to c~me back up. I had the opportunity to get out there with the Finger's twice now. I've sat at their home. It would appear as though you're try. lng to kind of turn this around and make him, he's done nothing wrong. Jim Wilson: (Ih, I'm not saying that. Councilman Workman: So whe~ he's seen .uou out there or not, I don' t have a reason to believe that he didn't contact s~meb~ at your nursery. When I see reports, and this Ms produced for me by Kevin and Vallette before. You're obviously doing something wrong and disregarding whatever the City has said is reasonable. It ~Duld appear to me that the wholesale nursery, would need to go before the Board of Adjustments or they need wetland alteration permits. I don't know if you've driven by there but there's a whole list of things that have. gone wrong. I think we ~-~ to discuss this in full as soon as we can and revocation of the peunit in hind sight is possible, that's certainly where I think I might head. We're turning this into the longest visitor presentation after the shortest consent agenda. Jim Wilson: I would just like to reiterate on the point. Had Mr. Kevin Finger approached myself or my partner, the owners and said we've got a problen here, then we could address that but there's not one letter to me. Not one letter from Mr. Finger. Anytime tl~ City. has approached us with a letter, whatever. Staff. Jo Ann. Barb Dacy. We have responded and I believe that's on file. 13 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Workman: There's been stop work orders and 3 days the sign was moved and 20 feet of fill further out. Jim Wilson: I was there when that happened. It was a stop work order. We stopped the trucks. My partner got on th~ phone to Jo Ann. She verbally said go ahead. Bring in the soil. Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to do is sort of stop this. What I'd like to do is get this on the next agenda and bring it forth and bring all the information that w~ have. Jo Ann Olsen: As a revocation? Mayor Chmiel: Consideration of revocation. Councilman Boyt: I think, before w~ do this, that everybody ought to be aware that conditional use permits are not that difficult to get. We could, if you want to revoke it, you can revoke it and he can come in here and apply for it 2 w~eks later and all we can do is set conditions. It's basically a use that's allowed in that zone. The Council has the right to set conditions so Kevin, don't anticipate that that nursery is going to be gone next year. The conditions may be different. Kevin Finger: I'm not saying I want them gone. I want a wholesale nursery there. I don't want a rewholesale nursery there. Councilman Boyt: I agree with everybody. There's probably not a lot more that we need to say other than we're not going to put these people out of business. Councilman Johnson: Is there any more filling going on at this time? Jim Wilson: No. We are on a complete hold. We're doing absolutely no filling. As a matter of fact, if we want to go back to 1985 when we started, it's true. What Mr. Finger said is true. We ran Wilson Nursery. Sales operated out of there and Northwest Nursery. Since then the only thing that Wilson Nursery Sales does or Wilson Nursery does is I maintain an office in the building. It's convenient for me because I'm President of both companies. There's no equi~ent. No employees of Wilson. It's strictly Northwest Nursery Wholesale that operates out of there. We've actually gone down. I invite you Council people to come out and take a look at the site. Look at what damage Mr. Finger is talking about that's been done. As a matter of fact, this winter the culvert that he's talking about, the drainage comes down our driveway. Oanes frcm the neighbors. Goes down the ditch. Tnrough a culvert and onto the front lot. I don't even know if it's his property. It could be the right-of-way. The County or State right-of-way. We' ve contacted the State... Mayor Chniel: There's also water contained on TH 101. Many times I see that you're watering, that I've gone across there and there is puddles that continue out onto the roadway so there has ~n problems. I've looked at sc~e of the problems that are there. There are existing problens so what we'll do is put this on the agenda with those considerations and invite you back at the next Council meeting to have a little longer deliberations at that particular time. Thank you. 14 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I just have one quick public anno~t that I'd like to make for visitor presentation. T~at the Red Cross Bloodmobile will, on September 15th, which is Friday from 1:~0 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. be.located at Chanhassen Bowl. Those of you who w~uld like to donate blood to the .Red Cross, please feel free to do so. Are there any more visitor presentations? LuAnn Wallentine: I'm LuAnn Wallentine. I live at 507 Chart View. Chanhas~. I've c~me to find out when w~ can get a fence behind our yards, behind the shoppi~ center. Mayor Chmiel: Can I answer that real quick? LuAnn Wallentine: Yes. Mayor (~miel: That's in process right now. T~dd, maybe y~u'd like to address that. Todd Gerhardt: The next ite~ on the agenda is award of bids for the north side parking lot improv~ments. As a part of those awards there is a fence to be constructed back behind the retail center. LuAnn Wallentine: Soon I hope. We have put through debris, people and now I have all these good stolen things being stashed in our yard and I don't appreciate it. Mayor Ch~iel: Appreciate your call too. ~hank you. We will address it and it will be taken care of and a fence will be up by when Todd? Any idea? Councilman Johnson: Let's tell the contractor that's a high priority. Mayor Ch~iel: Sometime yet this fall? LuAnn Wallentine: Because in the beginning of May Mr. Winkles sent out Vernco Tree Trimmers. They have to trim the back of our trees because there's earth movers and that crashed ~ up and mangled thsm so they have to be trimmed first before this fence goes up. Also they have requested that NSP come and trim the top of the trees also. Now ~hat kind of a fence are ~u talking about? Is it going to look at Havlik's f~? Todd Gerhardt: I believe I can match it up to what Havlik's has .there. ~he consistenc~, should be similar to the materials that are there. Even though the plans specify, cedar. LuAnn Wellentine: What kind of fence does he have Todd? Todd Gerhardt: Split rail. LuAnn Wallentine: Is it red~xx~? Todd Gerhardt: Havlik's is red~od...change from redwood to cedar. LuAnn Wallentine: Is it redwood? 15 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Todd Gerhardt: Havlik's is redwood. We'd have to...change order... LuAnn Wallentine: Okay, are you talking 6-7 foot fence? Todd Gerhardt: I believe it's 6 or 7 feet. Councilman Johnson: Havlik's is 7. Havlik's has a slightly worse problem of the lights going straight at then frcm the... LuAnn Wallentine: I have a problem. My husband and I have a problem. We look right into the back doors and a 7 foot fence is going to keep the people frc~ the alley out of our yard. ~nat is all. Councilman Johnson: Do you want a 22 foot fence? LuAnn Wallentine: Could you make it? Gary Warren: It's something that can be easily worked out with the north side lot construction here. I think the details and the coordination as far as working with NSP and whatever, we all are aware of it and intend to deal with it at this time so we'll work out the final details, height and other with the neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Are there any other additional visitor presentations? ANA~ OF BIDS: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-17. Gary Warren: Briefly, as Council is aware, we readvertised for this project based on only receiving one bid at the last solicitation and we're happy to report that we received three quotes. The low bid supplied by Shafer Construction who was our phase 1 downtown contractor at $542,462.30. Shafer is very anxious to get on with this project and interested in getting as much of it done this year as possible so we're vexy comfortable with Shafer and their list of subcontractors. As noted, the readvertising basically has saved us about $62,000.00 so we're real comfortable with their bid. I would recon~nend awarding of the Project No. 87-17 to Shafer Construction Cc~pany. Resolution 989-102: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the bid for the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 87-17 to Shafer Construction in the anount of $542,462.30. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I should point out these are HRA f~%ds. Mayor C~iel: Yes. Housing and Redevelol~nent Authority. It doesn't come out of our City's hoppers. PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular time from the audience? 16 City Council Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 Mayor ~iel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing] All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I don't know what the drivin~ force is for some of these people but for my. 3 years on here I've seen scme of these names all 3 years. I would like to see staff directed to o~me up with a better plan to discourage people from having delinquent utility bills. Don Ashworth: I should note that w~ had sent out a notice. It was on Gordon ~itez utility account. Total charge $348.~0. ~hat had been deleted as the amount was paid. The check was insufficient. Staff would rec~m%~ putting it back on again and did .~x)u ~nt to bring out the one letter? Mayor Ch~iel: Yes. I received a letter fr~n a Mr. Michael Clark. It's directed to the Mayor and City Council. In this letter he indicates that he's in contact with our City Manager. He told Mr. Ashworth he didn't think the City could charge for the service that he ~asn't using which was a ~ service. He infom~ed me that this is a city ordinanoe and I asked if the ordinance has ~ challenged in court. He said he wasn't sure. I assured that Mr. Ashworth that I did not want to pursue legal action however I bad no intention of paying for something I wasn't using. He explained to Mr. Ashworth that I recently had purchased by house and had no objections to hooking up to city sewer. I asked him to cancel these charges until I was able to connect to the city sewer syst~. He told he wasn't sure he could do that amd he said he would check and get back to me. As of today I've not heard frc~a him. ~he next contact I had with the City was a letter frcm the City Treasurer. I received an estimate to connect the ~ s.vstem that cost to me will be $1,2~0.~ to $1,40~.~. I will connect to the city syst~a~ in October if you cancel surcharges through September. If you decide not to cancel current charges, I will stay on my septic tank and be forced to pursue legal action against t/~ city. Don Ashworth: Staff would recommend that the Council go ahead to act to certify this. That will start the 30 day clock to insure that we can get the it~ on in October. I will schedule this particular item for Se~ 25th giving the property owner the opportunity to c~me in and present his position along with a staff report. Councilman Johnson: This comes back to us once more, is that correct? Don Ashworth: That's correct. But in the meantime, the clock has ~ started and it can get on for certification this year. If we do not adopt the entire role, again starting the clock, we're not going to be able to certify it if the City Council acts to uphold that certification and again, I will put it on for the 2§tho Councilman Johnson: ~his particular one, the $78.~. Don Ashworth: I'm sure that he has sanitary, sewer available to the property. $1,1~0.~-$1,200.~0 is not that high so I would ass~ne that it's within 10~-150 feet of the sewer and he has just chose~ not to connect prior to this time. Mayor Ch~iel: The assumption was that there are requirements by the State and also the City to make those connections to no longer be on... 17 City Council M~eting - September 11~ 1989 Don Ashworth: There is an ordinance and the ordinance is really premised On the fact that w~'re trying to protect the environment to insure that we do not have any type of problems with our septic system~. If there is an opportunity for people to connect, they should connect. That's the basis of the ordinaace. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Do I have a motion for certification of delinquent utility accounts? Councilman Boyt: I would make that motion with the addition that staff also be directed to c(x~e back to us with their ideas on how to keep people fr(xa voluntarily choosing to not pay their utility bill. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ~89-103: Councilman Boytmoved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve certification of delinquent utility, accounts and that staff be directed to come up with a better plan to discourage people from having delinquent utility bills. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANI2E. Councilman Johnson: As we wait for Jim to come back, I think we ought to point out that there was a misprint in the newspaper and you can mowyour yard after 6:00 in the evening. It was supposed to have said 10:00 p.m.. Not 6:00 p.m.. %~nere was a retraction. Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you like to address this? Jim Chaffee: First of all I'd like to say that there was a mistaken in the paper and I didn't hear all that transpired but you may mow your lawns up until 10:00 according to the ordinance and the paper has it wrong. Dave Peterson and I squared it away and the correction was printed in the paper the next w~ek, but very, very tiny Dave. So you all can go ~ and check your Villager's and I think you'll find it now. At a previous council meeting we did present the noise ordinance and suggested that we hold a public hearing regarding the amendment to our present nuisance ordinance to incorporate some of the problems that we've ~n having with noises. At that meeting Council brought up a few good suggestions concerning changes or additions to t_he amendment as suggested at that time. One of th~u you might, if you look in your packets, was the suggestion from Councilman Boyt that we change the boat, that was previously in the ordinance, to watercraft which would in effect give us control over the jet skis, and you may r~m~anber some of the problems we were having with those. Another item that was added at the suggestion of Councilman Workman was the matter of dogs and barking dogs and of course that would address some of the problems we've had previously in that area. After it hit the newspapers we did receive some calls from other people, other groups. One of the~ being the farmers in the city. who were concerned about agricultural machinery and if they would be ex,pt from the ordinance. Of course, we did entertain that thought and add that as an exception to the ordinance. The only other thing, I guess the most controversial issue that was brought to the Council last year, almost a year ago, was the sno~mobile clubs being, well actually the operation of sno~obiles being restricted from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.. We eliminated 18 City Council Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 that entirely fr~n the ordinance hopefully making it palpable to that group itself. We think it's a very workable ordinance. We think it addresses all the ~s brought up by the Oouncil and the cc~mmity as w~ receive calls ar~ we're reccmm.=nding approval. Mayor Ch~iel: As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address any of the specific items in regard to the noise ordinance? John Waldron: My. name is John Waldron. I'm with Lyman Lamber Omnpany. I had talked to Jim Chaffee and asking him if there had ~ any. problems this year at all with any noise with our operation. Some of you might recall we came in last fall and got a site approval for doing an addition at our millwork operation, Automated Building Components and also put that fence up and that sort of thing. At that time the previous, there were some residents frcm across the tracks in wren Prairie that said that they were having a proble~ with the noise. I think since that time the developer has put a fence UP over there but we also, at t3~ request mainly of Jo Ann and the City Oouncil, tried to do some things and we were working there like early morning hours or late hours. Not work out close to the tracks, things like that and I think we've been a good r~ighbor in that respect because there hasn't ~_n a single cc~plaint this year and it's ~ a busy year and we've had ~ where we've started at 5: ~ in the morning and that sort of thing. There is in here in a couple areas like in n~aber B. You've got other devices enitting sound. I don't know ~hett~r that could apply to a forklift or whatever. And under D, you've got motor vehicles of any. kind that have any disturbing noise so I guess what I'd like to know is one of two things. N~mber one, we're in the industrial park and our yard just happens to back up to the railroad tracks ~hich on the other side of that is wren Prairie. Any opinion on how that's going to he handled? If under this noise ordinance s~mebody c(xaes to Mr. (~affee and sa.rs, under D that they've got a disturbing noise coming from our property because we do have an operation that whs~ it's busy, when the contractors %snt their materials the next day, and we have to basically do what it takes to get the material out. Councilman Johnson: ~his is B of paragraph 22 and paragraph 22 starts, the making of noise that unreasonably or unnecessarily annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers, etc.. So you have to throw reasonableness and necessity into it to where just because somebody can hear a fork truck running, they have to prove that you're being unreaso _m~_ble in your actions. These A thru D are exax~les. These are examples and it can actually go beyond these. These are just a list of specific examples though. It's not, I don't think that there's a probl~ with it as is. John Waldron: If there's not a probl~, would there be a major objection to having under exceptions put a G that says, nounal operation of motor vehicles in the industrial park? Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if I'd want to do that at this time because that would be saying that we could then run our industrial parks 24 hoUrS a day. John Waldron: Which is exactly ~hat... Councilman Johnson: Most do. 19 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 John Waldron: The last mayor said, w~ don't care if you guys operate 24 hours a day. Councilman Boyt: He didn't carry the majority in that particular vote though. That just happened to be his opinion. John Waldron: Tnat was in the discussion where we got the site plan approval right? Councilman Boyt: Right, I know but you also got several conditions on that and I re%~er very specifically the co~laints the people from Eden Prairie and I'm quite pleased you haven't had any complaints. Councilman Johnson: You' ye done a good j ob. Councilman Boyt: And that's all we asked of you. But there w~re several of us, at least two of us that I can recall, that made it quite clear that w~ were going to be real responsive to complaints when we got t_hem. Well you did what, as you said, is a good neighbor. You went out and you took care of that and you haven' t had any complaints and I think that's all we' re asking in the noise ordinance is to make it clear to people what they can do and what we'd prefer that they not do. You seem to be acting within the spirit of the ordinance. I agree with Jay, I don't think it's a problen. John Waldron: I feel that we are also but when I see something coming here that says under number D that scmebody can complain about any other disturbing noise, that leaves it very discretionary what somebody calls a disturbing noise. We have a situation where we have a facility in Long Lake. There the forklifts, it's a truss plant and the forklifts r,an at night time also, things like that. There have been different times where there were cc~plaints as far as noise, mainly from the forklifts operating at night time and up there they have the ordinance that has to do with the State level of decibel levels of noise and any time it's been checked, we were never anywhere near the noise levels as far as the State goes but here we don't have sc~ething like that. It's purely discretionary. Jim Chaffee: John and I did talk on t_he phone and I didn't think it would be a problen and I don't think he thinks it's going to be a problen either. He has shown that he can work and continue his operations without causing a disturbance or at least we haven't received any complaints. I'd like to just point out that we will not act on anything unless we do receive a cc~plaint or unless it so blatant that the officer driving by has to do something but typically we're going to act only on complaint and I can't think of a situation where we would actually shut a business down for receiving one cc~plaint like this. We would typically work through our present system of talking to people first. Trying to find out what the noise is caused by. and work reasonably with people. We will continue to do this. Councilman Johnson: As long as you're here, Jo Ann? Was there a condition in the conditional use permit there, the expansion, about stacking height of lumber behind the fence? Jo Ann Olsen: The fence, the outdoor storage, everything has to be totally screened. I don't know if we talked about the lumber. 20 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 11~ 1989 Mayor C2m~el: Depend in~ on the sight l ine~ Councilman Johnson: Yes. Like you said, nobody's complaining. It's just that I noticed when I was up there last that tt~ stackirg of lumber in one yard's about twice as high as the fence was. John Waldron: Now that was in the back. Councilman Johnson: Yes, in the back. John Waldron: Right and the only discussion w~ had at the time ~as, that new cedar fence that we put up? Was the sight line fr(x~ TH 5, was that sight line going bo be high enough that you w~uldn't ~_~ any stacked lumber and I don't believe you see any stacked l~nbex in that part of the yard at all. Oouncilman Johnson: No. Just from other public streets on the other side. John Waldron: Right. That was way in the back of the yard. Councilman Johnson: That's something else w~'re not considering. It just r~inded me of it because I forgot to ask Jo Ann but sinoe you c~me here, it r~inded me to ask her about that. Check into that. John Waldron: We fully interd to be a good neighbor but whe~ you've got really ambiguous stat~aents in here, that leaves it open and then plus you throw in that it's ~den Prairie. The only people that could cc~plain is ~den Prairie because there's no other residents anywhere near there. Councilman Johnson: They still count. John Waldron: I know they still count. Councilman Johnson: Even though they chose to live in Hennepin County, they. still count. Mayor Ch~tel: It's not really their fault John. I guess from what you're doirg, you're livirg within the intent of the regulations right now. I don't see ~ahere that's going to be a problem as far as this Council is concexned. Workirg with those conditions that you have presently, you're in confozmanoe with our requirements and as you've indicated, you've not had a c(]~plaint from anyone within the area since that last one ar~ we appreciate that as well. John Waldron: The only thing that scares me is there ~_re, the people 'that were here r~m~_r a couple residents that c~ae over there that were getti~3 pretty excited. At that point they had never even talked to us or anything as far as noise goes and if there's a noise ordinance that comes out like this and they end up deciding that yes, it is a disturbing noise and decide to make c(xaplaints and Mr. Chaffee's got to end up checkirg it out and we very well might not be doing anything than what we've done this suxmer. T~at's what causes probl~ns. Jim Chaffee: Roger, under our present nuisance ordinance, what does it say about noises? Do you have that available? I think it's even more vague under our present ordinance. 21 City Council M~eting - September 11, 1989 Roger Knutson: Yes, it's very vague. Causing or comnittlng any unnecessary noise, annoying vibrations. John Waldron: I appreciate your time. I just wanted to end up going on record to express our concern. We do intend to be good neighbors just as w~ have been all along over there. I think that ~ w~nt out of our way, I know ~ w~nt out of our way to make sure those trees were there and w~ end up putting that fence and the landscaping and all that sort of thing and we fully intend to do it but there's some new people on the Council and we've been there 10-11 years already and our type of business, if we're going to have the business, we have to really be able to take care of our custcr~ers and when they want it in one day, sometimes that means working awful long hours. Councilman Johnson: You've done a good job over the last year because 'like you said, the folks from Eden Prairie ~re s~t towards the fanatical side last year and if they had heard any noise, they would have been in here again this ~u~ar so you must be doing something right because they ~ren' t the type of group that was going to stop unless it really, I think Elmer's probably keeping a short lease on the crew out there and doing a good job. John Waldron: Maybe that fence helped too. Councilman Johnson: ~ne fence may have helped too. Mayor Chniel: John, hopefully we' 11 have you for another 20 more years plus. John Waldron: (Ih w~' 11 be here. Mayor (~mniel: Good. Thanks. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'd like to make a motion we close the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to bring up some concerns. Sc~e of you remenber when I ran for office last year I instituted a citizens alert ccmxnittee. I have been in contact on various issues with citizens that I think are concerned about this. I did a slightly unscientific survey by simply alerting the public and getting their gut level response. This is sort of like the survey that Bill Boyt is proposing and I think the noise ordinance should have been on that survey. I think the responses are legitimate and from everything that I've heard is that most people don't want it. They don't see a good reason for it. The feeling is that Co~ncil has the obligation to react to what the majority of the people want. Not just what the few want that have been oming in here and complaining and I don't mean to disregard their complaints ause certainly they have been listened to and they can still call public safety and they can get response frc~ ~lic safety under our current nuisance ordinance, as loose as that may be. However, since what we're proposing is also very vague and discretionary in nature, I would caution against instituting such an ordinance. When it ccmes to noise anongst neighbors such as radios,TV' s, stereo's, that type of thing, I like to encourage neighbor talking to neighbor. You know you go and you tell your neighbor in a nice way that your stereo is bothering us and would you please turn it down. I think most people are 22 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 11, 1989 a~able to that. Friendliness. If they are not, again they can call public safety but I don't think that should be the first response. I also believe that people have a lot of c(mxmon sense as far as usirg their lawn mowers and snow blow, rs and that t2pe of thing and I w~uld tend to trust them. I know there are some violators but again, at that point then you call public safety, ar~ they can get involved but it shouldn't be the first response. I basically don't like to see government gettirg too involved in ou~ personal lives and I see this as being rather restrictive on our lives. I guess now that I see that even the East Germans are gainirg s(x~e freedoms, I really hate to see Chanhass~ residents be restricted more. Those are my ommmm~ts. Mayor Chniel: Any additional coaments? Councilman Johnson: Well as one person ~ho doesn't like to at 1:0~ in the morning get dressed and go out and talk to some young folks that I don't really know too ~11 because they come h~me after the bars have closed to continue their partying and are open... Councilwoman Dimler: Call public safety. You still have that option. Councilman Johnson: Yes. In fact the last time I did I was t~ third person to call actually so I stood there with my door open and the Sheriff could hear and tell what song was being played. They did send sc~y out. I think that what w~'ve got right now is just too plain vague. ~his puts some specitivity to it. It tells people what the limits are. We can say, hey don't drive fast. Okay? What's fast? We've set limits. For this situation, 30 mph is fast. For this situation, 55 is. For this situation, 65 is. We don't just tell them, hey don't drive fast. That's what ~'re trying to do here is get a little more specific. It still has enough vagueness to keep the lawyers busy. arguirg it in court. I don't really have a problem with it. I don't think that we are really infringing on scmebody's rights by saying that construction equipment, 6:00 p~m. to 7:~0 a.m.. Stuff like that. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to point out. Construction is usually covered in the develofxaent contract so that's not a problem. Councilman Johnson: Yes but it still, this sets up the frsmew~rk under which the development contract should be based. Councilw~m~ Dimler: Well we've been doing that. Councilman Johnson: Right. Councilw~uan Dimler: Without this ordinance we've already ~ doing that. Councilman Johnson: In most occasions. But the~ there's also people out roofing their house late at night believe it or not. Then they take it off the next day. My. neighbor, when they were building that thim~ they were inside the house until 1:~ in the morning hanxaering away. It was rather disturbing. Councilwoman Dimler: I still think we need to take into consideration what the majority of the people ~ant. Not have a response to. ~ these people that have complaints already, have a way to have thei~ cc~plaints heard, we don't want to restrict everyone else. 23 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: You're saying that the majority of the people don't want this ordinance? Councilw~nan Dimler: Exactly. According to my survey. Councilman Johnson: I've had one phone call on this ordinance and that was on lawn mowing after 6:00 which ~as a misprint in the newspaper. Councilw(Ean Dimler: Yes, but did you call them or they call you? I called than. Councilman Johnson: I actually called them on another matter but. I was twisting arms for soccer coaches. Councilwc~%an Dimler: I find out what the public ~nts. I don't wait for them to call me. I call th~n. Councilman Johnson: I can see how many people have cc~e for this public hearing too. We had one that had a specific probl~n. Councilw~man Dimler: There's others here and they just chose not to speak. Resident: ...no copies here to read that ordinance. I had a couple of co~nents but I don't have nothing to go by. Councilman Workman: If I can make my cc~nents. Just about anything and everything that can make a noise is in this. Jay, I'm going to tell a little story like you al~ays do. I was laying in bed on a night last w~ek. I got to bed about 11:30 and I had my window open. It was a nice night and in thru the window cemes E1vis. Councilman Johnson: You mean he's not dead. Councilman Workman: And I'm going to take this opportunity to sing this song that he ~as singing. Mayor Chmiel: Tnat's not necessary Tom. Councilman Workman: My wife was awake and I said, do you believe that? ~ody's in their garage and they had Elvis croaning. I went over and I shut the window. That pretty much took care of it. It was still a little bit muffled. It must have been about 3 minutes later and some guy screamed out his window, l%lrn it off and then that was pretty much the end of it. I put in here that ~ had a dog barking problem earlier. I thought that the nuisance ordinance should take care of that. I like what Ursula says in that what we do is kind of encourage, Jay w{~at might be a loud noise to you or what might be a loud noise to me might not bother you on any given evening so when you get a person, and I think w~ all know these people, is that that person will be a large majority of the phone calls to public safety for whatever that problem is. I think w~ have a serious problem on Lotus Lake with jet skis. I think that's scmething we should take care of. Maybe we can do that scme other way but I think w~at we' re doing here is w~' re trying to make believe that w~ can plug every hole and every noise that happens. I don't think we're encouraging our 24 City Council Meeting - Se~r 11~ 1989 neighbors to go talk to their neighbors. We're encouxagin9 them to call Jim (~affee and maybe that's effective. Maybe it's not. We've had people call about the dog. That they've got a probl~m~. The dog doesn't make noises when Jim shows up so it's not a probl~a but everybody agreed that it ms a p~obl~m. The dog ~s probably ba~kir~ his guts out but ws just couldn't catch him. So I too had some calls and I didn't go ahead and call a whole lot of people but a lot of people did talk to me about this and simply because of the point that if I have a neighbor who's very irritable and gets that my very quickly, I'm going to get that law used over my head a lot more than somebody else is who says, wsll it's those Johnson's. They're fighting again. So what it beccmes is it's the arbitrariness of it and eve~ though we're tryir~3 to put a decibel level on what a sound can be, you can' t put a level on ~hat tolerance on a person can be and so I thought, listening to Elvis who was irritating but I shut the window and tried to make do, sc~e other neighbor shouted out the window. I guess I'm a little concerned about us tryin~ to slap on more and more rules that we probably w~n' t be able to enforce an~vway. Mayor Chniel: An?one else? Councilman Boyt: Sure. A couple of cc~m~nts. This may be after the fact since it looks like they're not going to be 3 votes to pass this thing but we'll give it a go. Maybe a little history on this since there ~sn't in the packet. This ca~e out of the frustration with develo[m~ent contracts in that development contracts are enforced by the City ~gineers. They're not available on weekends. When we called out deputy sheriffs and asked them to enforce the development contracts, they said well, we don't do that. So that started the need for s(x~ething more specific. Now for the feeling that this is s~aething that ~as just dreamed up, this is a model ordinance pxovided by the League of Cities so obviously there's ~ a lot of thought put behind this thing. happen to believe that people have the right to quiet. It's awfully expensive to buy the right to quiet and so I think the City b~- a responsibility to do it's part to provide that. Now unfortunately you don't have the ordinance to read. It w~uld be nice if you did but the ordinance goes about, not only giving rights to quiet but it also, amazingly e~ough, gives you the rig. hr to make noise because it limits when someone can ommplain about you making noise. As it stands now, the door is open. Someone can ccmplain at any time. Whether there's an ordinance or not, some people aren't going to choose to go to their neighbors first and others are. I'd like to think that everybody goes to their neighbor first but I know that's very difficult in sc~e situations for people to do that. What we're doing is we're proposing to take a model ordinance frc~ the League of Cities and start there ard learn fr~a our experience. We're proposing that as the alternative to our current statement ~hich has one line. Causing or pen~ittin~ any unnecessary noises or annoying vibrations. No one has any rights under the statement I just read to you. We're trying to clarify that. It's not perfect but it's a heck of an improvement and I for one think we r_~ to start trying to improve the vague statement ws've got now so I'd like to ~_"~c this supported. Councilman Workman: I'm not going to have enough time Bill to find it. Councilman Johnson: Page 725? Councilman Workman: No, it doesn't matter but ~hat happened was and I'll go back to this othe~ little deal ws hsd going with the dog barking in the cage. 25 City Council Meeting - Septenber 11 ~ 1989 In 3 different areas of this code book, City Code Book, it mentions something about animals being a nuisance. It wasn't just one line. It was many lines in 3 different areas and we couldn't enforce it. And this dog was in a cage. We've already got a whole bunch of codes and ordinances that we can barely enforce. I know that we've got scn~ specific problems, as I said. Jet skis. I don't know if they're going to be handled by the legislature. An occasional dog but it's, unless the people are really annoyed with continuous noise scn~=where aren't telling us something, I think we're making this more of a probl~n then maybe it is. I think in a growing, vibrant cc~unity, you're going to make noise when you're trying to make money and raise kids. I know my kids do so it's, you'd have to ask my neighbors how loud I am but I would certainly, and I understand t~nperments and certainly people are have difference tenperments but I get worried Bill when we're trying for the good of citizens of Chanhassen, plug every hole against every nuisance and every problen that they have. I don't think that's our job. I think it's a little bit up to people to be aware of their own environment and try to take care of that environment. And they understand that when they're moving in to whatever density they' re moving into. I think if it's a probl~n, there's going to be enough of the neighbors that are going to hear about it and they can work together to take care of it. I don't see where this ordinance is going to help ~ at all. If there's a beer party in the street, sure there's an ordinance about young kids standing in the street drinking so I don't know. I think people get a little nervous when you start puttin~ on too many restrictions. Mowing lawns. I don't know who's doing that at 10:00 or after but, I haven't been convinced and that's why I'm expressing my concerns. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to bring .%0 a couple more points and that is the City itself then would have to abide by this ordinance. I don't like to have an ordinance that the City exenpts itself from and that would possibly mean that we couldn't have the street dance or the Oktoberfest or the 4th of July party because that is loud and neighbors do hear it. It carries far. People could come in and complain and does that mean ~ stop the party? You know. I mean those are considerations. Councilman Boyt: I don't think it does. I don't think this attenpts to do that. Council~a~an Dimler: Well it does. Councilman Johnson: Our current ordinance does too. In fact our current ordinance can stop it before 10:00. Councilwoman Dimler: 10:00 is the cut off point so that means the band stops at 10: 00? Councilman Boyt: Act~mlly I think the band stops pretty close to that now. Councilwoman Dimler: Midnight. Two hours later so that ~ would be in violation of the ordinance. I don't think it's our intent to stop people from having fun. Councilman Workman: I found those three points. This is what we couldn't stop the barking dog on. Number 12. Disagreeable noises to the discomfort of adjacent property owners in allowing any animal or fowl to run at large. Number 26 City Council M~eting - Septenber 11, 1989 14. Causing or permitting any unnecessary noises or unknowing vibrations ] N~nber 18. Any dog which habitually barks in such a manner as to disturb the peace. That's three different areas where we still haven't ~ able to, we w~ren't able to handle that dog problem. Councilman Boyt: There's some question as to whether that dog problem, if you're referring to the cGanercial kennel, was really a problem. Councilwoman Dimler: Well it was. Councilman Boyt: The way I see this. You can stick with what we've got now, which is certainly vague or you can move to try, to improve it and I don't know that the issues are any more complicated than that and I would move for approval. Let's have a vote and see how it comes out. Mayor Chniel: Not until you hear my opinion. Councilw~nan Dimler: Yes, can I just say one thing? We have something that's vague now but we' re going to something that's real discretionary and I don' t think we ought to be headirg in that direction. Councilman Johnson: We're going from a tone of discretionary to slightly less discretionary. Mayor C2waiel: Okay. I guess I sort of am leaning towards Ursula's position with a lot of discussion, or I shouldn't say a lot but a few of the people that I did talk to. I think that most people within Chanhassen are considerate. You're enforcing regulations to cover everyone within the City. Many of these ordinances we can't enforce anyway. One of the positions, well one of the situations that just occurred within my own neighborhood just last Wednesday evening. My neighbor was putting in a drive, my with brick and using a vibrator to compact the sand that he's putting the brick into. F~ had that vibrator for all day and it was taking him longer than what it noumally took someone to put that brick driveway in but he decided that he was going to use that vibrator at about quarter to twelve. That really didn't bother me. Only because of the fact that I knew he was trying to do something within a deadline to complete what he was trying to get accomplished. By having restrictive ordinance against that, that would cause a problen but there wasn't one call I don't believe that you got from anybody in our area. (l~ly because there ~s probably about 6 or 7 neighbors out there who lived in ard adjacent to it that were helping him put in that driveway. So I guess from that particular standpoint, that's at least where I'm coming from. I think there's too many restrictions and as some previous people who have been in our same seats here saying it's not the thing to do to have that many kinds of ordinance or restrict people fr(xn living within the city. I think that's ~ing we have to look at. Councilman Johnson: I don't think the situation will charge whatsoever with this ordinance in that if the sheriff's not going to be running around looking for noise violations. It's the least of their worries but this gives them a little more authority when they go to court to prosecute a noise violation then the extreme vagueness of what we've got. We're making this sound like we're creating a cc~munist society, here where all we're trying to do is protect people's rights to go to sl~ after 10:0~ at night. My. goodness, some neighbors, their kids have to be in bed by. 7:3~ and to ths~ anything after 7:3~, 27 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 they'd be objecting to this ordinance because it's too lax because it doesn't say when their kid's bedtime. Another neighbors, people with ~nall children without air conditioning. They want to go to bed. The kids go to bed at 6:00- 7:00 at night. Right now our ordinance says that they can call in and say, hey you're disturbing my child. You woke my baby up. You're disturbing and annoying and it's 7:00. Now we are trying to close that little loophole at the same time as being reasonable. We're not trying to, I think we're putting a screen up. We're not trying to plug every hole, as Tc~ says. Tnls is not nearly that. If we wanted to plug every hole, this thing would be 20 pages long. It's just trying to add a little bit of specitivity. A little bit of help our sheriff out with having something to stand behind when he goes into issue a citation. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. Mayor Chniel: The question's called. Is there a motion? Councilman Boyt: Is there a motion? Councilman Johnson: Yes. You've made a motion. I've seconded it. Mayor Chniel: No. He made the motion without my position. Councilman Johnson: He can make a motion at any time can't you? Mayor Chmiel: Not until everyone has their say non, ally. Councilaman Workman: Well there wasn't a second to that motion. Councilman Johnson: I seconded that motion. Mayor Chniel: Okay. Bill do you want to make your motion? Councilman Boyt: Certainly. I move for approval. Councilman Johnson: And I ' 11 second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of the Chanhassen City Code by Adding Provisions I~3ulating Noise. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chniel voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Workman: I would move denial of the proposed noise ordinance. Councilman Johnson: It just did. Counc i lman Boyt: ~nat ' s what happened. Councilwcman Dimler: With our no's. The no's have it. Mayor Chmiel: 3 to 2. 28 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSfD ORDINk~CE t~{ENDING CHAPTER 6 (~ TH~ CITY CODE REGARDING SWIMMING Don Ashworth: ~nis item was presented in July. ~he Council wanted to hold a public hearing on it. Concern was shown over the requiremaat for permits. Staff has since met with the sheriff's department and received their agree~aat that they will enforce the current provisions that they have under the powers of the sheriff to regulate rafts. I think this takes care of the concerns staff had as far as not having any form of regulation. I think there was concern over any t~oe of fee structure so this proposal would eliminate that. ~he time that the i t~ ~as presented there was concern fr~n the Carver Beach area that proposed ordinance was either directed at not allowing the~ to have their raft and as w~ discussed the item further, the residents in that area asked that the proposed ordinance include an allo~nce for that raft to continue to exist. The allowance is in there. It's really the last lines saying legal non-conforming docks and swinging rafts my be returned to the lake. ~hat is the allowance that Mr. Knutson has put in to allow that raft to continue to stay in. In other regards, basically the ordinance is the same as we have in terms of the depth, etc.. There is one exception in that swirm~ing rafts may only be located directly in front of lakeshore site. That is currently not in the existing ordinance. In all other respects, your proposed ordinance is exactly as currently exists on the City books. Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? There were s~me concerns specifically in an area with depth. Do you wish to address that Wayne? Wayne: I guess if you could clarify, for me exactly what you're wending... Don Ashworth: Really only t~o sections. One, the raft has to be in front of the property of the person who's putting it out there. Secondly, there's an allowance that the raft in the Carver Beach area would be allowed to stay. Those are the only two changes. Wayne: Do we ~ licensing for the raft... Don Ashworth: No. There is tt~ provision or there is the recognition that the sheriff's department currently has the ability, to do that. Tsar is not in any way referenced in this d~t. He simply has that ~. Councilman Johnson: In other words ~hat we're saying is now we're going to b~_rn over the enforcement of rafts to the County and the County's going to license th~. Don Ashworth: Or has the right to. Councilman Johnson: Has the right to. Is there a County ordinance requiring it to be licensed? Don Ashworth: I don't think they license them. Correct Jim? Jim Chaffee: What is it they're licensing? 29 City Oouncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Don Ashwor th: Rafts. .. Councilman Johnson: What is the Co~unty ordinance on rafts? Jim Chaffee: Is that included in that pennit form? councilman Johnson: I'm not sure, this isn't the discussion side but to answer his questions, I'm not sure if we're saying okay, we're not going to permit them but we might be opening it up for the County to come in and start saying okay. The City's asked us to control your rafts so we are now going to start enforcing our ordinance which requires it. councilwoman Dimler: Gary? Can you address that? When you were president of Sunrise Hills. Jim Chaffee: Floating raft is included in it. councilman Johnson: In what? Jim fhaffee: The County permit. Gary Boyle: Mr. Mayor, as a member of Sunrise Hills where we have... Mayor Chniel: Please state your name. Gary Boyle: Gary Boyle. Frontier Trail in Chanhassen. On most occasions every year we just make a phone call to the County and they give us verbal approval. Rhere's no certificate or anything else involved. Councilw(m~3n Dimler: And there was no fee? Gary Boyle: No fee. Councilwoman Dimler: And did you just give them your name and where you were going to put the raft? Did they check on insurance? Gary Boyle: They asked about insurance but because of the history involved, they knew. councilwoman Dimler: So each year you just called and said you were going to put it out again? Gary Boyle: Right. And they just gave us the blanket approval. Don Ashworth: That's the same infomnation that we received from basically the County as well. Councilman Workman: I would move to close the public hearing. councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Well. Anyone else wishing to address? Roger B~vrnes: I was just wondering...about a copy of this. 30 City Oouncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Mayor C~miel: You've not received a copy. of what the ordinance says? Well; c~me on over here and I' 11 give you mine. Roger Byrnes: Roger Byrnes, 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassem. I have a question for Roger ~nutson. It says that non-conforming rafts can be returned to the lake if they're legal. Is that what it's saying? Ail legal rafts that are non-confoming. Boger Knutson: Can go back in, yes. Roger Byrnes: But if we own the raft and they pass this ordinance, it won't be legal an.~more because we don't own lakeshore and it can't be returne~ again. I mean that's what it seems like to me. ~hat's what it says. Roger Knutson: It's a strange concept but it's legally non-conforming. What that means is, when you initially started doing it, w~re you legal? I%oger Byrnes: Apparently. Roger Knutson: You ware because there ~as nothing on the books that said you had to put it on front of your own property, so that makes it a legal non-conforming use. And this says, if you're a legal non-conforming use, which you are, eve~ though you change the rules on it... Roger Byrnes: So if the law is changed now to say that you have to be a lakeshore property, owner to put the raft out. Roger Knutson: ~nat doesn' t apply to you. Roger Byrnes: That's doesn't apply to us anl~nore? Roger Knutson: That's what it's saying. Roger Byrnes: As long as we put the raft out every year, if it don't ~nt to be there? Unless the ordinance is charged again at some date or something. Mayor Ch~iel: Right. This is a revision to the ordinance. Councilman Workman: Can we put in parenthesis simply including the Carver Beach raft? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. ~nat would really do it. councilman Workman: Because that's what this is all about. Roger ~nutson: I suppose you could list that as an example, yes. councilman Johnson: Because there my be others arour~ that we just don't know about that are legally non-conforming. 31 City Council Meeting ' September iii 1989 Roger K~utson: I'm told there isn't but there may be. You get into problsms with equal protection and what not if you said only the Carver Beach raft can go back in and all the other non-confomnin9 rafts have to go out. You can't do that. I guess you can list that as an example. I mean 30 years fr~n now people might be scratching their head wondering what you were talking about. Councilman Workman: Who owns the raft? Councilman Johnson: Who cares? Cindy Gilman: Cindy Gilman. I'm at 6613 Horseshoe OEve. I don't have a copy of that but I'm wondering if there are certain specifications for a raft? Mayor Chniel: Yes, there is. Cindy Gilman: Okay. It's very specific? Councilwoman Dimler: Everything else is the same. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address the public hearing on the rafts? Mayor Chniel moved, Co~mcilw~nan Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I think rafts are water obstacles and should be treated like any other water obstacle. Mayor Chmiel: I think w~'ve had this for so long that w~'ve been really trying to work this out to really accommodate the people of Carver Beach. Councilman Johnson: We' ve done that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I guess I don't have any real given problems with the ordinance as it so indicates with items 6-28(A) and Section 2, 6-30, Removal. Councilman Johnson: My only problen is, what is the implication of Carver County now enforcing their raft ordinance here in our City? I'd like to see the whole raft ordinance, not just the permit application which the permit application is a written application where floating rafts (swishing) is listed on it. Councilwoman Dimler: Don, could you address that? It was my understanding that the County at one time did regulate the rafts on our lakes and they were asked then by the City not to do it because ~ ~re thinking about adopting our own ordinance and that was never done so in the last couple of years or whatever that time lapse was, w~ have not been regulated, by anybody. Then now w~' re asking to turn it back to the County and I understand that they don't have a fee at this point and I hope that they don' t get one but then would you address what would happen if they ever did get a fee. Can Chanhassen opt out again? Don Ashworth: A number of questions in there. 32 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 11~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. First one ~ Don Ashworth: The first question is yes. The City. had used the County. Part of the basic concept right now continues to recognize that the primary control of our lakes, responsibility for enforc~m%e~t lies back with the sheriff's department and t/~ sheriff's water patrol. So the penmitting process, as it would apply for the rafts, I guess makes sense frcm that standpoint. At issue, and the reason it was stopped I would say 2 to 3, maybe more years ago dealt with a number of questions regarding bouys, especially in the Carvex Beach area and boats as they may be stored on that property. It was really durir~ that time frame that w~ stopped using the sheriff's department because there ~_re a number of c~stions as to whether or not he was fully in tuned to what it was that the City had wanted completed as far as the enforcement. The second issue. If t~. would institute a charging systeu and if the City Council would wish to have it's own enforcemsnt, the City could then establish a local ordinance ~hich would, well technically you could have a situation where you had two agencies controlling. We've never had that situation and typically if the City has wanted to carry out local control, the sheriff or whatever agency, planning, whoever it happens to be, will not enforce the county wide regulation within the local jurisdiction. Council~xman Dimler: Okay, thank you. So as it stands now...the City w~ have to go through the County and the non-confozming docks are allowed to return? That' s basically what we' re saying? Don Ashworth: The rafts. We' re continuing to issue peuaits regarding docks, slalcm courses. The sheriff would take care of rafts, diving bells, whatever they're called in there and I thought there was one other itsm. Basically the entire regulation of just the general lake rules. Ski j~p. Councilwoman Dimler: I have no problem with this as long as I am 1~% assured that Carver Beach is covered and is able to return their raft year after year. Roger Knutson: I'll put ~ in by. name. Cou~ilw~m~3nDi~er: Thank you. Mayor Ch~iel: Rocky, is that alright? Roger Byrnes: Fine. Councilman Johnson: There's an interesting part to the application frc~ the Carver County which I don't think we tJm~ught of. If it's not in front of your property, attach a letter of permission. In our ordinance we've been more restrictive then that saying if it's not in front of your property you can't do it. So if you have a group of people that ~nt to put a raft out, the person that owns the raft has to put it in front of his property. I've got a friend that lives down on Lotus and they've had a raft out from their property but he's never owned it. It was kind of everybody, along that side of the beach, similar to Rocky's raft out there. I haven't seen it out there for the last couple of years. I think t/~ thing sank. It was in pretty bad shape a few years back but I would say that that would be something that we might ~nt in here because I 33 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 can see the occasion where somebody would give somebody else permission to put a raft in front of their property. If for reason of interferring with the dock or sc~ething. Why say you have to put it in front of yours if you got peunission from the person who owns that property, why can't you [mit it in front of their property? Councilw~nan Dimler: (k~d point. Councilman Boyt: Easier to control. Don Ashworth: This is first reading. Before final reading wordage could be inserted should the council so desire. Councilman Johnson: So if somebody calls up and says, hey this raft's in front of my property, I don't want it there. Council~ Dimler: Can we move it? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I don't think we're going to be out looking at rafts and since we don't have any licensing with this, we're not going to go out and say, huh, who owns this raft and what? It's just a matter of if there's a cc~laint, then we've got the teeth within this ordinance to do something about it. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying then Jay that on 6-28(A) it has to be amended to read swinxning rafts may only be located directly in front of a lakeshore site owned by the raft owner unless the raft owner gets permission from the property owner? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Or with the permission of the property owner. Something of that nature. I think our legal beagle can figure that one out. Roger Knutson: Already written. Councilman Johnson: If you're going to anend it, let's have a vote on it because I think that cc~plica~ it needlessly. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, who wants to make a motion? Councilw~xman Dimler: I make a motion that ~ accept this raft ordinance with the amendment that we just made. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, CounciLman Workman seconded to approve an Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 of the Chanhassen City Code Concerning Boats and Waterways as amended to incl~e wordage to include the raft owner must have permission of the property owner. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Ch~iel: Care to indicate your concerns Bill? 34 City Oouncil ~eting - September 11~ 1989 U~ILITY EAS~ VACATION B~ LOTS 4 ASD 5, BLOCK 3, KI3RVERS ~IN~, R(~BERT CONKLIN. Jo Ann Olsen: T~e applicant asked us that this be withdrawn. ~Tey are going to go through the subdivision process now and s~me thirgs have charged. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ~Y IMPNDV]~4~gTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SP~IFICATIONS. Gary Warren: A brief introduction perhaps is in order. Bill will put an overhead up that reflects the project area, just for everybody that's here. As with our public infozmation neighborhood meeting, I see we have a good turnout of residents which w~ certainly appreciate. In the staff report I tried to address for ~ouncil's consideration some of the items, at least the key items that were brought to our attention that were discussed with the public that ~ further did some research on and I know I've had discussion with several of the Council today on the item. Maybe I could run through quickly those itsms briefly and then Bill is here also to give any further follow-up but we can, at your discretion, g~ into the public hearing. ~nis is a public hearirg, as you mentioned, which is the formal step here to accepting the feasibility, study in orderin~ the project. The first it~ that I addressed was the road width considerations for the project here. As has been m~ntioned all alorg, a 33 foot roadway width is our standard section with mountable curbing. In this project we're looking at going to barrier curbing which actually, we did sc~e further refinsments of our calculations, w~uld result actually in a 28 1/2 foot wide road because the barrier curb has more of it's section actually in the travelway or can be used in the travelway. So Bill has a graphic that we can look at in a minute here but basically our field measuremm~ts show that the roadway favors close~ to 26-27 feet wide as it currently stands fr~m our measurements so we would be proposing to go along and establish the gutter line at what is the current gutter line. We wouldn't vary it obviously but we would look to be holding a 27 foot roadway width gutter to gutter which using the barrier curbing then would give us a 28 1/2 foot roadway section out there. Mayor Ch~iel: Gary, what does this do to some of the property, owners that may have trees? Gary Warren: We think it will be very compatible with it because basically we will be holdin~ that gutter line as it stands with some minor exceptions on some curbs. Bill and I have been out to look at the roadway and again, looked at it this evenin~ and areas where I think we would have to be fattening tt~ roadway, it appears that we do have right-of-way without trees or any major conflicts so I think it's a compromise on the star~ard city section by. a 1 foot width but with the barrier curbing, I think it's a reasonable c(m~pr~mise and would result in a decent road section ccmpatible with what we have out there. The second item that I listed was the cost of the sanitary sewer repairs. If they w~re goirg to be assessed. As I think the Council is aware from our budget process here, this is not proposed to be assessed at all. ~he question is what the magnitude of repairs would be necessary, out there. We've conservatively estimated that the entire sanitary sewer system would ~ repair a~d replacement. I think that we hope to refine that n~ber as a pa~t of our detail look in the design of the project and reduce that cost sc~=what but it indeed, 35 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 if things are in the worse case scenario, it could be with our clay tile, that it all needs to be replaced but that's how the cost is estimated. And again, no assessments are proposed. It ~Duld be funded out of the City's truck sewer expansion fund. Similarly with the watermain, I didn't to~h on it here. We don't have a cost in the feasibility study for that but w~ may indeed run into some cast iron pipe that may need to be replaced and that would cume out of the water trunk funds. Not assessed. What assessment rate will be chosen? As Council is aware,we' ve got 4 options that we had included in the feasibility study from 43% up to 100% assessment. We've done sc~e more telephone surveying which Bill has here tonight and can go through in a minute to talk to other cc~nunities to see just what is going on out there. It still supports the fact that there is a lot of discretion that the City's have in establishing their policy here. The prevailing attitude that at least I interpretted from our discussions with residents and perhaps the Council is the fact that anything that we are proposing as far as upgrade to the road section, anything that hasn't been paid for before, would be a reasonable itsm to have assessed. The difficulty was if we were going to be looking to get assessed any Itsms where w~'re rebuilding the old road section. We put s~me numbers together on that. The concrete curb and gutter and the driveway aprons. 50% of the sod cost and restoration and basically the sub-base costs. The improv~ment of the sub-base to address our soils conditions out there. When we look at those elsments, which we would include or consider as new elements of the roadway section, they do ccme up to approximately 40% or a little bit higher than 40% of the cost of this street upgrading. ~ne 1 1/2 inch w~ar course which could be considered as an overlay, we did not include in there as that could be looked at I guess as a typical 0 & M type rehab cost that normally might have been funded if we had decided to overlay this road at sc~e point in time. As we all know, the condition of the road now would not allow an overlay so that's the reconstruction but we did not include that so maybe that could represent the City saying that there were some maintenance here that may have been deferred or whatever and here's a percentage that should not be assessed. While I'm touching on that, I was asked to look at comparable dollars for building a new road section under our typical standards. I haven't had a chance to look through all or a number of projects but I did 1~11 out one that's on the Council agenda tonight, the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition project, which is a little smaller than this but nonetheless the cost per foot for that project, per linear foot are running $96.00 based on the consultant's, the developer's numbers for the roadway. As we have in the feasibility study, the cost for our street work here that's proposed is $45.88 per front foot so I think it reflects that we have not gone overboard here on the costs. I already mentioned that we had talked. We've talked to other cities and Bill will throw up a sample on that on the results of that. I think basically it does go all over the board and Bill's discussion will hit that a little more closely. Other questions relating to the assessment policies and that. I guess I can feel those maybe as we go along here. As it relates to the City. Council's budget workshop and our discussions and that, the elements of the project that we had included in this budget session as far as part of the general obligation. Actually as I touched on the sanitary sewer and any watermain costs, those would come out of the trunk funds so it would not be in the GO. But $88,000.00 of the storm sewer improvenents here which would represent half of the storm sewer improvements, we have no other funding source than the general fund at this time so $88,000.00 would be from that area as well as if the 40% assessment policy were adopted, there'd be approximately $185,000.00 of the street costs that would need to be funded and those would c~me out of the general fund and both of those, that 36 City ~ouncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 totals to $273,00~.00. If w~ bonded for that, which in all likelihood w~ would~ and you looked at say a 10 year payback at 8% interest rate, you're looking at roughly $30,0~.~ per year that the city would fund out of it's debt retirement funds. ~he other ite~ that at least I have o~ my list here was sidewalks. It hasn't ~ addressed specifically in the feasibility study. We've take~ a look at it to ~ what's practical out there. (Dst estimate, if it were put on side a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk which would be consistent with our residential sidewalk, would run an~uwhere from $45,000.0~ to $5~,0~0.0~ with the emgineering and overhead o~ it. That represents maybe $7.30 to $8.10 per front foot if it ware totally assessed. ~here was a co~me~t that was made in a letter that we received ard was in the packet concernin~ whether we had used an appropriate overhead factor in the cost. We used a 30% overhead factor. As a comparison for you, I think it's a good n~nber and the assessments, tl~ preliminary assessment roles that are on tonight's age~da for Bluff Creek Drive, Minnewashta M~adow~ and the Kerber Blvd. improvenents, those projects run from 27% to 34.5% for overhead but the aggregate total is 30% right on the nose. And the project that more closely represents the a~ount of effort and the magnitude of the Frontier Trail project, which is Bluff Creek Drive, came in at 27% so I think that our cost estimate ard the overhead factors are historically sound and I'm very comfortable with our costing. ~ybe you could take a n~x~nt here, if w~ could have Bill touch on tt~ assessment policy research to further elaborate on our c(mmunity research. Bill E~gelhardt: This is going to be difficult to read but hopefully as the camera z(xazs up you'll be able to pick it up. Just to touch real lightly on what Gary said about looking at the street section and where w~ will be with the width of the street. This is a cc~pu~ printout of the alignnent of Frontier Trail and the dashed orange line is the existing edge of pavenent and the grin line is a 31 foot street centered on the center line of the road. Starting down here at Highland and then working north. ~his is Laredo and then cc~ing up around the curve and then cc~ir~ up to Kiowa and this is the end of Frontier. So you can ~ it on the camera, you can -~ that w~'re very close in most areas to the existing. This scale, it's difficult to read by the scale but you're talking about 1 to 20 feet and that 27 feet that Gary was talking about and staying at the existing gutter seems to be a very good...location. We've got some detailed points in here where we actually measured it at right angles and the roadway was 27, 25, 24, 25, 22, 27.29, 27.73. Oouncilman Boyt: Bill excuse me but maybe you could turn that. Bill E~gelhardt: I'll leave this graphic here at City Hall so if anyone wants to stop in and look at it, you're more than ~1~ to do that. ~hat just shows you a little bit of how close we are. You're not going to he able to read it probably with the canera but when you get up close you can ~ where the align~ent is and again, the thought is to stay with the existing roadway. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you could explain it now because it's real big on the scre~l. Bill Engelhardt: The red line is the right-of-way line. The dashed orange line is the existing bit~ninous and the gree~ line indicates t/~ roadway at a 31 foot back to back so even at a 31 foot roadway, back to curb to back to curb, it runs pretty close like in this particular area here. It runs pretty close to being right on the existing curb line and we feel very comfortable with putting the 37 City Council ~eting - September 11~ 1989 road in at that location and not expanding. Now when we get down into a curve area, this curve up in here, that one is about 3 to 4 to 5 feet off but it's right on the northerly edge and w~ have to expand off maybe a foot and a half, tw~ feet to what I'll call the southerly edge which doesn't cause...probl~ in this area but you still stay within the right-of-way... The reason we can do that is again going like Gary mentioned, going to this different type of curb. This is a B618 barrier curb and it's 26 inches across the bottc~n. SuI/nountable curb that you see in new subdivisions is 28 but the driving lane area is 18 versus 10 1/2 so it leaves us some flexibility in there to get the curb in there to get a good location and still keep the driving...where it is. W~ researched, changing gears here a little bit, we researched several more cities. The comment came up that we only looked at 5 cities and some of them they didn't feel were comparable to the City of Chanhassen. We called several additional cities to get their ~ts and find out what their policies were. Again, they don't all mix necessarily with Chanhassen but through the 9 or 10 different cities that we did look at, you can get a pretty good feel for how they cc~e about and how you arrive at the numbers. White Bear Lake, 100% paid by the residents. Richfield, 100% but there was no construction in the last 15 years so there's a lot of qualifiers in these types of things too. Golden Valley was strictly a 40-60 with residents at the 40 and city at 60. St. Louis Park was 60 for residents, 40 for the city. They had a cap on it with the maxim~n on the residential assessment not to exceed $16.00 per foot. Excelsior ran 70-75, 25-30 for the city. Hopkins 60-40 and right now that's a t~m%~)rary policy. The previous policy, 100% of the cost was assessed. Inver Grove Heights has no clear policy that was ever established. West St. Paul is 30% residents, 65-70% city and they have a cap on that of $20.00 per frontage foot set as the limit. Coon Rapids, they have a cap, just a flat $30.00 for per front foot maximt~n to be paid by the City. ~rnsville has 40-60 and then when reh~__b work involves construction of elements not previously in place such as the curb and gutter, the curb and gutter, that cost for those facilities are directly assessed. So it's 40% plus the cost of the curb and gutter. It's not a 40% cost. How do we arrive at our 40? We had 43-57% split and what I did is I took the cost that Gary mentioned the cost of the concrete curb and gutter. Concrete driveway aprons which are basically requir~nent when you put the concrete curb and gutter in. A portion of the restoration behind the curb. The drive,my restoration behind the curb because s(x~e of thsm, after you put the driveway apron in, you' re going to have to cut the driveways back and restore those so I took the driveway restoration and I took 50% of the subgrade cost or the amount of depth that we have to cut below the existing roadway in order to fit the curb in and put the City section in so you have about 9 inches, 10 inches of concrete curb and then below that there's another 4 to 5 inches of the rock base so we get 50% of the sub and that's how we came up with the 43%. We think it's a good number. Some of t.he residents asked us to look at a 20% split but in reality, going down to a 20% split, you don't pick up all the cost of the new construction. The 40% is closer to picking up the cost of the new construction. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Gary, didn't you say that Lake Susan West was, did you say $90.00 a foot? Gary Warren: I was going to correct that here. I had mispoken. I said $96.00. Actually it was $68.00. $68.00 and we were $46.00. Councilman Boyt: What does that do to these n~m~bers when we've got not to exceed $16.00 a front foot versus $68.00. Not to exceed, what was the other 38 City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 11~ 1989 figure Bill? Bill Engelhardt: There's a not to exceed $20.00 and a not to exceed $30.00. Councilman Boyt: So right away they've knocked half of it off. Half of cost. The cost is $60.00 s~me dollars a front foot and they're saying w~ll we'll do this assessment up to as muc~ as $3~.~0 a front foot. Then they're saying right off the top the City is picking up half of this cost and then in the other half of the cost, we're going to bill ~uou 40% of it up to the $30.00. So 40% of the $30.0~. Now 100% of everything above the $30.00 is what the worse case scenario has got there. Gary ~arren: St. Louis Park is, if I'm interpretting Bill right, $16.00 is the max that they would ever see right? Bill Engelhardt: Right. Councilman Boyt: That the residents would ever see. Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Councilman Boyt: Amd so what I'm pointing out is in Coon Rapids, which is your worse case scenario. I think that's the right one. Bill ~%gelhardt: I think Burnsville is the worse case because they're paying 40% plus 100% of the new construction. Councilman Boyt: You're right. In Coon Rapids tho~h we've got a situation in which it looks like, if it was a 4~-60 split with the city pickirg up 60, in reality the City's picking up about 80 and the residents 20 because it tops out at only half the actual cost. Councilman Johnson: What? T~at's 50-50 then. Gary Warren: 30 versus 68. Councilman Boyt: 30 is what they figure the 40-~0 off of Jay. Councilman Johnson: No. I think what they're doing here is saying resident's not going to pay more than $30.00 per linear foot so if the thing was at $60.00 per lineaz foot to build it, the residents would pay 50%. Not 20% or 30% of the. White Bear Lake's the worse with 100%. Bill En~elhardt: This could he that like in COon Rapids, this cost per front foot of their street may be running $190.00 per foot so the City would be pickirg up $70.00 and the residents would only he paying $30.00. Gary Warren: What you don' t know and we haven't had the time to research I guess is how are they funding it. Several of ~ established communities, I would think like Golden Valley and maybe St. Louis Park no doubt have a pave and management syste~ in place to where they have estahlished an arnual coamitment and funded for that annual cx~mni~t. And there was a comment in I think one of the letters here that we need to look at that and that's I think a reasonable ccmnent. We would like to he able to impl~nent a pave and management syst~a 39 City Council M~eting - September 11~ 1989 here to prioritize and to budget properly. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the things that, if the project is going to cost the City $273,000.00. That I think was your number Gary? Gary Warren: Right. Out of the GO. Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Well t_hat's out of our bonding capacity so that's really $273,000.00 out of the cc~nunity center Jim. Or out of the trail syst~m~ or out of a tax reduction for the City as a whole. So there's trade-offs to this thing. Gary Warren: It relates to the debt retirement status of the City and with certain bonds being paid off, there is some debts where you w~uld look to deal with it. Bill Engelhardt: Just a couple of more real quick items on sc~e of the comments frcm the meeting. Frcm the hc~eowners meeting on the storm sewer and we met with several of the residents after t_he meeting and the comment w~s that the storm sewer is somewhat overdesigned and I readily admit that it's a conservative approach to a storm sewer. And that definitely during the final design of the storm sewer, we'll sharpen our pencils on it and see if we can get it down. The ability of maybe changing some grades slightly to eliminate runs of catch basins, that possible to do but we don't know that until you actually do the final design. ~ne thing to keep in mind, another objective here w~s to try and fird out during the design stage if we have sump p~m~ps, if we have drain tile and that type of thing, that the residents would have the ability to tie into a storm sewer via a stub that would be run out or back to the catch basin. By putting t_he storm sewer in, you have that ability to take that inflow that's coming into the sanitary sewer system and through the storm sewer. Without the storm sewer, we don't have that ability. It basically runs across the top of ground and in the case of a sump pump you can create icing conditions on the street but that's something that we basically premised the residents we definitely would look at during the final design of it. If we can eliminate sc~e of the storm sewer and keep it down, then we definitely will do that and that will certainly reduce the cost of the storm sewer. The other question that came up, if I can find a good graphic here... We have several outlets there. One is, well there's a very small piece here. A very, very ~all outlot owned by the City right adjacent to the homeo~rs association lot that access the lake. We checked on, the initial feasibility study included that frontage as part of the calculation to determine the assessment. The assessment is based on benefit. This particular lot in checking with the County, it was deemed that it had no market value. Without any market value, you can't assess it because you' re going to increase the market value by putting curb and gutter. The County has it on their tax roles as no market value. Another outlot is right in this particular area. That's owned in fee title and if the gentleman is here who owns that he can correct me on it but w~ believe that's owned in fee title by title by Lot 9 and therefore he has direct benefit of that particular lot...assess that. Outlot 3 is in this particular area and it runs all the w~y along this road. We feel that the actual lots themselves have direct benefit to the road so the straight line frontage across would be assessed and there's one more outlot in this particular area that was just created with this realigr~ent up in here and I don' t have a good answer on that one. It's probably going to, we're going to have to look at if there is value to this particular lot and kind 40 City Council Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 of get that o~e ironed out at the assesament hearing. It appears that with his access off of Kiowa, that this does not give any real direct benefit to this street and it's probably unlikely that he could sustain...but that's something we could look at during the final assessment. I think that addresses most of the questions that came up at the... Gary Warren: To just wrap up our presentation. We have ~ in contact as of this evening in fact with NSP concerning undergrourding of power lines on Frontier Trail as a pext of this project. They'll have to take a look at their systen and get an estimate to the City. That would also he a cost I guess. T~ese things aren' t done for nothing. That if the City was interested in doing underground with the power lines out the~e, we would have to consider how that would be funded. We have gone underground ~n the downtown syst~n and on Audubon Road most recently. It's not inexpensive by any means. There we've had other funding sources available to us aside frown assessment. Kiowa Circle, I did address in the staff report. It is possible to rehab Frontier Trail without having to risk future tearing up of the roadway section on Frontier Trail. The collapsed sewer is approximately where the storm sewer crosses the sanitary sewer at about 112 feet south of Frontier Trail and from there to the manhole in the cul-de-sac which is about 183 feet, that sewer line probably needs to be repaired. So our rec(xmae~dation was, since we're going to be in the area, and the road is quite alligatored from observations this evening, we'd have 183 feet of road tore up for the repairs and it made sense when we looked at this in the feasibility, to include it in this scope. Again, you can repair Frontier Trail without risking future dig up if you want to Kiowa Circle at a later date. With that Mr. Mayor we' 11 throw it back to you. Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, we'll open it up for public k~-aring. Any discussion? Does anyone have anything to bring forward? Chuck Dimler: (]ood evening Mayor. Chuck Dimler. 7203 Kiowa Circle. First I can't escape the opportunity as a spouse of one of the councilpersons to thank you all for the service that you do put in. Whether I agree with your positions or not, I can only appreciate the effort that you do and believe me, it's a big sacrifice. Mr. Warren just addressed Kiowa Circle and I did appear here and questio~ that at t/~ informative meeting held on the 30th of August. From the information that I had, I don't have available tonight but I had at that time a cow of tt~ feasibility report. I don't recall the page but I'll kind of do this from m~nory. I r~ that the costs were approximately $55,0~.~ to do the sanitary sewer, reconstruction and the redevelopaent of the street, Kiowa Circle. There are four residences on Kiowa Circle and I think it first got my attention when I saw that. That I thought that's just an awful lot of dollars for four residents. Also there are about 3~0 linear feet there and we're looking at $55,00~.00 and from my minuscule experience with construction costs and from what I hear from s~me of the professionals in the business, even $100.00 a linear foot is a lot of dollars to spend putting in a new develoB~ent. And we've been I think and I've visited with most of the neighbors there and will speak for the~ and I see 3 or 4 of then are here tonight, including 2 of the council persons, that the expending those dollars on that street are very, very many dollars per unit of use and seco~lly, I think most of us axe quite satisfied with the street. Now the sanitary sewer, I recognize that there's a problen if there's infiltration and maybe I would ask Gary or Bill, b~ that been telecast? Has that been camera scoped? 41 City Oouncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Gary Warren: Yes. That sewer line was televised. Tbs info~mation I relayed earlier here was a result of televising that sewer. Chuck Dimler: Okay, but maybe we have to look at what we can do without spending that many dollars and I speak not only from a resident there, because I think we need to be looking at the bigger picture of what everyone has to do, but spending that many dollars both in the make-up that's been discussed. Whether it's by the City or by the residents, it se~ms a little difficult for me as a business person to understand that. I think maybe the cure is ~orse than the cancer. Thank you. Any questions? Mayor C~iel: Does anyone have any questions? I guess not. Is there anyone else that ~)uld like to address this? Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. We've had several discussions with Bill and Gary and so on. Scme of the neighbors have and I guess I w~uld like to speak positively about the improv~ments to the Frontier Trail. Specifically that I think we indicated that we felt that it was appropriate to replace the sanitary sewer if that's the most cost effective, long te~m solution since it doesn't c~me out of resident's dollars but cc~es out of the general fund. Secondly, I agree and in talking with Bill the other morning over breakfast that the storm sewer, I feel real comfortable with the fact that Bill is going to design that in the appropriate manner and not overdesign it as the study shows. So I feel real comfortable with that. However the width of the street I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with. It's my understanind in the 8 years that I've lived there, at least one accident has occurred which resulted in a death because of the curviness of our street. And you know when Frontier Trail was a dead end, if we had s~ers go down it, we knew they were ccming back. And there have been many occasions when neighbors have j~ped out in front of speeders and gave them a local neighborly encouragement to not speed again. With that in mind, it's my understanding also that there's been two other deaths frcm accidents on that street in the history of that street. With that in mind, I would like to encourage possibly a narrowing of the street to what I stepped off to be about 24 feet currently in scme places and 20 feet in others and possibly put sidewalks in as an alternative to the cost savings to the narrowing of the street. Now I realize that that changes the City's structure of their standard street format but it would appear to me that because of the terrain, if we're going to put a sidewalk in for safety purposes, a 30 foot wide street does not necessarily leave a lot of front yards. Especially in the hilly areas. I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that it's my ~nderstanding that a pavement manag~m~ent system would bring a taxation in addition to what we are currently taxed for that pavsment management fund. It would appear to me that if we set a precedent as a Council, and that's really what you're doing here since it's my understarding that this is the first street in the City of Chanhassen which will be reconstructed, that if we decide the assess~ent is to be 40, 60 or whatever it is, and then a reconstruction fund is brought forward in the ~]ture, that would mean that we'd have to wait another 30 to 50 years before we would participate in that fund when it was reconstructed again. So it appeared to me that the Council has to look at this very carefully in the assessment process, and I realize that's to be taken care of at a different meeting but I'd call your attention to it that I think you're going to be setting precedence here. Especially if we also then establish a pavement management s.ustem ~nd. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your work and I hope that you would consider the sidewalk issue and certainly the safety on that 42 City COuncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 street because w~ do have several young children in the neighborhood. We have a good mixture of young people as w~ll as middle aged people as well as s~mi- retired and we all do like to take walks in our neighborhood. A sidewalk I think w~uld be beneficial even though I'm sure that it's a controversial issue in our neighborhood and if possible, since other sidewalks in other neighborhoods have ~ paid for c(m~pletely by the City, I would think that this sidewalk maybe could also. Thank you. Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. ~here is no question about the fact that we will, we should have a new road. The question that I ~x)uld like to address to ~u Mr. Mayor and the City COuncil is the way we have to pay for it. The proposal gives several alternatives. The thirg that struck me when I read this feasibility study was the fact that the City accepted a substandard piece of road when it was originally built. As you all know from business, when you make a mistake you pay for it. I have always operated that way ~hile I was working and I don't think city. govermuents ought to be excepted fr~ this procedure. So for this reason I would propose that you very seriously consider assessing the residents the minim~ which is by law 20% and the City pay fox the r~maining 80%. Under the circ~mstamces I think that is the fairest way to correct a mistake that was made by some previous city. gov~t or city engineer. Othe~se I have no qualm with the rebuilding of the road. We need it. It's obviously tl~ worse piece of road in the whole neighborhood because that's the only piece of road where by cars rattles. Tom Pzynski: My. na~e is Tom Pzynski. I live at 7340 Frontier Trail. The only concern I have has to deal with I guess with the assessment and how it's handled by the COuncil and what the citizens or the residents on Frontier Trail are going to have to do. I've been hearing a lot of discussion about linear foot. COst per linear foot and it se~ms to be a default that that's the way it's going to go. I'd like the COuncil to consider a per unit basis for the assessment instead of a linear foot. I think the~e's, scmeb~, with a larger front yard really gets no more benefit over a good road than somebody with a s~aller yard. That's my. only concern. · Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? Would ~u like us to address that question? Bill En~elhardt: I can do it real quickly. Your Honor we looked at that particular issue and we feel, I guess from an engineering standpoint, very strongly that tl~ persc~ with the larger lot, more frontage, does benefit more. And taking the costs and spreading it on a unit basis, about 71% of the properties out there, tl~ lots, would actually go up in their assess~uent versus coming down. To us it meant that the front footage was a very fair ar~ equitable way of spreading the costs in this particular project. Don King: Don King. 7200 Kiowa circle. I'd first like to all express the engineering presentation that Bill has made. I think it's ~ excellent. Very infozmative to all of us that are the homeowners. I think it's given us good insight of how it's planned. We have a lot of questions and they've ~ well answered. I'd like to just reaffirm some of the comments that have bccn made. One relative to the Kiowa Circle situation. My. driveway does not go onto Kiowa Circle but the taxing of 4 or 5 families is quite stringent level for the amount of work we're doing and I would certainly like to encourage the city to use other methods to ~lish this sewer line repair such as what was rec(m~m~%ded last time by going in and being able to reseal that without having to tear the 43 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 street ~). The street is far fr(xn being inferior compared to Frontier Trail~ can best describe Frontier Trail probably in the w~rds of Chuck Dimler. I can't even drink my coffee on the ~ay going down the hill and that's a very true statement. I have another interesting cc~nent to make relative to that. When you live at the end of Frontier Trail, as w~ have for the last 15 years, it's kind of the last place that anything happens except for where all the lover's lane and everything else takes place. Over this period of time really I've only seen our street repaired one time. Some fixing in a few areas but it never gets to the end of the street so for 15 years I've put up with a very inferior street all the way. And for now, for me to all of a sudden say that I have to incur such a stringent cost on this whole asses~ent, I don't really agree with. I go along with the idea of a 20%. We've used the w~rd benefit here considerably the last time w~ were here at our homeowners get together and today. Yes I do gain benefit by the curb and gutter and the driveway apron and I have no problem with that particular asses~nent. The way it might be done. As far as the r~ainder of the street, it was a substandard street. It was never maintained to keep it to the level it should have been and therefore all it did was degrade itself faster over a period of time. So I would strongly have you consider the 20% program or in fact the funding issue. Let this be your benchmark to establish a new precedence for the City and the methods of handling future street constructions. I think the Council would be well advised to consider that. ~mnk you. Jim Mady: Jim Mady. 7330 Frontier Trail. I guess I'd like to ask the Council to strongly look at what Tom Pzynski had previously asked about with assessing owners based on units versus frontage foot. The neighbors, our neighborhood is predominantly very similar size h~mes. Very similar size hcmes. Very similar size lots. There are a few residences who have very large frontages. Mine happens to be one of the sm~aller ones. I'm a benefitter from the way it's being looked at right now on frontage foot but my benefit is probably equal to the person next to me who happens to have a large frontage. His property's not being increased in value more than mine is so I think the unit basis may, at least in our situation, be a little more fair to the individuals. And specifically to Frontier Trail in the 1st Addition, Sunrise Hills, there's evidence to show that that area was curb and guttered at one time when it was first put in so w~ asked staff to look into that. It wasn't addressed so I guess I'd like to bear more on that because there is evidence to show that that was there once upon a time. From various utilities going in over the years, that's been r~moved and so we w~uld not want to have to pay for that a second time. Councilman Johnson: Was that asphalt? Jim Mady: I'm not sure. I've only been there a little over 6 years so I don't know but it was there at one time. Gary Warren: Bill had looked, we looked through the As bills and could not find any evidence of it. It's not to say that it may not have been built without a plan but w~ could not find any evidence of the curb and gutter as referenced there. Oh pictures. And who are these little children? Arlis Bovy: Arlis Bovy, 7339 Frontier Trail. I've lived on Frontier Trail for 28 years and have, I'm sure paid for at least 2 roads that have gone in. Both of them very s~standard. At one time we did have very good c%%rbs. They looked 44 City Council Meeting - Septembe~ 11~ 1989 like they could have ~ concrete or they were very highly beveled and they w~re adequate. They were taken out when we needed road repair and never replaced they said because they ran out of funds but we were assessed for that once already. My complaint is why do we have to be reassessed for curbs I've already paid for at one time. Gary Warren: They look like bit~uinous curbs. I know especially in Mrs. Bovy's residence there with the storm water runoff issue, that's ~ one of the interests is to keep that beefed up curb section there to help confine the storm water as much as possible. It's an assessment issue. We'll have to do more research on it. That's all I can say. Our records, at least f~c~ what we checked, weren't that clear. That's not to say that thirds aren't added from a street maintenance standpoint without a plan. Arlis Bovy: Can we be assured that this will be checked into? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Ch~iel: Check it out. Gary ~arren: I will check it out. Councilwuman Dimler: Gary, are you sure it was bit~ninous and not concrete? Gary. Warren: Well from that picture it looks like bit~inous, yeah and I know what's out there now is bit~ninous. Arlis Bovy: I know it ~sn't what we've got now which is just shoveled up blacktop. Gary Warren: But that looks like a fomed bit~ninous curb to me. Arlis Bovy: It was very sturdy and it was very adequate at the time but tl~y took it out when they redid the street and never put it back simply because they said they ran out of funds. Gary Warren: What .u~ar was that? Arlis Bovy: The picture sho~ 1968. Gary Warren: But when t/~y took it out? Arlis Bovy: Probably 1969-70. Gary Warren: We' 11 check it out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Once again, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to express your vie~. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was closed. 45 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilw~m~%n Dimler: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to start out. I think we've heard from the residents of Kio~a Circle pretty clearly that they would like to have the Kiowa Circle portion of it taken out of the project. I say this because it has been explained that the sanitary sewer that is crushed, Gary has indicated that it can be fixed at a later date and that it will not in any way disturb the new Frontier Trail. Also the road is not substandard and does not really need to be replaced. I would like to point out too that I checked with Jean Meuwissen today on o~ sewer charges because one of the points made was that our bills to the Metropolitan Waste Control Comnisslon have b~n~ going up. She indicated to me that in 1988 we were paying $33,349.21 per month and now in 1989 we're paying $31,187.32 so it's actually cc~ing down. I guess I just wanted to point that out that the sanitary sewer there is not an emergency type of situation. So I would move that before we consider the rest of the project, that w~ amend the project to take out Kiowa Circle. Councilman Johnson: Is that it? Mayor Chniel: I'd like to say something on this too before we go much further. There's been a lot of questions and a lot of points brought out that have not .vet been addressed and I would like to make a motion at this time so those can be addressed that w~ table it at this particula~ time. Councilw~nan Dimler: Table the whole project or just... Mayor Chniel: Table, not the full project. Table it until all the questions that were brought up by the residents be answered. Councilman Johnson: Speciflcall.V? Mayor Chmiel: Specifically many factors brought up about the curbs such as now. Councilman Johnson: You mean what was brought up tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. This evening. Councilman Johnson: Well why don't we wait until the Council finishes discussing it so our concerns can be brought up too? Mayor Chniel: I'm just throwing my thoughts out right now. I'm not saying... Councilman Johnson: I thought you were making a motion to table which cuts off discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: I made a motion which was not seconded to take Kiowa Circle out of the project. Mayor Chmiel: Tnat's correct. Is there a second to your motion to take Kiowa Circle out of the project? Councilman Johnson: It's a little pre, nature. Councilman Boyt: I might be willing to do that later on but at this point, I'm not ready to do that. 46 City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 11~ 1989 Oouncilw~man Dimler: I would just like to see it take~ off sinoe if ~ tak~ it off then the discussion becomes freer to discuss Frontier Trail. Councilman Boyt: It does. That's true. Council~anan Dimler: It's ~ot so confusing. Councilman Boyt: I think what we're doing tonight other than listening to the residents, which has been valuable, is ~'re being asked to authorize the gathering of additional information. Preparation of plans and specifications sa.us let's get more specific. I think s~me of the questions you're asking will be answered there so I don't see'a need to table it. I don't think we're being asked to do anything other than gather more infozmation as it is. Isn't that right? Gary Warren: The questions, at least the ~ay I have read ~, relate to the assessnent policies which as I think Council is aware, is dealt with in a separate hearing when the process is done. There's no reason I guess in my opinion why the assessment issues ar~ the questions can't be fur~ researched when ~ bring those back at the next meeting or t~o mcctings frc~ now. If Council feels comfortable with the scope of tt~ project as far as what w~ propose, it certainly could be authorized for plans and specs to be initiated which is the more detailed data gathering as it relates to the road width and s~me of these other things that you may ~mt. Councilman Boyt: If w~ get there better through tabling it, I don't see any big rush. We're not going to do this work until next year Mayor Chniel: I think what I'd like to see is at least all those questions addressed. Gary Warren: We certainly can do that. We, as a matter of fact, scheduled for bidding the project during the winter months, January-February and w~ have time to do that. Councilman Boyt: Roger tells me it's very expensive to do plans and specifications and so maybe tabling is t/~ smarter move. A couple of tl~ issues that I heard. ~ne issue about whether Kiowa Circle ~s to be in or out of the project. It's difficult to decide just whether or not I can vote on that much less how to vote on it. But one of my concerns is, if there is in fact only 4 homeowners who are going to be assessed fer this, I being one of the~, it seems to me there's a real advantage in being part of the 1~0 or so other homeowners that are being assessed at th~ same time. I'm not so sure that I'm real eager just as an i~dividual home,owner to tackle this at some later date as 25% of the group paying for it. So that's part of the issue. I'm interested in, you know Chuck mentioned 305, was that linear feet Chuck? 3~5 linear feet in Kiowa Circle? I haven't measured it. Chuck Dimler: I estimated 300 linear feet. Councilman Boyt: Alright so that's around both sides of the road a total of 300. Gary Warren: 590. 47 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Chuck Dimler: No, one side. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so there's really 590? Gary Warren: 590 front feet. Councilman Boyt: Kiowa Circle, the road condition, never having studied the engineering study that you did on that, just looking at it. It doesn't look in great shape to me. How long do you think it will last? What's your engineering estimate? We don't get a lot of traffic do~n there. Gary Warren: Well that's certainly one advantage to the road section is you don't get a lot of road traffic and I don't see that there's a lot of drainage that is sustained on the road which is another factor. Tne life cycle of a pav~nent is difficult to estimate but the thing that is common with a life cycle is that it's sort of an expedential curve in that there is a point in it's life where if you do not undertake routine maintenance at that time, it goes downhill drastically to where you can't repair it. Frontier Trail may have hit that point years ago that predates me but the whole pavement management syste~ approach is the fact that you evaluate your pavements to find where they are in their life cycle and you do maintenance on those that are timely. Where maintenance is worthwhile and then other roads that may look good but because the sub-base doesn't test out, those you do the rehab and structural repairs as necessary so it's a real difficult thing to say. There's alligatoring out on the roadway. As I was looking at it tonight. Alligatoring. Cracking and such would indicate that you've got s(mle sub-base problems but because the traffic isn't that heavy. Probably the heaviest loads out there are our snowplow trucks and that's in the winter or our dump trucks or trash collectors but again it's not that heavy of vol~ne. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd like to have more information about Kiowa Circle before I would personally, just as a property owner, not as a Council member, want to see us pull it out of the project. Councilwcman Dimler: I guess I'd like to restate. Number one, it states in the study that Kiowa Circle ~s only included to repair the sanitary sewer which is the City's desire. I have already gotten information to say that our sewer assessment bills are going down instead of up and it is not an emergency. Gary himself has stated that it can be done at any later date and it will not disrupt the new Frontier Trail. The citizens are not going to be assessed for the sanitary sewer but they are going to be asked to pay a premi~n price to replace the street which does not need replacing. ~nerefore, I move again that Kiowa Circle be taken out of ~ feasibility study and out of this project in order to make this project less confusing. Tnat w~ don't have to include it in the estimated costs and later take it out. For those reasons I move that we take Kiowa Circle out. Is there a second to that motion? Mayor C~xniel: I' 11 call the question. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I ' 11 second it. Mayor Ch~iel: It has been moved and seconded. 48 City Oouncil Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Discussion? Mayor ~iel: It is open for discussion. Councilman Boyt: Is Sue Downs here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Now we've got 75%. Well we've got 1~0%. Two me~bers of the Council and the other two. Councilman Boyt: Well we don't have the Suekers. Sue Downs: The Suekers are here. We've all talked about it and'we all are in agreenemt with Chuck Dimler. He spoke for us. I don't know how Bill Boyt felt but the rest of us are in omnplete agreement with Ursula. Councilman Boyt: Well I guess that ~eals the deal. Councilwoman Dimler: Good for you. Councilman Johnson: Where's the break in the sewar? Gary Warrem: About 112 feet south of the manhole in Frontier Trail. Councilman Bo~vt: About the middle of the road. Councilman Johnson: Okay so if that sewer plu~s now because, as it fur~ deteriorates and we stop and it plugs say next year. ~ho knows? It might be 1~ years frcm now. It may continue. As is we're just putting sewage into the ground out there. Eventually it will plug up and then the sewer's going to back up into mmmebody's house and who owns those houses? Ga~y Warren: ~hoever' s got the lowest service. Councilwuman Dimler: That's us. Councilman Johnson: That's you? Councilwoman Dimler: And we haven't had any back up. Councilman Johnson: Not yet. Councilwoman Dimler: We won' t. Councilman Johnson: If you have a broken sewer, eventually. Gary Warren: The sewers don't connect to that. Dimler's do not take service off of that line. Chuck Dimler: The map is not up now. E~cuse me Mr. Mayor. Chuck Dimler again. The map is not up but I had asked the engineers that they might look at. I'm not certain that in the future, and of course I'm not an e~gineer so please forgive me for being so presumptuous but I 'm not sure that in the future that we even r~ that line on Kiowa Circle. I think a couple of us go out to the sewar in our backyard. The line that runs in the creekbed and them the other folks that 49 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 are not on that llne, you know if there's a probl~n there they might go in a different direction or they might just come back in to the line behind the homes rather than in the street. I'm not certain that that's been looked at or whether it should but I think that should be considered before we spend you know, before we cut our foot off because we have a sore toe. Councilman Johnson: Next thing on this is what is the size of the sewer? Gary Warren: 8 inch diameter. Councilman Johnson: 8 inch diameter. Is it possible to, if we're only serving 1 or 2 hcmes there, retrofit through what's existing there with a 6 inch or another adequate size to serve the, it sounds like maybe only 2 homes are being serviced by that. An 8 inch will service many, many more homes than 2. Is there a way we might be able to, instead of having to rip up the road and all this, work a pipe through there? Gary Warren: The c~anon technique, slip lining is the technique that's been used in instances of that but where you have a structural failure which we have here. An open offset joint and sheered pipe is the description fr~n the televising, it's not a recommendation that I ~ould entertain. That's a structural probl~n that needs to be addressed. I don' t know. Maybe it's existed this way for since it was installed. You don't know. Chances are good because I believe this is close to where the storm sewer crossed that it happened when the storm sewer was put in above it. But it's not a condition. We have an 8 inch minimum standard for our sanitary sewers and that's because of the fact that in order to properly clean those lines with our equilmnent, it needs to be that diameter to minimize and tolerate blockages that do happen. There are two service laterals on the line which our TV report comments on th~n. They are both upstream of this busted pipe. Councilman Johnson: So we have t~ sezwice laterals. How big are those? Gary Warren: 6 inch t~vpically. Councilman Johnson: Those are 6 inch typically. And if this does, do you know how big the offset is? Bill Engelhardt: It's big enough that they couldn't get t_he cameras... Gary Warren: They couldn' t get the camera through. The camera is on skids and it's normally close to the diameter of the pipe so it doesn't take more than an inch offset to prohibit you from going but I haven't personally looked at the videotapes to see what we can do there. Councilman Johnson: I'm not thinking about doing a slip. I'm thinking of actually putting a s~naller diameter pipe clear through. If you've got a clear enough shot to put it through, put the two laterals together and basically almost abandon it up. The sewer. While it won't meet the city's standards, we're only talking 2 people. It's not like, it's an option that might be a heck of a lot less than $55,000.00 and there's a small environmental problem capabilities there. Councilman Boyt: That wasn't sanitary sewer. Tnat was... 50 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Gary Warren: That was 26 granted as a road~ CounciLman Johnson: Yeah, right. But if you don't have to tear up the road. Gary. Warren: We included the cost for ~ total road repair because if you would be in replacing 183 feet of the sanitary sea_r, it would make sense. We could go in tomorrow at a much lesser cost ard strictly repair this break or this sheer and ignore the rest of this line and take our chances with it but w~ certainly could do that for a much less cost. Mayor Chniel: What minimal cost? Gary Warren: I don' t know. Maybe $5,000.~ at the worse. But the problen you don't know with clay tile whic~ this is, is that once you go in ar~ you start digging it up, you have to go back to a good piece of pipe and when you take the overburden off of those pipes, depending on their age, they tend to crumble so you may end up chasing that pipe all the way back to the manhole and you don't know until you get in there. Councilwanan Dimler: Gary, do you see this as an e~ergency situation? Gary Warren: Well in my videotape viewing days as a sewer rehab consultant, I typically addressed any sheered type problem as something that should be high priority, yes. Councilman Dimler: But it's not emergency? Gary. Warren: It' s not my basenent. Councilman Johnson: It's Bill's basement and Sue's basement. Councilwcawan Dimler: I don't think we have any problems. Councilman Johnson: Ktowa Circle is well represented up here. Councilman Boyt: Since I was going through my. couments when w~ went to this amendment that's virtually guaranteed passage here, I'm not in a good position to talk about street assessnents because I'm certainly not tt~ person who's assessed the most on Kiowa Circle. I'm concerned about sanitary sewer. Whether it's Kiowa Circle or anyplace else and the storm sewer is virtually non-functional. If it hadn't been for all the problems with the than Vista develolm~ant, the one thirg that it did was it kept what's now Sue Down's yard from flooding out. I don't think you have floods back there anlamore and Don King's an~ ~u re~m~r that storm sewer which was non-functional there which flooded my basement out. So that issue, the storm sewer issue, I don' t know what the status is now because I think the drainage has charged a bit since Chan Vista w~nt in. I guess where I'm going with this thing is I don't ~nt to see tbe City settle with something less than a functional sanitary sewer systen and if w~ need a storm sewer in there, we need that. As far as the road goes, if the neighbor's don't want the road, I'm in no position to force the~ to take the road and I wouldn't do that. I'm not so sure it's the right decision but if that's what people want to do. 51 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I would ask Gary. Do you consider the sanitary sewer functional? Gary Warren: All I can say is it's functioning at this point in time. It defintely should be on the rehab program. Councilwoman Dimler: At some later date? Councilman Johnson: It depends on what you consider functional. It's leaking sewage to the environment and ground water into the sewer. If that's your definition of functional, it's functional. To me it's broken. Councilwoman Dimler: Can you prove it? Councilman Johnson: Do you want to look at the videotapes? Yes, we can prove it. Gary Warren: Maybe to address it. We are in the process of having plans and specs prepared for our 1989 sewer rehab program and this spot repair could certainly be added to that. Or it could be added with the utility contract for the Frontier Trail project also maybe more appropriately. Councilman Johnson: And that's not assessed correct? Gary Warren: And that's not assessed. Well, it's not assessed in either case. Co~ncilman Johnson: But the street repair that goes on above it is going to be. Councilwoman Dimler: What I 'm saying is that you could do as Don King recc~mended and that is to do sc~e other less expensive t~vpe of repair where the sewer would be functional and would not be endangering the environment. Gary Warren: The thing that I can't guarantee you is that when we go in to do the spot repair at that location, that we wouldn't have to repair the sewer all the way up to the upstream manhole, 183 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. And at that time would you have to tear up Kiowa Circle to that point? Gary Warren: Right. I mean ~ could confine the trench to as little as necessary. Council~uman Dimler: So the repair cost could be considerably less? Gary Warren: It could be less. Councilman Johnson: Tney wouldn't do the entire subgrade. Toe sub-base. Tae curb and gutter. Councilw~nan Dimler: Yes, right. I guess I would opt for that. I don't want us, our citizens to think that we're not concerned about the sanitary sewer. I just want to make it very plain that w~ can handle that in a different, less expensive manner and still have adequate useage. 52 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Now I'm not sure if this is t~ point for us, this point in the project for us to say okay. Take it off. I think w~ should give directions to the engineers at this point that it should be our rec(x~m~ndation and highly considered that this be looked at as a spot repair and then go on. Cou~cilwoman Dimler: But it can still be taken out of the project because w~'re addressing Frontier Trail here and Kiowa Circle ~s only included because of the sanitary sewer and I expect th~m to do the sanitary sewer whe~ tl~y do their updating of the system. Gary Warren: We w~uld include that spot repair in our '89 program. That possibly could be done even this year. Resident: Can I ask a question? Mayor C~miel: Sure. Don King: Being that there's only 2 homes on it, it appears that the line is basically non-functional except for 2 hemes. Is there an alternate way that they could be diverted from these t-~o homes...the line that goes behind Dimler's at a much less cost and then cap off that line that goes down Kiowa when you tear up Frontier? Bill Engelhardt: We looked at that, not in great detail but it appeared that there was a difficult construction going do~a~ betw~m~ the h~m~s and going down the hill, down into the sewer line down in the ravine and w~uld probably do more damage to the yards and everything tlmm~ anything. Gary Warren: Plus the service lines which ~ow c~x~e to the front w~uld have to be redone. Bill f~gelhardt: Everything w~uld have to be redone and come back around the house. It's more involved than just trying to relay the pipe at a different angle. It gets pretty involved with the trees and everything out there. Mayor C~alel: Any other further discussion Council? We have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Johnson: I have discussion on other aspects of the project. Councilw~aan Dimler: No. I think we should vote on this motion first and then discuss the rest of the Frontier Trail project. Councilw~m~n Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to delete the Kiowa Circle portion from the Frontier Trail utility amd roadway improvemant project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I can't believe I voted for it. Councilman Johnson: I tt~u~ht ~u w~uld abstain being a benefitting person on it. 53 City Oouncil M~eting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: Yeah, but I knew which way it was going. Didn't make any difference. CounciLman Johnson: Then that would have been a good reason to abstain. Councilman Boyt: Well back to, before we got onto this I had scme, a list of concerns and I'd like to finish that up. I think that one of them is, Joel brought up the co~nent about the pavenent management fund. It looks to me like what w~'re in the process of doing here Joel is establishing that. Tnat clearly the City is taking on a fair size portion of this. Whether it's 60% or 80% or somewhere in there and when we do that, the City doesn't have any means of paying for that other than selling a bond which pulls out of our bond capacity which in essence is saying we're establishing a fund. We're dedicating a certain amount. And if we do that at the rate of about $55,000.00 worth of pa~uments a year or I think we look at it in terms of $273,000 worth of our bonding capacity a year, we eat that capacity up pretty quick. So there's actually been, amd maybe this is pure fantasy but I've actually approached the idea that the City can' t afford this project. So that's one of my concerns. Then Joel's cc~xnent about the sidewalk. I suspect everybody knows that I am a supporter of a sidewalk system. I also though, as I mentioned to Joel earlier, think that it's, frc~ what I picked up in the neighborhood, there's not overwhelming support for a sidewalk and we'd need to generate that before we considered that option. One of the interesting things that's ceme out in the numbers here and maybe can be addressed as we approach this further, is that I haven't figured out what the philosophy is that the City would be billing back on. It looks like right now if the City goes to the approach that the only thing t_he residents are paying for is improvements in the road surface above and beyond what they're paid for originally, what we paid for originally, then maybe what we're really saying is the City is paying 100% of the cost and we're just paying for the improvements which was one of the options up on the screen. And what does that say about, what are doing for the future? What are we doing when the City c(x~es in now and replaces a road that's fully up to urban standards? Does that mean the City, since we're not upgrading that road, that the City's covering 100% of that expense? I don't know but I see that as one of the issues that needs to be examined further. I think the City has quite a long history, at least the 3 years I've been Watching it. I can only think of one project off hand where we did a per unit assessment and that Was out on, was it Bluff Creek? Gary Warren: Bluff Creek Drive. Councilman Boyt: Due to the tremendously large size of some of those units. I don't rule that out but just the City hasn't done that. So I agree that we're certainly setting a model for the future here. The way we do it. Taat deserves time. Whatever time it takes to figure out what the City would probably do in other situations and I would appreciate having the chance to vote on parts of this but when it comes down to the actual assessment percentage, it ~ould be my intention to not vote. Unless of course, if Kiowa stays out of it I guess it doesn't make much difference. I probably can vote. That's all I have o Councilman Johnson: One of the points that Bill made was that per foot is the good way to go because if you didn't go per foot, 71% of the households would be increased. Well to me that figure says that per foot's the wrong way to go because if 71% of the households would be increased by going to the per unit 54 City Oouncil ~eting - Se~r 11~ 1989 cost, that means 39% of tt~ households Councilman Boyt: 29. Councilman Johnson: Or 29. ~at time is it? Okay. It ~as an early morning this mornin~ too. 29% of the households are being asked to pay more than what w~uld ~ to be a fair share. If you had a developer that had 300 feet that he was going to be assessed for and he could subdivide that into a C~rry Fanus or whatevex, into many households, the per foot makes a lot of sense to me. there's no subdivision available for these people and there's nobody going to subdivide here. The unit makes more sense in a street and se~_r. You know only get one sewer cormection. Of course it's not in this one but ~u're only doing o~e driveway except for Jim. Or who is it that has tw~ drive%rays down there? Resident: Freidlanders. Councilman Johnson: Ch Freidlanders. Aren't they moving? Councilman Boyt: They did already. They're gone. Councilman Johnson: They already moved. Ckay. ~hey've got the tw~ driveways. Per driveway assessment. I don't know. But to me, because one person happens to be on the curve and has the outside of the curve as his property and has 300 feet and another guy's on the inside of the curve and ba_m 50 feet, and tl~y're next door neighbors even. ~hey both drive the same distance down it. ~hey're both protected the same way by it. I can't see that it's worth 6 times as much to that guy. with 300 feet as it is to the guy with 50. ~hat does not ~ fair to me. So my. gut reaction looking at it, and if 71% of the people would have a reduction if you ~nt the other way, it se~ms to me a per unit may be a fairer way. Bill Engelhardt: 71% wouldn't have the reduction. Councilman Johnson: Or 71% would have an increase. Bill f~gelhardt: You're acting... Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm standing up for the guys that are the minority. Yes. Bill Englehardt: Your Honor. One quick cc~ment on that and maybe Roger, w~ can research this for you and bring that back too but you have to keep in mind that you have to show benefit and that the cost of the improvements are going to increase the market value by. the property equally that amount ard so if you do it by. the unit method and you have a s~all lot, his market, it'd be very difficult to prove the benefit on that. We can research that and look at it and I'll talk to Roger a little bit about that but that's the reason .~)u have to look at it. Councilman Johnson: But the benefit's equal. You're sitting on a paved street. I can't see that your property value's going to go up because l~u've got all this fancy, curb in front of ~ur house. So anyway, that needs to really be researched more but this isn't the assesa~ent hearing. We're not making that 55 City Council M~eting ' September 11 ~ 1989 decision but right now I need scme more information before I make that decision. Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm suggesting that w~ table this at this particular time and come back with some conclusions as to what we're looking for. With that I will make that into a motion. Councilman Johnson: I've still got one more conxnent on width of road. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's wind her up because w~'ve got a lot more to go yet. Councilman Johnson: I know. I can't see making it any more narrow personally. Even though making it narrower makes it theoretically people will slow down more. I don't know if they really would slow tbam down to make it narrower. I'm not sure if it will speed them up to make it wider. Councilman Boyt: Make it one way. Gary Warren: On a curvy road like this, narrower could be more hazardous actually. Councilman Johnson: More dangerous. When you start putting the barrier curbs, if you hit that curb at a speed, you can flip and whatever. I'm against getting down, back to 24 foot all the way through or sc~nething like that. I think 27 would be much better for that road. It's hard to say which is safer. Make it a little wider so that's it. Mayor Chniel: I have a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on Frontier T~ail Utility and Roadway Improvements for further info~mation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? I would like to move that we amend the agenda to move i t~n 12 to the next i t~n. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. That was going to be my next one. Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray is here. He's the person who requested this density. To have it other than the consent agenda. Mayor CRxniel: Why don't we take that one first and then we can move frc{n there. Councilman Johnson: ~nat's item 8. Councilman Boyt: We have quite a few people here for Vineland Forest Addition that have bc~n~ here all night. Mayor Chmiel: Let's just move real quick to item nt~nber 8 and then we'll go from there. With that I would consider that an amendment... 56 City Oouncil Msetirg - September iii 1989 Gouncilw~man Dimler: And then to 14~ Mayor Chniel: Right. ZONING ORDINAI~2E ~ REGARDING DEFINITION (~F DENSITY, FINAL READING. Rick Murray: Yo,~ Honor. Gouncil members. I'm Rick Murray. A land owner, or property owner in f2mnhassen. I'm also a land developer. I had the opportunity and privilege back in 1982 through 1985 to sit on your enviror~ental or wetlands ccmmittee to establish your w~tlands ordinance. There w~re 5 of us on that c~mittee. Suzanme Conrad is also here. She was on that committee as well. I know you've got a big age~da tonight so I'll make these really brief I appreciate the r~earks that I heard earlier about fair~ess because we spent a lot of time on that ccmmittee talking about how to in essence take property that's valuable to us as a ommmanity, i.e. the wetlar~s, that w~ were talkirg about severely restricting. How that land owner could use to keep ~ for the rest of the coemunity. To keep t~se wetlands as it might be sacred for the rest of the coemunity. We talked about different methods. At that particular point in time your zonirg ordinance talked about density. Only density. Not net density. One of the mechanisms that we had discussed, which worked then which under your new larguage of net density, does not work, was a density transfer which is a clustering of units. Ma.~be not a straight density transfer. If a gentl~an has 4 acres of wetlands in a 2 unit per acre zone, maybe not to transfer 8 units uphill but transfer sce~=thing. ~ybe it's only 1 unit but at least it's a recognition of value that he's keepirg scmethirg that's important to us as a cca~unity, i.e. an aqua fir, purifier for our enviror~ent, that he's not usirg. That the rest of us can appreciate that it will help filter our water. It's just a mechanism...that was discussed in 1982 and a~ain in 1983 according to the Minutes that we I had at our wetlands c~mission. To wrap this up, speaking of fairness. Most zoning issues do discriminate against new home buyers. That's just a fact of life. As a developer we recognize that. Very few zoning ordinance changes discriminate against the people that have been the back bone of your c(mmunity, i.e. the people who for generations have lived in the ccemunity to create the c~am~nity and farm the ccexm~nity. A net density change of this fashion or the language change, does exactly that. ~he people that have been in this ccemunity. ~hat have worked the land, farmed the land that in the 195~'s didn't drain tile their lar~. Didn't destroy all those wetlands but they kept them. Those are the people that are now being hindered when they go to sell their property of recognizing value. I'm a developer. I won't pay him for it. I already know it's an sme~ity for the cca~unity. It's sacred. You guys won't let me touch it. I'm not going to buy. it from him. So in fairness, and that's the only issue I bring up, in fairness. The people you're not hurting aren't the new home buyers. They bear the brunt of enough new things that ccme through the City corridors and that we have to pass onto tha~ and it's not the developer because what we can' t use, we typically don' t pay for, but it's the people that have been the back bone of your ~ity for centuries or for several y~ars. Those are the people this most affects ar~ that's the value that it affects. That's all I'll say. Councilman Johnson: Rick? As I look through the zonim~ ordinance under PUD, which you're talking about for the net density transfers. That's where you can do a transfer is under PUD ordinance. Under nozmal zoning ordinanoe you can't do a density transfer right? 57 .. City Council M~eting - September 11, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: Not the w~y it is now. Rick Murray: The zoning ordinance now just talks about net density and in 1982 through 1985, your zoning ordinance talked about density. You added the w~rds in 1986. The words net ~.re added to the zoning ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Right. When w~ changed the zoning ordinance and added for everything for R-12. Rick Murray: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: There was one ~mission. The R-8, the R-4, all say net density and the R-12 said maximum density. Or they all say maximum net density and the word net is not there in R-12. We can't find why it w~s excluded out of R-12. Rick Murray: At that particular time Jay it Ms probably just an oversight. My discussion, and not unfairness under the R-12. It's unfairness on maximum net density in all of the ordinances. Councilman Johnson: So you're w~nting us to change the rest of it. Rick Murray: No. I don't want you to do anything. I just want you to think about it. Councilman Johnson: Under PUD, on a single family PUD, you're not allowed a density transfer by this ordinance for wetlands but you are under the other than single family. Kind of interesting the w~y it does but you still can get the net density. You still can get density transfers if you do a PUD. Rick Murray: If you decide to go through everything that the City requires of you for a PUD. Councilman Johnson: Which is the only way you can get a density transfer. You can' t get it in a regular R-12 anyway. There's no such thing as a density transfer in R-12. Rick M~rray: Now. And that's right. Councilman Johnson: And since 1986. Rick M~rray: Tnat's correct. Councilman Johnson: So what we're doing tonight has no affect. Rick Murray: I wasn't commenting. My comments were basic toward how it affects the value of the land owners that have owned property in this c(m~unity for a long period of time. Councilman Johnson: Tne 1986 changes do? Rick Murray: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Okay. 58 City Council Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Mayoz Ch~iel: Any further discussion? R~an Conrad: I'm Susan Conrad and I was also on the cc~nittee and I just ~nt to add another kind of philosophy, that the committee and that was that at scme point in time w~ as a community have to decide that the w~tlands are a value. I just question what Rick is brirging up just doesn't give us a point to stop and say, okay they're an amenity. They're going to make that piece of land more valuable for th~ farmer that may have owned the~ to sell and they're an ~enity to live next to an open area like that as it is to live next to a park. ~hat gives him greater value in selling ard that's the point at which to stop so the developers like Rick who go in and don't pay for those pieces of property are aware of it and they don't do it. We no lorger are going to in the future be debating whether that's taking or not taking. That's just one little point I want to add in looking at that and deciding if it's fair. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the second reading of the arendmemt regarding net density. Councilman Workman: I guess I was a little unclear with your point in regards to Rick' s. Susan Conrad: I'm thinking that Rick is perhaps suggesting that w~ go on and on forever having people cc~plain that this is a taking if we don't just say that's it. Wetlands are protected and they're not to be considered into the net density. Rick's right. We never dealt with the terms net and gross. It's just that if we don't c~me to a place to stop it, that forever, whoever is zoning it. Whether it's the developer that bought it understanding that wetlands are not to be touched or how far down the line it goes, that forever we're going to be, you're going to he debating people who are going to say that's a taking. I know what Rick is saying about the farmer and the comnittee talked a whole lot about the people who o~n the land to begin with and I know what Rick's argument is. They also didn't pay greater taxes on those w~tlar~ areas. Taey paid almost nothing because t/~y were unuseable 1.ands. In the 5~'s when th~ farmers drained all that land, they didn' t do it believing that it ~Duld be as hazmful as it turned out to be. But t/~y did make profit frcm that lard over the years. It's not like it's just being taken and I'm just suggesting that we think about that fairness and think about a place to stop and to say, this isn't taking. This is an ane~ity to people who live the~e. It's an amenity to the ~ahole community and just accept it that way. And that was t/~ philosophy of the c(mmittee. The botbom line is our wetlands are valuable and real Lmpor~t. Councilman Workman: Them if I o~n that very valuable piece of something and I'm not getting nothing for it. It's a greedy world but I mean, if I owned 1MM acres in this to~n and 18 of it is wetland and I'm going to go ard sell it now to Rick Murray so he can put 1 car garage homes on it. Then' he's only going to pay me for 82 acres am~ he's going to laugh because he's going to build these houses around my. nice 19 acre Class A wetland possibly and he's going to get more money doing it and it's going to be to his benefit. It's going to be beautiful so what was worthless apparently to me is now fairly worth something to a neighborhood and to a city and to a c(mmunity so there is value there. 59 City Council M~eting - September 11, 1989 Roger Knutson: You should have asked for more money for yo~lr property~ Councilman Workman: Yes, I should have asked more money for my property but if the going rate for an acre is $6,000.00, is that going to be figured on 100 or is it going to be figured on 82? I'm going to get short changed. Councilman Johnson: Only if you accept it. Roger Knutson: Negotiate better. Councilman Workman: Well I'm no good at that. I'm trying to protect myself. Susan Conrad: If it's of value to the developer, then it should be of value to him to buy it from you because it's an amenity and that's all I'm suggesting is that now wetlards aren't, no one calls them swamps anlmlore. They're a wildlife habitat generally. Councilman Johnson: Instead of saying it's an amenity, it's a natural resource. Saying it's an amenity sounds c(mmercial to me. Susan Conrad: But Rick is suggesting that w~ are causing a small population to pay for something that's a resource to all of us and that's his point right? Rick Murray: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Basically you can own a natural resource. Just like the creek running through your property. You may own that creek but you don't have any control over that creek. It's a natural resource that's controlled by other people. You can't dam it up and you can't change it's course or anything. That's the class that the ~orld is moving towards on watlands. President Bush is very, very adamant about loss of wetlands. Really changed some people's mind in EPA and other places in starting to protect the w~tlands. You're going to see more and more protection of wetlands in the next few years. Councilman Workman: Again, that's not the point. You talk about value. Everybody likes wetlar~s but to the person who's the owner and if I own that wetland, well again that's negotiations. Councilman Johnson: It's how you advertise it. Look at what I'm selling you. This fantastic w~tland I'm selling you. Councilman Workman: But I think where it's coming out is again, like (~envesco. We get a deal and hills and wetlands and then you've got to take that out and then that puts you in a pickle so if you own that property, you're in a pickle. You suddenly can' t do much with it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Definition of Density, Final Reading. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chniel: Would you like to state your reason Tom? Councilman Workman: It doesn't make sense. 60 .. City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 11, 1989 APPROVE CONCE~ PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITIONi Paul Krause: At the last City Gouncil mccting there %ms discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to tt~ chase but there ~s a lot of back, round investigation that w~nt into this in terms of creating a study area and reviewing existing plats that had ~_n approved in this area. T~ere ~s one in particular to the w~st side of the study area that has ~ approved. It has ~ final approved. It has not ~ filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights-of-way. Bordering roads. ~hatever and tried to define ~ich of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in terms of what sort of goals we w~uld have for the access system. We ~anted an access that provided ideally some thru movoment on the north/south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of hemes eventually in this area and that it was ~rranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Some information the City developed in texms of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is caxrying a considerable amount of traffic so providirg another means of outletting that neighborhood becomes a concern. We basically w~und up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as r~ended or proposed by. the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable extension of that...how that could serve the r~maining ur~eveloped grourd in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland plat showed tw~ stub rights-of-~y oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a probl~a because the only way to build it is to take out the ho,~e on the adjoining property which is scmet~hing we were concerned about. We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point ard assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing servioe...reo(xmpsmding t~ position of coming up with s~mething that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're rec(mmending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties with a street connection that would ccme through the Peacef~l Hills plat. That is a stub right-of-way that had ~ provided c~ming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. Tree proposal has some merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The majoz problom as we see it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long te~a is rather short sighted. Again, all these trips... We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more. traffic you have on Pleasant View...it's reasonable to assume that ~ percentage of that is going to travel east... Councilman Johnson: Before ygu move on Paul. Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be ass~ed that we're dom to Alternate 2 or 3? 61 City Co,~ncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? Paul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... Councilman Workman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting option. Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub coming off of Lake Lucy on the west side by the water tower there. That wasn' t considered in any options. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it doesn't seen to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is again an if, which is a hL~3e 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? Paul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 concepts. Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. Tnere's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is some difficult grade there. It's probably scn~ething that could be accomnodated. One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's hearing you out there. Paul Krause: One of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north/south connection between Powers and the lake. If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of prcmoting that north/south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is potentially viable from a grading standpoint. We just didn't feel it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after ~cing how the whole area functioned. Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north/south connection up to a road that we don' t really want people going on that much? Pa~LI Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off scme of this traffic to the south. Right now the Way the original plat was proposed and pres~nably the Way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant View. The north/south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think it's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate Ways in and out of an area that's going to have that many homes. There's also questions of emergency vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north doesn't resolve that c~estion for them. Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 62 City Oouncil Meeting - September 11~ 1989 going. Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative w~ looked at ~as a variation of the ~ that was presented by. an architect working for the homeowners association where they illustrated tw~ cul-de-sacs. One coming in fr~m Pleasant View. The other cc~ing in from Nez Perce. We took that design and tried to modify, it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. ~at we did is we took the southern cul-de-sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hills. ~nis goes a lot fur~ to providing that north/south routing. We see probl~ns with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the more complicated you make this, the less likely it is that people are going to use it. The second issue, and this will c~me into play a little later, is that the completion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of tw~ other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We w~uld continue to advocate stub rights-of-way being dedicated so we can extemd roads in the future and we'll often push for those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult probl~. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatted and what we tried to do is c~me up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Pod_rs Blvd.. Rather than further to the east and think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they. will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So - this is an option that we felt had some merit. The final one is basically the one that ~s presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were ~ questions as to ~he~ or not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of w~rk on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're omafortable that a good safe street can be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has some merits and it has s(m~ problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north/south connection in a very centrally located point between Powers and the lake so we think th~ utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The do~ side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to rec~m~nd that it be select_~ for the tw~ reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that probl~. Our reco~m~=-r~ation furthe~ though is that if this alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce .vet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like t~. were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and 63 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 somebody walking. If another car cc~nes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally w~uld rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Scmetimes you may not be able to get in fr~m Pleasant View so I can' t see everything coming off of Pleasant View but I 'd hate to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant View as far as I 'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's sc~e areas where the trees. Pleasant View just seems wider even though pav~nent wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pav~nent but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce just seems narrower. I really have a probl~n with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where coming south. That's 3 up there but even 3. Cc~ning south it w~s a right turn only so it doesn't beccme a short cut to ccme from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're coming south it's a right turn only and goir~ north on Nez Perce, you could leave it bo where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. T~ where you have a one lane to the right both ways. Dave Hsmpel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right-of-way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only so we' re not getting people coming off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this neighborhood and then r~u~ning through Nez Perce to go to t_he grade school or come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and the collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want bo see that people ccming out of that and going south are forced to go over to Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. Councilwclnan Dimler: Jay, do you have an alternate, which one are you proposing? Mayor Chmiel: He said 2 or 3. Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some modifications on 4 so southbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would Councilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. Councilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left turn. Councilman Boyt: well you know that doesn ' t work. Councilman Johnson: Pleasant View? Councilman Boyt: That's right. 64 City Council Meeting - Septenber 11~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Near ~buntain. But see the signs never went up thereJ That was the problen. When you build the road and day one on the road you have a sign sayirg right turn only. At Near M~untain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. O~ left turn only sign. ~hat didn't work after you had 3 years of people makin~ right hand turns to come in and do it. If on day one you put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. Mayor C~niel: Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. ~hat you're saying is that the right turn only is for people ccmin~ out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Road do~n to Powers. Going south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Councilman Boyt: ...Option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook-ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that everybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are living there will fight that diligently when the day comes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us some sort of assurance that the other property, owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to omme up with a, what did you call it Gary? S~me kind of a cc~p~ehensive road plan or something? Gary. Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a concept layout here. We didn't take that any fur~ but what I suggested or my coament would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, renaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they involved in any of this discussion or have they ~ talked to at all? F~ank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want ~e to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. F~'s lived there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I kno~. on who owns the property. Tae property next to it is Art 0~a~s and he's here tonight. The property, next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Trundle? Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did ~ in quite s~xee time ago and spoke with me about it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still *alkirg the future here. 65 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Did he have any objections to the proposal? Dave Hempel: Not to my recollection, no. Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? Mayor Chmiel: Frank, go ahead. Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked very hard in giving some alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in all the years I've been here where staff came up with some alternatives so we didn't have to start from scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View RDad to try to enforce the speed limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pulled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the other way around. Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck, the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so t_hat we can see when ~ come out both ways and also the people can see us when we pull up. Now we're having to tear up this drive%~y, tear out all the elect~rical and then we're going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. P~ople come up that road. It's wide and so they cc~e up fast and they don't realize it narrows dow~ a little later so safety is a real issue. ~nis is the developer's property directly across the road from, we call it the famnhouse. This is a borderline and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. ~nis house sets 30 feet from the road and this driveway ccmes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living room coming out on the original proposal. When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips per day per household so with 21 holmes, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't know how many of those are at night but scmebody who lives there is going to have a nervo[m breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into their front room. And it's so close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but I think that would be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce Drive and w~ clocked it from the southerly access that ~ could like to ~_cc down to Kerber and that's 5/10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as Pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and that's where Western Road comes in. Then we went back and clocked it from the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and ~ went to TH 101. Now we only w~nt as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and wide. And the first 5/10ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic coming down Nez Perce road to Kerber. NOw I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so 66 City Oo,~cil M~eting - Septenber 11~ 1989 obviously w~ aze not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff is reporting that there were 360 to 1,3~ cars a day going by this area of Vineland develo[az~nt. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're alrea~ at s~me point in time, 3~0 cars over on Pleasant V~ew Road so we are very much against any more traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've already gone through, we really rec(mm~m~d Alternate 3 and when I picked up this material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It r~ed to be fine tuned and the first thing w~ noticed was that in the property that the developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots ard then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does come out with 18 lots. At the last meeting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you (~ck? You don' t ~mnt a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really think we should have to bold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and getting the other owners position. I would think that in tt~ future if anybody ~nted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at s(m~e future date there. While we w~re waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take tt~ e~d of this cul-de-sac and this is very steep right here but you can come at an angle, like this ar~ go over and ccme back down so maybe you could have anothe~ access here. You'd have this access which would relieve part of the traffic th/s way. You'd have this access and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. I said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you accept it? It's my understanding that Chuck said he ~as not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would vote on this plan and accept th~s plan with a temporary cul-de-sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. What's the difference between the City' s 3 and your 3A? Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. ~ whe~ the City did it, they were doing it and they ~are under pressure a~d they were concerned about the roads but obviously the developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so Daryl Fortier developed this so it would come out to 18 lots in that area. Not counting the 3 that go up here. Oouncilw~nan Dimler: I assume all those lots are standard? You don't know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,00~ square feet? Daryl Fortier: They're all in c~mplianoe with the City ordinanoe for depth and width as well as the square footage. 67 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That bop green one then? Frank Beddor: Yes. Tnere would be a driveway here to go into this one and this would probably be 2 lots with a driveway ccming in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. One of the things that w~ did object to in Plan 2 and some of the other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways cc~ing out. I don't think the City wants that either. ~nat doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and getting this worked out. Mayor Chniel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? Chuck Van Eeckhout: My name is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that represents the best use of this property after considerable study and evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Hc~neowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further cc~ments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor C~niel: Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you ccming down out of that, even on Option 3, if you're oaning down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much problem? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. Mayor Chniel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got one c(mment. I think that what I would really be co~mnitting to here would be scme sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we' re calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different topic. Whether the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed to come up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the west o Councilman Johnson: When in October, or Mr. Owens is here isn't he? Is he going to let that expire? 68 City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 11~ 1989 Mayor Chniel: Do you want to address that? Arthur Owens: There's no wy I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have .uou looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that affect your property? I'd like to hear fr~m you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A w~uld be the most effective... I think for all tf~ properties. Councilman Johnson: ghat's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreemm~t. That's better than usual. Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor C~miel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would word it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we, I think if the rest of you agree, that the S curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. Mayor C2mttel: Yes. Definitely. Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have... Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by. that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. %~ry good point. I missed that completely. Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well whe~ it was a straight through. With Alternate 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Ye. fa at one time. You haven't? Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. Councilw~nan Dimler: It's not a short cut tome. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Boad. Nez Perce c~zing do~n here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and evexythirg else. It's definitely going to be a chute going do~n there. 69 City Oouncll ~L=eting - September 11~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've seen quite a few people walking that area. Mayor Chmiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best one but it's not that it's necessarily... Mayor Ch~iel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of it~n 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. Councilman Johnson: Item 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that w~ also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No problem. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chuck Van Eeckh0ut: One question. What is the correct procedure at this point? We have a preliminaz'y plat...We take it you will approve a preliminary plat... next time? Jo Ann Olsen: Nomnally we would go back to the Planning Oan~ission but the Planning Oanmission essentially gave...configuration to the Council so I think we could just bring it back to the Council. Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. APPEAL DH2ISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, Carl M=Nutt: Carl M~Nutt. fllrly McNkltt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can some of these mathenatical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest piece of property frcm between TH 101 and the cu~we on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. Tne legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods of that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. Consequently leaving me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn't 70 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 realize I was buying a substar~ard lot. It's r~t deep enough. At that time it was real big. I want to approach this fr~n two direct/ohs. First, it's 55 feet fr~m my house to tb~ edge of the blacktop. It makes me a nice lawn out front. In fact it's, well there's 55 feet all the way down fr~m w~ll it would be about 25 feet from the legal edge of the road, what they own to the edge of the blacktop. Now I've ~ that. Kept it like a park if anyone's gone alorg there for 35 years but then I want to go back, way back in history to when I bought that house. It ~ms the first one built on the Olest Johnson develolz~nt and at that time it was a township. In the Oounty Oourthouse, that road was only 2 rods wide. 1 rod on my side and 1 rod on the Kenny Kerber's side. He owned a farm where the Near ~buntain development is now. Bud Cask can attest to that fact that none of our abstracts said that the township owned 2 rods or a 4 rod road. 2 rods on each side. W~ petitioned after, I think it was 1954, we petitioned the town board to have that road dustproofed s~mhow. Well they hashed that around for a while and decided that they ~ed another rod from us and a rod on the north side fr~m the farmer, all along there. So we w~re hashing this, deciding whether we should give an easemm~c for another rod or not and the farmer, Kenny Kerber ~ho now lives in Arizona or Texas, somewhere, offered to sell us all an extra rod on his side. 2 rods so it wouldn't interfere with our property, at all. ~hile we were debating this, old John Kerber w{D was the Chairman of the Town Board at that time, somehow conveniently, this went on for quite a few months didn't it Bud? Maybe 6 months. Conveniently Mr. Kerber found in the deceased town auditor or treasurer or whatever they had, township auditor, found an article that said this had been eased many years ago. Well we don't kT~w how many years ago. It wash' t in the _c~_rver Oounty courthouse and we don't know. 01est Johnson, the man originally owned that is dead. I can't check with him. I was going to have A1 Klingelhutz, the fozmer Mayor, ccme and talk. This kind of snuck up on me. I wante~ to get a letter fr~n Kenny Kerber and attest to that fact but I think it's unfair that things have caught up. If I had known this was going to happen, I would have built a house on that piece of property myself 10 years ago and got out of all this hassle. But events have caught up with me now and really if you people would come look at that property, if someone couldn't build a big house there and have a fine piece of grass out in front to mow and 30 feet in back, they'd be over 100 feet from the nearest neighbor which is way farther than all of the develola~ents around there. Directly south of me tl~y put 5 pieces of property on 1 acre of land. Now that's not 15,000 square feet per. That's within the last 5 years. The front of those lots there's 30 feet wide. The backs are 250. My. piece of property would be a nice rectangular spot. Easy to build on and everything. Would need a little bit of fill probably. Otherwise all it's good for is to look at and for me to mow and I'm getting tired of it. Thank you. Mayor Chniel: Thank you. Any questions? Oouncilman Johnson: Yeah. Jo Ann or Paul or Shanmin. How wide is the right-of-way there? Total right-of-way from Pleasant View. Carl Mc~ttt: There's 66 feet on my. end and right around the corner it goes down to 33. Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the full right-of-way at that point. 71 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: ~e got full 66 at this point. Does that go all the way out to TH 101 is 66 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so. Councilman Johnson: That's not much for front yards for some of the people further up TH 101. Carl McNutt: Ail along that place they've all built the same way. Years ago, they're all the sane setback. But w~mow it anyway...They'll never need it ,anless they run a freeway through there. Councilman Johnson: I mow the right-of-way in front of my house too. Then ~ we get to the curb, we drop to 33 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: Which curb is that? Councilman Johnson: When wa get to the curb by Trapper's Pass? The new addition there it drops to 33 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know exactly where it starts but it gets narrower... Councilman Johnson: In general. How many feet off of, the argument seems to be instead of going, do we need 66 feet of right-of-way there and has there been a calculation done to see how many feet it has to be narrowed in order for him to get to 15,000 standard? Carl M~Nutt: 9 1/2 feet. Jo Ann Olsen: We haven' t done that calculation. It's not a whole lot when you do the whole length of there. Co~ncilman Johnson: What he should be first requesting is vacation of part of the street easement in order to get the proper width there. Then that would solve tt~ problen. What's the classification of this? Collector? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: And all collectors have 66 feet? Or most collectors have 66 feet. Scme collectors have 66 feet. Pick one of the three. Carl M~Nutt: Can I ask another question? When was this made a collector? I don't think it was ever made a collector. They've added developments all along that for years and especially in the last 5. So it becomes a collector nowyeah because everybody uses it but it's just a little old country road. Councilman Johnson: For the property owner, if he believes that this right-of-way was taken without any compensation, that's a long time ago. I'm not sure what kind of legal recourse he would have. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Maybe Roger can address that. Would there be any other recourse? 72 City Council Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: As far as his prediction that this was just tak~ and there was no real records of it being taken. He ~sn't paid for it or anything, that it's not a legal right-of-way. Roger Knutson: What is it curb to curb? Gary Warren: Actually it's 73 feet of right-of-a~y. Councilman Johnson: ~his has 73 feet of right-of-way? Gary. Warren: From this...section it looks like it's 73 feet there. Changes immediately west of that to...but there is a little jog there in front of his property that looks like it's 73. Herb Cast: My. name is f~.rb Cast. ! live 2 doors east of Curly McNutt and that's a real pretty map you've got there but when Pleasant View Road was made, it ~as a dirt road and the township took 33 feet off the front of our property. Ail of our plantings and evexything went at that time and that map has ~ made since then. Probably even a date on it and if you could find the map that when my house was built in 1959, it's going to look a lot different than that. Gary Warren: I'm just saying now on the County records it shows a 73 foot right-of-way. Roger Knutson: It can be established in many ways. One is by use. Under a State Statute, if the City or County or whoever, maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the City owns it by adverse possession but they only o~n the traveled portion plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. Councilman Johnson: 73 feet's a little wide for that particular road. Councilwmnan Dimler: . ..some back does that make his lot confonming? Councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. It doesn't have enough. E~en then he r~s 9 1/2 and he gets 3 1/2 assuming that half of that 73 is on the north side and half of it's on the south side. He gets 3 1/2 and he ~s 9 1/2. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have staff look at that? Mayor Chniel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: But on the straight merits of the variance, I think we probably ought to move to deny the variance but... Mayor Chniel: But before w~ deny that variance, what I'd like to do is have staff take a close look at this. Omne up with a conclusion as to what is really needed to be in conformance with that total footage. Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as vacating a portion of the right-of-way? Mayor Ch~iel: Right. And determine that and then come back to us with that answer and I think that way we can come up with a conclusion. 73 City Council Meeting - Septsmber 11~ 1989 Paul Krause: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that it's probably possible, depending on how much right-of-way the City is willing to bicker with, come up with a lot that meets the area requir~ent but there's still going to be a lot depth variance and that won' t go away. Councilman Boyt: That won' t make it then. Mayor Ch~iel: Okay. Even if you had that, it would not make any difference to it then? Jo Ann Olsen: You'd still have a variance. Mayor Ch~iel: You'd still require a variance to what's existing? Jo Ann Olsen: Exactly. Councilman Johnson: And you won't meet the hardship because he's got adequate use of the property as a single family home. Councilwuman Dimler: I guess I had a question Jo Ann, or whoever wants to answer it. If you do then, say that w~ would allow this just hypothetically, w~ have 2 non-conforming ~mes that are now lots of record right? Jo Ann Olsen: If you approve the... Council~uman Dimler: If we approve it they bec(xne lots of record. Is the buyer of that lot there have to ccme in for variances? Jo Ann Olsen: No. It's been approved as a lot of record. Councilw~nan Dimler: So they can build without any variances? Jo Ann Olsen: As long as they can meet all the setbacks. Councilman Boyt: They probably could. Well, given the lot depth problen, I would move denial of this variance. Councilman Johnson: He's existing non-conforming to lot depth at this time? His existing hcn%e. He's a legal non-conforming as we discussed earlier. Carl M~Nutt: All the people along there are too close to the road. Councilman Johnson: So all the lots along Pleasant View are legal non-conforming lots? I don't know whether that makes any difference. The difference is going to be if the legislature passes the new laws on how we decide variances. At this point we're tied by state law. Councilman Boyt: Have you got a second? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I' 11 second that. Mayor Ch~iel: I'm having discussion here and... Councilman Boyt: You can discuss. We just have a motion on the floor. 74 City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 11~ 1989 Mayor C~alel: We have a motion on the floor with a second ard you're saying to de~y the proposal? Is that correct? Oouncilman Boyt: Yes. I'm saying that because no matter how w~ cut this, the lot will not have sufficient depth so w~ would be creatirg a lot that was non- conforming and it doesn't meet the criteria. Mayor C2~iel: Even if hm had that 9 1/2 feet. Councilman Boyt: It still wouldn't make it. Mayor Ch~iel: It still won't make it but would the City. be willirg to give up additional footage on that to make that into a confozmance amd how many more feet would that take? Councilman Johnson: Into Pleasant View. 5 feet into the asphalt. Jo Ann Olsen: He has to have 125. Gary. Warren: I don't know where the roadway lies at this moment in relation to the right-of-a~y lime. Councilman Johnson: It says 25 feet. 25 feet from his property line is the asphalt in the drawing and to get 125 foot, he's at 87 foot now so it'd be about to the center of the road. Gary Warren: We'd have to vacate to the center of the road? Jo Ann Olsen: He's got a 33 foot right-of-way and it comes up to 38 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not going to work. Mayor ~iel: No. I don't think it will unfortunately. Carl McNutt: What kind of houses are w~ building in Chanhassen... Councilman Johnson: It's not as much that as it is the state law that requires us to how w~ function on variances. Quite simple the need to subdivide your house is the need for economic profit. You have reasonable use of your land. Carl M~NUtt: Who came up with this 125 foot depth? You people. It doesn't matter whether we c~me up here ar~ discuss it. I'm... I don't care particularly. I can see that I'm lost here but it really irks me that w~ can c~me up here and have all kinds of discussions like the direction, the Heritage House, the old church was facing down here. We can put our input in. We can do all this stuff. Who decides it? You 5 people. I don't like it. Co~cilman Johnson: How do we 5 people get here? Councilman Boyt: Jay, let's vote on this and get going. Carl M~Nutt: Maybe you're not going to be here the next time. 75 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the appeal to the decision for a lot area and lot depth variance, 185 Pleasant View Road, Carl McNutt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I would move that w~ adjourn. Councilman Johnson: Second. Mayor Chmiel: I would make that motion that we carry through with the balance of the meeting at our Wednesday budget work session at 6:30. Councilman W~rkman: Who are these people? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. ~e do have another group of citizens here too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Was there someone here who was... Councilman Johnson: For another issue. Councilman Boyt: That's a good hour's discussion. Resident: We're here with the Near Rbuntaln discussion. Mayor Chmiel: The PUD amendment? Resident: We' re... Pleasant View homeowners that have this concern with you planning to open Lip that emergency access on Indian Hill and sending more cars down Pleasant View Road again. Mayor Chniel: Is that the item 14.57 Co~u~ciLman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to take this at this time but with limited discussions. Directly to the points and then we can go from there. Tom Sykes: I've looked at this property a number of years, a n~ber of times. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to crone up to the microphone please? Co~ncilman Johnson: Bill, do we want to withdraw our motion and second? Councilman Boyt: I'm willing to go until until 25 after and then I'm leaving. I hope we adjourn before then. Tom Seifert: I'll just make this real quick. We were sitting here with, we came up with the Pleasant View Hc~eowners group and my name is T(xn Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road. Our concern was, when we were up here we ran into Peter Pflaum and his group and they said they were on the agenda because yDu were going to open up or the City staff was requesting that the emergency access that was platted a number of years back for the Near Mountian development would be opened back up for some reason and sending more traffic down Indian Hill Road onto Pleasant View Road. Do I have this wrong? 76 City Council Meeting - Se~ iIi 1989 Councilman Boyt: I don't think that was one of the... Councilman Johnson: I think it's as an euerg~y access. Not as a street. Mayor Chniel: Strictly as an energency. Linda Kramer: I'm Linda Kramer and I live on Indian Hill Road and I have a real interest in this because 10 .~=ars ago when it was discussed as an ~ergency entrance, it was going to be something with an arm or some kind of device so cars were not usirg the road and I an very concerned tonight hearing that the City is proposing having traffic from Near Mountain go down Indian Hill B~ad which, have any of you ~ on Indian Hill Road? Mayor Chniel: Yes. Linda Kramer: Okay. The grade is twice as steep as your city standard for a road and at the bottom on th~ hill is a sharp 9~ degree curve with no sight distance ~hatsoever and it w~uld be a very, very poor road to have any traffic usin9 at all so I would propose some kind of arm or s~nethin~ where ~nergency vehicles could use it but cars could not get through. Mayor Ch~iel: I think that's basically th~ intent as to the use on that. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure where that road is. Can you show me on a rap? Mayor Chniel: Jo Ann, do you have a map to show TeE? Councilman Boyt: We have a map right here. Councilman Johnson: It's on the front of your thing. See that one that says Iroquois? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Johnson: That's Indian Hill Road. Councilw~m~n Dimler: Does that makes sense? It says Iroquois but it's Indian Hill. Councilman Johnson: Iroquois' a type of indian. Gary. Warren: They changed... Mayor (~miel: Do you have it? Basically, Jo Ann would you clarify that? Jo Ann Olsen: Let me clarify, that. That was in a condition that still got carried over and it should have ~ r~oved but staff had originally shown the plans and specs which show a second street access through Outlot C but the Planning O~anission agreed that it should just be only as a secondary, ~_rgency access and that's what we have to work on the plans ard specs to follow that through. 77 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought the ~nergency access was up on Trapper's Pass~ ~tlot A up there? Jo Ann Olsen: That's just going to be a trail. That's not going to be. Maybe I'm getting the~ confused. Mike Pflaum: I could perhaps clarify a couple of questions that w~ had and do it in 30 seconds hopefully and get out of your way. My name is Mike Pfla~n. I'm with Lundgren Bros. Construction. With me here tonight are Rick Sathre, the consulting engineer for the project and Peter Pfla~n, my brother, the President of Lundgren Bros.. Iroquois Lane issue has already been brought up. Tne only reason that w~ were concerned, as also has been explained, the rec(manendation of the Planning Omn~ission was different frcm the recc~mendation that was shown in the report for the recommended City Council action and that was just I guess an error. There are two other issues that were of concern to us. One relates to park and the general consensus of the Park Commission, the Planning Commission and the interested neighbors was that it would be desireable for the City to acquire park in the area of the property that is shown as Lot 7 and 8. We were not overjoyed by this but we can understand the benefits of it. Tae two points I'd like to make are first, there was an error at the Parks Commission level as to what 10% of the property equated to. 10% of the property equates to 3.9 acres, not 4.5 acres and it just so happens, coincidentally that Lot 7 and 8 and the trail outlots cc~bined equal 3.9 acres which is a happy coincidence. Our desires, if they would be heard regarding park is that it be strictly a passive nature observation type ~e. It's on Silver Lake and that does present great opportunity for that. We would hope that the City would accept deed restrictions prohibiting public access, public boat access or the development of the site into scmething other than a passive use. We and the people who llve in close proximity to the park area, the future proposed park area, are very concerned that it not turn into an active recreational use. The other issue was one that we have visited before and that is sidewalks. In the subdivision that we were proposing on the top of the mountain, the Parks Commission recomnended the construction of a sidewalk, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the street that loops the top of the hill. There are no other sidewalks anywhere in Near ~k)untain. This issue was raised just a y~ar ago with the addition of Trapper's Pass 3rd at a preliminary stage. The City Council at that time felt that sidewalks were not necessary there because of it's inclusion as part of the Near Mountain project. We feel it's unnecessary here also and just as a point of fact, the Parks Omn~ission, when they made their recommendation. I was at the meeting. There was a split vote. The vote in favor of their rec(mmendation was 4 to 3. ~ne 3 people that voted against the recommendation voted against the recommendation because they were not in favor of a concrete trail around the hilltop. The Planning Commission chose to remain silent on this question because they did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Co~nission to be second guessing the motives of another advisory body. We would like to see the concrete trail go aw~y and we'd like to see the connecting trails frcm Trapper's Pass below on the one side and down to Pleasant View Lane on the other. Either woodchips, crushed rock or bituminous. What I heard earlier tonight and what I seemed to have read in the report is that bitumino~s is the staff's recommendation. I guess woodchips would be our reoom~endation. Beyond that, I'll be more than happy and Rick Sathre would be more than happy and Peter would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding our proposal. We are naming this project the summit at Near Mountain. We feel it will be a tr~mendo[~ asset to the co~nunity and a real showcase development. Thank you. 78 City Oouncil M~eting - Septenber 11~ 1989 (buncilman Johnson: The real issue tonight is whether it should stay the My it used to be and w~ don' t ~ to get into that tonight. Mayor C~miel: No. Councilman Bo.vt: I would move that we adjourn. Councilman Johnson: I second. Councilman Workman: We don't ~ to approve the amm~me~t or anything? Councilman Boyt: What this? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to be l~_re until 1:3~? I can assume you we will be. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Johnson: ~nere's a lot of discussion to go along whether we approve this a~endment or note Mayor Chuiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second for adjourmuent to be carried over until Wednesday of this week at 6:3~ here in the Council chambers with the balance of our budget work session. At 6:3~ p~n.. Councilman Johnson: When was our budget work scheduled for? Mayor Chniel: 6: 30. Linda Kramer: I have a question. Is there going to be more discussion of the Indian Hill? Mayor C~niel: Yes. Linda Krsmer: On Wednesday night? Mayor Chuiel: Yes. As far as Indian Hill is concerned, it's just going to be used as ~ergency access period. So if you'd like to come back to listen to the balance of what the presenter has, you're more than welcome. We'd love to see you. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann? So ite~ 14 was not... Jo Ann Olsen: It should have ~ taken out. Councilman Johnson: Should have bccn deleted. Councilman Boyt moved, Gouncilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried, qbe meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Mananger Prepared by. Nann Opheim 79