The URL can be used to link to this page

1989 05 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 8, 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 Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Karen Engelhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Counc~.lman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: · b. Final Plat Approval, Chanhassen Hills Third Addition. e. Final Plat Approval, Heritage Park, Lotus Realty. h. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code Deleting Contractor's Yards as Conditional Uses in the A-2 and BF Districts, First Reading. i. Approval of Accounts j. City Council Minutes dated April 24, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 1989 Park and Recreation Con~nission Minutes dated April 11, 1989 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. C. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, FIRST READING. Councilman Johnson: This is a vast improvement over what we have now, which is next to nothing, as far as restrictions on accessory buildings but I take to heart what Steve recommended up in the front and kind of agree with him there. If you look at a residential single family areas and R-4 areas, our ordinances will allow them to put a building 30% of the backyard and up to 1,000 square feet. So in my lot, I could put an accessory building the same size as my house in my backyard and according to th~_s 10 feet from my back property line. That would be terrible to my neighbor on my back property line to be able to put a full sized house 10 feet away from his property line. What I'd like to do here, I'm wondering if I just want to table this again and give some suggestions or pass it as is and look to see, talk to Don whether to go ahead and change it, as soon as we can send it back to Planning Commission with some suggestions. Council Meeti. ng - May 8, 1989 There's a lot of different thJ. ngs. My first suggestion ].s that in the RSF, R-4 district that buildings should not exceed 8g% of the size of the primary structure. I don't know if 8~% is a good nun4Der or not. That's still pretty big, and not to exceed a total of 1,gg~ square feet. I would take (a) and drop it back to 14g square feet or a minimum setback of 5 feet. Then I'd say for a house between 14g square feet and 4gg square feet, have a 10 foot setback and anything bigger than 4gg square feet which is 2g foot by 2g foot, go to the regular 3g foot setback. So theoretically your house can be 3g feet from your back property iine so you've only got a 3g foot backyard and somebody can then build a huge storage building just 4g foot away from you. Those are my suggestions for that. Then we add that (c) there. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, ! agree. I think we should pull this at this particular time. My reasoning is that ! would li. ke to have this as a regular agenda ].tem and open this for discussion because I'd like more input from the people in the con~munity if they have any. Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was much input at the publ~.c hearing that was held. I do remember being there. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. I was there also. I just want people to be aware of the fact that this is there and I want to make sure. Councilman Johnson: A neighbor of ours built a large barnlike structure in their backyard. They've got the 12,gg0 square foot lot and they actually put it right on the property ii.ne right next to the guy's garden so his garden became a shaded area. They spent a long time getting that garden going and they built this structure right next to _it so that's what I'm try~.ng to prevent. Stuff like that. I move to table it then. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I' 11 second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the first reading of an Ordinance Amending the ZonJ. ng Ordinance regardJ, ng Accessory Structures. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, EAST SIDE OF PO&ERS BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Councilman Johnson: I actually didn't have a whole lot of problems with the preliminary plat itself but I've got a problem with the pond that with the ice melt they had a pond get destroyed, a sediment pond and it's been what, a month now and it hasn't been repaired and now we've got sediment running J. nto Lake Susan because there has been no repair. I don't see why we should contf, nue. This should have been repaired in~nediately. Do you know what the status of that is Gary? Gary Warren: We followed up and had contact wi. th the developer, Argus Development and their engineer. They've changed engineers in the process of going from the Second to Third Addition so I don't know if that slowed them up but we've been in contact with them over 2 weeks ago to address it. You're City Counc~.l Meeting - May 8j 1989 259 right, I was out yesterday looking and I made a note that it had not been done yet so. Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's nice light brown water flowing out of there tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Have we received revised landscape plans on this as well as did we also receive the Watershed and Carver County permit for this Gary? Jo Ann Olsen: We did receive the revised landscaping plan. Carver County, no they have not received for the temporary access? They have not received that. We have been in contact with them and they feel there wJ~ll be no problem with taking it. I don't even know if they've made the application yet. Mayor Chmiel: But you've had discussions with the County regarding this and they don't have any problems? The pond to be repaired, that should also be part of that basic approval. Jay are you going to make a motion on this? Councilman Johnson: Okay. I thought Ursula wanted to talk. Councilwoman Dimler: I had something other than that. My point with it. I was under the ~mpression that we had a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Is that right Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: ThJ. s is a PUD and so they were permitted smaller lot sizes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay because I noticed there were quite a few of them that were smaller. Also, do we have a minimum width at the setback that the lot has to be? Jo Ann Olsen: It's 90 feet at the setback. Councilwoman Dimler: It's 90 feet wide at the setback. Okay, do they all meet that requirement? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval of item l(d) with the staff's 10 conditions. Adding a condition 11 that the sedimentation basin along CR 17 be repaired as soon as it dries out enough to repair it. You can't get in there and work on it now but J.n a timely fashion. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 13.49 acres into 9 single family lots on the east side of Powers Blvd. approximately 1 mile south of Highway 5, Lake Susan Hills West, Argue Development with the 10 conditions listed by staff in the staff report and an additional condition 11 stating that the sedimentation basin along County Road 17 be repaired in a timely fashion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 26© City Council Me. kin9 - Hay a, 19a9 Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, on the Minutes. Councilwoman Dimler: The only thing I wanted to know is, I wanted to ask Gary Warren, I know at the last meeting I brought up the fact that the cul-de-sacs should be large enough to allow school buses to turn around and Gary indicated that he would check with the school board on that. Did you do that Gary? Do you have an answer? Gary Warren: We dJ.d do that and we couldn't find anybody there that said they had a problem with it. This was the first that we heard. We checked our turning radii width, the standard detail plates for buses and we are in compliance with the minimum turning radius on our standard plates but other than that, we did call the school district and did not fi.nd anybody that had any specific complaints that they chose to give us anyway. CouncJ. lwoman Dimler: Okay, then there must be a miscommunication because the party I'm referring to did call the school board and complain. Gary Warren: This is an individual resident that complained about it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Gary Warren: We talked to the school board directly now. I'd be happy to follow up if you've got a n&~e you want to give me after the meeting and talk about it. Councilman Johnson: t know there are some people in Chaska with the same basic complaint. Some people on our swim team that my son's on. It's the same thing. They want to take as straight of a shot as possible. In fact there's one place where they could take a loop and loop through and go out on another street. If they don't do it, you still have to walk a quarter m].le up to do it. Gary Warren: The co~ment we had back from the school district was that their contract with the bus agency was that they were not requ].red to go down cul-de-sacs. Therefore, it's not necessarily a bad turning radius on the cul-de-sac. It's just as Jay's elud].ng to somewhat, they have adJ. rect shot so even if we had cul-de-sac that had a lgg foot turning radius, they probably still wouldn't go down them. That's theist contract with the carrier. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll pass that onto the resident I'm concerned about then. Thank you. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Dave Pederson from the Villager drew a name for the Recycling Prize. City Counc~.l Meeting - May 8, 1989 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: STEVE DECATUR, EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL. Steve DeCatur: I'm Steve DeCatur, 6645 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen. I'd like to make an overview presentation of the Eurasian Water Milfoil program that I've outlined for all of you previously. I know you've all had a chance to review that so my con~nents tonight will be brief. I mention as an introduction that I do have with me Howard Crush from the DNR. He's an aquatic biologist so if you have any technical questions that I can't field, we have a resource available for your questions. As I say, I recognize you've reviewed this. I think we can all agree based on the pictures on our wall that the lakes in Chanhassen are one of our greatest recreational resources and that byway of an overview, I believe that we can agree on several other points as well. First of all that the threat to the Chanhassen lakes is Ja~ninent The weed has spread rap~_dly through Lake Minnetonka in the past 2 years to t~e point where ~ three-quarter of a million dollar harvesting program at this juncture is the most feasible method for keeping the weed under control. It's not a method to eliminate the weed but merely to keep it down to a tolerable level. Because of our proximity to Minnetonka and the volume of interlake traffic with Chanhassen lakes, you can see fairly clearly that we're in extreme risk for spread of the weed. Secondly the problem is rather severe. The weed's effects on the recreational value to the surrounding area as well as the property value as also outlined in my presentation. They're anticipating a 7% to 8% decline in property values on Minnetonka in the badly infested bays and there are also other problems related just strictly to the unsightly and malodorous nature of the weed as it decomposes in large mats on the surface of the water. Thirdly, the problem is in~nediate. The weed is already up in Lake Minnetonka. It's up to a level of 12 to 15 inches. Will soon be up within prop depth and will begin it's process of fragmentation and spread so to the degree we can accelerate the process and act quickly, we need to have a program in place as soon as possible. Are there any questions at this point that you'd like to address to Howard? Otherwise, I'll go ahead and outline the program. Mayor Chmiel: I think you can just continue unless someone does have any questions of Howard. If not, please proceed. Steve DeCatur: Okay. The program I've outlined in the presentation I prov~ded you is based on the following facts. Once the weed is well established in a lake, the only effective treatment method becomes harvesting. It's not an eradication process. It's simply a control process. At this point affected biological and chemical treatments of extremely infested lakes do not exist. A couple closure or l~mitation of access hours or launch fee are not available options based on my conversations with the DNR and other governmental bodies. Furthermore, the DNRhas a very l~mited budget at this point to coordinate any kind of a program in the 1989. Thirdly, Chanhassen's budgetary constraints as I've learned working with Scott Harr and others at City offices, will preclude expanding the access monitoring schedule to a full 16 hour per day monitoring system. Therefore, the program I've outlined is one which concentrates an early identification and very rapid treatment if the weed, when and if it is found in the Chanhassen lakes. The program does depend on a contribution from both the conxnunity and the city. The 3 part program brJ~efly outlined consists of an educational phase with distribution of brochures, erection of warning signs and Council Meeti. ng - May 8, 1989 also educatJ, on of lakeshore h~-neowners and access monitors and the placement of trash receptacles for deposit of the weed. Secondly, the control phase involves a patrol by voluntary cJ. tizen teams who have been trained to identify the weed. Thirdly, through a pro~p't reporting process back to City Hall with your designat~_~d contact, to establi, sha procedure to confirm the existence of the weed. Contact a cor~nercial contractor to coordinate with the DNR and the permit process and the pro'.mpt treatment chemically of the weed. Again, our only option being early identification. Catch it while it is a small level of infestation. Deal with it. Eradicate it and stave off a major infestation until some be_ther biological control methcrls can be perfected. As my cover memo describes, the cor~uni, ty will provide basically voluntary participation in the distribution of brochures and ongoing patrol of the lakes except Ann where no private citizens have lakeshore property and patrol teams axe bei. ng organized at this time on Minnewashta, Christmas, Lucy, Lotus and Riley. The City involvement as I've asked in my cover m~no, for you ho designate a responsive proactive individual to coordinate sign installation ASAP and to be the contact to interface with the treatment contractor, the individual who will also be the i. nterface with Ron Johnson who's the Carver County weed inspector and will be involved in the coordination of the training of the weed patrols and the lake access monitor personnel. Second, the city will nevi to commit funds for the printing, signage and treatment up to the limits that I've called for i.n my program. Third, depending on the extent of 'the weed infestation, if any, and as a side I would ment_ion that no one has confirmed any sightings of the weed in any of the lakes I've mentioned in my program but if the infestation does occur in 1989, to con, nit the funds in an ongoing basis in 199g to conti, nue to cope with the problem. If there are no further questions, I'd await your designation of my contact so ~ can rapidly implement a progr~n to deal with the program this year. Mayor Ckmiel: Very good. I want to thank you for taking your time out as you have to have concerns about the lakes and 'the city. I think it's very well documented and a nice job. Steve DeCatur: So I should expect to return next time for action? Mayor Ckmiel: We have not basically discussed this and I think maybe what I'd like to do J.s just throw it open. Maybe Don you have some c~nents. Don Ashworth: Staff is already starting to carry out part of the program. The signs I believe have been ordered. Contact remains between Lori Sietsema and Scott Hart. Your crossing a number of borders in terms of a particular problem and again I feel that both those staff members can react to any type of questions you may have. At some points it may require again public safety action. At other times, back with Park and Recreation and again Todd has been active in the program to date as well. I think they've done an excellent job laying out the program, t~ne thing that worries me the most is that ].f we do get into a situation where the weed is prominent, ~e simply do not have either the manpower or t2~e dollars 'to go through the type of program that's been outlined if the weed does get to a dangerous condition. Steve DeCatur: I understand that the signage has been ordered. I commend that. We can get that in place. I don't know the inner workings of city offices but would only suggest as far as we've taken the progr~n, there is some coordination which I'm sure the citizens would be able to help in in getting people over to City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Minnetonka to learn what the wL=ed looks like. To educate the patrols and educate the access monitors. What I really see being a fairly narrow time constraint then is if they do receive a call. A second call goes to Don. To Mr. Johnson at Carver County. He identifies the weed. Then there really is only a letter and permit process to go through and that will be taken care of by the contractor that you select to do the weed treatment. I guess I can't emphasize strongly enough based on the networking I've done, that if we let it go another year and you don't treat it promptly or you don't get on it within a period of weeks, the weed spreads very quickly. 2 inches a day. Fragments. Spreads by fiberous root syste~n. You're going to have a infestation problem very soon that is very copeable if you will, can only be coped with with a very expensive harvesting program. Again, I'm not trying to second guess your judgment but I believe with the program far enough advanced at this point, that we can reduce the manpower time required at City Hall. I understand that the funding is an issue and I think that will have to be dealt with on an emergency basis based on my input that I've had from people that I'm working with but I'd suggest if we can now to proceed with the signage. I would like a person designated by you so that I don't have to go to Scott and Scott say well, I'm not sure. Park and Rec's role is x and get this handoff back and forth. I would like to have one clear representative at City Hall that I can work with. Don Ashworth: I continue to look to Scott Harr to be that person. Steve DeCatur: That's fine. I've had very good cooperation from Scott. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to thank you also. You look at these costs. This is nothing ccmpared to what would happen if it got established. If we can keep an eye out for it. We talked about an ordinance prohibiting the transport of the weed into our lakes or anything. What ever happened with that? So that our gate attendants would have an ordinance behind them where by they say you can't put your boat in because you've got the milfoil on it. Right now does he have the legal right to tell somebody that? Mayor Chmiel: We did discuss that some time ago, you're right but I don't know if there's been any follow-up of anyone on it. Councilman Johnson: I was thinking there was something within our nuisance ordinance where we thought that it may not be necessary with our weed ordinance, our nuisance ordinance we're able to say that he had that right. I think we ought to double check on that too and if we need, I'd like to see an ordinance next time where we actually... Mayor Chmiel: Give a little bit of bite to the people that are there. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve DeCatur: So that I understand Mr. Chmiel, if we do find it and it's identified, what is our avenue of approach back to the city offices at that point? I'm a little uncertain. I understand the program up to that point is pretty much endorsed as indicated. What is the process if we identify the weed? City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I would say get back to Scott Hart. Steve DeCatur: Okay, very good. Councilwoman Dimler: Steve I have a question. Did you say at the present time none of our lakes have it? Steve DeCatur: I will not testify to that. Ail I can tell you if Lake Restoration who is the contractor that I've designated here has done a lot of work in area lakes treating beaches, for other kinds of personal contract use. Not for the city. They have not positively identified it in any of the lakes and any of 'the quasi-educated persons that live on the lakes that have seen it on Minnetonka have not reported seeing it but I can't testify that it's not here. It certainly is not at a level where it's been noted as a problem. Therefore, the pr~.mise of my program is let's get to it before it becomes a problem but I can't testify that it's not. Councilwoman Dimler: The reason I ask is because there is a native water milfoil and perhaps we have that. I'm not sure. Steve DeCatur: You could ask Howard. I'm assuming that there is a high chance or high probability that we do have that J.n one or more of the lakes but it can be differentiated from the Eurasian variety. Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that it's difficult though. Steve DeCatur: That's why I say that we need an educated person. I'm suggesting here Mr. Johnson from Carver County be educated to do that. The contractor's also have the ability to identify the weed but certainly the weed patrols are nothing other than a first look and if there's a suspected weed infestation, City Hall is called and whatever you determine. Whether you want to use the contractor at that point or whether you want to use the Carver County weed inspector, get th~m out there for positive identification, then it better be treated in the next week to 1~ days or we've got a problem where it begins to multiply. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my point is, I hate to see us spending a lot of money if we're dealing with a native and not the Eurasian. Steve DeCatur: You won't be. You will not be spending any money for trea~nent until the weed has been positively identified and the DNR won't give you a permit ttntil they're certain that the weed has been positively identified. As you can see, the rest of i't is voluntary up to that point. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, a few weeks ago, probably a month ago, I had heard that DuPont had come out with s~nething that would eliminate this. Is there anything that you know? Steve Decatur: No. I'd defer to Howard. I asked him the same question after we had our conversation. Howard Crush: I'm Howard Crush with the DNR. I'm the manager of the Monitoring and Control Unit in the Fish and Wildlife Division. I believe the product you're referring to is probably a product called Fluoridone. It goes under the City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 trade name of Sonar. It's not DuPont, it's Elanko has this. It's a systemic herbicide. It received full registration, gee I think that was last sum~er or the sun~ner before. We don't know how well it is going to work in Minnesota. It is probably the most widely used aquatic herbicide in Florida. That's where their biggest market is. What they have determined in the south though is that Eurasian Water Milfoil is very sensitive to this herbicide and they're not making any claims yet but it's entirely possible that it may be found that it can be used selectively to control Eurasian Water Milfoil. Mayor Chmiel: Is that because of your water temperatures? Howard Crush: It isn't so much the water temperature I don't believe. It's just that it's a very slow acting product. It may take 60 to 90 days to become effective. Now that's most of the sun, her here but looking at that is one of these good news, bad news things and it's not just one bit of good news and one of bad. It's well, this is not so good but this is and this isn't and this is. It appears to be selective but it takes a long time but on the other hand it really does a job on it and it may give 2 or 3 years of control. It's kind of back and forth. We are going to have some control plots or experimental plots on Lake Minnetonka. We're working with Elanko on that and we're going to try to see just what it does do. Mayor Chmiel: Can we be informed or what's happening as well? Howard Crush: Oh certainly. Steve DeCatur: I assume this year it's not an option until it gets through the experimental phase? You wouldn't commercially or allow commercial... Howard Crush: Well it is on our approved list. It has been used a little bit but we don't really know what to recommend. It's the sort of thing that is not very suitable for making spot treatments in the lakes. About what Elanko thinks is probably the minimum size area you can treat is about 5 acres. If you treat 5 acres, you probably eliminate all the sensitive plants within that 5 acre area or you may get all the sensitive ones and those that are moderately sensitive and only the most hardy ones will survive. Then outside of that area because of drift and this is quite a long lasting compound, you may control sensitive species on another 5 acres. This is what we're trying to find out in Minnetonka. It's been the experience in other areas, this is kind of what happens. On a reservoir in Indiana, they treated oh I think it was something like 15 or 20 acres and they control 30 or 40 acres of Eurasian Water Milfoil so it' s encouraging. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, another action we probably should do is establish a contingency plan. I think the framework for said contingency plan is right here in the document that Steve prepared for us. In that if Eurasian Water Milfoil is found, that Scott has a plan to open up and act. There's no, we have a pre-approved eradication plan. That we don't have to wait 2 weeks for the City Council to meet and approve it and things like that. I'd like to see us approve it in advance. C3. ty Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Councilman Workman: I think the contingency plan is only as good as the funding and my next question was going to be_, do we have any kind of funding or where would the funding come from? I haven't heard that from staff. I remember in January Park and Rec was thinking about getting rid of the parking permit fees at Lake Ann. They were talking about doing that and there's about $20,090.g0. Maybe a percentage or something of that could be designated. Something directly related to the quality of parks and lakes. Don Ashworth: There is no line i~tem within the budget to cover really any of these things. The aclministrative trust fund was established as a special fund to be used by City Council for special projects as they would occur during the course of the year. Staff has taken the position initially at least with the signs, that this was an item that we felt the Council endorsed and was within the intent and purpose of that fund. For us to spend further monies over again that initial signage, I would feel very uncomfortable unless I came back to the City Council. Again, having you designate a specific budget ~ount that we could work within. Similarly, I guess I'd like to work with Steve a little bit. He said we have a contractor, though there are municipal contracting laws there as well and I guess I'd like to know more about that contract. What it is we're potentially getting into in hiring that contractor. How well that conforms with the Minnesota Municipal Bidding laws for contractors. Steve DeCatur: There are multiple contractors. I only suggested these people because I have worked with them and they've been most helpful but I understand that what I'd like to do, as Jay has indicated, is run down those paths now. Address them early so the process is there and I understand this is a contingency issue but if we do wait, it's going to take a week to find it. You' re going to have to come back and if we hit the wrong schedule it will be 2 weeks before the Council meets again. We're go].ng to be sitting there for 3 weeks to a month with absolutely no action. My personal feeling and it is only that, is that if you forego some picnic tables this year and you forego an improvement on a picnic shelter, something else out of the Park and Rec's budget, we should be prepared to postpone that kind of an investment until we're certain there isn't a weed problem. And if there is, assess the magnitude of the problem. Budget for it. Deal with it. You're talking about $375.gg an acre and an acre of weeds is a lot of weeds. I think the numbers I've outlined here, a total program of $16,0gg.gg. I feel are fairly aggressive. So what I'm really looking at is a way for the Council to say let's prioritize the Park and Rec's budget until we have time to let the weed emerge if it's here. Find it. Locate it and fJ. gure out how we're going to deal with it. CounciLman Johnson: As I say, I don't think we're going to hit up with 38 acres right away so the number of $14,ggg.g0 of control is probably way high because we want to find it before it's an acre or anything like that so it is easier to control. I would like to see a contingency plan made up. A preliminary budget. We can go ahead and pre-approve a vendor, or we may not use them as all. Say hey, we would like to have somebody }Did on the job. ~fnat will you charge us per acre? Whatever we have to do knowing that there is none 'to do but we want to be able to jt~np on it when it does happen. Like I said, the government bidding is not a fast operation. Don Ashworth: I would suggest tabling this item to allow Scott and myself to address each of the ~.ssues that Council has brought up here. City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I think it's s~mething that we do have to address before we can't come to a conclusion this evening. Councilman Johnson: It's a visitor presentation so it's automatically tabled. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Maybe you can do that. Review that with Scott and cc~e up with some conclusions as to what total dollars and get back to the Council and we'll go from there. Councilman Johnson: I would say we could designate something, say $5,000.00 which is a third of what this would be. His assumption is that 5% of all areas that are susceptible to this are infested and need to be treated is a very loose assumption. So I would think that $5,000.00 would probably be more than enough to handle it if the patrols catch it soon enough. If it doesn't, then we've got a problem. Mayor Chmiel: I still think it has to be tabled and come up with some conclusions so we can do that. Steve DeCatur: I'll continue to coordinate with Scott. Any involvement you need from me, let me know through Scott. I'm here to volunteer. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional visitor presentations? A1 Klingelhutz: I just wanted to talk a little bit about Eurasian Milfoil. We had a meeting about 3 weeks ago and we're meeting again this week. The Carver County Park Board which I'm a member of. We did send a letter to the DNR and I don't know if any of these people are in receipt of that, asking them what they're going to do about it. It looks to me like they're pushing all the responsibilitJ, es of it onto the local con~uunities that have lakes in their district but I think it's really a Department of Natural Resources problem as much as it is the local con~nunities. I'm really concerned that we aren't getting enough effort from them as far as their boat accesses and things like that which they have promoted on all these lakes to do some signage and get out some educational material to the public so people really know what the concerns are. I'd like to have a copy of the program that they've set out for the City of Chanhassen to take to my Park and Rec meeting up at Baylor Park Wednesday night if I could have that. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Steve made this up, not the DNR I believe. A1Klingelhutz: But I'd like to have a copy of it. We can probably take some of the same actions. Eric Rivkin: I just want to make some comments on the Milfoil. Eric Rivkin. 6095 Stellar Court. I support the program'whole heartedly and it's nice to see someone else as passionately possessed as I am about the care of our most precious natural resources. I live on Lake Lucy and right now Lake Lucy doesn't have a public access and if it is opened up to public access, we of course run the risk of greater infestation of the milfoil. I believe we have to do whatever means that is possible to prevent infestation and attack the problem immediately when it appears. With the high nutrient level and low water clarity on Lake Lucy, infestation would be rapid and difficult to detect. I agree that we can't wait for a slow reaction time. We have to attack the problem 11 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 in~nediately. We need quick and i~mediate action to tap on readily available funds. According to Steve's report, milfoit likes nutrient rich water and it would make sense that since the introduction of milfoit is inevitable, that preparing the lakes to make it difficult to take root and spread and keep the water to clear to make it easy to spot would make a very strong preventative measure. Combined with methods that are proven to reduce nutrient levels that will hopefully be incorporated into the Lake Riley restoration program. These measures will perform double duty. Perhaps the fund later on could be expanded to include funds to help with these methods. To keep the nutrients out. I contact several residents who have open water access and they're willing to learn about mJ. lfoil and be part of the milfoil watch program on Lake Lucy and if I ever get open water access, I will be an active participant also. I gave Steve my number to be_ a contact for Lake Lucy. I have been in contact with him already on this and he's encouraged to hear that we' re going to be actively participating. Thank you. Cindy Gillman: I'm Cindy Gillman. I'm also on Lotus Lake. The one other thing I wanted to bring up possibly, to put in for the immediate stop gap budget is some kind of bouys or flags so that when it is spotted on the lakes, that bouy is put in place or the flag is put in place so that boats are not going over that until it is identified one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Anyone else? Not hearing any we'll close the visitor presentations. AWARD OF BIDS: NEW MAILING EQUIPMENT. Don Ashworth: Karen Engelhardt is present this evening, our office manager. I've asked Karen to go through quotes. With the ~mount under $15,00g. gg, official bids were not required. We looked at a number of different pieces for our mailing system. Both new and used equipment. Funding for this had occurred as a part of our overall building expansion program recognizing we're moving people. We're also moving various functions. Again, this was a very needed piece of equipment. Again, Karen has taken quotations. The low bid from Friden is the one that's being recommended in an amount of $2,275.00. This is a mailing machine, folder, inserter, letter protector and electronic scale. Councilman Johnson: $10, gg0. gff. Mayor Chmiel: $1g,275.gg. I guess I have a question. In looking at the Friden from the first page on the memorand~n as opposed to the second page, we show the Model 9125 as a mailing machine for the same amount as what's on the first page. The_ second it~n is the remanufactured one for about $2,0~0.g0 some dollars less. _Now the mail opener, is that the same as what the letter protector is? Karen Engelhardt: No. The mail opener will actually slice the mail that we receive every morning open. That's separate. Mayor Ck~iel: What's the difference between that and the letter protector? Councilman Johnson: They're tim s~me price. 12 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: You have 5001 Letter Protector and then the other is known as a mail opener. Karen Engelhardt: I used the term interchangeably. Mayor Chmiel: Then the electronic scale is basically the same as the 5 pound scale? Karen Engelhardt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: She used generic on the front because you had 3 different bidders and it was specific in the back. I move approval. Councilman Workman: Maybe I can ask a quick question. We've had a problem the past 3 weeks with the copying machine. Karen Engelhardt: That's our next project. We just had a new motor installed in the copier last week. It's kind of, the problems we've faced in the last 3 weeks kind of are the beginning of the end for the motor so that's been replaced and hopefully we're back on track. Councilman Johnson: But it still needs replacing eventually. It is an old machine. Don Ashworth: We do 5 year leases on the Xerox. We're up to running about 70,000 to 80,000 copies per month through that machine. The 5 year lease and actually ownership ended this past year. I've been trying to get along, get that extra 6th year out of it and I don't think it's worth the struggle. It's just old and needs replacement. Councilman Johnson: Remember your car. Your car went 2 years longer than it should have. Resolution #89-66: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid to Friden in the amount of $10,275.50 for the following equipment: Model 9125 Mailing Machine, System 500R Folder/Inserter (remanufactured), 5001 Letter Protector and 8505 Electronic Scale. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BID: CLEANING, REPAIRING AND PAINTING THE 100,000 GALLON ELEVATED STORAGE TANK. Gary Warren: We opened bids on April 26th for the subject project. We had 3 bids that were received. The low bid was suhnitted by Odland Protective Coatings in the amount of $57,340.00. Reference check and the references, the project material they had to submit with the plans and specifications checked out fine and we're reconm~ending award of the Project 88-19 to Odland Protective Coatings in the amount of $57,340.00. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had one question. The tank lettering for $3,000.00. Is that been determined that we letter all tanks? I know that we have the maple leaf on the tank off Powers Blvd. which I think is attention as to what 13 ~ft~y~Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Chanhassen is. Is J.t necessary that we put the words Chanhassen up there? Gary Warren: When we brought this up as a part of the plan and spec preparation, I guess we were looking for Council input at that time also. As you know, the tank is currently labeled with Chanhassen and our thinking, mine I guess primarily was to continue with a name recognition consistent with what was up there. In fact to change the lettering to the current letterhead style. The name would actually be shrunk down but 'that was our thinking. The maple leaf is used in several other communities as you're no doubt aware such as Little Canada ! believe and Maplewood so we thought it would be appropriate at least in the downtown area to have one tank that has the name. Being a private pilot, I also appreciate names, but that was the reason. Councilman Workman: When will this begin? Gary Warren: We had a condition in the s~ecs I believe it was -that it be completed by the end of August. Painting is, as I'm sure you're aware, is a little bit sensitive to the weather and they've got the rehab work and such to do. We will be having a meeting following this and get a schedule fram the contractor but basically the only critieria we have is that he be done by the end of August into September. Councilman Johnson: Did you get any feedback from the paint color from the neighbors? Gary Warren: As I noted here, we'll be sending a letter out. We can select that paint color up to the last minute almost so we're sending a letter out just to get that feedback. Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council want to be consistent with all tanks being the same color too? Gary Warren: That was our approach here ~fnen we chose the color on the ground storage reservoir and that color has received very good response so we' re intending to use, that's what we speced but as directed, we'll be sending a letter to notify the Jmnediate 3 block area around that this is what we're going to be doing. We're also going to go with a new paint system which is, I shouldn't say this for the public but it's a little more resistent to graffiti so that means we' re done now right. But we're able to use solvents to remove graffiti so it's worked out pretty well in other communities. Resolution #89-67: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the bid for cleaning, repairing and painting of the 1~,0~ gallon elevated storage tank to Odland Protective Coatings in the total amount of $57,34g.gg. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR REIMBURSF~MKNT OF A PORTION OF RENTAL PAYMENTS FOR USE OF OLD ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH, MIKE WEIBERG, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Dean Brown: Mike could not be with us this evening. My name is Dean Brown. My address is 18737 Clear View Drive, Minnetonka. %~nat I'm here to do is speak in terms of the sublease 'that the Family of Christ Lutheran Church went into 14 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 agreement with the City of Chanhassen in regards to capital improvements to Old St. Hubert's. From my understanding of the lease and I don't know what you have in front of you but it basically seems to be an interpretation of money spent for capital improvements for Old St. Hubert's church. The original lease agreement which was signed and to go in effect on December 31, 1983 and run through December 31, 1988 requested that the Family of Christ Lutheran Church pay $15,000.00 into a fund that would be used for capital improvements for Old St. Huberts. At the tLme the least was written, it was in the spirit that the Family of Christ would obviously pay for things that they were using within the church. What kind of prompted the whole lease agreement was that the city just had an outlay of over $4,000.00 for improvements to the furnance of that particular church. At the t~me, the life of the furnance was deemed after that to be anywhere from 15 to 20 years. ~ne sublease agre~nent at that time was then for 5 years. Subsequently, Family of Christ has upheld it's part of the bargain. Has paid it's $15,000.00 and as we neared the end of our lease and as we started to move into our new building as stated by Don Ashworth, what we did was we contacted, let me get the letter out in front of me, a Jean Meuwissen, as far as the fund was concerned and what was actually there. What we were fully expecting to find was $15,000.00 of which we would receive 60% of that money and then the City of Chanhassen would receive 40%. What we found was a deficient as the fund began in that year to charge us for the furnance of $4,000.49 plus the appropriate interest charged to that $4,000.00. What Don Ashworth is contending is that that particular money should be coming out of the fund and then what is left over after the $4,000.00 is deducted. We would receive 60% and the City of Chanhassen would receive 40%. So what that's basically saying is that instead of receiving 60% of $15,000.00 which is $9,000.00, Don is contending we should receive about $6,000.00. So what we're looking at here is a possible difference of $3,000.00. Our contention is that as a church we have paid our fair share. Even if you took the $4,000.00 out of the $15,000.00, you as a city would not have to pay anything because again the original lease agreement said 40% which would be $6,000.00 that the City would receive and then we would receive $9,000.00. So in essence what you're making is about $2,000.00 even after you've paid for the furnance. Now as we leave that particular building, there was a furnance that is there that still has a useful life of approximately 10 years so what we would like for the City to consider is that we've upheld our end of the bargain and what we're requesting is a full payment of $9,000.00. In a subsequent meeting with a lawyer who represented us, Mr. Lyndahl, on January 30, 1989, Mr. Ashworth agreed to the fact, and I think you may have a copy of this letter, that he would be more than willing to give us the $6,000.00 and at the same time, if we could show our capital improvement expenses over and above the $6,000.00, we would be reimbursed for that. Even at that point our lawyer was interpretting it as $6,000.00 plus any additional capital improvements. It just so happens that over the last 5 years we've made a number of capital improvements of which we can attribute about $2,100.00 or have bills of $2,100.00. I notice in a letter dated to the Mayor and the City Council on May 8th from 1989, Don Ashworth is contending that we...turn around and give us the percentage back which means we'd even be getting less than what was agreed to upon January 30, 1989. So, there we have it. Now another' point I'd like to bring up. I know that the City Planning Cor~nission has probably heard this a number of times but one consideration that we made when we built our new facility where we reside now which is 275 Lake Drive East, one of the additional items that we consented to pay for and yes it was for our benefit but we consented to pay for enclosing the fire loop of the neighborhood directly south of us as well as the neighborhood directly to the east of us. The reason that 15 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ~ consented to that was because the fire marshall at the time indicated that there wasn't adequate enough pressure between the two or either one of the systems to service us. So at an additional cost of $22,~00.g0 to our building program, we enclosed both fire loops. Now yes that does benefit us and obviously will provide fire service for us but at the same time it has provided a service to the City that they themselves didn't have to provide. So we feel that we've had a number of costs associated, that we would like that also to be considered. Don Ashworth: The only thing I'd like to relate is the spirit and intent of the agreement from the initial point was that the church was to be responsible for capital repairs. We knew full well that repairs would go beyond a useful life but they were fully aware of the furnance. The furnance would be going in. That we had this special account. That there would be a deficit position as a result of that as they're leaving the church. Before they occupied that building we releaded the windows in that building. As they're leaving the church today, much of that work has to be redone. We're looking at a cost of anywhere from $8,000.00 to $12,000.00. There's reshingling that's to occur to the building. The entire purpose of that capital account was to insure that neither the city nor the church would be unduly abused as a part of the contract itself. I think that the overall lease amount c~-ne out very favorable for the church. I think it catme out very favorable for the City. The interpretation that I've taken is one that's supported by the Attorney's office, the auditor's office. In fact if ! had any flexibility, I had gone back to the auditors in an attempt to see whether or not I could achieve some flexibility in how that section would be read but I received none. They felt that it was very clear. The accounting over the years has been very clear. Staff continues to recon~nend that if they can show that they've spent $2,100.00, we will reimburse them $2,100.00 but that $2,100.00 would come from the special account and it would reduce that balance that would be in there so that amount that they would then be reimbursed would be 60% of a new $8,000.00 balance so they would receive internal about $7,000.g0. The way it stands right now, they would be receiving $6,000.00. Of course they're seeking the $9,000.00 and I don't see how that interpretation could hold but that's up to the Council. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a suggestion. I think it's been a win-win situation all along. I'd like to see this be a win-win so I'm suggesting that we split the difference of $3,000.00. Mayor Chniel: From the 6 to the 9? So $7,500.007 CounciLman Johnson: Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Dean Brown: Obviously I'm here for an additional $3,000.00 but you're correct. It is a win-win situation. As you well know and as the costs have been outlined to you, maintainir~3 that building has not been a small expense. We love the building. It was a very hard move for us to make and we wish we could have continued there but obviously our growth said we needed to move elsewhere but I would feel that during that time obviously we maintained the building. Just simple heating the building and keeping it going maintains it that much longer. If the Council considers that, we would accept that compromise. Councilman Workman: I thought that reading through all this information from the Family of Christ in the council packet and I've heard it from you and I've 16 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 273 heard it from Don, I'm still not sure that I understand what is going on here. There's a lot of numbers and a lot of percentages and I want to make sure that I understand exactly what's going on. It's a different kind of lease agreement in that they're building up the account with the lease only to potentially be repaid this money. Mayor Chmiel: 60% of this money. Councilman Workman: If it's not needed for capital improvements? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Workman: So we're not sure, the discrepancy is who is responsible for the capital improvements. Don Ashworth: I think the question is, were they fully aware that the $4,000.00 expenditure that occurred for the furnance would come out of that special account and I feel very confident that the people that I was working with at that point in time did know that. But again, I have nothing more in writing except for the accounting that's occurred for that special fund every year for the past 5 years. Councilman Johnson: Don, the furnance, $4,000.00 was prior to this lease? Dean Brown: Correct. DOn Ashworth: This lease. I think the actual payment did occur in the 1984 t~meframe. If I remember correctly, you were occupying that building prior to the December... Dean Brown: Correct. We had occupied the building 2 years prior to that and the original lease agresment was that the rent would just be basically $500.00 a year and that the point then that the furnance went haywire and we went to the lease holder which was the City of Chanhassen, at that point then the City and the church said oh, okay. How are we going to pay for this and the City approached us and said, this isn't a money making thing for us. What we need to do is establish a fund which then would pay for all capital improvements on that building accordingly. Even if you took the $15,000.00 and applied again the 40% and 60%, at that time the City was potentially going to make $6,000.00 and we would make our $9,000.00. So if you take the $6,000.00 and apply it to the $4,000.00 furnance, the City is still coming out $2,000.00 ahead. You yourselves as the City are not losing any money even if the 40% to 60%. That's why we felt and we were very surprised to see the original furnance already deducted from the fund before the sublease even began, or after the sublease began which was correct. Don said that it was paid for after the lease was set up but the expense was really incurred by the City prior to the lease and the whole lease agreement was come into play because of that particular thing. Councilman Johnson: I see the pivotable point here is the wording. I think that if Ursula's, a very good idea, was a motion I'll second it. Councilwoman Dimler: It was a motion. 17 ?~'~C~.~ Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Councilwc~an Dimler moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to reimbur`se the Family of Christ Lutheran Church $7,500.00 of rental payments for use of Old St. Hubert's Church. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW OF TETON [~ANE ACCESS CONDITIONS, CURRY FAP~MS 2ND ADDITION. Gary Warren: Curry Farms 2nd Addition, most of you are familiar with, is located off of CR 17 just northwest of our ground storage reservoir across from Lake Lucy Road. As a par`t of the conditions of the develosrnent of the 2nd addition of Curry Farms, there was considerable discussion concer, ning or relating to the concern of several of the existing property owners in this area concerning time use of Teton Lane which at that time was a gravel road for. residential access to the 2nd Addition. A separate feasibility study was done on Teton Lane to locate an option as far as the road itself was concer.ned. It also was an issue because Teton du~nps out on Lilac on the north here ~nJ.ch is shared with Shor.ewood City and some affected proper.ty owners up there. Basically the results of the feasibility study and provided considerable history on this in the Council packet but basically the result of the effort and the approval of the plans and specifications for Teton Lane called for a compromise. One thing was that Teton Lane would be paved as a rural section. Compromised actually to 2 inches of bituminous by the developer and this has happened. Secondly, Teton Lane would be barr.icaded to prohibit tr.affic from using Teton Lane from the subdivision. The subdivision has adequate access out through Devonshire and out to Lake Lucy Road so at least as far as the use of Teton Lane is not that important an issue. Plans and specifications were prepared with the bar.ricade. The developer, went to install the barr.icade in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. [4e were notified I believe it was Mr.. Lor.is came in and objected to the barricading of the roadway. The cor~nent he had was the easement for access had not been released and threatening civil action against the city if we pur.sued this so we backed off on that issue. In tur.n the City Attorney sent corres.oondence to the respected proper.ty owners of which we've got 6 of them. The Re&reefs, Loris, Car.lson, Shakelton, Natoles. We_ have not received any releases to this point in time and have received refusals at least specifically from Franco Loris verbally and the Reamer.s in w~iting which is also in the packet. The issue I guess before the Council, we curr.ently have one barr.icade up that you circle ar.ound so that's pr.obab!y not even a desirable situation. The question is, whether the Council wishes to pursue in having these easement rights released which we'~e confident that through condemnation proceedings the City will be able to have them released. There will be an expense obviously involved of s~me sort. Or. to not require the barricading of the roadway and to alter the conditions of appr.oval to so state that. The proper.ty o~ner who currently uses Teton Lane is really the Natoles on the end here who need the access. The Ware's I believe have access up to Lilac across the Pickar.d property and Pickard's have an access on Lilac. Mr.. Donovan has his access in her.e. The Reamers of cour~se and the Carlson can get out through the subdivision. Mr.. Simcox to the nor.th from Shorewood is on the end of the r.oad here has also been ver.y adamant in opposing this is as a thr.u r.oad so that's pr.etty much the history of the issue. We were I guess taken aback a little bit. I was personally with all the discussions we've had here and neighborhood meetings and such about this being a good compromise here. I think maybe we all took it for granted that the property owner.s, since they were at the meeting, or a majority of them wer.e, that that solution would work and the neighbors there would be agreeable to r.eleasing 18 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 275 their easement rights. However, we have not received any favorable responses so the issue has been brought to the Council here for direction as far as what is the appropriate course of action here. Do we enforce the condition of approval of do we change the conditions and allow access onto Teton Road? With that I'll open it up for discussion. Mrs. Natole: I tell you, this meeting that we had last fall, we thought it was all settled. Everybody should have been here. We were all notified so Mr. Loris and Mr. Reamer weren't here, I don't know why they waited until after the whole thing was settled. Bill Boyt was the one that made the motion and everybody approved that we would close it right here because they can use this road and they can go out that way or they can go out off of Lake Lucy but we only have that one access to go that way. And everybody said that was great. It would cut out all this traffic and especially the traffic that is going up there and they are using it. We've had a truck today that went up there with a whole load of one house that they're going to build up by Reamers so you know what a whole load of house is. That's a lot of weight so that one went up there. And later on another truck came by with a backhoe thing so they are using it. Now, they've put the sign on this side saying no construction traffic. Okay, the truck gets up there. Where the heck is he going to go? He goes right through there and goes to where he's going. They do not back up so if they were going to have a sign for them not to use that, they should have put it up by Lilac Lane saying no thru traffic. No construction but they didn't. Now they've put a stop sign up there so the one family that uses it, us, we have to have a stop sign there because we might speed. I'll tell you who's doing the speeding. Well, I better not mention names that might cause trouble but all these people that are in here that are coming up there are going between 40 and 50 mph and that's what Mr. Simcox is hollering about, and I don't blame h~m because those cars go past us and they have to stop there because they did start to make the second barrier so there's big holes. They go to the big holes and then they, swoosh. We have these great big huge trees. We moved there 27 years. Well they were little then, so we c~n not go out of our driveway without having to make a full stop and sneaking into the road so we don't get hit so that certainly didn't do us any good. Another thing that Gary failed to mention was when we decided this was going to work and Bill Boyt got the idea and we all agreed that it sounded good, we gave an easement for the trucks to use our driveway. To come in and turn if they had to take the snow, snowplowing or any work that they had to do on the road so we gave an eas~nent to the City for them to use our driveway. They then at the same time, Centex put in the well, 10-12 feet of blacktop and then we finished it up to the whole house but this is not working the way it is because the trucks are still coming up there. Construction and the people who live up in here already are using the road so that did not work. It's either got to be a full barrier and what I don't understand is how did Shorewood get away with closing Christmas Lake and Chanhassen can't close this one block. They must have gotten some kind of agreement from somebody because I 'm sure those people all had easements to use that Christmas Lake Road. So there's got to be something done. I don't know what but something has got to be done. I guess it's Mr. Reamer and Mr. Loris that are the two that are against it for some reason. As long as they have a way of getting out, I don't know what the problem is but that's all I have to say. Franco Loris: I'm Franco Loris. This does create a problem. I happen to live at 6400 Teton Lane and I really believe that I should not be barricaded in. 19 City CouncJ. 1 Meeting - May 8~ 1989 Besides, the barricade is so terribly ugly, it looks like World War II dividing two countries. It's an ugly site. I really don't believe that it's a little bit exaggerated. It's not that many cars really going up and down at that high speed of 50. It's almost impossible. I've lived up there now 21 years. I should be the one to be unhappy with all the construction but I went along with it, that's fine. At the beginning you gave us even another alternative to get into Powers Blvd. but that never happen so why should we give up our easement now? Personally I will not give it up except if you condemn J.t. Thank you. Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane which is the top corner property. I'd like to know who owns Teton Lane now. I was under the impression that Centex owned it until they deeded it over to the City. Has that been done? Gary Warren: The City owns Teton Lane. We do have a deed for that. That's correct. Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, why did you accept it knowing that there were easements on that road? I mean why didn't you check to see if the easements were going to be easily handed over first and then accept it from Centex because it seems to me that those ~ople do, if they do have easements they should have been told what was going to happen. Well they knew what was going to happen supposedly according to the meetings last fall but I guess what's happening now is they're demanding fair compensation and I don't know if I blame them or not for wanting that. Not having an easement myself I'm not in the position to demand compensation or not but I guess I'm just curious ~ny the City accepted it knowing that there were easements. I don't know what you can do about that now. It's the city's road. Gary Warren: Whether there were easements or not, I guess that in my opinion wouldn't have affected our acquisition of the property. That was a condition of approval that Teton Lane be deeded to the City. There were not any conditions that said regardless of whether you have easements or not on them so the easements really are a separate issue that I believe everybody assumed were going to be released as a part of the process because everybody .was tied into this verbally. Donna Pickard: I guess I have questions about the condemnation proceedings. Is that something that we'd talk about later because if it is, I don't have to ask them now. Mayor Ckmiel: That's always an alternative but if you'd like to ask the question. Donna Pickard: How does that work and how long does it take normally? Councilman Johnson: That's a good question. Gary Warren: The Attorney can probably do better. Roger Knutson: Normally it's about a 6 month process. If you were to order the condemnation of those easements tonight, the next step would be to get appraisals and the step following that would be prepare the necessary paperwork to start the condemnation action. At that point the land owner has a few weeks 20 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ko respond. Go to court and public necessity is established. I don't know if there'd be a problem with that. The next step is the Court will appoint 3 commissioners to evaluate the value of the easements. If everyone accepts that, that's the end of it. If anyone disagrees with that, then it's onto District Court for a trial with jury. A vast majority of these cases end at the commissioner's hearing. Not all of them. A vast majority. That process probably takes 6 months. Donna Pickard: And who exactly pays for it? Mayor Chmiel: The condemnation? The City basically I would assume or conceiveably it could be the contractor or developer. I think I would lean more towards that than I would the City. Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, how could you lean towards them now that it has officially been deeded to the City and the City owns the problem now? Don Ashworth: They have responsibilities under the development contract. can't walk away from it. They Donna Pickard: Oh I see. So even though the City owns the street, they don't necessarily own the problem of the easement? Don Ashworth: We're going to be, if that's chosen by the City Council, condemnation process, the City will take the initiative to acquire those easements at whatever costs and in that process we will attempt to recoup our monies by billing back the developer and our attorney has advised us that he feels that our position would be sustained and that we would be able to recoup those dollars. Donna Pickard: Okay. I just wanted to, before I sit down, to say that I think the City and Centex has a responsibility to have what we decided last, I don't know was it last fall? What we decided last fall to go through because at the t~e it seemed like it was the perfect solution to a problem that we'd been working on for a long, long time. So thank you for your time. Frank Natole: I'm Frank Natole. I live on Teton and in the evening from 5:00 to 5:30, one night I sat for supper when I counted 35 cars and trucks, panel trucks and everything else coming up and down that road. They don't go slow. They drive 50 mph I know. They come from way down below the hills there in Centex property and they're doing 50 mph before they go by my place and it's dangerous. Very dangerous. I don't dare put my nose of my car out before I look both ways and if you're going to let all this traffic c~me by my place, then I suggest you put either a big bump on both ends of my property so they've got to hit that and fly through the air. Then I can have some freedom but the way it is, I can't walk out there. My grandchildren come out to play. They don't dare go out in that road. I've got to watch them all the t~e. It's more traffic than CR 17 that comes down there. At the present time it's a miserable thing. That's all I have to say. That road should be, we agreed that they were going to put break out posts so in case of fire or any emergency, they could go through the breakout posts. That's the way it was agreed in the first place but now they've got that half a big sign there ~nich if they would take that out and put break away posts, then we'd get done exactly what we wanted done. Now I don't know how I'm going to stop this traffic or slow it down but there's got 21 Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 to be a way of slowing that traffic down if you're going to open it up. Mayor Chmiel: What's the speed limit on that particular street? Gary Warren: 3g mph. Frank Natole: It's lg mph. It's been lg mph since I bought the place. There's a sign on the corner on Lilac that says lg mph. Nobody goes lg mph. Gary Warren: In a way paving it hasn't helped anything as far as speed, that's for sure. I don't know that there's any resolution on record with the City signing that road. It would come under the State's Statute that's 3g mph unless signed otherwise by resolution. Councilman Johnson: The lg mph was when it was a private road too. Gary Warren: Right. As far as the enforceable speed limit, I would say 3g mph. Councilman Johnson: Do you have any problem with the sheriffs utilizing your driveway as a radar point? Mrs. Natole: That road is so short, I don't think anyone would sit there. Is that what you mean? Having a car sit there and monitor the traffic? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Is your driveway a good nice hidden spot where he could see_ them? Frank Natole: Well I've got big pine trees there. They could hide behind the pine trees that's for sure. I've got pine trees that are over 2g to 3~ feet high. Run all along the road. Ail along Teton. Councilman Johnson: Have the sheriff stop in a~d talk to you. Frank Natole: I don't know what you're going to do about it but something has to be done. Councilman Johnson: Well if it's going to take us 6 months to get the access rights reversed, then it's going to be open for 6 months. We need to do something about, if there are people spe_eding there, we need to do something about that. And if there's construction traffic, we need to talk to Centex. They know there's not supposed to be construction traffic and they're the only builder in there. It's not like there's 4g different builders in there so there should be some control. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Marc Simcox: ...As a matter of fact, the construction traffic specifically I think is one item that's been a very sore spot ever since they opened up that north end. That was one thing that we discussed at length during the process for them getting approval of the north half of the plat. They were very condescending and patronizing to the people who lived in the neighborhood and said absolutely not. They wouldn't do it and I can't recall, I can't even begin to recall the, I know I couldn't count it if I took my shoes off, the number of times that I've called here and complained about the traffic going up and down. 22 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 2?9 They also used it steadily during this spring when Teton Lane is posted for, not Teton but Lilac Lane is posted 4 ton per axle weight limit. And to talk to the drivers, the drivers are instructed to use Lilac Lane and Teton Lane so the developer is extremely versed in that topic and that's just a further example of why we fought this from the very beginning. When we discovered that this was being brought up again, to open up Teton Lane, it kind of opened the wounds up again and we thought that it's further evidence that the developer really doesn't care. There's never been an attempt to compensate anyone or even talk to them about compensation for the easements on Teton Lane. I've spoken to Stu Reamer about this who has written a refusal to turn over his easement and he said, oh no one ever mentioned compensation and that's exactly what it would take. He feels that he has to go out the other direction and it's an inconvenience to him and he feels there should be some type of compensation. And I think in this process, as we sent a letter out with the neighbors all signing that letter, I don't know if everybody got that or not, is it's just part of the normal process and I don't think that that process has completed it's course yet and until that does and either the condemnation proceedings that the Court determines that there's no solution, that's when you should look at opening Teton Lane up again. But until that, we should just follow the course of the original agreement and close it off. Acquire those easements however. I don't think that that expense is going to be real great. Probably won't cost as much as the postage machine or the postage equipment and solve a lot of headaches for the neighborhood and still retain that to be opened at a later date should that other property up there ever be developed. Thank you. John Speiss: I'm John Speiss and tonight I represent Centex Homes. What we've found is that the compromise that we had, it doesn't appear to satisfy as many people as we thought. We ask the Council tonight to table this issue for 2 weeks so that we have a chance to meet with Don Ashworth, Gary Warren and the City Attorney and see if there is something else we can do in 2 weeks. Councilman Johnson: Towards what? John Speiss: Well we got the package today at 1:00. I spoke with Gary last Thursday or Friday and he said that it WOuld come before the Council tonight on the Teton Lane issue. Councilman Johnson: We had a copying machine failure last week. John Speiss: We did receive it today. Mayor Chmiel: Being this has been going on for 2 1/2 years. Councilman Johnson: Yes, this was the last 2 years was a very big issue. Everybody's been here many, many times discussing Centex. There's a lot of compromise going on both ways. Both between Centex and the neighbors. It took a lot of hashing over. A lot of tabling. We had many, many meetings discussing Teton Lane. I thought we had finally come out to a good compromise here where we maintain the public safety aspects of emergency egress and ingress. Being able to get in there and get out of there by the emergency vehicles and solve the problem of excess traffic on Lilac Lane which can't handle it and Teton which can't handle it. It's too bad we haven't solve this. I think I haven't heard anything about compensation from anybody saying they want compensation for this. I've just heard they don't want it. 23 Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor C~miel: I guess I heard a couple of them saying that they may want that. Franco Loris: At this point, I don't want it but I live at 640g Teton Lane. Somehow I have to get to my house. It's a joke living on Teton Lane and having to come up another road to cc~e home. I have to change at least my address or something but I live on Teton Lane and I want ].t to stay Teton Lane. That's where I live. That's where I come in. That's where I go out. Councilman Johnson: The way I feel here is that the best is served by the compromise we came up with a year ago. While it does inconvenience some that are in the middle of the development that were there before the development was there, it is for the better overall good of the majority. Unfortunately it's the way of the world as we urbanize. There will be some people who will be inconvenienced by that urbanization but we can't stay a rural community here in Chanhassen anymore because it's happening. The pressure's here and we have to respond to it and we have to provide a safe comunity for our people. This may adversely affect 2 of the neighbors but it will positively be better for the Natoles and several of the other neighbors. I don't see Mr. Oerter here tonight. I don't know why he hasn't signed his release. Franco Loris: ~Fnat do you consider a majority? You've got just the Natoles sitting here. That's it. Councilman Johnson: Also we have to take into consideration the people on Lilac Lane. You've got the Pickards. Franco Loris: That issue has... Councilman Johnson: But they still have the traffic going by their driveway. Just because somebody does not live in our town does not mean that we can step upon th~n. To increase the traffic on Lilac which is a shared, City of Shorewood, City of Chanhassen road. Half that road is ours. We do have some responsibility for that road also. We have to be neighbors. We all have to live together. If we have to condemn, we have to condemn. I think if staff thinks they can achieve something in 2 weeks, I'm willing to table this for 2 weeks. If it's going to be a 6 month condemnation process, 2 weeks isn't going to make too much difference. There's also a quick take I guess. Can you explain that to me Roger and what qualifies for quick take? Roger Knutson: A quick take is a way of shortening up the condemnation process. Once you have your appraisal, you will write the land owners a letter and say, 9g days hence we're going to take possession of your property. You don't have to wait until after the condemnation hearing to get access but you can speed it up. There has to be necessity and good reason why you have to do it in a hurry. Reasonable reason. Mayor Chmiel: Compensation is ~%at really is determined 'by the County Commissioners as to how much? In other words, take the property and proceed with it and make it into a... I guess I'm in sort of favor, right now my feeling is maybe tabling this for another 2 more weeks to determine whether something could be_ resolved with Centex meeting with our people. With staff and determining what could be done but I'll guarantee it's not going to go anymore than 2 weeks because it should be resolved. It's 2 1/2 years ongoing and I 24 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 think it should have been addressed a long time ago. I would make a motion that we table this at this particular time and bring it back to the Council within 2 weeks with a resolvement for the approach that we're going to take. Councilman Workman: I ' 11 second that. Don Ashworth: May I make a point? The May 22nd meeting is a big agenda. There's a lot of items on that agenda. We could try to get these people in as early as possible as an unfinished business item but I mean you're looking to potential 1:00-2:00 in the morning the way it is right now. Councilman Johnson: Maybe we should start early. Mayor Chmiel: We could do that too. I still feel that we should probably table this item and it has been moved and seconded to table for the 2 weeks. We'll just have to struggle with it in the next meeting. I'd like to get it on the agenda as early as possible. Councilman Johnson: Could we have, depending on how staff works on this, the advertising of this in 2 weeks as a consideration of condemnation? The way we advert ise it. Mayor Chmiel: That would be something in discussion that we would come up with. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I wouldn't go on record as saying that I don't think the other alternatives are feasible and I want to stay with this plan that seems to be feasible for most parties. I would be in favor of condemnation through the quick take process but if we can get it done within 2 weeks, I would vote to table. Marc Simcox: Is there a way that we could be notified of the progress over these 2 weeks so we' 11 have better information. Mayor Chmiel: Can we have a representative from your area to be notified? Marc Simcox: We can give a number. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if you could give Gary a number and then report back to the neighbors as well so they know what's happening. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the Teton Lane conditions for Curry Farms 2nd Addition for 2 weeks. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROGRAM: A. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. B. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY. Gary Warren: The plans and specifications have been prepared for what's been conmonly referred to as Phase 3 of the downtown redevelopment project which is 25 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 the detachment of West 78th Street from it's current connection with Powers Blvd. approximately 390 feet to the north to improve stacking distance, cueing distance and just the intersection in general with Powers Blvd.. ..As a part of the process, staff was directed to prepare a supplemental feasibility study which showed a cul-de-sac public road access between the James and Burdick property. This was done on August 22, 1988 the Council authorized staff to prepare plans and specifications reflecting that alternative. Staff has done this. BRW has prepared the plans and specifications and we've suhnitted them for consideration tonight. The engineer's estimate for the project is currently $1, 232 , g0g. 00 and we're seeking Council approval of the plans and specifications for advertising for bids and also as a part of that we will be submitting them to the County for fo.unal approval since this project includes reconstruction of portions of Powers Blvd.. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'll try to keep thJ. s short but this is of the u~nost importance to us. Gocd evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. The first i'tem is real brief. It'd sure be nice if we get these packets before Monday. We'd come better prepared. We'd have copies of some things for you and what have you. I know copying machines break down. The Indians are spearing fish in Wisconsin. There's a thunderstorm in North Dakota but that shouldn't keep us from getting it 4 or 5 days before the meeting. Okay. And while we're on that particular subject of the packet, did you folks get this drawing? Do you have a copy of this? Gary Warren: I have an overview of that Jim. I also forgot, I've got a note that I received today. B.C. Burdick: Now I don't know what the policy of the city of Chanhassen has been but I sent this to Mr. Gary Warren 2 weeks ago with other information. I asked to be sent to each m~Woer of the City Council and this wasn't done. Gary Warren: That was delivered to the Council, the previous Council when we tabled this action. B.C. Burdick: Good, I'm glad to hear that. On the sheet, and I'll go with this quite fast because you've heard it before, on the sheet that I've just given out, I refer to the people at your meeting here in this building. I said once before in error that it was at Carver County Courthouse and that came about because we planned to meet in Mr. Roger Gustafson's office but at the last minute he called and said he had to come down here anyway. A representative of the Minnesota Highway Department was also there ~nich isn't really much significance because you said you can do anything you want to do if you aren't on the highway, l~nen I came back here with the meeting before this, 8 years ago before this Chanhassen City Council and the Mayor and it was approved, or accepted unanimously as right turn in and right turn out. Both by their vote but also by agreement with me whereby my position was, this most certainly wasn't as good as a full right turn in, right turn out but I would accept it. Not too different from the church here tonight. A compromise. This has become of great importance to us at the present time. We have one of the 10 leading restaurants in town ready to sign a contract to build a building on the point and we' re over 50% of the way along with people for the second lot from the corner but 'they do want the right turn in, right turn out. I said what if we don't have that? I can just tell you one thing, forget it. Simple forget it. Everything is done. It isn't something in the fire. It's approved up and down 26 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 283 the line on their end. Now so what happened? This is what happened. There was a secret meeting or appointments made with the Carver County Con~nissioners. Don Ashworth went there. It's a secret. I was not notified. Charles James was not notified. Incidentally, Mr. Charlie James is in favor of the right turn in, right turn out. It isn't important to him as it is to us. He could live with some other arrangement. The Carver County Commissioners were placed in the position of believing that the City of Chanhassen wanted the old 78th Street closed off. Now I've spoken to 3 of th~m and they've told me this. I happen to notice Mr. A1 Klingelhutz here tonight. His being here has really nothing to do with me but if anyone doubts that the Carver County Commissioners were under the impression that Don Ashworth wanted this closed off, and the City of Chanhassen wanted it closed off, just ask Mr. A1 Klingelhutz. To say the least the most reputable person in the County. So I requested Carver County to open this up and it was arranged that Don Ashworth and I would appear before them. I appeared at the point in time, arriving there 15 minutes early. Spoke to them a bit. Don Ashworth came an hour and a half later. I assume that part of the meeting was closed but he let them speak. I have no idea of ~nat, yes I do too, we have a tape on what he said. He made a bit of a humorous thing out of it which I object to. Now there is something about a cul-de-sac and another drive there but not only don't we care for this, we really don't want it. We really don't want that cul-de-sac in there. It's kind of Mickey Mouse. As you can see, people would have to northeast, southeast, southwest and west. How many more directions could they go? As an illustration, I brought some samples but I guess I don't have to go into them. Now, it's been mentioned that this intersection is not perfect. We agreed that night before the Council and it was passed unanimously it was agreed it wasn't a perfect intersection but that's a fantastly good intersection compared to the one constructed 3 years ago almost down to Pauly's on the main street and the main street that won't accommodate fire trucks or U.S. Postal trucks. I waited for 5 minutes on Laredo while a truck tried to make a right turn on 78th Street a couple days ago. The truck finally backed up and turned east. It could not turn from Laredo to the west. And as far as anything badly designed, engineers can work it out. I discovered something just a couple minutes ago that Brian gave to me. In many ways this right turn in, right turn out will reduce the traffic instead of having cars go north, east, southeast, southwest, west. They can just simple make a simple turn. In other words, instead of going around the merry-go-round. Now what Brian just handed to me and has been some things a bit misleading said about this is that traffic, from a traffic engineer's and Benshoof particular mentioned didn't go for this right turn out. Didn't like it. Didn't think it was safe. But I have the report here dated July of 1987 to Ms. Barbara Dacy in which they say, construct an exclusive right turn lane on the south appraoch of CR 17. Design the right in/right out access as a typical commercial driveway. 24 feet wide with 45 foot radial and no directional island. Construct a raised median on CR 17 to prohibit left turns on the street. Elect signage directed motorist on CR 17 to downtown via realgined West 78th Street. Elect signage prohibiting U turns on the south approach of CR 17 west. Until the left turn lane is constructed. Not only is it from Benshoof, I hope I pronounce that correctly and excuse me I'm not a very good speaker, Mr. J~mes A. Benshoof was the originater of the memo along with a Mr. Swanson. The only opposition I've heard about is that Benshoof didn't like it. Unfortunately we don't have a copy of this for each one of you-but I'll gladly bring it up if you want to look at it. Gary Warren: It' s in the packet. 27 City Council Yeeting - Brian Burdick: It's in towards the back. It's to Barbara Dacy and they draw some conclusions at the end there with their reco~mendations. B.C. Burdick: And we will most certainly go to t_he trouble of having an engineering firm do some designing of that and make it, I don't know what, as easy, as simple, as safe as possible. It won't be perfect but the only perfect intersection as they said 3 or 4 years ago when it was up here, the only perfect intersection is in the middle of the Sahara Desert and you don't need it there. We're down to the point where we'd have a 9g% perfect intersection. I thank you and that's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Burdick? Don Ashworth: For the record, I am unaware of any secret meeting that has occurred by Carver County. I'm unaware of any secret meeting that I supposedly was involved with the Commissioners on. I'd just like to have that in the record. B.C. Burdick: I'm referring to about the third page of Mr. Gustafson's letter. The City was aware of this schedule but no other parties were notified of this item being on the agenda. Since a request was specifically from the City of Chanhassen, it surely would have been up to Don Ashworth who arranges to notify us. So as far as I'm concerned and Charlie James, it was secret from us. Gary Warren: Mr_. James, we received this in the mail today from Charlie James and he asked that it be given to you. Basically, as Mr. Burdick eluded to earlier, Mr. James...one way or the other with the connection. He would I guess in all honesty prefer the right in/right out but as stated here, he can live with either alig~nent. But that was received in today's mail and I talked with him on the phone. Councilman Johnson: I wish Roger Gustafson would be here tonight. I think it was Roger's opinion that the right in/right out wasn't safe as it was anybody's. Then the County Board made the decision and I wasn't at that board meeting. I don't know what happened either. I don't think it's fair, it was public notice. It was published in the newspaper on the agenda, to say it was a secret meeting. I guess some of the people involved were not notified but there was no legal requirement for the County to notify them of that. The City was following up on our commitment to Mr. Burdick and Mr. James to apply for the right in/right out turn. We did ~nat we said we had to do. When we applied for the permit to get an access there. I can't say for what happened. This is another one of these projects that has a long history of conflict. Councilwoman Dimler: I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding here. It was my understanding that the County Board never voted on it. A1 Klingelhutz: I guess I'd like to clarify some of these things. I think if I had a packet like this when it came before the County Board, it might have turned out a little different but it was our impression that the City of Chanhassen, Mr. Burdick and Mr. James agreed pretty much on the cul-de-sac rather than right in/right out turn lane. I did not have a copy of the City of Chanhassen's resolution to allow that at the present location of 78th Street. I'm not bl~ning any one board because I think it was probably a lack of 28 City Council Meeting - May 8~ 1989 285 con~unications that probably brought this all about. I don't know what can be done to change it. It's possible that it can go back before the County Board again and have them reverse their decision. I'm not sure what that decision would be. I'm sure this was almost a complete misunderstanding at the time when it was presented. Councilman Johnson: Has this been appealed to you in the last year? A1 Klingelhutz: Mr. Burdick approached the County Board on this, I think he mentioned the meeting. I believe Don came in later and talked. Councilman Johnson: No action was taken? There was no formal request for reconsideration? A1 Klingelhutz: No formal request at that time. Councilman Johnson: Because I think that's the action that needs to be taken. The County Board turned down the right in/right out so the County Board needs to be requested to reconsider their motion. We cannot tell the County Board to reconsider their motion. We did pass this unanimously. The right in/right out, there is concerns about the right in/right out as being seen as a short cut to get to downtown and people utilizing that with the proper stop signs and stuff, it shouldn't be too bad of a problem. I believe the right in/right out, I said it then, will work. What's very important right now is to get the northern alignment which is unaffected by this, approved so we can get construction going on the northern alignment and get this intersection up where it belongs. As far as holding off on the cul-de-sac to where Mr. James and Mr. Burdick can request the County Board, I think A1 would probably carry it forward for you. I don't want to talk for A1 but from what he siad there, I think he might carry it forward for you and go for the reconsideration if it's with new evidence. Not evidence but new information. That's all I've got. Mayor Chmiel: As I look at this, for the right in/right out and I use Powers Blvd. on a constant basis, like 2, 3 maybe 4 times depending upon how many meetings we have here a day. That right in and right out, I guess I don't really have a problem with it. I guess I'd have to have more information indicating as to what the safety factor is because as I see it, people coming across from the south, extending over TH 5 and coming into downtown Chanhassen to go up ahead to that realignment which is being proposed, which is a fine realignment for a right turn going off onto Powers Blvd., I still see that the access for people making that right turn at that intersection alleviates a lot of problems because there again, you're not putting the additional amount of traffic on that realignment. If someone does want to make that turn into the different lots here for the access to Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it's just so much easier as I see it. Gary Warren: One thing, if I could add here, the Benshoof report was done in July of 1987 and does not reflect the upgrade of TH 5. At this intersection, the two lanes that will be added to TH 5 will be on the north side so just point of information. The cueing distance, the stacking distance as was referred to in the report will be further reduced because of that. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see too many cars extending from the east going west to make that right hand turn to come back in through here. What I see every 29 86 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 morning at that intersection are cars that axe coming from the west going north and cars directly extending from the south going north on Powers Blvd.. We don't have too many cars making that right turn to come around to go back down 78th. If they're coming from the east going west on TH 5, I think they would have tendencies to probably, once Market Blvd. comes in, would be turning in there to get their accessibility to other areas. So I see things coming from the west and from the south that way and that right turn to me seems logical. Gary Warren: I think the position has been that the preferred alternate is not to have to deal with a right in/right out or any connection at that point. I think everybody could agree if you didn't have to do that, that that would be the best so we could have the proper separation and even when MnDot reviewed the plat as far as the J&~es property was concerned, recognized that that separation was important to them. It's not to say that a right in/right out can't work as a second alternative so I think that's where all the discussion has really centered around, b~nen it was submitted to the County, it was submitted as an unbiased submittal I guess to get their review and approval as to that comnection as to whether_ we would have it or not and it was in response to the refusal that we then did the supplemental feasibility study and did the cul-de-sac option. Mayor Chmiel: I think too that reconsideration, if Commissioner Klingelhutz takes this back to the County Board and asks for a reconsideration, I think that's probably ~nere it should go so there's clarification because the County has jurisdiction on that particular road. The City does not. Gary Warren: That' s correct. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as you were talking I thought of another alternative which isn't as good but a right in only with no right out. It gets the access to the lot from TH 5 which is probably an important aspect to the potential purchaser of that lot. That somebody from TH 5 can get into Lot 1 and Lot 2. Hey, let's run over here to ~natever restaurant this is and then as far as going out, they can go back up 'to the realigned 78th and back out to get back out to TH 5 with the proper signage there. So he achieves TH 5 accessibility with a right in only. Maybe if the County traffic engineers don't like right in/right out, maybe they'll accept right in only. Gary Warren: I don't believe the right out is the real problem. I believe it's the right in and the potential for shortcutting and the_ potential for stacking traffic into the future turn lane off of TH 5 from westbound traffic. That's really the crux of the issue. Mayor Chmiel: I can see that flow going much simpler by having that right in. I really do. CounciLman Johnson: Did the studies have Market Blvd. involved? Like the Mayor said, with Market Blvd. connecting there, the people who are going to go on by turn around and then come back. If they're headed for Kerber, they're going to go in Market and go into Kerber or whatever or they're just going to get on Powers and keep going. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess as I look at it, I could see that there could be_ some safety concerns. It's probably not the safest intersection but I believe 3~ City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 that since the former Council approved this right in and right out, to change it at this point would not be fair since the Burdick's have already made plans on that decision. I think it would be a hardship to sell the property and a cul-de-sac would take away the corner lots. Also I've talked with Roger Gustafson last week and he confirmed to me that the County Board never voted on it so I guess there is a lot of confusion there. So I would go with a reconsideration to take it back to the County and have them reconsider. Councilman Johnson: They have a signed resolution that they voted on it. Councilwoman Dimler: I know it but he told that they didn't. Councilman Johnson: He just forgot. Councilman Workman: I was there too. Councilwoman Dimler: On the right in though Gary, I guess I am concerned about having a right turn lane there. You have two lanes. Only for the right turn so they wouldn't be in the stream of traffic in making a turn. Holding up the traffic. Is that possible? Gary Warren: It's kind of a paradox because as you saw in the con~ents from the Benshoof report, they recommended that it really be a 24 foot driveway apron and not really an island because you don't want to make it too attractive or inviting for traffic to use this as a shortcut to the downtown and defeat the purpose of the detachment. So by actually making a dedication turn lane for that right in, that really would accentuate it as a by-pass route. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but I think for safety purposes that might be, as long as we're going to go with the right in/right out, I think we should have a right turn in lane. Gary Warren: I would suggest that because this Benshoof Report did not have the benefit of MnDot's plan for the intersection with the right turn lanes and the additional lanes there, that we would probably all be well advised to take a relook at that laneage issue with the benefit of MnDot's current plans and come up with an appropriate scheme from that. Councilman Workman: With the expansion of TH 5 and the two lanes being expanded to the north side, I thought that we were running into problems with the expansion of the two lanes on the north side because of Lake knn Park and the LA, CON grant and everything else there. They're going to jump back south after Powers Blvd.? Gary Warren: The transition through there and I looked at the map on our wall here, the official map before I came down here, there is a switch. They sort of share alignment then come back by the time you get to Lake knn Park because the whole section ends basically at Park Drive so we're already nosed out. The issue with LAWCON grant came in with this 8 foot trail that MnDot showed to build the bike trail all the way along this alignment so that would be encroaching there and there the City would probably, theywould request us to build a trail so there wouldn't be a LAWCON grant issue. That's workable. 31 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Councilman Workman: I guess I would in negotiations with MnDot, look at the possibility of enlarging and extending the right turn off of TH 5 going west possibly in front of it. My biggest concern with this ~nole thing and maybe the City is getting a little tired of the Burdicks but maybe the Burdicks are getting a little tired of the City. You're getting it on both ends here. They like another customer to the city have been blessed with a large chunk of very valuable property and I would consider, I almost consider it a taking in this situation where we're giving the James property possibly two corners and taking away a fairly valuable corner from the Burdicks. I think the Burdicks have been and will continue to be as cooperative as they can taking into account the safety issue. I do see a concern and I also met with Roger Gustafson ~no has concerns about the TH 5 traveling east traffic making a left north and what to do there with the merging traffic that's heading north on TH 5. I'm not at all sure where we would have a stacking problem with traffic heading north off of TH 5 and I guess I'm looking for at least, on our behalf, the City to look at possibly some other and maybe simpler alternatives. I don't like the idea of the cul-de-sac. I don't know that that situation is the best. Perhaps if the Burdicks are agreeable to a driveway of some sort, and t would suggest and I'm using my own word here, a baffle system of some sort to keep traffic from going straight through to downtown off of that driveway. Perhaps a sharp right into the comnercial property. Something that keeps it very attractive for them to ca~e in and buy food on that corner but not to go through to downtown. I don't know how the Burdicks feel about just a right in and not a right out. I guess we'll know more about that later. That's basically my comments. Mayor Cnmiel: I think what I'd like to do is make a motion that Mr_. Burdick goes back to the County Board to see if he can get reconsideration for the right in and right out as opposed to a cul-de-sac. Also, in addition to that motion, make the suggestion that the Council does support that position of a right in/ right out. It's strictly up to the County either approve or disapprove that position because it is a County Road and the city basically does not have the jurisdiction on it. Councilman Johnson: Are you going to add to that approval of the north side of this? Of the West 78th detachment? In other words, we' re not approving the cul-de-sac but put out, approve the plans and specifications without the cul-de-sac so we can put that much out to bid? Gary Warren: We really wouldn't be able to because the County I'm sure, in talking with Roger Gustafson today, would want to see what we're doing with that connection because that's part of the process. So I don't know when the next County Board meeting is. A1 Klingelhutz: We've got one tomorrow. I guess ~nat I'd like to see from the Council is a motion from the City Council requesting that the County reconsider a right in/right out turn lane at the present location of West 78th Street. Mayor Chniel: You heard my motion. Councihnan Workman: I'd like to also say that ~nile it is County jurisdiction, Chanhassen dollars are paying for this. CounciLman Johnson: But the County's responsible for the safety of their roads. It's Highway 17 and whether we can connect there. As you read their resolution, 32 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 they're basically saying it's dangerous. We don't want the liability of having that connection between that position. Councilman Workman: Will the County then accept, and I'm asking not a county person I guess but will the County then accept liability for possible court action for perhaps the Burdicks? Councilman Johnson: Probably. It's probably fairly defensible from a non- attorney. Gary Warren: Do you want to take a look at the hold harmless clause in the County agreement. Councilman Johnson: What does it hurt us to table this then? This is basically what we' re doing. Councilwoman Dimler: But we want to make a motion though. You've got the motion on the floor and it wasn't seconded. Mayor Chmiel: As I made the motion indicating that the Council does support the right in/right out as the former Council has also. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion. Councilman Johnson: Let me understand your motion. Your motion is that the City is going to request a right in or right out or we just support a right in/ right out? Mayor Chmiel: We're supporting the right in/right out and it will be up to Mr. Burdick to go before the County Board to get the reconsideration of that. Councilman Johnson: So that means we would have to table the approval of plans and specifications and authorization for bids. Mayor Chmiel: When is the next County Board meeting? A1 Klingelhutz: We have one every week. Every Tuesday. Mayor Chmiel: So it would be the following Tuesday right? Gary Warren: It comes back on the May 22nd agenda. A1 Klingelhutz: I just thought if the Council would request it, it would have more appeal. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, that was going to be my motion after we passed the motion that we approve the right in. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe my motion will die and somebody can make an additional motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I seconded it already. Councilman Johnson: We can combine it into just one motion. 33 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Sure we can. It'd be just as easy right Roger? Roger Knutson: Correct. Mayor Cl~niel: The motion was to read, as I indicated previously with the restate the portion that you wanted included in it. Councilwoman Dimler: I would say that we send the right in and right out proposal back to the County Board for reconsideration. Gary Warren: And the City supports... Councilwoman Dimler: And the City supports the right in and the right out concept. Resolution ~89-68: Mayor Cnmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded a motion that the City of Chanhassen support the right in and right out proposal for West 78th Street as opposed to the cul-de-sac and that this proposal go back to the Carver County Board for reconsideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B.C. Burdick: I want to thank you and I want to say we'll work with engineering on this to design it the best way possible. And I thought of another factor there. Minnesota is going to want some of my land to expand TH 5 1~0 feet farther east but only 40 feet at this intersection so it isn't going to hurt the stacking distance a lot. If I bring this up at that time, I will ask them as part of the settlement with me to do most any of you want as far as...the right turn exit lane. Building it wider or whatever. So I'm almost certain I can work with the Minnesota Highway Department very well. And if it's going to be brought up next Tuesday at the Carver County Commissioners, I don't suppose the Minutes will be typed up by then so I'd like to have something to show them. Would it be okay if Mayor Chmiel wrote a letter simply concerning your action tonight so I'd have something to show them. Otherwise I'll be standing there saying what happened without any documents. ~4ayor Chmiel: I think p~ also have a County Con~nissioner present. A1 Kligelhutz: You can ask to request by letter or request by phone to get on the agenda and you have to do it by next Thursday in order to get on for next Tuesday. Councilman Johnson: That's ahnost implicit in the motion since we are to petition Carver County, we have to write them a letter to do it. We don't necessarily need our Minutes to do it. I think it's implicit in the motion that some form of communication to Carver County to request that will be made. B.C. Burdick: That's what I'm asking. A letter from Mayor Chmiel to the County Con~nissioners. Okay, thank you very much. Councilwoman Dimler: Jim, I have a question if you're willing to answer it. What restaurant are you dealing with? 34 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Brian Burdick: It's prsmature right now to discuss that~ B.C. Burdick: I even have a real estate agent and it hasn't been signed yet but it has been agreed on and written up. Brian Burdick: It's been written up but it hasn't been officially signed yet. Gary Warren: We need a motion Mr. Mayor then to table 9(a) and (b)? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Did we table the Joint Powers Agreement? Mayor Ckmiel: No we have not. I'll entertain a motion for that. Councilman Johnson: Does it need to be tabled or can we make the Joint Powers Agreement? Mayor Chmiel: Be tabled until the specifications authorizing the right in/right out. I think it should be tabled. Gary Warren: There's some wordage in there that reflects this access so it should be tabled. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. BANDIMERE PARK AND CARRICO ACQUISITIONS, AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION. Don Ashworth: The agenda per se is incorrect. The report in the packet correctly shows authorize the appraisals for both Bandimere Park and Carrico property. Little different situation in both of those. In the case of Carrico, we had a lot of neighborhood support for a park in that area. We did carry out an appraisal. That appraisal came back at $60,000.00. The property owner carried out an appraisal and it is at $330,000.00. I feel that given the amount of difference and recognizing that once condemnation is started you don't turn back, that I'd like to feel on very firm grounds as to the amount of money that we're logically going to have to pay for this acquisition so the Council knows in advance, does not approve an acquisition for $60,000.00 and it turns out to be $180,000.00 and we've incurred a lot of attorney expenses, etc., etc.. In a similar fashion, the Bandimere Park property we're looking to for our park in southern Chanhassen and I think that if nothing else but to insure the citizenry that we in fact are making a reasonable good and a purchase that is in fact what? Conservative with City dollars. It seems only logical that we might carry out an appraisal of that property as well to again insure that before we consun~nate that purchase, that in fact it does represent a good value for our citizenry. Mayor Chmiel: There's one discussion I had regarding the pipeline. If in the event we have to do a tremendous amount of grading within that area where the 35 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 existing pipeline is at and we have to place some additional cracks in the ground over and above that particular pipeline, one of my concerns was a break within that pipeline or talking with the pipeline and finding out ~nat the costs might be for relocating it. I don't want to absorb those additional dollar costs either. Because of the additional earth compaction that you put on that pipe, you could have some stress on it that could cause scx~e problems. I'd like us to make sure that we look at that. CounciLman Johnson: But that could be handled as part of the engineering. Mayor Chmiel: Right but I still want to address it. Councilman Johnson: Have we ever found out, I know we went to review what type of pipe that was almost 2 years ago. Have we ever found out what type of pipe that is? Don Ashworth: I do not recall off the top of my head the technical description but I do know that the pipeline that broke had a longetudial weld and this pipe that's in the ground here is not of the same manufacture nor does it have the s~me weld characteristic of that pipe. CounciLman Johnson: Okay. That's good to know. Don Ashworth: We will follow up with the Mayor's suggestion and what will be done there is that Mark Koegler will be used to carry out a sketch plan of that property in a similiar fashion that we did for the Carrico property that would show tentative uses that could be_ put on the property. Approximate grades. That also would be, he would look in a similar fashion that we did with Carrico to other parcels in that area to insure that again this parcel best meets the needs for the people down in southern Chanhassen. CounciLman Johnson: How can we assure neutrality on our appraiser here? One of the reasonings between the two bids, we hired the appraiser and gave him the ground rules to play with. The other guy hired the appraiser and gave a different set of ground rules to play with. His ground rules were of course, assutme that the Met Council will allow this to be sewered property. Voila, $25,~.g0, $35,ggg.gg, $4g,00g.gg an acre. Whatever it turns out. I don't remember how many acres we got here but a big price. The ground rules we set for our appraiser was assu.~e the Met Council won't allow it to be changed to seg~ered property. ~nerefore, $6g,ggg.gg is a reasonable price. I think we shouldn't even mention hiring a neutral appraiser that comes in and let him do the research as to whether it's in the MUSA line, out of the MUSA line and everythJ, ng else. Say we're hiring you to appraise thJ. s property and not put any kind of constraints on it. Don Ashworth: Roger J.s the one ~no should respond but my recollection is that in the first case, we did not give hfm any form of instructions. In fact, he solely looked at that as an unsewered piece of property. In the secondary case, that Roger should spend time to insure that the indivJ, dual weighs both sides of the issue and so that appraisal can take into account literally both sides. Councilman Johnson: Take in the possibility or whatever? 36 City Council M~eting - May 8~ 1989 295 Roger Knutson: In this case I did not hire that appraiser for Carrico. I got involved a little bit later but I never tell the appraiser what to assume, not to assume. I don't write the appraisal. I don't prejudge it. I don't tell them we want a highball or lowball anything. I said I want an honest number. I'm not going to tell them it's inside the MUSA or outside the MUSA. He makes his own investigation. He co~es to his own conclusions. Councilman Johnson: Should, as Don's suggesting here though, since this is such a factor, I suggested that to do exactly what you just said, is that we don't inform them of any of the factors involved but there is s~me, if he's aware of all the factors, he might because the condemnation court will be aware of all the factors involved, he may be looking at it from a different point of view. Roger Knutson: One thing that's a little bit unique here is that in this case it would be absolutely impossible to know all the facts unless you...the City. They aren't available anyplace else. You really can't get all the facts by going up to the Met Council. They can just tell you where the existing MUSA line is. Councilman Johnson: The thing is, what is the chances of it getting sewer? The City can't say that because it's a Mst Council's decision. The City can petition and in this case we have a petition for such. Roger Knutson: Except there's a process of taking land in and letting land out and stuff like that which the City has more first hand information about. If he can get all his information from Mst Council and satisfy himself without talking to the City, that's fine but frankly I don't think that's possible. Councilman Johnson: So Roger would be hiring an appraiser for us in this case? Roger Knutson: I won't tell them a thing. I'll just tell them, here's the legal description. Tell me what it's worth. Councilman Johnson: That was my initial gut reaction on how to do it so go for it. I move approval for authorization for appraisal of the Bandimere and Carrico properties. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve authorization for appraisal of the Bandimere Park and Carrico property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ACCEPT COLONIAL GROVE STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL. Gary Warren: The Colonial Grove subdivision, the first addition of that has or had installed originally as part of the development, wood standards to give it more of I guess the Colonial look if you will. Over the years, in fact this was an item that's been since I've come here, we've received updates from NSP over the last 3 years for what the cost is to replace these poles. They're rotting. They' re a hazard out there and need to be replaced. NSP is currently estimating costs, given us a cost of $7,813.00 to replace those poles and put in the 37 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 standard NSP fixture. We're recon~ending accepting that proposal and having this installation done. We did send out a letter in February this year to all the residents to notify them of the situation which is included in the packet here and we had one call I believe, just somebody asking what the light was or why we ~re doing this. Otherwise we haven't received any comments good or bad I guess on it so I pres~e that it's okay with the neighborhood. Councih~an Johnson: Will they have to pay for this? Mayor Chmiel: The neighborhood? Gary Warren: No, we're proposing that this come out of the City's street lighting/signal fund. CounciLman Johnson: We're not going to allow anybody else to put up wood poles? Gary Warren: Not without a clause that says that upon replacement the association would make good on paying for it. 7hat's correct. Mayor Chniel: I'd just like to mention before we even go to vote on this that it would be a conflict of interest for me and I'm abstaining from voting. Councilm~n Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept Colonial Grove Street Lighting Replacement proposal, File No. PW-0gl. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who abstained and the motion carried. CONSIDER ~z~3OPTION OF OFFICIAL MAPPING ORDINANCE. Gary Warren: Pretty straight forward item I believe Mr. Mayor. The City Attorney requested them to prepare an amenctment to the City's ordinance. As I think Council is aware, we have got TH lgl realignment that we've been dealing with here and which at the last council meeting we selected a preferred alternate for that corridor. ~ also have received an official map for the TH 212 corridor and the City does not have an official mapping ordinance on record here. The intent and desire here is to establish a vehicle whereby the City can preserve these transportat~.on corridors which are not going to be built immediately but reserve thsn for the future so economically the city doesn't have to pay outrageous fees obtaining land that has been built on and also so that we can release property from being held hostage, as I call it, so that the land owners can deal with the sale of their property and work around our corridors so we're all kind of up front with things. So this is the first reading of the official mapping ordinance for the City and we recommend that the Council approve it. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just make mention that as it's indicated, May 16th is the date that it's tentatively on for and that's the s&~e evening that we do have the Board of Adjustments and Equalization Review which will be held here at 7:gg p.m. in the City Council chambers which will follow right afterwards. Councilwoman Dimler: That's not a regular council meeting? 38 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Ckmiel: No, but it will be a public meeting that evening~ Councilman Johnson: So we're having a special meeting at 7:00 or something? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: On Page 2, on Notice and Hearing, under 15-25. I was wondering if you go down to line 9 and it says, at least 10 days prior to the hearing the clerk may also mail a copy of notice to each owner of land situated within or abutting any street or other public ground shown on the official map. I'm wondering if that shouldn't read that he must mail. Change the may to must. That would then call for going down to the end of line 15, that you delete the word not so it would read, failure to serve any such notice shall invalidate the proceedings. Councilman Johnson: What happens if you, I think the not should still stay in there because what happens is you have a home that was recently sold and the only reason it hasn't been posted so those people don't get the notice but somebody else ends up getting the notice or things like this. A single error like this can not cause the destruction of the entire process. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but if the notice was served, just because one party didn't get it, that would not invalidate the proceedings. But if the notice was not served to anybody. That's what I'm getting at. Councilman Johnson: ~.ght. Don Ashworth: I think you'd know about that at the meeting. You would act to table action then to direct myself or for whatever reason I failed to send it out. You have 5 people come up to you and say hey, I'd like to see this item tabled and have a new hearing. You wouldn't let the hearing go through. I guess I agree with Jay's point though. If we had a individual owner and for one reason, some reason he didn't get notice, later on challenge the whole process and invalidate it, could be very detrimental to our city. Councilman Johnson: And we see that every time. When you have any kind of public notice, somebody always claims they did not get notice. Councilwoman Dimler: Is that the intent here? Roger, can you help? Roger Knutson: Yes. Courts have construed this exact language to mean, you have to make a good faith effort for example to give notice. If, like Don said, it just slipped his mind or whatever and no notice went out, then I would certainly say forget it. Start over again but this saves you from the situation where Don makes a good faith effort and he's sending out, I don't how many we're talking about. Let's say there's 500 letters you have to send out. Let's say one falls behind the file cabinet and it's found 5 years later. Councilwoman Dimler: But the way this is written, what do you think it addresses? The general or that one specific case. Roger Knutson: My construction, the Courts have given this exact language. It saves you if you've made a good faith effort. If you've really blown it 39 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 entirely, it doesn't save you but if you don't have language like this in here, you really run the risk that anyone in the audience could stand up and say, I didn't get the envelope. Ail we can say is we mailed it. I can't tell 'them he received it because the expense of certified or registered mail on some of these projects would be extreme. Then you have the problem that people won't accept it and stuff like that so we normally just send regular mail. And someone could stand up in the audience and say I didn't get it and invalidate the proceedings. If someone wanted to stall things, by saying that constantly you could stall things quite a Mnile. Mayor Ck~iel: Could it be completely eliminated if they were certified letters? Roger Knutson: Except it gets expensive and you have the problem, people won't accept th~. I'm on vacation for example or I have a lot of creditors and I'm afraid of these certified letters. Certified means trouble, I don't take it. Councilman Johnson: They have to come to the Post Office to get them because we're a rural post office here so some certified, to sign for a certified, they're not going to stop and come to your house for a certified letter. I had a special delivery letter from the military I had to go to the Post Office and get. Roger Knutson: You also have the problems of contracts for deed situations and multiple owners. Councilman Johnson: But the may should be changed to shall. Roger Knutson: That'd be fine. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I' 11 just reconsider and say that okay, change on line 9. Change the may to must and leave the not in on line 15. Mayor Chmiel: Does everyone have that? Gary Warren: Is shall better? Roger Knutson: I wrote down shall. That's the legal... Councilwoman Dimler: I'll accept that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first reading of the OfficJ. al Mapping Ordinance with the amendment on page 2, line 9 to change the word "may" to "shall". All voted in favor and the motion carried. A1 Kligelhutz: May 16th, is that when this will be on? Mayor Cnmiel: Yes, May 16th. 7:ff0 is the equalization meeting. Right after that which will probably be about 7: 3~. Councilman Johnson: This will be after the board of equalization? I thought it was the other way around. 40 City Council Mseting - May 8, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Let me take another look at the agenda2 Todd Gerhardt: The equalization, that will take more than a half hour. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, that's on first. Don Ashworth: Now which one is at 7: 00? Councilman Johnson: The board of equalization is at 7:00. Don Ashworth: I was sure that had been set by your suggestion. Gary Warren: Maybe this should be on the 22nd. Don Ashworth: I may be wrong but do you think we're going to have a number of people in here? I personally don't. Todd Gerhardt: I've received one phone call today but that's been it. Councilman Johnson: They've only come out just recently. I just got mine last week. Todd Gerhardt: This just came out today of when the meeting is. Mayor Chmiel: What' s the time? DOn Ashworth: Well we won't have a time. It will follow the Board meeting then right? Councilman Workman: How about a consent agenda item on the 22nd? Councilman Johnson: Can we have this right at 7:00? This should only take a matter of seconds? Councilwoman Dimler: Can't we put it on the consent agenda for the 22nd? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Being that we've had the first reading, I think we possibly could for the 22nd on the consent agenda. A1 Klingelhutz: Do you have to have a public hearing on this? Gary Warren: The actual mapping of a corridor requires a public hearing. Roger Knutson: It's a procedural ordinance. A1 Klingelhutz: It's something that's going to affect my property considerably so I want to make sure that I know. Councilman Johnson: This one does not say Highway 101 anywhere in the actual ordinance. The original one they proposed was specific to that. TH 101 and TH 212. We said, why don't we just make it generic so if we have to do this for TH 7 or TH 41, it's on the books. Okay, then I accept the modification that we 41 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 have the appr~oval for consent agenda on May 22nd versus May 16th. I don't even know if we need ho vote on that. Mayor Chmiel: No. I don"t believe so. ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATION: SELECTION PROCESS, CITY PLANNER'S POSITION. Don Ashworth: Two options to try to fill Steve Hanson's position. That was a more recent acceptance. In other words, that was in September of 1988. I feel that there is still a number of candidates from that selection process that would still be available. The other option would be to readvertise for the position and go to full route. If we readvertise, it likely will be September- October before we would Inave somebody in to that position. If we would look to takin9 from the candidates, the resumes from September, we could shorten that process and hopefully if we had a meeting with the Council on May 20th or May 27th, potentially have somebody on board by the middle of July. Again, probably 2 to 3 months ahead of the other process. One of the biggest factors is in the advertisement is the earliest we could get into APA and the League of Cities is mid-June. So then if you start fram an advertis~nent of mid-June and start counting the days for sending in resumes and then sortin9 through those and then interviewing and then that person 9iving notice, it moves you into that September-October timeframe. Jay I believe is the only council m~mber who did interview the candidates back in September. t think that the second candidate from that timeframe would still be available. He is currently in the City of Minnetonka. I just told Jay 2 minutes ago that I might ask him to say whether or not we should be lookin9 at that individual with the other one that we had interviewed or potentially starting from scratch with 3 entirely new candidates. Councilman Johnson: Our process last year went through interviews involving members of the Planning Commission and also members of the Council. Due to sane conflicts, I had to be slightly late to the interviews. It got down to gnere I didn't get to interview Steve as a matter of fact. It got down to a 2 to 2 tie. Of the 5 people that were there of the votin9 side of it, it was a 2-2 tie between Steve and Krause. I hadn't interviewed Steve. I had interviewed Krause so that was unfair. Steve was still here in town. We brought him back from the hotel and we talked and interviewed and I decided, I was the deciding vote there, but it was extr~meiy close. We're talking 2 highly qualified people. I thought Steve cane over, my decision was based on his talkin9 ability. He seemed a little more outward and outgoing. Otherwise, impecable qualificiations on the others. There were 3 that were brought to us for interview and the two shone well above the third. The third had been un~nployed for a while and a few other interesting things. I could recon~nend Krause if he's still available. I don't k~now if he's still with Minnetonka or not. He is? There's not a lot of these positions opening up every day. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you sure that the number 2 candidate is still available? Mayor Ch~iel: Yes. Don just mentioned the fact that he still works... Councilwoman DJmler: How recently have you checked? 42 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 295 Don Ashworth: Friday? Todd Gerhardt: Thursday. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, that's good enough. Don Ashworth: So bring back 3 candidates hopefully shooting for May 20th, May 27th? Mayor Chmiel: As quickly as we can. Don Ashworth: Knock out the third candidate or? He would really love to come back and try it again but I think he was very weak. Knock him out and look at two other ones then? Counc i lman Johnson: Yes. Gary Warren: I've got an acl~inistrative presentation. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, it's not on the agenda. Gary Warren: I know and whoever pulled my stakes out at Lake Ann Park wasn't on my agenda either. Just a quick con~nent because we cable broadcast the meetings here. We've had some problem with, we staked, put in the construction stakes for the Lake Ann Park expansion project and the contractor was hoping to get underway with that work this week and it looks like the weather will probably straighten out so he can. But we had a 4 x 4 vehicle pull out half of the grade stakes that were installed last week which kind of raised the question in the contractor's mind and mine I guess, we don't know who's doing this or if they are mistaking this property for the property next door or whatever but we will be erecting a sign here, hopefully this week that will identify the project site and I think it's good PR for us anyway to lay out the schedule on that but we wanted to somehow con~nunicate to the public that this is the Lake Ann Park expansion project and in no way related to any other activities that have been popular in that area. Mayor Chmiel: Being that it's a short presentation, the clock tower. I happened to drive by that the morning the car had tried to take it out and they didn't try hard enough. Was there any structural problems with that? Gary Warren: I went out there when I heard it had survived the blast test and actually the only structural damage that I observed was that the two of the wooden ballards had been parted so those will probably have to be replaced and the decorative chain between them and maybe some plants but the foundation of the clock tower, the concrete or decerative stone base didn't budge. You can hardly see any nick at all on it. Mayor Chmiel: One other thing I just wanted to bring up. All our shurbs and trees in our center median, have we approached the people who made the installation and I know we do have a guarantee on them? 43 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 I ~- I · Don Asnwo..tn: We're also holding about $4~,g0~ 00 back in addition to the guarantees. A letter to them, has that gone out? I know Ehret was working on a punch list and they've gone through the entire downtown examining every tree ar~ they were in the process of notifying them. Gary Warren: I week ago Wednesday I believe they walked the whole site. Some of the trees that looked burned out, they do have growth but they've come up with this punch list and I haven't seen a letter to the contractor but they have had an understanding what trees and foliage has problems so that will be going out shortly I'm sure. Councilman Johnson: Somewhat in defense of the downtown project there, When people look amd say, oh look. It all died. We all told you so it was going to die. Lots of evergreens everywhere are in the same shape and some of them are old a~d everything else. It was a hard winter on evergreens. Especially for something that had only been in the ground for 6 months. Mayor Chmiel: Moth infestation is causing a lot of the evergreen trouble. Councilman Johnson: I've seen a lot of them, the west and north sides of them are just all brown. I'm amazed what this winter did. Councilwoman Dimler move, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at lg:30 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 44