Loading...
1989 06 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 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, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Jim Chaffee, and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Boyt wanted to discussion Eurasian Water Milfoil, SuperAmerica located on TH 41 and TH 7, Public Safety Minutes, and Lake Lucy Road permit system. Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss the nomination for the RTV. Councilman Workman wanted to discuss Art Owen's property, the Bandimere Park progress report and Lake Lucy Road watermain construction questions. Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss Council ethics in private meetings and conflict of interest on his part. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. (The following is the discussion pertaining to Councilwoman Dimler's request to take item 8 off the agenda.) Councilwoman Dimler: On the regular agenda, if we could take off item 8 and refer it to management procedures. Councilman Boyt: Can you say a little bit more about that? Councilwoman Dimler: I really don't feel that this is a Council decision. That this should somehow be handled in management procedures that the City has already established. Councilman Boyt: We have done this on one particular instance that I can recall in the past. It would be my intention to vote against this but I think the person should have the right to bring it to the Council. Is this coming at the Taco Shop's request? Don Ashworth: Yes. I don't know if he'll be present. I doubt it. Councilwoman Dimler: I talked to Don today about it and he seemed to think that the administration could handle it. Councilman Johnson: Has staff already turned it down and then he has asked to bring it to Council? DOn Ashworth: That would be the closest interpretation, yes. He's asked to have the money back and we did place it onto the agenda. Staff would lean to denial. He had some other problems associated with the deck that he started and was instructed not to construct it in the fashion he did and he did so there's some violations there. City Council Meeting - June 12j 1989 Mayor Ckmiel: Permit violations? Don Ashworth: Yes. I guess I would agree with Councilmember Dimler that potentially it should just be handled by staff. Councilman Boyt: But shouldn't any individual have the right to appeal a decision of the staff? Mayor Chmiel: Staff's judgment has been done and if we support staff and that ~osJ. tJ. on. Councilman Boyt: So are you saying that he isn't make this appeal? That this was just put on here automatically. Don Ashworth: He' s making the appeal. I guess if he attends thJ. s meeting, potentially the Council would want to listen to him. To the best of our knowledge, he is not plannJ.ng on attending. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we just at that point, if he's not here, go that way. If he does unexpectedly show up. Jo Ann Olsen: He wanted to be here. He cannot be here. CounciLman Boyt: We can table. Mayor Chmiel: Once we get to that particular point, let's address it then and come up with a conclusion. Councilwoman Dimler: So are you saying then that we're not going to take it off the agenda? Mayor Chmiel: No, let's leave it on. Don Ashworth: I think it's a good idea to leave it on. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chm~_el drew a name and handed it to Dave P~derson from the Villager. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's reco~mendat ions: a. Approval of Joint Powers Construction Agreement with Carver County for Pioneer Trail (CR 14) Reconstruction. g. Resolution #89-73: Change Order No. 5, Chanhas~en Fire Station and City Hall. ho Final Plat Approval for Bloomberg Addition. i. Accounts Payable. ££ City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 j. City Council Minutes dated May 16, 1989, May 22, 1989 and May 25, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 1989 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. B. CONSIDER EXTENDED WORK HOURS FOR ROSEMOUNT SITE CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Boyt: It would be my intent to table Item (b) but maybe we can have some discussion before I make a motion to that effect. ~nat we're proposing, or rather Opus is proposing to work from 5:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. on a lot that overlooks Lake Susan and several houses on Lake Susan. Quite a few houses. I see no conm]ents in here from the people who live along Lake Susan. I see a letter in the back that if I had received that letter, I would have ass~ned that they had already received approval and all I could do was wait until I had a complaint. I don't think this has been handled well. I think the City should send a letter out. We should ask for the comments of the residents in the area and that we should not extend beyond our normal working hours for development without that approval. Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure whether this letter has even been sent out. Councilman Boyt: I hope not. Mayor Chmiel: That was one of the concerns that I had with it as well. Councilman Workman: I think if they're going to have that many hours in, they may as well work right through the night and get it over with. Not that I support them working that late. Gary Warren: I think that's equipment maintenance time that they're leaving out. That's the only reason they aren't. Mayor Chmiel: There are several other items too with this from what I understand in discussion with Gary is that this has to be in conformance with some of the problems, time problems that we have too as well as the City. Is that correct? Gary Warren: Just trying to state that we'll have similiar soil challenges and probably weather constraints and we have an aggressive deadline there for having our improvements substantially completed by December 15th of this year also so it could be very well that we may be looking to having the Council entertain extended work hours for our own project at some time in the future. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we have extended hours. We did for McGlynn's Bakery but no one lived around there. This is a different situation. At the minimum we should be assured that the residents have had a chance to speak about their willingness to tolerate this or their lack of willingness to go along. So I would move that we table item l(b) until that can be carried out. Councilman Johnson: Second. City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table extending the work hours for the RosEmount Construction site until the neighbors have been notified. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: The City will send letters to the people notifying them or if it be most expediate, possibly to call each of those people with a follow-up letter. Whichever would be the quickest for accomplishing this. Gary Warren: What area would you like us to notify? How far away? Councilman Boyt: Well I certainly want you to notify everybody across the lake because they're all going to hear this. Councilman Johnson: The EA for this did not consider night time noise at any location so basically they should, if they're going to change their operating procedure from what they do, we should at least have a modeling of the noise at the homes so we know what the noise impact is going to be. That's the first question I'd ask. What is it? 45 db. Is that the night time noise limit? There are several computer models in which to generate that. Mayor Chmiel: And that's at the property line. Councilman Johnson: Right. McGlynn Bakeries, on certain nights, I can hear them at my house over a mile away. When you start looking, running straight across that lake. Gary Warren: I'll present that to the applicant. I know the timing just to do this is probably going to, they may just say that they aren't going to be interested but if they're interested in proceeding with the application, we'll notify the residents° C. APPROVE Dh~ELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CHANHASSEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION. Councilman Boyt: I think in using some of the experience with the previous developments we had a concern that we have plenty of controls in the development contract but we seem to lose that control as parcels are sold to individual builders. I would propose that we, in this particular one, we begin to have the developer, they already have to have a letter of credit but I think that should extend to erosion controls specifically and the maintenance of those controls in that this should be in a cash escrow that is reduced by the number of lots that are fully constructed. So in essence ~e would be asking the developer to establish a letter of credit that would guarantee sufficient erosion controls for all the parcels in the development. That as these were built and the soils stabilized, that fund could be reduced. It's currently, $38,5~0.00 is the amount in the contract. That might be sufficient for this. It might need to be adjusted given that we're aiming it a't individual parcels of land. Gary Warren: The dollar amount in this letter of credit is site erosion control. We always have t~o issues. One is to control the general grading area from the site and then you've got your individual lots. Some lots don't require any erosion control. Others do. That's where you have some judgment calls there so there would be really a separate dollar amount on a lot by lot basis. City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Workman: Are you using this as an example? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, he's talking cash escrow with a letter of credit. Councilman Workman: Are we doing that specifically with this one or is it for future? Councilman Boyt: Well it would be my plan to do it for all. I think it's an area where the City is currently vulnerable in that there's a gray area and maybe nobody's responsible for this time after the developer sells the property to a builder. Maybe there's a better plan but in talking this over with Gary a few minutes ago, it seemed like a reasonable place to start. If we come back and come up with a better plan, then I think we could come back and amend this but at this point, this gives us the assurety that the City will always be able to guarantee erosion control until a development is fully built and stabilized. Councilman Johnson: That's going to take some word smithing by our attorney. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was going to be a question I had for Roger. How can we make these requirements of each of the developers to builders as Bill has just mentioned? Roger Knutson: You catch me a little cold but I know one solution that one city has used is to say when somebody comes in, it would have to be in the development contract. When someone comes in for a building permit, that's when you're going to start messing up the ground again. At that point you could require somebody to post a cash escrow or propose a building permit of x dollars. Whatever is appropriate. Councilman Johnson: So we would have dollars from the builder too? Roger Knutson: As opposed to dollars from the developer. The problem I see with getting dollars from the developer, those dollars might be there theoretically 10 years, 5 years, 20 years because it's not until the actual lot gets developed and a house gets built where your additional concerns arise and that can be a long, long period of time. Councilman Johnson: Plus the builder doesn't care about the developer's dollars in escrow but if it's his dollars in escrow, he'll be a little more careful in the erosion control. Roger Knutson: You could also find the developer saying that once I sell a lot, I don't have the right to come onto that lot and tell the new lot owner how to do his business. That's one of the things I've heard. If someone messes up, it's the lot owner's builder, not the developer who messed up or the owner himself as opposed to the developer. That's one possibility of doing it that way. Councilman Boyt: What I think would happen is the developer would sell that obligation to the builder as part of the purchase price of the lot so in actuality the builder would be holding the liability here. Roger Knutson: The only problem with getting it up front is you don't know how many years it's going to be until that developer sells that lot. In a perfect ~ity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 world it happens in a year or two. It isn't and there are lots out there that you've platted, the Council has platted I suppose 20 years ago, 40 years ago that still don't have a house on them. Don Ashworth: If I hear the attorney correctly, any type of change that we would be making is not really with this development contract. What Councilman Boyt is asking is that staff look at establishing either a cash deposit or changing our existing ordinance for the issurance of individual building permit to insure that we have money to take care of the erosion on the individual lot. And if that's the case, the item could be tabled this evening. Staff could respond to that issue and have a potential solution back on for the 26th. Gary Warren: Bill and I did talk earlier about it and I like Roger's approach a little better because part of our effort, even today takes time to keep up with the developer's who request letter of credit reductions. We're constantly going through additional paperwork cycle here and I can see if you got it on every lot, even though as Bill and I had talked, you would have a builder when he buys a lot replace what the developer would be giving away, you're going to constantly be into this cycle of really a lot of paperwork and keeping track of it whereas if you just establish a fee per lot and get it like we do with the building permit phase, that would be a lot more manageable. Also that person is paying that fee when he comes in so he knows I think more directly that he's got an obligation there. Mayor Ck~iel: That sounds reasonable. Councilman Boyt: So we wouldn't need to table this particularly because we're looking in a whole different direction? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councihnan Boyt: Okay, those are the only con~ents that I had so I would approval on item l(c). CounciLman Workman: I' 11 second it. Councilman Johnson: Will this require a change in our erosion control ordinance or our building permit ordinance or both? Roger Knutson: Development contract. That'd be the proper place for it. Councilman Boyt: But that's what we're just looking at right now. Roger Knutson: I know. That's where I'd want that...in the development contract. Gary Warren: Even if the developer isn't going to be applying? Roger Knutson: Yes, but I want it recorded against the property. Put everyone on notice. Your authority to do that is a result of the subdivision process, not as the result of the building permit process. Councilman Boyt: Then let's withdraw that motion and go back to directing the City Attorney to draft language that would reflect our recent discussion and City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 attach that as part of the development contract Mayor Chmiel: If you're withdrawing it, Tom do you withdraw your second? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so I would make a motion along the lines I just stated if you'd be willing to second that one. Councilman Workman: Making it a part of Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition? Councilman Boyt: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what's the time line here? Councilman Johnson: He's not tabling it. He's saying approve with... Councilwoman Dimler: Right but I mean how long is this process going to take? We're holding this up. Councilman Johnson: A couple days. Mayor Chmiel: Shouldn't be much more than that. To make provisions. Gary Warren: They have to post their security and that takes some time yet too. Councilman Workman: How much are we talking about? Councilman Johnson: The change would be that you have a statement in the development contract stating that each builder has to post when they buy the lot or when they pull their building permit, that they would have to post a refundable erosion control fee. If they maintain their erosion control, they get their fee back. If they don't and we have to go out and do something... Gary Warren: They get it back when the site is stabilized basically. Councilman Johnson: Right. They get it back if the site is stabilized. But if we have to go out and fix it. Councilman Boyt: Basically we've already got that with the developer so this really isn't adding anything to the developer's list of concerns. It's simply recording, as Roger says, recording it against the property so when the property changes hands, then the new owner would become responsible for a s~milar sort of arrangement. Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: Correct. Gary Warren: We can add that to the generic portion of the contract so we've got it in for all of th~m then. Councilman Workman: It's really no more of a financial burden or anything else? Gary Warren: On the builder it is. City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt: On the builder but the developer is doing nothing more. Gary Warren: Unless the developer is going to be building the lots. Councilman Johnson: And if the builder does his job right, then he gets his money back. Mayor Chmiel: It' s refunded. Councilman Johnson: So I' 11 second your motion. Gary Warren: We can also use that for street clean-up. Councilman Johnson: Just what Gary just mentioned, should we also include that that money can be utilized for cleaning the street? If the builder messes up the street and doesn't clean it. Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a great idea. Councilman Johnson: Because there's a lot of that going around. Don Ashworth: So you'd have it cleaning debris. Would you include blowing materials, anything? Gary Warren: A nuisance fee. Councilman Boyt: So really we have two additions to the original motion which is that the fee would also be used to cover anticipated reasonable expense for road clean-up and debris and litter. Road and debris litter clean-up. Well, I would accept that. Will you with the second? Counci ]_man Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Development Contract for Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition and direct the City Attorney to amend the development contract to include a fee for erosion control, road and debris litter clean-up. All voted in favor and the motion carried. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD AND SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE, EDGEWORK BUILDERS, DAVE STOCKDALE. Councilman Boyt: Would somebody else like to pull this off because I'm pulling this off as a favor to Jo Ann so if any of the rest of you would like to take this. Alright, actually it's written the way I like it now but as you may have noticed, that's written differently than the way the Planning Con~nission passed it. So in fairness Jo Ann thought we should review it. What I like about it is, the way it's written now, is that we've got curb and gutter. We're talking about the industrial office park. I'm not prepared to start making exceptions about curbing in the industrial office park. It's one thing to go back and say to him on your old property, well you've got to go in there and put curb and gutter but when they're building something brand new, we ought to build it right. So I like staff's recommendation. That's all I have on this one. City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Dave Stockdale: My name is Dave Stockdale. I'm the applicant. First off to address Bill's statement. It's not new construction. The buildings are existing. Everything is existing except the hard surface. I think there's some practical reasons for not putting curb and gutter in at this point. First off, in my mind curb and gutter usually diverts the water to one focal point and that's typically a storm sewer. There is no storm sewer out there. I figure you could actually be creating a bigger problem than there would be if you had contiguous sheet runoff that would disperse the water evenly across the whole _membrane. Wherever it does runoff, you'll be focusing a lot of water onto the ground at that point. So I think at that point, I think that's a good reason for not doing it physically. Again, from my point of view economically, at some point in the near future when I do develop that p-roperty, the considerable expense of curb and gutter will be pretty much a n~m~ber that's been considered a temporary expense. Blacktop to a degree may be too but a certain portion of that will probably still work within the system. I guess probably to another degree, less than a year ago an application was made and approved without curb and gutter at that point for the same property for whatever reason. At some point, I currently have a conditional use permit on a different piece of property which I am still prepared to act on and at some point if this particular piece of property becomes economical unfeasible, at that point I'll revert back to my other piece if too many things add up on the cost issue. Councilman Boyt: If I can respond, you are putting in new hard surfaces you said. We do require curb and gutter in the industrial office park zone which you're in so that becomes a cost of business of doing business in that zone. Your issue about will this create a bigger problem if we have it than if we don't have it I think is something that the City Engineer needs to address. We don't want to create a bigger problem, I agree with you about that. You certainly have the right to use your first conditional use permit. It was passed, although I voted against it. It passed. I also voted against the Merit Air Conditioning application for that s~.milar property because it didn't have curb and gutter along with other things so those are just my responses but I recognize that it does create an economic difficulty. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, can you address that? Gary Warren: I didn't get the gist of all the comments. The question specifically is why staff is recommending concrete curb and gutter. I can address that if that's your question. It's primarily I guess following the ordinance in that zone I guess for the curb and gutter. I don't know, it's crystal balling how far in the future that subdivision is going to go. We just had a meeting with Opus here a couple weeks ago on pushing Lake Drive even further out there and this becomes sort of an exception in that whole development scheme so I realistically with the City's intended improvements on Audubon Road south of the railroad tracks as part of our State Aid project which we approved in our 5 year plan, I see this whole area again being the prime target here for development. I guess I was also looking at the fact that that parcel going in under a variance from that standard which is going to be applied throughout that whole subdivision once it is platted, is going to be sort of an exception that's going to be noticed. Mayor Chmiel: Did you want to say something Dave? City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Dave Stockdale: Gary, can you think of a situation where a curb and gutter would be applied where this is not a storm sewer system for it to drain into? Gary Warren: Sure, we do it a lot and t_hat's ~ny we reference it as barrier curbing I guess to control traffic. To keep vehicles within the parking surfaces. It's not necessarily completely there for a drainage standpoint. Dave Stockdale: Okay, what affect would that have on anyone other than the property owner? Gary Warren: I guess from a site nuisance standpoint, if you have a parking area where vehicles are going off the road and tearing up and rutting up the berm areas and such, I guess there are some impacts on the motoring public so to speak. Dave Stockdale: And I would probably be the person most concerned with that being the property owner. At the se~me time, from what I'm hearing you say that in the near future you"re expecting that that development, the improvements will be passing by that property which at that point will, for practical reasons necessitate that development of the property. Economically practial reasons. It se~ns a little bit foolish to go as far as curb and gutter at this point if within the near future the development process will take place and the true finished product will end up with that kind of a treatment. I'm not proposing never having curb and gutter. I'm just saying until it's developed, on a temporary basis. I would expect at the time it's developed to the full industrial office park standards, that it will meet and/or exceed everything that's in the industrial office park. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyway that within this conditional use permit which has already been approved, is there anyway that we can establish an additional kind of condition? Councilman Boyt: This one hasn't been approved? The first one is in a whole different location. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Then can we in this specific time include this as an additional requirement as a condition? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Councilman Johnson: This is a new permit. Councilman Boyt: We can write any conditions that se~n justifiable. Mayor Chmiel: Because basically it could be a hardship and I think we probably agree at this particular time until that development time comes. Gary Warren: I guess if Council wants to not require it, that it is definitely a variance to this site until such time as development comes by and we're not violating the City's standards as far as requiring it for this type of development. Mayor Chmiel: We are not violating it? 10 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: What? Gary Warren: I said Council could chose to interpret this ruling that it is based on an existing site and that once development, the subdivision is subdivided and development is there, that we're not saying that the standard for concrete curb and gutter should not be applied throughout. That it's just tamporary unt~.l this whole site area develops. Councilman Boyt: Well you mentioned a key word here, variance. This is in fact a variance to the requirsments in the industrial office park. As a variance, it's got to meet those 5 criteria. There's nothing in the staff report about how it adjusts to those 5 criteria. What about the possibility, when is Audubon Road going to be finished? Gary Warren: The 5 year State Aid program was scheduled for Audubon Road to be the next project which would be constructed under next year's funding which means we would be looking to get something underway as far as design in the fall of this year or there abouts. Councilman Boyt: Can we make this, the fall of this year you said? Gary Warren: The design would be initiated the fall of this year. Councilman Boyt: So you think it would be completed by 1991 I supposed? Gary Warren: 1990. Councilman Boyt: So could we put a condition on the development of this that by say June, 1991 curb and gutter will be installed? Concrete curb and gutter. That gives Dave a chance to sort of get through the Audubon Road thing and start your further development. So you don't have to put it in and tear it out but we do have a definite time in which it will be built. We're basically giving you the opportunity to delay that for a year and a half. Dave Stockdale: For me to take possession of the property I need to have a hard surface blacktop...and to put curb and gutter in after the fact is also... If you're going to go that way, then I shouldn't even put the hard surface down until the curb and gutter goes in and at the s~me time... Councilman Boyt: Well I think as far as the City fulfilling their part of the obligation, that should be worked into that. Dave Stockdale: Yes, it should be worked together. Councilman Boyt: But we were talking about, you were going to tear that hard asphalt up anyway because you said when I have to develop, I'm going to have to tear this out. I don't want to have to tear out my concrete curb and gutter. So what I'm saying is don't put the concrete curb and gutter in but when we develop Audubon Road, you've got to have it. Dave Stockdale: When you develop Audubon Road, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to develop at that point in time. If you set a timeframe that you'd like a blacktop surface with curb and gutter... 11 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well Dave the problem is, in. my opinion, if we leave this open ended so that you build it when you're ready to develop, then we run into the problems that Gary said. We require it of all the people around you but we haven't required it of you. They're not going to be happy with that. Dave Stockdale: You're right. Who are the people around me that would be in a similiar situation? Everyone else has improvements prior to the development of their property. Councilman Boyt: So we don't have anybody else out there that's going to develop on any land that doesn't already have curb and gutter? Dave Stockdale: That doesn't already have improvements to the property. Councilman Boyt: But we're extending the road. We're extending the improve~nents so that area is going to develop. That's why you'd probably want to develop it further. What I'm proposing is giving you t~me but I think the time in my opinion, and then I'll stop and give everybody else, in my opinion, the time has to have some limits on it because I don't think i~'s wise to give you an open ended contract that says build it ~nen you want when in all likelihood people are going to be developing around you and have to live with the higher standard. If we grant this variance because of an economic need, it's going to be hard to deny it to anyone. Councilman Johnson: I have a suggestion here. Let's look at this, I definitely would rather have David over here than at his house. Rather than have his 12 trucks drive down that residential street, well it's a residential highway there, I'd rather have them here. That's a better location for his operation. It's within the industrial park, etc.. I think he's got a good point about the concrete curb and gutter. What I'd like to see as a compromise here maybe is asphalt curb and gutter at this point and any further development, any new construction on this property, subdivision of this property would automatically kick in concrete curb and gutter. So if he decides to build an additional cold storage building, kicks in concrete curb and gutter. Right now you're not building any buildings on here. Using all existing buildings. You're putting up some fences and stuff like that so I would say at this point let's go with a compromise because as things go, concrete curb and gutter is $4.0g a foot or something like that. $2.g0 a foot? $5.g0 a foot? You look at the feet involved in here for the type of operation he's going to build over there down the road on Galpin. But asphalt curb and gutter, what would you say that is a foot? Gary Warren: $2. gg-$2.5g. Councilman Johnson: So it's half the price. I guess it wouldn't be asphalt gutter, just asphalt curb. Councilman Boyt: Wouldn't it be better to put this money in some kind of an escrow account and not build any curbing rather than build $2.50 curbing that isn't what our standard requires and is going to get torn out? Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question before we continue with discussion. If this is a variance, of ~nich we've all indicated, should this not go back to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments? 12 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Roger Knutson: If it's a variance from the standards of your ordinance, yes. Councilman Boyt: It doesn't have to though. Councilman Johnson: As a condition of the conditional use permit is it also a variance? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Johnson: We can give a condition as part of a conditional use permit that in effect grants a variance. If we say no curb and gutter is a condition of the conditional use permit and our ordinance says you have to have curb and gutter, then what we've done is grant a variance without going through the variance procedure. Is that legal? You're on the hot seat tonight. That's 2 in a row for you. Roger Knutson: The short answer is under your established procedures, no. Could you accomplish that with changed procedures, yes. Councilman Johnson: Not tonight? Roger Knutson: Not tonight. Mayor Chmiel: So it would have to go back to the Board of Adjust~ents and Appeals. Councilman Workman: How much curb are we looking at here? Ail the way up the drive? Gary Warren: Throughout the internal parking area. Councilman Workman: Ail the way up to the outside storage and everywhere else? Councilman Johnson: We're not doing it on the driveway? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I thought you said just the internal parking area. Councilman Workman: Is this lot, is future development going to sit kind of by itself? There's not going to be a thru road here? I mean this is going to be his personal driveway in future development? Gary Warren: That's a hard question to answer. I think it's up to the developer I guess how he w~uld deal with it but the parcel, the way the lines show I guess on a half section map, show that the Lake Drive extension would come close to the southerly limits of this parcel. I think it's a ways yet south and I know Opus probably would be interested, if they're ready to go ahead with their plans and probably just getting rid of this exception and being able to deal with this whole parcel from Audubon Road east of CR 17 as one big chunk. Councilman Workman: Who owns this parcel? You don't own this parcel? 13 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Dave Stockdale: I'm in the process of buying it. I've got a purchase agreement on it. CounciLman Boyt: Isn't this Jim McMahon ~no owns this property? Councilman Workman: This is that little farm that I've been driving by for about 25 years isn't it? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Workman: Right before the old bridge. I don't know, maybe we're going back, maybe I don't need to blow any smoke here but I'm not in favor of the asphalt curb at all. What exactly are we going to be doing out there? Dave Stockdale: I'm a landscape contractor. We specialize in landscape construction. Retaining walls. Hard goods like that. We store our equii~ent and some materials on site. My foremen come and pick up the trucks and go out in the field... CounciLman Workman: Cold storage isn't refrigeration? Dave Stockdale: No, outside storage. There's an area on the southeast corner ...buildings on the north and the farmhouse on the west. Additional screening will be provided in that southeast corner of the building area for storing my trucks and what not. My foreman would drive there and park their personal vehicles and like I said drive out into the field. Councilman Workman: Doing what you're doing now from your home? Dave Stockdate: No, right now I've got very cramped space in south Minneapolis. Last fall I applied and was granted a conditional use permit to develop some residential property on Galpin Blvd. adjacent to my personal residence. I haven't built on that yet. Councilman Workman: Are you moving all that from there to here? Dave Stockdale: I'm moving somewhere. I'm moving from Minneapolis either to the property adjacent to my house or to Audubon Road. Councilman Workman: So you haven't moved to Galpin yet? Dave Stockdale: No. There's a fair amount of construction involved in that. My preference to put it in an area zoned appropriate for the use. I get some hJ. gher funding costs on the property probably because of the zoning. I already own free and clear the other land so there's the balance. Councilwoman Dimler: If there's no further questions, do you have more questions Tom? Councilman Workman: No. Councilwoman Dimler: In order to move this along, we have a motion on the floor that's been seconded. I would recommend or suggest that we defeat that one and then go through another motion to send this to the Board of Adjustments and 14 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 91 Appeals. Mayor Chmiel: Or would you just assume withdraw your motion? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: And would you withdraw your second? Councilman Boyt: I'm trying to remember what the motion was. I didn't remember one being there. Councilman Johnson: We don't have a motion and a second on this one. That was on the last issue. There's no motion on this one yet. Mayor Chmiel: Yes there was. There was a second. Tom had the first one. He seconded Bill's and then that was withdrawn and then he made the motion again. You seconded that. Councilman Johnson: We passed that one. That was the last time. Councilman Workman: That was Chanhassen Hills. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't matter. I'll withdraw my second. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Do I hear a motion on the floor? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say one more thing on discussion here. The removal of this as a horse ranch. No horses will be kept here anymore right? Dave Stockdale: No. Councilman Johnson: Because that should be a condition here too. This also removes one source of pollution to the Riley chain of lakes which is an addi tional advantage of bring this in here. Those horses are going to move to the next town over, victoria and Victoria will have them fertilizing. So I think this is an improvement in that respect. The City is gaining something by Jim moving his horses and the City's gaining something by not constructing out on Galpin. I really still think that he deserves not to, I'd like to say concrete curb and gutter when Opus develops maybe... When Lake Drive East is put in or that type. Or when this is subdivided because this will probably get subdivided or another use eventually. When Lake Drive West comes in... Councilwoman Dimler: It's already in the ordinance isn't it? Councilman Johnson: No. See I don't have, in this case, isolated by itself but when further development occurs out there, it should meet the same criteria as the new development has to have. That may be 2 years, it may be 4 years but I think it's premature to do it right now because what we're talking about is a horse farm. And the horse farm is going to have the horses removed and a cleaner industry put in as long as he doesn't spill his fertilizer. Dave Stockdale: We don't handle those products. Mayor Chmiel: Let's move this one. 15 ~qfity Council Meeting - June 12' 1989 Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Workman seconded to refer the Conditional Use Permit request for a contractor's yard and screened outdoor storage for Dave Stockdale to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would request that they receive a copy of the relevant Minutes. E. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REED'S ORCHARD RIDGE, GARY REED. Councilman Poi/t: ~nen we discussed (e) and you might have seen it in your Minutes, there was a condition of development that would require an 8 foot wide trail over the existing road. I don't see_ that drawn in on the subdivision map and I think it needs to be, we need to put a condition into our approval of the preliminary plat that requires that that 8 foot wide pathway be included. Remember that Gary? Gary Reed: I remember that but that was part of HSZ development. Jo Ann Olsen: That's already been provided. Gary Reed: It's on their map which has already been approved I think. Councilman Boyt: Doesn't it come out the end of the cul-de-sac here? Have I got that turned around? Councilman Johnson: Where the cul-de-sac starts is 64th Street. It runs up that property line. Councihnan Boyt: And that's all on their property Gary? Gary Reed: Being that we vacated the street, it would probably go back, probably include it on both properties. Councilman Johnson: I think we should check to see if it was a condition of the vacation. If it was a condition of the vacation, then that should be on both properties. Part of the property you gain and the part of the property they gain. If it was a condition of the HSZ site approval, then they're totally responsible for it. But it was a condition of one or the other. We vacated the property and we approved it and I don't remember which ih was a condition of. Councilman Boyt: That was my only concern was I just wanted to be sure that we had that trail on whichever land plat it needed to be on. Gary Reed: I know it's still on Roger's. Jo Ann Olsen: I checked with Lori too. We already have it. Councilman Boyt: Okay, very good. I would move approval of item l(e). Councilman Johnson: Are you going to put a mention of the trail, a condition that the trail should be looked into to insure that it doesn't have to be on this property? 16 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Jo Ann just assured me that we already had it~ Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Reed's Orchard Ridge as presented. All voted in favor and the motion cart led. F. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING PRIVATE GARAGE, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. Councilman Boyt: We get back to curb and gutter again and a couple other issues. First thing, I would recommend that we reinstall the condition 1 that the Planning Commission removed. Condition 1 as presented to the Planning Co~mission was that the garage will only be used for storage and there shall not be any maintenance or repair of automobiles within the new facility. My reason for reinstituting that is because these plans were not reviewed with a service establishment in mind. They do not have the protections that we'd have if we were talking about an establishment that was going to be servicing. Protections for the environment and any number of other things that we'd be concerned about. I'd like to see that one reinstalled. Then I'd like to see a condition added that, they're talking about removing 6 to 7 mature hardwoods. In the past when we have removed hardwoods in the 10-12 inch range, we've asked for those to be replaced on a comparable caliper inch trees, 4 inches or greater in caliper so if they cut down a 12 inch tree, they'd be responsible for replanting 3-4 inch caliper trees. That works two ways. One, it keeps us with a substantial forest and the other thing is it makes it an economic question for the developer as to whether they' 11 remove those trees. Then on the curb and gutter, the curb and gutter is required here. Should be required here. It was removed and I would rec~end that we put it back in. That follows a discussion with Gary so I think we need to do that. So I would have 3 conditions that I would recon~nending. One, no maintenance or repair of automobiles. Two, replacement of hardwoods with our normal caliper inch standard. Three, curb and gutter. We have historically used expansions of operations to upgrade those to zoning requirements and this is our chance to do that here. He talks about access issues, we may very well want him to be able to provide some curb cuts in that someplace so he can access it without having to roll over the curb like we would at the end of a block in the City. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to have Gary address condition 4 since he's to determine if they're necessary. Gary Warren: On the curbs? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Gary Warren: Well you're definitely in an urbanized area in this location with storm sewer throughout the subdivision and also the applicant is proposing to extend the storm sewer across his property as a part of this proposal here so that coupled witl~ the fact that it is required in the zoning ordinance for that was the reason why I recorm~ended that it still be provided. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. 17 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Mayor Ctlmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor~ CounciLman Boyt: Well we really don't have a motion but I'll make one. I so move, CounciLman Johnson: Is the developer or anybody here? Mayor Ckmiel: Did you second Jay? CounciLman Johnson: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: He's out of town. CounciLman Wor~nan: The Planning Comnission took out... Mayor Chniel: Condition number 1. Councilman Workman: ~nere's 2? Was 2 taken out? Councilman Boyt: It became 1. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but they changed it from the caliper inch. Counci]~nan Boyt: So I re-established that° Councilwoman Dimler: Could we have Steve E~mings address that since he's here? Mayor Chmiel: Steve, if you'd like to address that. Why you left out item 1. Steve ~9~mings: I don't specifically remember. I guess you'd have to refer to the Minutes because I don't really remember the discussion. I think it had to do with maybe Daryl's comments that it was being built for storage only and they're not asking for any facilities such as drains or anything like that. We told him at that time that if there were any changes of course he'd have to come back before us and then we'd...but I don't see any problem in approving it. It makes it very clear that what they say they're going to be doing... As far as the trees go, I recall there was some confusion about putting in a caliper inch basis so we just made an overall thing that there had to be something that w-as recommended by staff... Councilman Johnson: On curb and gutter here, this is a totally different situation. ~nen this moved in, this was kind of the first thing back there. All the streets weren't totally developed yet. They developed out the streets now. The next door neighbors are moving in. We have develo~e~ent moving in all around them. They should meet the same standards that the guy across the street is having to put in. When he comes in and asks for a change, that's when you bring him up to standard. Same way with an older business. When they first built, they didn't have to put in the fire sprinklers. They come in to add onto the building, the entire building must be fire sprinklered. The comparison here is when they first built, we didn't require them to put in the curb and gutter. They were out by themselves. Now they're asking for a change, they come up to standards. I'm a little concerned personally where it looks like we're taking a settling area and reducing it's size. I'm not sure what's going on here. Down 18 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 there where they're r~moving the pond~ Gary Warren: West end? Councilman Johnson: It's going from the east end to the west end. Was there an outlet to that? Gary Warren: There's a general swale area through there right now and as a part of the Park One project, the storm system was stubbed out eventually to receive this area. He is providing sedimentation basin on the northwest corner of that property. Councilman Johnson: So all of his water flow will be to that sedimentation basin? Gary Warren: Not all of it, no. It's split. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so some of that will go to that sedimentation basin and then there's an outlet going to the storm sewer system. Gary Warren: Right and then the City has a sedimentation basin within the internal parts of Park One. Councilman Johnson: Do we have in the design of the sedimentation basin, is the outlet got the gas, oil separator? Gary Warren: Now are you talking sanitary or storm sewer? Councilman Johnson: The storm sewer. Gary Warren: There' s no provisions for that. Councilman Johnson: Like we did at Superkmerica. Gary Warren: Right. No provisions for that because it was stated, and this relates maybe to Bill's comment here that there was no maintenance going to be done of vehicles. It's strictly storage use. Councilman Johnson: Storage of vehicles with gasoline in them. Gary Warren: Right, just like a garage. Councilman Johnson: Even as such, the potential is there that we're going to be spilling flammables as they fill a vehicle with a can or whatever they're going to do. You tell me there's no maintenance on there. Does Fortier's own all the vehicles that are going to be there? Gary Warren: It's Frank Beddor is the actual applicant. Councilman Johnson: Okay, does he own all these vehicles or is this a club? Gary Warren: I believe it' s in the Minutes, he' s in a club. I 'm not speaking completely on this but that's what they have told me. 19 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 CounciLman Johnson: Policing of this, that there will be no maintenance in there will be J~npossJ. ble. I don't care how many promises you're made right now, if that guy's got his Porsche or whatever parked in there and on Saturday afternoon he wants to go change the oil, he's not going to drive it home and change the oil. He's goJ. ng to go in the garage where he's got it stored, he's going to crawl under there and change the oil. Mayor Chmiel: If he owns a Porsche, he'll probably take it to the Standard. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but he owns it because he loves to tinker with it. I think we need to, any other place where ~ think there's a chance for spillage, other parking lots where there's going to be vehicles, I think we ought to do that. Councilman Boyt: What do you want to do? CounciLman Johnson: Add the separators for the flammables. The separators like we did with SuperAmerica up there at TH 7 and TH 41 on the outlet to the pond. Councilman Boyt: What are we talking moneywise? Gary Warren: $1,ggg.0g maybe more. Councilman Johnson: That's a pretty small pond. We're not talking a huge outlet here. 15 inch. Mayor Chmiel: But still. I guess I just don't feel that that would be a necessary kind of it~n to have attached to it. I think by having that particular condition and of course if anyone ever done have that, then I think it's time for us to take action and have something done. Councilman Johnson: Will these garages have floor drains or anything in them or just flat slabs? Jo Ann Olsen: The first garage does have a floor drain. The second garage will not. Gary Warren: Slab on grade. CounciLman Johnson: Because they do maintenance in the first garage. Lifts and everything. Do they plan to rent storage tanks in that first garage? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know if they do. Councilman Johnson: For their oil. I know they have a gas p~mp. They dispense gasoline on site but we don't want to put a flarrmable trap in. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on tine floor with a second. With the addition of the 3 additional itams as Bill has J. ndicated. CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan #89-3 for the construction of a 2,920 sq. ft. garage facility as shown on Site Plan dated June 8, 1989 with the following conditions: 20 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 1. Additional landscaping shall be provided on a caliper per caliper basis to replace the hardwood trees that will be removed as part of the garage and storm sewer construction. 2. The applicant shall receive a replat of the site to combine Lots 1 and 2, Park One. 3. There shall be no outside storage other than one transport flatbed which shall be stored between the two garages. 4. Site plan approval for proposed garage 91 only - any additional buildings will need future approvals. 5. Developer to supply hydraulic calculations for review. 6. Preservation of the hardwood trees along the west and north lot lines. 7. Ail parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter only if now or in the future the City Engineer determines that they are necessary. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City ~ngineer a drainage and erosion control plan prior to final approval. 9. The garage will only be used for storage and there shall not be any maintenance or repair of automobiles within the new facility. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Johnson ~o opposed and the motion carried by a of 4 to 1. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: Bob Robb: My name is Bob Robb and I am a resident of 1261 Lake Susan Hills Drive. I guess I would propose both some questions and a statement in my speech. My topic concerns the sidewalk changes in the Joe Miller development. I guess to go back a ways, I signed a purchase agreement back in October of 1988 being told where the sidewalk was to run which was to be on the north side of Lake Susan Hills Drive. We had picked out a lot on that north side, discovered the sidewalk was going to be there. Did not want to be on the side where there was a sidewalk present so we moved to the opposite side of the street costing us another $2,000.00 for the lot but that was something we would live with. Just this last week I found that the sidewalk had been moved to our side of the street. Not only did I find that there was a sidewalk going to be placed there but I found that the sidewalk was 6 feet wide. Needless to say, we were very upset because when we were informed, when we signed the purchase agreement, the sidewalk was on the opposite side of the street and so on and I assumed that when Joe Miller did all of his homework and everything was all okayed by the City and so on and so forth, that that was the way it was going to be. I've had I guess mixed stories from the city people that I've talked to. They blame Joe Miller. Joe Miller, I talked to him personally and he said oh no, it's not my fault. The City explained to me, they told me that the reason the sidewalk had to be moved to the south side was because of the development on the east side of 21 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 CR 17 and this was because the hydrants and electrical boxes or whatever were not placed in a manner that there could be roan to place this 6 foot sidewalk. They told me that this was Joe Miller's responsibility. I said okay, I'll talk to Joe Miller. I called him and he said wait a minute. He said you mean to tell me that I can decide where to place the hydrants and where to place this and that and I said, well I'm only going by what the City had told me Joe. He said well that's incorrect. So I guess What I'm saying is, if these hydrants and electrical boxes were all pre-approved, somebody screwed up. We as the people on the south side of the street, and I'm not the only one, on the west side of CR 17 there are only 3 houses on the west side of CR 17 currently on that south side of that street 2 of which are occupied. One of which will be occupied this month. He did the same thing as I did. He moved to the south side. Paid the extra money for the lot because he did not wany any part of the sidewalk. Like I said, to elaborate further, that 6 foot sidewalk in my mind is a racetrack. I've looked all over the city of Cnanhassen, I have not yet found another 6 foot sidewalk other than maybe a bike path or something of this nature. The way I've got it figured, I'm losing and I know somebody's going to jump on me as soon as I say it but I'm losing 98g square feet of my lot to begin with and yes, I realize that the first 13 feet are city property but who mows that? Who waters it and so on and so forth? I do. I was also informed that the sidewalk, not only would it be 6 feet wide, but there is another 6 foot gap between the curb to where that sidewalk starts. So it could be up to, I could lose up to roughly 2,gg0 square feet of my yard. I was told by the city that the reason for this 6 foot sidewalk was for equipment purposes so that I'm assuming a front end snow plow on a pick-up or something can come in. I've been involved in something like this before and I could probably count on my left hand the amount of times that I've seen a vehicle come in and plow that. It ends up being done by the people who live along that sidewalk and I'll be darn if I'm going to shovel a 6 feet wide of sidewalk on 164 foot frontage of my lot. If that's the case, I can send a bill or whatever. The other thing is, I plan on putting in a sprinkler system. Now I went back to the people after finding this out, it's going to cost me a considerable amount of ~noney in addition to set this sprinkler system in because I have to dig 4 trenches underneath a 6 foot sidewalk to get sprinkler heads out. This is all, like I say, I'm basing this all on signing my purchase agreement knowing that there was not a sidewalk going to be in. In fact, my neighbor across the street who closed Memorial weekend signed an amendment or an addendum or whatever you want to call it knowing, stating that he knew a sidewalk was going to be coming in. Not only are the people on my side of the street upset because they are getting a sidewalk that they hadn't planned on, there are also people on the other side of the street that wanted the sidewalk. Have children, so On and so forth, that wanted the sidewalk that are now not going to have one. Am I right in this 6 foot sidewalk? Councilman Johnson: We'll have to look into this. Councilman Boyt: We just got a letter in the Admin pack that said it had been changed from 5 to 6 feet and I had similar questions to some of the ones you raised. Bob Robb: Yes, that's ridiculous. 6 feet sidewalks to begin with. Now I can see it, in fact I think there's one right out here is the asphalt for a bike path and so on but 'this isn't going to be a bike path. 22 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: It leads to a park but it's not going to be necessarily a bike path. Councilman Boyt: It's designed to be a residential sidewalk. It wasn't designed to be like what we have on Kerber Blvd.. Bob Robb: And if that is the situation, that is the reason why the sidewalk was moved from one side of the road to the other, that's not my fault that somebody screwed up in the planning of the hydrants and of the electrical boxes or whatever but I was also informed that since it had to be changed to the south side, and we've got a lot of directions here but to the south side of Lake Susan Hills Drive. On the east side of CR 17 it had to be, what's the word I'm looking for, it also had to be on the south side on the opposite side of the road because they pose it as a safety hazard for crossing two roads. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask some questions? Bob Robb: Go ahead. Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe Gary can address this first. Gary Warren: I know that between Alan Larson of my staff and Lori, there's been discussions and discussion with Joe Miller as far as location of the sidewalk. All the details, I've only had some preliminary discussions with him as far as if they had some conflicts out there with the utilities that were already in, hydrants, etc. and I didn't know what the final resolution was. I didn't know that they had made a final decision on it in all honesty and I guess I'd like to take a look into it and see what the real situation is but I know the conflicts were one reason for considering the other routing. With the sidewalk, I think it just points up the need maybe that we need a sidewalk policy in general. Maintenance. Repairs in the future. We had challenges trying to get sidewalks in, especially in 50 foot right-of-way areas that we need to address. Maybe the whole right-of-way issue for the City here where streets ought to be 60 feet rural and urban instead of 50-60 because we do get more flexibility for locating these sidewalks and we do have a little more right-of-way to work with where we can get around hydrants. We've got the utility companies that the contractor provides for getting NSP or Minnesota Valley, cable TV, telephone. They put it in on the side, they all try to gang up on one side or the other. Basically that's coordinated through the developer. We try to keep them on one side so we've got flexibility to put trails on the other side but we don't like to get a concrete walk on top of all of the utilities either. Bob Robb: Well that may be the problem in our particular side because we already have the fire hydrants and the electrical boxes on the south side of Lake Susan Hills Drive and I've stepped it off many t~mes and there's a lot of people that are going to lose a lot of lot frontage for one thing but I don't know how that sidewalk, if it is indeed 6 feet, how you're going to arrange that because your hydrant maybe sitting here and your electrical box maybe 2 or ever 3 feet off of that. That was one of the things when I bought, I knew where the hydrants were going to be and all this and that and that was s~mething that I was going to live with versus being on the side with the sidewalk. Councilman Boyt: Can I suggest that we do bring this back and give staff a chance to look at it. I think you've raised several very good issues. 23 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Johnson: While Staff is looking at this, I'd like them to take into consideration that having a sidewalk on the south side of the street leading to a park to where when they get to the park they have to cross the street to get into the park is, in my opinion, how do I say this nicely? Well, idiotic. We put sidewalks for safety purposes. I don't want the kids crossing the street to get to the park. That's why we put it on the north side, or whatever side we put it on. Bob Robb: Can I ask where the park is? Is that the Lake Susan Park? CounciLman Boyt: No. Your development has, I think it's 4 or maybe 5 separate park areas. Bob Robb: Okay, now I know where the proposed park is, yes and that is on the north side. Councilman Johnson: On the north side? Bob Robb: Well Lake Susan kind of runs at a curve so it's actually going to be on the west side of the curve. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I thought you ~are on the other side of Lake Susan. Went down. Okay. Bob Robb: I'm on the west side of CR 17. Councilman Johnson: You're on the west side of CR 17. There's going to be park on the north and the south. I was thinking this sidewalk would lead to the south park but either way, if it's on the... Bob Robb: Where is the south park may I ask? Jo Ann Olsen: Way on the south. Councilman Johnson: apartments? Way, way south. So this is going to be the one up by the Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. CounciLman Johnson: So it would have to be on the north side to lead to those apartments. Mayor Chmiel: Let's do this. Can you review this? Gary Warren: I will leave direction tomorrow with the contractor that no sidewalk is to be installed until we bring it to the Council at our next meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Also, get back to Mr. Robb and let him know. Gary Warren: We will certainly talk to hLm as a part of the process. 24 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: One of the things though that's not debateable is whether or not we're having a sidewalk because that's part of the PUD agreement. So on one side or the other there's going to be a sidewalk in there. Councilman Workman: I guess this is part of a larger discussion that we've had as the new Council in that we've said, people, if it's a new development and we say there's going to be sidewalks in there, it's not going to be a problem. We're not going to have to decide and it's not going to be a problem versus older neighborhoods and here we are in pretty blatant... Bob Robb: I guess it didn't start out as a problem to me finding out ~nere the sidewalk was initially but after I had paid the additional money and so on and so forth to get away from that, finding out it was going to be moved, needless to say, I was upset. Councilman Workman: I think sidewalks are a high impact thing. Some people don't think they're hot versus they're functional, etc. but I find them to be very high impact and some people have a problem with them. And you said that people across the street want the thing. Bob Robb: Some do. Some don' t. Councilman Workman: ...but it just points out that sidewalks are, and we've had that debate and we're going to continue to rage on that it is a problem and this seems to be kind of a major. Bob Robb: I guess the thing is that everybody signed their purchase agreement, I think I was one of the first ones to sign a purchase agreement out there and I knew where the sidewalk was. Had I signed the purchase agreement moving onto the north side, I was knowing that there was going to be a sidewalk there so everybody knew where it was going to be initially. Now all of a sudden there's a change. Councilman Johnson: It shouldn't be moving. Mayor Chmiel: Right. What we'll do is get back to staff. Staff will also notify you and keep you informed. We appreciate the fact that you did come in. Are there any additional visitor presentations? Mark Senn: My name is Mark Senn, 174 West Lake Street, Excelsior. I wanted to come before you tonight just to run a quick idea or a concept by you. Some time ago now through the urging of a friend of Mr. Art Owens, we undertook some discussions with him in relationship to his property down by Pleasant View. After some discussions with Mr. Owens we then undertook some discussions with staff and basically what we're talking about doing down there would necessitate a grading permit which would need to come before the Council on the 26th of this month. But given the fact, I guess two things. One is the fact that we didn't want to really surprise anybody on the 26th or upset anybody. Secondly, given the fact that we'd have to undertake a fair amount of expense between now and the 26th to do this, we just wanted to come in and get a feeling from the Mayor and the Council as to the acceptability of what we're looking at doing. We have a project in the neighboring con~nunity of Shorewood which we undertook development on some time ago. In the process of that development, we ran into a 25 ~-~ity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 fair amount of soil on the site which contained some gasoline product. The soil itself, the real bad stuff has basically been treated and dealt with. There was some questionable soil that was basically stockpiled on the site and in fact has been stored and moved around on the site now for about the last year. What the MPCA is requesting, or suggesting that we do is take that soil and simply at this point spread it out about 4 to 6 inches in depth and in about 2 to 3 months it will simply aerate clean. Again, the only product in the soil is some gasoline product. I mean there's no toxics. There's no contaminants beyond that one way or the other. The reason we hooked up with Mr. Owens was in effect through a friend of his who contacted us. The reason he contacted us was I think Mr. Owens was in effect looking for somebody to come in and do his grading and all that sort of thing for him. So our discussions basically focused around, we would come in and do Mr. Owens' grading of the fill that's already on his site and then just basically spread this over the top of it at which point he would plant it at the end of the season ~nich would be very acceptable to the soil, like I say in about 2 to 3 months. The situation is that in discussion with things with staff, we'll need to prepare a grading and drainage plan for Mr. Owens property as well as a n~Woer of different permits and all that sort of thing. We have no problems with doing that and would be happy to undertake it on his behalf in relationship to that but again we really don't want to go through all that expense if somebody is going to be upset in effect with the concept. Instead of going ahead and doing it so I just thought I'd come in and talk to you about it tonight and see what kind of comments we got back and go from there. One thing I should mention is nothing will happen on this one way or another without the specific written authorization of the MPCA. In a sense that's been covered off with the discussions we've had with staff. Neither we nor staff want to proceed on anything unless it's basically totally approved. The MPCA has already met out on the site with our environmental consultants and all that at this point and they don't seem to perceive that there are any real problems with it. In effect like I say all it really needs is some type of a reasonably open area that the soil can basically be spread on. The attractiveness of this site is it's probably within about a mile of the site soils on that so it's very easy to move it that short distance and just spread it out. The process we go through would be to in effect move soil there, spread it out 4 to 6 inches deep after we grade the existing fill he has on his property. After that we'd come back, probably once or twice over this 2 to 3 month period and run an aerator in effect through the soil basically just to turn it. Basically almost instanteously as soon as the soil is in effect exposed to the air it purifies. .~V~yor Chmiel: I guess I have a couple questions. Where did this soil come from number one? N~ber two, how many cubic yards are we talking about? Mark Senn: The soil is coming from a site in Shorewood right off CR 19 and it's less than 5gg cubic yards so it really doesn't take much of an area to spread it out. Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the concentrations are? The types of gasolines, etc.? Mark Senn: Yes, that's all in our consultant's reports and the PCA reports. Honestly I'm not a technician but we basically have been assured by both the PCA and by the consultants that it's just basically gasoline product. In fact the gasoline product that was stored on the site was really before lead free 26 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 even existed so there's not even any lead concentrations or anything like that. Councilman Johnson: It's leaded then? Lead free doesn't have lead. It has some worse stuff in it. Gasoline is not, you say just gasoline. Gasoline is not toxic. I won't drink it. Mark Senn: The point is it's been on that site I guess for a long time. We just purchased the site within the last couple years but what I'm saying is in the test it shows that there are no concentrations of lead or metals or anything like that. In effect it's just the by product of what was liquid petroleum. Mayor Chmiel: Is this the FINA site that's located there? There was a previous gas station on CR 197 Mark Senn: Yes. It used to be the old Village P~mp site. Councilwc~an Dimler: I have a question on future development. Can you elaborate on what effects this will have for future development? Mark Senn: In relationship to Mr. Owens' property? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Mark Senn: None at all. I don't know what exactly Mr. Owens intentions are but what he's asked us to do in effect is to, like I say to grade out the fill that he has on the property there so it tapers from the outside perameters of his and his neighbors property basically toward the silt ponding area. In the process of grading that all out, we just take this stuff and spread it on top like I say about 4 to 6 inches thick. But like I say, within about 2 to 3 months it's just regular dirt. Again, as soon as gasoline is exposed to the air, it evaporates. Councilman Johnson: Actually the clay will retain the gasoline forever... Mark Senn: It's not clay material. It's just basically dirt material. Councilman Johnson: There is clay. Anyway, Art has preliminary plat. I don't think he has final yet on housing in this area. You also need permission from the Watershed District before you do this too. I have a feeling, won't he need a Watershed permit? Jo Ann Olsen: For the grading you're talking about? Councilman Johnson: Right. Jo Ann Olsen: I'm not sure they would have to. Mayor Chmiel: With that ~nall pond that he has there, I can rsmember sometime there were some cattails in an adjacent, how can he fill that without even getting a 401 permit from the Corps of Engineers? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know the history of that. Gary Warren: It's not protected water. 27 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: It's not on the protected wetland although Paul Burke has been by there recently and has said that it is a wetland. Mayor Chmiel: The wetland is my concern. Mark Senn: Don, maybe I could clarify that. We aren't filling the pond. In fact there will be specific barriers set up around the pond so we're not going to impact it at all. Mayor Chmie!: Some of that pond has already been filied in. Mark Senn: That I don't know. I'm just saying, when we_ met out there with staff and everything else, that was a concern and we are basically going to erect a barrier around the pond and go up to the barrier because from my understanding from Mr. Owens, he also did not want to impact the pond. Councilman Workman: There was a City problem there or something with some drain tile or some crushed drain tile. What is the reason we're filling? Gary Warren: We are not filling. Councilman Workman: But wasn't the City involved there somehow? Gary Warren: When the north service area, the way it's been explained to me, the north service area project, when the sewer and water project was constructed in that area, apparently that was basically a dry area. It was dry because of a drain tile, the way it's been alleged, that was ope_rating to drain that to the pond just near Lake Lucy Road and Powers Blvd.. Apparently the drain tile was broken such that it didn't flow. Shortly after I came in in 1987, I know that Jerry Schlenk a~d public works, we installed a pipe out there to basically drain, provide an outlet for that area so from the north service area construction tithe until the outlet was established, that's when it basically turned into a ~onding area and a wetland so to speak. There's a little back slope, the way Art explains it, in their outlet. Mayor Chmiel: That was always a wetland. You bet. In the years that I can remember. Councilman Boyt: The City is draining a wetland? Gary Warren: It's just an overflow. We're not draining it. Councilman Boyt: So there is a wetland there? Mayor Chniel: Yes, last year it was sort of dry because of the drought. Councilman Johnson: Did he get a wetland alteration permit as part of the preliminary plat because I know we discussed that wetland? Gary Warren: He had it included in his grading plan and the concept for development I think built around that and he had proposed doing a lot of fill down there as a part of that preliminary plat but as you' re aware, he never came in to final plat it because of his difficulties right now. 28 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Johnson: So the preliminary plat's gone? Gary Warren: Well the clock is ticking. I think it goes to July something isn't it Jo Ann? And based on what he's told me, I think he's going to let the preliminary plat expire. Councilman Boyt: Have you checked to see if the wetland has been altered? Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to find that out. Councilman Boyt: It has been altered? Well then we need to have a permit for alteration or we need to get it out of there. Gary Warren: He's on notice from us. The fill was not done with the proper permit either and we've been going around with him on that to get signed up and this actually became a vehicle wherein Mr. Senn was going to be pulling a permit so we could kind of get the site back under control. Art needs to do some grading from the material that's stockpiled there. There's some bituminous that needs to be removed and then he also needs some blackdirt top dressing which is what this ult]_mately would be for seeding and stabilizing the site. Councilman Boyt: Can we sort of recharge the wetland, clean that up as a part of this? Gary Warren: I'd be interested to know really how much if any w-as encroached out there. The tree water area I don't believe was encroached on. Councilman Boyt: Well but that's not the wetland. You know we're talking 75 feet out from that. Gary Warren: In that area, it probably has. Councilman Boyt: So there's tw~ things that when you bring this back, number one for me, you'd have to notify all the neighbors that you're going to do this and get response because if we're going to have gasoline evaporating, we're going to have people wondering where is the odor coming from. So we've got to do a good job of checking with them, notifying them that we're going to do this. The second one is, I'd sure like somebody to tell me what's going on with the wetland. Councilman Johnson: Require a wetland alteration permit before any of this is done. That's a public hearing. We're talking quite a ways. What are you looking at from us at this time? Mark Senn: My understanding was we needed to in effect just apply for the grading permit. To do that we needed to engineer in effect a grading and drainage plan which we would do. Apply for the permit and that would be on the Council's 26~ agenda. In a similar relationship to that, public notice would be given but in relationship to your other question, over there Bill is basically the MPCA has a very specific list of criteria in terms of distance from things and everything else so there aren't affects that are brought on by things like the odors or whatever and any site you go do this on has to meet 29 Council Meeting June 12, 1989 that specific list of criteria to get that approval in the first place. That's not to mean that there may not be some stray but what I'm saying is their criteria in effect minimizes all that as much as possible. Councilman Johnson: We have a wetland alteration permit system in this town which is a showcase wetland alteration permit throughout the State. One of the toughest in the state and a lot of ~neople compare us to them. Our permit rec~ires you to apply for that if you're going to spread this material and even Art what he's been doing in the past needs to come back and apply for it for this wetland. That's going to go through Planning Commission. The public hearings before Planning Commission before it's back to us. Minimum, what 2 months? Mark Senn: Councilman Johnson, if I could, I honestly can't tell you what the history on the site has been one way or the other in terms of wetland or not. We are not going to ~mpact the wetland. In fact we' re going to be taking some very specific measures not to impact it. That would be both part of our grading/drainage plan as well as the recommendations from our consultants. We've already talked about that. We have no desire to do that or get into it one way or the other. Again, I can't speak for the past as to what Mr. Owens has done one way or another. We're just dealing with an existing situation out there on ours. Mayor Chmiel: And this could cause you more delay time too as far as your soil is concerned. Mark Senn: Yes. We're just basically trying to undertake this now. The weather is right. In fact this is the time of the year you want to do it. It cleans up very quickly and very easily. Councilman Johnson: If you look at it, what I'm saying is, when you do your design, if you come within 75 foot of that wetlands with your modifications, we're not exactly sure where that wetlands is, in my recollection, the wetland is underneath where the fill is right now. Part of the wetland is there, then you need a wetland alteration permit for what you're doing. You've got to go to staff yet. You have to, we have nothing in front of us to say anything. Mark Senn: We've met out on site several times with Dave Hemphill, and I don't know, all I can tell you is that's never been an issue. Basically what we were dealing with... Councilman Johnson: Who's he? Gary Warren: He's our new senior tech. I think we need to get out there and take a look at it and evaluate it. Mark Senn: We want to p~rk with you on it. Gary Warren: It may require a lot. Mark Senn: If there's something that Mr. Owens has done directly, I guess I'm saying we can't undo that one way or another. What we're trying to do is just move in and take care of what he's already got. 30 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Workman: I received a call from Art Owens today. Talke to him about many different things and he is cooperative and whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. AWARD OF BIDS: MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2. Gary Warren: It's relatively straight forward I believe. The project was readvertised once the developer Mr. Carlson w~s able to get his financial house in order here. We opened bids on April 10th and received a low bid of $103,624.00 from B & D Underground of Mound, Minnesota. The bids were very competitive. We feel comfortable with B & D Underground. We're familiar with their work and we're therefore recommending approval contingent on filing of a final plat and that has been signed, as you're aware Mr. Mayor today so Mr. Carlson has indicated he' 11 probably be running that down tomorrow for recording. Mayor Chmiel: Right, that was one of the things that, my concern is that prior to the approval of the plat must be registered with the County. Any other discussion? Resolution #89-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the contract for the Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project No. 88-2 in the amount of $103,624.00 to B & D Underground, Inc. of Mound, Minnesota subject to the developer recording the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO ALLOW A "FATHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT" ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 8412 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., EUGENE KLEIN. Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments reviewed this prior to the Council meeting. They recommended approval with 2 conditions and I believe that they were going to add another? Councilwoman Dimler: I think we removed one of them so it really was only one and then Bill had suggested another one. Jo Ann Olsen: They added a condition that it not be used for rental property in the future and there was discussion that it be stated that it only be used for Mr. Klein's father, Walter Terzich. Specify in a condition that the father-in- law apartment will only by used by Walter Terzich so it could not be, when the property is sold, used as a rental property. Councilman Boyt: What we're doing is we're taking our option of making this a temporary variance in this particular situation. Councilman Johnson: This is the only legal situation to allow a temporary var lance? Mayor Chmiel: Right. 31 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Roger Knutson: T~nporary use of a single family home as a twin home[ Councilman Boyt: What condition did you drop off of there? Jo Ann Olsen: They kept staff's 2 conditions and then they had one that there would be_ no access from the garage except through the residence. Councilwoman Dimler: For safety concerns, yes. We felt we needed to have an exit other than the maJ. n entrance. Councilman Boyt: I would approval with the amendment to the conditions approved by the Board of Adjushnents and Appeals that the variance be temporary and the occupancy limit~d to the individual mentioned in this case. Mayor C?~niel: Prior to doing that, being this is a public hearing, is anyone else who would like to address this specific issue? Councilwoman Dimler: I also want to add the comment that I checked with the Murphy's who are their neighbors and they're in complete agreement and I think they'd like to see a family stay together as long as possible. A1 Klingelhutz: That's pretty much in my area and I don't see any problem with it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we accept the recon~nendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with the added condition that the variance be temporary and limited to the individual in question J.n this case. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Variance #89-4 to allow a father-in-law apartment above an attached two car garage located at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. subject to the following conditions: 1. The dwelling has an appearance of a single family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. 2. Separate utility services will not be established. 3. The variance wii1 be temporary and the occupancy limited to the individual mentioned in this case. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to just add that this particular city ordinance needs I think careful investigation because as it stands right now, it limits nothing. If you read it, it says all you have to do is demonstrate a disability, an age or a financial hardship. I would suggest to you that those 32 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 109 basically allow anybody to move in as a second occupant and that's not the intention of the ordinance. The intention is just what we did tonight. It's not to open up two unrelated families in the same household. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY. Leigh Colby: At the last meeting, just to recap the meeting, we're asking for a variance to have a deck, extension of the garage underneath and the bulk of the structure would be at the ground level. The portion that would not be at the ground level would be behind a green barrier. A bunch of evergreen trees. We're hoping to have this come to a vote tonight so that we can get approval to go ahead. I'd like to just make a few cor~nents about that so that you have some comfort level regarding how it fits in the neighborhood. First of all, the people in the neighborhood think it's a good idea. In walking up here tonight, I brought a tape measurer and just took a look at some of the houses along tt~e way. The closest our house comes, the proposed extension would come to the curb is about 30 feet. That's on the northwest corner. The southwest corner would be about 36 feet back from the curb itself. The whole thing would be behind an evergreen barrier that's about 15-16 feet in diameter. In walking up here I took a look at the closest neighbor's house is 31 feet along the whole length of his house from the curb. That's on the side and most of the proposed extension would actually be set back further than what his house is from the street. So the point I'm trying to make in all of this and looking at some of the other houses of which some were 27 feet from the curb. One was 29 feet and this is further up now in the busy part of Laredo, is that I don't think anybody really notices these sorts of things. I understand the reason for having the variance, to prevent abuse but quite frankly I really don't think anybody notices because they've all been tastefully done. I think in the absence of using a tape measurer, people would be hard pressed to know that they're that close to the curb. So I'd like to ask the Council to just bring this to a vote. I think it's certainly a reasonable request and the neighbors think a very tasetful request. Can you do that? Mayor C~miel: Thank you Leigh. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this at this time? If not, we'll bring it back here to the Council. Who has any comments that they'd like to bring forth? I'm sort of interested in you saying what the distances were on other homes. What specific ones were those that you had just... Leigh Colby: Sure, 7209 Frontier is the house that is parallel with our home. It's our backyard, I guess you'd call that our backyard even though it's probably the sideyard, and their backyard which literally is their backyard. The houses aren't parallel. Their house is 31 feet from the curb, the whole length and that's an upright. That's our of the ground. The proposed extension that we're dealing with is at ground level. That's 36 feet from the curb on the near side to 7209 Frontier so if you were to just stand up on the corner and look, it's obvious that the Groen's house is substantially closer to the street. It really is quite obvious. It's just an unusual layout the way the house... 7605 Laredo, which is just right down here is 27 feet from the curb. 521 Laredo Lane, which is where Laredo Lane and Laredo Drive intersect, that's 29 feet from Laredo Drive. The apartments right down here at Saratoga, the garage reaches back 32 feet from the curb. None of them have the green barrier. Not a single one of the addresses have any sort of a green barrier that we have and that's 33 Council Yeeting - June 12, 1989 part of our design for the privacy. So I think our request, even though you won't hear me make any claims of hardships or anything like that, we're not making those sorts of claims. We think it's a pretty straight forward request. A tasteful one that is consistent with the surrounding housing. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Leigh. CounciLman Johnson: I think when we look at this, some of the areas you discussed are in a PUD, residential planned unit development which was done well before any of us were on the Council and before some of us even lived, before the majority of the Council lived in this town. These PUD's were approved. A lot of times in these PUD's they did, one of the parts of the approval was to allow the houses closer to the setback. That may be part of it. The zoning ordinance has changed many times also. Several times since these were approved. I don't like variances. I don't like the precedence they set. No matter what you do, when everybody says mine is totally unique, somebody else comes in 6 months later and say's ~nine is the same. I'm at Carver Beach. I want to be 1 foot off the setback. The roads at Carver Beach only have a 30 foot wide roadway instead of a 50 foot wide roadway so there's no real setback or there's no city prope_rty. We end up with saying, well he got a variance of 19 feet, why can't I? They end up right on top of the road. If this does get passed tonight, there should be a condition in here that prohibits future building on top of this garage. Because once you've got that nice flat surface there, the next logical thing is to add that extra master bedroom on top. It may not be you, it might be the next person. You might be transferred to Denver next week for all I know, if you want to go breathe that air. We have to make sure, and I don't know how you would do that because a guy's going to come in and pull a building permit and all I'm doing is building on top of my garage. More than likely staff wouldn't catch that building. Since the garage is already there, it must be legal to build on top of it 5 years, 10 years down the road. Now you've got a house built there. Leigh Colby: One of the questions that was kicked around by one of the council members was considering they have somehow resolved is a sidewalk. If that were done, the variance would be 1 foot on one corner and then the length of that variance would be for about 5 feet and then literally it is within the side lot conditions. It's really what we're dealing with here. I don't have any plans to build on top but I don't want to make it any bigger deal than what I think it is. In effect we're asking for a side lot variance with a 1 foot extension out into what would be considered city property and to run approximately 5 feet. I would rather see you put a condition that there's a green barrier maintained of 15 to 20 feet or higher. To me if you would have taken the time to go down and look at it, maybe you have. Councilman Johnson: Of course we have. Leigh Colby: Okay. I'm glad you have. I think you would see that that is probably a more effective way to deal with it aesthetically and very consistent with the neighborhood. That's part of our plan so if that were a condition, we would certainly welcome that. But if you want to deal with the problem, that really is, I think a much more aesthetic limitation to put on that piece of property. 34 City Council Meeting -June 121 1989 Councilman Johnson: If you declare this a sideyard, then you'd make it 19 foot wide and then you don't have any variance and you're not even talking to us. Leigh Colby: The reason why we want to make it the width that we have, and that's perhaps a nice political solution but the practicality is that we've got a 16 foot wide door that's going on to match the 16 foot wide garage door we already have but the reason for the width is that our current 16 foot wide door, it widens up a foot on each side and it is a small garage. Garages are just not generally built that size. They're usually just a couple feet wider. It's too small and that's the reason why the garage is built the way we proposed it. It might, what you're saying is perhaps a good political solution but the last thing I want to do is to avoid, just to avoid having one corner trigger a problem, is to end up with another garage that's just simple too small. I'm not going to spend that much money and end up with a poor solution. Especially one that really, it would have to be characterized as a diminimous issue and I really think that you're forced to accept that there's so~e validity in my statement on that. Councilman Johnson: For 2 1/2 years I've stood pretty firm on variances. I'm going to stay where I've always been. You're going to have to show me a hardship other than I want it. Leigh Colby: Well I'm not claiming any hardships. I'm not going to play any games on that. Councilman Johnson: I'll pass onto the next. Mayor Chmiel: Tom? Councilman Workman: I'm still listening Fir. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Bill? Councilman Boyt: You know it's never easy and no one ever chooses to get into a dispute with a neighbor. I think we see that from time to time with petition signing and such that most people don't feel it's worth the repercussions. I think the staff has cleared up the question about the covenants, plus that's not the City's issue anyway. Leigh Colby: We've already gone around to more than a majority of the homeowners so that's not an issue. Councilman Boyt: The Covenants and the h~meowners is a whole separate issue and I think we both agree that that's a separate issue. As far as the City issue, it's an interesting situation here in a lot of ways and one of them is, I know you're a reasonable person making a reasonable request. I agree with Jay and I appreciate your openness. I agree with you, it's not a hardship. I'm glad you see it that way. That happens to be one of the criteria. I can tell you that that's the way I vote is in regard to how it fits those criteria. So I recognize that this doesn't necessarily make the best solution but in my approach to variances, granting a variance without meeting the criteria and one that is as dramatic in terms of encroachment on the setback as this is, is just not something that I can vote for. 35 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I haven't really changed my position from the last time. I stated in there that I've always thought of that as their sideyard and I know legally it's your frontyard because it's on the road side but it is the side of your house. You do have an odd situation there and I think that is something that we need to look at and I like to look at each situation for itself. I don't mean to set a precedent here and I won't because I will look at each situation in the future and have it pass or fail on it's own merits. But I think in this situation since it is on Laredo, which ends in a circle. It runs into a lake. There is nothing that I can foresee that the City would ever want to do that they couldn't do. Leigh Colby: There's even room for a 12 foot sidewalk. Councilwoman Dimler: There's room for a sidewalk there. The barrier of the trees, it is not unsightly. I do agree with the condition that there should be no, I guess one of the things I could see him doing is putting a 3 season porch on top of the d~k. I guess we should prohibit that right now. In the future there should be no construction on top of the deck or on top of the garage. But I have no problems because of the specifics that I just mentioned, I have no problem, s with voting for this. Leigh Colby: Would this be recast...in the future? Councilman Boyt: You can't do that? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the things I wanted to ask you, I was talking to Judy today a,~ she indicated that the home in itself doesn't meet the requirements. Is that correct? Leigh Colby: No, that was on the curious things that came out as you are probably aware. Bill you've indicated that you were aware of the letter that the original contractor sent and the frontyard setback on the restricted covenants that the contractor himself signed said 40 feet and it was 35 feet as constructed. If they had simply built it right, we would be set back 35 feet. It's just insane and in his own handwriting sent us the letter saying that, alerting us to the restricted covenant which we already knew about and he included a plat and a survey. In his own handwriting penciled J.n 35 feet and the restricted covenant, it's obvious, said 40 feet. I mean we were really confused by that. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that he changed his own convenant? Leigh Colby: Well I asked him about it and he, there was a lot of back peddling as~J as you can imagine, the restricted covenants is 33 years old. He chalked it up as a mistake in locating the house so ~nat can I say. Councilwoman Dimler: So would that be considered a hardship then? Leigh Colby: No, we're not going, we just think it's a very straight forward request. Gee, you'd like we were asking to build on a museleum for a new religion or something like that. Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I'll repeat that in this particular case I have no problem. 36 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 -113 Councilman Workman: I did finally get to get out there and it ~as a beautiful day. Leigh Colby: And the bicycle you ran over has been... Councilman Workman: We're still negotiating. There was nobody on that bike. Councilman Johnson: You've got the guilt vote going now. Leigh Colby: Well Jay don't laugh too hard. We recused your kid on Saturday. Councilman Johnson: My kid on Saturday? Leigh Colby: You were at the Cub Scouts. I think we're up to 4 votes now. If you want to bring it to a vote... Councilman Johnson: We had a little Cub Scout sitting in the back crying saying where's my daddy. Left him out in the wilderness. CounciLman Workman: Anyway, that little bike instance was not supposed to come out. I think you lost my vote. I approached said site and proceeded to pull into the driveway. Got out of the car and asked, is this the front of your house or the back of your house? It was in fact the back of your house. You have two driveways. Leigh Colby: Were you in the upper or the lower? I still don't know where you were. Councilman Workman: I was in the upper. The one where your mailbox is. Leigh Colby: It looks like the side of our house. Councilman Workman: Yes, that's the back. Not to say that that's in particular one goofy aspect of your situation there. I think Judy was delighted to hear me say that when I pulled up and this is kind of different. In looking at it, I guess I understand the fact that there maybe isn't a hardship here. I had a good conversation with the Mayor today on the phone about it and talked to Roger, the Attorney here a little bit and had a good conversation. To tell you the truth, I really jumped around with this. Bill has some good points and so does Jay in regards to granting variances and perhaps not setting precedence because as Ursula says, each one is different and it's tough to set a precedence with different situations. But I have been trying to figure out a way in my own mind and perhaps some justification or maybe not. Maybe I shouldn't be worrying about it so much. That's usually the approach I take. On an earlier issue tonight with a gentleman putting in curb and gutter, I say let the guy do business. Let's make it easy for the guy to do business and let's make it easy for people to live in town. But not too easy. Not too flagrant. One of the things I did look at was where are we going to remove earth and how far is it going to come out and how high is it going to be sticking out of the ground, etc.? The foundation I'm assuming is level with the foundation that you have now? 37 !14 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Leigh Colby: That's correct. There will be about a 9 inch step up. One step to get onto the deck frc~n the upper level. Councilman Workman: That in itself to me looked like it was a very low impact thing. Should this pass this evening, I would strongly suggest that no building on top of the garage shall be done and perhaps that would have to be an additional variance. How high is the railing going to be or what kind of a railing are you going to have on top of that? Leigh Colby: It will be whatever a standard height railing is. We've let this out for bid with several contractors. Whatever the standard height is. I really don't know and I've built a deck before so I should be able to answer that but I would assume it's anywhere from 42 to 48 inches. Councilman Workman: What is the surface of the decking going to be? Leigh Colby: Redwood. Councilman Workman: So it's just going to be a roof of the garage? Leigh Colby: Well eventually there will be a deck over the garage and then underneath it there will be rubber, it's a solid rubber sheet that the entire thing is custom fit. Apparently everybody is running away frc~n tar because it cracks. We've been advised to go with a rubberized roof. Councilman Workman: So you mean on top of the new garage won't be like pre- stressed concrete or anything set on top of there? It will be the foundation and then on top of that will be this rubber? Leigh Colby: No. You've got to have the beams. That will all be to Code. Normally there's half inch plywood laid over the plyons or whatever the cross metal deck and I've asked to have that upgraded a full quarter to a half inch so it's 3/4 to an inch lamenated plywood. Councilman Workman: Is thJ. s new base going to be able to, is it going to have the proper footings that would allow future building on top of it? Leigh Colby: It will be_ matching the foundations of the house. Part of the goal is to make it look like it was originally built with the house and that means we're matching block and we will have to go down, regardless we will have to go down below the frost line so the front 10 to 15 feet will be down what, 48 inches? Is that what the Code is? Then as it goes back into the hill, that can be brought out. Then it will be blended into the_ foundation as it goes around and joins the house. It will be matching and our goal is to make it look, if you remember the plans, those plans were drawn up 10-12 years ago and our goal is simple to execute those plans so it looks like it was part of the house. Councilman Workman: Would you be removing the upper driveway? Leigh Colby: No. Actually we would probably have no reason for it. We've talked about whether or not we'd want to keep it. It's starting to break up. I would be willing to bet you that once it breaks up badly, we would probably remove it and sod it. That's our back kitchen. Practically speaking, where you parked is our backyard. 38 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 115 Councilman Workman: I'd be interested in removing a future parking lot for more boats and trucks. That's the situation we have now and that's the one that the neighbors don't prefer. Leigh Colby: Either does my wife. Councilman Workman: Maybe we can make somebody remove a driveway, I don't know, as a condition of approval. You've got two driveways there. You're covering an awful lot of your yard with driveways and garage. Leigh Colby: I really think the issue is whether or not you want to have an extension there. That's the principle issue. Councilman Workman: Right. I don't see the boat and the truck storage outside as being a hardship reason. Boats and trucks come... Leigh Colby: We're not claiming any hardship. Councilman Workman: I do agree that you have an odd piece of lot. I don't know that neighborhood approval is or is not a reason to grant variances. It is a very private road. Your neighbors don't seem to have a problem with it. And maybe I can direct this to Jay and Bill, other than the additional structure would be violating an ~aginary line, what would the harm be? Councilman Johnson: The harm is not as much a harm to the City or to the area as it is a continuous of us violating our own rules of procedure. State laws that form those rules of procedures. We've got a map in our Comprehensive Plan that shows the various lots that have variances on them. It's a very colorful map. Many, many variances have been granted over the years. They used to be a dime a dozen. We've been getting stricter on them and that's one of the things, if you establish a reputation for not following your own rules, it slowly gets worse and worse and worse. It's a trend I've been trying to reverse for 2 years. I've been on the losing side on a lot of variance things. It doesn't bother me that I'm on a losing side of a variance anymore. I've lost a lot of them in the last 2 years. Councilman Workman: Okay, getting out of the Code book. What is this going to do in this situation to harm anything? In this situation? That's why we have the BOA. Councilman Johnson: BOA? Councilman Workman Board of Adjustments. Councilman Boyt: Why is that? Councilman Workman: Why we have the Board of Adjustments? Councilman Boyt: You said that's why we have them. Why do we have them? Councilman Workman: Because of variance situations. That's why the State also has said we can have them. So taking Ursula's view, and this is this situation, what will this harm? 39 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Everybody, including Mr. Stockdale who was up here previously, has invariably said, he did it. I deserve to get it done too. The next situation can be totally different. They've been 10g% the opposite and they continue with the same argument. Actually I don't see much harm here unless they put a room or a 3 season porch up on top later. If it's going to be a flat deck, it's going to be a flat deck. We can put whatever condition we want but 1~ years from now somebody's going to put up something on top of there and the changes of our building inspector realizing that there's a restriction is slim to none. There's just not the data management system established at this ti_me to record those. We've tried a lot of covenants and restrictions and everything else and they just don't work. You see a couple years down the road, oh my we built this and there was a restriction we weren't allowed to build it. Once it's built, you don't tell than to tear it down. Leigh Colby: I really urge you to be careful about putting restrictions in covenants. Councilman Johnson: This would be a bit more than a covenant. Leigh Colby: Yes, but I think we're a little bit more conscientious than most people and the fact of the matter is, when we were handed our homeowner's documents, %~ were given a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the covenants. We could barely read it and I think we're more conscientious than most people. Either you have to find that our request is consistent with the neighborhood, which I think you all have to agree... And if it's consistent, I think that is really your ntm~ber one criteria for putting it to a vote. Councilman Johnson: Well you know there's a lot of criteria on traffic laws. It's a State law. We have criteria to meet. If you do all 5 of those, you get the variance. Basically, if you meet all 5 criteria, the State law, we have no choice hardly other than to give you the variance. But if you don't meet any of those, the State laws, basically you don't get the variance. We've tried to say can we bring reasonableness into this. Is reasonableness allowed by State law to be brought into this criteria of zoning and they said no. We've tried to get our attorneys to rewrite our zoning ordinance and they said well it doesn't really matter. It's illegal to rewrite your zoning ordinance to allow reasonableness as a criteria. Criteria number 6. If it's reasonable to ignore criteria 1 through 5, do it. That has been the past practice many years ago. They just overlooked some criterias and added others. Leigh Colby: Welt I come from a keep it simple school of doing business. A couple of the neighbors independently of each othere just said why are you wasting your time with the City Council and I really want to be complying. I really think that you should just put it to a vote as we've requested it. Don't make it complicated. Don't put restrictions on it that are going to cause people to fight over it 15 years after we leave. I don't think any good will be served by that. Councilman Johnson: So you don't think we should put a restriction on it to restrict any future upward building? Leigh Colby: That quite frankly doesn't bother me but in keeping it simple, I think that it would be a waste of time. 4~ City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a comment. I agree with Jay in that there might be a mistake made in the future but I think as far as this Council is concerned, we can only do what we can do right now and we can put a restriction on it. Maybe they won't make a mistake in the future, who knows but as far as I'm concerned, I think we should put a restriction on it. Councilman Boyt: Well, I can make it simple. I'd like to ask our Attorney for an opinion. In your opinion, can the Council follow State Statute and grant this variance? Roger Knutson: It's well documented by the applicant and everyone else that there is no qualified hardship. The answer is obviously no. The applicant has admitted that. Councilman Workman: I guess I would add. I am concerned about the future building on top of this. I don't know if that would be defended. Mayor Chmiel: I also feel the same on that only because of the fact that that could change the appearance of that structure and not be aesthetically pleasing to the balance of the neighbors either. What's pleasing to one may not be pleasing to the other. I look at that pie shaped lot as you do have it, even though that's your sideyard or your frontyard, to me it's still the sideyard. Only because of the upper drive that does come into your residence, to me that is the front of the house although it's still not facing onto a street. There's a front of a house and the back of a house and the side of the house which abuts the road. If it were a cross street, this could cause a probl~ too but in this particular case, as I mentioned, it's on a cul-de-sac. It is an unusual circumstance. I understand that you do want to make the request and get going with this and vote it or don't vote. But I have a real hard, I've been leaning both ways believe it or not. I'll be very honest and as I was hoping that you would come in with a hardship portion that could really turn this around. Being that there still is not that hardship, that's the part the bothers me. Leigh Colby: What do you declare a hardship? We are tight on storage space. I have a table saw that I keep at my friend's house because I literally have no place in the house to put it but I would not classify that as a hardship. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to just clarify those hardships as it indicates within the ordinance? Roger Knutson: Qualifying hardship is something that because of zoning ordinance restrictions prevents reasonable use of the property. Something that is not just generated for example by the present owner's personal needs. Leigh Colby: Would you define the word reasonable use because we would like to make reasonable use of a portion of our property that quite frankly we can't use that part of the property. It's so sloped, it's unuseable. Roger Knutson: In 5mplying that term, the Courts don't look to each square inch of the property. They look to the lot as a whole. There happens to be a home on your lot. You have a two car garage on your home. That's as much garage as most folks have so I think by traditional looking at this, you have reasonable use of your property. Denial of the variance therefore does not deprive you of reasonable use of your property since you already have that. 41 City Council Meeting -June 12, 1989 Councilman Johnson: There's another restriction showing the hardship is that the hardship cannot be self-created. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I guess w~at I said in jest earlier maybe now taken more seriously that because of the original mistake made by the builder and the developer, that this is not a self-imposed hardship. It is indeed a hardship be~ause it now prevents tha~ from enjoying their yard and had it been done right, according to covenants, they wouldn't have this problem. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond to that in terms of when the covenant was put on, which the City isn't responsible for enforcing, there was no city ordinance in place so no one violated a city ordinance and if a covenant is violated, it's up to the homeowners to deal with that. Not the City as we've seen other t~mes. They are talking about a 5 foot exception to a covenant that was far in excess, since the City didn't have anything, and now they're asking for 21 feet. I think Roger stated, I don't want to get into an argument on this thing. I don't think that's the point. My standpoint, my decision is based on what Roger has said. I take it very seriously when you stand up and take an oath of office that says I'll enforce the State Statutes and the City Ordinances. I don't see that we have any option, in spite of what may make con]non sense. I just don't see an option myself. Mayor Chniel: The covenants actually ran out July 1 of 1987. Councilman Boyt: They were renewed. Leigh Colby: And there after...by a simple majority of the homeowners and we're addressing that. Mayor Chmiel: You're in the process of addressing that. Leigh Colby: We've already got approval by about 6g% of the homeowners and we're going to just continue going around and get the rest. CounciLman Boyt: Leigh, you can't do that and modify the covenants. You have to have a meeting. Leigh Colby: But that issue is separate from this. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. It's not a part of this. I guess it's gotten to the point where I think we're going to have to call a question on it and come up with conclusions as to either approving or denying the proposal for your deck and garage. Therefore I'd like to have a motion from the floor. Councilwc~nan Dimler: I guess since I'm the only one, well you two haven't..., since I'm the only one that hasn't been drawn one way or the other in the positive, I guess ! will make the motion that the front yard setback variance be approved at 7397 Laredo Drive, the home of Leigh and Judy Colby with the restriction that no further building can be done on top of the deck. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Work, nan: Roger, is that restriction valid? 42 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 119 Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: If not hearing a second, I will entertain another motion. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny the front yard setback variance request. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the front yard variance request ~89-3. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Todd Gerhardt: The term of Con~issioner Jim Bohn expired here May 31, 1989. It is the duty of the mayor to appoint someone or appoint J~m since we didn't get any other applications or appoint somebody else to fill that position. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's my recommendation that Mr. Bohn be reappointed to the HRA. In addition, he should also be conm~ended for his efforts of attendance in the past year. He was at 100% attendance so I'd like to congratulate h~m on that portion. I would like to make that into a motion. Councilman Johnson: Second it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to con~nent please. I have a question Don. What happens when a member misses more than 25% of the meetings of the HRA? Don Ashworth: Council procedures state that the individual is to receive a letter from the Chairman to that effect. Staff is negligent if you currently have a m~nber who is that w~y. Chairman Whitehill was absent. In this instance, or we have had that situation occur and again, the past policy has been to notify that individual. A letter would then go out under my signature or that of the Mayor's, whichever. I'll talk with Don and make a decision as to who's signature it should go out under. In defense of Chairman Whitehill, there have been a number of meetings this past year that were rearranged to accommodate the schedules of developers. So in other words, the necessity for a housing contract or a development contract, proposed sale of lands, etc., the HRA has been trying to be more than accommodating to the individuals and in those instances there have been a number of times where the normal notice has not been given. So in other words, we may have our meetings set up for a Thursday night. The developer is not ready for the Retail West development contract. The decision is made to delay it for one additional week. Well that's nice but with schedules like Chairman Whitehill who has scheduled the second and fourth Thursdays, to then move it to an odd Thursday becomes very difficult. 43 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Are there also legal excuses or an excused portion for that? I mean if someone's sick, they're sick. Councilman Johnson: We had a Planning Con~nissioner break his leg... Councilman Boyt: ...the point would simply be that Mr. ~nitehill is an exceptional member of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and maybe meetings should be set up around his schedule as much as anyones. I think it should be a matter of standard practice that when any m~mbers attendance falls below the 75%, it's followed up with. It's checked out. The City reaffirms that we think these people are very valuable and we want than to attend. It's not saying that we automatically as]< for their resignation. I don't even know if we can do that with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Councilman Johnson: In 1989 he's only missed once. Councilman Boyt: I just think we need to be on top of this issue. Councih~an Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm wondering where or if necessary perhaps Council representation on the HRAmight be appropriate? I know we had it with Clark Horn. Clark basically retained his seat after leaving the Council. Councilman Johnson: Pat Swenson also. Councilman Work, an: We don't in fact have that now. Is that something you want to look at? I'm certainly interested in the HRA. I don't have a problem with any of these members and I'm certainly free to attend the meetings. Mayor Chmiel: That's basically what I do. I try to make each of those specific meetings. In fact all the con~nission meetings, all except for the last 2 weeks, being on vacation but I think that's our place 'to be there. It's not necessary that a Council person be on this but I think it's our responsibility to attend these meetings from t]xne to time to make sure that you feel you're comfortable with what' s happening. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one other comment. That is, as the 3 of you probably r~n~nber vividly last fall the redevelopment of the City was a hot political item. Frankly I'm disappointed that no one applied for this position. It's not because J]m Bohn isn't doing a good job but when you take an issue that is on so many minds and this in my opinion is the pivotal group that sets up what's going to happen to downtown and to have no one apply for that position, something isn't right about it. Resolution #89-75: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint Jim Bohn to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. 44 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 12i DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, TH 101 AND PIONEER TRAIL, DON HALLA. Robert Bruno: My name is Robert Bruno. I'm Mr. Halla's attorney. First of all let me say that this is not a request for a variance. What we're requesting is approval of the final plat of this property. It was on the last agenda and it was laid over until this meeting to allow the applicant to submit a formal request for phasing in of the development. This development originally started 2 years ago when we were before the Planning Con~nission. We had some adjustments we had to make for lot sizes, streets running east or west or north or south or having outlets here and there. Mr. Halls worked closely with the city staff to satisfy every concern that they had about this development. All through the course of that proceeding before the Planning Commission and before the Council at that t~me, it was intended that the property development be done in phases. This is a landscape nursery. It's property that my client is forced to developed, I think as we're all aware, because the Metro Council has forced the City to increase the lot sizes from 2 1/2 to 10 acres. If necessary Mr. Halla will develop it as 37 lots unless he's given permission to develop it in phases. Since the preliminary approval was granted by Council with the phases written right on the preliminary plat that was approved, my client has bought out his brother's interest in the property. This was originally jointly owned by Donald and David and Donald has purchased David's interest in the property now and now is the sole owner of it. Again, with the assumption that these would be 2 1/2 acre lots. The proposal that he submitted for phases is contained in the letter which is an exhibit to the papers that are before you. I should say that these numbers, as far as time periods are concerned, are not set in stone. These are what my client would like to see. These are his intentions on how he would like to proceed. As you know, the septic systems are not good in the area. He'd like to possibly wait until sewer and water is in the area to the grestest extent possible. That would be one factor mitigating in favor of extension but there have been others that have been granted extensions. The Lake Riley Woods has got a number of outlots that it is developing piece by piece. Outlot by outlot. I believe some of the golf course lots are also being developed piece by piece. Extensions have been granted. We are requesting simply that the plat be approved of the first 3 lots which is Block 1, 14, 15 and 16 with the Council's approval for developing the rest as an outlot in phases. This is not something that my client is rushing out to develop property and dump another 37 lots on the City's resources. He'd much prefer to grow trees than he would sell lots. As we all know the property is covered with trees now. He intends to continue in the nursery business and sell lots as time goes by as he's described it in his phases. The first time any question had been raised about the phasing process I guess was at the last meeting. Frankly it caught him by surprise because this is the way it had been set up with city staff 2 years ago. That's the way it had been approved by the Council 2 years ago. That's the asst%mption that he went under when he bought his brother's interest in the property and I think if you look at this situation on a case by case basis, there isn't any hard and fast rule here I don't think about what should be done in the case of these window developers who came in under the window under the 2 1/2 acre lots. If there were, we wouldn't need a city council here I guess to make a decision. I think it's in the best interest of everyone here to delay the development of this property. To leave it as a nursery and I can't conceive of anyone who could be in favor of the immediate development of the 37 lots. Certainly other developers wouldn't be in favor of it. Certainly it would add additional pressure to city resources and it's not 45 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 my client's desire to go out of the nursery business. He's been here since 1962. He and his family and wants to continue to stay here. Because of what the Metro Council has done, he's forced to apply for this plat in order to preserve the value of his property. You can hardly blame him for that but I think if you look at the pros and cons and who would be hurt and who could possibly be opposed to this, I think the merits here indicate that you should approve this the way it's been approved in it's preliminary stages up to this point which is to leave it at 2 1/2 acres. Allow him to plat the rest of the property as an outlot and allow that outlot to be platted in the future as 2 1/2 acre lots. We have a sketch of the entire proposed 37 lots and it's been gone over 2 years ago, like i say, and approved in that fashion. We simply request that that understanding be approved by the Council that you would not force him to go to the lg acres for replatting of the outlot. Councilman Johnson: Why is this different than Chan vista? Chan Hills? Lake Susan West or other places, well Lake Susan West is a bad ex~nple, but Chan Vista and Chan Hills were under the old zoning ordinance when they did the PUD. Don't meet the requirements of the new zoning ordinance. They put in preliminary plats. When their outlots came up for platting a year or so later, we didn't require them to come up to, we took what the preliminary plat was and basically if they didnt' ask for any changes, ~we didnt' change the requirements other than the preliminary. Jo Ann Olsen: The reason I brought this one up to the Council's attention was that I knew it was going to be over such a long period of tLme. The zoning ordinance would definitely change from what was approved when the preliminary plat was approved. CounciLman Johnson: It may change in the future. Jo Ann Olsen: It has changed. If they wait, technically if they wait for the 5-1g-15 years, when they came in to plat that outlot, the Council at that time could say it does not meet the requirements of the 1 unit per 10 acre and could deny it. I guess that's up to the... Councilman Johnson: Council at that time. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Johnson: We can't control what they're going to do. But we can put our intent in and I believe that the intent of the prior Council was to allow 2 1/2 acres to be platted over the next century or whatever time period because we're not trying to create lots out there. Met Council is trying to restrict building out there by making the change. My intent in the original approval was to allow, the preliminary play say okay this is what it's going to be. If we get sewer and water there before he replats, I'd say all bets are off. With sewer and water available in there, I doubt if he's going to come in and ask for 2 1/2 acre lots. In the first place he's going to ask for small lots as is allowable. Councilwoman Dimler: Then we'll have to hold him to the 2 1/2. CounciLman Johnson: Then the future council could say geez, the original intent was to hold you to 2 1/2, which they won't get any~here with that. Personally, 46 City Council Mseting - June 12, 1989 128 I have no problem with stating an intent that 2 1/2 acre lots. I don't see him running out there and developing. If he does develop it right away at 2 1/2 acres, that's fine and dandy. If he doesn't, that's fine and dandy with me too. I understand why he did it. He's been extremely honest with us the whole way. He says I don't want to be a developer. I want to plant trees. I want to sell trees. The other option, if you want to plant and sell trees is just forget about platting any of this and sell trees until sewer and water get there and then you can sell it for a heck of a lot more. Of course then your grandchildren might be able to sell it for a heck of a lot more rather than you. I don't hold by breath to see sewer and water down in that area for a long, long time. 2020 maybe. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have in response to Jay's con, nent that the former Council had an intention of leaving it open ended, I guess I find in the Minutes from page 5. Mayor Hamilton moved and Councilman Horn seconded to approve the extension so he's already come in for one extension for the final plat approval for Great Plains Golf Estates for one year. Then he says, if something has occurred at the end of this year's period of time, a second extension will not be looked upon favorably. All voted in favor of that motion and it carried. So it's my opinion that that particular Council didn't me&n to leave it open ended. Councilman Johnson: You're only taking part of the conversation. You have to go back further than this. Back to January of 1987 with the preliminary. If you go back to the preliminary platting, when we did the preliminary platting, and looked at the discussion there, yes. However, because of the platting laws, something has to be done it one year of the preliminary plat which is the 3 lots he's asking for now. The Council was saying okay, you didn't do the first phase within a year. We'll give you one more year. You've got to do something. As they say, they have to do something and this is his something. Three lots. But I think if you look way back to when we were discussing the preliminary plat of this, there was no hurry to develop this. My recollection of it. I don't know, Bill may have a different recollection on it. But again, I agree when he didn't do anything within the one year, that we definitely said, hey you've got to do something. Now he is asking for another one month extension to that which I can look favorably upon a one month extension because we caused it by throwing this monkey, when this monkey wrench came into it, we caused the need for the one month extension. I have no problem with that. Bill, what's your recollection of the preliminary platting of this one? This is one of the first ones that came in in March of 1987 or something like that. Councilman Boyt: You've got a big road problem out there. There was a question about MnDot's not ready to do anything with the road. We don't know who's going to do anything with TH 101 so it's kind of nice to not have it developed. But I think maybe your recollection is right. You've got Geving, H~milton and Horn who all three said receiving another extension is not in our plans. Now to me the problem with this gets back again to consistency. If we had said to people 2 years ago, come in and apply during the window of opportunity that the Council created and we'll let you hold that land basically until you're ready to develop, everything south of TH 5 would now be in 2 1/2 acre possibilities and that wasn't the intent of the Met Council and they were the driving force behind this. What we seem to be able to live with was to say to people, we know that maybe you're not ready to do this in~ediately but we'll give you a year and in that time you have to come in and begin development. Dave wasn't ready and that 47 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 was reasonable enough and people said okay, we'll extend that. Now to me there's a couple probl~ns here. One of thegn is, to go back to Chan Vista, again a whole different deal. Let's go to Lake Riley Woods. They c~ne in, they platted every lot. Didn't they? Jo ~_nn Olsen: There's one outlot with like 5 lots within it but they are coming in like within a month to plat that. Councilman Boyt: How many lots did they plat? Like 40 lots? Jo Ann Olsen: I can't remember. Councilman Boyt: But a good many and they put in major development in terms of road surface. They were very intent upon developing that property and I don't think that they would have developed that property had it not been the for the need to make progress in their window. Their land values were certainly going up sitting right on the edge of a lake as many of those lots were. I just don't think there's a level playing field if we come back and say we're going to give you an infinite time to develop your property. So I need some way in which the City has some financial assurety that you're going to put in the road improvements that it would take to develop this property. I don't want to see that land developed any more than I suspect Jay does or maybe even Dave wants to develop it. I think that's what the Met Council said is don't develop the land. They didn't want it developed until the sewer went in there. You just said that Dave doesn't want it developed untJ. t sewer goes in there possibly. Robert Bruno: Donald. Councilman Boyt: Oh excuse me, Donald doesn't want it in there possibly until sewer goes in. Possibly now. I 9~uldn't say it was an absolute. That was the whole plan and now to come back and say we're going to give you 2 1/2 acre lots, Jay you've got to come up with a plan that makes developmental sense. That has a time line that's reasonably short and then for my part I can say, okay this is a realistic development. Don really is going to develop the property in spite of maybe everybody's good intentions because that's how he gets his economic return out of the piece of property. That I can accept. But going 5 years, lg, 15 years, I think that's playing it light and loose with the intent of the Council 2 years ago. Certainly with the intent of the Met Council and I don't think we're doing our job. Robert Bruno: If I could point out, these phases have been something that have been a part of the preliminary plat since day one. We're now developing phase 1. This is phase 1. This is the development of the first phase. The three lots. Councilman Boyt: Do you have a developmental map? Phase map? It's not in my materials tonight. Did we have it? Jo Ann Olsen: The preliminary plat that was approved had phases with the lots. It did not have years associated with it and that's why we had the applicant submit this letter which provided years, a time line with the lots. So the plat had the phasing, again had lots but no time. So the only thing that has the time line is the letter provided by Don Halla dated May 17th. 48 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: So we can play with those time lines too? Like you say, 5 to 10, 5 to 10, another 5 so there's 10, 20, 35 years for the full development of the area. It's a bit slow. Councilman Boyt: Well we won't be here to see it. I won't be here to see it. Councilman Johnson: Well not sitting here. Robert Bruno: It really boils down to, what do you want done with this property? Do you want it as a nursery? If you want it as a nursery, it doesn't make any sense to force him to develop it, and how long do you want to leave it as a nursery? Is 5 years, do you want to put it out... Councilman Johnson: If we want to leave it as a nursery, we just deny it. Robert Bruno: Well you could approve 37 lots. That's his other option is to just go ahead and plat the 37 lots and be done with it and be done with the nursery business. I don't know that that's what anybody's wants. That certainly doesn't fall in with the plans out there. Nobody wants this road out there. The TH 101 is a white elephant that nobody wants. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, can I ask another question? If he plats the 37 lots, has a plat of 37 lots out there, does he have to develop the plat? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Johnson: Does he have to put the roads in? Jo Ann Olsen: As part of that, there'd be like a development contract and that's where we would probably have some sort of letter of credit. I don't know if that changes the tax of the property and things like that. Councilman Johnson: It certainly does. Robert Bruno: Yes, he would have to put a bond as I understand it. Don Halla: If we platted it as a nursery, we couldn't use it for agricultural purposes so it would have to be developed. Councilwoman Dimler: I have kind of a problem with this in that I think we're asking for special treatment here. Everyone else that came in under that window except Sever because of TH 212, has completed what they were asked to do and to leave it open ended for x number of years to me is asking for special treatment. Again, it has already been extended and I don't personally want to bind a future council by a decision that I make here. I think that when he finally decides that he wants to go ahead with it, he will have to concur with the ordinances at the t~e. That's my opinion. Mayor Chmiel: DOn, would you like to come up to the microphone? Councilman Boyt: Maybe before he speaks, I'd like to ask a question. If the prelminary plat, historically how long is that good for? How long does that bind the Council? 49 City Council YeeZJ. ng - June 12, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: One year. Councilman Boyt: One year. A final plat binds for 2 years. So no matter how this is platted, all bets are off if it's not developed wi. thin that time. Is that right or no? Roger ~nutson: All bets are off, as you say, unless this Council extends those time periods. Statute says, rather than having the 1 and 2 year periods, you can extend that for staging if you want to. The standard development contract, you have a copy of it is Consent Agenda item l(c) this evening, has the standard 1 and 2 year periods in it. You can extend those. Councihnan Boyt: Okay, so it's possible. Robert Bruno: That's simply what we're asking for is for this Council to come up with when you want the property developed because when you want that developed is when it will be developed. Councilman Johnson: Really I don't think it's up to the Council to decide when an individual will develop his property. Don has to decide when he wants to develop his property and do it within the ordinance restrictions. Robert Bruno: The phasing we've suggested I think is the logical order that these things should be developed in. In looking at the map, looking at the way the lots are platted out, the phases that he suggested are the logical ways that these lots should go into development. Councilman Boyt: Doesn't the problem come in when, let's suppose that we approve the first phase so you have 3 lots. The rest of it's an outlot so you come back in 3 years and you want to do phase 2. But now we've got to take that under the existing ordinances at that time don't we? Robert Bruno: Not if there's been an extension. Councilman Boyt: Well if we've said you can develop it in 3 years, if we set that up now, we could do that. But if we don't set up these timeframes... Jo Ann Olsen: Council has the option, they have to meet this. Counci]~nan Boyt: So then it becomes a problem for that Council to deal with. So I suppose one question for this Council to ask is how much of this land do we want to see coordinated together? Do we want to have the ability to coordinate? If you want to take it 7 to 10 acres at a time, but I guess, maybe you can help me. Either one of you, overcome the other people who went through this and developed and how this is different. Don Halla: I really don't think it is different because what I'm asking and what the others did is the s~me thing except I'm asking for a longer length of time. You have two outlots on the property adjacent to us. One J.s being held up because of roadway. You granted that as an outlot. Technically now that can only have 1 lot per 10 acres if we follow what you're talking. If you look at the other 12 1/2 acres they have there, 5 lots, technically now that would have to be 1 lot per 1~ acres. You granted last spring the development of the property to the east of us into, I don't know the exact number of lots, 16 lots. 5~ City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 That was an outlot. That was given an extension. Ail of this has been done before to the properties right adjacent. I admit that I went in for a 1 year extension and was granted it from preliminary to this point. I am coming in at this point and saying, I'm ready to do the 3 lots, which was the staging that we had in the original preliminary that was granted approval by everybody. The understanding was that the whole property could be developed in 2 1/2 acres. That was the understanding. That was the intention. Everybody knew I wanted to drag my feet. It was said that if I did not start it by July 10th of this year, then I lost it. My intention is not to lose it. That's why I'm here. Now if I'm forced to do something different than what you have demanded of all the rest in the area, then that's your choice because you have granted these outlots. You have granted the slower development. It hasn't been forced that you have to come in with, what was it, 60, 50-60 lots and do them all at once. They did have the staging going there and it's in existence. I'm asking for a longer staging. I don' t disagree. Councilwoman Dimler: Don, were those also in the 2 1/2 acre window? Don Halla: That's right. And they started a little later with us because they got extensions from you in the beginning. I'm asking for it at the end instead of the other way around. Councilman Boyt: It's pretty short though. Their extension in the beginning was a matter of a couple months. Councilman Johnson: Extending for preliminary plat? Don Halla: Right. Councilman Johnson: The other difference that I see here is that there's a viable business going on. This is not cornfields. Councilwoman Dimler: Cornfields' a viable business. Councilman Johnson: Cornfields owned by absentee landlords who are leasing it out and they thought they could make a better buck. Verne Gagne was not farming that area. Councilwoman Dimler: But he didn't choose to. He was going to let us do it. Councilman Johnson: He trained wrestlers there, I don't know but the difference here is basically the business going on in there that the landlord, you live there right? Don Halla: No, I don't live there. David lives on part of the land. Councilman Johnson: But you're there. You work there. You've got a business that's been an establishment and well known throughout the area as an established business that the City's proud of here. One of the best nurseries in the State. That's the difference over the Gagne property and some of the other properties. Councilwoman Dimler: So you want to give him special treatment because he's been in town and was an established business that we're proud of? We didn't do 51 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 that for Pauly's. Councilman Johnson: We didn't do that for Pauly's. There's a lot of things going on with Pauly's. Councilwoman Dimler: But they were a well established business. I don't know if we were proud of th~n but I hope so. CounciLman Boyt: Maybe I can make a recommendation that will move this along. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have just one more question though? Did I hear, is it Mr. Bruno? Robert Bruno: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Did I hear you say that Don went ahead and bought land from his brother with the assumption that it would too be in the 2 1/2 acres? Robert Bruno: That's absolutely correct. Councilw~nan Dimler: Is that not being presumptuous? Robert Bruno: Well how can you negotiate a price when that's the only thing that they've ever discussed the 2 1/2 acres. Councilwoman Dimler: But they didn't come in and apply for the 2 1/2 acre window. Robert Bruno: Both of them did. David and Donald did. Councilman Johnson: This used to be a partnership. Don Halla: It was undivided one half interest. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I misunderstood, I'm sorry. Councilman Boyt: I would like to pose two possibilities. The first one is the roadway. As I remember the preliminary plat from a couple of years ago, TH 101 played a part in this thing. I don't rem~nber exactly how it fit your phasing though. Was that, the property around TH 1~1 in a later phase? Don Halla: No. What took place on TH lgl was we restricted the building on that one lot that would be involved with TH 101 if it was straighten out so instead of really being a 2 1/2 acre lot, I think it's like 3 1/2, somewhere in there acres, and the area that's involved that would be straighten out by TH lgl is non-buildable kind of situation. We gave up a lot in order to reserve for TH lgl. Councilman Boyt: Got it. And that was discussion that took place during that preliminary plat sort of working through things? Well it would seem to me that a reasonable way to proceed here is go ahead and do your final plat on whatever lots you want to do it on. Then I would suggest that you come back in here sometime within the next 2 years and replat those outlots. Deal with whatever Council you fi. nd sitting here at the time and resolve the rest of it. As I 52 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 understand it, up until that time you'd still be in possession of 2 1/2 acre lots. I guess what I'm really proposing is start building, or at least start pursuing your final plat and come back within ~]at already established time window with the next plan. Councilman Johnson: ~nat's the 2 year time window you're talking about? Councilman Boyt: Fro~ the time your final plat's approved until it expires. Councilman Johnson: But all you have to do with that 2 years is put the road in and put the lots in for that final plat. That doesn't cause him to have to plat the rest of it within 2 years. Councilman Boyt: It's already preliminary platted. The whole thing. Right? Councilman Johnson: Right. If he gets approval for one final plat on that lot, 3 lots, he has to develop those 3 lots within 2 years? Is that correct Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Councilman Johnson: He wouldn't? Councilman Boyt: No, ~because he's got his road in. Maybe he can't sell them. Councilman Johnson: You don't have to sell them, you have to develop them. Councilman Boyt: You have to put your road in. Jo Ann Olsen: You have to develop everything in the contract. Don Halla: The road on those three lots is existing. Councilman Johnson: Is there any time constraint within our ordinance or the State law that says after he's preliminary platted Phase 1 he has to come back for Phase 2 within so many years? Jo Ann Olsen: That's what the development contract can cover. I don't know if the State law governs that. Councilman Johnson: In other words, we could put that as a condition of the development contract. Have we put that in any other development contract, a provision telling them when they have to do Phase 2? Phase 3? Economic down turn at Chan Vista, if it happened, there's been a lot of subdivisions where the things have come back 4 or 5 years later because of the market. Councilwoman Dimler: Is what you're proposing Jay basically then an extension of the window for unlimited period of time? Is that ~nat we're doing here? Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, he's got to plat by July 12th, final plat. Or July 10th. Final plat something. Then he's got some kind of window I guess to actually survey those and get the stakes in the ground. I don't even know if he has to put them up for sale. Don Halla: That has to be done ahead of that. 53 Council Meeting June 12, 1989 Councilman Johnson: That's already done. So he's got 3 lots platted. When he does Phase 2 is up to him. What his economic situation is for Phase 2. Councilwoman Dimler: So basically you're leaving it open ended though for 2 1/2 acres? CounciLman Johnson: The next Council has their choice as to what to do. We can't tell the next Council what to do. Councilwoman Dimler: No, but we're letting him leave it at 2 1/2 instead of making him go at 1 in lg after July or after the Phase 1. Robert Bruno: Excuse me but we're not willing to leave it up to the next Council to make it lg. What we're asking for... Councilman Johnson: ~e can't tell the next Council what to do. Robert Bruno: That's true but what we're asking for is what your City Attorney suggeste~d that is allowable under the State Statutes and that is to grant staging of platting. You can extend periods of time off into the future in your development. Even this Council can do that. Councilwmnan Dimler: Then we do set time 1Lmits on it? Councilman Johnson: We could set you time limits but that does not say that when you c~e in for Phase 2, 5 years down the road and there's 5 different people sitting up there, these 5 different people can say, we don't think you need 2 1/2 acre lots. You're going to get 1 in lg. Is that the way I hear it? Councilman Boyt: No, that's not true. Councilman Johnson: If we give them phased? Mayor Knutson: Give it to them one more time Roger. Roger Knutson: Under an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, I lost track of time, it must be going back 10 years now, State Statutues provide that unless you say contrary in a development contract, a preliminary plat is good for one year. That means any changes in the official controls occurring within that one year period, they're exempted from. They can act as if those changes had not been made. After final plat, the grace period is 2 years. Within 2 years after final plat, they have the right to proceed with their development and be exsnpted from any change in the ordinance requir~nents and tine official controls. But then the State Statute goes on and says, you can enter into that development contract and extend those periods by agreement. If you enter into a contract, it is binding on this Council and future Councils. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but does that have a time limit on how far we can extend that final plat? Roger Knutson: The normal thing; and I think the better practice is, if you want to go beyond the standard grace periods in the Statute, you should call out some period of time because I don't think you'd want a contract that binds a 54 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 131 Council 100 years from today as to what things have to look like2 Councilman Johnson: In that respect, I would think that what we would want to do is put in the development contract a time table for phasing. A reasonable time table for phasing. He suggested 5 to 10 years for Phase 2 after he sold all 3 of the lots in Phase 1. That's a little longer. Councilman Boyt: Let me suggest a problem. I'd like to suggest that one problem with this phasing is a risk that the City takes. It's not simple putting a risk on the developer, although there's certainly one there. The City is also saying, we'll let you build a fourth of your road. ~nat happens if conditions change and he doesn't meet the time line and he says forget it? Well, the City is sitting out there with a road that's only half done or a quarter done. It's only done to the houses that are out there and now we've got to deal with the next owner of that land so it's not all just completely on the developer. Councilman Johnson: So we need that these phases will have a complete road or the roads be of such configuration that you've got double access or whatever. I don't know, would Phase 2 do that for you? Don Halla: Did you bring the map? Jo Ann Olsen: I've got them upstairs. Don Halla: I believe that the phasing takes care of that problem because if I have to put in a road, I anticipated in what I told you is the lots...that I had to put a road. For instance, some of them go in with a cul-de-sac. You have to go all the way back to the cul-de-sac and it just makes sense to not do half the lots on one side of the road and not do the other half so in the phasing, I took into consideration as to which lots were being developed so it made sense from that standpoint. Councilman Johnson: We'd have to see that. That Phase 2 can stand on it's own. Phase 3 stand on it's own. Councilman Boyt: The development that's adjoining this had a road problem as well. When we approved the final plat on that development, I remember there was a question of how can we connect these two roads? Rems~er that? Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. Over a ravine. Councilman Boyt: That's right. There was kind of a major geographical... Councilman Johnson: Plus he would have to replat his preliminary plat which he didn't want to do. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess where are we going from where we're at right now? What direction? What's going to be the recommendation? Councilman Boyt: I'll make a recorrmendation that the Council not bind itself more than 5 years from today. That all phases would need to be completed in that t~ne period. 55 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: I'll see your 5 and raise you to lg? Councilman Boyt: In other words t what I'm saying is that all the roads would be constructed within 5 years. All the roads necessary to whatever the City standards are applicable to a development. Councilman Johnson: 5? Councilman Boyt: What do you want to go, 2? Councilman Johnson: lg. Because of the econ~nic downturn of the early 80's went longer than 5. Councilman Boyt: Well then they'd come back in with a new plan. I mean Chan Vista is a perfect example because they had a final plat. They didn't act on it and they lost it. They had to come back in. Councilman Johnson: Different owners buying parcels... Councilman Boyt: I would think if you wanted to develop the land, 5 years is pretty generous but if you don't want to develop the land, and that's what you say you don't want to do, then 5 years doesn't make any sense. I think the nature of what we were trying to do with the Met Council was develop what was going to develop and lock the other stuff away. In being consistent with that, I think 5 years is generous. Robert Bruno: It's going to put my client out of business in 5 years. Councilman Boyt: Well out of the nursery business, that's right. He will have either sold to a developer or become one. CounciLman Johnson: Or he will just say, forget the plat. I want to grow trees. Robert Bruno: That won't happen. Counci]~an Johnson: And wait for sewer to come in with the grandchildren. Don Halla: If I have to do it in 5 years, I might as well do it now is my opinion. If I'm going out of business, I might as well go out of business now. I can see 15 years. I can see lg years. Councilman Johnson: Or relocate your business. Don Hal!a: Or I have the option of staying in the business in the middle of the development and develop everything around it? That's another option. Counci]~nan Boyt: Well is there a second for that? Councilman Johnson: 5 years? CounciLman Boyt: Staff work out with the developer's of a phasing plan? Councilman Johnson: We'd have to be consistent and give everybody 5 years then. 56 City Council Mseting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well we're going to get chances because those other folks are going to have to come back in right? Councilman Joknson: Does Pheasant Hills have any outlots left? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't believe so. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there are. Councilman Johnson: Because I know they don't connect all the way up to whatever that street is there. Don Ashworth: That's where you get the proposed park piece in there. The piece that's outside. Councilman Johnson: No, this is on the north side. Councilman Boyt: Jay, when we agree to an outlot, whether it's behind our back door or anywhere in town, if it's an outlot then if they don't develop it in the t~me period given to the whole development, they come back in and say I want this under the old rules and they have to play by the new rules. So if Don wants an outlot for 90% of these and he doesn't develop it in 5 years, then what he's betting on is that the Met Council is going to change their mind or some other change is going to occur because otherwise it will be 1 in 10. That's what Roger tells me is what happened in Pheasant Hills or any other development that had an outlot. Have I got that right? Roger Knutson: Yes, there was some development agreement there, PUD agreement including a phasing plan over a period of years. If nothing is said, if they're silent, you play by the new rules after 2 years. Robert Bruno: That's right. I agree with that. That's why we need the development contract approved by this Council to extend it for however long you want to extend it because when you're done extending it, it bec~es 10 acres and at that point he's gone. Councilman Johnson: This is a discussion item tonight. We're not voting on what we're doing. We're discussing it to provide you input. Is that correct? Discussion of final plat? That you're going to do the final plat? Don Halla: Well I think this all came up and Jo Ann correct me if I'm wrong, is Jo Ann wanted to make sure that we didn't lose the 2 1/2 acres and she wanted, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong Jo Ann, so she brought this up in the first place because she felt ~at we had and were under the 2 1/2 acres but she wanted to make sure there was absolutely no possibility that we lost it so she was looking for written approval because we had done everything that was required of us up to date. We were going to start the development in the 3 lots so we didn't lose any of this 2 1/2 acres. I really feel she was trying to do her job to make sure there was absolutely no misunderstanding anymore. I guess that's ~ny we're here tonight is to make sure there's no misunderstanding. Councilwoman Dimler: DOn, if sewer and water c~e in in 2 years, would you want to be under the 2 1/2 acres at that time? Would you be bond by that? 57 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Don Halla: I'd still stay with 2 1/2 acres if sewer and water came in in 2 years because you and I both know it's not going to be there until 2020. Councilwoman Dimler: I don' t know that. Don Halla: We moved here in 1962 and when we .bought that property it was estimated at the year 2000. It has now moved to 2020. That is a legitimate number. Councilman Boyt: Well I think we should take a straw vote if nothing else that says whether or not we support 5 years. Councilwoman Dimler: Wait a minute. I have a motion. There was a recommendation that the City Council should determine one of the following. Number 2 of that recon]nendation by city staff is that if the applicant plats the 34 lots as outlots, he will forfeit the approved preliminary plat and be required to replat the outlots and meet all of the current zoning regulations. I would move that because to me that's the only thing that makes sense. Councilman Johnson: Not giving any extension? Councilw~nan Dimler: That's right. The others aren't getting it. Councilman Johnson: The others didn't need it. The others didn't ask for it. Councilwoman Dimler: You're giving special treatment and setting precedence. Councilman Johnson: You're the only person that asked for it. It's not like we're denying everybody else it. Well we'll wait to hear if you have a second. Councilman Boyt: Well I'll go back to the 5 year phasing model which may be virtually the s&~e thing. Is there a second for that? CounciLman Johnson: I'll move 10. Mayor Chniel: How about if we satisfy him for 8? Robert Bruno: Maybe you want to take a look at the phasing map to see how things... Mayor Chmiel: I think we have it indicated here in a letter as to what the phasings would be. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say 10 years, each phase has to have a complete street system. I'm saying this is the phasing plan we want. We want to see the phasing plan when final plat comes in in 2 weeks or whenever the final plat comes in here in the very near future, that shows us each phase and how we' 11 have a complete road system with each phase. So we' re making a dead end street a half mile long with any one phase. So each phase will have a complete safe street system built with each phase. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, the reason I said that you might be setting a precedent here is because you know that Mr. Peterson's runs out in January of 58 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 1990 and he'll be coming back here and what are we going to do with him then? Councilman Johnson: Most of his is going to be taken up by TH 212. There's not going to be much left. Councilwoman Dimler: They may not know at that time yet though. Councilman Boyt: Right. That's a unique problem. There are parts of your property that are a unique problem and I'm willing to deal with those quite differently but I think overall, Jay 10 years is, our population could double in 10 years. Personally I don't have a sense for what the needs are going to be in this con~nunity 10 years from now. What specifics. Councilman Johnson: If we don't get more sewer it's not going to double unless we can put two families per house. Councilwoman Dimler: I mean the Met Council can change it's mind any time by pressure from the public so that could be within 2 years. It's not unreal. If development is really in demand here, it can be done within 2 years. It can be done within 5 years. It could be 20 years. Who knows, but I mean it's not unrealistic. Councilman Johnson: The trouble is the intrastructure to support that. We don't have the roads or anything to support that kind of development. Councilman Boyt: Well have we got any sense on years here? Ursula says no years. I can live with that. Do as much as you can do, outlot the rest of it and see what happens. That's what everybody else se~ms to have done. Councilman Johnson: Ursula went with zero. You went with 5. I went with 10. Nothing's working yet. Councilwoman Dimler: Let's ask Tom. Councilman Workman: In the basic sense I don't want to see Halla Nursery go out of business if they don't want to go out of business. TH 101 is a big problem. We don't want to use that heavily if it's developed out there and that's another probl~ so I'm looking at some of those amenity kind of things. Councilman Johnson: 37 homes is probably less traffic than Halla Nursery as far as truck traffic and stuff. Don Halla: I doubt it. Councilman Workman: I don't know. I guess I leaned over and maybe I said it a little more crassly than I would say it here but it appears to be t~me, from what the previous Council has stated and what we're saying basically now is we've got to be moving on this thing and that's where I'm am. I don't care to see Halla go out of business but it's kind of do it or don't do it and let's move on with it I guess. Extending it way out there is I don't think proper. Robert Bruno: The phasing was something that has been ass'~med I think since this thing was applied for. It's something that the staff came up with. It's something that the Council 2 years ago has approved in the preliminary plat and 59 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 granted they didn't put a time on that preliminary plat as to when those phases are to occur but certainly they intended that they were not going to be all done in one fell swoop. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just read you sc~nething else that was within the Minutes. As it said here, by July of 1989 he should have this thing moving meaning Mr. Halla. They also indicate I think perhaps that it can be part of passing this, make Don understand that we'll extend it for a year and if he hadn't begun doing sc~ething in a year's time, the chances of his receiving another extension are pretty slim. Councilman Johnson: That's what he's trying to do. He's trying to do something. To plat 3 lots. Mayor Ckmiel: Right. You're doing phases but those phases are the problems that exist with the total amounts of years that you're indicating or proposing to have for it and that's what is really a concern for the Council. We too don't want to see you go out of business. I don't want to see you go out of business. That's why I think maybe that 5 years would probably be the thing to go on rather than to go by the other motion that was previously made. Councilman Boyt: So that's a .second is it? Councilman Johnson: You're going to second Bill's old motion? Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to second his motion. Councilman Workman: ~nat does the 5 years actually do then? CounciLman Boyt: It buys him some time. ~v~yor Chmiel: Gives a tLme l~mitation. Councilman Workman: In the 5 years, what needs to be accomplished and what can he do in that time? Mayor Ckmiel: Come back into the Council. Councilman Johnson: Ail phases have to be final platted within 5 years. Councilman Boyt: Which means he's got a develoi~nent contract which means he's paying property taxes which means it's developed. I mean it's just inevitable. I'm inclined to think that the Council felt that you could develop what you were going to develop and the rest of it was going to be an outlot but I can't read their minds as I demonstrated any number of times ~J. le they were here. So my inclination would be that 5 years is reasonable. Councilwoman Dimler: That's real generous. Councilman Boy~: Can we take a vote Don? Mayor Cb_miel: Okay, we have a motion with a second. 60 137 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to recon~nend that all phases of Great Plains Golf Estates be final platted within 5 years. CounciLman Boyt, Councilman Workman and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor, Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and Councilwoman Dimler did not vote. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Johnson: My no vote was I thought that 5 years was too small a time period. Councilman Boyt: No, I think all we said was that was what our intent would be. We didn't vote on the final plat tonight. All we said is what our intent would be. Mayor Chmiel: Just letting you know where we're coming from. Don Halla: Is there any problem with say a one month extension. Robert Bruno: It's on the agenda for plat approval, he has until I think July 10th to file the final plat. Councilman Johnson: You have to have the paperwork in by July 10th. Mayor Chmiel: Does that create a problem for you? The July 10th date? Don Halla: It probably does because I think I will then be forced to develop... Councilman Boyt: Is one month reasonable? Do you need 2 months? DOn Halla: I know that the 3 lots are all approved and all the surveying has been done on the entire property for those 3 lots... Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to extend the final plat review for Great Plains Golf Estates until August 10, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP. Mayor Chmiel: Th~.s is the one that Ursula brought up that she thought should be brought back to staff and they determine as to what to do with it. Is there any further discuss~.on? Councilman Johnson: Is there a represenative of the Taco Shop? Jo Ann Olsen: He was unable to make it. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that we deny this reimbursement. Staff put in time. We spent the money. I don't think it's fair to ask the citizens to subsidize that so I would vote denial or make a motion that we deny it. Councilman Johnson: And I'll second it. 61 City CouncJ. 1 MeetJ. ng - June 12, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the fee application reimbursament for Chanhassen Taco Shop. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I think we should also indicate that we would like to see staff act upon this and it would only be brought to us after a denial by staff if the applicant request f.t to be brought to the City Council rather than to be brought to us before a formal denial by staff has been made. Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I wanted to send it back. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but in this case we're pretty sure he's going to come back and talk to us...so save some time w.~.th Don. RECEIVE DRAFT OF PRELIMINARY WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR WELL SITING, AUTHORIZE PUMP TESTING FOR WELLS 2 AND 3. Gary Warren: I believe this graphic probably summarizes where we stand at this point .... the draft and as positive off-shoot of this preliminary invest].gation our consultants, Liesch Associates identified that wells 2 and 3 looked like they can generate some substantial more develo[~nent as a result of increased pumping capacities because you have the equii~nent to do that. So in order to wrap up the feasibility investigation here and also to...we felt it would be appropriate to get Council input here and authorize the pump testing...wells 2 and 3... The off-shoot of this would be that if we can indeed generate the capacities which in Well 3 would be an additional 600 to 800 gallons a minute on the well, ahnost a 60% J. ncrease in it's capacity, we can forestall the installation of 5 until some future date. Rely on the other capacities that we can get out of these wells. It would really be an expidit].ous way of getting the pumping into our system and to maximize our existing facilities. So the draft report has been submitted. To give you a little bit of background on you've seen my notes in the report there. There are some things that we obviously need to polish up on but I wanted to get Council's authorization to go ahead with this pump testing on Wells 2 and 3 so we can nail down these alternatives .... I think J.t will give us some good flexibility. Mayor Chmiel: We presently have 4 wells now in the State right? One that's ben capped? Gary Warren: One in the middle school well. Mayor Chmiel: How many more wells would be required within the City and should all the wells be within one specific location? Gary Warren: You mean for total development how many wells? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Gary Warren: I believe our water study was done in 1985 showed a total of maybe 8 wells total. ~e try to consolidate where we can. Where the hydraulics will allow it. Where we have the capacity to space them closer together. It will depend on what we will do in the future as far as water treatment. If it is 62 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 139 decided that we need to start softening the water...some of these things that other cities do, then you'd like to have wells consolidated closely if you're going to go to a simple treatment plant like Eden Prairie has but there are many communities such as Edina for example that exist with sand filters at each of their pump wellhouses so there's two schools of thought there. So they don't have to all be in one place and actually today's modern day thinking with aqua fir contamination and those kinds of risks, it's not all that unreasonable to have it spaced apart. Mayor Chmiel: The other question I guess I have, we have the different St. Peter sandstone, Prairie Du Chien group and then Jordan, would it be to the best of the City's advantage to have three different kinds in the event that one of those existing aquafirs have a problem of any contamination? Would it be best and behoove the City to keep it in three different veins rather than just one? Gary Warren: Well our interest, and the report addresses that pretty well too, was to see if we could get a glacial drift well constructed. In fact on this graphic here, that's what the G's are. Indicating that there are some potentially good areas, and you won't know with the drift well until you actually go out and try to develop it but the geologic strata there tends to indicate we could eventually supplement one of our additions to the City by going with a drift well. Maple Grove for example uses drift wells extensively and successfully. The down side is that you don't know until you get out there what you're going to develop on but going to say having them all spread out between the Jordan-Hickley and going to the real deep wells, I think we'd want to take a real hard look at that. If we had thsm in say two aquafirs, I think that that would be a good enough redundancy for us. To go to the deep bed rock wells is quite expensive. Pumping costs and installation. Councilman Boyt: And the State is trying to keep people from doing that. Trying to protect that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I know. I realize that. Gary Warren: I think we have an excellent opportunity here to further develop Well 3 as a minimum and get some additional capacity out of that well plus the time line for getting it upgraded would be a lot faster. So the recommendation right now is to authorize that testing and then the report would be completed with those results. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us build Well #5 as soon as we've got the money to build it. In addition to what yoU're doing, I think we ought to continue on the current schedule for building Well ~5 in 1990. Gary Warren: Once we have a handle on what we can generate out of Well ~3 and evaluate, if you recall in the earlier staff report we have a growth assumption curve, we would be able then to get a better fix as to just what kind of t~me is this buying us and when should we continue to press for Well ~5. It is budgeted technically in our schedule for next year. Councilman Boyt: But my point's a little different Gary. We're going to need that water. I don't want to be running constantly behind. I'd like to have a well that's sitting there that we could tap off of moderately knowing that we can get more rather than having people have brown grass. 63 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Mayor Ckmiel: What is dollar expenditure on those wells Gary? Gary Warren: The actual well itself? If you're doing a shallow drift well, you're probably in the $5g,000.00 to $60,g0g.g0 range. If you're doing a deeper %~ell like we are currently into the Jordan, then you're probably into the Mayor C~m~iel: Okay, the GPM's that you have existing on 3, what are those? Gary Warren: Roughly getting about 1,ggg gallons a minute. Mayor Chmiel: And then ~nat would you be getting if you were able to increase the rate? coary Warren: We figure 1,60g to 1,8gg gallons a minute. Councilman Johnson: In Well #3? Gary Warren: Right. The drawned out showed 66 gallons per minute for every foot of drawnout. If that holds true, which it could, then we could get upwards of almost two-thirds of a new well. Councilman Johnson: Have they also looked at neighboring wells to Well #3 to see if a drawdown of this size might affect a neighboring well? Gary Warren: As a part of the investigation report here, they did locate and it's shown on a bigger map. I only had one copy. I didn't put in this version. They have sited all of the wells and the actual report is that thick so you've got the text here but they did do an extensive research of all well records from the Department of Health and DNR and we did site those and their feelings were that we did not influence any, there are no other high capacity wells in the area of Well ~3 that we would impact by increasing it's drawn out. Councilman Johnson: Mr.. Nielson's well is not very close? Gary Warren: Not from what they've indicated. Most of the neighborhood and residential wells are in your drifts. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to author~.ze the pump testing of Wells #2 and #3 in the amount not to exceed $7,ggg.g0. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY, AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUDUBON COURT. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of Council, I am Bill Engelhardt. We._ prepared the feasibility study for the Audubon Court project. I'll try to be somewhat brief for you tonight and hopefully hold it open for questions that you might have. Let's go back a little bit. This was the original Audubon Road feasibility study showing the upgrading of Audubon Road, McGlynn Bakeries and future development which is now known as Audubon Court. Under this original feasibility study for the upgradJ, ng of Audubon Road, the first phase of 64 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 i41 develot~nent was in the roadway and the road portion going into serve the McGlynn Bakeries with Phase 2 shown in blue as the completion of the looped road for the outlots that McGl~vnn had and Phase 3 as the future development for the Audubon Court. As it turns out, the developer and the land has been sold and is ready for develop in Phase 3 so is in fact becoming Phase 2. Where the completion of the Buttercup Road will not be done until McGlynn proceeds with their development. With that we prepared a feasibility study for Audubon Court. In conjunction with that small development located in the overall scheme of things right in this area right off of Audubon Road. We had to look at how the sewer capacity for the entire area would be served with the construction of a lift station and what alternatives the city would have for future development and how those alternatives could best serve the needs of the area. Right now we're proposing a lift station located in this area to serve the Audubon Court area. It will also serve a larger area but only about 180 acres of the large area and that's due to the downstream capacity of the sanitary sewer of Park Drive. We sized that lift station though to accommodate the capacity of Park Drive to allow for development of 180 acres. This is by no means any magic number... 180 acres but it's what we felt was a reasonable area that could be developed with TH 5 frontage along the railroad tracks. The extension of the Audubon Court and then also the extension of McGlynn Bakery area. We felt that 180 acres probably could be ~mproved sooner than any of the other portions of the district. The other options that we looked at, by increasing that lift station size does give us that 180 acres but it also would allow at some point in t~me for future expansion to serve those areas with what's shown as the red line as the Bluff Creek interceptor. The Bluff Creek interceptor is a future, future interceptor line. Down the road quite a ways but you have an area up along Lake Minnewashta that it is within the MUSA line right now and with the partial construction of the Bluff Creek interceptor or a trunk sewer, we could serve this area. We could also ask M~t Council to expand the MUSA line and move it down to TH 5, include this area in the MUSA line and then serve those using the Lake Ann interceptor as another temporary connection. So we' re looking at some alternatives for the City in the future and how these areas north of TH 5 can be served without completing the entire Bluff Creek interceptor. So it allows us some flexibility and it allows you a degree of development without going through a major, major project with the Bluff interceptor. We did check with the designers of the Lake Ann Interceptor and this is a feasible alternative. There is capacity for this area to be...Lake Ann Interceptor. So that's a little bit of a background of how we arrived at the overall picture of the sanitary sewer for this particular area. Then to get into the details of the development itself, which again is the s~all portion of that overall picture. We're looking at just a short cul-de-sac, 6 lots on Audubon Court and a lift station located in this area. Sanitary sewer down from the lift station. The green line indicates the force main back up to the gravity sewer that then flows into the Audubon Road sewer and into Park Road. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, let me just get a little clarification. Within the MUSA line, as I view this from one of your drawings number one, it appears as though those lots are just outside of the MUSA. Bill Engelhardt: No. This MUSA line has just recently been changed and it comes down to include the McGlynn site. It comes down to the railroad tracks and then comes over. Mayor Chmiel: So what is shown here though, I understand that's wrong? 65 City CouncJ_l Meeting - June 12, 1989 Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Councilman Boyt: I would move approval. Bill Engelhardt: Can I have a chance to go through the water? Councilman Boyt: Well we've read this. Mayor Chmiel: It's getting late. Bill Engelhardt: That's fine but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. It's relatively straight forward. Councilman Johnson: I' 1t second that. Mayor ChmJ. el: One other question, with that extension are there any addition, I can't remember exactly, are there any additional residents within that area? If I remember correctly we have 3 right within that specific location. CounciLman Johnson: Residences? Mayor Cbzaiel: Well I shouldn't say residences. One was one that ,~as in for an application. Bill Engelhardt: That's on t2~e other side of the tracks. That would not be part of this project, no. Mayor Cb~miel: You're right it J.s. I was down a little too far. Resolution #89-76: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Audubon Court Improvement Project #89-7. Ail voted in favor and the motion cart led. OAK VIh~W HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARDS, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHCkME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELORMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS. Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly, the issue here is whether or not what they're proposing meets the intent of the planned unit development ordinance. The Planning Commission felt that i.t did not. They recommended denial of the PUD. along with that they recomnended denial of 'the site plan and the wetland alteration permit. They recommended denial so it could be passed onto the 66 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 i43 Council for their decision. The applicant wants a decision made so they know whether or not they should then pursue the R-12 zoning of the property. They have made application with an R-12 site plan. It will be going in front of the Planning Commission a week from this Wednesday. We have provided you with the updates and the Planning Con~nission Minutes and I think the developer can take it from there. Councilman Johnson: We have another proposal going to the Planning Commission for the same? ~V~yor Chmiel: Under the R-12. Jo Ann Olsen: Right where it's going to be rental properties, not individually owned because that's where they got into the small lots because each of the townhome units. Councilman Johnson: So they have two applications for the same piece of property in the process? Jo Ann Olsen: In case the PUD doesn't make it. Mayor Chmiel: In case the PUD does not get approved tonight. Councilman Boyt: I can propose an interesting slant on this. I should start out I suppose by coming out squarely against it and so the developer will know that you can pretty much count on me responding that way. Now what I would propose first thing we do is, if you've got some, either the reduced version or the large version of the map, if you might turn to sheet 4 of 6. Feel free to look on. If we start at the top of the page, they are proposing to cut down three 36 inch oak trees. That's at the top of the page. As we drift down the page, you've got a 28, 24, 26 and they're saving some right in the middle there, and a 30. Now we have talked about, not this particular council, maybe just lightly a time or two, but the previous council talked several times about the need to protect large trees. You may recall, and I don't remember if it was the Villager or the Sailor this past week, they had an article about probably the oldest Red Oak tree in the country, if not the world, is sitting in Chanhassen. 450 years old. Is that right? The Sailor, okay. They talked about some class at, I think it was the Jr. High went out and measured it. Talked about what was going on when this tree first sprouted. Obviously trees like that are landmarks. We don't have, fortunately it's in the Minnewashta Park because we don't have any way of protecting that tree. If that tree was in your backyard right now, you could go out and cut it down. I think we need a moratorium on cutting any oak tree that's more than 100 years old and every one of these is more than 100 years old. Any hardwood that's more than a 100 years old deserves it's day in court. So I would propose that before we do anything here, we need to study this and come back with an ordinance that deals with those sorts of landmark trees. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: Well is there a second to that? Councilwoman Dimler: I' 11 second that. 67 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to establish a moratorium on the cutting of trees and to direct staff to study and bring back an ordinance dealing with the preservation of landmark trees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CounciLman Johnson: Does this table this? Councilman Boyt: No, what we're talking about here is establishing a moratorium that doesn't allow to cut any of these trees until we come up with a reasonable ordinance in regards to that. We can do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Other cities have done that. Councilman Johnson: Are we going to have a chance to discuss the overall plan? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have other things but I'd be happy to wait for other people. Councilman 'Workman: Mr. Mayor I'll start in. I had a chance to meet with Dean today. I know Dean and I chased each other a little bit so I was glad we got together and talked about it. I had perhaps my own viewpoint going into my meeting taking into account a strong Planning Con~nission disapproval and as I mentioned to Dean, my experience, I am currently the owner of a townhome. I live in a townhouse on what is actually the C~marron Homeowner's Association. So I have perhaps some of my own luggage there to bring into this. I mentioned in casual conversation with the Attorney here tonight that they were going to basically be around the mid-Sg's to 6g's range in price. He almost lost his dentures. He said he hadn't heard of that low of a price in a long ti.me. Maybe that's something that we need for the people of Rosemount, the employees of Rosemount and McGllann, etc. to be living in. I don't know. That's another discussion. I explained a little bit and Ursula was there too, I explained a little bit about why I live in a townhouse. N~mely because I got such a good deal on the thing. One man's loss is another man's gain. That's w{ny I'm in it. My biggest concern going in was how in the heck &m I going to get out of this because the day I moved in, I planned on moving out. So we also talked about the merits of who lives in this type of housing and I, in my quad, I have 3 retired couples that live there and I fully intend to probably sell to another retired couple so it is good housing for that. Dean explained that mine actually wasn't anything like what he's developing now. It's something smaller, cramped I think a little more. It's something I don't think I would live in. But with a homeowners association like this, I do see problems some of which he is trying to head off. One being sprinklers already built into lawns. Take care of the lawn problem which I know my homeowners association has a terrible problem with and he a~lmitted his previous one still has a problem with. Low maintenance on the exterior, etc., although my homeowners association takes care of that properly. My biggest concern are the one car garages. Parked cars outside of buildings are not tolerated in my homeowners association, not that that doesn't mean they can't be. I'm not trying to tie th~n in but there's obviously an understanding of what that kind of thing does to a neighborhood. In fact you can be fined in my homeowners association if you leave them outside your garage which I think is a good idea. If you have a garage, use it. I know the Planning Commission has a problem with the impervious surface is too high. 68 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Setbacks, parking, density, too high. Everything is inadequate. Inadequate. I think that's what builds all the way up to why they do not feel the PUD is permitable here so I guess at this time I am going to go along with the Planning Con~nission and perhaps Bill and wait for everybody else's co~nents. Councilwoman Dimler: As Tom indicated, I too met with Dean today and I asked him some questions. I guess my main concern here is, and I know that this is not part of his doing but this is in the HRA district. I asked him if he would build this particular plan if it would pass the but for test. Would he build it if it were not for the HRA and he said no so the HRA is helping him in that regard. But I guess some of the concerns that I have, because it is a HRA district, is that this would probably attract some young families with' children and they would be going to school and basically the taxes that they're paying would not be going to the school district so the taxpayer would have to pick up for those school children. I think that's a real concern of mine and I know that's not Dean's problem. That's a problem of the HRA. I also have a problem that it's zoned R-12. I talked to Don today and he indicated that that zoning used to be co~nercial and it was just changed about 5 years ago to an R-12. My feeling is it should still be commercial. So added to the concerns that Tom has expressed, I guess those are my concerns and I know they're not Dean's fault but those are my comments. Councilman Johnson: This city needs affordable housing. We don't have much for that. This city does not have any subsidized housing to speak of. I know, does the HRA have any besides the four that are in the new apartments that aren't built yet? Subsidized housing? Don Ashworth: Not that I 'm aware of, no. Councilman Johnson: Okay. There's not much of an H in the H~A yet. A lot of redevelopment without much for housing. Working the last month to help resettle a family of refugees from Ethiopia and became a lot more aware of the needs of affordable housing in the western side of the Twin Cities. While I recognize the need, I'm not sure if this is the place and if we need this much and this dense. This is a lot of housing. The density, the original plan that came in looked really nice. I think there was a lot less units than this. The original one about a year ago. Dean Johnson: This has less units... Councilman Johnson: Well I'm not too wild on this one. I think this should be R-12. I think it makes sense to go from the commercial. You go up the hill. Above the hill you put the apartments and then you phase in across the, I don't want to say commercial, right across fr~m the single f&mily residential on the other side of the ditch there in Saddlebrook because this is kind of over the hill from the commercial area. I think R-12 is a reasonable, maybe R-8 even. I don't see what the City is getting. I don't think we need this much affordable housing. We do need some. We've got some with these Village Apartments, whatever they are. They're behind us. We need more and some of that can be brought up by apartments. I'd like to see us get some 3 bedroom apartments. There's no 3 bedroom apartments in this town. They're all 2 or 1 bedroom apartments. I'd like to see the HRA do something about that. What is the HRA's involvement in this? 69 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelosment Authority looked at this proposal and de~ermined, there's not a clear position and I guess that was the primary issue. My recollection is that two of the HRA members felt that the item should be submitted back to the Planning Co~mission to determine what the City wanted to see for an overall housing plan before the HRA simple started going out and subsidizing housing units. One of the members, potentially two were not really interested in directly subsidizing units and I think that the Chairman was successful in basically kind of pulling it together saying, if we can look to traditional type of improvements, street, etc., that's maybe within our perview but in terms of the actual units th~nself, I don't think that we should be pursuing that further at this point in time. Councilman Johnson: Without a plan, I agree. We can't just jump in and start subsidizing housing but it's something we should be looking at. The HRA, it's under their perview a bit to look at housing needs. That I guess and Planning Commission together. It's a lovely little knoll. There's going to be a mess of apartments. A mess of massive buildings. I'm very concerned about the loss of trees. I don't think it meets the standards of the City of Chanhassen that has high quality standard of fairly open areas. I don't know if I'd grant a PUD on this. Mayor Chmiel: I guess my turn then. I too feel basically the s~me way. Density, storage, one car garages, ~mpervious surfaces, too high a percentage. Not enough useable open space and visitor parking spaces. The other perview that I see in this thing too, my understanding with HRA, we were going to have the HRA for basically downtown redevelo~cment and I don't see us subsidizing residential development within the con~nunity for this. I think the main idea was to develop downtown. Get that pulled together. Any additional residential development should not be subsidized by HRA, at least that's my own personal opinion. I guess pretty much ~/nat everybody else has said. I agree with it. I'm not in agreement with the concept. I'm not too pleased with what's being proposed and I guess that's where I'm at. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to comment on Jay's. I agree that we do need affordable housing. I think that is essential. I just wonder if we want, this is literally our west entrance to the City. I just wonder if we want it right there. And I guess that's why I would like to see it be commercial as the southern end of that is co.mmercial. Also, I think that some of the, in this particular plan, some of the buildings were going 'to be below that berm. Councilman Johnson: No, they'll be visible. CounciLman Dimler: Yes south. So that's just what t wanted to add. Go ahead Bill. CounciLman Boyt: First, affordable housing is certainly a challenge. We all know that. My feeling is if the HRA is going to subsidize something, we should build the highest quality housing for the square foot size that we can and we should subsidize enough of it to make it affordable for the people that will be seeking that sort of housing. We shouldn't settle for something that's as inexpensive as we can get somebody into a home. I don't think the City has the money to do the right kind of job of subsidizing housing. I hope someday we do have the tax base that we can subsidize housing. Minneapolis has got millions of dollars they can spend helping subsidize people buying homes. We're a long 70 City Council Y~eting - June 12~ 1989 147 ways from that. There's a couple issues that this development really brings out clearly and I'm real pleased at the things that I've heard the other Council members saying about these. This business about one car garages. Our current ordinance allows people to build I believe a one car garage. Is that right or is it a house needs 2 and an apartment has 17 Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. It varies with the n~mber of units, bedroom units. Councilman Boyt: I think Tom's development is a good example that everybody over there seems to be able to fill up a 2 car garage. I think we should be looking at the ordinance and making our ordinances present a minimum construction that we can all live with. I think by and large 2 car garages are what's happening so I'd like to see us look at that. I think another thing, and I've talked to Lori about this before and I don't se~n to be able to make a lot of inroads but this really points it out. The standard We have for park deficiency is unbelieveably high. We say that we can put 75 people on every acre in a park. That We can size our parks so they can handle 75 people around them. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because we've got different kinds of parks. We've got the park behind my house, the ~nan Pond Park. A lot of acres. A lot of it's water and there's no way that supports that number of people. We take the school park over here or what We might call City Center Park. You can't go out there any evening and tell me that that park isn't maxed capacity and the fact that we're adding 140 units of townhouses but we're not park deficient misses the whole idea of the park needs of a city and I think Park and Rec should be going back and seriously considering cutting that number in half. Again, it just shows up in this particular situation. We owe, I think we'd all agree, the City basically owes people easy safe access to it's parks and I think this is a chance to do that. We've only had one PUD that came in since we've had the new PUD ordinance. Lake Susan West. Jay and I were here for that one. You saw a part of it tonight with the sidewalk mishap which I'll be happy to see how that sorts itself out but when we granted that PUD, those folks gave the city everything that we could conceiveably get from them. We got 100 acres in park. Somewhere in that neighborhood of which some of it wasn't very high useability park but We got a lot of parks. We got sidewalks. That co~nunity is, the intent was to help that con~nunitybe self sufficient. I think when we grant a PUD, what We're saying is, you're coming in with a development that is a unit in itself. That it has open space. That you get that open space by the way you arrange your housing units. Then .the last thing and I'll get off my soap box, the last thing is this shouldn't be zoned R-12. Maybe R-4 but not R-12 and you can see that when you look. This looks like a tennis complex. I think it's too dense. That's all I've got. Mayor Chmiel: Dean, do you want to say anything? At least you know where We're all coming from. Marion Cully: My name is Marion Cully. I'm with Hedlund Engineering and I'm the site planner for this development that you have been discussing and we have been discussing for quite some time. I want to address some of the Council's concerns. First of all I'm a landscape architect and trees are very important to me and they are to Mr. Johnson too. We looked at this area and we tried to save as many trees as possible in the area. If you look at the grading, what the grading means in this area and how those trees are located, you realize that to develop this land...these trees should be grandfathered is maybe not an appropriate time to discuss this now. That should have been done prior to this 71 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 but it's impossible to develop this property and to save every tree. Period. I thJ. nk one of the issues that we're taking for granted, we've lost 140 sc~ne caliper inches. That's hard to take but we've also put in almost 2 1/2 times that. Now we're into the different variety of not just the native oak but different varieties dispersed throughout the development...pointed out. There are hundreds, thousands of caliper inches of trees that we will not touch nor any other developer will touch in the wetlands wooded area. They're protected and they should be. Granted we're losing 142 caliper inches but we're saving thousands as any developer would be. I understand the point about the trees but I want to point out that whether it should be R-12 or whatever, the fact is this gentleman bought the land at R-12 and we've done our best to involve that in what we were told and what we could do with it. I'm hearing the R-12 is synomous with apar~nent buildings. The R-12 designation as it reads now is based on three main points. The coverage, impervious coverage cannot be over 35% of the overall site. That's buildings and driveways. That has always been the case with every proposal that we've submitted. If you look at the overall site, 35% has never been exceeded. Period, on the overall site. There is the overall density has always been under and always will be under 12. It's 11.6. If you look at the overall site and that's how the site was designed. That's how we've always looked at this site as an overall unit. That's what PUD means, as you know. Also, a lot size is based on a per unit 3,6~0 square feet. Multiply 12 by 3,6gg square feet and you get an acre. That's where it came from. That gives you no land for right-of-way. No land for park development so the R-12 is really hard to work with. That's why we've done our best to submit a PUD plan that addresses the issues that the City wants to see in a PUD with variety. Different types of housing. We've looked at orientation of these housing. Different sizes of units. Apartments and townhouses and the developer wants to see these units being individually ownership. If they are, it has to be PUD. It's just the way the ordinance is written. We've worked with trying to look at the efficiency of the roadway design. The entrance for the road are pre-determined. Then it's hard to do anything else but to develop it in this way. There's townhouses that are now on this part of the property that are single apartment townhouses. Councilman Boyt: I voted against that by the way. Marion Cully: But they are there...so whether we think it's someone would think it's commercial or R-12, whatever, this is what we're working with and we feel that we've done the best that we can do with the product and the site. Are there any questions as far as the design? Councilman Johnson: How do you have a variety? Marion Cully: There's different sizes of structures. There's 8 units and 10 units and 12 units and there's orientation in all difference as to views and orientation. Then there's the apartment house and then there's the townhomes. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else have any more questions? Councilman Johnson: Is there a rendering of the buildings? What the buildings are going to look like? I don't see that in our packet. Marion Cully: It should have been. A few of them have double car garage...but if there's any question in the site design, I'd appreciate having the 72 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 opportunity to answer those. Dean can talk about unit designs~ Dean Johnson: The units are... It's a two story unit. The center units are single car garages. The end units double car garages. The center units are 2 bedroom units. The end units are 3 bedroom so we are getting some 3 bedroom... We feel that's some of the variety. What we're trying to build here is a unit that is affordable housing so there is another alternative but we want to keep the quality high too as I had in the conversation with Tom and Ursula. We're trying to build a unit that is maintenance free on the outside as vinyl siding is what we're proposing. Garage doors that are steel with enamel baked on finishes. Clad aluminum windows. Steel doors. We're also trying to build a unit with some quality here. The unit has thermal pane windows with...so you can actually get better R value than... More insulation in the attic. It's 2 x 4 walls and as I talked with Ursula and Tom, we felt there were better places to put the money because more of your heat goes out your ceiling and your windows than it does go. out the walls so we have a 2 x 6 walls. We are trying to give them something that is not going to be a burden to them %fnen they own the property. The exterior is maintenance free... The other thing though is a sprinkler system. To keep their lawn green, they're going to be paying for lawn mowing and chemical treatments to keep the weeds out and keep the bugs out. Other than that, the fees are going to be quite low. Mainly snowplowing in the winter and perhaps mowing and lawn treatments in the summer so they're going to have lower association fees which is again something that has to... Other than I guess if there are any questions. Councilman Johnson: What is the interconnecting walls between the two units? What's the construction there? Dean Johnson: There's actually two walls. There's a dead air space in the middle and there will be 5/8th sheet rock on both sides of the dead air space and then two stud walls. One of each side and then the interior rock on the building...and then the insulation. Councilman Johnson: Okay, do you know what the noise...? Dean Johnson: I don't know the decimils but I built the same construction in the Creekside at Plymouth project that I built in Plymouth and had absolutely no probl~n there... Councilman Johnson: The Brooklyn Park project, does that have the vinyl siding, the steel doors and all that good stuff on it? The same as here? Dean Johnson: They... Councilman Johnson: Do you know the address of that-one? Dean Johnson: It's about 96th and Russell. They have the same types of densities as this one. Councilman Johnson: Somebody mentioned a figure of $50,000.00. Dean Johnson: We're seeing these in the mid 50's for a 2 bedroom unit and the mid to upper 60's for the 3. 73 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, thank you. Can we have a motion or further discussion? CounciLman Johnson: I did a quick little calculation assuming 2 1/2 people per unit with 200 units when it's all built out, that's 500 people with 75 people per acre of parkland, they need 6.6 acres of parkland to support this. Where are we getting 6.6 acres of parkland? A PUD, we should be seeing this within the PUD. I see a totlot. With as many kids are going to be in here, it's solely inadequate. Dean Johnson: Can I address that portion of the issue? In the project that we built in Creekside, that was a quad project and I think Tom would probably back me up on this, there probably isn't going to be the large number of children iht his. It's probably going to be single people. Couples that are just married without kids. Maybe having their first child but then after their first child is there, probably looking for a single family home. Then you're going to get divorced people, widowed people and then elderly couples. In the 128 units that I built at the Plymouth project, we probably don't have 20 to 25 children of any age in that project...because we did get some older children when some of the widowed or divorced people came in and they had a child along with them so you're probably not going to have very much park pressure from this project. Councilman Johnson: If you compare this to, what is it Village West apartments that are built right out behind here? That's filled with kids. Lots of kids in there. I think there's a lot of children in the development. He's got 2 himself. Several friends of ours, my son that was rescued by some other folks here... He just went to a sleepover in that neighborhood. I think there are a lot of children there. It may not be a majority. It may not be like my block because it's really got a lot of kids on it but that's your starter where your families are starting. There's a great need for park area. The closest park would be I guess City Center or Lake Ann. Dean Johnson: The School is right there. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's City Center. Dean Johnson: Let me ask a question of Tom. How many children are in your development? Councilman Workman: I have no idea. Councilman Boyt: Tom's development is sitting next to probably a 20 acre park. Councilman Wor~nan: Yes, we've got Meadow Green there. Dean Johnson: I didn't know the park was next door but I guess what I'm saying is, we had talked and there were a lot of elderly couples that were right around here. Are there a lot of children? Do you see a lot of children? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I can guarantee that from pounding doors in that area. CounciLman Workman: In fact they go over across the highway to get to the lake by the Mayor's house so there's plenty of kids over there. 74 City Council Meeting -June 12~ 1989 15i Councilman Johnson: His is a full PUD with quads, bi-attached and single f~ily homes all J.n the PUD and they supplied a large park. Councilman Boyt: It's considerably bigger than yours though. Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. Very much bigger. Tw~ softball fields. Soccer field. Councilman Boyt: I would like to propose that we turn down the PUD development concept and development plan. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. One thing I had mentioned earlier, when I look at a PUD, we're giving something and we're getting something. I don't see what we're getting here on this one besides affordable housing and probably more than we need. There's no housing fight so we really don't know what we need. Roger has his hand up Mr. Mayor. Roger Knutson: I was just going to suggest that it maybe appropriate rather than, if you're going in that direction, prejudging what you're going to do but if the motion is to deny, rather than deny it tonight, the proper motion would be to direct staff and myself to prepare findings consistent with denial. Finding of Facts and Conclusions consistent with denial and bring it back here next meeting and adopt it at that meeting. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that motion. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law consistent with denial for the PUD concept and development plan for Oak view Heights and to bring those back to the next City Council meeting for adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to follow up Mr. Mayor by asking planning staff and planning commission to review the zoning of this area. COUNCIL PRESENTATION: This section was skipped due to the lateness of the meeting. ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATIONS: DISCUSSION OF LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN WATER PROJECT, JO ANN OLSEN. Jo Ann Olsen: The purpose of that m~mo is just to bring all the council members somewhat up to date on the discussion over the work plan for the project. Most recently there's been talk of having a committee formed that would look at the work plan and determine what would be the best option for that work plan to ~plement. It's pretty much just for to bring up for discussion. Just to allow the councilmembers to know what's happening. Not asking for any recommendations or anything. 75 ---City Council Meeting June 12, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Are there any recon~mendations from Council so staff can proceed with a specific concept? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a c~-nment if I might. The main con~ment is, unfortunately we don't have the Park and Rec Minutes attached here in regards to Lake Lucy but what I remember from reading them earlier, that project is too expensive at $129,000.g0. It's too environmentally damaging with a 890 foot long, 20 foot wide cut through the marsh. I'd need a lot more justification for why there isn't another alternative before we pursue that one. CounciLman Joknson: The DNR cannot expect us to cause such damage to the environment in the sake of access to this lake. While we can improve access to the lake other ways, while ~ may not get the total access as required, we've got to get reasonableness out of the DNR in this case. This lake is quite unique on trying to get access into it. Other than going through somebody's backyard in Greenwood Shores which I don't thJ. nk will happen real quickly. don't know who's going to volunteer to put a boat launch in their backyard and havir~j parkJ, ng in their front. Councilman Workman: I have been trying to keep as close an eye on this little situation and Jo Ann and I have had fun conversations on the phone. Appreciated Eric's and Mr. Carlson's and everybody's efforts. I mentioned it about a month ago or so at a Council meeting because I definitely saw it blossoming into a large issue. One in ~nich this preliminary plan took many months to basically put together and now we kind of have to get this through and we've got to do this. Well, maybe we don't like this plan and what rights do we really have to change the plan? I've researched Watershed responsibility and I've done a lot of different things. Why is the City tied in? The City's tied in because of the access. The access frown what I heard prior to coming on the Council was the big hot issue. That isn't the big hot issue. It's a secondary issue because the people along the lake, particular Lake Lucy, want the money so that they can clean up their lake but, and the big but is how technically sound is the project? Being a very &~ateur lynologist, we are not sure of that. So given perhaps some slight positive feedback as far as if Lake Lucy is going to make some improvement, then people are generally in favor of the access. I've been asking questions. Ursula's been asking questions. Everybody's been asking questions and negotiating. We've got every large governmental agency involved here which makes it even more fun. If in fact a committee could gotten together of the Eric Rivkin's and the Carlson's and lakeowners, council representative, PCA, EPA, DNR and everybody else, city staff, and we could accomplish something and make those results know. Keep it simple and perhaps organized because I know there's a lot of tempers and energy flowing, I would be happy with that. I'm always more in favor of getting it as out in the open as we can. I'm not going to be held responsible in the end for Chanhassen losing a million dollars for lake clean-up because I'm asking questions. So somehow down the road before this million dollar grant drifts away and out of our hands, I want to get some of those answers so we can proceed and that's the whole idea behind trying to get some answers. Bill has a different aspect at looking at the access. I think if in fact we can't get answers to sufficiently clean up the lakes, I would have a problem with the access and I know that the EPA and the PCA needs to see progres towards getting that access so they can get the million bucks and it's one big carrot on a stick going around. I do have concerns of course about the environmental impact of the marsh also. Again, I asked Lori, we need to see a time line before time slips away so that we can get it together. I proposed a 76 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 !53 couple weeks ago that we possibly have a public hearing as early as this Wednesday. That hasn't happened. We' re doing new things. Let' s get it together finally so that everybody knows where we're at. Where the money's at and what we have to do to accomplish it. Get the answers to the plan and move on with cleaning up the lakes. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Councilman Johnson: There seems to be some misconception of the purpose of the project. The purpose of the project is to clean up Lake Riley. There are side benefits that will the rest of the lakes. The primary purpose of the project is not to clean up Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, Lake Ann or Rice Marsh. I have my doubts on the calcium nitrate. It may work in this lake. It's a considerably different lake than Long Lake. Long Lake, I looked into it. They didn't do the whole lake. They only did a little portion of the lake. They didn't have the baseline data to tell where they were starting and they didn't do enough sampling to tell them where they ended so nobody has any idea what the affect of the d~monstration project was there. This is a full scale demonstration project. The entire lake is going to be done. They're financing an experiment. If it works, it's going to be very good. We don't know if it's going to work. I have another idea. I haven' t cost estimated it. Another way to do it that may cost less than $300,000.00 that would have the same affect. I haven't gotten down and sat around to cost estimate it yet but everybody has wild ideas. I've talked it over with so~e of our lynologists, who knows, it might work. But I think this is something we've got to go forward with. I think we need to explain, get together with the residents and find out exactly what's happening. If we want to do some more, if we want to do Lake Lucy restoration, additional work on Lake Lucy. Additional sum~er aeration, whatever, that's above and beyond this project. We ought to look in to see how we can finance that. If we want to run aerators year round on these various lakes, we'll have to look on how we can finance that. Mayor Chmiel: Can I just interject something? I had a call from Conrad Fiskness when I came back from vacation and I haven't been able to get a hold of him. He had graduation yesterday and he was going to be out of town until Thursday but I asked Conrad to do some checking...with a few of the lakes within the cities. One specifically in Robinsdale. Another in Golden Valley. Those were some of the areas that some of these things had been done and... manipulation and all the other things. He had some results but I don't know what those are. Hopefully by Thursday I will find out ~nat those results were on those lakes. I was just going to say, what I'm looking at as far as the City is concerned is that sure, we're getting a million dollars to do the clean up of the lakes but I think what we should look for is how to best expedite those dollars ~o get the best bang for the buck basically. If there's another or better way of doing what's being proposed, then I think we should pursue that. I think by getting all these other people involved with the PCA, EPA, the Watershed District, Council and some of the citizens, I think that's what we should really do. Resolve the matter, get it done and move on. Councilman Workman: It is for Lake Riley eventually but you've got to do something to Lucy and Susan and Ann and everything else to do that so you're asking, the thing that makes it unique and why the city is getting involved is because of the access. So if Lake Lucy is going to see no benefit, those people aren't going to be jumping up and down to get this access okay? So you've got 77 City Council Meeting June 12, 1989 to clean up Lucy and Ann, take care of everything else. That's why it's the chain of lakes project. The word experiment keeps popping up and that's why people are a little nervous because a million bucks down the chute you know. In golf we have a phrase, were if and buts, candy and nuts it'd be Christmas everyday you know. If's and but's. We've got a lot of if's and but's. But if and we've got a lot of that out there so these people, that's where I'm in here. The people have concerns about ~fnether or not it works or not and let's try and sell, I think Eric and Mr. Carlson can maybe add a ton here. Councilwoman Dimler: I want to make just a quick comment, because of the lateness of the hour. I agree with everything that's been said but I guess one other concern is that, you know over and over again I'm hearing that data is scarce if available at all. So I'm going to insist that if we go ahead with this experiment, that we insist on gathering the data and I don't want it only from the source of the agency that is doing the project but also from a fair monitoring source to collect the data and come to a consensus on it. Then this data would be made available to other watershed districts that are considering such a project so that we don't keep doing experiment after experiment after experiment and wasting the taxpayer's money so to speak. Councilman Johnson: That's the purpose of the demonstration project rather than experiment. It's to publish the results. Councilwoman Dimler: Where's the data from all the other experiments they've done? Jo Ann Olsen: I've got it in my office. Councilwoman Dimler: You do? WOW. Terrific. Does it tell you anything? Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't make much sense to me but. Councilman Boyt: Anybody who's warmed a chair all night probably deserves the opportunity to talk to us. Is there a chance maybe you could be brief? Dale Carlson: My name is Dale Carlson. I live on Lake Lucy. 690g Utica Lane. I'm only here to, not to get any nye's and nay's and so on. I'm just here to inform ar~ kind of let you know what we've been doing and hopefully you will look upon this as some positive help in this very complicated project. A group of Lake Lucy lakeshore owners met yesterday, June llth, to discuss issues related to the matter surrounding Lake Lucy. The general consensus of that group was that we all felt the need to be better informed. We all felt the need to have more input into the decision making process and I guess we all agreed that we wanted to help wherever we could. We wanted to help each other through improved cor~nunication with each other and we certainly also wanted to help those of you and other people who were to be involved in this very big decision. Not only for people on Lake Lucy but for the city of Chanhassen as a whole. In order to meet the co,tmon goals and objectives of that group of people, it was approved by a majority of the lakeshore owners that were present at that meeting and through those that weren't there through proxy, that we wanted to do two things. Number one, to form a Lake Lucy Homeo~aners Association. Number two, which we accomplished both of these things, to elect Mr. Eric Rivkin, Mr.. Tom Hickey, we elected him because he wasn't there but he agreed and myself as co-chairpersons to pursue and carry out the goals and objectives of the 78 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 155 association. I guess just in sun~aary, I'm just here to let you know that we're here to help and we want to help and all that kind of stuff. We understand that you've got, this is kind of complicated stuff we're talking about here and certainly we hope you'll accept our help whenever you deem it necessary. Just very quickly, we also discussed, in particular the Lake Lucy access situation and that's what item 2 is on the handout. You can just read this very briefly. Getting public acceptance of a lake access, L~ke Lucy access, was to be conditional upon public confidence that Lake Lucy would be cleaned up. We agree that the success of the whole project is highly dependent upon cleaning up the lakes starting with the head waters. I believe that was in the plan. The public feels that spending money on this project is worth while if we have the confidence that our water quality goals can be met and results must not be purely experimental. We have a feeling that we read quite a bit of that into that plan and that we require methods that have a believeable and reasonable degree of success. I don't know if you can have any kinds of those things dealing with Mother Nature but anyway. Issues that were discussed were the ongoing expense of that access and I'm talking more specifically now about the public access. We talked about was it likely to pass the wetland ordinance. The existing plan as it was last proposed with the Dirk's property on the east end of Lake Lucy. Some discussion on the mechanical assists between the two lakes, Lake Lucy and Lake Ann and we also discussed briefly an alternate option in that we understand the need to "clean-up" and I think that's not really what, it says clean-up but I'm not sure that that's really what's being proposed. But anyway, the possibility of financing a Lake Lucy clean-up independently. There was discussion of that. It didn't go too far. It didn't go beyond the discussion stage. So again, my only objective was to kind of again inform you. Inform you what we were hoping to accomplish and certainly let you know we'll help all we can. I guess a few more heads are better than, the more the merrier, that kind of thing right and thank you for the opportunity to take up your time at this early hour. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as they're switching here, do you think it would be worthwhile to get some cost estJ~mates from some of our local consultants here in the Twin Cities or nationally, whatever on a dignostic feasibility study of Lake Lucy. It's been done for Lake Riley and part of that said we've got to get rid of all the rough fish upstream in order to help Lake Riley. That's what they're doing here but this study really doesn't address water quality of Lake Lucy. That's outside the scope of this study so should we see what a cost estimate would be to start the first process of a Lake Lucy study? Because of the lakes in our chain, Lake Lucy probably has some of the most problems. Being the oldest lake. The lake that's dying the fastest. Geological time wise, it's pretty well filled up. Ann's got a long life ahead of it. Councilman Boyt: You're talking about getting an estJ~mate? Councilman Johnson: An estimate. Putting out a proposal and getting estimates. Councilman Boyt: I'd second that. Costs us nothing to get an estLmate. Councilman Johnson: Except for staff time to put the proposal together. Councilman Boyt: Well okay. 79 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Eric Rivkin: I have a little input to that that may help you answer that. ~Jnen I talked to Bart Engineering last Friday, this question came up. The reason is because of the issue that they were making recommendations on 4 to 5 lakes that didn't have any data or feasibility to back th~n up for these recommendations. I said, well what plans would there be to have feasibility studies done on that other 4 lakes in the chain and they said well that would become part of a phase 2. They're going with Phase 1 and this could _be part of the Phase 2 implementation. It's normally supposed to be part of Phase 1 but it's been non-traditional all the way along. This could either be done by Barr Engineering or another consultant. Councilman Johnson: With that solicit the financing to be helped by the Watershed District because that's part of their, if we get into the actual dignostics of it. I thJ. nk we should push, maybe the Watershed District should, maybe request the Watershed District to put out the bids because they have the staff to do it versus doing us do it. Talk to Conrad. Councilman Boyt: Let's send hL.m a letter and request it. Councilman Johnson: Maybe do all 4 lakes. Dignostic feasibility study for the upper 4 lakes. I think Rice Marsh they're pretty well doing. _Mayor Chmiel: It's pretty much in Rice Marsh. Councilman Johnson: That's where the main phospherous problem is. Eric Rivkin: That's where they think it is now because the feasibility study that Dick Osgood did only involved the assumption that the nutrients main source from Riley %~as Rice Marsh Lake. It didn't look all the way up the chain. How much was feeding into Rice Marsh Lake. Councilman Johnson: They had some data on the other lakes as far as what the phospherous levels were but considerably less. Eric Rivkin: Well Bart indicated to me that there wasn't enough data to go by and in order to make sound recommendations on what to do, they had to study the lakes. Councilman Johnson: There needs to be more sampling. Eric Rivkin: We need to study the lakes they're intending to treat with whatever. Councilman Johnson: Maybe that should be added to the work plan? Eric Rivkin: That's all part of the proposal. Eric Rivkin, 6~95 Stellar Court. Dale took the first 2 items on the discussion items and I'm going to take the rest of it. But before I go to number 3 here, I wanted to make a comment about the mechanical assist I did that I think was proposed by Bill Boyt in our last meeting that we had with the lake users. We would like to encourage as a group, we have agreed to encourage the exploration of that option because ecologically it makes a lot more sense. We think it would pass the wetland ordinance because of that. It would not be detrimental and could prove a benefit because it really doesn't have any detriments that we can see so we'd like that explored 80 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 fully. Okay, getting onto number 3 here. The public acceptance of a work plan. These were agreed by both Lake Riley Association and the recently formed Lake Lucy Association. That before getting public acceptance of a work plan, that we have to have a process and a schedule in place so that we can be sure that the work plan as revised would be acceptable. In other words, acceptance of a work plan would be conditional on a confidence that all lakes will meet agreeable water quality goals that could be set up with an advisory committee. The expectations here were not based on, well let's have all our lakes look like Boundary Waters' lakes. They were based on presentations that I made and others made based on lake restoration results on lakes done in the region. Our own region of southern Minnesota and evidence to that effect. A lot of that evidence was given to Jo Ann and to Bart Engineering and Bart Engineering is also investigating these possibilities. Hal Runkey called a meeting to ask Bob Lang from Clean-Flo for instance to meet with th~n at noon this morning which after 19 years of never returning phone calls to each other, this is... The handout in the agenda there addresses some of the concerns that we had on the lake users meeting on June 6th. I'll just run quickly through those. The formation of an advisory con~nittee. We've already talked about that. Our concerns are that we are a legitimate part of the process from now on. This is a recon~nended step in the EPA guidelines. The book I hope one of you did try to order this from Mark Tomizak from the EPA. It's a good guideline and it's got some chapters in here on how to do it all. It's a complicated process and it's a good premer on where do we go from here. What kind of questions could we ask. I did talk to Conrad. I don't know what the timing was here but after I talked to Bart Engineering I talked to Conrad Monday and he has given us his support and involvement in this advisory con~nittee where we could set ourselves some goals for this co~xnittee. Namely redefining water quality probl~s, objectives and methods to acheive those objectives. One definition that I got out of this book was what is a lake problem. A lake problem is a limitation on the desire to use this by a particular set of users. It's that broad and it's a specific as you want to make it. We have to take care not to confuse some of the problems with the causes of the problems. I'll give you a for instance. On Lake Lucy we had a total fish kill this year. It's been registered with the DNR officially. Most of the bullheads died and when they go, just about everything goes. That's a sympton. The probl~ is low oxygen levels in the lake. The cause could be a variety of things and that needs to be explored. These conditions exist on the other 4 lakes and Lake Riley which was not explored with those parameters in mind. Atrophic data only deals with the top 2 meters of the lake which is top surface water quality. Algae, water clarity, phytoplakt~m~ content. It does not deal with things like bottom sediments and the generation of toxic gases like nitrates and amonia and hydrogen sulfite which contributes to the fish kill and growth of algae and smells. Weed growth and all those things. A public discussion of the methods. The 14th was brought up. I don't know if that's still on. Parties involved are prepared for it and if there's a meeting to be called, I'm prepared too. But on the other hand, maybe we should postpone it when the problems and objectives are defined, then we can review the methods. Maybe that would be a better order, okay. So we need to buy ourselves some time to do that. Pure review of feasibility of future work plan revisions. We talked about that. Monitoring of employed restoration methods by an independent team, Those are other experts that, why take our word for it or an advisory con~nittee's word for it. Let's come up with a work plan that we like and then have it reviewed. A1 Klingelhutz recommended that we solicit input from the CCSWD. What's our deadline? I got a couple of different responses on that. The substate agreement is up June 30th. That's one deadline. Then 81 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 I heard another dealine that was July 15th. Some kind of extension. You'll notice on the next page there that the specifics about the extension of time. I think that's the most crucial thing right now, has to be applied for by the Watershed District to the MPCA. Mark Tomizak said that he will review it. There's no need to send it up to Chicago to the EPA. It can be done rather quickly and the Watershed District's board said they have to approve writing up this formal extension. Requesting more time, how much do we need? I don't know. My estimate is the work plan came out 2 months ago. To have all these meetings and work out the issues might take until the end of the year. I think that's reasonable. I don't want to apply Murphy's Law in here and say we're going to take to the end of the year but at least give us that because we've got the sun~ner. It's going to take a while for people to get together all the tJ~ne. So we don't want to lose the grant opportunity here and timing is of the essence there. Conrad said that he would bring it up to the Watershed Board on his meeting before he left to go out of towa this week. He said he would get back to find out whether or not they really are going to do that. I would like to request that somebody from the City be assigned to keep on top of that. The specifics about the project advisory committee. Based on concerns of the advisory c~_~nittee that were brought up in this meeting and in other sources from Ursula ar~ T~n that have also been investigating this, to get public acceptance of a work plan several things can take place. First of all we do have the support of Mark Tomizak who told us that without public support the project cannot go through so we have a great deal of control. He needs us. The EPA needs us to have public acceptance of some kind for the work plan. The work plan, I em~aasized many times in my conversation with Bart Engineering that it is preliminary. They expect changes. Every party in this expects changes. If it changes drastically, that's fine too. We can just justify them and the budget is not limited to a million dollars if indeed the feasibility study of the other 4 lakes indicates that we do need to address inlake water quality more than we do watershed quality and it needs a bit more money, they can ask for that in a revised work plan and it will have a new budget. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a good first step to have serious consideration of more feasible alternatives that can help achieve these new objectives in a discussion group meeting that has already been brought up. We don' t know when that's going to be but again, maybe we want to review this in at least a first meeting of some kind of ad hoc advisory con~nittee. I'm going 'to skip who should be it in. We already know about that. Another issue. Enough money for the watershed district. Conrad told me that his attorney advised him that it may not be possible to spend any more money with Bart or any other consultant on this project because there isn't enough to cover it. %hat needs to be checked out by Council I think. Bart Engineering is expected to have public hearings included in their work plan budget. So we need to find out, if they need money, how much do they need and how long will it take th~n to carry to the end of the year or Whenever we want to carry this out. Mark Tomizak indicated to me, I asked him, what does he need from us right now or what would cause the grant money to go away by default. He said well if you don't show progress ntm~ber one. And number two, if you don't address non-point source pollution issues. Two key factors. Must always include that so whatever our correspondence is, it's got to happen soon and include in the correspondence, ih has to address non-point source pollution or we lose the grant. Summary of meetings with Bart Engineering and Conrad Fiskness on the watershed. This is all within the last 5 days. Bart Engineerings seems to have, they are more open to listen to the lake users. We have devised a questionaire. Three of the people that are involved in this pretty heavily right now from the lake users side were 82 City Council M~eting - June 12, 1989 159 professionals ak devising questionaires. A sample is a first cut at them is indicated in there. These are normal types of things that are done, that the EPA recon~nends in this book and it wasn't done and it'd be a good thing that we do it so we get a wholistic view of what our focus on our water quality problems are and how we should start to resolve them. They also indicate that they to do further study before anymore recorrmendations are made. To make a clear work plan is necessary if changes are expected and they are willing to listen to alternative methods and they have demonstrated by action that they are willing to listen to alternative methods. Although they did make an appointment with Clean-Flo, they did stand them up this morning and I don't know why that is but Hal Runkey didn't show up for the meeting. Councilman Boyt: Eric, could you draw a close? Eric Rivkin: Two sentences. We just have to have, we want to continue to offer help to make your job easier and that a successful chain of lakes restoration can take place for the long term and we hope that Council will continue to work with us and make us feel that we are really making a difference here. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to move to a more formal advisory con~nittee to get this going. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's the direction we should give Jo Ann. See what you can pull together to get that moving as Jay had mentioned. Councilman Boyt: This advisory cona~ittee should come out of the Watershed District. I'm glad they're interested in doing it. Maybe it can be jointly appointed but they're really the lead group here. Mayor Chniel: Yes they are and I think as it should be, the 'Watershed, Council, as I said, landowners, PCA and EPA and come up with a conclusion. Eric Rivkin: PCA and EPA's role on this is not to be on the advisory committee. Mark Tomizak make it clear to me that he's there to review what we do but not to be a participant. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see the Watershed appoint these folks. I think the City can do everything we can to help them but I'd like to see, especially... Councilwoman Dimler: I think we could appoint the council member. Eric Rivkin: The extension is key here too. for the extension. Getting the Watershed to apply Mayor Chmiel: There's one last item that we have and I'd just as soon get to that. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? We have another person who is sitting out here and there is a critical issue in the corrmunity. Could we deal with that first? It's the TH 41 and TH 7 SuperAmerica station and Roger Zahn's development. A hot issue in that part of town. 83 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Roger Zahn: You can pass on it if you'd like~ Councilman Boyt: Well, you may not think that in a minute Roger. There's about to be an occupancy certificate issued for the SuperAmerica on TH 7. ~nen that c~ne through the Council, one of the greatest fears of the residents in that area was that the SuperAmerica station would be opened up and operating before the shopping center that was a buffer was in process. Now there might be a way to allow Roger to open a shopping center and still keep the credibility of the Council which I think is at stake here even though nothing's been violated in the development contract. I think the intent is shakey. I would suggest that we issue the certificate of occupancy, of course assuming that everything fits the occupancy standards of the city with the condition that by December, 1989 the improvements will be in place for the shopping center. That means asphalt paving, curbing, or the City will be empowered to exercise the letter of credit to do that. Roger Zab_n: That's in the development contract already. Councilman Boyt: I don't think there's a deadline on it. Is there? Okay, then good. I'm done. Well I'll call some people up there and let them know that that's the deal. PRIORITIES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS, JO ANN OLSEN. Councilman Boyt: In the first group, item 3 was my number 1. The blending ordinance. It~n 4... Mayor C~nmiel: Can I interrupt you for just a minute Bill? As I looked at this I thought what we should probably have done is have four different categories with having a high, medit~ and low and intermediate as well. That's what I did when I went through this is coming up with thoughts that I had on it as to what I thought was a high priority and which was a lower priority. Councilman Boyt: Do you know off hand how many highs you had? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I had 8. Councilman Boyt: Well I'll tell you. I'd be happy to turn over my 5 and the rest of them you can order them any way you want. Mayor Chmiel: I've got these too Jo Ann that you can have. Jo Ann Olsen: You can just pass them in and I'll work on them. Councilman Boyt: There were some of those that I thought were not the Planning C~n~nission's perview really. They were Public Safety Commission. Mayor Ch~iel: Council Presentations, we're going to hold back on all of those. You can bring th~ at the next meeting if you'd like. 84 City Council Meeting - June 12~ 1989 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 85