Loading...
1989 07 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss Teton Lane; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss the SuperAmerica at TH 7 and TH 41, Fir. Havlik's concerns from the visitor presentation last meeting and downtown beautification; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the Lake Lucy Road parking permit issue; Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the DNR and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Eurasian Water Milfoil. Don Ashworth wanted the discuss condemnation proceedings for the Bongaard property under Adminstration Presentations. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #89-80: Accept Roadway Improvements in Riley Lake Meadows, Richard Vogel. b. Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition, George Nelson and Associates: Final Plat Approval. c. Approval of Proposed Eagle Scout Project at Chanhassen Pond Park. f. Resolution #89-81: Certification of Delinquent Utility Account. h. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to replat CHADDA Addition into 4 lots, Northwest corner of Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th Street, Colonial Square. i. Ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the City Code relating to Official Map of TH 101, Final Reading. j. Approval of Bills. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 B. LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION, GEORGE NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, (2) APPROVE PLANS AND SPIEIFICATIONS. Councilwoman Dimler: This is just a real short item. I brought up this concern before and that is about this school bus situation on that road. So~e of the residents have a real concern about the children having to go out to 14 to catch the bus and I know the future phase there, eventually that road is going to go tb3~ough but Gary, do you know is that land right-of-way or is that years down the 1 ine? Gary Warren: The connection of Foxboro on the east end is a part of the County's current project that's under construction right now so that should be completed this year. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but there's a cul-de-sac shown there. Gary Warren: Right. There was a temporary cul-de-sac that was required by the Council until such time as the County road project realignment was completed or we had a time deadline in there but the County road plans and specifications do include the completion of that connection to CR 17 on the east end. CouncitwGnan Dimler: So you think that will kind of happen concurrently or will there be a large time lapse? Gary Warren: It should be done this construction season. Councilwoman Dimler: Then the school bus will just go in and out? Gary Warren: I don't schedule the school buses but I would prestone... Councilwoman Dimler: But that would be the logical thing? Gary Warren: Yes. CounciLman Work, an: Gary, is that going to be another Teton Lane? Are we going to be able to open that? Gary Warren: It will be built to City standards and full section. It will be open when their construction is done. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve plans and specifications for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. G. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT. Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jo Ann about this earlier today. I had some concerns and I guess the easiest way to focus the concerns is, since I drive down TH lgl a couple times almost every day, I've spent a lot of time looking at that marsh as it's been filled in by houses. A previous Council did that, approved that c~ite some time ago is my ~lnderstanding but '~nat I'm concerned City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 about is that when we allow wetland alteration permits, it's really because one, no other choice. Two, I think we have a past record of trying to improve wetlands when we alter thrum rather than just alter them. This one doesn't, I gather, le~d itself to improving but I'm concerned that all of this is a fairly small portion. What's to stop someone else from building their house on a Class A wetland and wanting to fill in so they have a back yard? It's the principle that concerns me. This is a wetland alteration permit to fill in about 400 feet, not in length or anything but 400 square feet of a Class A wetland and I don't think it should be approved as my understanding of it. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any discussion? Councilman Johnson: Didn't we go through this once before? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I think we did. Councilman Boyt: We went through a variance request and we gave the variance because the people certainly needed to be able to build their house there. Building your house on the edge of a wetland and then having the City give you the opportunity to fill in that wetland for a back yard I think are two different issues. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any additional room on that property? If they wanted to fill a portion, is that a full portion of the back yard you're saying? Councilman Boyt: Well they're asking for a fairly small. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, put that wp would you Jo Ann. Jo Ann Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland and this is what they're proposing to fill. This small portion. The wetland is 6 acres attached to Lake St. Joe. The ~]estion that they're recon~nending, they're proposing to fill has already had some filling and is poor quality so they did not feel it was really detrimental or harmful to the wetland what they were proposing to fill. The applicant has worked, in going through the variance, you can see that they've tried to meet all the setbacks and keep it as far away from the wetland as possible. They designed a narrower house so they would not impact it as much. The Planning O0mnission also brought out the concern was it really necessary? What were we getting in return for allowing the wetlar~fl alteration permit and I guess it's really, the answer is we're just being reasonable I guess. They worked closely with us to try to not alter it. We worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the DNR and the Corps and they did not feel that this was harmful. It's such a very, very small portion of the wetland. I guess the concern is what will we do for the next wetland...and differentiate between the two. I feel confident that we can. Mayor Chmiel: Differentiating, as you just say Jo Ann, if another individual came in and had a total of 6 acres as well, they wanted to fill in just a portion. They accon~nodated their house to the particular site, what would be your position on that? Jo Ann Olsen: That would be almost the same case as this one. When we review these, we use the standards of the ordinance and then we also look to see what the existing conditions are and what we actually have on the site with the City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 proposal. This was not felt that this would be...to the wetland. I guess I don't have a concrete explanation. I guess if they don't necessarily have to have it, if you have the house, it could be denied and they could still have a house there. Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, you mentioned that that edge of the wetland was not, what? High quality? Jo Ann Olsen: It's more like kind of a drainage area that has been in the past been, there were s~me concrete pieces back in there. They were going to be taking that out. Cleaning it up. Filling it and preserving the edge there. When we visited the_ site with the Fish and Wildlife and we looked at that area, he said yes you could definitely fill in and make the curve because right now it kind of came out ar~ that's where... Councilwoman Dimler: Is it your feeling that filling i~ in would Lmprove it? Jo Ann Olsen: I can't say that it's going to ~nprove it. I don't feel it will be detrimental though. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I agree with Bill on the Colonial Grove one. Every time I drive by there I just get angry that that was allowed and I know that we both met on Easter Sunday with some neighbors there that are getting all the runoff problems so I don't want to set a precedent by filling in wetlands and allowing that to happen ever again. I think we've wised up and we should... CounciLman Boyt: I would suggest that whether it's 6 1/2 acres or a half an acre makes no difference. That when people buy land next ~o a wetland, that's what they're buying. Taere are restraints on that. To say that, if Jo Ann or the DNR or anyone of those groups would say this isn't a wetland. What they're filling in isn't a wetland, then I wouldn't have any problem with this at all. But when they define it as a wetland and when they define it as a Class A wetland which happens to be the highest class we have, then when we start issuing alteration permits, I think we have to be very careful. Roger can correct me but I don't think the Court's very sympathetic to saying well, you know we want this one but we don't want that one. Roger? Roger Knutson: I think you s~m%med it up. You have to treat similarly situated people similarly and the hard part is making those differentiations. You have to have good reasons for what you're doing but if you have them and you can articulate them and distinquish one situation frc~ another, you're okay but if you can't articulate that distinction, someone else will try to lump them together for you. Saying if you gave one you have to give the other. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to approve the permit because without the permit, they can't build a house either because it's also a variance of 75 foot setback I believe. Jo Ann Olsen: They got that. Councilman Boyt: They had that. City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: Technically they do need a wetland alteration permit for the alteration within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Councilman Johnson: Which building a house is alteration so they have to have it to build the house? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. And I didn't separate the two. Councilman Johnson: So there's two issues within this. Is to build the house, one and to fill, two. I'd be for saying that approve it for building the house and within the fill area, we'll approve it for removing concrete and cleaning up the area of the wetland but not necessarily filling that area. In other words, if there's piles of concrete and stuff back there, I have no problem with them going into the wetland and making those types of alterations for the wetland as an improvement but not elimination of the wetland. Mayor Chmiel: Not filling it' in? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I don't think you need a permit to go out and remove concrete from a wetland. Councilman Boyt: Well I have no trouble with the alteration so they can build their house. That' s fine. Mayor Chniel: Any further discussion? If the applicant is here, are Daryl and Debra Kirt here? Councilman Johnson: I don't see them. Councilman Workman: How much of the wetland we're coming back? You say about 6 feet they're going to fill Jo Ann? Jo knn Olsen: 6 feet? This area right there. Councilman Boyt: The area in red is basically what they're filling. Councilman Workman: And they basically just w~nt that for a larger yard? Jo Ann Olsen: It's just so they can flatten it out behind the yard and it doesn't go straight into the wetland. What they're doing is pushing back the edge of the wetland so they're not right on top of it. What would happen is the filling right now, their house will be right above the edge of the wetland here. We're just giving them some more area. They're not going to be, they're going to be revegetating it with natural wild flowers and things like that. It's not going to manicured lawn up to there. Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, where does the DNR and Fish and Wildlife Service get off on this where we're not? Councilman Boyt: We have a more stringent code than they do. Jo Ann Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife doesn't have any jurisdiction. We just use them as our sounding board. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Workman: What about DNR? Jo Ann Olsen: DNR, they only protect very large wetlands. The Corps, you can get a nationwide filling permit for less than 1 acre. Again, if it's a protected wetland by them. Councilman Workman: Roger, are we going to be denying these people any kind of useage? Roger Knutson: If you give them the house. I mean if you didn't give them the house then I think yes, definitely. I've not seen the site but if they have a reasonable place to put a house, I guess you're not involved in taking issues. Councilman Workman: When this first came up I asked the question, Jo Ann if you remember, if somebody owns a swamp can they fill in to build on it if it's a lot because I was looking for a little bit of justification. When it comes to wetlands, I think I'm not afraid to be a hard liner on it and if the rest of the Council feels that protecting the Class A wetland is better than giving somebody an extended yard, I'd be for it. CounciLman Johnson: Jo Ann are they having, I noticed the entire area is going to be filled. The upland area and the wetland area. There's almost nothing on here not being filled. Is that all just from the excavation of the house or do you know if they plan on bringing fill in? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that answer. I don't know if it's going to be a basement. It's pretty wet there. Wet soils. Mayor Chmiel: It' s probably on grade. Councilman Boyt: Are we ready for a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: I've just got one more c~]estion. How far above the ordinary high water mark does the basement have to be? Gary Warren: The first floor needs to be 2 feet above. Councilman Johnson: 2 feet? So if they do a basement, it has to be 947 and the base of the house is 951. That's pretty short. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't believe that they are going to have a basement. Gary Warren: First floor has to be 2 feet above. Mayor Chmiel: And they would be within it. Any other discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Boyt: I would move denial of the specific part of the wetland alteration permit that was, I would move denial of the wetland alteration permit so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow the building of the house. City Council M~eting - July 24~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Second Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded denial of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow the building of the house. All voted in favor and the motion carried. K. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Councilwoman Dimler: The Council Minutes on page 60. Councilman Boyt: We've only got 58. Councilwoman Dimler: Well it was towards the end of the meeting. Councilman Boyt: 60, I got 60. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. At the bottom of the page there, I made a comment. I said, do you have Minutes of that meeting. I don't remember being there. I'd just like the record to show and it refers back to Don Ashworth's comment 6 lines up where he says, if I recall Tom and Ursula were comfortable with what Karen was preparing. I'd just like to state that I wasn't there and I'd like the record to show that. That was on June 5th and I was at my son's 8th grade graduation from St. Hubert's School. I don't want anybody to read this in future days a.~d think that I was confused as to where I was. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If none, would you like to make a motion? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting dated July 10, 1989 as amended by Councilwoman Dimler and the Planning Conx~ission Minutes dated July 5, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: We might want to discuss a practice that we followed on the last Council that might be helpful in these matters. Previous Council, if we didn't have anything to change in anyone else's comments, if they were just ours, we just gave those to the typist and they were taken care of. In other words, if they were your con~nents. Prior to that the Council used to send 20 minutes going over the... Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. This didn't take very long. Councilman Boyt: Any way you want to do it. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, because last time there was a typo too and Tom caught it. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize which was at $200.00. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were none[ ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ~QUIRING PERMITS FOR RAFTS, FINAL READING. Councilwaman Dimler: I have a question on that. This is the second and final? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: I would move to table this until a public hearing can be published and held. The reason for that is, I noticed that there were 2 people that Don contacted, Mm'. Mike Wegler and what was the other one Don? Don Ashworth: Rocky Brynes. Councilwoman Dimler: I spoke with Mr. Wegler is out of town until tomorrow. I tried to talk to h~_m too and I did speak with the gentleman out in the audience and he said that he wanted to address this. I don't think we've had enough, I know there has been public input at Planning Con~nission meetings and Park and Rec meetings but I don't know if we've addressed this particular raft and I don't think that Council is aware that this raft is new and has been rebuilt and J.t was rebuilt with City funds. There's some c~]estion as to ownership of it now that it's been built with City funds. Does the City own it? fl]rthermore, will the City then have to apply for it's own permit? Is there going to be_ a cost for the permit? Ail those questions are yet unanswered and so because of that I would like to have this tabled until we can answer those c~]estions and listen to some citizen's concerns at a public hearing. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest 'that the City Council has spent well over a year on this issue. It's been discussed in front of the Council. It's been discussed in front of the Park and Rec Con~nission at least twice. I'm not familiar with the Planning Con~nission's discussions on it. All we're saying in this is simply that people who own a raft have to put it out in front of their own property and it has to be licensed. I think that's a pretty straight forward issue. I would like to see us make progress on this rather than carrying it over. There has been a great deal of public input on this. Councilwoman Dimler: So then you're saying al}~eady that the raft at Carver Beach is illegal because it is off of public property. Councilman Boyt: When we discussed this issue at length a year ago, and Rocky and several other people were in there talking about the raft, the Council at that time I thought made it very clear that we wanted that raft to be built by the City to put back out there and we wanted the Park and Rec people to post city park rules for the operation of that area. I'm glad to hear the raft was built with City funds. The raft is much better than the raft that was out there last year. We're not proposing to remove that raft. The City should own that raft. It's out from a piece of City property. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but since the ownership of that raft is not clear I would propose that we table this because otherwise what we're doing is essentially telling them that the ordinance ~ould preclude them from having the raft in years to come. City Council M~eting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well, we're saying to them that unless the City owned that raft, it couldn't be out there next year. That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: So we've got to establish ownership of that raft. Councilman Boyt: But we have until next spring to do that. It's simply a matter of the raft is there now. It can stay there and next spring that raft has to be in compliance with this ordinance. I think that's very reasonable. Councilwoman Dimler: But it leaves it real precarious if we don't decide who owns that raft right now. We can just refuse ownership of it in the spring and they're out of a raft. Do you understand? Councilman Johnson: This does not say the owner has to apply for the permit. It says no person shall operate or maintain any water obstacle. Tnat does not say the owner so the City, which is a legal entity, could still apply for the permit even though it doesn't own the raft. Councilwcman Dimler: That's muddying the waters so. Don Ashworth: The intent was primarily to get into writing who it was that was applying. DO they have insurance. I don't think there's any intent to stop having a raft in the Carver Beach area. The extent that we work with that neighborhood to insure that we fully document who's raft and who's insuring and who's making the application. I guess I would agree with Councilman Boyt. It can be tabled as well. Councilman Johnson: Does somebody now claim ownership of that raft other than the City? Mayor Chmiel: Before we pursue this, is there anyone from the audience that would like to address that aspect for the ordinance? Rocky Brynes: I'm Rocky. Maybe I've got the answers to some of your questions. After we came before the Council before, we went before the Parks Board to talk to people. We agreed that if the City wanted to own the raft, that's fine. They said well we've got s~ne money, we'll use that money to rebuild the raft. If you donate the raft to the City...will be your raft if you want but what we want in return is some assurance that it will be there all the time. It's been there for 20 years now. Another 20 years and if it's not, we have the right to put our own back out there. That's all we're asking. Nobody has been able to give us that assurance. They say well, if it's the City's we'll take care of it. As you all know, the City Council people change. They come and they go. The next Council may not be thinking the s~me way you are. We've seen this before an~ this is all we're looking for is some reassurance. We thought we had that. I don't know, this ordinance, the first t~me I've seen this one. You've been working on this for I don't know, for a year now. We also went through about 15 different ordinances within that year and they've changed and they've changed and it's pretty hard to keep up with. We thought we had th~n down to where we had them grandfathered to get that raft and we're willing to give the City the raft or we'll keep it and insure it ourselves. I'll keep the raft and I'll put it in my name and put it on my homeowner's policy. I'm not against that if the City doesn't want the responsibility. I can't take just as much responsibility as anybody else to the raft. There's other rafts out there. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 That's the way I feel about it and that's the way I think most of my neighbors feel too. We want the raft there. We want some assurance because it seems like things like this have happened before and a year down the road, 2 years down the road, all of a sudden things disappear. Oh no, you can't have it now. We've got an ordinance against that. You can't have a raft out there and then everything's gone on and we're sitting there with nothing again and somebody else has won and we've lost. So that's what we're up against. As far as, I don't know what the concerns are, why we needed this ordinance. I guess I've got sc{ne c~]estions there. It's our raft. It's the only one in the City that has this problem and if we give it to you, there is no problem anymore so I don't know why we need to use the ordinance. If we don't have the ordinance, then we have the right to come back and put the raft in if the City doesn't. If some day in the future you decide not to, we can and ours is the only raft that the ordinance pertains to. Councilman Johnson: No. There' s other rafts. Rocky Brynes: There are other_ rafts? Right now, the way the ordinance stands right now, people are pitting them off of somebody elses shoreline? CounciLman Johnson: No. Not putting them off of somebody elses. Other people put them off their own shoreline. Rocky Brynes: But that's legal as far as the ordinance goes. [4ayor Ckmiel: I'd like Don to sort of address those c~estions and concerns that you have. Don Ashworth: Roger, the ordinance was not drafted to single out Carver Beach. In fact just the opposite. I think we could have worked with yourself and the ownership and what not but as the ordinance stands, we have no control over anyone putting a raft out into the lake. All this ordinance allows the City to do is to insure that we know what rafts are out there and we've established a process to look at each one so we don't create a problem. Again, I don't think there's any intent to try to take the raft away from the Carver Beach area. That was not the intent of this ordinance. Rocky Brynes: It seemed like it to us. Mayor ~nmiel: The discussions that I rem~ber too that they had had prior to even being on the Council. I sat in on those specific meetings and I remember exactly what you were addresing. Your major concerns basically are you want a raft whether it's there by the City or by the property owners or by an individual. I guess I don't have any problems with that at all. Rocky Brynes: Then how can we go about getting same assurance that this harmoney between the neighborhood and the Council... Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I'm suggesting that we table this until the City takes ownership of that raft somehow. Mayor Chmiel: By the City taki~.%g ownership. Councilwoman Dimler: Then we can proceed with the ordinance. 10 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: If I might. There have been c~]ite a few changes since we first started talking about this. Initially there was discussion about whether or not the City was going to even keep that piece of property. Remember that discussion? Rocky Brynes: Well but... Councilman Boyt: But it all relates to this. The neighborhood came in and they said look, this is our beach. We want the beach. At that point the Council said alright but the City owns it and the City needs to maintain it and take responsibility for it. You don't put the maintenance of public property onto the local homeowners around there, although we'd certainly like them to take care of it. That's the City's responsibility. So we cleared t~ that issue. Then we addressed in regard to Carver Beach the safety of the dock and concern of the Council being to have that dock be as safe as any dock can be. We're not at that point. We have, the City feels that that is a beach. We're not going to pull, no City Council is going to pull a dock out of an area where we've got a public beach and the community wants the dock there. Your community, as you've said, has wanted that dock there for 20 years. We can't bind this Council. Even if we pass an ordinance, that doesn't stop them from pulling it in and changing it but we are saying, the over riding purpose of this particular ordinance is safety in the waters of Chanhassen. Councilwc~an Dimler: I guess I'd like to reiterate my comments from last time that there have been no serious accidents ever recorded. I checked with Carver County today. The gentlem&n that does the patrolling has had no problems whatsoever with any rafts within the County and that includes Chanhassen. So safety yes, it is a concern but there have been no serious accidents that have been related to rafts. Again, I have a concern about amending an ordinance for one particular situation that seems to be a problem. I think we should work the situation out as I'm recon~nending now by taking ownership of the raft. Also, we have not established if there will be a fee and if there is a fee, what that fee will be because now we are encumbering all other raft owners with a yearly process. It's more red tape. The Council is putting itself in a position of having to make a decision when all these permits are applied for. It's a lot more public process than I think if there have b~=n no accidents and I'm not saying I'm not concerned about safety but the record proves itself, I'm not sure that we need to encumber ourselves and the public with another ordinance amendment. So let's talk about the fee. Is there a proposed fee Don? Don Ashworth: Staff does not have a specific number. There is a fee that's associated with the slalom courses and I would anticipate in having this basically be the same. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and what would that be? Don Ashworth: I can't. It's been a year since we had an application. Councilwoman Dimler: I heard $25.00. Does that sound right? Don Ashworth: I was going to say $25.00. 11 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I also, when I spoke with Carver County does issue permits for the DNR and they do not have a fee so I would recommend tl~at we follow their guidelines as well to be uniform throughout the County. Councilman Boyt: I think we have to look at covering the expense of this a~d we can't expect people who don't live on 'the lake to pick up the expense of the inspection when typically these docks, outside of the City clearly isn't going to charge itself a fee for inspecting it's own dock. It's own raft. Councilwoman Dimler: But it should. Councilman Boyt: But the other people, those rafts are generally out there for their sole use and the City sho~]ldn't be subsidizing the inspection of those. Councilwoman Dimler: Then I guess I wonder how Carver County can do it. Councilman Johnson: Do they inspect? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes they do. They inspect. Councilman Boyt: Maybe that's why they have tax increases every couple of years. Counc i lwoman Dimler: They haven ' t. Councilman Boyt: They did last year. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have discussion going. We have a motion on the floor right now to table for a public hearing. CounciLman Boyt: There isn't a motion to table. Mayor Chmiel: She did make a motion. CounciLman Boyt: It wasn't seconded. Mayor Chmiet: Well let me finish it Bill. There has not been a second at this particular time. Mike Schroeder: Can I say something? Mayor Ch~iel: Certainly. Mike Schroeder: Mike Schroeder. I live at 66gg Lotus Trail. I guess a couple of things I'd like to point out I guess maybe in support of tabling this thing. We have had these discussions over a year but the ordinance as I've just read it this evening reads nothing like anything we've discussed previously over the past year and I'm not sure how I got off the mailing list because I've been to every meeting just about that I can think of a~d for some reason Mr. Ashworth I wasn't privy to your correspondence on that so I was totally unaware of what the content of this was going to be and I don't think there's many others that have been at these meetings also are aware of what's happening and what the ordinance is going to read now. I guess I was c~]ite surprised at all of a sudden the issues, the other issues that were discussed at these previous meetings are all 12 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 of a sudden swept under the table and no longer up for discussion. Apparently the way I read the letter that you sent, it's been determined that there really are no issues there anymore and this is the only remaining one. Don Ashworth: The wordage was that in consultation with the City Attorney's office, it was our recon~nendation that the existing ordinance, the one that's been in effect for many years, provides adequate controls in each of the other areas that were under discussion from a year ago. Mooring, storage of boats, etc. all are covered under existing ordinance. The only section was that there is nothing under City ordinance that in any way, I shouldn't say in any way regulates rafts. There is general wordage regarding regulation of rafts but the City Council does not see those currently. You could have every property owner putting out a raft all the way around the lake and it was staff's belief that that was a weakness of the ordinance. Mike Schroeder: Like I say, none of that was con~nunicated to anybody that I knew of anyway that was at those meetings until apparently some letter that just came out here. So we were totally unaware of any of those determinations and have no opportunity to comment at all on any of that so. Councilman Workman: I'd second Ursula's motion to table. Mayor Chmiel: After hearing discussion to just what Mike indicated, that this was not previously discussed and their understanding of what this would be, I think I would probably have tendencies to go on that. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the ordinance amendment requiring permits for rafts so that a public hearing can be held. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: M~ght I ask? If we're going to do this, if there's some way we can separate the issue of Carver Beach and their raft from this ordinance which really has a whole different point. If we could clear up the Carver Beach situation, then I think we could carry on a discussion about the merits of the ordinance aside from that. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we need to clear up ownership of that raft. SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING, 7410 CHANHASSEN ROAD, FRED OELSCHLAGER. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that one Willard as to what was the determination by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals? Willard Johnson: We had a long discussion and we determined that we denied the variance because he wanted a 7.4 variance to the 10 foot setback and we felt that there was no hardship whatsoever. We couldn't prove a hardship and we felt that he could work with the City staff to fit the garage into a different perspective or add onto existing or whatever. We felt there was no hardship whatsoever. We feel he can work with City staff to maybe come up with a better solution or if he wishes to come before the Board at a different time with 13 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 something else but at the present time there's no hardship[ [4ayor Chmiel: My understanding is that Fred also agreed and was not going to argue that point and said that there's no sense in he staying. That he agreed with the position. Willard Johnson: That's true. I told him he had the chance to go before the Council to appeal it for you and he said he didn't wish to further the situation. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. I supposed we should probably have a motion on this. Councilman Boyt: We don't need one. Mayor Chmiel: To support staff's position. CounciLman Boyt: We can but we don't need one. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have one. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I move that the City Council go on record as supporting 'the position of the staff and also the position of the Board of Adjushnents on the sideyard setback variance request to construct a garage/ storage building at 7410 Chanhassen Road by Fred Oelschlager. Mayor C~iel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council go on record as supporting the position of the staff and also the position of the Board of Adjustments on the sideyard setback variance re~]est to construct a garage/ storage building at 7410 Chanhassen Road by Fred Oelschlager. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO FRONTIER TRAIL FROM HIGHLAND DRIVE TO KIOVfA CIRCLE AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that Gary? Councilman Boyt: You can make this brief if you'd like. We've read the report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Gary Warren: I'll be brief. I take stage dira~tion well. It I'm sure is a testLnony to the quality of the text that you were provided by Mr. Engelhardt who sits behind me and the clarity of the staff report. The feasibility study basically addresses the reconstruction measures that are necessary on Frontier Trail from Highland to basically Kiowa Circle. It is apparent that from the document as you noted that there are some areas of significant reconstruction that are necessary which isn't a surprise to any of us that are familiar with 14 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 it. There are some areas that will be looked at or need to be looked at in more detail as a part of the design phase as far as sanitary sewer rehabilitation and methods that will be used there and likewise the installation of storm sewer and just how extensive the storm sewer system is necessary. Nonetheless, the other aspect of the project which is also unique here to the City is how to pay for the improvements. We've done some research here with other cor~nunities and taken a look at the type of improvement project that we're proposing and basically applying current city policy on storm sewer system, 50% of any storm sewer improvements would typically be assessed. Any roadway improvements from what we could see, areas that haven't been, that the road is deficient from the City standards such as there's no concrete curb and gutter, typically we would expect that those might be assessed so roughly there's a 43%-57% split. 43% being assessed out of that so we're dealing with a new City policy here in the reconstruction mode. Some additional benefits that I see that we want to make sure we take this opportunity to address are the removal of infiltration inflow from our sanitary sewer system which we continue to budget for each year and have a commitment to the ~CC for removal and I think this will provide an excellent opportunity for that since a lot of the sewers we saw had mineral deposits and evidence of leakage and likewise we want to connect up any foundation drains and sump pumps that the properties along the way in all likelihood have. So what we're asking Council to do at this point is to accept the feasibility study so that we can take it to hearing. My thought is to open it up to have a neighborhood meeting, more informal basis where we would actually make a presentation of the report. To do that, receive input from the local people who would be impacted by the project and then to schedule a public hearing for September llth which we would like the Council to also call at this time so we can get the notice prepared and such. Tentative date, and I talked with Councilwoman Dimler earlier, that date isn't going to work from my schedule I see now but kind of looking at maybe August 22nd. It's a Tuesday to try to have a neighborhood meeting on this. Councilwoman Dimler: I won't be here. Mayor Chniel: Is there just going to be one meeting you're planning on having or are you going to sort of break this down? Gary Warren: We would have one overall neighborhood meeting as we would call it prior to the formal public hearing on the llth. Then if the project proceeds further than we would also do what we did with the Lake Lucy Road watermain project and that is, when the construction plans have been prepared to about a 90% level, then we would also reinvite the public back in and the property owners that would be impacted to specifically look at the constructions plans as it relates to their property and we'll have the specifics so that we can deal with it at that thne so that's kind of our thinking is there would be at least 3 opportunities for input here before we actually get into the construction phase and probably 4 because we would have a notice going out at the time of construction to appraise them of the schedule. Mayor Chmiel: I noticed in going through Bill's feasibility study on some of the assessment rolls that you broke down towards the back end of the book, 43%, 50% on that storm sewer assessed as opposed to 43% of street construction. One ~]estion that I had. In correcting some of the storm sewer, and I think you sort of eluded to it previously, is at this time some of that storm sewer being 15 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 diverted to the sanitary at any given time or it's costing the City more dollars presently? Gary Warren: The thinking as far as infiltration and inflow is that anytime you've got storm drainage or ground water that stays in &n area that is not able to be carried out of a area in a rapid fashion, it's eventually going to find it's way into a sewer system either through sump pumps, foundation drains or just percolating through the cracks in the pipe. From the years that I spent in televising sewers and dealing with sewer rehab, I would very confidently anticipate that there would be some infiltration inflow reduction as a result of an efficient storm sewer system that gets the stok~n water out of the area. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other discussions? Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of this so at least we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to have a public hearing for what date now? Councilman Boyt: September llth. Gary Warren: We'd like I guess two actions from the Council. One would be to accept the feasibility study just as a formality and then secondly to call the public hearing for September llth. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, on the acceptance, that doesn't mean it won't be changed with public input later on? Gary Warren: It's just your receiving the document. You're not approving it or anything. CounciLman Boyt: I think we're on the a roll here to move to accept the feasibility study and call the public hearing for September llth for the road improvements and utility improvements to Frontier Trail to end at Kiowa Circle. Counc i lman 'Workman: Second. Resolution ~89-82: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept the feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle and to call a public hearing for September 11, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilwoman Dimler: %hen could I just ask a c~estion about August 22nd you said was a better date for you for the informal meeting? Gary Warren: Bill and I were just checking our schedule before the meeting. Councilwoman Dimler: What day of the week is that? 16 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Gary Warren: It's a Tuesday~ Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I have gotten some extra copies of this from Gary and I intend to distribute it to certain neighbors that could read through it before that particular date so they're well informed when they come to the meeting. Mr.. Loebl, you are one of the people that I thought might want to read through it. So do you need a motion on that informal meeting? Gary Warren: Not necessarily, no. Councilwoman Dimler: You'll just notify the neighbors? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Johnson: Is this an opportunity to look at inflow?. Inflow being primarily I believe sump pumps connected to sanitary sewers. Any way to, as far as part of the assessment provide a reward to people who take their sump pumps off the sanitary sewer and connect up to the storm sewer or whatever for their sump pump. Councilman Boyt: Actually they're going to get a bill. They've been rewarded for c~]ite a long time. Gary Warren: Our intent, maybe I didn't clearly put it in the staff report, is that basically we would require I think everybody or we would want to require that everybody along Frontier Trail where we have storm sewer to physically connect their foundation drains or s~mp pump into the storm sewer syst~ so we're done with it once and for all. It's an excellent opportunity to do that. Councilman Johnson: That requires everybody to dig up their front yard. Gary Warren: It depends on how they're connected right now. The other thing that we will want to address is typically in sewer rehabilitation projects, one of the weakest links in a sanitary sewer system and it has every bit as much length as a municipal public system, is the h~meowner service line. They are usually the most poorly inspected part of the construction and done by, I don't want to pass...words on our contractors but they aren't like the municipal contractors that we typically deal with in our mainline construction so there's an area there also that we will want to, as we have the main line exposed and are doing reconstruction, to take a close look and if we find a sanitary sewer service line that is flowing clear water and there is no water useage in the building, we want to deal with the property owner to see if there shouldn't be some repairs done on that service line. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That public meeting for August 22nd, 7:30? Gary Warren: Typically we try to do them a little earlier but we're flexible. Mayor Chmiel: Well you have Park and Rec at that particular evening at 7:30 here so you're either going to have to make some arrangements to shift if you're going to get total numbers of people in here. Gary Warren: We'll have to see. Maybe we can use the other conference room too. 17 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Johnson: There's 50 some homes in this area~ Gary Warren: Park and Rec might have to use it. CounciLman Boyt: I don't know, the neighbors I've talked to and maybe Ursula you've got a similar reaction, I haven't talked to anybody yet who didn't want the project. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they'd like to have some input into it. Gary Warren: I think if it's alright with the Council, what we'll do is get back to the schedules and check out all the conflicts before we resolve that final meeting date and if you have any preferences or want to make me aware of any of your conflicts, I'll be happy to factor that in. APPROVE PRELIMIk~ARY PLANS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 OFFICIAL MAPPING; LAYOUT S.P. 1017-7. Gary Warren: This is the map and we can lay it out here if we need to. Basically what we have is a revised final layout from MnDot concerning the TH 212 official mapping. This is a layout and in MnDot's...it is just that. It's not the official map but the official map will be prepared from this approved layout once we get our input back to KnDot. I understand basically that Eden Prairie and Chaska I believe have approved layouts and possibily even the official mapping so ~'re right in the mode with that. This layout is based on the northern Lake Riley alignment which is the anticipated approved alignment from the environ~nental impact statement which will be done this year. If for some reason there's a s~zrprise in the environmental impact statement and the alignment is not accepted, which would be a surprise to everybody I guess, then Council would be requested to approve another layout. What this will do is allow MnDot then to have the official map prepared which we will then have a public hearing on and invite the public before we go through the actual adoption of the ordinance for the official maps. As you can see, I tried to pull together as much from the staff report and meetings and history on this. It's gone through c~]ite a n~maber of those and a lot of it predates myself. Mayor Chmiel: It starts back on 1987 and goes on through. The official map, where's that going to be posted in City Hall in the event people would like to come in and look at it? Gary Warren: The official map, one copy of this map is up in engineering right now and the official map, when we get that, will be the same scale and we would put that up in the same place. It covers one whole wall, the length of the building. Mayor Chmiel: Is that accessible for people to come in and look at it? Gary Warren: Yes. People come back on a regular basis for as build and stuff so they can easily come back to look at that map. Mayor Chniel: Alright. Discussion? Hearing no discussion. 18 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: We discussed this in depth, I think it must have been about 2 years ago. A year and a half ago with the room filled with people so we've kind of been over this. R~nis is another one of those issues where we've gone over it. I would move approval of preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212. Mayor Chmiel: I ' 11 second it. Resolution #89-83: Councilman Boyh moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212 official mapping; Layout S.P. 1017-7. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 20-237, REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Jo Ann Olsen: Real briefly, the Planning Co~mission recommended approval of the proposed amendment which essentially states that the City Council can require annual review. The Planning Commission, their only comment was that they felt that it shouldn't be shall. They felt that it should be a requir~nent that they have an annual. Their only comments again were whether or not we had the staff to do that. Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple comments on it. I've been talking about this for 2 years now. One thing I've always said is that there should also, there's two things. One is, some of them don't need, it says annually or more frequently in here. There are some that probably need to be done every 2 or 3 years and not annually so I'd like the flexibility to go from 3 years or less versus annually. Some of the conditional use permits we put out there... Mayor Chmiel: Conditional uses are forever right? Councilman Johnson: Yes. They're forever. Some of them you don't really need to look at every year. A house or something. There's just not that much to go wrong with some of the conditions we put out. There's others which have a great potential for envirnomental harm or whatever if the conditions aren't complied with and I think they need the annual inspection. However, I think there should be a fee associated with that they're asking for special permission to do something special and when there's a potential for great harm and you have to be inspected annually, that cost should be born by the person who's getting special permission to do s~nething different. Not by all the citizens in the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chniel: I guess in a way I agree with that but maybe it should be in our permit fee in the first place rather than having to go back and double billing. I think that presents some problem. Roger, can you... Roger Knutson: Maybe Don would be the best one to deal with that but I can see it would be a less administrative problem collecting it up front than trying to get it after the fact. Say, I don't know what your number would be, like $20.00 or $50.00 or whatever it is, if they don't pay, then you're faced with now what are we going to do about it. Are we going to take them to conciliation court. Are we going to try to revoke the permit. 19 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Johnson: It's a condition of the permit. Roger Knutson: You can try to revoke the permit for a $2g.00 fee if you wanted to but it's a hassle. There's a bit of a hassle involved. Mayor Ckmiel: That's right. Jo Ann, what are our basic fees presently? Jo Ann Olsen: $150.00. Mayor Ckmiel: $150.00 for the conditional use. Councilman Johnson: Does that come close to covering your time? Jo Ann Olsen: That's hard to judge. Mayor Ckmiel: Some permits re,lire a lot of follow through. Some do not. Councilman Boyt: We just saw one two weeks ago. CounciLman Johnson: I was going to say, how much of your time have you spent on Lowell Carlson on his conditional use permit over the_ years. Jo Ann Olsen: Not as much as we should have. Councilman Bo!t: I would suggest that we put in here that inspections be conducted annually because it's easier to keep track of and that the people doing the inspections I suspect are going to do them differently depending upon the sensitivity of the area and the particular type of conditional use permit granted so I'd like to see point 2 amended to read, inspections will be~ conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit. I think the discussion about fees is a really good ont but may be one that would be worth discussing all by itself. Mayor Ch~iel: I think that $150.00 is a substantial fee for a conditional use permit in itself. I was thinking that some cities I know they run anywhere from $75.00 up to $250.00 but I think $150.00 is a substantial amount for a conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: Some conditional use permits don't hardly rec~ire any inspection. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Some don't and some do depending upon what the projects are. CounciLman Johnson: Which ones do? Councilman Bolt: Well I can think of one. CounciLn~an Johnson: Contractor's yards. There's one down south ~nere they're ~ouring oil out on their roads as a way to get rid of their lube oil. The County environmentalist didn't like that too much. Cne that wouldn't is your convenience_ store with gas pumps. There's usually not many conditions involved there. Informally they're probably inspected every day. There's other contractor's yards where all the trees have been removed. The berms have been 20 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 r~oved. Councilman Boyt: I would think that the issue of collecting a fee annually is one that experience will tell us which way to go. Let's start doing the inspections. If these turn out to be quite a drain on staff time, then maybe we'll need to look at a fee but we have a great many conditional uses out there that need inspecting. Mayor Chmiel: Yes and I sometimes think too that one will compensate maybe for the other and it works itself out. Councilman Johnson: We probably have what, several hundred conditional use pemmits issued at this time? Jo Ann Olsen: I wouldn't say several hundred. I'd say up to maybe a hundred. I haven't counted but not several hundred. Councilman Boyt: Wasn't there a statement in the Planning Con~aission about the number? Jo Ann Olsen: I haven't verified that at all. I was saying 50 to 100. Councilman Boyt: You said, I would say 50 to 100. Well can we try to pass the amendment first and see how that goes? Mayor Chmiel: Do I have a motion on the floor? Councilman Boyt: I would move to amend point 2 such that it would read, inspections will be conducted at least annually to dete~Iaine compliance with the terms of a conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: Could we add in there unless waived by the Council or something like that? We have limited staff and limited funds to do these things, as I said. Some of them really don't require much inspection at all but just the time to go out there and do it, we blow $20.00 a piece for somebody to go out and write the report and have a report written up every time. If we're going to do the inspections, I asst~me we're going to have to have a report to prove we did the inspections. I think annually personally for some of them is far too often. Requiring annually on every one can become a real drag on the system. Councilman Workman: Are you saying leave it? Councilwoman Dimler: How about putting in there PRN? Councilman Johnson: What? Councilwoman Dimler: PRN means whenever necessary. Councilman Boyt: What I'm afraid of when we do that is that we keep exactly what we've got right now Jay which you've been talking about for a couple of years that they're not being done. I would much rather see us run with them done and then back off if need be. 21 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 CounciLman Johnson: Okay. We can wait and see what the experience of staff is. Mayor Ckniel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with the proposed change. Any further discussion? Hearing none, is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I'll second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend the City Code Section 20-237, Revocation and Inspection Regarding Conditional Use Pek/nits with an amendment to Point 2 stating that J. nspections will be conducted at least annually to detennine compliance with the terms of a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would move for acceptance of the first reading as amended of Ordinance Section 1, Subsection 20-237 of the Chanhassen City Code. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. CounciLman Johnson: Should we have, between the first and second reading, have a notification of those people holding a conditional use permit that such an ordinance is coming about on their conditional use permit? It will be retroactive to all past conditional use permits. Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Jo Ann Olsen: Is that notify all conditional use permit holders? Councilman Johnson: Yes. 45. Mayor Chmiel: 5g to lg0 Jo Ann. Councilwc~nan Dimler: That will force you to get a list I think. Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the list I just haven't counted them. Mayor Ckmiel: I'd even like to see that list when you get it. Jo Ann Olsen: You just want them to be notified that there will be a second reading? Mayor Ck~iet: Right. That there will be a first and second reading of a zoning ordinance ~mendment. CounciLnan Johnson: First reading's been approved and second reading will be on such and such a day. Jo Ann Olsen: You don't want that on the Consent Agenda? Mayor Chmiel: Oh no. No. 22 City Council M~eting - July 24~ 1989 Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could make a quick cornet and general one on a little bit of what we're doing in regards to fees and things that we're charging here tonight. I get a little bit nervous and I understand City's got to operate with money. In a certain way we do increase taxes here by making, creating fees for rafts and every little thing we do. It starts to get me a little bit nervous I guess. I don't want to make it too expensive to come and live and do business in the City and we're creating new fees at 3 at a pop at every meeting. Not that I don't understand that the people who are using the system have to pay for the system because Don Ashworth is expensive. So I'm going to pin down why I feel uncomfortable about it but it's an inherent defect perhaps. Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with Tom and that's why I reco~nended that we have no fee if we do adopt the raft ordinance. That there be no fee. Perhaps no fee for this as well. Councilman Johnson: Well if you do that, we also change there's no fee for slalom courses, diving or any of that. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. It's already written the other way for those. Councilman Boyt: We kind of have, there maybe a bit of a philosophical difference here. It will be interesting to see how this develops but my sense is that people should pay to use Lake Ann. One, because we have upkeep costs there and it's a unique facility and I think user fees are actually a way to lower taxes for the rest of us because ~nen we don't charge user fees, then that means we all pay. Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that to a certain point Bill but I think that all residents within the con~nunity are paying taxes to offset some of those costs too. Now I think if it's people from outside the City, then I feel there should be charges on that as well because they're utilizing something that the taxpayers are paying for so it's hard to distinquish what do we do? Do we issue these kinds of permits directly to the city residents and say you're lobbing onto that park...and charge those that aren't city residents to go into ~aat park to use the park facilities? Councilman Boyt: Every year we get to discuss the Lake Ann Park fee so I'm sure it will come back up again. Councilman Workman: I was just thinking out loud I guess maybe. Mayor Chmiel: No, that's good. I agree. We can't price outselves out of the business and start looking like we're trying to make money just to make money. I fully agree. We had that with the first and second reading to notify the present conditional use holders. Councilman Boyt: We've already had the first reading right? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Was that a motion Jay that you were making? 23 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 CounciLman Johnson: Somebody already made Mayor Cl~niel: I don't think we moved and seconded on that motion yet. Jo Ann Olsen: WHich one? The mailing? Mayor Chniet: For the first reading with the second reading come up. Councilman Boyt: Yes we did. Jo Ann Olsen: I thought you did. The second reading will be on the next agenda. CounciLman Workman: Did we just approve the &menclment? Mayor Chmiel: We did move on the amended portion of it and then we went to... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm asking if Jay's suggestion needs to be a motion and voted on? Okay, thank you. I do agree witln that, that we should do that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend City Code Section 20-237 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 199g LEVY AND BUDGET, ADOPTION. Mayor Chmiel: I might say that I love reading stories and the rest of it all sounds like a story too. CounciLman Johnson: I didn't know which one was funnier. The first half or the second half. Mayor CT~niel: I think the second half was getting to me. Don, would you like to address that? Don Ashworth: The City's are faced with a very uni?]e problem this year in that we're left with some legislation from 1988. Some legislation from 1989 and a lot of discussion regarding things that may yet occur. We must adopt, at least according to some experts, a budget amount as well as a levy prior to August 1st. Unfortunately, nothing happens with the amount that we levy. It's not used to calculate any taxes. No citizen is notified of what that amount is. It is not used as we move through the budgetary process and you can lower from that amount. You can not increase over it. I've referred to it in my report as an imaginary levy and that's really what it is. It doesn't exist. Yet again under portions of the 1988 legislation we're required to take and make this levy. Staff has no idea as to what our levy limits will be. We have no idea of what our State Aids will be but again, we were forced to present a budget to you for your consideration. I've used the more restrictive elements out of both the 1988 and 1989 to come up with a proposed levy amount for 199~ of $2,803,955.gg and a total revenue and expenditure of $4,974,069.~0. Again, you will not see those figures again as we move through the budgetary process. I can assure you that the actual levy that you will consider will be less than the amount shown in here. 24 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I think as you indicated in here, these are guesstimates. Not estimates but guesst~mates. Councilman Joknson: Do you need an imaginary motion? Mayor Chmiel: That's what I just thinking. I think we almost need three. Any discussion? Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor I would move that perhaps Council create a resolution to our Representative Kelso and perhaps Senator Sct~mitz in regards to the percarious situation in which we sit. I was at a League of Minnesota Cities Conference and they said if you don't start that budget process by April, you should be starting on budget process by April and we're a long way from that and we' re getting further and further away and it being .no fault of staff. But perhaps we could draw something up to express our concerns that we get on with things so we can move ahead. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion on that? I think it'd probably be very apropos to do that. Councilwoman Dimler: Could we have staff... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: Or a letter. Mayor Chmiel: At be on record indicating those concerns. Councilman Johnson: Are you also going to include approval of a resolution for this levy and budget? Councilman Workman: I would move that. Councilman Johnson: Then I'll second. Councilman Workman: Are you seconding my resolution? Councilman Johnson: Both. Mayor Ch~iel: Both. Councilman Workman: I don't mean that to say, that's not a kick in the pants. That's a resolution. I'm just expressing our concerns. Councilman Johnson: They passed it and the governor vetoed or we wouldn't be in this dileama without the veto. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: Well if we want to send it to the governor also. Councilman Johnson: Or send it to him and copy the legislators. Councilman Boyt: That' s a better idea. 25 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Workman: I'll go with that. Resolution #89-84: Councilman Workman moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded a resolution to the Governor with copies to the legislators regarding the concerns of the 1990 levy and budget and also approving the adoption of the 1990 levy and budget as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Jay, Teton Lane. Councilman Johnson: I was hoping staff could have some kind of update as to where we are on getting Teton Lane resolved and ~]blic Safety about whether they're actively pursuing construction traffic and letter all the air out of the tires or whatever out there to prevent construction traffic from going through there. Don Ashworth: Appraisals have been received. The City Attorney is in the process of notifying Centex of what those appraised amounts are. They are to confirm their willingness to pay up to those amounts. If they do not respond, Roger is to contact me so it can placed on the agenda. The first agenda in August. CounciLman Johnson: I heard that some of the appraisals were fairly ludicrous? It's your point of view. Don Ashworth: Right. I think at this point, giving that information to Centex and potentially they may wish to obtain those eas~nents themself rather than looking to the City and recognizing the appraisals that we have received. Under State Statute, if it does go to the appraisal process, meaning where the Council authorizes the acquisition, the City must pay the &mount of that appraisal. In other words, you don't offer something less. Councilman Boyt: With that guaranteed, I bet they don't settle for less either. Mayor Ckmiel: You can always start low and go up but if you start high, then you can't go up. DOn Ashworth: Actually, when we carry out an appraisal, we provide that information to the owner and that is the amount that we will pay him. Public Safety, I'm not sure. Jim Chaffee: We did not get any complaints in the recent past... Councilman Johnson: Is our traffic counter working? Did we stick that out there? They're saying 2gg cars per day. Gary Warren: Yes, we had it up probably a month ago or so now. We had 150 vehicles. Mayor Chmiel: 15~ vehicles per day? 26 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Gary Warren: The day we monitored~ Jim Chaffee: ...home occupation. ~nat's Franco's catering business. Councilman Johnson: He caters out of his house? Jim Chaffee: ...That's what causing the high traffic counts. Gary Warren: He's not the only person there. I know that the carpentry shop and the Carlson buildings gets deliveries and there's various... Mayor Chmiel: But in one given day, he can only cater so many given areas. Jim Chaffee: ~ployees and what not. Like I say, the complaint just came in today and we're in the process of investigating it now. Councilman Johnson: As I understand home occupation, you're restricted in your number of employees and no retail out of the home. Customers shouldn't come to your place of business. Gary Warren: Scott had sent a letter that I saw anyway because Franco said no, he isn't. He stores that truck there because of his catering business and he's acquired a new building in Excelsior is it now but I know there's been the allegation over the years by various people that they thought he was doing business out of there but the Department of Health regulates that. Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that's still... Mayor Chmiel: It's being addressed. Ursula? SuperAmerica and John Havelik and downtown beautification. Councilwoman D~mler: Okay, which one should I start with? Mayor Chmiel: Start with SuperAmerica. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, this has come up at least, I know I brought it up the last 2 meetings as well. The residents' concerns have not at all been taken into consideration. It has to do with the non-compliance of the Roger Zahn development. It isn't so much the Superkmerica site itself that is upsetting the residents. It's the rest of the site and the fact that the shopping center which was supposed to go in first, there is no evidence of a building yet. So I read through the Minutes again as it was back in 1988 I believe and I clearly see that the residents' concerns have not at all been addressed. So at this time, in order to get something done before the letter of credit expires, I believe that's in December, Don is that correct? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilwoman Dimler: We would propose that we would have a neighborhood meeting to address their concerns and to see what it is that they now most want to see done. It can be the berming so they don't have to look at that. They also have some concerns about the SuperAmerica lighting but I think we can address that at the same time. In order to make this short and not to tell you all the 27 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 problems, I'm sure most of us are aware of them, I would suggest that we set a meeting date for August 9, 1989 at 7:30 at the City Hall. The neighbors are to be notified by a letter that is to be sent out from city staff and I looked through the list Don that you gave me and I had everyone of th~n except there's a Barbara Pike there that I would like to have it sent to and I do not know her address. Don Ashworth: That list is from a year ago so if you're aware of anyone ~no has moved in in the last year, we should add them. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then also I would like to have this particular meeting of August 9th published in ou3~ paper so that those that are on vacation and don't receive the letter, perhaps they have a chance to see it in the paper. At least let's try to get as much coverage out as we can so we can put this issue to rest once and for all. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on that a little bit. I know Ursula was out there. ! was out a~d walked the site. Not having the shopping center there does create a lighting problem from the gas station. One that I suspect will be temporary but I think the neighborhood should be reminded that the City has a tremendous amount of security that that situation will not be as it is today in that development contract and the guarantee, the financial guarantee so for Roger Zahn to not complete that center would, in my estimation, probably bankrupt him. I agree with your desire to have a meeting. I think that's excellent but I think that the neighborhood needs to know that the guarantees are in place and Roger Zahn knows that they will be exercised by the City if he doesn ' t meet his coa]nitment. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure that they feel safe with those guarantees and I guess we'd like to give them some assurance. One of the things, his permit expires in November of this year. At that point I'd like to see that maybe we'd discuss not extending that permit so that he would then, then he would definitely get something done before Nov~0er I think if we put that stipulation into place. Councilman Johnson: It discusses a permit before November. credit, what does that cover? In the development contract. Does the letter of Gary Warren: It covers the HSZ site. CounciLman Johnson: I mean does it cover berming and trees? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: It covers everything? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And that's why, that's a tremendous amount of money that the City has the ability to call on. Councilman Johnson: Do ~ have to utilize it before December? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. 28 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Gary Warren: There's a renewal clause in it. The safest position, Roger can back me up on it, if it looks like it's going to lapse and we have some outstanding issues, we go down and we draw the letter of credit or give him the opportunity to renew it before we draw it. Mayor Chmiel: The letter of credit presently right now is at $272,000.00. Councilman Johnson: Do we know of any plans for the shopping center? Any dates? Have we seen blueprints or anything like that? Councilman Boyt: Roger says that he has his anchor tenant and will be wanting to go to the bank pretty quick. He has to guarantee 50% occupancy before the bank will let him build. He's close. Councilman Johnson: He was close 3 months ago too when I talked to him. Gary Warren: He told me 2 weeks ago when we visited with him on site that he had authorized Kraus Anderson to start construction. That he had things straightened away. Now he went through Watershed District for approval supposedly at the last meeting on July 20th and staff has got the submittal from his new hydraulics engineer on the pond issue out there which we're currently reviewing. This week we should have a notice to him on our final position on it so he can con~nence with those improv~nents because that's what Kraus Anderson wanted to start with and as we would want him to start with also. Councilman ~yt: If ~u haven't seen it, ~u should go look at the holding Mayor Chmiel: I've seen it more than once. Councilman Boyt: It's an engineering disaster. Councilman Johnson: It' s not complete yet though. Councilman Boyt: No but it looks our version of the Grand Canyon. Councilwoman Dimler: That's one of the big violations is that was supposed to be c~pleted before SuperAmerica opened. Councilman Johnson: The holding pond? Mayor Chmiel: That was a part of the... Councilman Johnson: The holding pond...to SuperAmerica. Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely and yet Superkmerica opened today and the holding pond is a disaster. Mayor Chmiel: Even SuperAmerica is not very happy with what's existing. Okay, Ursula. John Havelik. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to follow up there on the visitor's presentation to see what has been done. It was suggested that the developer 29 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 suhnit a letter to the Council as to how he was going to address Mr. Havelik's concerns. Have you received a letter Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: No we haven't. What we've done is we've reviewed the file and then we review~ the site. We have determined that it did appear that they should have ~]t in~ in addition to the retaining wall, additional landscaping or a fence. Again, we've gone out to the site to determine what areas do need additional landscaping and fencing and I have a letter drafted to the developer but I have not, what I was going to do was to meet with him. See what he would agree to do. If that's not ~nat we feel is acceptable, we'd bring it back in front of the Council but ! wanted to clarify whether or not we did have the power to rec~ire that. Sometimes plans are changed along the way and I wanted to guarantee that that hadn't, what they had wasn't actually approved by the Council and it does not look like that was the case. It looks like that happened between staff where they said, okay that looks good enough and do it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. One of my questions was, I thought that we had an ordinance that re~]ired a 6 foot fence to be set between commercial and residential. Jo Ann Olsen: It's not necessarily a fence. It has to be some sort of screen. Opaque barrier. Councilwoman Dimler: The ordinance does not state it has to be a fence then? Jo Ann O1 sen: No. Mayor Cb_miel: But it is being addressed? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. We know what we want done. We just have to contact the developer. Mayor Ck~iel: Okay, can you keep Council apprised as to ~nat's happening on that? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. We'll bring it back to you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula downtown. Councilwoman Dimler: The third item I had was the downtown beautification. I know several times in the past we've asked about what's being done to replace the dead trees and I still don't know what the status of that is. Don, can you address that? Don Ashworth: ~yor Chniel left a message for me Friday and the easiest way was just to put it in writing and I have yet to give that to the Mayor. But that's basically where the item stands in a nutshell. We're still in negotiations with the contractor. He_ feels as though he should be given more of a credit for sc~ne of ~%e trees that are partially alive. I don't know how that can occur. Mayor Chmiel: No way. Don Ashworth: The City is directing that a certain of the trees be put in a different location so where we have looked at it and felt that maybe there's too City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 many trees in a particular area, we're saying we want that tree replaced but we'll tell you where it's going to be. Not in that same location. As long as he's bringing it in, it se~med reasonable that we could rec~]ire that, if it's in the same general area, without cost. Again, we're not having the best cooperation with him. We're holding $38,000.00 so it's not a matter that we're not going to get the work done. The meeting on Wednesday is going to talk about getting the dead material out of there because I think it's just kind of flaunting it when people go down main street, see the dead material. The island areas have never been properly polyed and mulched. We're trying to put a priority on doing that work. Replating should not occur until September-October now and I think those are all objectives that Gary is going to try to achieve on Wednesday. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if all the replantings are going to be necessary either. I think we have to look at that from a safety aspect as well. Gary Warren: BRWhas also done their own evaluation, sort of a QC look again here to come up with so~e recommendations on that. I directed Chuck Eiler this morning, our park superintendent who's adopted the downtown here, to pull all the thistles and get all the weeds out of there now. We've documented enough photographically what the problem is out there. So I said, clean up the area as best you can so that should start also which will help a little bit. Councilwoman Dimler: Is Noble Nursery responsible for maintenance? Gary Warren: Nobel Nursery has a 1 year warranty period for a majority of the stuff. Councilwoman Dimler: But they wouldn't be doing this particular maintenance? Gary Warren: It's not maintenance per se. They have to, the replacement of dead stock and such is a part of their responsibility and then after that it's ours. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to credit some of the neighbors that called me that were concerned about this and they said, you know we call it the downtown beautification project. We did the whole thing to make downtown Chanhassen more beautiful and it is just a disaster. So what she proposed to do and I really give her credit for it, was that she said I would be willing to go down there and get a bunch of other interested citizens plus citizen groups such as the Rotary or the Legion Auxiliary or the Lion's or whatever and we could just have a day where everyone would clean up but what she would require there would be that we block off the street so no one would get injured. So that was her suggestion and I just thought it was really, really nice to show that much concern for the downtown area. So if we have trouble getting to it, would you let me know and we will schedule such a day. Gary Warren: I think at this point in time, as you say, it's very commendable to have that offer. At this point in time, while we're in this negotiation with the contractor, we obviously want to keep very tight control on what the City has done. Councilwoman Dimler: Right, I agree with you. 31 City Council ~veeting - July 24, 1989 Gary Warren: And once that is clearsd up, we expect to be able to stay on top of it. Councilwoman Dimler: Just as long as it gets done. Gary Warren: We're all interested in that. Councilman Boyt: A couple more points on that? Mayor Chniel: Go ahead Bill. Councilman Boyt: In the parking lot behind Pauly's there, it's been one, there's that trash container that I haven't seen that locked in a couple months and the doors are open, it's not doing it job when the doors are open. The other one is, that's a good example and I think also probably around, whatever ~%is convenience store is over here is another one. When we anticipate that cars will drive in in a forward manner to the parking stall, then they don't run over the trees but when they back in, they do. Maybe when we replant, we should consider that. Don Ashworth: I passed that along to BRW. I noticed the same thing, especially in the Pauly lot. Councilman Boyt: And the other somewhat related it~ to all this is that I've had two separate landscapers tell me that they don't think those trees are the right species of trees to put where we put them. That they wouldn't have done that had it been th~m. I don't know more specifics beyond that. I remember the landscaper for the City coming in here and assuring us that those were exactly the kinds of trees that needed to be in that situation. Gary Warren: I remember the same conversation. I would just point out also that Chuck Eiler spends 4g hours a week basically on the downtown. Cutting grass roughly takes him about 3 days out of the week just to do that. He has con~nented to me that the other majority of his time is spent in cleaning up trash so if Council would look to some type of con~nunity group involvement down the road here, trash pick-up in some of these more active areas, the Pauly's lot and such certainly would be encouraged. Mayor Cnmiel: Good. Tom? Lake Lucy parking issue. Councilman Word, an: I'm going to hurry this along because City Engineer Warren has stated that he'd be buying wine coolers at Pauly's if we got out of here before 1~:30. Roger was throwing in on the beer nuts. Lake Lucy Road, if that doesn't bring the hair on your neck up, nothing will. Lake Lucy Road, parking permit. I ran into a key player in the issue a short while back and I asked him how's it going and they said they were not sure because they hadn't heard a whole lot. I discussed it with Jim this morning and he gave me the minutes from the meeting ar~ everything else. It appears as though the parking permits, the physical parking permits which we approved, are not going to be utilized. Perhaps Jim wants to con~nent. Basically I think where we' re at more, staff has gone is that they are going to rec~]ire each time somebody wants to park on Lake Luc!; Road, to call into the City and the City will document it on their computer. That basically was where it was at before with the County. We had 32 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 that ability with the County. We were looking for a physical permit that they could place in a car and that isn't exactly where we went. The Minutes basically state a physical. I know in the motion it was basically approved that we would have the permit but then staff would look at how that might work out. We kind of left it open there and I think it was taken a little further and I guess I'd like to see us issue the parking permits of which Council approved back in April so that we can work out the differences from there. We don't know, we decided we really wanted to monitor the situation but we really haven't given them permits for us to monitor. Councilman Boyt: Make that a motion and I'll second it. Councilman Workman: I will so move. Councilman Boyt: I second. Mayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that staff issue the parking permits for Lake Lucy Road as approved in April, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. It was my understanding all along that that was the intent. To make a very easy syst~ to use so I'm glad you brought it up. Councilman Workman: If I can bring up one quick point. I drive by Moon Valley ~]ite often. Since Larry Brown's been gone, we haven't, I think Larry was kind of on that. There's dirt flying down there. Are we still mining down there? Gary Warren: I asked, Dick Vogel was here this evening and I asked him before the meeting if, because obviously Dick has been bird dogging that real closely living down there and he said he hadn't seen any trucking activity. I will be getting in our, we put that on a high priority for our aerial photography contour map to get that section in here so we could at least have a good record of where we stand with it. Dick said no, that there hadn't been any activity because that was a standing discussion with him was as soon as they take a move, to give me a call. Jo Ann Olsen: On TH 212 though? Is that where you see it? That's okay. That's there. TI~ problem area was near Pioneer Trail on the north side. Councilman Boyt: They have the right to do gravel but not clay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's addressed. We'll move onto Bill with Eurasian Water Milfoil funding. Councilman Boyt: It's I guess appropriate in so~e sad ways to bring this up since the paper reported that it has been discovered in Lake Minnewashta. I would like to find out what's happened. Does anybody know? Jim Chaffee: The DNR is going to be out tomorrow surveying Lake Minnewashta. 33 city Council ~Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Okay. Are we planning to eradicate what was found? Jim Chaffee: We don't know where it was found. It was picked up on the beach portion of the lake...so the DNR is coming out tomorrow to survey it. Councilman Boyt: Terrific. Well I was gone w~en the Council considered this as a budget item but I guess about a month ago I proposed that this go on the agenda as a budget item. I think that we need to budget, if I read this correctly. I don't know if Don was suggesting that we could budget $10,000.00. I was thinking to budget $5,000.0~. I know staff proposed to kind of take this as it comes but I think we need to set a certain amount of money and basically say that they have our approval to spend that amount and if it appears to go more, to come back to us. I'd like to see us make a financial co~rmitment to this thing. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see the commitment. I'd also like to cut a deal with the Watershed District, DNR, whatever and say hey, we'll share in this cost. Let's all get together. It's all of our responsibilities. The Watershed District, the DNR and the city's responsibility for these waters. I don't want to delay anything but before it happens I'd like to see if we can work some kind of agreement with the various groups. CounciLman Boyt: I think the key part of your statement there Jay is you don't want to delay anything and I don't think $5,~0g.~0 represents that significant a portion of our budget. It is significant but it's, we're sort of putting a little money behind our comnitment here. We certainly should follow up with DNR and others. Co~macilman Johnson: See if they' 11 put up $5,0g~. 00 too. Councilman Boyt: I do,Jot it but it's worth a try. Councilman Johnson: 5h~rrass them. Councilman Boyt: I would move that the City remove from it's current budget $5,g0g.00 earmarked for the treatment of B~rasian Water Milfoil. If that money not be expended, that it be returned to the general fund. Councilman Workman: Second. CounciLman Johnson: _Rather than return it to the general fund, could it be hex t ' s year. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be kept within there. Don Ashwort~h: Actually I'd like to have it out of the adminstrative trust. Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Councilman Johnson: Can we create a milfoil fund then? Councilman Boyt: Next budget maybe but I'm saying for ~is year just pull it out and then put it back if we don't need it. 34 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Resolution #89-85: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to remove from the current budget $5,000.00 eaLmarked for the treatment of Eurasian Water Milfoil. If that money is not expended, that it be returned to the general fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Just for your information, I am going to be meeting with Joe Alexander, Con~uissioner of the DNR on Wednesday morning for breakfast, to discuss the possibility of that boat lift from Lake Ann into Lake Lucy. I will get back and let you know what the outcome of that is. Councilman Boyt: That's over in St. Paul you're meeting with him? Mayor Chmiel: No. I'll be meeting him in Edina. The reason why it took a little time is he's been away for the past two weeks at two different seminars. He just got back in town last Friday so I was able to talk to him this morning and set it up for Wednesday. Councilman Boyt: One of the things that I know Lori called me about this lift. There isn't, to my knowledge, there isn't a company that manufactures boat lifts of this sort full time. They exist but I suspect they're built one at a time. Mayor Chmiel: I think we could probably ask Rub Goldberg to see if he can come up with something. Okay. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. SPRINKLING REGULATIONS, CONSIDER TOTAL BAN, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Jim Chaffee: I'll try to be brief on this issue and attempt to water down the staff report a little bit here. We are not recon~uending a total ban. We are just asking the Council consider strictly enforcing the odd/even system that was implemented several weeks ago and allow us not to issue any more permits to anybody. That's it in a nutshell. Mayor Chmiel: This one item that you have here Jim, where you were saying that to implement a system limiting sprinkling between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and that's out also? Jim Chaffee: That was Jerry Boucher's recommendation. We felt that it wasn't necessary at this point in time if we just strictly enforced the odd/even system and keep it going as it has in the past. What brought this about was the request from the Cimarron Homeowners for approxLmately 150 sprinkling permits. We know it's going to create a burden for the Cimarron Homeowners but we think it's going to be encumbent, maybe not. Tom says they have beautiful lawns. Councilman Workman: The problem is the young may who's doing the watering doesn't know what the odd side of the street is. Jim Chaffee: We think it can be worked out though. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly just odd/oven? 35 City Council Meeting - July 24' 1989 Jim Chaffee: Strictly just odd/even and we'll just eliminate issuing permits for the 'hi,ne beJ. ng. CounciLman Workman: I guess on behalf of the Cimarron Homeowners Association, they and we do not want special treatment and anything can be worked out, so. CounciLman Johnson: Isn't the home number system, it is easier huh? Councilman Workman: Odd and even. Councilman Johnson: The inside's one way and the outside's the other way? When you go around to the other side, wouldn't it be o~posite then at some point? Councilman Workman: I don't know. It's not that big of a problem. Gary Warren: They can figure it out. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a couple of comnents Don. The ~]blic Safety Commission spent one, they unanimously recommended that additional permits not be issued and that the odd/even system be strictly enforced. They spent over 2 hours listening to the State Hydrologist talk about this area and our water supply. They, and you'll notice maybe in some of the materials that Eden Prairie never left the odd/even systam. They felt, when we heard the State Hydrologist, the ~]blic Safety Commission felt pretty strongly ~]at this should be a permanent stance. Following the lead of I believe it's Excelsior, we may want to also p~]t this, not just on the city water supply but also on people using private wells. That we're really talking about water conservation here in general. Mayor Chmiel: Presently though this is intended for the city useage, for city water for the odd/even. CounciLman Boyt: It might be, well I would like to see it on a future agenda so we can bring in the people that you'd like to hear from, the specialists. Mayor Chmiel: That' s the point. Councilman Boyt: The fellow was very convincing from the State. Councilman Johnson: I think metro wide we need to talk about this type of thing and the City of Chanhassen's effect on the aqua fir in this area is minimal compared, when you start looking at a Southdale Shopping Center or whichever shopping center it is that draws over, what is it, 2-3 million gallons a day to run their air conditioning system. More than the whole city in one little shopping center. Mayor Chmiel: How m~ny residents in town approximately would we have that are on wells? Gary Warren: Well you've got everybody in the rural area basically outside the MUSA plus within the urban service area. There's maybe 5% maybe that are still on wells. Some have kept their private wells and are also on city. 36 City Council M~eting - July 24, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I have my own as well as City~ Gary Warren: See the private wells are typically tapping, it's not to say that they shouldn't conserve but they're tapping frc~ the shallower aqua fir. Our wells pump from 400 to 600 feet deep in the Jordan Hinkley which is the con~on aqua-fir of the majority of the system, s plus we are sort of at the head waters or upradiant in the aqua fir syste~ which is to our advantage. Eden Prairire, we hit it before Eden Priairie who gets it before Edina and so on. Mayor Chmiel: The wells that you're talking about includes people who now no longer, I should say no longer pump any water because their wells have gone dry or the point's bad or something has happened so there's non-utilization of a lot of those too so it would be a minute amount in comparison. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, in a previous resolution the last sentence is that pek/nits will be issued for a person with new seed or sod... Mayor Chmiel: That was previously was it not though? Jim Chaffee: Right. Mayor Chmiel: People with seeding or new sod can? Jim Chaffee: But if we're going to eliminate the permit system, a new motion would have to be made. Councilman Boyt: I thought we just made a new motion didn't we? Haven't we made that? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Boyt: I guess it was reconxnended. Councilman Johnson: How many of these permits are issued right now? Jim Chaffee: Last report I had from Scott he said somewhere in the neighborhood of like 230 had previously been issued. Councilman Johnson: Had previously? Like last year? J~a~ Chaffee: Since May 1st of this year. Councilman Johnson: New seed or sod. Cimarron homeowners are sodding their whole area? Jim Chaffee: It comprises of about 150 of that are not necessarily new seed or sod although a large portion of it was. Councilman Johnson: Only new seed or sod? Gary Warren: They seeded again. Councilman Boyt: When we had our experts come in, they were pretty clear in telling us that that everyday watering was not a good idea for new seed and sod. 37 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 This thing becomes much easier to enforce if we... Mayor Chmiel: That depends upon ~nat temperatures you have. How hot it is. How much absorbtion is going. Whether or not you have to go back to re-watering. If it's hot, the soil has tendencies to dry out real quick, so does your sod. Gary Warren: If it' s windy. Councilman Workman: Maybe something with violators have to pick weeds downtown. In the headlines. Councilman Boyt: Eden Prairie has a fine syst~n that goes first offense, $25.00. Second offense, I think it's $50.00 and then $100.00. We haven't proposed, I don't know that we have a fine system but I would like to see us and if need be, we can get the guy frcra the Arboretum to co~e in here but all the information given to the Public Safety Department w-as that we did not need everyday sprinkling for anybody. That odd/even pro.~oted better root growth. That it was a healthier lawn. If we can get the guys in here to do this and maybe we should but right now we have a problem and I think we need to make it easy to enforce and go on eliminating the permit system and go onto a strict odd/even makes it much easier to enforce. CounciLman Johnson: I think that one of 'the big problems is nobody realized there was mn odd/even system. Last year it was big advertisement. It was on the news every night who had a ban and who had this and who had that and we got a lot of rain in the spring and everything and everybody sat back. I don't really think, if you walked down the street and asked people, I should say 2 weeks ago before the articles in the paper when it asked do we have a sprinkling ban and most of the people would say no. I don't think we advertised a sprinkling ban. Last year we sent a card to every home. Resident: I just received a flyer with my water bill. Councilman Boyt: Terrific. Councilman Johnson: That's the first step is public awareness and we had pretty good participation last year. There were sc~ne constant violators but right now it's a misdemeanor or what? Don Ashworth: I don't know by what means we can tell the court what they should set for that. Can we Roger? Roger Knutson: As a misdemeanor, it's maximum [tarnishable fine of $700.00 and 90 days. People don't go to jail for watering their lawn. Mayor ~%miel: I hope everybody hears this on cable. Councilman Johnson: But it's up to the judge. Roger Knutson: You could suggest to the prosecutor or the City could suggest $100.00 is appropriate. 38 City Council Meeting - July 24~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: How do dog fines? Dog fines and stuff like ~ha% usually work like that where there's the first time your dog is caught it's so much and the second time it's more. My mom's old beagle really used to cost her a lot. Jim Chaffee: Roger, aren't there civil fines versus criminal? Roger Knutson: You could make it a petty misdemeanor which is not a crime. Jim Chaffee: I noticed in the article in the packet in the back, the City of Minnetonka had a $50.00 first violation fine. The second violation is $75.00. The third violation is $100.00. Roger Knutson: Sure. That's a petty misd~eanor which is not a crime. Councilman Johnson: Do they protest the fine? Roger Knutson: You still collect it the s~me way through the Court syst~. Citation method. Jim Chaffee: It won't show up on your record. Roger Knutson: No. It's not a crime. It's a parking ticket if you want. Councilman Johnson: We'd have to change our ordinance to call it a petty misdemeanor. Roger Knutson: If you want. Councilman Johnson: If we wanted to set the fine ourselves? Councilman Boyt: I'd make tw~ suggestions here. One, I'd make a motion or will here in a second that we approve this or we support staff in going to a more c~mplete ban. Secondly I'd like to see it put on the agenda say this winter, the issue of sprinkling in Chanhassen. Have us get the experts that we need to hear from in here and at that point raise the issue of shall we make it a petty misdemeanor. Shall we make it permanent. Shall we include wells and come to a reasonable conclusion about how to approach this. CounciLman Johnson: I'd like to do more of a phased approach. We've got the notification of the people to start the enforc~ent. Leave the permitting as it is for the people who have new sod and stuff. I hate to see it go. There's a lot of people who even and odd is great but work shedules and stuff like that, you might not be able to hit your day. Councilman Boyt: The way the permit, the way Scott Hart initially interpretted the ordinance that you all passed earlier is to say that you can't turn anybody down for a permit teeniest. I think if people have an ~ergency that they can confikm, maybe so but generally this becomes very hard to enforce. The inspectors don't carry around a list of who's got permits and who doesn't. Councilman Johnson: But you can tell new sod. You can tell a seeded yard. Councilman Boyt: It's not going to die. 39 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: If people really want to maintain those lawns, they'll make a way of taking care of it on those odd/even days. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we approve a strict enforcement of an odd/even syst~n without issuing additional permits except for emergency si tuations. Councilwoman Dimler: I' 11 second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve a strict enforcement of the odd/even system for the water sprinkling ban without issuring additional permits except in emergency situations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 25-29. Don Ashworth: I solely put this item on the agenda to alert 'the City Council of the background associated with this issue. That it is c~ming up. I will have Karen contact each of you individually to see what your preference may be. I did not know if you wished to discuss it in a general form in advance. In other words, I think everyone should attend or this may not be tl%e year to go or I don't know basically where the Council stands on that area. But again, if we are to, if staff is to be prepared for this should you want to go, we literally need to start now. We need to start making reservations. Councilman Johnson: Don't get those stupid airline reservations like you did last year. We had to barter and trade tickets with everybody. A lawyer went as my wife. I told him he had to wear a wig to use my wife's ticket. Councilman Boyt: You know when you think about ethics, that's probably. I would suggest that in Council procedures, that we add a statement under our sort of rules of operation that says and maybe Roger could word this but the basic intent of this would be that council members who not be sek~ving the following year would not attend a national conference. CounciLman Johnson: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see &ny problem with that. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: The other discussion is, I would encourage everybody to go to 'this. I've gone to it the last 2 years. It has been an intensive educational. You're running from one session to the next session. It's not a boon dog whatsoever. You can never get to as many, there's always 2 or 3 sessions that you want to go to of Park and Rec or zoning or whatever. It's a great conference. Well put on. We had Willard Scott as the dinner speaker one time. Without the wig. I encourage everybody to go to this. I plan on going down. Councilwoman Dimler: Is it always around Thanksgiving? Councilman Johnson: It's a rotten time but it has to be sometime. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Workman: Is it before Thanksgiving? Councilwoman Dimler: The day before. Councilman Johnson: No, I think it's the week after Thanksgiving. This is good for me. I plan on being in Alabama for Thanksgiving with my parents so this is just 200 miles down the road for me. Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Members who will not serve on the City Council or just will not serve. Councilman Johnson: We're talking lame ducks. 5he issue came up with people who have resigned and will not be taking office in January. Don Ashworth: For example, Clark Horn stayed on the Housing and Redevelopment. Councilman Boyt: No he shouldn't be. In my opinion I want people who lose elections, by our rules not allowed to attend these things. Councilman Johnson: Now if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority wishes to send somebody to this conference, they may. It comes out of their budget. Mayor Chmiel: Now would the new council people be able to go? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I would like to see newly elected council people being able to go to this because it is quite good educational stuff for them. Councilman Workman: You're talking about before the take office? Councilman Johnson: Before they take office. There's only going to be 5. Councilman Boyt: So we need to vote on this I guess. Councilman Boyt moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded a motion stating the basic intent of members attending the National League of Cities Conference would be that council members who will not be serving the following year would not attend the national conference. All voted in favor and the motion carried. At this point in the meeting, the City Manager asked the City Attorney's opinion regarding closing the public portion of the meeting to discuss the Bongard Condemnation issue. The public was asked to leave the roc~n and on the following pages, to be released separately to the public at a time specified by the City Manager, is a transcript of the remainder of the meeting. 41 281 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 BONGARD CONDEMNATION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: I would really start the item with a c~]estion to the City Attorney. In condemnation proceedings as we're considering with t~he Bongard property for the realignment of TH 101, can the City Council close this meeting to discuss that condemnation? Roger Knutson: Since we're starting a lawsuit, that's what the purpose of the discussion is all about, yes you can. Don Ashworth: Staff would recon~nend that we close this portion of the meeting. I would ask, if supported by Council, that Nann shut off the recorder. We will leave the smaller recorder operating. This is for anyone in the audience, newspaper, and I would anticipate that we would be in a position to make the tape available hopefully within the next 2 weeks/next month. But again, to insure that we prudently take care of the city dollars it would be again my recon~nendation that we close the meeting. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to close the public portion of the meeting to discuss the Bongard condemnation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: We have received a proposal from Krass and McRow to hopefully settle, or at least start settlement for the Abby Bongard property. The concern of staff is that you have an elderly lady who's lived here all of her life and she is trying to buy a home. It's going to cost her $170,000.00 to purchase that home. In the meantime enter a realtor and a developer ~dno have entered into a purchase agreement with her. The amounts that they're seeking are significantly higher than the appraisal. What I've asked Roger to do is to meet with Mr.. Krass to see if we could present an offer where we would put down $50,000.00 and give us a one year period of time to insure that the State legislation has changed. Roger, did you want to discuss any of the options? Generally what we would be doing is giving Roger the authority to negotiate something for us. We're going to call the Council back together are we not? Roger Knutson: A group of them, sure. It should come back as an agenda item. I'm not going to spend your money. Don Ashworth: We tried to get a hold of Mm-. Krass today. We had four different optional scenarios all of which would try to help Abby out while still allowing the appraisal process to continue on it's no~.~nal course. Give her some amount of money. Let her get into the new home and agree to disagree as to the value. Let the Court take care of that and when the Court would finally make a detekmination, then we decide do we want to exercise our option or not. Roger Knutson: And we might not be that far apart on values. She has a purchase agreement and this is being taped so I'll be careful what I say. There's some c~_]estion about it in my own mind of it's validity but anyway that purchase agreement is for $330,000.00 and our appraisal is not that far away from that. It's not there but it's close. So we might even be able to come to te~ms. I don't know Don. It's possible that we can come to terms on what the dollar value is. But do you want me to go over the options? 42 -~ City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Don Ashworth: No, i don't think so. Especially if we're going to have to bring the City Council back together again to potentially look at something. The primary reason for [m_~tting the item on the agenda was to present -the scenarios. In talking with Roger this evening we were not able to get feedback from Krass. I guess at this point we're simply alerting the City Council and trying to make sure that you are aware that we're trying to do everything within our power to treat Abby fairly and yet not to let the City be taken through that acc~_lJ, sitJ. on. Roger Knutson: It's a little bit tricky in the fact that there's an outstanding purchase agreement on the property. Normally I'm concerned abo~]t who I'm giving the check to and things like that so there's same details that have to be worked out. We're trying to get her into a new home without jeopardizing the City. Councilman Boyt: Like when we do TH 212, the State has a fund so we can protect that piece of property. Is there any type of comparable situation here? Councilman Workman: Which piece of property? Councilman Boyt: Well this is in line with the TH 101 alignment. I just wondered if there's any comparable state fund that will allow us to protect the property? What I see happening, what scares 'me is that the City is going to, as I hear this, is going to cor~nit same funds being out on an awfully thin branch. When the tax legislation is redrafted, our ability to extend that tax increment district is not granted, then we've just given that money away. Don Ashworth: NOt necessarily. You c~]rrently have in the bank $230,000.00 and that can be ea.~.~arked for this acc~,]isition. If we do not use those dollars as a part of this acc~_]isition and at the end of 1989 those dollars would be sent back to Hennepin County. At that point in time they would reduce it by 4g% for fiscal disparities. They would then distribute the r~maining 6g% to Hennepin County, Eden Prairie Schools and the City of Chanhassen. We would get about 2g% of the 6~% which comes down to about $25,g0g.~g is my recollection so I don't know that we're really out that much Bill. Councilman Boyt: And you don't think there's a fund, the State wouldn't have any way of participating in this? Don Ashworth: I can't answer that c~_]estion. My fear is the timing associated with it. The w~ole official mapping process and everything else. We're talking about Abby Bongard's property. Could that be shown in the official mapping process and thereby go back to Metro Council to receive dollars for that acc~.]isition. Gary Warren: Through the RALF funds? They're pretty limited fram what we've been told for TH 212. If it was officially mapped, it could c~_]alify. Councilman Johnson: These funds are almost imaginary in that there is c~_lite a few cities that have not been approved to go after these funds. We're going to be going after them for their highway work up north. We don't have a whole lot of, it's going to be interesting. The legislation passes some laws allowing some other people eligible for these funds. 43 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Even if the $230,000.00 is there Don, I think there's probably, I'd be surprised if there weren't other uses for it in the tax increment district. I'm concerned that things are so tenuous on ~nat the State Legislature is going to do. Mayor Chmiel: We have to be concerned about the property owner too Bill. Councilman Boyt: Well, but that comes back to the City's money too. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Don Ashworth: There are potential uses especially associated with the intersection of 184th Street and TH 5. Right now all of the negotiations are on the basis of no cost to the City but I can't guarantee you that they'll stay at that level. Councilman Boyt: So what are we approving? If we give Roger permission to negotiate for us and he comes back or if he makes an offer and they accept it, then we're bound to that right? Roger Knutson: No, no. I wouldn't do that. Anything I do, I'll negotiate but it comes back to you for approval. I'm not going to bind you to anything. Bring it back in writing. Councilman Boyt: What's the down side if we don't do this? Roger Knutson: If they happen to sue you based on an inverse condemnation theory, I think that is not a very good theory. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about Mrs. Bongard but I'm not concerned about a lawsuit. Councilman Johnson: She wouldn't be suing. It'd be the developers. Don Ashworth: Unfortunately they're tagged together and I don't really understand how Mr. Krass can represent both Bongard and Diem simultaneously. Mayor Chmiel: But he is. CounciLman Boyt: Isn't there another option here? Can't the City in some way or another help Mrs. Bongard move into the house that she wants without coamitting $50,000.00 to the process? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Johnson: It's a $166,000.00 house. Mayor Chmiel: M~:s. Bongard basically does not have dollars per se. Councilman Boyt: Right. It's all in her property. Mayor Chmiel: Correct. She's on welfare. She has a problem. I shouldn't say welfare. She's on Social Security. So with that I think we should just proceed with what you're going to do and come up with a conclusion. Is there a motion for adjournment? ~ 44 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 CounciLman Boyt: Well, don't we have to make a motion in that regard? Mayor C~miel: He's not going to create any action per se. Just come back with information. Councilman Boyt moved, Councihnan Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.. S~bmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 45