Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1989 08 14
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhard, Jim Chaffee, Jo Ann Olsen, and Dave Hempel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda as amended to include the following Council Presentations: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Frontier Homes, Councilman Workman w-anted to discuss the concernt series at Heritage Square and TH 101/Pioneer Trail intersection and Councilwoman Dimler wanted to make the Council aware of a seminar_ that was coming up. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor C/qmiel drew two names for the recycling prize for pick-ups done last week and for the pick-up coming up. CONSENT AGENDA: CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following consent agenda it~ns pursuant to the City Manager's r econ~nendations: c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to City Code, First Reading: 1) Section 20-3, Regarding Definition of Density 2) Section 20-411, Regarding Enforcement of the Wetland Section 3) Section 20-1021, Regarding Swin~ning Pool Fences f. Approve Plans and Specifications for 1989 Street Repair Project, Authorize Advertising for Bids. h. Approve Develot~nent Contract for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition. i. Authorize Execution of LAWCON Grant Contract for Lake Susan Park Development Project. j. Resolution #89-86: Approval of Change Order No. 6 for City Hall and Fire Station Construction. k. Proposed Franchise Agreement, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. o. Approval of Minutes p. Approval of Accounts q. Resolution #89-87: Recertification of 1990 Property Tax Levy. City Co~]ncil Meeting - August 14, 1989 r. Resolution #89-88: Southwest Corridor Con~nission, Rec~]est for Supplemental ~nding. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: Mr.. Mayor, I'd like to go on record as not pulling an item. Mayor Chmiel: bet that be so noted in the Minutes. A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECTION 20-237 REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FINAL READING. Mayor Ckmiel: The first item that I have, if I can find it here, on the second and final reading for the ordinance amendment regarding conditional use pekrnits, and I don't know whether this can be done and I asked staff and we had discussions this morning. If a violation is determined, Roger I guess I'll direct this to you, a violation is determined, should we have a clause in the ordinance for co~rection and a time period for that correction. If staff determines that there's scmething that they're not c~mplying with, should there not be a time period that they must do this by and if not, then we move on it? Roger Knutson: You couid do that. Right now if a violation is determined of a conditional use permit, two things could happen. One is, it's a criminal violation. You're violating your zoning ordinance. We don't have to give them any time. Historically and I think prudently the City staff has given someone time to correct the problem. That's what we want to see happen. I think there might be a bit of a problem in determining how long that corrective period should be depending on what the violation is. For example, if you found the violation in January that tJ]ey didn't plan the trees they were supposed to have planted, you co~]ldn't realistically ask them to plan trees in January. You might have a hard time pin pointing a grace period in an ordinance rather than just leaving it to reasonable discretion. You could try. Mayor Chmiel: I'm thinking if someone does just miss it, unintentionally, that's my concern. And I don't know if we should be that harsh on them, that's why I'm thinking if there is sc~ething. For instance if someone was supposed to plant 15 trees and they get someone_ to do it and they don't look at it and it goes and there's only 13 trees. Basically they're in violation of their pe~nit. Roger Knutson: I think historically again, the last thing the City wants to do, at least my experience, is to prosecute people for these kinds of things. We don't do that unless they adamantly say I'm not doing it. I'm not complying. I have no intention of c~plying or they drag us on forever and ever. I don't think in the past the City has been terribly harsh. We've worked with people in trying to give them that opportunity. I would agree with you if someone said gee, I didn't realize it and cited them criminally the next day, I think that'd be not a good practice. Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern. Councilman Johnson: I think this comes rmder discretionary enforcement like an officer sees you doin9 36 in a 35 zone. He's got the choice of pulling you over for speeding or give you a warning or saying hey, just letting it go. There's a City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 lot of times and in the past I think staff's done a good job of usually by the time it gets to City Council which is the point where you're really going to get into it, staff has exchanged 4 or 5 letters and they've worked real well with it. I think basically that's the way the system seems to work. That wasn't my concern with l(a). My concern with l(a) was the financial side of it that Don's brought up here. Because I really want this ordinance amendment because I think these inspections need to be done. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Councilman Johnson: But the financial side of it, we've got to look at that too. Unless we can get a fee schedule or sanething and that's where I think some of these conditional use permits I don't think actually have to be done annually. I still think there's some permits out there where the conditions are such that maybe every other year would be fine instead of basing it annually and that will reduce some of the fee problem and some of them do need to be done. Contractor's yard is one that I think should be done annually but some other conditional use permits probably not so often. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this? Those who were the previous conditional use permit issuances from the City, is there anyone who would like to address that at this time? Okay. I just feel a little uncomfortable with it. That's my real basic concern and I guess if there is some discretion to be used by staff in that before we go to any civil action, I guess that's my, just to make sure. CounciLman Boyt: I think the problem here Mr. Mayor is that these haven't been kept track of. I disagree with the City Manager. I don't think we're talking about something that's a great deal of expense. I think it should be done every year. I think that many of them, it's going to be a very quick inspection because there's really not much that they can do. With others, the City has been negligent I think and what we're doing in this ordinance is insisting that the City have an obligation to inspect these every year. I like it as it is. I think we should pass it this way. Mayor Chmiel: Before we issue an occupancy permit for whatever it is, that conditional use is reviewed at that time is it not? Prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit? All conditions that are contained in those specific permits so that should be an automatic flag. Before an occupancy permit can be granted, that they make sure that everything is in conformance with that requirement as far as that conditional use permit is required or has been issued. Jo Ann Olsen: A lot of conditional use permits are uses or accessory to a house or a business that was already there so a lot of times the occupancy permit doesn't, it was before the fact. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I still have a concern because I don't think we have established the fee and I think that last time, several of us voiced opposition to charging a fee. Is that my recollection? I thought I read that in the Minutes. Councilman Johnson: Yes, some people were opposed to it and some people were for it. There's a little of both and we ended up not really stating whether a City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 fee would be there or not. We just bypassed the issue. CounciLman Work~an: Mr. Mayor, I have a concern about hiring another full time person to do this. I'm not sure what the task would entail but I guess I would rather see this tabled at this point so we can ease into it a little bit. Councilman Johnson: I have to agree with Bill though that I don't think that this is going to rec~ire a full time person. I can see a large majority of these may not, you could inspect them as you drive by. We have some conditions as simple as you can't have outside display of merchandise. That takes all of 3g seconds to see. If they are displaying outside merchandse, then it will rec~ire some time. I can see setting up on forms. An inspection form that the owner then gets mailed at the end of the inspection. This condition was found to be violated. Please correct within and there's a blank and you can put 3~ days and mail that off and go back. I'm not sure if it will need a full time employee. I'm not convinced. Don Ashworth: Staff's reco~nendation was just solely one to alert the Council during the budgetary processes where I see a discussion occuring. Give us an opportunity to further research and I won't tell you that it's going to demand a full time ~nployee. I'm concerned with the amount of time. It will be a major time f~]nction. Councilman Boyt: But this isn't an option about whether or not we can do this. We have not done this very consistently in the past. We should be doing it and maybe the issue of a fee or not should be looked at but that's not a part of what we're doing here. We're just simply saying we're going to do it. It's not very complicated to say let's inspect conditional uses every year. CounciLman Johnson: And the fee can be a real sliding scale. Like they say, $10g.00 to $20g.gg for a contractor's yard. Well, a contractor's yard some of them, Merle Volk's is going to take a while. You may take half a day in there going through the place. Other places take almost no~ing. Councilwoman Dimler: So then you're not going to charge anything? I mean how are you going to do that you know? Councilman johnson: Like he says, contractor's yard, you're going to have to have, maybe at the issuance of the conditional use permit, the Council should decide upon the fee. That's a different issue than tonight like Bill's saying. As is, I don't see a problem with passing it but we do have to come back and look at the fees. Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure that that doesn't get interpretted to be passed with this tonight. CounciLman Johnson: No. Councilwoman Dimler: Or would we hire someone additional either. Councilman Johnson: Paragraph 1 hasn't really changed either from the existing ordinance. It reads almost identical. City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: We're solely alerting the Council that this is an item that would be discussed as part of the budgetary sessions. We do not see this as authorization for us to hire additional people nor to amend the budget. We're just again alerting the staff that that will be part of future budget discussions. Mayor Chmiel: I guess the more I'm thinking as to what Tom had said, I think that I would like to see just exactly what it's going to consist as to what we're going to have to ~mplement in order to adopt this. What are we going to have to do staff wise. I'd like to see that spelled out before I approve this as well. I just want to make sure that we're not going to put another person on board just to take care of this one specific ite~. Councilman Johnson: But we'd have to approve that other person. Mayor Chmiel: Do we? DOn Ashworth: It would have to come back to the Council. Again, we just didn't want to be in a position of you saying later, why didn't you tell us that it was going to be this much work. Mayor Chmiel: I still think I'd like to see it all spelled out. I'm not in opposition to what we've got here but I am, because I don't know what we'd really wind up doing and I think I would just as soon... Councilman Johnson: I think experience will tell too. I think it's going to be hard to predict. I think some experience in going out there and doing it will help tell what the cost will be. We may not get th~n all done but if it turns out that they can't get them all done with the existing staff, I think they can. Councilwoman Dimler: Well we can start out not charging and if we determine that it re~]ires so much time then think about it later. I mean that's something we can always add isn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure it's not part of the original amendment. Councilman Boyt: The only thing we're passing here is we're saying as a Council that we want these inspected annually. We're not authorizing any fee. We're not authorizing any addition in staff. Staff a~%nits in the Minutes that they have not stayed on this consistently and we're saying we want you to make this a priority. I think it's very straight forward and I'd like to see us pass this so we don't continue to build larger agendas in the future. Councilman Johnson: I move approval of item l(a). Councilman Boyt: I ' 11 second that. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a motion to table? Did you have a motion to table? City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Work, nan: I think it was dead anyway. I guess ~. Mayor, I don't see a probl~n with ~_m approving this as it lays. It's something we're going to probably and event~]ally get to anyway. I've voiced my concerns in regards to the hiring of another person. If we have 150 conditional use peztaits and we have a 5 person council, maybe we each take 2 1/2 a month. 30 of them a year and we can take care of it. I wouldn't have a problem either way with approving this at this point or not. CounciLman Johnson moved, CounciLman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Section 20-237, Revocation and Inspection regarding Conditional Use Permits, Final Reading. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND, EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Councilman Boyt: Very simple change here. I'd just like the conditions to read, compliance with the 6 conditions of the... Mayo~ Chmiel: What page are you on Bill? Councilman Boyt: Okay, where it says City Council recon~nendations. Wetland alteration permit. It states some of the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife but I would like one of the conditions to be compliance with all six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife conditions for construction of wetland for wildlife. That way we don't leave anything to chance. It's my understanding that it already does that but I think it should be standard in our language of approval. Mayor Chniel: Okay. Do I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I would move that we add a fifth condition that the_ Wetland Alteration Pe~.mit read_lire the compliance with the six conditions of the National Fish and Wildlife Service for wetlands to be wildlife compatible. Councilman Johnson: Is that a motion to approve with adding a fifth? Counc i lman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that. CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration of a Class B wetland east of Audubon Road and South of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition with the amendment to add a fifth condition that the Wetland Alteration Permit require the compliance with the six conditions of the National Fish and Wildlife Service for wetlands to be wildlife compatible. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 E. APPROVE MINERAL EXTRACTION PERMIT FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP[ Councilman Johnson: Is Dave here? Yes, Dave. Item (e). I didn't see, it seemed to indicate that if they don't get finished by the 17th, fine and dandy. We don't replant this year. I'd drag my feet a little bit and not get finished by September 25th and then I wouldn't have to replant. I'll save a bunch of money. I don't like that to be in there. I want to see this revegetated. I don't want to have another 7 Hi situation of dirt sitting out there all winter and erosion in the spring. Even if they plant after September 15th, the grasses could still come up in the spring. When do they plan on being completed? Dave Hempel: He had indicated probably around the early part of October. Councilman Boyt: Jay, what if we change item 9 to begin after 9/15/89 and read, appropriate measures shall be taken by the applicant and so on? That way it covers it regardless of the date. Councilman Johnson: I didn't catch your change. Councilman Boyt: Item 9 of the conditions which talks about the planting season. If we eliminate that sentence and the middle of the second sentence, we then begin with appropriate measures will be taken to see that erosion control measures are adec~ately maintained and so on. So no matter whether they plant or not, they still have to do that. Councilman Johnson: Well they still have to do that whether they plant or not. The erosion control has to be there but what happens is you don't plant and then the spring comes. You've got the spring mud. You can't plant in the spring because of the mud so it's, after all the erosion has occurred is the first time you can plant. What I 'm saying is you can plant after October 1st. The grass seed' s there. It' s mulched in. It' s not going to germinate this year but it will ge~_minate in the spring and we'll have grass coming up in the spring and it may or may not help stop the erosion. But I'd like to see them seed it this year. That's what I'm saying. This kind of indicates that if it's after September 15th, you don' t have to seed. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. That's the way it could be interpretted Jay. But that's not going to, even if you were to do the seeding, that's not going to eliminate the erosion that couldn't occur on there. Councilman Johnson: It won't eliminate it but it will help in the spring. What we see year after year is they don't get to seed it in the fall. Come spring, you end up with everything eroding away. It's June before they get out there, make some repairs and then get some seed in. Don Ashworth: Why not strike appropriate measures and put in, winter seed and mulch? Councilman Johnson: Okay. If the site grading is to continue beyond this date, winter seed and mulching... Don Ashworth: Shall be required... Councilman Boyt: Along with appropriate measures. City Council _Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Yes. Good idea. I so move. Councilman Workman: .Second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Mineral Extraction Pen~nit for Lake Susan Hills Partnership as amended charging item 9 to read as follows: 9. September 15, 1989 is the end of the planting season for seed according to MnDot. If the site grading is to continue beyond this date, winter seed and mulch shall be re~]ired along with appropriate measures by the applicant to see to it that the erosion control measures are ade~lately maintained and in place prior to spring runoff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. G. APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NOS. 1 AND 2 TO EASTERN CARVER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I have with this is I don't have any problem with the study. We should go into it. The only thing I'd like to see contained once we get that poll together, is to have words something to the effect providing all other governmental entities matching funds are contributed. In other words, if someone else [mills out, we get our money back too. Councilman Boyt: Yes. Why don't you make that motion? Mayor Chmiel: I will make that motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Supplemental Agreements N~abers 1 and 2 to Eastern Can~er County Transportation Study amended to state the intent mentioned by Mayor Chmiel. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Is anybody working with this committee? Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. Councilman Johnson: Particularly an advisory co~nittee. Mayor Chmiel: Once it's established, I think that's time. Councilman Workman: A technical advisory committee for this? For the EIS? Councilman Johnson: No, not the EIS. This is a different thing. Mayor Chmiel: For the eastern co~mty portion transportation study that they're lookirg at. City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: They selected Howard Needles. Whoever's working with that to make sure the scope is sufficient so if Howard Needles doesn't come in with our standard change orders, because I'm not paying for it. L. APPROVAL OF POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Boyt: This is again, as I think the Council knows, I'm frustrated by this. I'm concerned that the City may not have appropriately weighted it's job categories. I see this as something that pushes the City's pay scales above the private industry pay scales and I don't think we should be doing that. Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have any comnents? Don Ashworth: I believe Councilman Boyt's points were brought out when we had met with the consultant. The study is one in which it compares the salary levels not only within this organization but for all governmental units in the Twin City area. If we do not pass it, there's a real question as to whether or not we are in compliance with the entire comparable worth statute. The cost associated with at least a portion that I believe that Councilman Boyt is the most concerned with was relatively minor. My recollection was $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 where it was basically the cost for implementing that portion of the plan that dealt with the one, potentially two positions that were questioned during that work session. Mayor Chmiel: I guess those were addressed at that particular time. Councilman Boyt: Ail we did is talk about them. Nobody ever answered them. We have never looked at an alternative pay classification system. We have never talked about weighting the scale any differently than it's currently weighted and I believe at that meeting it was very clearly admitted that this ~]shed the City's pay scale well above private industry's scale for comparable jobs in the lower level positions. All I'm saying is that I individually am opposed to that. I don't think that's good management and I don't think the City should be doing it. Don Ashworth: Again, I would totally agree with Councilman Boyt's statements and especially as it deals with certain, let's say account clerk type of position. The salary is higher for an account clerk for the City of Chanhassen than would be paid potentially at some banks. That was the entire purpose of the State legislation. They wanted to insure that there would not be disparities between male dominated classes of employees and females classes of employees. You can make comparisons and show that certain salaries can be paid a lower wage and in the private area, some of them are. But again, the thrust and the intent of the legislation was to insure that pay e~ity occurred within governmental units and that's exactly what we've done. Councilman Boyt: That system hinges upon what you weigh most heavily in the job. The things that we chose to weight most heavily in the job created those inec~]ities. We could have chosen other systems that would have weighted things differently. We haven't even talked to another consultant about alternative ways of weighting that. City Council _Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: One of the problems in, yes you can look to other consultants. There have been a n~nber of arbitration and court cases dealing with this entire issue. The best I can advise the Council is in inspire that whomever you're using has gained a great deal of or a good reputation and can speak to why they have put the various weights on each of the criteria that you just got through going through. I think if we went around the table, each one of ~]s might have a slightly different opinion as to the importance of knowledge, experience, education in c~]parison to physical strength, dexterity and some of the other type of things going along with the manual labor. When Labor Relations Associates was retained and they have currently completed the study for a majority, I would say at least 7~% to 8~% of the cities in the metro area, they were selected again because of their knowledge and ability to basically testify and support the City's position in terms of why they weighed each of the criteria tt~e way they did. Mayor Ckmiel: Let me ask a q~estion Don. Bill's talking get another consultant. Do this. What was our cost with the consultant? ,Don Ashworth: I would say Mayor Chmiel: Okay. On the City's pay scale industry, you're talking about 1 or 2 positions that you have concerns for Bill? Councilman Boyt: I think that the system is set up wrong. I think over the long run it's going to cost the City a great deal of money and I disagree with the City Manager about the cost of this being $1,ggg.gg or $2,000.0g. He's talking about an adjustment this year in moving towards future adjustments and think he's under stating it. I think that this represents a potential major cost for the City in terms of our staff and to have one consultant is maybe a mistake. We don't necessarily have to hold this up. I may well only represent 1 out of 5 opinions here. I just felt that this was important enough to pull off for a separate vote and indicate that I'm opposed to the way we're doing it. Don Ashworth: My statement on the $1,g00.g0 or $2,g0g.gg is, Bill is correct that that is the monetary impact for 1989 but I would disagree in terms of the long range impact being significantly higher. I think that Chanhassen over the years has moved to a position of, knowing the law was coming around and basically insuring that a number of our positions were already there. The only position identified by the consultant as being outside of the range was that of an account clerk. The receptionist position was also low but that is a part time position paid on a part time scale and the monetary impacts again of that position are none. Therefore, the only position that I saw a significant monetary impact for was the account clerk. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to talk about the mid-point of your receptionist's salary? Don Ashworth: But again, she's not being paid on the basis of the, as a part time position, that position is paid on a part time scale. Not on the basis of a full time position. Councilman Boyt: You're saying it's just a matter of semantics. If you're talking about the base on which you're building the salary on, you're talking about a mid-point and I would suggest to you that the mid-point for that job is 10 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 not just a bit above what private industry is paying. It's dramatically above what private industry is paying. We don't necessarily need to get into specifics. I just want to be on record as being opposed to it. Don Ashworth: But if we're paying that as a part time salary, I don't want to get to the point of putting out numbers but I honestly do not believe that you hire any... Mayor Chmiel: Put on numbers. Don Ashworth: Between $6.00 and $7.00 an hour. Councilman Boyt: That's not the mid-point of that job. The mid-point of that job is not $14,000.00 and that's what $6.00 or $7.00 an hour would point out. Don Ashworth: We employ three part time people who work in that job and that is the salary range paid to those part time people. We are in compliance with State law by employing people at an hourly rate for a part time job and not having to consider that in relation to what it might be for a full time position. We're not comparing apples and apples. Todd Gerhardt: Bill w~uld be correct in what he's saying if we hired a full time receptionist. DOn Ashworth: I agree. Councilman Johnson: Right now we have no authorized full time receptionist positions? The accounts would have to authorize such? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: The receptionist position is just an example. It reflects how skewed the weighting system is and that's my only point. We have one consultant who's come in and used a fairly broad base but a co, non base in how they weighted it and said this is where you're out of line. We don't need to spend the evening on this. I'm just saying that it's just amazing what the City and the staff is forcing us to do. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to say that I have a feeling that Bill might be right on this and I'm wondering Don if we don't approve this tonight, where does that put us with this process? Is there a deadline? Don Ashworth: January 1st. We originally were looking to the first of the year. We kind of moved back so now I think we should be looking for January 1st of 1990. I'm not being facetious. We have time. There's no deadline on this. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so if there's no rush on this, perhaps we do want to look into another options that could save the City some money. I think that would be wise to do. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask you a question. It doesn't pertain to anyone else except these two positions that we're talking about. An account clerk and receptionist and the receptionist being just a part time. Is that correct? 11 City Council .Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: Yes[ Councilman Johnson: No, I don't think, Bill's going deeper than that. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I'm trying to get at. Councilman Johnson: Because he says the ~nole system is weighted so you'd be looking at your aclminstrative secretary, light ec~.]ipment operator, con~nunity service officer, utility operator. That whole job class and then the receptionist job classes. Councilman Boyt: This system is driven by the heavy equipment operators or whatever the City's ec~ivalent is of that and they're set by the market. We pay for them ~nat ca~nparable situations in industry would pay but they drive the whole rest of the system and I'm just saying that's crazy. Don Ashworth: But that's again, comparable worth. You do have two primary benchmark which is really the entire police grouping and the public works. When you get into a situation where you have let's say a secretarial position and that is being paid less than, they have word processing and all of the rest of the skills, being paid less money than a high school kid. Graduated from high school and going to work as a laborer or light equipment operator, that's where you start ending up with a problem with comparable worth. The State is basically saying you cannot do that. You cannot take a person with 10 to 2g years experience and training or whatever and pay them less money than their son would be paid if he went to work in your lowest male dominated position. Councilman Johnson: I'm not even sure if that one's valued right. The lowest male dominated position may come up more than a college graduate engineer would get as he comes out school versus a high school graduate. Don Ashworth: But if that college graduate is taking a position, I don't know if I want to get into that. I'm saying the secretarial position, having the skills necessary for a sec~etary, I don't know if that's a graduate from college. Councilman Johnson: No. I'm just taking that n~mber times 12 and saying, that we pay a high school graduate. Why don't we table this? Councilwoman Dimler: Good idea. I move to table. Councilman Johnson: I move to table. Councilwoman Dimler: I second. CounciLman Johnson moved, Co~mcilwoman Dimler seconded to table the Position Classification and Pay C~mpensation Plan. All voted in favor and the motion cart led. M. APPROVAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES TO INTERNATIONAL THEATRES CORPORATION. Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this Mayor because I had a c~_]estion about, I saw 12 City Council Meeting - Augus% 14, 1989 that we were waiving the financial investigations of the applicants and I'm wondering if this could pose a problem to the city in the future. Perhaps if they don't pay their insurance premiums, can the City then be held liable? Why are we waiving the financial investigation on these people? Don Ashworth: The ordinance is established in such a fashion that on any particular applicant, we have the right to ask for information really in any of those categories. We did background information regarding any type of police involvement where they may have been any way carried out in some type of illegal activities. Checked on references. We discussed the financial aspect. In fact I had Karen talking with Roger in that area. I think where you end up with certain organizations or there is a certain belief that the new owner or the operator has financial ties with elements that you do not want to have your liq~]or license involved with. That's where you might get into a detailed financial study. I'm not aware of where we have done this in the past. We did do a partial financial as it dealt with the bowling center but that was only as a result of the HRA's involvement with the ownership of that building. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I'm just concerned about the future. ~ne City isn't going to come up looking bad at any point if something goes wrong. Don Ashworth: I don't think so. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. ~nen I reconm~end approval of the Liquor License Transfer from Bloomberg Companies to International Theater Corporation contingent upon the receipt of a fee, a corrected certificate of insurance and a waiver of the requirement that the manager live in Chanhassen. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Liquor License Transfer from Bloomberg Cc~panies to International Theater Corporation contingent upon the receipt of a fee, a corrected certificate of insurance and a waiver of the rec~]irement that the manager live in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. N. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR ROBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS. Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to ask Don real quickly, I think this is a good project. I just wanted to know if this is a TIF district? It is? Don Ashworth: I'm not even sure where they're proposing to build. Todd Gerhardt: The lot is located within the Tax Increment Redevelopment District but it has nothing to do with their application for IRB's. Councilwoman Dimler: Well the reason I ask is because under Section 1, on Recitals and Findings, Section 1.2 actually item c. It says that the existence of this project would add to the tax base of the City, the County and the school district in which the project will be located and would provide increased opportunities for employment of residents of the City and surrounding area. I agree with that except how many years is it going to be in a district before the City, School and County get any tax money? 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: Her projections show that that district could cease in 1995. That is up to the City Council in terms of really making that decision. The district itself has a life to 2ggl. The financial structure as currently in place will allow you to cease it in 1995. Councilwoman Dimler: It's a considerable length of time if we go to 2ggl. Don Ashworth: By the time that they would start construction, their first full taxes would be 1991. Probably 1992. ..Mayor Chniel: Is lv~:. Robert's here this evening? Roberts: Yes I am. Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up to the podi~ma for just a minute please. In reviewing this I was just looking and I didn't see the total mmnbers of the employees that would be employed within the facility. Mr. Roberts: ~ currently have about 85. Mayor Chmiel: You have 85 employees presently? ¥~:. Roberts: Right. AgJ that would give ~s, going from 25,ggg feet which we currently are at, to 4g,0gg and then additionally room to go to 6g,0gg. That will give us about 150 employees. Mayor CIYmiel: About 150. Good. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Roberts? If not, thank you very much. Resolution #89-89: Councilwoman Dimler moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to approve a Resolution Authorizing Preliminary Approval of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Roberts Automatic Products. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CounciLman Workman: Mm'. Roberts, this is a manufacturing? Mr.. Roberts: Yes it is. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd just like to say, I thought manufacturing was dead in the United States. It's nice to see it coming to Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: There are several manufacturing places building here. Councilman Workman: I know. It's great. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Henry Sosin: My n~ne is Henry Sosin and I live at 740g Chanhassen Road. I live on Lotus Lake and I'm here to point out the presence of a nuisance and a disaster waiting to happen. A concerned noise pollution and h~nan safety. I'm 14 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 referring to the use of jet skis on our city lakes. Just recently I understand there was an actual collision or an accident with a jet ski involved on I think it was Lake Riley I believe. You can sit on your front porch or you can be out around your house and while attempting to have a normal conversation with someone next to you, you have to shout to be heard because of the noise of this particular kind of machine. They're louder than most ski boats that are on the lake. Not only is it a question of the noise intensity or the decibels they produce but the way the jet ski is used as a recreational vehicle. The people who ride them actually play tag with them. They create a wake and then they try to turn the machine quickly and jump the wake which makes it sound an extremely variable pitch in the sound. So in reality when you're listening to a jet ski, it sounds like you have a chainsaw, about twice that decibel level about 5 feet away from you. That's what they sound like. Unfortunately people don't ride them singlely. There's 2 or 3 or 4 people who have these machines and they like to play tag with them so you're listening to 3 or 2 or 4 of these things all at once and you literally cannot have a conversation on your own front porch. Unfortunately these people ride their machines at the s~me time you come home from work so that if you do have an outdoor patio or if you try to live outside in the sunm]ertime, as all good Minnesotans try to do, you cannot have a conversation. It is a real nuisance for those people who live close to the water. The other thing I'd like to point out, well in relation to noise, we've been so exasperated at times, we tried to make a tape recording. Unfortunately we don't have professional sound equipment. We only had the little kind you talk into and the tapes don't come out very well so I don't have a tape to play for you tonight but a few of you have been contacted by my wife when she's been irritated enough and tried to have a telephone conversation with a portable phone outside. I don't know what it sounded like on your end but I know that a few of you have had that experience and I think it was evident to those people that there was a real racket going on. Mayor Chmiel: I can verify that. Your wife did call me on that Sunday and I did go down to the lake to see what was there and there were 3 jet skis and they were, as you mentioned, playing tag and fortunately enough I took license plates and numbers and had those verified and checked out and we have them from St. Louis Park, Excelsior and Eden Prairie. None of those were residents within the City which is a problem in itself. Henry Sosin: We have machines that a resident on the lake as well. The other thing I'd like to point out is that when you're on a small lake and ours is the one that's on the left hand picture there which is very narrow in some spots. That's Lotus Lake on the left. Everyone who lives on the lake and even those people who come on the lake ~ing the access, there's a big sign that's posted that says all motorized craft go in a unidirectional pattern around the lake just to prevent people from killing one another. ~hese jet skis do not follow that pattern. They're just all over like mosquitoes. They do as fast if not faster than a ski boat and I think they represent a major safety problem. I think somebody's going to be badly hurt on one of these unless there's some kind of control. So the purpose of my being here is to suggest that the Council look into this and hopefully provide some relief from those people who live close for noise pollution and more importantlypossibly provide some guidelines so that there will be safety on the water as well. Just in the way of-recommendations, since we've thought about it a lot having to listen to them, these kinds of machines probably, and I don't know this for a fact, probably are violating noise pollution ordinances because they are so extremely loud. It's possible 15 City Council Meeting - Aug~st 14, 1989 that they be banned. Ymybe the Council could look into providing ho~rs for their use that don't dist~rb the residents at dinner hour as an example. I think much of the noise pollution would be stopped if they were made to follow the same unidirectional pattern of useage as all other boats on the lakes were to do. Thank you. Mayor C~miel: Thank you very much. I did have some disc~lssions with Jim Chaffee. Jim, maybe you could just elaborate on that just a little bit. Jim Chaffee: Mt-. Mayor, I have heard over the phone the noise from the jet skis that Mr. Sosin has talked abotlt tonight. He is right that it does interfere with a normal telephone conversation. Just on a side co~nent, about 2 weeks ago we did have a fairly seriot~s accident on Lake Riley involving a jet ski where an individual attempted to jt~p a dock with one. He didn't make it. He was impaled on one of the dock supports. He lived but will have pez~nanent disfiguration° Another side co~nent is, the State of Minnesota is beginning to realize that these things are potentially dangerous and are sometimes a nuisance and they are beginning to look at it from an enforcement standpoint also. The DNR especially. Sane of you may have seen the special on KARE TV a couple weeks ago involving jet skis. I have w~-itten KARE, having been provided with a name by Mrs. Sosin for a copy of that tape. We hoped to have it here tonight b~t we didn't 9et it in time. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard back from them. There's a ntm~ber of opportunities for us I guess, and as Mr.. Sosin was saying, in providing an ordinance that would li~it the hours of operation. I don't see banning as an option. I don't think that's going to happen. One of the things that we will do is advise Water Patrol to take hard enforcement action involvin9 these jet skis if there is any kind of careless or wanton disregard for life or property. Especially on Lotus Lake there are the directional issues and we can enforce those so in the meantime we can take whatever measures available to us using what resources we have. Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Thank you. I think it's something that we're going to have to look into and I agree. As we had conversations, it was hard to hear what you were saying because of jet skis over rode your voice tones and it was noisy. I think there's something that we can look at and discuss at one of the next f~lture Council meetings and come tip with some kind of a conclusion. Jim, would you, once we get ready with that, when we' re done, make sure they' re informed as to when. Thank you for coming in. Councilman Boyt: We have the noise ordinance is on the agenda tonight. Georgette Sosin: I saw that. Councilman Johnson: The other thing was the, last year there was another probl~n that was occurring which yo~ and I talked about. Have you noticed that this year? I haven't noticed it myself very much. Georgette Sosin: ...looked into it and you could hear that. It was a manufacturing sound that echoed. Somehow it was ~mplified on our lake. Acted as an &mplifier for any kind of sound because we're up higher and that has been taken care of. To my knowledge, I have not heard it. Henry Sosin: I understand there was...same machine for a period of time. 16 City Council M~eting - August 14~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Yes, the muffler fell apart and they had to weld it with a little heavier steel the second time. Henry Sosin: It was repaired and we do not have that problem now. Councilman Johnson: Well good because I haven't heard it lately. I just wanted to check on that as long as you were here. Arnold Felding: My name is Arnold Felding from Winthorp. I've been selling sweet corn at the Taco Shop down here for the last 3 weeks. I'm wondering, I was kind of surprised when I was told to leave after I was told for the last 12 years they've been selling vegetables and stuff there. I'm wondering if there's some kind of suggestion by Officer Chaffee over here that I could somehow get a temporary permit so I can continue selling my sweet corn and stuff. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any requirement as far as ordinance is concerned? If the individual is agricultural products, my understanding is that those can be sold if they have the approval of the property owner. Is that not another condition? Jo Ann Olsen: It's only permitted as a roadside stand and that's as an accessory use in the agricultural district. Where we've allowed s~milar things was like Christmas tree sales and that was with temporary conditional uses but as you know we don't have anymore right now so he really doesn't have an option that I see. It's not a permitted use or even an accessory use or conditional use in that district. Councilman Boyt: May I jump in here for a second? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. CounciLman Boyt: There's a bit of an irony here because he could go door to door and sell his sweet corn but he can't park in one spot and sell his sweet corn. Is that what you're saying? Councilwoman Dimler: I'm a little confused. Jim, do you remember at our Public Safety meeting in the morning I brought that up and I asked you then to go look it up and you said it was okay. Jim Chaffee: Yes, it was okay under the solicitor's permit. What we then did is I asked Roger to look into it for that particular zoning for that area which was business highway. For that he'd have to have a conditional use permit for outdoor display of merchandise and then he can if he had a conditional use permit. Jo Ann Olsen: But this is on the site that already has another use. You can't have two principles. Councilwoman Dimler: However, isn't there a Minnesota Statute that states that any farmer can sell his produce anyplace he choses providing he has the permission of the landowner? 17 City Co~]ncil Meeting - August 14, 1989 Roger Knutson: Not that I'm aware of. l~nis is a frec~ent issue. ~aybe it should be that way. Councilwoman Dimler: It is that w~y. Look it up. I think there is. Don Ashworth: There's another issue here as well ar~ that is, that's a very dangerous intersection in that area. To have an additional use and one additional, or any more turning movements than you have right now, just couldn't be recommended by staff. Councilman Johnson: And an existing non-confozming use as is. Don Ashworth: The Taco Shop. Councilman Johnson: Right. It doesn't meet any of the zoning setbacks or anything. Arnold Felding: You have applied this criteria to all vegetable sellers in the area then? CounciLman Boyt: We don't have many. We've got Kerber and who else? Don Ashworth: Klingelhutz has been selling but he would meet the criteria that Jo Ann just referred to. Councilman Johnson: Agricultural. Don Ashworth: Agricultural. ~own on the property and sold in his front yard. Mayor Ckmiel: Maybe the location is a bad location. It might be good for total n~ber of traffic but I guess what we're saying is it might be a~safety problem there. I don't know if we're going to be against you selling sweet corn in the city unless there's some specific statute that we have on the books that say no, you can't. CounciLman Workman: Couid he sell in the parking lot of Town S~are or something? ~uld that be illegal? Don Ashworth: I saw the kids have been down there this past week. I thought there was a conditional use pe~Ynit. In other words, if they came in but you're saying it basically has to be. Is that with all districts? Councilman Boyt: You can't give him a co~itional use on property he doesn't own. Mayor C1m~iel: I think you're providing a service, at least to me if I'm going to be buy the corn. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Plus by the time you go through the process, the season's over. It makes no sense. CounciLman Boyt: It sounds like we're talking about something that we want to license maybe. We have to control it some way or another don't we? 18 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Then you have to control the l~onade stands? Roger Knutson: Several cities I've worked with, this is a c~on problem. Selling of flowers on the street is a common probl~n and concern and Christmas trees. A lot of cities have gone to special provisions covering what is generally short term situations and a licensing process. Mayor Chmiel: Yes but that's something a little different. That's not an agricultural product. Councilman Johnson: Flowers? Councilwoman Dimler: They don't grow them theirselves most of the time. Mayor Chmiel: Unless you're a rabbit. Roger Knutson: But similar types of issues in the sense of having someone not in a building but in a truck or the side of the street or they're there for a short period of time. It's sometimes been lumped together in one ordinance to regulate it. Arnold Felding: The thing that kind of screwed me up w-as I called the City whenever it was. It was earlier last year and they told me I was welcome to come into town here and I talked to the people this spring and they said I was welcome to c~me into town. I talked to the owner there and he said there was a precedence there 12 years of a man selling there so I didn't think it was no problem. It kind of screwed my whole business up. Councilman Johnson: I've never seen anybody sell at that corner. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes. Yes. In fact that was a resident of Chanhassen who had a little bit of land, probably about 2 acres. He was very hard of hearing. Don Ashworth: Bongard? Mayor Chmiel: No, no. He lived up over in the Pheasant Hill area. He sold there constantly. Arnold Felding: That's what the guy told me. Mayor Chmiel: Up until the time I think he died which was just within I think the last 2 years or maybe 3. Resident: Yes, that was Mr. Canon and he did sell and he went deaf. Councilman Workman: Is it being suggested then that we're not against anybody selling corn in town, this is just the wrong corner now?. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think the location is not probably the best with the amount of flow of traffic that's come there within the last couple 3 years and it is a congested area. Councilwoman Dimler: It's hard to get in and out of. I agree with that. 19 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you object in going to another location? Arnold Felding: Not at all. We're well know already there so the word would go out pretty ~]ick. The owner told me that he had no complaints and stuff. I took care of things and the officer over there said everything was good reports. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and good corn. Arnold Felding: That's what I was told. Don Ashworth: Staff will work with the applicant and in the meantime to pursue sca~e sort of licensing procedure so next year we're in a little better position. Arnold Felding: May I remind the council too that I'd like to sell this year yet if I can get scaaething going this coming week somehow. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Don Ashworth: I think that's fine. Councilman Johnson: I think it's those left turning movements across that road with the railroad track and 14 different roads. Mayor Ckmiel: That's a real bad intersection as you can probably see from just sitting there. Arnold Felding: Where would I get a suggested spot? Who would I talk to? Don Ashworth: Why don't you come in and... Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you have some discussion with staff and talk to Jim and maybe we can set something up. Arnold Felding: Good, thanks. Mayor C_~niel: Any other visitor presentations? CounciLman Johnson: We've got the one that's listed. Mayor Ckmiel: Yes. Okay, we'll move onto the next item. CONSIDER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, 1.5 ACRES IN SECTION 16, NORDITRACK. Don Ashworth: Is Mrs. Paul's going to be making any statements? Councilman Johnson: On the NordiTrack? Don Ashworth: On the NordiTrack. Mayor Chmiel: Item 1.5. Consider purchase agreement of 1.5 acres in Section 16, NordiTrack. 20 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: I had talked to her right before the meeting and she had stated that she was going to speak, or at least I thought so. Staff has been working with, just so you're aware. Staff has been working with Mr. Pauls. He is in the process of making expansion or a new facility on property just south of our public works facility. I think you can tell from the tone of his letter and the purchase agreement that he felt it was important to bring this issue to a head and bring it to City Council. In some ways staff is still trying to look to our options in insuring that we'~e going to be able to house our equipment, cold storage, etc. and that has really been the reason for the delay up until this point in time. At issue is, does the Council wish to see us proceed with potentially selling that property and finalizing negotiations with Mr. Pauls? Again, I had anticipated that she would be present. Councilman Johnson: Well she was earlier. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we just keep this one where it's at. She may come back and we'll address it later on in the agenda. Councilman Boyt: Wasn't that the staff's request to table it? Don Ashworth: Well yes but with the idea then that we would finalize negotiations. I kind of anticipated discussion with the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Let's just hold that on the agenda. Councilman Johnson: I think Don's asking for some direction from us. Don Ashworth: Let's wait a while. Maybe she'll show up. Councilman Johnson: Is this considered a visitor presentation as 1.57 Isn't that usually... Mayor Chmiel: It should be just a separate item as far as I'm concerned. Councilman Johnson: Because it wasn't published or anything? It was just brought up. Don Ashworth: The reason I put it under that is normally we have a staff report, etc. that's going along with it. In the midst of what I called negotiations with the owner, I received that letter basically saying I want to be on the agenda so I thought, I don't know what to include for enclosures. I'll just put them on the agenda. Councilman Johnson: So you put them as a visitor's presentation? Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Well, we'll just hold it to see if she comes back to get that info. 21 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 AWARD OF BIDS: REJECT BIDS FOR NORTH SiDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-17. Mayor Chmiel: Dave, do you have to address that this evening? Councilman Johnson: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, second. Don Ashworth: Good report. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it is. Amazing. Too much money. Really. Good speech. You do good work. ~e appreciate it. You are faster than Gary. CounciLman Johnson: Does anybody want to hear a staff report on this? Councilwaman Dimler: I think we can waive it. I just have a con~nent and that is, Mr. Peterson called me and he wants to bid. He was a little bit delayed with his work so he didn't get the bid in here on time so for that reason there are other bidders out there that will come in lower so for that I would agree with the rejection of the bids for the north side parking lot improvement project #87-17 and I so move. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson: Second. Resolution ~89-90: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reject the bids for the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 87-17. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SIDE'WALK CONSTRUCTION IN SADDLEBROOK SUBDIVISION, PROJfET NO. 87-15A. Dave Hempel: This is the project that's going to complete the sidewalk construction in the Saddlebrook Addition. The sidewalk in the past has been installed as the lot has been developed by the individual builder and tlnis way we'll insure that the sidewalk is done according to City specs and done in a timely fashion so the neighborhood can utilize the sidewalk. Mayor Ckmiel: Okay, and that $18,920.00 cost is going to be funded fr~n the City's park acc~isition? Dave Hempel: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: But we'll be reimbursed for $14,900.00 of that, isn't that right? Dave Hempel: Right. Councilman Johnson: They've already spent $14,900.00. That's the way I read it is they've already spent more than that $14,900.00 so 'they've already met their obl igat ion. 22 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Don Ashworth: My recollection is that the $14,900.00 represents the estimate that was put into the development contract for asphalt. At that point in time the developer was going to do it. We came back, found that concrete bids were down to the point literally of asphalt and that we end up with a better product and this and that. The developer w~uld be kicking in an amount of money on this but we would be picking up the responsibility for completing those and our costs which we would get back from lots as they develop was the $14,900.00. Councilman Boyt: So our cost is $18,900 and we're paying the $4,000.00 difference out of Park and Rec funds, isn't that correct? Don Ashworth: Correct. That's correct as well. Councilman Workman: I would move approval. Councilwcman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: Has this gone before Park and Rec as far as them committing the money? I don't see that it would be a problsm. Mayor Chmiel: Let's see. At the last Park and Rec, I don't remember if they did discuss this. Don Ashworth: You can have that as a condition. I'm confident that they have. I mean with the whole decision, concrete and all the rest of it was basically from a year ago. This is not really anything new. Councilman Johnson: I mean the $4,000.00 is new isn't it? Don Ashworth: No. Not even that portion was. Mayor Chmiel: On any of these additional sidewalk constructions that we're going to have, I'd like to see where the sidewalk is going to be located and have a drawing showing that location. Resoution #89-91: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award Improvement Project No. 87-15A, sidewalk construction to ©]rb Masters, Inc. of Stillwater, Minnesota in the amount of $18,920.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL D~CISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DENYING A FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, LEIGH AND JUDY COLBY. Jo Ann Olsen: Before the Board of Adjustments... Councilman Boyt: They're not here. They decided to drop it. Jo Ann Olsen: They appealed the interpretation of the ordinance and the Board of Adjustments denied the appeal and they've dropped it. 23 City Council Meeting - Augl]st 14, 1989 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GgS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. JO Ann Olsen: This one has been in front of the Planning Commission several times. It started with the moratorium on the convenience stores with gas p~lmps and the Planning Commission, as I stated, reviewed it several times to see if they should limit the n~_m%ber of convenience stores with gas stations or limit where they can be located. After discussion it was determined that we should just zone, go through the ordinance and see where they are permitted. If that's the correct zone and they went through it that way. So the ordinance in front of you, the really only big change is that there's some different definitions of convenience store with gas p~m~ps, convenience stores and then motor fuel stations. We removed convenience sto~es with gas p~nps as a conditional use in the CBD district. We didn't feel that was appropriate in that district. Other than that we're recommending approval of the ordinance ~mendment. I can answer ~estions. Mayor Chmiel: Is this giving us everything that we ~re looking for basically? I don't think so. Jo Ann Olsen: Originally I think it was looking at limiting the n~nber of convenience stores with gas pumps. Like you could have 4, one on each corner of an intersection. Things like that. I think that was one of the intents of the moratori~n but again, as it went through the whole process, I think at the Planning Con~nission level it was determined that that wasn't the way to do it. We can table it and go back and even bring it back to the Planning Commission if that's the intent of the Council and say, go through it again. Mayor Chmiel: I g~]ess you've basically got some of my concerns to go back to doing it. Bill? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on this as part of the Council when this was put into place. I didn't read, it wasn't easy to obtain, or easy enough to obtain all the background on how the Council reached this conclusion but there's a couple things that stand out. They completely missed the direction that I understood the previous Co~mcil to be pointing them in which was we sensed that there are too many convenience stores with gas pumps and we want to know what's the best way to control them. Not whether or not we should control them. What's the best way to control them and they completely missed that. When they missed it, their definitions don't make any sense. Convenience stores with gas p~tmps and motor fuel station. They went to great effort to define them by where they're zoned, it makes absolutely no difference %fnat you call them because we don't regulate them any differently from one another. I would say that the only thing that he did was remove convenience stores with gas p~.~nps from the central business district which means the one right over here would no longer be built if it was coming in under this ordinance. I don't know if that's the best answer to this thing but I know it doesn't answer the c~]estion that I understood the previous Council to be asking. I kind of wonder why we went to all this trouble if this is the conclusion that we're going to come to so I would like to redirect staff to come ~]p with ~nat communities are doing to control these. don't want us, if we can help it, to have situations that we now see with gas stations where you can go into coranunities and see corners, busy corners that have, used to have 2 or 3 gas stations and they've now got 1. That corner now has 2 empty buildings that there isn't a great f~ture use for because a gas 24 City Council Meeting - Augus~ 14~ 1989 station is such a unic~e use. I don't think the market's very good abOut locating these things. Everybody seems to want one and I don't think it's in the best interest of the City so I'd like to see us refer this back to staff. Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. Councilman Workman: I would still, it's tough to make heads or tails of the report but I would still maintain that the best way to control them is the free market system in some way, shape or form. That's tough to say because I don't think I want one of these on every corner as much as you do but it's a very basic idea that says a lot. So when we get, I know when I was sitting out there when you guys approved this, and the ensuing debate, that that was one of the questions. It's a much larger argument when you bring that into it. Councilman Bo~vt: Which is? Councilman Workman: The free market system in itself being, you let the market decide what's going to come where basically. Councilman Boyt: We don't let the market decide where we're going to put contractor ' s yards. Councilman Workman: Well maybe we ought to. I think I've been in that debate too. I've said before, we should allow people to do business and stay out of it as much as we can without trying to over burden and regulate and that's my piece. But I would like to table this also. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm wondering if after that if there's a need to look into what other con~nunities are doing to control this if indeed we don't want to control it. I guess I'd go along with the free enterprise system too and ask myself do we want to control it or will the market not control itself? Mayor Chmiel: Control is something that I don't like to ever have control of anything. I just feel the direction that was given at the time was differently as you indicated and I think it should go back and have that discussion and table it at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess when he said what the intent of the previous Council was, I was surprised. Just to see what other communities are doing to control this and how are we going to control this. I would no longer be in favor of doing anything so for that reason yes, table. Councilman Johnson: Well I like Section 1. After that I think they lost the point. I do believe we need to define it. I'm not exactly sure that would be my total definition. Convenience stores do a lot of other things rather than perishable goods. I don't consider diapers and stuff like that as perishable goods but it goes a long ways toward saying what is a convenience store which right now it really doesn't. ~ have a real problem there so Section 1 of this I think is a good first step but still they missed the point I agree of what do we want to control here. While the free market is a good theory on how to control it, it doesn't always work too well. You control it by bankruptcy. Councilwoman Dimler: Controls don't always work too well either. 25 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Controls don't either but I think that's what a zoning ordinance is for. That's why we have a zoning ordinance that's 50-60 pages long or whatever is to have a vision of what the City wants and what the City's going to be. I'm not sure if very many neighborhoods want, within the neighborhood business district next to them a convenience store with gas pumps. I know if you ask the next door neighbors to any convenience store with gas pumps what they think of it, they would prefer not to have it next door to them. CounciLman Workman: I wouldn't be as harsh with a non-compatible use. What I'm saying is we should be careful about setting a precedence. The Legion's going to come down and there's going to be an SA or something maybe going up there let's say. Now all the traffic heading -towards Minneapolis in the morning might use that instead of Sinclair. Long time business here. We could say well, we would like to protect Sinclair and don't put anything there. That's where I'm saying we're getting into trouble. Non-compatible uses take right behind Brooke's and we've got a problem right there with fumes, etc.. I don't have problems with that. Councilman Johnson: But see, that's what I want them to look at. I don't think that we should be looking at saying oh we're trying to protect our existing businesses by not doing this. That is not the point of the zoning ordinance... Councilman Workman: I thought there was a little flavor of that in the kmoco situation. Councilman Johnson: Yes. There was a little flavor of that in the Amoco situation by former members of the Council but that was not my purpose of voting for that. I don't think that was Bill's purpose. I don't think that was Dale's purpose and I don't think that was Clark's purpose. But I won't say who I think who's purpose it might have been. But I don't think that that flavor, that you heard... Councilman Workman: No, I wasn't accusing you Jay. Councilman Johnson: I don't think that was a council wide flavor. Let's put it that way. Mayor Cb_miel: There's be_eh a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. CounciLman Boyt move, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT. Daryl Kirt: We feel that the amount of fill that we're putting in is very, very small and it will actually improve the wetland we're putting it on. We just 26 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 feel that behind the house we're looking to build, it would define the wetland area if we put in the fill we're asking for, we'd actually define where the wetland is and where the yard would be and I think we'd also help with erosion if we had that there during rains or whatever. Having the extra soil and we're going to leave it for natural vegetation. It would actually stop water from running into the wetland area so we think it's more of an improvement than anything else and it would also make the site look pretty where the house would be to have somewhat of a defined area behind the house. I think by having it there too, the vegetation that would grow, we're going to leave it natural, would prevent the erosion and from going into the wetland area and we just feel that it would make the building much prettier and more useable for us if we could do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Taank you. Jo Ann, would you like to address this? Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting the Council to vote for a reconsideration to bring it back onto a Council agenda. He was not at the last Council meeting and did not get a chance to speak at that time so we allowed him or suggested that he bring it back onto the agenda and also to try to support that it would be an improvement to the wetland and not detrimental to the wetland and allow him to support that. Councilwoman Dimler: It's my understanding that we have to have a four-fifths vote to open this for reconsideration to begin with? Don Ashworth: No. The three-fifths vote for... Councilwoman Dimler: I thought it was four-fifths. Don Ashworth: Three-fifths to vote for reconsideration. If you would then want to turn around and waive your procedure where you would normally publish the item, put it on the next agenda, that's your normal procedure but if you wanted to skip that, you could do that with a four-fifths vote and act on both reconsideration and issuing the permit. Reconsideration three-fifths. Taking action tonight on the permit itself four-fifths. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're looking for two motions? Don Ashworth: If you wanted to do it tonight. Councilwoman Dimler: Either way. DOn Ashworth: The applicant would like to build his home and he'd like to move on this. Councilman Johnson: He can build his 'home. Councilwoman Dimler: He has permission to build his home. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: I hate to say this but I messed up earlier on this because I thought I knew that site until I went out there. My memory failed me on this one when it first came through. I didn't realize how much forest was there and 27 City Council Meeting - Aug,]st 14, 1989 the fact that this is going to clear cut that whole corner. That completely went by me before. I think leave well enough alone frc~ all the tree protection work that's been going on lately. We' re talking about taking out a bunch of 12 to 14 inches and 6 and 7 inch. From the grading, there's not going to be any trees left out there. Councilman Workman: Are we reconsidering? Councilman Johnson: I'm saying leave well enough alone where I already messed up once. CounciLman Workman: Why don' t we vote to reconsider. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I make a motion that we reconsider. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, CounciLman Workman seconded to reconsider the rec~]est for a Wetland Alteration Pek~nit for Daryl Kirt at King's Road and Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who voted in opposition and the motion carried 4 to 1. Councilwoman Dimler: Now, because we are reconsidering, I do have one major concern. CounciLman Johnson: Reconsideration will have to have another vote if we're going to reconsider tonight. Councilwoman Dimler: This is not approving it. We're just opening it up for reconsideration. Councilman Johnson: By that vote ~ do it at the next meeting unless we now have a motion to waive our procedures a~d do it tonight. Councilwoman Dimler: But we can still discuss it after the vote can't we? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwc~an Dimler: I don't want this to set a precedent for other cases and as was pointed out, the differentiation may be very, very hard to accomplish. So with that motion to reconsider, I would like to ask staff to do some findings of facts for us and bring that ~o our next meeting onto which we might base our vote. Our actual vote of whether we will allow this or not. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a few of those. I think that the Co~mcil has pretty generally approved alterations that have moved to improve the wetland itself and disapproved any that haven't. I think that what the applicant and staff also need to ~rk on, not only, I agree with you, this needs to be clearly established as unique so we stay away from precedent. The other thing that needs to happen though is that the applicant needs to come back with definite improvements to the wetland. I would suggest looking at the 6 criteria again of Fish and Wildlife, that one of those criteria is improving wildlife 28 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 think as part of the alteration there should be con~nitments to planting approved vegetation along the wetland edge. I think there should be some sort of con~nitment to maybe improving some area for other wildlife and we should generally come back with a statement of not wetland alteration but wetland improvement. That the whole thing ought to be phrased in that stance. This is how I'm going to improve the wetland out my back door. Then I think it's got a chance. Jay, I guess I will plead unfortunate ignorance about the cutting of hardwoods, if we're dealing with that. The City has a moratorium against the cutting of hardwoods so I suspect they won't be able to do that. Councilwoman Dimler: Later on it's addressed there. We don't have a moratorium. Councilman Boyt: There happens to be one right now. Councilman Johnson: No. It wasn't properly notified and everything else. There is no moratorium. Mayor Chmiel: I've not reviewed the site. What is there Jay? What kind of trees? Councilman Workman: It's very difficult. I drove by it today and dressed as I am, there's no way I was going through there. Councilman Johnson: Yes. There's no way I was going in there to look at wetlands. It's an overgrown area with anything from 1 inch to 12 or so inch trees in it. Mayor. Chmiel: What species? Councilman Johnson: I did not speciate the trees. As you know, I was late the 6:30 meeting this evening. That was one of the reasons for it. It's a whole variety. I'm sure there are some willows and soft woods in there because it's basically a high spot on the end of a swamp. As far as improving wildlife habitat, we've already approved a tremendous loss of habitat and I don't think there was a whole lot of ways around that for that little bit of area. To put a house on it and make it a useable, it's a lot of record and everything and we can't have the taking there but whatever we can save, I would like to see, anything that comes back, I want to see what the limits of the clear cutting are and how that's affecting into here. Whether the trees are within this area. Also they want to put a yard into. Councilwoman Dimler: Wouldn't that all be covered under findings of facts for them to bring back to us next time? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Findings of facts of all the ones that were mentioned and at least I had 9 of them. Councilwoman Dimler: And anything else you can come up with. Mayor Chmiel: That list of total numbers should be also given to Daryl so he's aware as to what we're looking at. 29 City Council FL~e_ting - August 14~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: That list of total mmfoers should be also given to Daryl so he's aware as to what we're looking at. Councilman Johnson: Now is that recruited to do a little fill under that wetland in order to save some of the woodland wildlife habitat that's in that corner. That would be a trade off. In that area there's a very large portion of wetland habitat and 1Lmited woodland habitat. I'm not sure what percent of that woodland is going to be taken by the house and the garage. Fairly substantial. ~V~yor Ckmiel: Okay, any further discussion? If not, I don't think a motion is req!lired on this is it Roger? Councilman Boyt: We already did it. Mayor Chmiel: So this will be back on the Council agenda on the 28th. Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try to get it back on that. What you're asking is a lot of information that has to be supplied and then verified. Mayor C~iel: The problem is, if he's proceeding with building, we'd like to keep it moving. Jo Ann Olsen: The house can still go ahead. It's just the filling. Councilman Johnson: What he does with the dirt from building the foundation is a problem. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. DISCUSSION OF SUPERAMERICA SIGN, HIghWAYS 7 AND 41. Jo Ann Olsen: The reason this was brought in front of the Council was that it was brought to staff's attention after the SuperAmerica site was built, the store, that they had a lit canopy and the stripe around the building. It's always been staff's understanding that that would not be illuminated. In speaking with the applicant, they felt that it had always been clear that that would be illuminated and it was just a misunderstanding. Because I had thought that it wasn't going to be ill~ninated, it was never brought out as a specific condition so there was nothing in the conditional use permit or site plan review that I could point out that did not allow it. There is a condition that stated that the canopy would not have signage. It's c~estionable whether or not that ill~ninated stripe is signage so the applicant, I allowed them to have the occupancy permit on the condition that I would be bringing this back up to the Council for them to review it and that would be with their understanding that the illumination could possibly be removed. So we a~e bringing it up to the Council for tham to review it. The applicant on Friday has stated that they will turn off the lights ~mtil the HSZ site is constructed or berming or whatever occurs on the_ site which would screen the lights from the residents and then possibly be able to turn them back on to see if it would be an impact and have the Council make a decision at that time. They are agreeing to just turn off the lights adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Not all of them. Not the ones along TH 41 and TH 7. So I still wanted the Council to review it just so the applicant has clear direction what they want to allow happen and what 30 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 they can do. Also to let the residents speak I guessl Mayor Chmiel: For those of you who may or may not remember, we did have a meeting here with the residents regarding the developer's area as well as discussing the illumination on SuperAmerica. I'm pleased to see that you're willing to shut those lights off for the interim because it is causing an inconvenience for some of those residents within a particular area whereby they say it's a night light that they don't really have to have in their bedroom and it does throw an awful lot of light. I guess what I'm looking at here, I'm seeing what staff is saying that the potential with the developer doing the landscaping and the berming within the area may allow this lighting to come back on providing that it still is not an inconvenience for the neighborhood. I guess that's where I'm coming from at least and I'm not sure where the balance of the Council is coming from but at least that's what I see. CounciLman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might. I think the Council is in a stronger position given the agreement between Superkmerica and staff that the Council review this. I think we're in a stronger position if we work off the proposal that Superkmerica has made and table this. We can still listen to comment from citizens but if we, I think if we take no action, in the long r~n we're in a better position to take action in the future than if we take action tonight we sort of seal the books. We've done what they agreed and staff would too so I prefer to see us put off, especially given that Superkmerica has said we're going to turn the lights off facing the neighbors. I would rather see us try that before the Council takes final action. Mayor Chmiel: Good position. Councilman Johnson: Before I take any action, I want to see some of those drawings back again that show the illumination. We had illumination drawings showing what the illumination was going to be at this site and I don't rem~nber any building illumination. I only remember inside the canopy and stuff and I'd like to hear from residents and I'd like to hear from the SuperAmerica reps tonight but I don't really want to make any kind of decision tonight. Like Bill says, I think we're in the best position... Mayor Chmiel: That's what we'll probably wind up doing is tabling this but I'd like to have... Councilwoman Cimler: But the residents can speak? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I'd like to have the residents address the issue. I know we've addressed it once but SuperAmerica wasn't present at that particular time. We're just strictly addressing the illumination on Superkmerica at this time. Councilman Workman: Are the lights on right now?. Jo Ann Olsen: They're supposed to be turned off. Councilman Workman: Are the lights turned off tonight? Resident: They were on last night. 31 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Workman: ! understood that they were going to be turned off immed ia rely. Councilman Boyt: Let me say something about the staff note before Superkmerica gets held to task for what's down here. What's down here is a result of a phone conversation that I had with Superkmerica and relayed to staff and then there was some discussion between staff and SuperAmerica. In the need to get this into the pack, I think there were maybe s~me conclusions drawn. What I understood to be the case following my discussion was that SuperAmerica was proposing to turn off the lights that w~uld face the neighborhood, which basically meant the lights on two sides of the building and see how that worked. There's been very little time here and I don't know what conversations they've had with staff but I don't think we should take what's in this cover paragraph word for word because staff sort of got it second hand. Dick Brown: I'm Dick Brown. I live at 263g Orchard Lane. I have this letter I received, I think it was sent out August 10th and it says in here, the staff's position is that the lighted canopy signage does not comply with approvals given by the City. Can the City tell us ~ny it doesn't comply? What are the specifics on that? Don Ashworth: The canopy shows the striping aro~md on the plans but it does not show it as being illuminated. O]r position is that it has to be shown as i 1 luminated. Dick Brown: And it should not be illu~ninated? Okay. Also, I'm t3~ying to understand in this letter it talks about occupancy permit had been held waiting for the resolution of this it~m. Has that permit been given? Don Ashworth: Yes it has. Dick Brown: Who gave it? Don Ashworth: City staff. Dick Brown: And how couid they give it if they were not in compliance? DOn Ashworth: It was with agreements that the sign, that they had the right to appeal staff's decision to their City Council. Any person has a right to come back to this City Council and to appeal a decision. It was staff's belief that as long as they came back to the City Council, the Council made a decision within a relatively c~]ick period of t~me, that again it would be back to City Council to make that decision. Dick Brown: So they could violate what you told them they could do and still get away with it and appeal after the fact? Don Ashworth: The construction doc~_~nents show the lighted sign in there. They have some basis for saying that they had believed that that sign should be allowed to be lit. Our position is that no. We don't think that's the case. The preliminary plans as they were approved by the City Council are the controlling doct~nents but they have a right to present their position to the Council and to tell the Council why it is that staff's position is wrong. 32 City Council M~eting - August 14~ 1989 Dick Brown: Okay but for the record, I have a hard time understanding that if you have a set of plans that distinctly tell you what you can or can't do, they have the right to go ahead and do whatever they wish and then appeal later on to change your mind. That doesn't make sense. That' s just for the record and that' s my position. Councilman Johnson: Actually I think there's two sets of plans. A set of plans that show the basic develo~ent and then the construction plans that our building permit people look at. It was between those building permit people who looked at the building permits and looked for building code violations. Not necessarily all of our conditions. Generally they look at the conditions we place on thsm. This is one that slipped by, what I would consider slipped by our building inspectors as they reviewed those plans which is multiple pages. I don't know how many pages something like this would be. Probably 20-30 pages of blueprints. Don Ashworth: More than that. Councilman Johnson: Yes, more than that but a large set of blueprints they're looking through trying to find health, safety violations and make sure it's a safe building. Dick Brown: So what you're saying is this would have happened, it would never have been caught. I mean somebody has to be blamed to be responsible for that happening. Somebody just does. Either the plans are right or they're wrong. Don Ashworth: Staff is responsible to take and look at the plans... Dick Brown: A~d I agree with staff. DOn Ashworth: ...there was a site plan was approved by City Council. It did not show the illumination. Construction drawings were sukn~itted, they show an illumination. Dick Brown: Don't get me wrong. I agree with staff but I think we should be more prudent and expediate in getting it changed. Don Ashworth: Then before occupancy permit was authorized, went back through both sets and that's where we realized that they had not complied with those conditions. That's where we withheld occupancy permit. That's when the appeal was asked for to come before the City Council. Dick Brown: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else. Ben Gowen: I'm Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd.. Can you read to me that section, I think it's one of the 14 items that controls lighting. Would you read it to me for the record please? Councilman Boyt: It has something to do with the amount of lighting that r~nains on site. 33 City Council Meeting- August 14, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you have that handy? Jo Ann Olsen: I don' t. Ben Gowen: I'll wait until you get it. CounciLman Boyt: I'm sure that the section you're talking about or maybe you're referring to is the one that limits the amount of light that can leave the site. Is that right? Ben Gowen: If you'll read it for the record it will stop the whole issue. It was a condition of building. One of the 14 items. Councilman Boyt: %hat there was supposed to be, off hand I'd say something like 20% spillage. 80% control on site. Something like that. 70%. Ben Gowen: Well I think if you get it and read it we'll have it for the record. Let's get it out. CounciLman Johnson: Do you have the conditional use permit with you Jo Ann? Ben Gowen: Can we get it out please? Jo Ann Olsen: I can go get it. Ben Gowen: It clears t~he question. CounciLman Johnson: It' s upstairs someplace. Don Ashworth: It's in the conditional use file. Jo Ann Olsen: I have the conditions in here. I can read them. Councilman Johnson: The conditions are in here someplace? Jo Ann Olsen: They're in the Minutes. Mayor Chmiel: There's some near the back but there's 12 specific items that are there Jo Ann. Ben Gowen: It's 12 or 14 items. Councilman Johnson: There's 15. I found it. Page 63. CounciLman Workman: Page 92? Councilman Johnson: Also on page 63. Mayor Chmiel: There' s the 11... Councilman Johnson: No, there' s 15 there. Mayor Ch~iel: There's also those on page 91 as Tom mentioned but those are not the ones that Ben is leading to. 34 City Council ~4eeting - Augus~ 14, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: There's the one condition in there that says the lights on the gas canopy, ar~ those are the lights underneath, that had to be recessed, shall be receeded into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into surrounding neighborhood areas. Ben Gowen: What was the last statement please? Eliminate what? Jo Ann Olsen: The lights will be receeded into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood. Ben Gowen: Does that answer the question? Councilman Johnson: For the canopy. Jo Ann Olsen: Those are the lights underneath. Mayor Chmiel: That's just the canopy. Ben Gowen: The canopy is the big problem. The canopy is 365 circle of light. Councilman Boyt: I think it's in the zoning ordinance about control of light on the site isn't it? Jo Ann Olsen: That's just a standard. Is that what he's talking about? Ben Gowen: How can you change it the other way if it controls the light to a horizontal area or to a vertical area? Councilman Johnson: Qlite simply Jo Ann, if we had known that theywere going to light the outside of the canopy at the time, we would also made this applicable to the outside lights. Why make it applicable to the inside lights if you then put lights on the outside? Jo Ann Olsen: As I stated, we didn't even bring... Ben Gowen: The purpose was to have no lights shining in the neighborhood. They were notified before construction c~mpleted because I know that I noticed that there were about 95 neon lights installed on the canopy and the City was notified I think it was on the Friday before the w~ekend by Gary Reed that this was happening and it was lights that were illegal. Thank you. Jo Ann Olsen: While he's coming up. We do have an illumination plan that was approved that does show that the lighting does not disperse. Councilman Johnson: That's something that Jay indicated that he'd like to see. Bob Wagner: Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane. I'm looking at the City of Chanhassen staff report dated August 22nd. This was the proposal for the conditional use permit for the convenience store with gas pumps. I'm specifically looking on page 8. The date at the top of that Jo Ann is August 3rd and it's item 4 and you go through several issues. One is, will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. We're talking about the zoning. And it goes on to say, the conditional use permit process 35 City Council Y~eting - August 14, 1989 penmits conditions to be added to insure the site will not be disturbing to neighboring uses. The lights on the site will be downcast to prevent light from being directed off site. The canopy lights are also downcast but to further reduce impact to the neighbors, staff is reconmending that the lights be receeded into the gas canopy. I think that sets some early precedent probably of what was to be expected. Are you R~nan? I can't remember Roman, right? Roman, I'm going to read his co~nents of that Planning Ccm~nission meeting of August the 3rd. We'll skip the one about no diesel fuel. Excuse me about Bud Kelp. ~]d's not here tonight but Bud took some early stances. He says the type of lighting that SuperAmerica uses at it's location, downcast lighting, as the picture illustrates is downcast lighting. Roman Mueller could direct who Bud Kelp is to you. It's a little hazy to me anymore. Then I'd like to direct your attention to the City Council meeting of October the 10th which was sort of the down and dirty last hurrah when we decided what we were going to do and would never come back again on this subject. Roman at that evening, his co~nents were, our light spillage... Mayor Chmiel: What page is that on? Bob Wagner: That's page 51, the bottom of the page. That's the n~_~nber at the bottom and Roman is here so he can probably verify this. It says, our light spillage is a]~nost neglible... You might be able to stand at a person's house and be able to see the light but you can do that with the lights downtown also. That's not an impact on them. We're not lighting their buildings. We're not lighting their yards. We're not lighting anything they've got. They can see a point of light but they are not impacted by the light itself. It is also been required that in our canopy our lights be receased up into them to elJ~ninate the point of light that they can see. That's already established in the develo~n~nent. Mayor Geving spoke and then Roman spoke again. Also, I'd like to point out that the lights that we do install, even when they are not made to be recessed into the canopy, are all cut lenses to focus the lights directly down. It's strictly like this and 'then he had the plat or plans that I think Councilman Johnson was addressing he'd like to see. Then when we get to n~m~ber 6 of the actual conditional permit which says the lights on the gas canopy shall be reduced into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into the surroudning neighborhood area. That's page 87. I think there's very clear precedent here of what w-as expected and I'll point out number 3 on page 91 which was the final 12 I think. Maybe it wasn't the_ final 12 but it's 12 of the conditions. Number 3 says no signage shall be permitted on the gas canopy. I think all of those establish a precedent of what's right and wrong in this particular issue. I'd like to address the co~nent about turning them off temporarily. I'm getting awful tired of coming back. Secondly, with the leaves all off the trees, there's no berming that's going to protect the lighting. Councilman Boyt: What? Bob Wagner: When the leaves fall off the trees, there's no berming that's going to be built that's going to protect me fram that lighting. I sit quite high. It might affect those_ that are below the berm. It's not going to affect houses like Ben Gowen or myself. There's just no way it's possible. CounciLman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put out something. Mayor C~hmiel: Go ahead Bill. 36 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Boyt: As I thought, in our zoning ordinance we have Section 20-913 which deals with lighting that says glare whether direct or reflected as differentiated with general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site form which it originates. There may be s~me definitional discussions about glare versus general illumination there so then in Section 20-958 it talks about glare or heat. Any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be formed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from R districts, meaning residential and public streets. So I think in terms of the City's ability to regulate this, we're in an excellent position to come up with a good solution. I think that it still makes sense however in spite of the necessity to maybe bring Bob back one more t~me, to work out a t~nporary solution until we see what the site looks like when it's all built up. It just seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do. To do it. Ben Gowen: I disagree totally with Bill Boyt on that. The contract was let. The conditions were set. They agreed to it and they're not complying. They should comply or be out of business. Close them up if they can't comply. Dick Brown: I think Councilman Boyt ought to keep in mind that getting the site done and completed is a whole different issue. That's what we talked about at the last meeting and that's not being done either. Nothing being done the way it should be done. Resident: They brought the machine in there to start the hole and they did a little bit on one side and parked the machine and set there. They didn't do anymore with it. That's all they did. On one side they dug it up a little bit and the machine's sitting there. They haven't been back there since. Dick Brown: So we're talking about two distinct issues here. First of all he's trying to bring in something that doesn't belong with what we're talking about today. We're talking about lighting specifically and staff agrees with the neighbors that they're in non-compliance with the plans. It's that simple and the issue is, do you let them continue in business under those terms or do you shut th~m down or do you modify the operation somehow to make us happy? The other issue that you're talking about, is something entirely different. We went through this in the meeting before. The building may never get that done. I don't think, there's a good possibility the City's going to have to exercise their letter of credit and do it themselves. That's not an issue here. You shouldn't even talk about that. Councilman Boyt: Okay, let me respond here for a second. There's no question in my mind that the lights that are reflecting into the neighbor's houses need to be turned off. Okay? And that needs to happen as soon as they can arrange it to happen. What I'm saying is, the Council has plenty of authority to go in and deal with the light issue. Let's get the lights turned off. We don't have to take any action to do that. I think that Roman and his people will stand up and tell you they'll have that done and maybe they'll even give us a date that we can hold them accountable by. I hope_ they do. That needs to happen. I'm just saying, let's not act on this per se but let's get the problem solved and then see what happens. I don't know what's going to happen. 37 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we'll do is jt_~st direct this over to SuperAmerica and I think SuperAmerica wants to be a good neighbor. Maybe they'll address it from that specific aspect. Please come over and state your name please. Robert Johnson: My ri&me is Robert Johnson. I'm the attorney who represents SuperAmerica. Point of personal priviledge first before I get into it. I find it so interesting. I was Chairman of the Municipal Commission out here years and years ago that had a whole host of hearings and dismanbered the township and annexed part of it to Chanhassen and part of it to Chaska and part of it to victoria. So it's interesting to come back and see the development and see what's happened since, we must have had 20 hearings out here. As we worked on what to do with the township and how to expand Chanhassen and to see what you have done and come back and see the Council and see them in action here, it's very, very interesting. On the issue of what we're talking about here, we indeed on behalf of Superkmerica, Roman Mueller is here who's the architectural engineer and Randy Peterson's here who's partner in this effort. But the lights on the south side and the west side will be turned off. It's the electrician has been ordered out there to disconnect. ~ihere's not a way you can switch it off so that will happen within the next day or two. The south side and the west side. I've represent~ SuperAmerica for a long time and a good many places and I just assure you that they indeed do want to be a good neighbor. But we do indeed want to work with you and work with the neighbors. We are very, very concerned that that development is not going in as it had been planned and has had to been promised. We want to go to the developer and put whatever pressure we can put on him to get it done because as testified a year ago, going through the transcript and noting that the station without the shopping center there is going to have tough sliding because that shopping center is very important to it. So we indeed join with the neighbors in saying we want to get at that and we are going to get at that and try to bring pressure to bear on that. The matte~ of the misunderstanding, as I understand it, occurred as a discussion between Roman and the previo~m planner. At that time he did have a discussion the planner in which they talked about the light on the canopy. All the times I've worked with him, I've never seen him try to snooker somethin9 by. They just don't operate that way so it was indeed an honest misunderstanding between staff and SuperAmerica. We would appreciate very much your action to table it. We will turn the lights off. We would like to see that shopping development go in and then take a look at it and see what kind of, we don't know what kind of buildings they're going to ~]t up. What the berming strip is going to be. What affec~ that will have on the neighbors as they would look at the light. As you know, when you talk about the lights, the difference in the light projecting and the visbility of the light is a part of what the language problem that you get into what lighting would be allowed. But I don'0t see any point to getting into that because that's not an issue in front of you at the present time. But that's what we would p~opose and respond to any c~_~estions. I'd rather not get into a lot of detail and rehashing of it at this time because as you pointed out Councilman, that will be a time to do that at a later time if indeed the building and the berm does not protect the citizen, then if at that time we want to come back and get those lights on again, it will be our obligation to come and try and convince you of that. Unless Roman, do you have anything? Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 38 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Dick Brown: I'd like to make one more c~ent. To avoid misunderstanding again, I understand that the misunderstanding to begin with was on the lighting on the outside. The facia. If I'm correct, you're talking about putting the lighting out only on the south and west side? Robert Johnson: The south and west side. Dick Brown: And just so we don't misunderstand, I don't think that's correct. I think the neighbors are asking the City to follow the letter of the law the way staff talked. ~lrn the lights on all of the outside out. Not just the south and just the west. Just so we don't have a misunderstanding, that's what the neighbors expect them to do. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask why the other two sides, if it has no effect upon the neighbors other than it's strictly to meet the letter of the law? Ben Gowen: There are neighbors across the street. Dick Brown: They were at the last meeting talking about it too. Ben Gowen: Read the thing and abide by it. It's simple. Turn them off. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Always additional questions. As they're saying, the south side and west side, and you're saying on all sides? Lights that come down from there are down lighting up against the building is that correct? Ben Gowen: We're talking the canopy. Mayor Chmiel: We're talking the canopy itself? Okay, strictly canopy. Jo Ann Olsen: And the building. Dick Brown: We're talking the facia. Mayor Chmiel: Facia and the canopy? All the way around? Okay. Would there be a problem in turning that complete facia off? On the upper portion of it? Robert Johnson: Yes, it would be Mr. Mayor and the Council. On the north side, as I went out and looked at the site today, I could really only see one house that was across TH 7 which is a double lane highway and it's up higher and if you look to the east of that house, there's a shopping center. It's not as ~]ough there's something that was really create any great problem for them. It's our position that the mere fact of putting a light behind the facia is not a sign and we would, if we were going to get into the discussion of the merits of that, why we could do that but it just seemed to be the only neighbors that I could see were on the south and on the west side that certainly are in Shorewood so that would... Mayor Chmiel: That facia. I'm thinking the facia in itself, and I drove in there one evening just to check it out and I also filled up with gas, just to let you know. I've used SuperAmerica quite extensively. I know that some of the people who are here, the other meeting that we had, had some real concerns. They're having problems with sleeping because of that illumination and the site 39 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 in itself is well lit. I don't think that facia is really a real necessary thing to have to point out or to stick out or to light out or to attract the people because there's still enough lighting directly on site with your down lighting as you have on the p~mps and so on. That draws in itself. You've got your SA sign which is something that draws in as well. Your prices are right arr~ consec~lently people are going in. So I don't see that as being a real deterrent for you at this particular time. I think what I'd like to ask, if you would, is to keep that light off all the way around for this period of time whether we have it tabled now and then come back and see once we get the entirity of that beL~ing up and get the plantings in, to see if there's enough screening and there might be a problem with a couple of them because they said they're up a little higher. See what that might be that you could come in and turn it back on and see whether or not it would be acceptable back again to that neighborhood. Robert Johnson: Mm'. ~ayor, what I'm saying about that is, there will be no berm on the north side so we're not changing that at all so that's why we would prefer very much to leave it on the north side and on the east side. I understand what you're saying about time people... Mayor Chmiel: The north side is obvious shopping center. That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure there's neighbors that way. There's a shopping center. Councilman Johnson: There is. Councilwoman Dimler: There is? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I drove by there today. They're a long ways away too but I have to go out and see it at night. I haven't been out there at night yet. Bob Wagner: I have to point out too that there isn't any clear cut north, south, east, west. Ben Gowen: One more time. Why can't the City Council force them to live up to the contract that they signed to begin with? That they agreed to to begin with. They didn't agree and now they're weaseling around. Don't let them. Make them shut it off. Mayor Chmiel: Well it does indicate that there's no facia lighting on it. Ben Gowen: ~]re and simple. Don't have it. CounciLman Johnson: Basically the purpose of tabling is because the applicant has not had time to prepare but I think we should have them shut it off until the time that they can come in with the lighting. Prepare a presentation. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's within the conditional use permit itself. Do you have that handy? Is that what that was shown in at that time Ben? In the conditional use permit? Ben Gowen: She read number 6... 4~ City Council M~eting - August 14~ 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: That was talking about the recessed lighting~ Mayor Chmiel: No, there was also something on the facia portion and I believe that was within the conditional use. Councilman Johnson: You know Jo Ann, I do not read number 6 as the r~=cessed lighting. Ben Gowen: Maybe I've got the wrong one. Jo Ann Olsen: There's a different number 6. Bob Wagner: I'm looking at a set of 15 on that handout, page 87... Councilman Johnson: You see, if we had been informed at that time that there were other lights in the gas canopy besides those lights, the wording of that would have been different. Mayor Chmiel: That's right and I think that's what we have to get back to. councilman Johnson: That's the problem. There was a mistake and the Council was misinformed about the plans for the lighting of that canopy because they were not shown on their illumination drawings. Bob Wagner: I have a drawing here with no indication of lightings in the staff report. I have another indication of the building but... Mayor Chmiel: Can I see that Bob? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have this brought back so we can see all the information put together and we can argue whether the stripes are a sign, which by our ordinance the stripes are a sign. ~here's no way that you can say that they're not but I'll let you read our ordinance. You just have time to read the ordinance and then come back and argue that it doesn't say what it says. councilman Boyt: Do you have the lighting diagram? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's here. We'd have to go into it a little bit more but it does show. Jo Ann Olsen: Those are recessed. The lighting canopy is showing the recessed lighting illumination. Mayor Chmiel: It shows the edge of the canopy but it does not specifically say any lights on the edge of canopy there. ~at we're going to have to do I think is to... Jo Ann Olsen: How much will be shielded really depends on the buildings that are in there. It won't be completely shielded. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have a motion for tabling to look back at the illumination drawings to see whether it's consistent. 41 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I will move that we have the lights on the canopy, all sides of the canopy turned off at this time and that we table the entire issue to a future agenda when SuperAmerica can present their arguments as to, and we can further research the issues. CounciLman Boyt: You can' t do both those things. You can't move to pass something and then table it at the same time. Councilman Johnson: No, I moved to table it until... Mayor Chniel: No, he's saying to shut off the lights and to table the balance of it is ~nat he's basically saying. Councilman Boy~: What's the balance of it? You're telling them to shut off the lights. That' s a done deal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but to review what was actually said in conjunction with what the interpretation is here as far as the canopy or the facia lighting. CounciLman Johnson: There's a lot of issues. Councilman Boyt: Well there's a lighting issue. Co~mciLman Johnson: There's a lighting issue. CounciLman Boyt: And how are you going to take a vote on a lighting issue and then table it for further discussion? That doesn't make any sense to me. Councilman Johnson: Okay, we're saying, as an interim measure, we want all the lights turned off at this time. Councilman Workman: On the canopy. CounciLman Johnson: On the canopy and that we will table it for the entire discussion to see what will happen permanently because we have a lack of information tonight to work from for a permanent solution. Mayor Chmiel: Roger? I'd like a legal opinion. Roger Knutson: I guess my, what Jay said is fine but my concern would be, what do you want me to do if they keep the canopy lights on? Do you want me to prosecute them? Don Ashworth: Staff will take hhah position yes. Councilman Johnson: Revoke the conditional use pekTnit and close it down. Roger Knutson: That' s fine. Councilman Johnson: That' s my motion. Councilman Boyt: I would propose... Mayor Chniel: There's a motion on the floor. 42 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: There' s no second. Councilman Workman: Jay, I'll second it for discussion. Councilman Boyt: Superkmerica knows your intent. Maybe I'm just hung up on a procedure but I think it makes a pretty clumsy motion to move to table the motion that you're making. I would just suggest that you move to table this thing. You' ve told them what you want them to do. If they don' t do it, they realize that there's consequences involved or, just make the darn motion to turn the lights off. Get a vote on that and see what happens to it. Let's clean it up somehow. Councilman Johnson: Doing it the first way, I would say that if they leave the lights on, there's nothing we can do about it until the issues comes up again. Doing it the second way, they can rec~]est reconsideration and bring the issue up on a future agenda. If go to say, hey, that's it. Turn the lights off. Nothing's a dead issue because you've got the reconsideration process. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my comment is that from what I've seen here, I haven't really had time to look at it in great detail and none of us really have, but if it's clear cut in there that the canopy facia lighting was not in there, then we have to move with turning them off and keeping them off, no consideration. No reconsideration. Councilman Johnson: There's no such thing as no reconsideration. It's in our laws that they can have reconsideration. We can deny their reconsideration. Councilwoman Dimler: It's in the plans. Councilman Workman: We've had sticky issues like this before and I'm proud to say the record of this Council has been the option of compromise and I think that's where we've all been kind of squirming to try and keep a light or two on and make everybody happy. Is the north side, we're not sure what the north side is? The north side light couldn't be left on? Bob Wagner: Couid I address that? Councilman Workman: Sure. Bob Wagner: I'd like to address this issue of compromise. I'd like to give you about 10 years of history on this site but I don't have time. The compromise has gone fr~n residential to office to BN to adding a filling station. Where does compromise stop? We have compromised over and over on this thing. Councilman Workman: I would suggest that we have growth going on all over the city... Bob Wagner: Compromise for the conxnunity once. Councilman Workman: Absolutely and that's I believe where we're heading. I would also agree that the position that we need to take first is to give you people relief until at least we can figure this out. I don't believe in shutting any doors but until a suitable plan comes up, I think... 43 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: If this determines so that the door's already shut, there isn't much we can do. It was approved by the previous Council. That's what I'm saying. Maybe the door is already shut. We haven't had a chance to look at it deeply enough tonight to... CounciLman Boyt: What I would suggest to SuperAmerica is stand up there and tell us you're going to turn the lights off and then let us table this thing without voting on ~e lights one way or the other. I just think that's a cleaner deal. .~ayor Chmiel: Well that's what I requested previously. See if they were moving in that direction but they weren't unless there's s~ne reconsideration. Roman ~queller: Can we turn the lights off on the sides facing the neighbors and leave the lights on facing TH 7? Ben Gowen: They're rewriting their contract. Mayor Chniel: Then I think we have to go to a vote. Councilwoman Dimler: Ail the lights off. Mayor Ckmiel: You're forcing us to go to something else. I think a good working relationship between the station and neighborhood and the community, same consideration I think should be given. Roman Mueller: And I felt that way as we were going along here, especially in the consideration of the approved building plans that we built off was brought up. Unfortunately we'~e not being given consideration for living up to what we sukmitted. The City we feel is bending to the neighbors' rec~]ests 10~%, even in areas that does not affect the neighbors and we are being ~]nished for a development that we have no control over. We've seen t~is from the first day that we came in with our proposal for SuperAmerica and we're accussed of using the development to get us in. We have been fighting this constantly all along and we feel like we're out there. We're what the neighbors can grab. We're what the City can grab and you're just s~]eezing tm when we have no control over the development behind us. That development when it goes in and we are continually reassured. I talked to the contractor and I talked with the developer that it is going to be built and when it is built, our lights will be... Now if you want to get into a technical discussion...point source versus light spread. Your ordinance deals with light spread not point source. I can see a light 5 miles away but there's no light that strikes me. Light source. Your ordinance deals with the spillage off the site. That's what we complied with. We feel as much a toy in this as probably the neighbors do. Both of us, as we see it, are being beat around by everything being stirred in this kettle because nothing's settled. We would like consideration of being allowed to keep those lights on as it was approved by the City. Councilwoman Dimler: It wasn't approved. That's the point. Mayor Chmiel: There's the clarification. Ben Gowen: It was not approved. 44 City Council Meeting - August 141 1989 Dick Brown: The City says you're not in compliance- Roman ~k]eller: We built in accordance to the plans that were approved. My discussions with the previous planner dealt with signage and the lighting and what constitutes signage. What constituted lighting. Your signage ordinance didn't spill into the lighting of it. It dealt with the verbage and the logo of the sign... Striping around the building facia was allowed. It was not considered to be signage. The striping around the canopy was allowed because it was not considered to be signage. The lighting of it had no bearing on whether it was signage or not. According to our discussions. A discussion we also had stated that's not an issue. It doesn't need to... We went along with the staff's recon~nendation was and good faith in the City Council and now we're being...for something that was agreed on at a different time. Bob Wagner: I think we're both saying the s~me thing only over and over. We attended the meetings, the public meetings. We heard nothing of lighting of that plan. It was never presented. It wasn't in SuperAmerica's talked about hasn't been presented. In fact, the co~ents in that staff report that you have suggests nothing of lighting. Roman ~]eller: That's right because that was the only issue that staff felt... The other lighting of the building facia, in fact the discussion at one time was to light the entire facia around the building. Bob Wagner: And that discussion I r~member. Discussion about lighting the front I remember... Mayor Chmiel: Let's have one at a time. Roman Mueller: I'm sorry. I've said my piece. I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: I would like, Roger. I would like a motion for however we can to what Jay has indicated. Councilman Johnson: Mine still works doesn't it? Mayor Chmiel: And I think you gave that opinion that we could do that? Roger Knutson: Procedurally, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Boyt: There's no need to table it. Just vote on the lights and that's it. If they want to bring the lights back up, they can do it. What are we getting out of tabling anything? Mayor Chmiel: We want to table until we determine whether or not this was a req~lirement or not Bill. Councilman Boyt: Then how can we vote on it if we don't know if it was a requirement or not? Mayor Chmiel: We can vote on what we're saying with no lighting and we can go to tabling the balance of this until it's determined as to the information that 45 City Council Meeting - Augus% 14, 1989 staff is going to find and co~e up with a conclusion. Councilman Boyt: What' s left? i don' t understand what' s left. Councilman Johnson: P~nat I'm saying in the motion Bill is simple. The lighting issue, I'm saying no lights on the canopy from now until the entire issue is brought back with all the documentation. Previous doc~.~entation. The full blue print showing the lighting plans, etc. are brought back to us and that we have enough info~nation to make a permanent call. In other words I'm making a t~nporary call on the lighting. Roger [qnutson: Just so we're clear. If they don't turn off the lights, then tomorrow or the next day I will be prosecuting them and then I have to make, the Court will have to make a call as to what was decided when 'they got the conditional use permit will be a final call. Don Ashworth: The only thing there I'd like you to consider Roger is the staff has made a detekYnination that they are not in compliance with the authorization given by the City Council. I think you have all of the rights to prosecute on that basis. It is up to th~n to appeal that decision. This Council has not acted on that appeal. Therefore, staff's position stands. Roger Knutson: Based on Staff's position right now and the way the prosecutions are handled, based upon the staff report, we could prosecute them. Councilman Johnson: Is there a formal appeal before the Council at this time? Mayor Chmiei: No. Councilman Johnson: Why is this issue up here tonight? Is this ~ here because the citizens are complaining or because SuperAmerica has folmally appealled this? Don Ashworth: Right. Councilman Johnson: ~nat? Don Ashworth: The latter. Councilman Johnson: We got a letter in here from them formally appealing and asking to be before the Council then? Don Ashworth: I don't know if the letter is in there but it's clear that the occupancy permit would not be issued to then. They wanted to open and they wanted to be able to -take in. Have the canopy lit ~nich they believed was correct and if they had an opportunity to present their position to 'the Council, they could d~nonstrate that position. Staff said no. You will not give occupancy. Tt~y then agreed to appeal that decision and that's where it stands. Councilman Johnson: And what action has SuperAmerica taken to appeal that decision today? DOn Ashworth: Technically do we have a letter on file saying we want to appeal? 46 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: No. The closest we've got is that letter from Roman that's in the packet. Councilman Johnson: July 17th? Councilman Boyt: The last page. The next to the last page. Jo Ann Olsen: Which I followed up making it clear that it would be brought back in front of the Council but we don't have a formal application and appeal. Councilman Boyt: I have a question to ask engineering. When a person who's going to build in our cormnunity, a con~mercial builder comes in, what's the procedure that's followed with their plans? Dave Hempel: Staff would review the plans. Each department has a set of plans and they review the set of conditions that would be recon~nended by the Council for thegn to follow to be following the guidelines of the City. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Council sets conditions. It's approved with those conditions. Do the drawings ever come back? Do the...come back in front of staff after those conditions are set or do they just go out and build? Jo Ann Olsen: ~nat was the question? Councilman Boyt: Once the Council has set the conditions, do the plans come back in front of staff before the builder begins construction? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. If there's a specific condition that's amended like landscaping plans or things like that, yes. We usually see those before they' 11 come back tb3~ough for the building permit process. In this case, they did not. The plans that came in after this were the complete set of plans, construction plans. Councilman Boyt: The plans that came in, the complete set of plans, did the City sign off on those plans? Don Ashworth: Yes, we did. Councilman Boyt: We did? Don Ashwor th: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Do we know whether or not this lighting was in those plans? Jo Ann Olsen: I'm assigning they are. That's something that I did not look at and I'm sure that the building department saw it. Councilman Boyt: So we can muddy this water by saying that the City Council set some standards and the City staff signed off on something that may not have lived up to all those standards. Jo Ann Olsen: But there's nothing in those conditions that specifically said no lighting around the canopy. That's why the whole issue has been brought up is that it was always understood that they would not be and that's why it was never 47 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 brought out as a specific condition[ CounciLman Boyt: I just want to point out to the Council that I suspect that this is not as straight forward as we'd all hope it would be. Councilman Workman: And so then Bill what happens is do we give the neighbors relief or do we give Superkmerica signage? Councilman Boyt: I have no problems with turning the lights off. If it co~es down to that, then let's vote and turn the lights off and be done with it but I'm just saying, this is not as straight forward as we'd like it to be. I'm not so sure that that's fair although it's certainly not fair to have light in your bedroom window. 1hat's not a question. The question for me is ~nat the City does and folks, I'll say it again, I think we're overwhelmed with what's going on in this city and I think this is just an example of how that shows up. Robert Johnson: M~. Mayor, just a point. If you will look to your agenda, it indicates that there was going to be a discussion about this sign. That's the notice we had. We did not come prepared for a hearing because if we were coming for a hearing, we would have had our lighting expert here to talk about lighting and talk about our compliance with the ordinance and talk about whether or not this is a sign. The letter we received from staff indicated that ~nen the lighting goes on behind the sign, it appears to them that it is a sign. That's the language. Then we're brought here to discuss, just to discuss the issue so I don't believe the matter is properly before you to be taking away rights. We had said we will turn the lights off on the two sides. It seems to me that just in tl~e sense of good orderly process, if we turn those lights off, then you still have the opportunity to have a hearing of which you're noted your appearance and we can come in with ou3~ experts and make our presentation and then you're in a position to tell us to turn it off but at this point I have some questions about that. We're willing to turn it off on the sides involving the neighbors but that's it. We didn't come here on an appeal. We did not come here for a hearing in that sense at all. CounciLman Johnson: Sides involving the neighbors, there's four sides that involve neighbors. You've got neighbors on all four sides. Robert Johnson: No. CounciLman Johnson: I don't care if they're in Shorewood or Chanhassen. Light, it hits the city boundaries. We could pass an ordinance it's not allowed to cross the boundaries and the light might pass it anyway and then we have to sue the light. Don Ashworth: Just so the record is clear. I disagree. I feel that our position is solid on this. You cannot modify a site plan approval or conditions of site plan by ~%e suhnitting of construction drawings to get a building pekmit. You had hundreds of cases that deal with, the building department looks at the detailed construction plans. They're verified. The structural condition. The legality with wiring. That set of construction plans cannot override site plan approvals that had previously been given. I guess you've had 5g cases... 48 City Co~cil Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Co~mcilman Johnson: I'll agree with you Don. My little motion shuts the lights off for right now. Provides SuperAmerica 2 weeks to 4 weeks, whatever, to provide the information and o~r staff to provide us the information showing that those lights were not on what we approved. Those lights were not on what we approved. Give me the blueprints showing what we approved last Dece~oer and then as far as I'm concerned, the lights aren't there. We discussed lights extensively. Tomy knowledge, I never heard anybody say that they were going to put a sign, a backlit sign along that facia or anything backlit along there. Decorative striping that happens to resemble one's store symbol, has been both for Amoco and SuperAmerica, not looked on as a sign. When you start making that a sign is when you start lighting that in this fashion, in my opinion and I'd like to see, I think that the compromise I came up with is a compromise. I would also be willing to go the other route depending upon what the out turn of the first motion is to say let's deny it all togther right now and let thsm come in for reconsideration as the tool for them to supply relief. Councilwoman Dimler: Just a point of clarification Jay. Does your motion, when you say turn the lights off, you're saying turn off the canopy... Councilman Johnson: Canopy lights on all four sides. Canopy facia. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct SuperAmerica to turn off the lighting on all four sides of the canopy facia and to table discussion of the SuperAmerica sign. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, this item will be tabled and until we get the information back from staff and we will renotify the neighbors and we'll also renotify SuperAmerica. Roman Mueller: ...determine that? Don Ashworth: We'll have to get back to you. There's no way we could make it for the 28th. Roman Mueller: I'm talking notification on the...so I know exactly what I have to do. Ben Gowen: ~]rn the lights off. Don Ashworth: Copies of tonight's minutes will be available I would say, what Nann? Councilman Johnson: The tek~ is until we have the next meeting on this issue and the permit is decided. Until we see the blueprints that you submitted to us showing the lighting for your facility and those blueprints show this lighting. When that comes in and shows that we approved this lighting last year, then we would approve you to turn the lights back on. Roman Mueller: So the plan you have upstairs is the plan you're looking for? 49 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 CounciLman Johnson: Right. They weren't in this packet. You all asked that you' re not ready to present so we said we'll table it. Give you a chance to be ready to present to us and everything and along with that, we're saying turn them off because we have no evidence to say that we ever approved those lights as a Council. Now it's your choice. Mayor CTtmiel: Rather than to sit back and wait, can we move ahead on administrative presentations on item b on the raft public hearing notice clarification? We have people here from (b). Jo Ann Olsen: We have somebody here from the recycling too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, item (b) is the only one I'd like to address. CounciLman Boyt: People here for what? Jo Ann Olsen: You have somebody from Waste Mangement here for 11 also. Councilman Johnson: Why would we skip 117 Mayor Chmiel: Because we have the residents here and I thought, they've been sitting here ever since... Councilman Johnson: So has she. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I didn't realize that someone was here. 13(B) RAFT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, CLARIFICATION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: Simply staff had a c~estion as to what it was the Council's intent was for public hearing. General public hearing notices, we simply put that into the newspaper. It's published and going to all homeowners. For items such as conditional use petmits and variances and what not, where you're talking about a particular lot, we send the property owners within 300 to 500 feet each an individual notice. If we're talking about rafts as anyone could put them on a lake, we' re talking about almost every parcel within the con~munity which then led staff to say, another option is just to prepare a form and send it to ever home. That's cheaper than researching 500 feet of the boundaries of every lake in the community. The q~]estion is, all of those alternatives have cost implications and before we went off on any one, I wanted Council to clarify it's intent. Counci Lman Johnson: Newspaper. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess if I may? Since I'm the one that tabled it, I thought maybe I'd address this. I don't even know where to start. I know it has a long history and I know Don has stated many, many times that the raft at Carver Beach is not the one that's being gone after here. However, I have grave reservations about that because later on he states that there is no c~estion that this raft is now owned by the City. Well there definitely is a c~_]estion because that is what our whole minutes were about last time is to who owns this raft and I wanted it clarified as to who owns this raft before we 50 City Council M~eting - August 14~ 1989 would ever consider this ordinance amendment at all. I don't know how many rafts there are in the City but I don't think it is a whole lot of them. My first suggestion would be, if we're going to send out notices to anybody, just send the notices to all current raft owners. Has that been done? Do they even know about this? Don Ashworth: No one has been notified. Councilman Johnson: They don't have a permit system so we don't know who they are. Councilwoman Dimler: Well all you have to do is go physically and look at the raft and say who's owns this. I know ours, we could contact Joel Jenkins. He has not been notified of this. I'm beginning to question whether there is a real need for this. Councilman Johnson: Absolutely. Councilwoman Dimler: No, not absolutely. Don Ashworth: How would we know to contact Joel Jenkins? Councilwoman Dimler: Well, you do a physical survey and you see how many rafts there are on each lake and then you ask a few neighbors who own's that raft and then you get the name and address. It can't be that many. It just can't be that many. Councilman Johnson: In a stretch of Minnewashta, about every third house had a raft out there as I drove down Minnewashta today. From King's Road up, and I was watching the road but I also looking out occasionally between houses to see if I saw a raft, and I saw 3 to 4 rafts along that stretch of the road from where I'm seeing. Councilwoman Dimler: 3 to 4? Bill, how many does Lotus Lake have? Councilman Boyt: I haven't counted them. I'd guess 7 or 8 at the most maybe. Councilman Johnson: If that's representative, 3 or 4 is a very small section of Lake Minnewashta. Probably Lake Minnewashta would have a dozen then. Lake Riley, I don't know. I've never been on Lake Riley. Councilwoman Dimler: There just aren't that many people out in Chanhassen that are not riparian lot owners that want to build a raft and spend $500.00 or more and then take it off sc~e public property or someone else's property and put it out in the water. I'm sorry. ~nere just aren't that manypeople that want to do that. Councilman Johnson: They don't know it's illegal to do that and it currently is. Councilwoman Dimler: They're not going to do it whether it's legal or illegal. They're not going to take the time or the expense. Do you understand what I'm saying? 51 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I know kids would. It's a simple ordinance. Trying to control a water obstacle like we control other water obstacles. Councilwoman Dimter: We're not saying that rafts aren't controlled. They already are controlled as to the reflectors. The types of materials. The .safety. The ladders. There's already in our ordinance, covers all that. How far out they have to be. It just doesn't make sense. This amendment no longer makes sense to me because I think it is be_ing directed at one particular raft and I don't think t~hat we ought to encumber every other raft owner with having to come in and get a permit and possibly pay a fee. We haven't even established that. Year after year after year after year for this one ite~n that we can't seem to be able to deal with. Don Ashworth: If that's Council's direction, it should be in the fonm of a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: That's just my co~nents. Now I'd like to hear from other council members and I'd also like to have the neighbors address it again. Councilman Johnson: The issue we're supposed to be addressing here tonight is how to do the public hearing notice. ,_Mayor Chmiel: I know but this whole thing is back open again and I guess what I'd like to do at this time, before we provide any additional comments is have the neighbors. If they have anything that they'd like to say or address regarding the raft situation, come up and please do so. Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler and I live 663g Mohawk. We're still, we don't know what happened to the original ordinance that this raft was grandfathered in. That's what we're looking at. As far as the ownership of the raft, the ordinance has said that this raft was grandfathered in ar~ that would give us the right to rebuild it in case the City ever wanted to take it out. That's the one that I looked at last fall and was ass%ming that that would come up. Well that one's not here or gone and I built the raft and the City paid for it so it's basically mine an~ the City's, 50-5g as far as ownership. I'd be more than happy to write a check out for the raft and get it back to us because we were under the ass~nption that it would be grandfathered in ar~ at least we'd be able to know that we could keep that raft. It's been there since at least 1948 and that's where we're standing. We went through a lot of work to get about 30~ people's signatures to save this raft for the kids and stuff. That's where we're standing. Councilman Johnson: You built the raft? Mike Wegler: Yes. Councilman Johnson: At your house? Mike Wegler: It was built on the property down there. Councilman Johnson: On your own time? Mike Wegler: Yes. 52 City Council Ma~ting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Boyt: What's with this? Don Ashworth: That wasn't my understanding Mike. It was my understanding you built that out at the Public Works on City time. Mike Wegler: No. That's incorrect. I built that on the property. The City paid for the materials. I donated my t~e. Don Ashworth: I stand corrected. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilman Johnson: In that case, I'd rather see the City buy the raft from Mike. Rocky Byrnes: I think Mike's willing to give the raft to the City aren't you Mike if they're willing to give us some assurance that it's going to be there. That's all we're looking for. That's all we've ever said. You guys can have the raft. The City can own the raft. That seems to be your only hang-up is who owns that raft. You don't want public people to have the raft out there. You want property owners to have the raft out there. Well fine. The City's a property owner. Have the raft out there. All we're saying is, have it out there forever just like everybody else can have theirs out forever. That's all we want. It's simple. Everybody makes a big deal out of it. We know this ordinance is directed only at that raft. It's the only non-conforming raft in the City if this ordinance goes past because everybody elses is out in front of their house. Nobody else has one that doesn't live on the lake. We're the only ones. We've had it there forever. It's the only one that's a problem. We're willing to give you the raft. Just tell us, put it down. Pass some ordinance that you think the raft should always be for the public and always be in that spot in Carver Beach or someplace out there. That's all we're asking for. Something like that. Something on the record that says it will be there. You don't even need this ordinance. We're willing to just let you have it and good luck you know. Councilman Johnson: Now you want the reality of the world. Rocky Byrnes: That's it. Just the reality. Councilman Johnson: This 5 member Council can say today it is our intent to have that raft there ad infinitum. In a year and a half a new Council sits here and they say, I don't like that raft and they can take it off. No matter what we say, but we can at least say it's our intent. Rocky Brynes: Absolutely but at least we have something to go back and say, listen. The Council said this raft should be there and we feel that you should honor the previous Council's recommendation. At least we have something. If you pass this ordinance, we have nothing absolutely. Councilman Johnson: I have no problem saying that. That we believe that there should be a swin~ning raft at that location. Resident: What does it mean to grandfather something in then if that isn't the saying to the people of the future that yes, this is... Isn't that what 53 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 grandfathering s~ething in so why can't we say... CounciLman Johnson: Certain things can be grandfathered in. I don't think a city o~ned raft probably can't be grandfathered in. Don Ashworth: I guess the c~estion goes back to Roger. Recognizing it's in and out of the lake, you can't grandfather a raft. Resident: You had an ordinance here last year that was going to. Ail of a sudden it disappeared. Don Ashworth: L~st year there were a number of ordinances that were under consideration. None of them coming back to Council. None of them ever enacted. It had been heard at the Park Cor~nission and I don't know the issue regarding grandfathering. Resident: We went to sevearl meetings with the Park ~ission and the City Council... Rocky Byrnes: Don, when me and Mike talked to you, you said you gave the City Attorney directions to draft an ordinance that would grandfather in the Carver Beach raft. I have a letter stating that this ordinance effectively grandfathers in the Carver Beach raft and then all of a sudden the ordinance disappeared. It never came before the Co~mcil. We've never seen it here. Here is it here. Councilman Johnson: I think it m~_~t have died in Planning Con~nission, Park Con~nission. Rocky Byrnes: I don't know where it went but it was dated 7-21-88. It says enclosed please find revised ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the City Codes regarding boats and waterways and the only significant change from previous draft dated 7-21-88, that non-confoklning swia~ning rafts are grandfathered in and ours was the only non-conforming swipaning raft so it was the one grandfathered in but it disappeared. Now you're telling you can't grandfather in something that's going to be taken out and ~t back? Don Ashworth: ! think we p~]t that wordage in there but even at that, I think there was some real c~_]estion marks as to whether it was really... Rocky Byrnes: That was the City Attorney's opinion at the time apparently. This was a letter from him. Don Ashworth: Any con~nents Roger? Roger Knutson: Under the current ordinance, if something is taken out or discontinued for 6 months. For example, you take your swin~ning raft out in the winter obviously. %hen you lose your grandfather rights. Resident: That raft never leaves the high water mark though. It gets pulled up on shore and it's never off the high water mark. I don't know how you can say it leaves the lake. It gets dragged up on shore and a couple barrels are always in the water... 54 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Roger Knutson: ...kind of ordinance you want to write. You can write ordinances to say all sorts of things. Councilman Boyt: Let me dive into this. I agree that this is a very s~mple matter Rocky. The City Council said well over a year ago we want this beach to be a public beach and we want a safe raft out in front of it and we want park rules posted. We directed that to the Park and Rec Commission to get that done. Rocky Byrnes: That's exactly what we have out there now. Councilman Boyt: Okay and I think it's everybody's intention, I would guess, on the Council to continue that. What I heard 2 weeks ago, as Ursula said, I want to have the ownership of the raft cleared up. Good point. I don't know what it has to do with our ordinance but it's a good point and it sounds like we still don't have that cleared up. I think the City ought to own that raft. It's out in front of a city park. Tne City should be obligated to take care of it. Be sure it's maintained. We want the raft to be there. This should be a very simple issue. That issue. Let's park it to one side so we can discuss the merits of maintaining rafts in the rest of the City. Rocky Byrnes: I know but if the City is going to exclude us from ever having any recourse if that raft disappears. That's our concern. Councilman Boyt: Would you like a motion that says that the City wants the raft in front of that park? We can certainly make that motion and put it on the books. Rocky Byrnes: Well I guess that's what we're looking for. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I have a motion. Councilman Boyt: Can I get an answer to my question first please? Rocky Byrnes: I said yes. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's ~nat they were looking for before. Resident: We don' t know what it takes.., to protect. That' s what we want is the protection. Councilman Boyt: You want the raft there right? Resident: And the protection that it will be taken care of. Councilman Boyt: I think we want to give you the raft there. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, there's no question. Councilman Boyt: I think we ought to have a motion that says we want a raft out from whatever we call that beach. Resident: Mini-beach. 55 City Co~_~ncil Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: But Bill, again I agree that that is arbitrary. We can say and unless they're grandfathered in which you are saying we can't do, the next Council comes along, that was the intent of that Council but you know. I just think in order to move this along, I would move that this whole ordinance amendment, which I don't believe is necessary, or rec~]iring pek~nlits for rafts, be totally r~moved. Councilman Boyt: Well we can't do it tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Why not? Councilman Boyt: Because there's no public notice that we're doing it. Councilwoman Dimler: There was never a public notice that we were doing it. Councilman Boyt: It was in the past agenda that was published. That's public notice. There's no public notice that we're voting on that tonight. CounciLman Johnson: Only on how we're going to do the hearing notice to discuss rafts. Don Ashworth: It is shown as raft public hearing notices. The previous one was listed as modification of water surface useage ordinance for req~]iring licensing of rafts on waters. Roger, recognizing those two wordages, do you have any bits of advice? Roger Knutson: Under State Statutes, nothing has to be in the agenda. You can add anything you want. Your own internal policies, something has to be on the agenda or you can waive the rec~irement by a four-fifths vote. As I read your agenda, the only thing on there tonight is the hearing notice business but you can waive that and make a final decision. Councilwoman Dimler: Because the hearing notices have not gone out? I could see that if the notices had gone out but all Don wanted was the intent of who to notify so I say that we could go ahead... Mayor Chmiel: And make that as a motion. Councilman Workman: Scrap the whole amendment? Councilwoman Dimler: Scrap the whole ordinance amendment. It's unnecessary. Councilman Boyt: We can't do that. Councilwoman Dimler: Sure we can. Councilman Boyt: I guess you can do anything you want but you're going to have to make a motion to amend the rules and it takes a four-fifths vote and I don't think you have four votes to do it. Councilman Johnson: There's no second an!~ay. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'll make a motion that, what is it? 56 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Amend our rules Councilman Workman: Let me just get to where we're at... Councilwoman Dimler: That would open the way for this motion... Councilman Workman: Which would forget everything that we've done and then make sure that they get their raft and then we're not going to be setting up any kind of fee structure for rafts or anything else. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right and we're not going to have to have everybody drag in here every year and get a permit. Councilman Johnson: We're going to say that you can put a raft 100 feet out from the shore and not call it a water obstacle. Rocky Byrnes: That's what you've already said. Councilman Johnson: That's what the current ordinance says you can put a raft 100 feet out from the shore and it's not a water obstacle. It is not s~mething that somebody's going to run into. Rocky Byrnes: It doesn't say it's a water obstable. It says it's a water obstacle but it says...permits. Councilman Johnson: Under the definition of water obstacle, it exempts rafts. Would not be a water obstacle. I personally cannot live with a raft 100 feet from shore not being a water obstacle. Mayor Chmiel: You might have lowwater Jay. You don't want to dive off into 1 foot of water. Councilman Johnson: I agree but it's a water obstacle when you're out there. It's a hazard to navigation and it's a safety hazard to the people on jet skis that try to jump over them. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but they've been there. We're not making any changes here. They've been there. What we're simple saying is the ordinance amendment as I understand it, we were trying to get people, we were requiring pekmits so that we have a list of who has th~m. Don made the issue of insurance which is what got me caught on this in the first place but I understand that really isn't an issue because each homeowner's policy covers that. Councilman Johnson: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: So insurance isn't really the issue. I can no longer find what the real issue is here and therefore I'm saying that I no longer believe that this amendment is necessary. Councilman Workman: Can we divorce the fee from the ordinance to just say people cannot put a raft in front of other people's property? Councilman Johnson: The ordinance isn't even up for discussion tonight. 57 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 CounciLman Workman: I know but that's eventually what we're getting up to. Councilman Johnson: Yes, when we have the hearing and discuss the ordinance in the future, that should be_ part of the discussion. I'm not sure if I want to charge anybody a fee for the raft. That's not that big of a deal but I think it's a water obstacle. I think we still need to discuss rafts. I think we need to divorce it from this raft. The City is partial owner of this raft. It's already been said we're a partial owner so it can be in front of City property. Councilman Workman: Because if the fee is the problem you know... Don Ashworth: We haven't got far enough to know if there is going to be a fee. Councilman Johnson: No, we haven't gotten that far. Let's take the ordinance on. Let's have 'the hearing. Let's see what's going to happen with it. Let's have the discussion under the proper fok~nat rather than now. Councilman Boyt: Before we do that, let's vote to make the raft as permanent as anybody can make it... Mayor Cbmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor? Counci]~nan Boyt: No we don't. Councilwoman Dimler: it. Yes, I move that we ~mend the rules but we never voted on ~Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Okay. Councilman Boyt: I would move, I'm not sure this is appropriate since there isn't any p~lblic notice of this thing. If it is appropriate, I would move that the City indicate that we want a raft out in front of the City's property so noted in the earlier discussion as to location. We want this raft to continue for as long as the City owns that piece of property. Councilman Johnson: If we want to play it by rules, then you need to move to suspend our rules in order to make that motion. Councilman Boyt: Alright. I move that we put this on a future agenda so stated that it would indicate that the City intends to make that raft permanent in a temporary sort of way given that it's got to come out of the water. Mayor Ctlmiel: ~{noa. (Everybody is talking at once.) Councilwoman Dimler: What that does is just leave it up for interpretation again and then we have people sitting here doing the s~e thing that we did tonight. Councilman Boyt: The ~nole book is up for interpretation. Councilwoman Dimler: I would say just grandfather them in then. 58 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: Can' t do it ~ Councilwoman Dimler: Yes we can. Councilman Workman: I would move that the City purchase the raft for $1.00 and make it a permanent facility at this beach. Co~uncilman Boyt: I ' 11 accept that. I second that. Mike Wegler: ...property over. That piece of property was turned over to the City for $1.00 from the people of Carver Beach and that's where this whole thing... Councilman Workman: Do we have a signed agreement on that? Rocky Byrnes: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: That's how this whole thing got started. Mike Wegler: That' s why we' re here for the raft. That' s all we' ve got left. We can't pull our boats up into there anymore. We can't put a dock out there. We can't do anything. Now you're telling us in 2 years the City might have the right to take the raft out. What does that do for us? We've got 300 signatures of people around the area with kids that just want to use it. We just to be reassured... Co~uncilman Workman: Can we amend the Comp Plan? Councilman Boyt: It's a park. We want a raft out there. Let's move to keep the raft out there. What's so complicated about that? Councilwoman Dimler: Why can't we grandfather it in? Councilman Workman: Do I hear a second? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it was moved and seconded. Councilman Boyt: Whoever made it, we've got it covered. Councilman Workman: To repurchase the raft. Councilwoman Dimler: But the neighbors don't want you to purchase it. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't even have to be purchased. It's already personally owned by the City. It can be there. All we have to do is say it's in the, under either ordinance it can still be there. Mike Wegler: I told them, that's why I put my labor in it. I didn't want to charge the City any more than for materials... Councilman Boyt: The City owns the dock and intends to keep the dock. Councilman Workman: So an amended motion would be... 59 City Council .Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Mike has 50% owership[ Councilman Boyt: He just gave us the dock right? If we want it, you're going to give it to us? Mike Wegler: I gave you the dock under good pretenses that it was going to be grandfathered in there and it was going to be secure for kids. My kids and kids down the road and I have no reassurance tonight that that's going to happen. Councilwoman Dimler: No you don't. CounciLman Boyt: It's like any piece of park property. Mike Wegler: There we go again. We gave it to you for a $1.00 Councilwoman Dimler: Grandfather them in. Roger Knutson: You can grandfather th~n in. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Roger Knutson: You can write the ordinance to grandfather them in. Councilman Johnson: But we have to hold the hearing on the ordinance. Councilwoman Dimler: Fine. Then I'll go along with it. Mayor C~niel: Something so simple always becomes a big proble~n. CounciLman Johnson: So how are we going to notice this ordinance? Are we going to spend $1,g00.g07 I think we ought to publish it in the newspaper and I move we publish this ordinance in the newspaper including wording about grandfathering. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Counci]~nan Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to publish the switching raft public hearing notices in the newspaper. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT. Jo Ann Olsen: Waste Mangement has contacted staff requesting that additional billing or they're re~.]esting additional monies for their monthly payments and if they cannot receive those, then they would have to use the option in the contract that they would give 3g day notice to remove from the contract so we' re bringing it up to the Council to see what they would like us to do with that. If they would like to have that additional money for the contract. Do they want to tell th~n to go ahead and use that 30 day option. Whatever. A 60 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 representative from Waste Managament is here to give the background of why they need that additional money. I'm sure she'd like to get a chance to speak after sitting here. Councilman Workman: Can I make a c~ent? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Tom. Councilman Workman: We interviewed the candidates this evening for our recycling committee. My question to the candidates was a negative question and that question sort of went like this. We basically don't have a contract in that it's pretty liquid to get in and out of. There's some question as to what really is being picked up. Cardboard is no longer being picked up. They wouldn't take my soup cans and tuna cans one day. They're taking newspaper mainly because they have to. Aluminum they can make money. Glass because it is recycleable. 25% participation in the City I understand is an accurate figure. The cost is increasing. At this stage, in the middle of the game, why recycle? Are we doing any good? Councilman Boyt: The State requires it. Jo Ann Olsen: Are you asking me that question? Councilman Workman: I was asking the people and it's a question that well you have to. We have to and I agree and I want to. Why did we bid the precess? Councilman Boyt: The State requires us to recycle. We have to have a plan to recycle 25% of our solid waste. Councilman Johnson: The County does. Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, and the County doesn't have that control. Mayo~ Chmiel: The County has that jurisdiction. Councilman Workman: Then let me rephrase. If in fact only 25% of us are recycling, it seems to me that we could find s~ething that might be as efficient because we have a recycling company going all over our City to only pick up at one fourth the homes. Obviously what the candidates for this committee, heavy education backgrounds and that's a word that could get redundant in all this. As a person who's recycled for a long time, I'm really, really disappointed. I left a huge box of cardboard out there. I do a good job at that. One day, next Thursday, the day after, it was in the trash. I can't dictate the markets and all of that but I guess I can voice my concern that I'm disappointed in that for how hard we are trying, I don't know that it's working. And I'd like to hear from our recycling representative. Lynn Morgan: I haven't been that involved with your contract but a couple of thoughts. You're education committee or your recycling committee I think will hopefully help you get more people involved. 25% is kind of low but it's not that far off for a program that runs every other week. Normally we would expect a program like that to be somewhere in the range of 27% to 35% tops so it's just kind of on the low end of what would be standard for a program like that and to have 1 in 4 households participate in something, on a voluntary basis with no 61 City Council Meeting - Augl]st 14, 1989 direct benefit to themselves or with not necessarily a monetary interest in it, more of an alturistic doing the right thing kind of feeling, is probably a better participation rate than you maybe get for wearing seatbelts or maybe even not driving drunk. So yes, it sounds real low but is it really that abismal? I think you should work to increase it and to get it up around 35%. Councilman Boyt: Could yogi tell us something about your rate increase please? Lynn Morgan: Yes. It is a big increase. ~nere's no doubt about that. We're basically looking at a 48 cent increase taking the City up close to $1.35. The recycling market has changed a lot in the last couple of months and it's going to change even more in the months to come. Everybody here is probably familiar with the newspaper articles about one recycling contractor that happened to have a 5g% market share in the metro area. A lot of households under contract, 38g,0gg- 400,ggg households by some acco~mts, that almost went out of business and left a lot of cities hanging out there because they couldn't make it. We've re-examined some of our contracts and feel that some of them are very, very low. Unfortunately Chanhassen's is one that is very low for us and that we are losing money on. When we came out here and started the program, it was kind of a cold start in that the City didn't know exactly what would happen. How many residents would participate. How easy the City would be to service and we didn't necessarily know the answers to all those questions either but in the process of serving this city, we found out that it does cost us a little bit more than we had thought. In part because_ there are some almost rural areas with a very low housing density and it takes those trucks a long time to get out there. We've also had a dramatic change in the newspaper market. We've recycled virtually every ton of newspaper that we've picked up. We've managed to do that. Lost some sleep over it. We_ actually export some newspaper to Korea now. .Some of our newspaper goes to Wisconsin. Some of it will be going to the west coast very shortly and some of it stays closer to home in the Twin Cities where it's made into Wheaties boxes and Pillsbury cake mix boxes and all the things that our local industries produce but nonetheless, that newspaper had been generated revenue for people and has now dropped as has the al~min~mn so it's these factors that has led us to seek the increase. I know the mmYbers are kind of shocking in terms of an increase but by way of comparison I would call to your attention for example the City of Shorewood which is a very comparable contract and which is a Waste Manag~nent contract at $1.9g per household per month. Another very comparable city would _be the City of Mound which just recently signed up a contract with one of our major competitors and I'm led to understand that that contract is at $1.45. That contract is actually for service on a first and third day of the month type basis which amounts to fewer collections per year than yours actually does so I think it's very, very much in the range of what is appropriate given what's happened out there with the market place and what we now know about the City. Councilman Workman: Are fewer collections, does that make it more economical? Lynn Morgan: Not necessarily. If you look at the incremental cost of say going from every other Friday or every other Wednesday collection, to going to a weekly collection, you actually, it's not double the amount for example. It's actually a smaller amount in addition. What you do find is that on the less frec~.]ent programs, although you can have a lower per household cost, you generally have a very high per ton cost. When yogi take that whole city figure and you divide it out by the mmYber of tons recycled, it's less convenient for 62 City Council M~eting - Augus% 14~ 1989 people to recycle on an every other w~ek basis. It's more convenient to recycle on a weekly basis so you do get more participation and more visibility through weekly type programs and that helps get the tonage up which drops the cost per ton for the program. Councilman Johnson: If we get the tonage up, would that help with the costing? In other words, if you made more money selling more aluminum and more glass. Lynn Morgan: Would that drop off? Mayor Chmiel: The cost. Lynn Morgan: No, I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that question. Aluminum is a money maker for a recycling program. In fact if you look at the contribution to the overall revenue, aluminum is generally a very healthy chunk. Unfortunately for where we're all sitting, although we're factoring in some more annual type numbers, aluminum right now is pretty much at a seasonal low too. It's totaling somewhere around 47-48 cents per pound. Glass is about $45.00-$50.00 a ton but newspaper is what you tend, as you increase participation to get more and more of and newspaper is a cost itsm for most contractors right now. Mayor Chmiel: Just in that same vein. The market being very soft right now. If the market were to pick up and the cost become, your cost become better, because there's a better dollar volume as far as paper, glass, tin, whatever, is there a chance that the cost would come back down? Lynn Morgan: Yes. There is that chance. In fact, if you wanted to, I don't know how far you want to go tonight. I guess we're hoping to get enough of a signal from you that we can all continue this program, at least through the contract because believe me, we don't, it's not easy to come here and tell somebody we might have to stop service. That's not something we like to do but we could for example specify some numbers. What becomes hard is determining a market indicator for paper. If we wanted to do that for aluminum, we could do that very easily by identifying, recognize almost Dow Jones type of statistics that we could all reference but with newspaper, there's no type of number like that. What you would see as the newspaper market improves and as people begin to generate revenue off of newspaper again is you would see the prices metrowide for recycling begin to drop again. I hope that when that happens, that people will r~nember what happened when people had programs that relied 100% on revenue and when the bottom fell out, and look more to revenue sharing type of arrang~ents or ones that do reference market indicators so that people don't get held over a barrel again. Mayor Chmiel: I know that that situation happened to Ramsey County with Super Cycle going out of the business. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to, if we approve the increase, I'd like to somehow. I would assume this meets your corporate desires for profitability which is what everybody works for is profitability. You don't work to lose money is what my boss keeps telling me. But this would make you profitable at the soft part of the market. If the market changes, there is some way that we can share in that. That there is some fixed part of this contract that we share in gains in the market. Someway that ~we know how many tonage of aluminum you' re 63 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 picking up and how much tons of newspaper and how much tons of glass and what the revenues you are gaining frc~n those are. When those revenues over cost start to, the revenues minus cost start to increase, that we share in that increase and it doesn't go to excess profit to develop you into the largest waste corporation, I think you are. Lynn Morgan: ~nich is hard to feel sympathetic for right? Councilman Johnson: Yes. It's hard to feel sympathetic for a 6 billion dollar a year corporation. Lynn ~Vorgan: I understand the concept of what we call a revenue sharing. I know you have a different context for that but we call it a revenue sharing type contract. Councilman Johnson: Sounds like a good idea. Lynn Morgan: In fact, one of our flagship contracts, one of the most famous contracts in the nation is a program that runs in San Jose, California and provides service to about 18g,gg0 homes. It's considered the Cadillac type program for recycling and under our contract with that city, we do share in, we specified a range of revenue and when the revenues exceed that range, the city participates in that additional revenue. When the revenues fall below a certain range, the City also participates in that risk. The only concerns I have, and they're very, they're rooted in...a formula that we use with the City of Brooklyn Park. A contract that we just started so I'm speaking fro~ a reatsitic point. It's very hard to allocate to one city their recycleables and the cost of managing those recycleables. It's very difficult. If we allocate... Councilman Johnson: Don't you weigh the trucks? Llama Morgan: Yes. The trucks are weighed and your city does receive monthly recycling reports that show you the tonages that were recycled. Those are not weighed out by material. In other words, we don't weigh the multi-compartment truck by newspaper and glass and cans. What we do is we take all of the recycleables from all of our programs and we say well this month 75% of our tonage was newspaper and 18% was glass and this much was tin and so on. Then we say therefore, that percentage, that proportion applies to all of our contracts. That's where we get into some real sticky record keeping and we're not comfortable with the actminstrative energy that is rec~]ired to sustain a contract like that and to doc~nent it and keep it all straight. Councilman Johnson: If you're using those straight fokmulas like that, I would think it would be fairly sJ~mple to go back to the tonages. Lynn Morgan: It would if all of our markets paid the s~e but we're using multiple markets now. What we don't want is we don't want to get a call from any one newspaper outlet or any one metals outlet that says, hi Lynn. Guess what? If you want to stay in business, next month you're going to pay me $5g.g0 a ton or Lynn guess what? I just had a fire and I'm shutting the gates so do what you can. You know punt. Those are the calls we don't want to get anymore and that's why we're using a diverse range of markets each of which has it's own cost associated with it or it's own revenue associated with it and they not only have costs associated in what they either invoice us or the check they write us 64 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 but we have our internal cost of loading the vehicles and delivering them to market and that's different for every market we use. That's why I'm saying it's a very, internally it's complicated to document a program like that back to you. I'm not saying we can't do it by any means but in the way that we would structure it, I guess that would be our concern would be to keep it simple enough that we could fulfill it completely with you. Councilman Johnson: I see this town and the people I know in this town being very environmentally conscience and when the program is going, the education gets going, the cc~mittee gets going, I think we'll beat 35% easy at which time what does that mean to Waste Mangement? Does that mean more profits to th~n at $1.45 or whatever it is? Councilman Boyt: 35. Councilman Johnson: $1.35. How does us putting money into the education program to increase the recycling that we want to do and our citizens want to do, how does that affect you as the supplier of that service? Does it take your desireable profit margin and make it larger or does it hurt you because you're in a negative situation? Lynn Morgan: I have to clarify that although it seems incredible that the new numbers we're talking about are very, very close to break even for us. The other work that we've written more recently, for example again Shorewood at $1.90 and then you look at some of our weekly contracts like Wayzata at $2.35 or a very, very large contract, the Minnetonka, Golden Valley, Plymouth grouping that we signed up recently is at $1.85. As you increase your participation a couple of things will happen. Your cost per ton will go down. You'll recycle more and come closer or do more in terms of meeting the County and State and Met Council goals. From our perspective, I think that in the range we're talking about, we would not see huge differences in our cost. Right now I think we spend roughly pretty close to 8 hours per collection day in the City of Chanhassen and then it's 2 days so it's basically 16 hours a week I think. What happens right now is that basically the fellas drive past maybe 7 out of 10 houses and stop at 3. As you increase participation, he'll stop at more so his time out on the street will increase and his truck will fill up faster so he'll have to spend over, in your case, over 6 months or so, he'll make additional trips to the processing center that he would not have otherwise of necessarily made. So those are basically cost increases and will also add newspaper which is not a profit item. Councilman Boyt: Can I take a minute? .~ayor Chmiel: Go ahead Bill. Councilman Boyt: This probably isn't to direct any questions your way. I think you've done a nice job of sharing some things. I think we'd all agree that your business has a right to make a profit. However, if I read your figures right, if we have 25% participation, if it's $1.35 a household, that means for each house you pick up, it costs $5.45. I would maintain that we can't afford it. I would suggest that for $56,400.00, which is a close estimate of the annual cost given that nothing changes, and we know that's not going to happen, the City can run maybe a drop off program with a full time person doing nothing but working on recycling of various things in our co~nunity and still come out spending less 65 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 money than that and I would propose that we possibly agree to pay the higher rate for 2 months. In that period of time we gather as much information as we can including the possibility of hiring a person to do it. Not do actual pick-up but do education. Every month we extend this, we spend close to $1,700.00. I'd much rather put that money in an intern doing a study. I think we've had an interesting 4 mont~h experiment and that it has basically said that we can't afford this type of recycling. I think you're very justified in asking for enough money to cover your expenses and that should be a clear signal to us that our city can't afford this. We have too much area with too few people to r~ this kind of a recycling program. Councilman Johnson: We also need to apply for some more grants and stuff to help us pay for this. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: I guess I'll go ahead and conm~ent. I did talk to Jo Ann about this today and I guess I was looking at alternatives too because I thought it was, although I really have enjoyed the recycling. We've participated in it and it's been a lot of work but a lot of fun. I think our kids are getting a real good view too of what they need to do in the future. But again, I think the increase is too much and I do see Council as being a watchdog over the citizens' pocketbook but I do want to continue the recycling efforts. One of my suggestions was that we look for help from the County. Perhaps get on the agenda for the Co~%nty Board. Go back to a drop off. Councilman Workman: More centralized drop off? Councilman Johnson: Over at the Public Works? Then we drop back to 1~%. CounciLman Boyt: I would suggest that if we had somebody working on education, that we may be able to come up with a way to have neighborhood drop offs. Mayor Chmiel: I think we have some people that are proposing for the con~nittee that have education backgrounds that I think would do a good job. Councilman Boyt: The biggest generator of material for recycling is industry, not the individual household. What we're dealing with here is really an education as sort of a sense of participation. We're not dealing with people that are really, at this point, capable of generating a great deal of material that's recycleable. I think we're seeing that so maybe we're all sensing this. That for $56,400.~ we need to do a very careful study of where do we get the biggest return, recycling return? I think probably everybody in the Council recycles every other Wednesday or Thursday, depending on the day but only 1 out of 4 is doing it. CounciLman Johnson: Well Carver County is like the only county in the metro area to make it's goal and primarily made it based on Chanhassen's businesses and a lot of Chanhassen businesses recycling couldn't be counted because it was already being done before they set the goals so anything that was already being recycled couldn't set it so our businesses in this town do a tr~nendous good and profitable recycling business. When you look at the printing industry we've got here in town. They recycle a tremendous amount of paper and Class A grade paper versus newsprint. Just to emphasize your point. I'm not sure if I'm ready to drop curbside recycling. Eventually it's going to, it's being rec~.]ired. The State is requiring con~nunities outstate to do curbside recycling as part of 66 City Council M~eting - August 14, 1989 their comprehensive planning in the outstate. It' s coming. If we' re doing it now, we're going to be required in the future. I think the County may be willing but they're pretty tight on their budgets, to bring us some money but they are receiving monies from some of the set asides that are going. I agree. I may say 3 months instead of 2 months. I think we need to keep this going. I think we'll get a lot of citizen support for it but it is a lot of money. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is, no question. I agree I think with you Jay. ~3 months I think would be more of a time period that I would like to see this done only because of the ccn~nittee that we're getting established for them to formulate and pull together things which could give a good sense of direction for the City. I think too, educationally wise, this has to be started within the schools themselves right now. Start talking so the children understand what it's all about. ~nat message brought home to the parents a little bit more too of those that are not participating. As you say, there's 3 or 4 that are not participating for everyone that is. Maybe this is the way we can activate that to get it going. The other hand I was looking at was going back to our public safety aspect. Doing what we did before and have the recycling down at our shop. I just don't see people taking that time out to take it and haul it down there which is the problem. Councilman Workman: Not with 6 limited hours. Councilman Johnson: No. It'd have to be full time. Mayor Chmiel: So I think I would have tendencies to agree that 3 months I'd like to see it continue yet rather than just the 2 because it would just give us a little better time frame. Jo Ann Olsen: From August though? August through October? Mayor Cnmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: The recycling co~nittee and maybe it will be different but I think most con~nittees take several months to get really rolling. We're not going to see anything out of them for 6 months in terms of a real active kind of... Mayor Chmiel: Bill, you didn't meet those people today. They're enthusiastic as all get out. They know what it's about. They've been there. They've been recycling for as many years as one had said, for the past 10 years. Strong advocates on it. Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to see us go more than a month because I think that's basically cancelling the contract and I think at 2 months we've got time to come back and extend that if we desire to do that. It's $1,700.00 a month above what we're paying now. I'd hate to see us com~it ourselves to anymore time than we have to. If we come back in 2 months and say let's stick with it, okay. But I'd like to think that in 2 months we can get enough information to make a decision. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we can get that cc~nittee to really move that ~lickly within the 2 months to come up with things. 67 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Co~mcilman Boyt: I don' t think the co~nittee is going to make the decision for us and I didn't intex-view them. Mayor Chmiel: But we' 11 get proper direction from that co~nittee I think because of the positions that they're taking. CounciLean Boyt: If we give them 3 months, they'll sure as heck take it. If we give them 2 months, maybe we'll have an answer in 2 months. Councilman Johnson: I've got one more cj.]estion. Did you figure into your $1,685.0~ recycling, the newspapers within the County as far as there may be a mandate t!nat all your newspapers are taken to the County newspaper facility? Lynn Morgan: For newspap~ shredding or something like that? Councilman Johnson: Right. Lynn Morgan: No. That's not reflected there. Mayor Chmiel: And the County is looking at that aspect. Councilman Johnson: The County is buying the ec~ipment and putting that in and I believe under certain laws they can say all newspaper from all recycling programs shall come to us as when the garbage collecters, when they put in the composting plant. Ail garbage from the City of Chanhassen will go down to Scott County and be composted. I'm not sure whether that's going to happen or not. Lynn ~Morgan: I don't know myself. I can see why that would be a concern from your perspective and I guess one option we would have is to write an amendment of some sort. I don't know if we need a contract ~endment or what have you for what we're talking about doing here tonight anyway but we could write a clause that would basically say that if that came to pass, that the price would revert to x which would be a lower price than the increase we're seeking today. So that if that reality kicked in and the County did offer that repository, you wouldn't be locked into a contract with us that was based on a higher cost assumption you know. CounciLman Johnson: You're saying if that did happen, it would be a lower cost to us? Lynn Morgan: If that did happen, that would result, and if it did result in a lower cost for us, in other words, it would depend on, I wouldn't know yet if the County was going to open the doors and say there was going to be a charge and you had to bring it there but we could write these things in and say that if these conditions attain, the County offered the site and there were no charge or the charge were some very small amount and if we could deliver there without incurring additional costs, then we could revert the price back too. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. That's fair. CounciLman Johnson: Because that may be open shortly. Like next month. They may be accepting as early as next month. They may be accepting paper down in Chaska for that. ~lhey've got the building and the ec~]ipments' on order. The County Board has approved the money. If that becomes a reality and that's actually a cost savings, maybe that will help. 68 City Council ~L=eting - August 14, 1989 Lynn Morgan: That' s fair Councilman Johnson: But any approval, I think we should have it contingent on, if it ends up being a cost increased to you, you know we have to have that within our minds also. Of course that's not the plan of the County to make it more expensive. Councilman Workman: ~ne way I understand it, a bale of this paper is going to cost more than straw. Councilman Johnson: Yes. It will cost more than a bale of straw. It will absorb 50% more than straw and you know, economically you have to use 50% less. A bale of this also will, on a pound for pound basis, it absorbs more than straw on a pound per pound basis. A bale of this weighs 50% more than a bale of straw. When it gets on down to it, your actual cost is about half of what straw is according to the_ studies in Wisconsin, if you can trust them Wisconsin... Lynn Morgan: I was born and raised in Madison so I'm really getting it tonight. Councilman Workman: I'll tell you what Jay, if curbside is stopped and I'm in Chaska a lot, there's a place in Chaska. ~ne Guardian Angel's shed off of 1st Street, down by the dyke, they are paid plenty for their newspaper because those gentlemen down there sort it. It is clean and they are paid for a s~ni load of newspaper. People are getting paid for it. Maybe we need that kind of initiative and that money goes to the church and those guys love it. So there's ways of doing things I think. Co~ncilman Johnson: What do they do with the glossy stuff? Councilman Workman: Chuck it. But what's being done with it when it goes into our recycling? Are they mixing that all in? Lynn Morgan: It depends on where it goes. The box board mill, Waldorf at Cretin off 94 for example throws it all in the soup. Into a hydropalper which is sort of like the ultimate blender. They don't have a problem with glossy in there but those clay coatings do come out as a contaminant out of the system. The newspaper from the United States that goes to Korea or goes to Mexico is generally put on sorting tables or sometimes just on the floor and people do pull out that coating material and discard it. Councilman Workman: I'd be interested to find out if the newspapers that do business in our fine city are using recycleable paper. Councilman Boyt: From that standpoint, the City ought to be using recycleable paper when you get down to it. CounciLman Workman: The City of Chaska does. They have a recycling program. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what's your pleasure? Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that the City Council approve a contract at the higher rate to extend through October. 69 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Workman: I' 11 second that. Councilman Johnson: Are you going to put anything in there about the cost changes if Carver County requires within that time period that... CounciLman Boyt: I think it's going to be pretty minimal. Mayor Ckmiel: It-might not be bad to have in there. Whatever is minimal. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I' 11 accept it. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept the price increase for curbside recycling from Waste Managanent through October with a clause which will indicate that the City of Chanhassen will receive any cost benefits resulting from using the new plant which will be opening in Scott County. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COMMUNITY SURVEY, COUNCILMAN BOYT. Councilman Boyt: This should be fairly quick. There's a survey and a cover letter that I passed out to you. Mayor ~miel: Which we've not had a chance to really look at. CounciLman Boyt: No. And all I'm proposing is that we_ put this on a future agenda. That you look it over and see if you like the c~]estions. I think there's some good reasons for doing this and I think we'd be good at it so. I pretty much laid those out in the memo. I don't think there's a need to take time to go through it all. Councilman Johnson: I was just sitting here correcting your typing. Councilman Boyt: Yes, there's plenty of that. CounciLman Workman: Are you suggesting that we're dividing up the city? Councilman Boyt: What I'm suggesting is that the Council would, we'll pick some neighborhoods and some dates and the 5 of us would go out and hit the neighborhood. Councilman Workman: Together? CounciLman Boyt: Yes. We're good at that. Well we wouldn't all go to the same house. I mean that would be a little overwhelming. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be amazing to see what the answers would be and how the questions are posed. 70 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: The way I did this, with the 20 people I gave it to was I went up, introduced myself. Told th~m that I was really interested in their opinion. Asked them if they had any hot items and then asked them if they'd fill out the survey. Obviously we'd change the address on here but just put a stamp on it and send it in and I got 60% response which I think is pretty high for a survey. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Very high. Councilman Workman: Are we talking about having these go to City Hall? Councilman Boyt: Yes. It'd go to City Hall and it's a chance for us to do what I think the 5 of us do a pretty good job at. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Let's do it. Get us in shape for a year and a half frc~ nOW. Councilman Boyt: Can we put this on the next agenda maybe to review it? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Okay, Bill. Frontier Homes. Councilman Boyt: Okay, this one is a little different. Did Scott give you any information on complaints from Frontier Homes? Jim Chaffee: He gave me a note. Bill, Ron advised me that 476 Bighorn is a CO. Is that it? Councilman Boyt: No, that's a different deal altogether. Okay. On Frontier Homes. It was in ou3~ packet. It was in the Public Safety pack. It certainly got a lot of press a couple months ago and so I guess the amazing thing about this is that the, okay this is the current link that has to do with it and I haven't read this any more than the others have read it. What we got in the public safety packet and the Council adminstrative pack is a letter from a homeowner who's basically saying, here it is in August and nothing has been done. All they're getting is, what I would call the run around. Mayor Chmiel: This letter here pretty much addresses it. Councilman Boyt: I think if this had come in a month ago, I think I'd be more impressed than I am seeing it 2 months after the problem hit the press. Having read the letter from the homeowner who says he was told that a committee was going to be formed. Jim Chaffee was offered the opportunity by the Frontier, supposedly to be on the committee. He's never been contacted by them. There's nothing we can do from a building inspection standpoint that we haven't done. I think though that there is something we can do. What I propose is that if action isn't taken on these complaints within the next 2 weeks, that the City run an ad in our official newspaper every couple weeks. About 2 columns wide an inch deep, that says that basically that we caution people about using this home builder. That we recommend that they have a professional home inspection service inspect the home before they close on it and that we as a City have no confidence in tham. I think if we ran that a couple of times, that they would quickly get this resolved. Mayor Chmiel: What would be our legal ramifications of something like that? 71 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Roger, was thinking on that one real hard~ Roger Knutson: We'd want to look at the content very carefully. Mayor Ctmniel: That's what I'd be afraid of doing to initiate a suit against us. Councilman Boyt: I think that's wise obviously but I think that the City can say that there's a record of complaints fr~n owners of homes that this builder is constructing. Councilman Johnson: Where's Frontier building? Councilman Boyt: They're building in Saddlebrook. We're talking about, I think one of the newspapers reported they were contacted by 40 some people in Eden Prairie with problems from this builder. We have had over, this thing as I say, it started 2 months ago. We' re looking at it 2 months later and there's the letter from the homeowner saying, nothing has been done. Well, I think we can get their attention. I'd like to see us draft that and get it ready to go if nothing's happenad in 2 weeks, ~e put it in. Mayor Chmiel: And at the same time you can indicate our concerns and say what we' re doing. Councilman Boyt: Is that sort of the general consensus to pursue this? Councilman Workman: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Just as long as there aren't any legal ramifications. Councilman Jollnson: Roger can draft a sufficiently non-liable... Councilman Workm~n: How would potentially a new buyer of one of these homes see that though? CounciLman Boyt: They've got a chance of looking in the local newspaper when they decide to come to the con~nunity. I think number one... Mayor Chmiel: Can you get a front page spread? Councilman Johnson: The h~neowners there can also put up signs of their own. Co~unciLman Boyt: Yes they could and what the City is advising th~n is if they've got problams, they should get together with other neighbors and pursue that legally. I'm proposing that the City, drafting this properly, could do it legally and I think it would catch Frontier's attention and get it resolved. CounciLman Johnson: Maybe. Councilman Boyt: Well it's something we can do. Anyway, I'd like to see us pursue it. If Roger comes back and says we can't do it... CounciLman Johnson: Are we licensing builders now?. Councilman Boyt: No. 72 City Council M~eting - August 14~ 1989 Cotuncilman Johnson: We never got that ordinance through last year did we? What happened to that? Councilman Boyt: We looked at licensing contractors. Sub-contractors and it proved to be an adminstrative nightmare so it never went further. Councilman Johnson: Because that was in response to builders that had some problems. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've discussed Frontier long enough. Let's go onto the next one. Councilman Workman: I got a call from Jean Burke, 225 West 77th Street in regards to the concert series. I went down and saw Jerome Carlson and it was enjoyable and it was really an enjoyable atmosphere not fully taking into account perhaps some neighbors might not appreciate it. I did drive by the last night and saw some young kid with an electric guitar and did think, hur~m~ and then did come back and that's when I received the call but certainly the idea is good. I think it was Brad Johnson and Sue Boyt did some of that independent of the City so while it's a good idea, I guess I just talked to Jim about us looking into perhaps the ramifications. Perhaps moving it. It is a nice little area and I just wanted to bring that up for next year maybe we can look at it. Steve Wilker, 621 West 96th Street talked to me about the intersection of Pioneer Trail, not Pioneer Blvd. and TH 101 which has been a problem and I'd like to see, that's probably one of the most nervous intersections I come up on from the south. Anywhere. I'm breaking all the way through it so those con~nents, he's going to try and maybe get a ball going. I have letters to that effect which I'll give you and that's the end of my co~nents. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a quick item dealing with the seminar that is coming up on September 14th and 15th to be held at 8:30 to 11:30 I believe and then there's also an afternoon session. All the sessions are the same but the seminar is called dealing with upset citizens and the public. I thought it was interesting enough, it caught my eye so I registered for it and I just wanted to make councilmembers aware that we can register for that too if you'd like to. It's really for staff but we can go. Councilman Johnson: Who's sponsoring this? Councilwoman Dimler: That I don't know. Don, do you know?. Councilman Johnson: It sour~s like it's part of the... Councilwoman Dimler: It's at the Radisson South I believe. Jim Chaffee: I've got a brochure upstairs I'll bring down when I'm through with the adminstrative presentation. Councilman Johnson: They have very similar ones to this every year at the National League of Cities Conference. It's very interesting usually because you 73 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 have a lot of first hand knowledge from people all over the country and what they did about this, that and the other thing. Councilwoman Dimler: Sounds interesting. 5hat' s all I have. Mayor Ckmiel: Okay, let's move onto the next adminstrative presentation. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. NOISE ORDINANCE, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Jim Chaffee: Before we get started I'd like to point out a couple...directions that were pointed out during the public safety commission meeting we had on Thursday night, l~ne way you received the ordinance in your packet stated that you can make all the noise you want between 10:g0 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and actually we wanted to prohibit the noises between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. so if you look in your packet, I think it's right after the page 22 of the drafted ordinance where I made some notations on there. Councilman Boyt: It's 6:00 to 7:00 by the way, not 10:00. Jim Chaffee: Everybody's fox,nd that now I'll tell you a real simple remedy for that. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat Jim ~fnat page you're on? Jim Chaffee: It's right after page 22. There's no actual page number but the one that says page 22 on it, I think it's the Co~mcil's Minutes, the one right after that. About the 6th or 7th page in from the first page. I've got some hand written notes in there. To make it readable the way we want, you look at C(1), (2) and (3). Cross out "other than" in each one of those C(1), C(2) and C(3) then it reads the way we want it to read. Also ~nen we went through this at the Public Safety Con~ission, they thought on C-3, what I had penciled in there, this ordinance shall not apply to snowmobiles while operating on a legal trail, body of water or private property in accordance with the law. They thought that might be a little conf,]sing. People would read that, this ordinance shall not apply to snowmobiles and forget all the rest. They suggested I work with Roger to clean it up or maybe even eliminate snowmobile altogether. The intent of that was, you may have read when you went through the packet, was to placate the snowmobile clubs that came out with a very large opposition to this noise ordinance a year ago when we presented it. Councilman Boyt: Three people is not a large opposition. Jim Chaffee: They had a lot of doc~_~nentation in their packet. That's precisely why I said as much or provided as much information to you as I did in the packet was to let you know exactly what we've been through a year ago when we tried to get this through. One of the reasons we did have Roger draft a noise ordinance for ~s was that presently, n~tmber 14 in our ordinance, Nuisance Ordinance. Causing or c~nitting any unnecessary noises or annoying vibrations is what we have to use right now for enforcement and it's pretty vague. If somebody called in a noise complaint and that's all the deputy's got to work with, it's really open to interpretation. What the noise ordinance does, and I think it was 74 City Council Meeting - August 14~ 1989 drafted after the model or the League of Cities Noise Ordinance wasn't it Roger? It cleans up and pretty much highlights some of the areas that we would like to get a handle on. Again, we act only on c~mplaints. We got a complaint and we go to the ordinance say yes, that fits and it just gives us a better handle on dealing with a noise complaint than our present ordinance does. We suggested that we have a public hearing to go over this and I would notify the snowmobile clubs again. They're interested to come and talk to us about it although I think with eliminating the sno~nobiles from this ordinance, they probably wouldn't have a whole lot of opposition to this. The reason we feel pretty comfortable that we can eliminate the snowmobiles from this particular part of the ordinance is that there are other ordinances that we have that .would cover snowmobile operation. Both state and local. So we think we wouldn't have a whole lot of opposition to this. CounciLman Workman: There's nothing in this ordinance, I don't think, there's nothing in this ordinance that would pertain to an animal. I don't know. The argument with the snowmobile and I'm a past snowmobiler myself. I would suggest it would be very difficult, if we could back up to our little kennel discussion. We can't catch a dog barking in a cage. It's almost ~mpossible to catch a snowmobiler making noise. Councilman Johnson: That's why it's el~_minated. Mayor Chmiel: I live right adjacent to a highly used access with sno~obiles during the winter and I don't really find that objectionable because they don't stay directly in my yard or run up and down the street. They're going either to or from. You can as many as 5 or 6 going past the house and after a short period of time they're gone and they're out on Lake Ann and away they go. Councilman Workman: It would have appeared with our discussion with the kennel that the nuisance ordinance wasn't strong enough maybe and now this isn't including this either. Councilman Johnson: Animals ain't in here, you're right. Councilman Workman: So I would suggest that we add s~mething in there to protect owners from the problem, which is usually the problem with an animal, the noise. You can clean up a mess of a dog and a vicious dog is usually can be taken care of but it's the noise that's the biggest problem with an animal. So I would look to find an item 8 to be added in so that we can maybe clean up that problem we don't have to live with. Jim Chaffee: That's a real good point and it's precisely why we're bringing it to the Council now for any ideas or additions. Quite frankly that slipped my mind and I just went back and looked through our animal ordinance and it doesn't cover barking so we go back to the... Councilman Workman: There was a big gap there and I think as long as we're, I think the noise ordinance is something that I think is needed and if we could just plug some in. Councilman Boyt: Remember the chickens. 75 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Yes, the chicken. It made all the newspapers. Oh, you weren't living here yet. ?ne chicken became a real problem up in Near Mountain. Roger, does "at any time" add anything to this either? I'm nit picking here but disturbing noises between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. versus disturbing noises anytime between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.? Just strike out at any time. Also, just adds verbage. Councilwoman Dimler: Jim, one more point. Are you done Jay? I'm sorry. Jim Chaffee: Yes, just point that out again will you Jay? Councilman Johnson: Where you scratched out "other than". You couid have scratched out "at any tL~e other than" because it's redundant. ~nen you say at any time and then you specify a time, you're being redundant. Councilw~nan Dimler: I was just wondering if we heard that tonight about the jet skis. If this is going to be included in there? JJ~n Chaffee: I guess we could. It's one of those things where I would like to work with the Water Patrol first on that issue and see what the DNR c~nes up with with their regulations. We can always amend it and add it at some later time. Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good suggestion. Mayor Chmiel: ~nere are they with that? Jim Cnaffee: That I don't know. What I get, the tape from KARE, I think they highlighted it and I'll check with DNR too but I think the tape highlighted what DNR is doing to prevent these things from becoming the nuisances that they are. I don't know if anybody of you saw the tape but it was just some incredible stunts these people were doing. Spraying people with water in fishing boats and things like that so clearly there was no...over these things. CounciLman Boyt: If we took item 4 where it says boat and put watercraft. Instead of boat said any watercraft, airplane or motor vehicle of any kind that results in creation of excessive, unmuffled noise or any other disturbing noise ~e've got them covered and anything else anybody puts on the water. Jim Chaffee: That' s good. CounciLman Boyt: I would also encourage you to strike the snowmobile thing all together. Why bother to reword it. Just strike it out of there. Our snowmobile ordinance is pretty good. Councilman Johnson: You can call a snowmobile an other similar recreational vehicle not licensed to travel on public streets unless you have that little disclaimer about sno~nobiles. CounciLman Boyt: I don't know. It's covered. I just as soon not stir up the snowmobile people when we don't need to. They're well regulated with the other ordinance. 76 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, the people who are mad about snowmobiles will come in and say, snowmobiles is an other similar recreational vehicle so our ordinance says they can't operate from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. despite what the other, unless we put that little verbage, this ordinance shall not apply. Jim Chaffee: Why don't I have Roger clean that up. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what you've indicated before. Jim Chaffee: What I will do with this is we'll clean it up. Put it in an order that's readable and then present it back to the Council for the public hearing this next council agenda. Councilman Johnson: How much do we pay a janitor per hour? If Roger's going to be cleaning all this up, I'm wondering what his fees are going to be. Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on to tree cutting ordinance process. TREE CUTTING ORDINANCE PROCESS UPDATE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: It was brought out earlier that we do not have a moratorium in place and that is correct. The moratori~ requires a notice that you're going to have the moratori~ and what it will constitute and all of the rest of that. Staff has been working under the prsmise of what the Council really wants to do is get an ordinance in place that stops tree cutting. I have prepared this doc%~ent based on some early conversations that I had had with Roger. I wanted to take and have him relook at the wordage that I've used here as the basic concepts. We were unable to contact each other on Wednesday, Thursday, just as the packet was going out. Is there any segments in there, any statements that I have made regarding the proposed ordinance Roger which cannot be accomplished? Roger Knutson: No. Don Ashworth: Okay. Tnen I guess the point that I made regarding the single family property or the property owner and the question is becoming one of having this ordinance effective in 100 out of 100 cases. The points that I have shown, do they correctly address our conversations where you were very apprehensive with me in terms of trying to develop an ordinance that would apply in every situation. Meaning an individual lot owner having lived there for 30 years and deciding that he'd like to cut down the cottonwood tree in his backyard. Roger Knutson: I think as we discussed, I've worked with other corm]unities drafting ordinances. First you have, you're addressing the single family homeowner who owns one lot. First it would never occur to the average citizen that you'd need a permit to cut down a tree on his lot. So you're going to make criminals out of a lot of people. You could. Second, when it gets down to the single lot, I own one lot and I'm holding it to build a home on it. The last thing I would probably want to do is cut down any tree that I wouldn't have to cut down absolutely. I think a vast majority of folks, trees add lots and lots of value to a lot. I think where you get the mass clear cutting is when you have subdivisions going in. Big apartment projects. Big conm]ercial projects. Industrial projects. You get a lot of clear cutting and that's a lot easier to 77 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 control and you have a lot less adminstrative problems in doing so. , Don Ashworth: Anyway, here would be the proposal as we're outlining it. If the Council would like to see philosophically any one of these points changed, I g~]ess I'd like to know about it so we can go about the business of actually drafting an ordinance. Councilman Johnson: I think of 2 lots in particular. One on Lake Riley and the one in Klingelhutz' Pheasant Hills where the hc~neowner decided that he wanted a back yard with grass in it instead of trees. He bought a treed lot. He_ paid a pr~nium for that lot and he clear cut 'the whole darn thing. Actually when I first saw that, plus he filled into the wetland in one case. Is there any way in new subdivisions that has existing trees on it, that when that individual homeowner comes on and tells that builder hey I don't want any trees, I want grass for my kids to play on, that we can prevent him from clear cutting that individual lot and doing that? Roger [<nutson: Yes. At the time of subdivision approval I think you can have a landscaping plan if you will that will specify what can be and cannot be cut. CounciLman Johnson: How does that hold that lot owner if a year later he decides well I couldn't do it when I built the house but I'm in here not and I've got my chainsaw or he borrows one from Don. Roger Knutson: Again, we've been releasing development contracts because of the problems that people have with them at closing. We couldn't keep that plan in effect but you do have a practical problem. First, if the guy goes out at 6:0~ at night or whenever he goes out, on the weekend with his chainsaw and cuts out a tree in his backyard, one it's very unlikely you're ever going to find out about it. And if it's gone it's gone. I guess you can have him replace it. If you're talking a big tree, you could have him replace it with a bunch of small trees potentially I suppose. Councilman Johnson: I guess there could be some information given to the homeowners as they buy the lots and whatever about the tree restrictions on the lots. Roger Knutson: It's a practical problem on a small lot. I'm not expert but say you gut down a 30 inch tree. Council_man Johnson: You can't put up 3~ 1 inchers. Roger Knutson: You can't because you have spacing requirements. You can't do it. CounciLman Workman: ~]t up 3 10 inchers or 10 3 inchers. Roger Knutson: Few people could afford that. Councilman Boyt: I think the way we deal with individual homeowners is by, or one way we get closer to dealing with them is by going out and identifying the landmark trees in our community and that those landmark trees would then be identified to the homeowners. Your tree has been chosen as kind of the ec~.]ivalent of a historical marker. That doesn't save every tree but it makes 78 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 s~re that the one that stands out prominently in the neighborhood is protected and the City also is more likely to be able to watch those than again every tree. I'd like to see, when this comes back to us, and I asked Jo Ann to research this. I'd like to see the replacement minimum size tree identified. Whatever. I'm real curious about how big a tree we can transplant. Is it 6 inches? What size? Mayor Chmiel: Whatever money you have. Councilman Boyt: But there's a limit to ec~lipment in terms of the ability to move the tree and so on. That will give us some sort of an idea of what we want these trees replaced with when they're cut. We might, I doubt that we'll ever go to this. I thought about the idea of a tree cutting permit but I don't think we're ever going to get into that because as Roger said, who would ever think they needed one in order to cut a tree on their property. I think the sense of the Council that I picked up is that we all want to do something like this and I'd like to have staff research the issue of what should our minimum size tree be. Thinking along the lines of what's practical to plant. Going about identifying the landmark trees. Recognizing that we already have the DNR working on mapping our hardwood forest. I think when that happens we need to come back and protect those like we do our wetlands. Councilman Johnson: I think we can start that protection process before the mapping' s done. Councilman Boyt: Well this is sort of giving us the tools to do it. Councilman Johnson: We do have some unique remnants of the big woods here. CHANGES TO SPDCIAL MEETING SCHEDULE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: The way we set that up was going with two Saturday mornings. I think the same schedule can be achieved, this is dealing with interviewing the financial consultants and City Auditor. I think the same thing could be accomplished by one evening and I was looking to either September 5th, September 6th or September 7th and we would do both groups on one of those nights. Councilwoman Dimler: The 5th is out for me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How's the 6th? The 6th is okay with me. Councilwoman Dimler: Fine. Councilman Workman: Is the 6th a Tuesday? Mayor Chmiel: No, the 6th is a Wednesday. It's also a planning commission meeting. Don Ashworth: We couid do it in the court yard area or wherever. Councilwoman Dimler: The 6th or 7th is fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: What's the consensus? Let's go for the 6th? What time? 79 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilman Workman: 6: 30? Don Ashworth: I 'was going to say 7:00. Mayor Ckmiel: 7:00? Don Ashworth: If we take 3, that'd be 8:30. We'd done by 10:00 hope_fully. ~nat I distributed tonight are all of the financial advisor bids, solicitations, res,Imes. I will weed those down to hopefully three but if in the meantime you want to look through those and you feel that there's a particular firm that you really would like to see in there, then let me know. DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING UPDATE, CITY ENGINEER. CounciLman Workman: My ~]estion. %he representative of BRW, the landscape repairs and any modifications will be completed within the City's present Phase 1 planting budget. What have we in fact paid BRW to research this and should we bear those costs? These trees are going to be, I believe it says that we have replaced or pulled out all our dead plant stock but did we get it all? Don Ashworth: Did we get it all? What do you mean? CounciLman Workman: Was all dead plant stock? Don Ashworth: It does become a definition as to what's dead. CounciLman Boyt: It says Noble Nursery removed the majority of dead plant stock. I haven't seen any. I'm looking for about 4 bushes left. Mayor chmiel: Some of those existing trees that are partially alive and partially dead are not going to make it next year I'll guarantee you and those should also be looked at. Don Ashworth: I would agree. Back to Tom's point. BRW is aware of the concerns that have been sho~] regarding the trees and potentially even the over stocking of those in the downtown area. We reached agreement with them that we wanted to take and see a re-review of the entire planting plan and to s~ne extent a reduction to that. The City would not pay for that, including any materials that we felt in relooking at were put in in error and there are some of those areas where the shurbs, their planting standards associated with some of the yews and those type of things, that they should not be closer than 24 to 36 inches from the curb line to assure that salt and sand and some of the other material and BRW was very candid in saying that some decisions were made in the field by one of their people and that in re-review of some of those planting areas, that those materials should not have gone in if they would have been looked at by their senior people in the landscaping area. And accordingly they will pay to have those materials taken out and proper materials put in to some of those extents. ~.~at it's going to mean is some of the median areas will actually be shortened some of the tips where you're seeing plant materials run all the way down will be filled in with concrete back a ways. Some of the plants will be moved back further away from the curbing. S~ne of the trees that are right now visible problems in t~.]rning by...will be removed at BRW's expense. City Council Meeting - Augush 14, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Especially down there by the Blue Bell and Pony Express and all that stuff. Are they really looking at that corner? Mayor Chmiel: That's what he just mentioned. Councilman Johnson: He said by something. I didn't hear what you said. Don Ashwor th: By Pony' s. Councilman Johnson: Oh by Pony's. Mayo~ Chmiel: Yes, that' s a very bad intersection. Councilman Johnson: Now, when they re,hove stuff. If they have over in another phase a place to ~]t it and it goes over there and we're already planning to pay for the other ones coming in, we're not going to pay for the other ones coming in? Don Ashworth: No and in fact that does, even though BRWwill be paying fairly extensively in terms of some of these redos, they do have some alternatives... with three other projects that are in progress and literally need certain planting materials and we don't really have a problem with taking a tree that probably is in the wrong location as far as the sight line by POny's and taking that same tree and using it on 79th Street, Market Blvd., TH 101 realignment, north side parking lot. We've got a lot of opportunities in replacement of that tree, to put it into another location and not have to get into hassles as to should the contractor have initially paid or shouldn't he and... It's still going to be a problem for them. Councilman Boyt: Who is responsible for the planting? Is it the City Council or Housing and Redevelopment Authority? DOn Ashworth: I've tried to make sure all the way through this project that both the Council and the HRA were aware of what is, each was giving approvals. The project street was done as a 429 project and assessed. Any of the I'll call them soft cost areas, things such as landscaping becomes more difficult to assess. Gazebo, clock tower... Councilman Boyt: Okay, Don! Don! We want to get out of here right? Ail I want to know is, I agree. You ran through everybody. You covered all your bases. Who makes the final decision on the planning? Is it ~ or is it the HRA? Because somebody gets the last vote on the planting. The materials. Mayor Chmiel: Who's got the final say? Don Ashworth: I say the City Council always has the final say on whatever but. Councilman Boyt: No but. Just that's good enough. Alright. I've been told by two different landscape contractors that the low bushes that we have planted all over the place in the medians and various other places, will not handle snow pack and salt. I want to see, if we have the final vote, before anything else gets planted, I want to see the landscape architect from BRW back in here because I remember 2 years ago when he stood there and told me, number 81 City Co~]ncil Meeting - August 14, 1989 one, every one of these things will work. Number two, that he went out and hand selected them. Well, I had those same landscape architects tell me that several of the plantings, the trees looked like they were not nursery stock. I couldn't tell you the difference but I think if we have sort of the final decision, that gentleman needs to c~ne back in here and talk to us before anything gets put in the ground. Co~ncilman Johnson: Or his replacement. Councilman Boyt: Yes, or whoever is working for him now in that capacity. 1.5 CONSIDER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, 1.5 ACRES IN SECTION 16, NORDITRACK. Mayor Chniel: Being that Mu~s. Paul didn't come back. Staff recon~nended that we table this. Finalize negotiations. Councilman Johnson: What are we negotiating for? Don Ashworth: We're negotiating a piece of property that...on TH 41. CounciLman Johnson: Do we have a massive desire to sell this that we want to incur an extra $40,000.00 in cost? _Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I felt we should look at, and I hope you've already done this, is to review with each of the departments to see if there's any basic need for this land at any given time during the distant future. If there's any real needs and have each of the department heads review it and come up with conclusions of what they find. Councilwoman Dimler: Also Don, I would think if we're going to relocate, we've got to count the cost of that and at least get our relocation cost out of it. Councilman Johnson: I've got a q~]estion. What are all those semis sitting on there? Don Ashworth: Those are construction trailers associated with the NordiTrack's new construction. Councilman Johnson: Well that's awful nice. Councilwoman Dimler: They're not supposed to be there. Don Ashworth: They did ask for pek~nission to use that. I think that we have construction trailers associated with any... CounciLman Jobmson: Then they complain how junky it looks. It's their trailers. I'm in no desire to sell any piece of property at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not either. It' s the corner there. Counci]~nan Workm~: Have we tabled that item? Counc i L~an Johnson: Not yet. 82 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on considering Purchase Agre~ent of 1.5 acres in Section 16, NordiTrack. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motiOn carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.. ~]bmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 83