Loading...
1988 11 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt, Councilman JohnsOn and Acting Mayor Geving COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Hamilton STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Horn wanted an update on the form of government con~nittee; Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss campaign signs and retroactive fees; Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the Public Safety statistics for August and September and the letter from Alan Olson on the wetlands inventory. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's r econ~nenda t ions: a. Resolution #88-119: Reject Bids on Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project 88-2. c. Resolution #88-120: Final Acceptance of ~Shadowmere Improvements. d. Resolution #88-121: Final Acceptance of Carver Beach Estates Improvements e. Request to Phase Park and Trail Dedication Fees, Kronick's Retail Garden Center. j. Approval of Assessment Contract for 1989/90, Carver County. 1. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, Eastern Carver County Transportation Planning Study. m. Accounts Payable. n. City Council Minutes dated October 24, 1988 Planning Con~nission Minutes dated October 19, 1988 and November 2, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission M~nutes dated October 25, 1988 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (F) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 174,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR AUTO REPAIR AND BOAT MAINTENANCE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND~TH 101, CHANHASSEN AUTO AND SPORTS CENTER, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Councilman Johnson: Basically, I visited the site, or next to the site actually City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 the other day as I was walking home from leaving my wife's car off to be repaired and observed that we have an oil runoff problem from this site into the highway right-of-way and then into our storm water system in the City. The soil along TH 5 is fairly well saturated. I don't know if Brad's having that looked at or not. I did mention to him on Thursday or Friday, I guess it was Thursday that this was happening and he happens to have Braun Engineering on site doing some environmental reviews of the site as is. But what I'd like to do, this is going to be a continuing problem on this type of site. I'd like to add an item 6 to our 5 recon~nended conditions of approval and that would be oil skin~ing of storm water runoff shall be designed and installed by June of 1989. That gives them some time to design it and the City to approve the design. The skin~ning system will be maintained throughout the life of this permit. As many years as oil has been discharged to this site, it's going to be quite a few more years that it's going to be running off of here. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you talking about the old Hanus site? Coucilman Johnson: Right. Acting Mayor Geving: Anyone else have any comments on that particular condition? It's probably a good condition. I know it's been a concern. What do you have to say about that Todd? I know you're familiar with the site. We have had some other problems with the site to the south of it where the lighting outfit was for a while. This is the new site? Councilman Johnson: This is the new facility. Acting Mayor Geving: Has there been a problem over there with oil as well? Todd Gerhardt: The environmentalists from Carver County has been out there and reviewed the site. I think he has made recon~nendations to Brad in cleaning it up and I think that's why Braun is out there. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any comments on that Brad? Do you have any problem with the condition that's being placed on this? Brad Johnson: Without knowing the economic consequences. Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, I'm not sure either. Especially if this runs for the life of the conditional use. Brad Johnson: What we have done, is that we've recognized that there, first of all, this conditional use that we're requesting has no oil at all... As part of our purchase of the property, we needed an environmental assessment. We should have a report on the site back to us on the tests that were being done. Councilman Johnson: Did you have h~m look at the site I told you about on Thursday? Brad Johnson: He had done all the tests and he's come back with four places where he thinks there is a potential for the problem you're suggesting. We have to do some more tests. I tend to agree with any kind of storm water runoff from the site. We're trying to straighten it out. City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: In this particular case you have a storm water system with pipes running under ground so it would be fairly simple ~at the inlet of the pipe to add an oil catch. Brad Johnson: I just don't have any basic... Acting Mayor Geving: The only problem I have with this. It seems like we're kind of mixing an old conditional use permit that we gave to Mr. Hanus with I think 23 conditions several years ago with a new request.~ I don't believe that the request is on the line because this is something we probably should have done before anyway. If you don't have any objections to that. Brad Johnson: It isn't a part of this particular use. I don't know how you do that. It's not creating. Councilman Johnson: But you can only have one conditional use permit so we can't put it against a different conditional use permit because there's only one. If you're reopening this conditional use permit to review, that's where I think it goes. Acting Mayor Geving: Roger, could you give us a comment or two'on the legality of amending the original conditional use permit for Mr. Hanus with this kind of an amendment adding the oil skin~ing device when in fact this particular application, the Marine Fiberglass Boat Repair and Maintenance facility, doesn't really get involved in this oil deposits and skimming. Roger Knutson: The only conditional use permit you have in front of you is the Marine Fiberglass one. You do not have the underlying old Hanus permit. You can't amend the old Hanus permit. You can' add a condition to this one but not the other one since it's not in front of you. Councilman Johnson: But this is an amendment to the old Hanus permit. It's not a new conditional use permit. Roger Knutson: I thought it was. Councilman Horn: It's an amendment to existing. Councilman Johnson: It's an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. Does that reopen the whole conditional use permit? Roger Knutson: It's my understanding that this is a separate permit at this time. Acting Mayor Geving: No. I don't believe that's correct. Roger Knutson: They're amending the old one? Acting Mayor Geving: That' s correct. Roger Knutson: Then you have the whole thing in front of you, then you can attach conditions to it. City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: Now the only problem that I have is we don't know the real consequences of putting condition 6 onto this in terms of what it would cost. It might be unfair to do this. That's the only problem that I have is that we may be asking Brad, or whoever is the owner of this facility, to place a very, very high and expensive process here. Did you have any idea? Is this a $1g,00g.0g device? Councilman Johnson: Way under $1g,0gg.00. We're talking, depending upon how many different outlets it's got, I only found one outlet and that outlet was rather black. About a 12 inch pipe. We're not talking a massive settling pond or something like that. I think you can buy an oil trap to drop in place. Acting Mayor Geving: You're in this business. $2,g0~.g~? What would you suspect? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Probably in that range. It could maybe even be fabricated for less depending upon how you fabricated it. The City Engineer's probably got more experience in that particular field than I do. Gary Warren: I think we're talking similar to our normal oil traps that we would install. $2,0~.00 is reasonable. Councilman Horn: It seems to me like we approach these things on a piecemeal basis and I would like to see a general guideline set up for this type of uses. When we include it and when we don't. Unless I read this thing wrong, it appears to me that we're having more than just boat repair. Aren't we also having Scott's Automotive as part of this? Councilman Johnson: But they're already go that conditional use allowed. Acting Mayor Geving: That's a permitted use. Councilman Horn: So they are repairing automobiles on this site. It seems to me it still has the potential... Councilman Johnson: And Hanus can continue repairing trucks there. Brad Johnson: I think the situation is that the floor drains have been opened and that's probably what empties out into what you're talking about. Is that possible? Councilman Johnson: I hope not. Acting Mayor Geving: I would hope that doesn't happen here. Brad Johnson: The floor drains normally go into the... Councilman Johnson: Sanitary sewer. Councilman Horn: It just seems to me like we don't have a general plan as to how we approach this type of thing. I'd like to see that. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't understand what you're talking about. City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Horn: So w~'re consistent on a citywide basis. All of a sudden this comes up for this site. What about if we have other gas stations that may have this problem? Shouldn't we require this unilaterally to everyone who has that potential or why is it unique to just this site? Acting Mayor Geving: I suspect that if we would have thought about it in 1980 or so, in fact it was before that. It was aboUt 1978, we probably would have put this condition on Hanus since we had 23 others. I don't think that what you're asking is unusual. Let's zero in on this oil skin~ing device. Councilman Johnson: We just did the same thing with SuperAmerica. The skimming device was with their runoff, there was a lot of concern about that two weeks ago when we discussed SuperAmerica. We've done it at other facilities. I wish we had it, there's a similar, not exactly the same but we had another contractor's yard that's being reviewed by the County right now for the way they dispose of their oil. Councilman Horn: I'd just like to have some mechanism in place where if Jay is sick some night and we have one of these, we know that we get a consistent... Acting Mayor Geving: I think we're trying to do that. Councilman Johnson: If my wife's car hadn't broken down, I wouldn't have noticed this as I walked by on my way home the other day. Councilman Horn: That's what I mean. This is kind of a catch if catch can situation. I don't like that.. Larry Brown: The Plumbing Code states that anytime there is repair of automobiles, an infla~nable waste separater which traps these oils will be installed on the floor drains within the building. Obviously that doesn't address the outside runoff that may occur through vehicles sitting there and dripping oil but as far as the internal building, those are addressed through the UBC. Acting Mayor Geving: But have we been trying to address that with the new gas stations, the Brooks and others? Larry Brown: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, then possibly we've got it covered and I think for future Council that should be a consideration whenever any of these kinds of things come up for a conditional use. Councilman Horn: He said it's covered in there for the inside use. Not what we're dealing with, if I understood it correctly. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that what we're talking about is appropriate for the site and I like your condition. Councilman Boyt: In the previous conditional use permit, item 2.04. I think we should change that. I don't think there should be an inventory of vehicles available for sale stored upon the subject property. I don't think we, maybe City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 I'm wrong but I don't think the intention is to set this up as a retail sales area. Acting Mayor Geving: I think ~e have to be careful in there because if this is the original permit, we allowed Mr. Hanus to have that site overlooking TH 5 to be fenced and in the one site that isn't fenced, he was allowed to put 10 vehicles there for viewing for retail sales. It was built into the conditional use permit at the time. I suspect he's continuing to do that. I see trucks there all the time now. I would not want to take scmething away from Mr. Hanus or any other applicant that we've allowed him to have about 10 years. He was allowed to store and market 10 vehicles on that site. That's been built in there from the very beginning Bill. I would object personally to deleting that item. That is taking econcmic value away from the owner of that property. Councilman Boyt: As I understood the report, it talked about how that was probably a pretty short term use. Acting Mayor Geving: It may be. It may be but until he leaves that facility, I would say that we' re denying economic value to Mr. Hanus or anyone else who owns that property currently if we were to deny him the use of that for 10 vehicles. Now I know at times he doesn't have 10 vehicles. He's had 1 or 2 but they are big trucks and that's his business. As I understand it, is this correct, he will be leaving that site in 19897 That's what I read in my notes. Brad Johnson: That is the current plan. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so Bill I would say, I won't be on the future Council but at the same time, I would say this is a very good item to leave in there and if this comes up in 1989 and the 23 conditions that Mr. Hanus has, will be wiped from the books. We'll have an entirely new kind of business there. Councilman Boyt: Only if they come in and apply for another conditional use permit. Acting Mayor Geving: That's true but if Mr. Hanus leaves that site... Councilman Boyt: This stays with the site. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, but remember when we built that, we built ]_t for a particular kind of business. Unless it's a continuation of that kind of business, I suspect you might want to review this conditional use permit for it's applicability. Don't deny him now by taking away that ability to put 10 vehicles out there. That's his only way of getting his product close to the market. That' s his window. Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying is that for the long term use of the City, you see that as being a used vehicle sales spot? Acting Mayor Geving: Not forever but I am saying that based on the information I get from the applicant and others, that he will be there approximately a year. And if he stays in business, he can continue to do what he's doing. City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: Even if he goes out of business, this stays with the piece of property. This is an opportunity to change it. Brad Johnson: I don't know Bill if it's an opportunity to change it. Acting Mayor Geving: I would defer this to our Attorney for comment. Brad Johnson: I don't think w~ came here prepared to assist the City in the relocation of the Marine Fiberglass and also give up basically the rights that we have on there. Acting Mayor Geving: I wouldn't touch that Bill. Sorry. I hate to tell you this but I would not touch it at this time. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Let's look at item 2.05 which talks about fencing and 2.10 also addresses fencing. I would like to think that we can put something in here to indicate that we would like some sort of opaque wood fencing. Brad Johnson: We' ve got it. Councilman Boyt: The way it stands right now, if you should happen, for some reason to want to take that down, you could put up any kind of fencing that you want to put up. I think the city has indicated in a few other outside storage areas around town that we prefer to have opaque wood fencing. Brad Johnson: I think that' s what we' ve got. Councilman Boyt: So this is not an inconvenience to you. It's simply saying let's put it down on paper as long as we've got this opening. Acting Mayor Geving: I'm very hesitant Mr. Boyt to make any changes to an existing conditional use permit that's been in existence for over 10 years. This is not an opportunity to change. Tonight we have before us an application for a new facility to be placed in that Hanus building which is a conditional use permit for the Marine Fiberglass boat repair and maintenance facility. That's all it is. Let's not go back and try to change 23 conditions just because this is an opportunity. Let's deal with the condition that's in front of us and that's the Marine Fiberglass. Councilman Johnson: Condition 2.10 states that it's going to be screened in a manner set forth in Exhibit B. Exhibit B states that it be a wooden fence not less than 8 feet in height which shall be either solid or constructed fully opaque with no gaps or spaces between the slats. So it's already there. Councilman Boyt: Okay, thanks. Acting Mayor Geving: We fought this battle a long time ago. Councilman Boyt: Well, I'm glad you resolved it that way Dale. Dealing with fiberglass, you're dealing with some hazardous materials. Brad Johnson: I'm not sure we are. City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Councilman Boyt: When I've dealt with fiberglass, you're dealing with things that you sure don't want to breathe. My question is simply, have we indicated, I know the person and the business is in existence in town now, are we providing the fire people and the public safety people with a map of wiqere those chemicals are going to be stored? Councilman Horn: Isn't that required under State Law? Jo Ann Olsen: They have to get a Certificate of Occupancy. That's when the Fire Inspector do... Councilman Horn: Don't they have to train all of the employees in the substances that they'll be exposed to? Jo Ann Olsen: The Right to Know Act. Councilman Horn: The Right to Know Act. Councilman Johnson: Does he have more than 10 employees? Brad Johnson: 1 or 2. Councilman Boyt: What does that mean Jay? Councilman Johnson: Small business is exempt frc~n the Right to Know Act below 10 employees. Acting Mayor Geving: It sounds good. Councilman Johnson: Almost all the Federal Acts are exempt for employers of 10 employees or less. Acting Mayor Geving: Does that satisfy you? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I am happy to see that we found a place in town that this business can go to. Councilman Johnson: It's further aw-ay from the neighbors and everything. It's a good industrial site. Acting Mayor Geving: Any other comments regarding Jay's addition which is condition 6 to amend the original. Brad, would you be satisfied with that? Brad Johnson: June 1, 19897 Councilman Johnson: June 1st of 1989. I move we approve the amendment to the existing conditional use permit with the 5 conditions recommended by the Planning Corm~ission and the addition of a 6th condition reading, oil skimming of storm water runoff shall be designed and installed by June 1, 1989. The skimming system shall be maintained throughout the life of this permit. Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second the motion. City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the amendment to the existing conditional use permit for a 174,000 square foot building for auto repair and boat maintenance for Chanhassen Auto and Sports Center with the 5 conditions recon~nended by the Planning Con~nission and the addition of a 6th condition reading, oil skin~ning of storm water runoff shall be designed and installed by June 1, 1989. The skirNning system shall be maintained throughout the life of this permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (G) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, PARK DAY CARE CENTER, ROMAN ROOS. Councilman Johnson: This again, we give preliminary plat approval. We give four conditions. They meet 2 of the conditions and come back for final plat approval. I move we deny it until all four conditions are met. We get in too much trouble by not having all the conditions met on a plat and then the plat gets gone. We've got the Ostrom, I forget what that subdivision is out there with the problems with the trails. The trails never got on the documentation and it got approved without it. Now we're really having a fight to get the trails. ~ · ~ ~. Roman Roos: Jay, can I ask you what you're talking about. Councilman Johnson: It's a line on your drawing. It took almost nothing. The plat should be revised to show a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the existing 10 inch diameter watermain traversing Lot 2, Block 1. Acting Mayor Geving: Would you come before the Council Roman. Tell us exactly which of the four conditions, and if you want you can use my staff report, which identifies in the lower part of the con~nent section from staff, those items which have not been complied with. Roman Roos: Item 2, at staff's recommendation we shifted the property line of the western edge of the mini-storage another 10 foot to include that total 20 foot easement on the mini-storage property line. That should be shown. It's listed as a 20 foot easement on the western ~edge of that mini-storage project. So number 2 has beem complied with. ~ ~ Jo Ann Olsen: The easement doesn't show on the plat. Roman Roos: It's listed on the prelim plat and on the final plat as a 20 foot easement. Councilman Johnson: Could you show me? Acting Mayor Geving: Could you identify for the Council please rather than for Mr. Johnson. ~ Councilman Johnson: Where does it say 20 foot utility easement? Roman Roos: The property line is 229. Apparently they did not list it. It was 219. We were to include 10 foot for that easement all the way across. As I said, this was...I was out of town and they were directed to increase it by 10 foot which they did, to include the full 20 foot on the western edge of the City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 mini-storage project. That indeed has been acknowledged but it somehow in the final plat hardshell, if the staff and the City w-ants something listed on the hardshell, so be it. I don't think it's listed on the hard shell. If it is, it can be a descriptive addition but it has been complied with. Acting Mayor Geving: I see that. Do you see that Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: It also will have to be amended. We just pointed out that they will have to show the easement. Councilman Johnson: Generally they show the easement as a dotted line all the way around the property. That's condition 3 also that you didn't show the front or rear yard utility easements. Roman Roos: As you recall, the prelim plat which was exactly what the surveyor worked off of, that whole easement would be on that property but he apparently has done hard shells before and all I can tell you is that it was directed to be put on there. Councilman Johnson: But we don't have it in front of us. Roman Roos: Ail I'm trying to tell you is that the...has been given. It was given with the intent behind staff's recor~nendation that it would be another foot. If that's a problem, if it's a question of just having it comply with staff recon~nendations which I've done from day one. Acting Mayor Geving: So that's item 2 and 3. Councilman Johnson: Roman, this isn't anything straight. We see this all the time. We ask somebody to add one simple little line to a drawing. A month later nothing's been done and we ask them again. At preliminary plat we'll have 10 conditions. Final plat we'll have 8 conditions. Final plat we should have no conditions because everybody knows the conditions. Roman Roos: Jay, I understand exactly what you're saying and I have to plead guilty. I was out of town. I did comply and will comply totally with staff. How this particular surveyor left it off, I do not know but on the prelim plat that was brought before you for approval, it did show the setbacks all the way around the property. It showed a shortage of some square footage in the mini- storage project. We accomplish that by shifting the property line to give the staff recon~nendation of 7~%. That included the complete easement within that line. There's been no intent, is what I'm trying to tell you Jay. Councilman Johnson: I agree. What I'm just saying is it's not before us. Roman Roos: Again, I apologize for that but from the standpoint of the prelim plat, if you check the two dimensions, they should have been on there. It will be on there. Councilman Johnson: Do you have a time constraint? Roman Roos: ...with the cold weather coming. The only reason I'm adamant about it at this point in time, I think Jo Ann can concur that I did and will comply with those two requests. It's a simple line on the drawing. 10 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think that historically the Council and even the last two years, while I've objected to it several times but historically we've gone ahead and said okay, now Don will not sign these until those drawings are on there and we're assured of that. So I'm going to go ahead and move we approve this with the assurances that those lines do show up here before Don and the Mayor will sign this plat. Also, that I'm going to continue my campaign of why is something simple not done. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Jay. I think your motion is an appropriate one. The condition is that if you comply with the two conditions that staff is asking for and is there a second to the motion? Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Johnson: Actually there's three conditions. Acting Mayor Geving: Ail three conditions will be applied. That will be the condition on which the approval is based. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Final Plat for Park Day Care Center pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: I'd like to state that I know of no plat that has come through in the last 5 years or more that has in any way slipped through the cracks where we have not made sure that all conditions set by City Council have been met. The issue you refer to as far as the trail eas~nents is an entirely separate issue than the type of conditions that you have in this particular application. (I) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-421(11) OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER DREDGING WETLANDS IN PUBLIC WATERS LOCATED IN LAKES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Councilman Boyt: I've got a question for Jo Ann, since I was unable to reach you today Jo Ann. Do you know if Rivkin dug his 200 foot canal? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know if he has. Councilman Boyt: Dale, you were absent.the night that we had the vote unfortunately. Acting Mayor Geving: This is on the wetland ordinance? Councilman Boyt: Yes, but the issue came up around Eric Rivking and his desire to make, gosh it was at least 200 foot long dredged out... Acting Mayor Geving: I rsmember it. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and you and I were opposed to it. Dale, it would turn out that maybe we were working under some erroneous information the night the Council passed that since I would gather reading this staff report that the City 11 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 probably had the right to deny that to control that wetland since it was entirely controlled by the City. I would encourage you, if not this meeting, possibly next meeting to think about reconsidering that item since you were here that night. Acting Mayor Geving: I would be happy to except there's a possibility now that a number of months have passed since then and the fellow may have already invested a considerable amount of money. I'd like to know where exactly that project is. Councilman Boyt: Well I agree. We do need to know that but maybe you want to pursue that. Acting Mayor Geving: I was very irritated by that, by the way Bill, that it passed but there were only 2 votes for it. Councilman Boyt: Something that you might want to consider. I hope you do. Then the other thing, Roger and we talked just right before the meeting but maybe you can fill me in. It seems to me that if we're moving to make certain we have control over the wetlands, that we should extend that to also the surface of the lake and I just want to confirm that we do control the surface of the lake. Roger Knutson: This particular ordinance that's being amended is a wetland ordinance so it doesn't address anything else. We have a surface water useage ordinance which is separate from that wetlands ordinance and we do regulate to some extent what goes on in the surface waters of all lakes. We could look at the ordinance to see what it says as far as what kind of regulations. Councilman Boyt: Maybe this is an inappropriate time and Dale you tell me and we can put it up for another meeting, but Roger, we had an issue this past summer where some people where mooring their boats on a lake when they didn't own property on the lake. The County was involved in that and the DNR was involved in that. Everyone but the City was involved in it and are you suggesting to me that the City in fact has the ultimate control over mooring of docks and boats in the lake? Roger Knutson: Yes. Assuming that lake lies entirely within the City of Chanhassen and assuming that when you amend your ordinance you get DNR approval, which you're required to do. Councilman Boyt: But we already have the ordinance. Are you saying we need to amend it to gain control over the water surface in that type of surface useage? Roger Knutson: For certain types of things, yes. Our Surface Water Useage Ordinance regulates certain things such as docks but did not regulate other things. If I remember right, that was sent to the Planning Con~nission for study. I drafted an ordinance I can't remember, 2 months ago. Councilman Boyt: Is that in the works Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: It came back to the City Council and it was given to the Park and Rec Con~nission... 12 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: Well, I remember that part of it but I don't rsmember directing anybody to look at was the City gaining the ability to control the surface useage on the lakes completely. All the surface useage on the lakes. Councilman Horn: It was not put in the ordinance. It was a discussion item at the time and the ordinance that our ordinance was modeled fr~m had that provision in. It came from White Bear Lake. There the provisions was put in for commercial dock users to control them. It was not meant as a means to control the riparian property owners. However, it could be done. It wasn't felt at that time there was a big enough probl~ to warren including that in the ordinance and therefore it hasn't been put in. Councilman Boyt: Clark, I think I understand what you're saying to me. I'm just saying that I anticipate that we're going to have to make a decision here one of these days about do we allow unattended mooring on lakes. I would like the City to be moving so that decision is the City's and not the DNR's or the County' s. Councilman Johnson: We are working on that. Councilman Horn: It is the City's. It's included in the ordinance and they will control it. Councilman Boyt: It's not in our ordinance now. Councilman Horn: It's not in our ordinance now but that would be, as Roger stated, that would be the place to put it. Councilman Johnson: The ordinance has been drafted and it's gone through Planning. It's now at Park and Rec. Councilman Boyt: Different ordinance. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's stay with the discussion at hand gentlemen. Let's stay with the discussion on the zoning ordinance amendment to add to the wetlands. Councilman Boyt: I'm comfortable with the way that's being amended. Dale I would like you to look into the possibility of... Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have staff do that before the next meeting. Councilman Boyt: And I'll move approval of item l(i). Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-421(11) of the Wetland Ordinance to clarify that the City has control over dredging wetlands in public waters located in lakes wholly within the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 13 -~-~City Council Meeting November 14~ 1988 Councilman Horn: It was my understanding that the reason we were not included in that is because it was done below the ordinance high water mark. Acting Mayor Geving: That's another discussion and we'll get into that if this comes back as an agenda item. I certainly would want to reconsider that. I'm glad you brought it up Bill. (K) 1988 AUDIT CONTRACT, VOTO, TAUTGES, REDPATH AND COMPANY. Acting Mayor Geving: I pulled out item l(k). It is the 1988 audit contract with Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company. We've had this same audit firm for a number of years now. Since about 1980. I've been more than pleased with them. They've been a good firm. The only problem that I have is that there's no bottam line to the amount of dollars that can be charged on the 1988 audit. Even though the list of their fees of $74.00 for the partner, $55.00 for the audit supervisors and so forth, I know you've got an item in your 1989 budget that will cover the amount of cost but it always seems to me that we should have somewhere in an audit contract such as this, a figure. Not that it's a target figure but one that we can understand as a bottom line for the 1988 audit. Can you give us that just off the top of your head Don? What is the figure approximately? Don Ashworth: $16,000.00 to $18 , 000 . 00. I'm not quite sure in what range or what the exact number that's in the 1989 budget. It should be generally in that area. If you would like, I'm sure that they would include either that type of a range. Some of our first contracts had an upset number. Acting Mayor Geving: I always like to see a number like, not to exceed $15,000.00. That gives me an idea that these people are not going, not that they would. They're not going to take advantage of it but there's a possibility in a contract that they could work half the surrmer and charge us $30,000.00 and we'd have to pay it. I'm sure the Attorney would agree that unless something was written into this kind of contract, we just pay by the hour until they're finished. That's the only amendment that I'd like to see on this and future contracts is that there is a not to exceed amount. If they exceed that, then they come back to the Council and talk to us. If there's a particular thing that they're doing that is unusual this year as opposed to previous years. Does anybody else have any problem with that? Councilman Boyt: No, I think it's a good idea. Acting Mayor Geving: I have no further discussion on this. It's just that I do feel that when we get into these kinds of by the hour contracts, there should be a bottom line because if they submit a bill to us, we're obligated to pay it. Period. Whatever that amount is and we have given them no guidelines as to what that target figure is or our budget figure. Don Ashworth: If you approve this item, why don't I have them amend the contract to show, really there would be two upset amounts. The single audit requirement is something that's new and it's only triggered if grants are received in excess of $100,000.00 and that's an aggregate amount of all sources. So there would be an upset figure for the regular audit type of work and an 14 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 upset figure if the single audit requirsments are in greater~ Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not so sure that I want to prove this tonight. I'd rather table this and have you cc~e back with the corrected audit figures. Is that agreeable with the rest of the Council? Then I move that we table this item for this evening. Councilman Boyt: I have one more question as long as we're on that line before we move on that. Don do we ever put this out to bid by other auditing firms? Don Ashworth: Your audit work is a professional service and it is up to the City Council as to whether or not you wish to entertain other proposals in a similar fashion that you might look to Attorney services or an audit contract. Part of the budgetary discussion was exactly that. We did have a proposal from another firm. It was the consensus that we would not be looking to make the change in 1988. Acting Mayor Geving: I think we decided that. table item l(k) . With that in mind I'd like to Councilman Johnson: Second. Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table approval of the 1988 Audit Contract for Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company until the next meeting when the City Manager could come back with an amended contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: A1Klingelhutz: I would like to talk a little bit about the waste management for our Blue Lake... As far as the Blue Lake Treatment plant is concerned, about a month ago there was a meeting at Minnetonka and at that time the Blue Lake Plant was to go to full capacity of 32 million gallons daily. The current rate flow is about 20 million gallons daily. They are looking to cut it back now to 27 million gallons daily. The final increase of the size of the plant would not be put in until the year 1997. There is a savings of about 5 million dollars at the present time. We would lower the capacity rate down to the lower figure but the overall savings on the continuation of the growth of that plant to 1997 would be zilch because of the cost of not doing it all at one time would actually cost about 5 million dollars more. So it's at a break even point if they put in the full capacity at the present time. Metropolitan Waste Mangement Board is still using the old population figures that they've been using all these years. Our feeling at Carver County is that the increase in the size, the down grading of the size won't be sufficient to handle the growth in Carver County until the final phase is put in. We had quite a discussion at Shakopee this morning. There were about 5 Metro Council members there plus the Waste Management Board people and I think we got to the Metro Council members well enough that we might be able to get the Metro Waste Management Board idea thrown out and go back to full capacity at this time again. I'd like to ask for the assistance of the City of Chanhassen in calling a few of their Council members and say, hey give us some support on this. This is one of the reasons I came up tonight. Another thing I wanted to bring up, there is a Carver County Advisory 15 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Committee meeting on TH 212 at 7:00 next Monday night. Dale, you belong to that. Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, and I'll be there. And where's it going to be located? A1 Klingelhutz: It's going to be at the Carver County Courthouse. Acting Mayor Geving: Any other councilmembers interested in attending? How about some of the new members to the City Council. Don, Tom, Ursula? Any of you people. A1 Klingelhutz: And was there something on the agenda tonight too about the Transportation Study of Eastern Carver County? I hope you approve that. I think it's very important. Gary Warren: It was on the Consent Agenda. Acting Mayor Geving: We've already covered it A1 so we've in good shape. Councilman Johnson: What's the timing on the Blue Lake? Is there time in two weeks from now for us to pass a resolution or anything to formally go in or are we at the point of timing to where it's individual calls? A1 Klingelhutz: We're very close. Tomorrow morning the portion of the Met Council that sits on the Waste Management part of the Met Council is having a meeting. On Thursday it's going before the full Met Council so there isn't really much time. Councilman Johnson: What time is the meeting tomorrow morning? A1 Klingelhutz: Tomorrow mornings, I believe they're going to start at 11:00. Councilman Johnson: So if we're going to make calls to the people that are on the Waste Management Board of the Met Council, it has to be before 11:00 tomorrow morning? A1 Klingelhutz: Right. And the full Council will be Thursday at 1:00. Councilman Horn: Actually we've been doing this for the last 8 years ever since we started the Comprehensive Plan. We've been fighting with Met Council over that population projection. A1 Klingelhutz: I think the Met Council is pretty much agreed with the new TH 212 study that they are really short on population. Councilman Johnson: The transportation people have. The sewer people haven't. A1 Klingelhutz: The sewer people haven't, no. I think we're making progress with some of the Met Council people on that population problem that we've had for the last 8 years which is the costing the City and the County hundreds of dollars every year because of the small growth that they give us. Councilman Johnson: I'm sure Marcy's on our side on this. 16 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 A1 Klingelhutz: Yes. Marcy and Sully and DeVries. I talked with 4 people after the meeting. Acting Mayor Geving: Give us a name or two would you A1 that would be key people to call if we were going to call because I'm not going to waste my time with calling Marcy. She's already on our side but give us a name or two if you can. A1 Klingelhutz: Sully is on our side and DeVries is on our side too. ~nere was another lady there and I can't think of her name now and I haven't got the rest of the Metro Council members on the tip of my tongue. Councilman Johnson: Maybe if we give Marcy a call, she could. A1 Klingelhutz: If you give Marcy a call, she could tell you who the people were. Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much A1. We appreciate your comments. Gary Warren: On that issue that A1 brought up. I've had several conversations with ~CC staff about this issue already and Bill Blaine with their engineering. Al's concern and the response here I think of the City is appropriate. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is saying that, I asked specifically if this was going to develop into any moratorium issues as far as the City was concerned. That was one of our major interests and they had said, and I guess you have to take a note of that, that they are basing their projections of the waste water monitoring that they see happening and the projections fr~m the actual waste water monitoring. They recognize the dispute on the populations that we have and Met Council have. They feel confident that what it will do is add some costs as far as the planning standpoint if we initiate a study. They were telling me that they did not see that this would mean any kind of restriction or moratorium. They're in the business to service waste water of the con~nunities and that's their intent. Still, I think it's important for the City to react. Councilman Horn: Did they bring up the I & I issue again? Usually when we approach th~m on that, they hit us over the head with I & I. Gary Warren: No. I talked pretty fast. Acting Mayor Geving: Clark is right though. That seems to be their number one point of defense. Al Klingelhutz: ...the lift station was supposed to be improved in 1980. It's finally getting completed in 1988 as part of the Lake Ann Interceptor. Waconia at one time ran out of units. They couldn't build any more homes in Waconia and they had to borrow scme from Minnetrista. These things were all brought out this morning. APPROVE VACATION REQUEST FOR UTILITY EASEMENT ON ERIE AVENUE (SORENSON PROPERTY). Larry Brown: As laid out in our report, the City has a sanitary sewer easement 17 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 over this entire parcel and since there are two homes that were built on this in 1985 and the first part of 1986, they'd obviously like to have a portion of that sanitary sewer easement vacated. What staff is proposing, the City does have an 8 inch diameter sanitary sewer main which runs along the northerly property boundary so we are reserving 25 feet along that line within this parcel for the maintenance of that sanitary sewer line. In researching this issue, we did not find an easement for Erie Avenue for the roadway or utilities. We discussed this with the applicant and have agreed that we would essentially swap easements. We would vacate that portion of it if they granted us the roadway, drainage and utilities necessary for the recognized Erie Avenue right-of-way. With that, I'll open it up for questions. Acting Mayor Geving: The question I have in~nediately is, where is the applicant's request that this be considered? Larry Brown: I did not include that in the packet. Acting Mayor Geving: Is there a formal request? A written request? Larry Brown: Yes there is. I have an application and a check for the amount of fees. Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to make sure that that piece of paper gets included with this vacation request. It's a very important document and it goes for a long, long time with the property. Regardless of the action tonight, inlcude that request from Mr. Sorenson and a copy of the check. Clark, I'm going to ask you to comment on this since you live near this area and are familiar with the vacation requested. Councilman Horn: I don't really see a problem. It looks to me like a fair trade. I'm kind of concerned that there wasn't a street easement in the first place. I don't know how that fell in a crack. Erie Avenue was a project about lg years ago. It seems tome that it would have been taken care of in that street improvement project. Acting Mayor Geving: In fact there's a manhole just about where that arrow is there on that schematic. Councilman Horn: There are manholes all along this area. Acting Mayor Geving: Any other con~nents? It's a straight forward request. Do you happen to know what Mr. Sorenson's going to do with this? Is there a purpose in asking for the request? Councilman Horn: There's a house already there. Acting Mayor Geving: There's one home there and Hagman's is to the south. Larry Brown: The actual purpose came about in selling off the smaller parcel and they needed clear title to the home. That's the reason for this. What prompted the vacation. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe we need a four-fifths vote on this. I think we can go right to the motion. 18 City Council Meeting 2 November 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: This is a public hearing. You haven't called the public hearing to order yet if you want to technically do this right. Councilman Horn: It is called to order by recognizing the applicant. We haven't closed it. Acting Mayor Geving: We haven't closed the public hearing. Is there any Other con~nents. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Resolution ~88-122: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve vacating that portion of the utility eas~nent as shown in Attachment 2, contingent upon receipt of a roadway, utility and drainage easement for the remaining 33 feet within the recognized Erie Avenue right-of-way. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW KURVERS POINT TRAIL ISSUE. Larry Brown: At the present time, the City has established the current trail fee of $142.00 per lot. I referenced two subdivisions, Curry Farms and Saddlebrook for examples where we have collected those fees at the time of the building permit issuance. Staff is recon~nending that the Kurvers Point Subdivision be handled in a similar manner. Acting Mayor Geving: Could you give us a little bit more meat than that please in terms of your conversations with the Kurvers and their co~ents regarding the easement along TH 101 and the amount that they've dedicated. I know that's a separate issue in fact but it does have some bearing on whether or not this Council would put in or remove from their contract an item that says in fact that the developer would pay for the sidewalks. Could you give us any comaents there in regard to why are w~ singlely out the Kurvers, if we are, as opposed to these other developments where we have not asked for this? Is that true? Larry Brown: Don Ashworth, the City Manager has included his comments on that stating that we often request additional trail easements with other subdivisions if they were along TH 101 and we're treating the Kurver's subdivision the same way. Acting Mayor Geving: How about on the internal trail? The sidewalk issue? Larry Brown: We are treating that similar to the subdivisions which I referenced Saddlebrook and Curry Farms so we feel that they are being treated the same way that we have current subdivisions. Acting Mayor Geving: In those cases were the developers requested to put in the sidewalks and the trails as opposed to building them as you go with a permit basis as being requested by the Kurvers? Are those trails in Saddlebrook excatly right now. 19 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Gary Warren: The Saddlebrook trail has been rough graded in and where we have existing homes, we have separately poured the sidewalk in those area so they could restore their properties. The Saddlebrook development contract does provide reimbursement to the developer in the amount of $14,900.00 for installation of trails. That his cost, his bid tab are higher than that by approximately $5,000.00 but also in Saddlebrook we had the transfer of park property, Kerber East as we call the park property. Some of that excess that he's paying...part of this transaction. For the most part he's been reimbursed for the trails. Acting Mayor Geving: From an engineering standpoint Gary, would you feel that it would be more desirable to put in the trails after the subdivision is built? When the homes are in and at that time go in and put in your sidewalks and trails rather than to have the developer put them in at the time the development is being built? Also, if these were a concrete sidewalk as the estimate that has been supplied here, reasonably accurate in terms of $11,200.007 Gary Warren: I think it's a conservatively high estimate. I don't think it's out of line but I think it's on the high side. In reference to your first question. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush I guess. That goes back to the Pleasant Hills trail issue...to a certain extent. If we have enough conditions where the Kurvers...putting in a purchase agreements...affected by the City, they are reserving the right to put in a trail along the property. That notice up front to perspective buyers I think is important and until we've had some confidence that that is really addressed by the hame buyer issue ...we're going to have some sidewalks that are going to be damaged by builders that they're going to have to repair. Acting Mayor Geving: Who repairs those? Gary Warren: It would be the builder's responsibility. There are measures that they can take...to get in to protect the sidewalks. As long as they're aware and they know that we're watching, that it's their responsibility... Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's move on. I know Mel that you have discussed this with us before. Would you like to make a similar conm~ent tonight since we're really going to address this tonight and hopefully resolve it once and for all. Would you like to restate your comments that you wrote in your letter? Mel Kurvers: I guess my only comment is that we still feel that the interior trails are not necessary. People interested in lots really feel the same way. I guess that's about what's stated in my letter. Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to hear one, before we open it up for Council deliberation, I'd like to hear from Lori. Fram a Park and Rec standpoint, how you feel about developing these trails at this time in light of the fact that if you were to collect $142.00 times the number of units in this development, you would be approximately $5,000.00 short of the amount of money it would take to build this sidewalk or trail. In this case I guess it's going to be a sidewalk. Could you address that for us Lori? Where would this money come from that is the difference between the $142.00 trail fee and the actual cost of building the sidewalk? 20 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Lori Sietsema: It would come out of the trail development fund that we're establishing with the collection of those fees. I would like to make a comment that in light of the trail referend~n failing, that we may want to send some of these things back to Park and Rec to priority. ~ney may want to reprioritize different trail segments. Collect the fees for this developments but where they want the trail along TH 101 rather than concentrate on sidewalks. I'm not sure if that's the case but we aren't going to have the referendum monies to fund the whole trail system. Tnere are certain some priorities out there that the Park and Recreation Con~nission may want to pursue. Acting Mayor Geving: That's a very good co2~ent and I think it's germane to our discussion. Let's open it up for Council. Councilman Boyt: I think the issue that came in front of us was, could they do this one lot at a time. I don't have any trouble with them doing one lot at a time. Acting Mayor Geving: So as building permits came in, they would pay their $142.00. It would go into a central fund and at some point the Park and Rec Conmission would make a decision through their commission that we're going to put in Kurver's Point and put in a 5 foot or 6 foot sidewalk in there and take the funds out of the pool. Is that how you see it then Bill? At some future time this would happen. Councilman Boyt: I agree with Gary. If we don't put it in, I have a tendency to believe that it will never go in there. That's sort of a separate issue and the Park and Rec Department should deal with that. The Kurver's asked to have this charged out one lot at a time. That's what we're doing in other developments and that's what we should do with them. Councilman Horn: I thought we agreed to that at least in principle the last time we talked about this. Acting Mayor Geving: We more or less did. Councilman Horn: I firmly believe that people who are going to have a trail by their house need to be aware that it's there. I don't necessarily think you have to put concrete in there to inform them of that. I think there are other methods that can be used such as marking the trail or including it in their development contracts for each of the lots. Also, the con~ent that the perspective owners do not want interior trails was exactly the comment we heard from Near Mountain. Now the Near Mountain people are coming back and saying gee, we got ripped. We didn't get any sidewalks so I don't know that we can necessarily believe that. I think what we need is some, again I'll say this, consistent method of what we're going to do in the City. It seems we approach these things on a catch as catch can basis which I don't like. I think in terms of dedicating these and picking priorities, I don't think that's the way we should approach this at all. I think what we should be doing is have a plan in place that if the decision is made that we're going to have sidewalks, this is where we're going to have them and this is how they be placed. We do all our planning up front. Whether we have the money to put them in now to me is irrelevant. We should still go ahead with the full blown trail plan and allow space for that. If the money is available and the citizens decide yes, we do want sidewalks, then fine. Let's put them in. But let's not try to surprise 21 ~- ~y Council Meeting November 14 ~ 1988 everybody and figure out where they're going to go 10 years from now when the trail referendum passes, or whenever it is. I think that's something we have to plan for up front. Not only for sidewalks but all types of trail uses should continue to be planned. That should be part of the overall plan. You can take an idealistic approach on where all thJ. s stuff should be. That doesn't mean we're always going to have the bucks to do them but at least a plan is in place and we know how it's going to work. I heard the argument said, we've got to wait to plan all this stuff until we find out if the referendum's approved. don't agree with that. I think you plan for it first and get all the plans in place. Maybe if you've got the plans in place people get a better idea of what they're going to have and how they're going to have their money spent and you have a better chance of passing the trail referendum. But I think we should go ahead and reserve the space and whether it gets built or not, at least people know where it is. Acting Mayor Geving: May I ask you Mel, will there be space available on each of these lots so that Clark's idea here is the w-ay we go, at some future time that sidewalk can be put in there in front of every one of those homes? There is space provided now in the lots is that correct? Mel Kurvers: It's in the... Acting Mayor Geving: It's in there and also you've indicated that in every sales agreement that would be firmly stated that there's a potential for a sidewalk in front of those homes. Councilman Horn: I think we can have them drawn in on the plat too. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think there'd be anything wrong with that... It does not? Councilman Horn: Well, maybe we have something, we don't call it plat where we show it. Frank Kurvers: I agree with Clark when he says we've got to plan. We got to get it resolved now and get some kind of a continuity for the trails but I guess what you're all talking about is the overall plan. I think the language that's in there... I don't like to see them get reassessed later on if it's there. Now we were dealing with people in good faith. If they know that they're possibly going to be there someday, that's all fine but we don't want a down the road say we're going to put it in and assess you people for that sidewalk or trail. Acting Mayor Geving: That's a very good point Frank. I think the biggest lack of faith in the City would co~e if a homeowner buyer buys your lot, pays the $142.00 fee and 5 years from now the Park and Rec Commission decides to put that in there and charges each of them another $2~0.00 to make up that $5,000.00 difference that I mentioned so we can pay for the sidewalk. I agree totally with you. That if the sidewalk is put in, it has to came out of the pool of the dedicated funds from the trail easements. Councilman Horn: Some are referendum. Acting Mayor Geving: Or whatever but not to go back against the homeowner. 22 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 !89 Councilman Johnson: When we approved this development we fought on the trail issue and we came to the conclusion that the best way all around was for the developer to build the trails as part of it and that way, rather than the City putting in a standard asphalt trail, the developer preferred to put in a concrete trail or something. Now we're back to the point the developer doesn't want to put in a trail. He wants us to put in the trail. We're going to modify the develoument contract after we've approved it and now it's up to the City as to what goes in there. The developer has now lost control of what type of trail is put in there. We could put a woodchip trail in. He no longer has the control. As long as he realizes by modifying his own development contract that he's already agreed to, he's losing control then I have no problem with switching this in our current state. I think this gives the Park and Rec a little more flexibility as what to do with the monies from these fees. I don't see this particular development is going to fill up overnight. It might. I hope for the Kurvers it does but I have a feeling it's going to be a steadily growing development with, not brisk sales but some good sales in there. I think we'll see houses going in there all the time but I don't see it doing like a Chan Vista did and get 30 houses in 2 or 3 months. It may be a few years before we have all these fees come in. I have no problem with changing it if that's what the developer wants. Acting Mayor Geving: If you feel that way, why don't you go ahead and make the motion Jay if you would to delete item 16 and modify it. Delete the existing development contract provision 16 and modify it with new words if you would. I think 16 has got to come out of here in terms of trails and trail fees. Just delete it entirely and then we'll rework it. Councilman Horn: I don't know that we're going to do that. Acting Mayor Geving: Well, that's the point that I'm making. I think tonight we need to identify exactly what we're going to do and as far as I'm concerned, based on what I've heard from the rest of the Council members, we're all willing to go along and modify the existing development contract by deleting item 16. Item 16 is the trail and trail fees which indicates currently that the developer will pay. They'll submit the plans and the build the construction of this trail. My idea is to pull this out. To omit it entirely changing the words in item 16 modifying the development contract to include a requirement that the trail fees will be collected at the time that each building permit is issued. That the other provision that there would be no future assessment to the homeowner. If a trail is built at any time in the future, funds would be derived from the trail funds that have been previously collected and it would be a decision of the Park and Rec C(m~ission whether or not the trail would be proposed. And to carry it one step further, we've all talked about this. There would be public hearings with those homeowners before the trail would actually be installed. Councilman Boyt: I would speak against that. I know it's not a motion yet but I don't think that this Council wants to tie the arms of any future Council in how they would approach this trail issue. We're in no position to guarantee anybody in this town how sidewalks are going to be built in front of their house. 23 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what I'm trying to propose here is that we delete the existing item 16 which says that the developer will suh~it the plans and develop the sidewalks. Okay, we'll delete that let's start over then with building a new item 16 which says in effect that we will collect the fees at the time the building permits are issued. They will be put into the trail pool and we don't need to really say anymore than that except I personally would like to build into the wordage here for all time that no future assessment for the construction of these trails in Kurvers Point Road would be placed against the hc~neowners. Now that's the motion I would like to place before the Council. Councilman Horn: I think that could always be changed by any future Council. Legally we can't tie... Acting Mayor Geving: I know but it's the intent. Councilman Horn: You can say that's our intent. Acting Mayor Geving: You have to always look at where we're at tonight. My position is that the intent of this Council is to do just what we stated. To remove the item that's in there now and put back another provision and that was the motion that I'm going to propose to the Council. Councilman Johnson: I think what I'd like to see is our City Attorney or somebody draw up a new item 16 for us to have the exact reading. This is a contract we're talking here. It's not a simple condition or anything. It's a legal binding document that we're modifying here. I think I would like to see before we do exactly the final vote, I would like to see the exact wording of what I'm approving. Acting Mayor Geving: I have no problem with that Jay. I really have no problem with that. Councilman Johnson: So what I'd like to see is that this come back to us with whatever conditions. I think one of the conditions that would be part of number 16 is that all homeowners are notified that a trail is planned through the front of their property as part of the overall city trail system. Not that it may or it might but it is planned. 5his is a walk through, pass through neighborhood connecting eventually to two different segments of the trail system. Councilman Horn: I'd also like to include the option in there. I think this can be_ somewhat of a general development contract that each builder has the option of paying them on a permit by permit basis at the current fee at that time or if they choose they can pay them all off at the existing rate. What that does, if you do have a development that may take several years to develop and everybody knows the trail fees keep going up, you can lock in at a fixed rate. Councilman Johnson: So the Kurvers could pay now. Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, do you have any items you want to add? We're up to four now. Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest, I think this is fairly simple although we keep attaching leaves to it. The developer provide the standard trail 24 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 easement along Kurvers Point Road right-of-way to it's connection through TH 101 and so notify any and all property holders. That the developer pay the trail fees in effect at the time of the building permit or be able to pay the fees in effect at the time of building permit with the provision that the fees may be paid at any one time in a lump sum. Acting Mayor Geving: That's 2. Councilman Boyt: I think that covers 3 and 4. Acting Mayor Geving: Roger, do you have any questions about what our intent is? Roger Knutson: No. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, you could build item 16 around that? Any other comments? I think we're fairly clear. Frank Kurvers: The wording should say builder instead of developer. Acting Mayor Geving: I had a problem with that too Frank. That it should be builder because once you develop this, you guys are going to be gone and a builder will be in there applying for the building permits. I agree it should be builder and I'm sure Roger would have put that in but that's a good point. Any other con~nents from the Council? Councilman Johnson: Was Bill's a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm alright with having him write it up, that's fine. Acting Mayor Geving: If you want to make the motion to do that. Bill I think your comments were okay. Councilman Boyt: I would move with the change of the word builder and developer as I previously stated. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, and direct Roger to prepare the appropriate wordage for consideration on the 28th. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Kurvers Point Trail issue until the next meeting and direct the City Attorney to delete item 16 and reword a new item 16. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Stuart Warren: I'm one of the new owners who will live in that area. There are several lots sold. I have one of them. I think I speak for all three so far that we would just as soon pass on having the trails put in at all. If not, I'd kind of like, I heard you say a public hearing with the homeowners. Acting Mayor Geving: That would be done. I'm quite confident that the future Council will give you that opportunity. 25 City Council Meeting November 14, 1988 REVIEW LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Gary Warren: I currently have a schedule in my staff report to put things in order for the Council's understanding and also in order to keep with that schedule we take this opportunity to bring the concepts forward because we are talking about sc~ne interrelation between TH 101 and Lake Drive at the Market Blvd. intersection. So with that, Gary Ehret from BRW to present some preliminary concepts as they are right and get Council input. We'd be looking to come back on November 28th meeting with the actual feasibility studies for review and acceptance at that time. In order for us to meet the schedule that's laid out and I guess I should point out that our overall schedule here is to get this project bid this winter so we can come out in the spring. Acting Mayor Geving: Now what's going to be presented tonight are concepts that can be changed? Can be inputted with ideas from the Council? I suspect there may even be m~bers of the public here that might challenge some of the concepts. Have you had other meetings Gary with any other individuals in the conxnunity? Gary Ehret: The meetings that we've had to date, other than the meetings that the Council has been fully aware, have been primarily with the in~nediate property owners. Specifically on the south side of TH 5 with the Ward family and their representatives. More their representatives than themselves and with the Rosemount and Opus people. As was mentioned in the staff report and by Gary, the TH 101 and Lake Drive team that has talked to the Council several times is still intact. We're working towards the completion of the feasibility for the November 28th Council meeting. What we wanted to do, there were some things that have come up in the course of discussion with property owners in the course of design that we want to bring back and give you a brief idea of what those things are. What changes have occurred so that on November 28th we hope to have a report that will essentially, you will be familiar with it and hopefully comfortable with it. If not, obviously we'll review it at that time. The Council has been familiar with an issue of relocation TH 101 in the area of Dakota as it currently exists. We have pretty well reached the conclusion of design that we can come down to one apartment building in that area which would be... We can get the design that will meet all the MnDot criteria and just take the one development. There will be, as you're aware, a railroad crossing in that area. We are starting to dialogue with the railroad on that issue. They are familiar with it and have expressed their approval of the concept as it's currently laid out. That really is a surrmary of that particular location right now. Everything you've seen to date really hasn't changed too much. I'll go through each utility board real quickly after this board. We've shaded in the TH 5 improvements for the railroad and for MnDot and exactly what, in there we're studying each of the exhibit sections to make sure that those intersections are designed and accomodated on a future design with MnDot. Looking at a report that considers the improvement for the construction of Lake Drive as you see it. The alignment that you see is consistent with what is exactly proposed on the plat for Rosemount and I'm not sure if that's been final approved. We are working with the Rosemount/Opus people. This was in a previous presentation the Alternate 2A. The realignment for TH lgl with really not many changes to that. We're looking at a divided section of four lanes, two in each direction throughout the length of it. One change that I want to bring 26 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 the Council's attention to, Fred Hoisington has met several times with the Ward representatives. Mr. Ward is here tonight so he may wish to speak to this, and part of looking at this entire concept, the previous proposal looked at a continuous Lake Drive, particularly between what would be new Market Blvd. and TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd.. In meeting with the representatives of the Ward Family, they expressed a desire to have more contiguous land mass between TH 5 and any new Lake Drive. We went back to Jim Benshoof who had done the traffic analysis in this area, to have him take a look at that concept to make sure that from a traffic standpoint he did not feel that there would be any problems. His conclusion was that this kind of an alignment would work just fine. In fact, he further went to give us future opportunity to introduce a nice continuous in a line driveway into the Rosemount facility so there are a lot of merits to this alternative that allows the Ward family, it represents about 30 acres roughly up in here to look for future development. Councilman Horn: Plus it also cuts off the possibility that somebody's going to try to by-pass a traffic jam on TH 5 and cut through the frontage road because it's not going to be quite as straight forward there anymore. Gary Ehret: So I think that is the most important thing that we just wanted to make you aware of is that this is how we are approaching and addressing the project. Acting Mayor Geving: Does it add significantly to the cost of the project? Gary Ehret: The cost in our mind is, the difference is negligent to even a potential savings which you'll see... Acting Mayor Geving: Tne reason I ask that is that when we chose 2A, it was based on some other factors such as cost and now you're showing 2A as being 2AA. You changed 2. Gary Ehret: Well, we really haven't changed TH 101 at all. The only thing we changed was the west section of Lake Drive. Councilman Johnson: Gary, does that avoid those two wetlands then? Gary Ehret: Yes. We are south of those two wetlands. Part of what I was going to say a little earlier, when we start to look at the utility systems that happen to serve this area, we think there may be a little bit of cost savings over this simply because of the nature of the utility system. Sanitary sewer is ...sanitary sewer throughout the area. The main end point or terminal for any local lateral sewers are the City trunk and into the CC trunk that runs through the area so we have actually shorten up some of the runs of sanitary sewer that will serve any future development. This board represents future service to the lots that are being created as a part of this Opus plat on the north side of Lake Drive. The Rosemount facility is proposed to tie in at this point which would go down to the trunk sewer. At some point in the future we would look to construction of sanitary sewer up to serve the northern property. Up in the north lake area there is very little utility work that has to occur except for storm sewer. Sanitary at this point we're just looking to a stub to a future development of this site here. Otherwise, there's a line that runs through... Watermain, this board represents watermain. Again, up in the north lake area, there's very little that has to occur. The dash pattern represents all of the 27 City Council Meeting i November 14~ 1988 existing watermains. It's pretty well in place. This area as one might guess has little or no watermain. The closest location is an 18 inch line that comes out of Well #4 I believe down in the park. We would then look to loop the watermain on Lake Drive. We believe that ultimately the water system will go down in a loop to Chan Hills south of Lake Susan. We ran a watermain loop across Lake Drive to the east and we're currently looking at tying in by the Amoco station on Great Plains. The water system frem the entire downtown area once stubbed out to the north side will depend on right-of-way for future movement. That's really the basics of the water system we have coming in on site to tie in. As you might guess, the storm sewer is probably one of the biggest and difficult issues in the area. The TH 101, TH 5 intersection right now, there's culverts going every which way and what w~'re looking at right now, the Barr study did look at this area of town and suggested a ponding location on the Kronick property. Right now the way we' re addressing the report would be to take any storm runoff from the new TH 101 realignment to that pond. That pond would also serve some other functions... There may be a need to make some future modifications for that depending on what MnDot wants to do. On the south side of the road, again working with Rosemount and Opus, we will be outletting their local on-site system to the west to a pond that's proposed over on Lake Susan Park. With their ultimate park development plan. We'll have a line that cames up to catch a line that comes out of the Instant Webb...running through a ditch system down into the park and through to Lake Susan. Ultimately you will need ponding down in the southern area east of Lake Susan. We reviewed all of this with the Watershed. We propose that ultimately we will end up creating a couple of storage retention basins down in this area before discharging into Riley Creek or Riley Lake Meadows. The one thing I'd like to point out, most of this area in here and it appears even in this area, are all within the jurisdiction, from what we've been able to figure out, the Corps of Engineers so we've started dialogue with those folks to make them aware of the ultimate plan and what is going on here. We feel pretty strongly that when TH 101 develops in a new location, in this location here, they will look strongly to some type of mitigation but they will have to do something to cross that creek. %~nat again is why...proposed that ultimately they will have to build sc~ne sedimentation or wetland type uses in that area to offset and mitigate what filling we might have to do. So all of those issues we're looking at and putting in the appropriate costs and information. Councilman Horn: This Chain of Lakes Study, that's not being done by the Corps of Engineers is it? Gary Ehret: No. I believe Barr is handling that. At lesat I know Bob Obermeyer who is with Barr and the Watershed... Councilman Horn: You say you're reviewing this with them also in terms of compatibility... Gary Ehret: Yes, we've met a couple of times with Bob. So that is very quick. That's briefly where we're at. We anticipate being back in two weeks to give you a report in further depth. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Gary. Thank you very much. Any councilmembers have any questions? Anything that you'd like to steer Gary in a different direction? 28 - City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Blue Circle is going to not like the realignment there in that it's going to cut down the amount of traffic from Lake Drive East and traffic is what they want. But in general I see it as being a little better personally for what the City wants. Acting Mayor Geving: This is the time to make your con~nents known because otherwise you'll see it in a feasibility study two weeks from now. Councilman Boyt: I have one cc~ment. I think our Council elect really needs to get involved in this because you're going to be living with the results and the downtown corner has some problems. Wait until we see what we're going to do with that apartment building. You may want to make some comments on this at the public hearing if not now. Councilman Horn: What corner are you referring to? The ...corner on TH 1017 Councilman Boyt: Right. Councilman Horn: At Dakota or up where... Councilman Boyt: No, north of Dakota there. I just think that intersection has, you can see it better on the one down here on the floor. It has all sorts of opportunity for future residential unhappiness. Councilman Horn: It looks better to me than what's there today. The unhappiness is today. Acting Mayor Geving: The important thing is that there's a flow from east to west there that we don't have now on that corner. If we just want to zero in on that corner. So as you're going east on 78th Street, you can make a good turn there and continue on to TH 101 or if you're coming the other direction from the west, you could make a turn. Now it's a mess. I'm surprised we don't have a lot more accidents there than we do. Gary Ehret: This alignment will significantly improve the intersection but to get there you're right. It will be a significant change. Councilman Horn: But what residential area is affected other than the apartments? Councilman Johnson: That's a fairly substantial bunch of residents. Gary Ehret: Other than this, the couple of homeowners that border right on West 78th Street. Acting Mayor Geving: You'll only go back to Erie approximately in the area. Not even to Erie so there's only two homes there. Councilman Johnson: In some of the earlier plans it took out 1 or 2 single family homes. This plan doesn't. Definitely there's going to be some real debate coming up on this. · Councilman Boyt: You're taking one of the busiest intersections in the city and you're going to tear it up and all I'm saying to you is, you better hold onto 29 City Council Meeting - Nov~oer 14~ 1988 your hat because along about a year and a half from now, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people. I think that if we go into it thinking that the people are going to be happy while that's intersection's being built and shortly after it's built, I think you're going to, I'm going to be surprised if they are. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you just speaking of the construction of the, the phase of construction or the finished product like we're surprised with main street for example. 78th Street. Are you saying that if it's not built right? Councilman Boyt: Dale, I r~nember the discussions on main street as you do and I remember hearing how it was going to improve traffic flow. I'm just saying, if I was sitting out there, I'd have something to say about this plan because you're going to live with the results just like I am. Acting Mayor Geving: I think what Bill is saying, when you come back with your feasibility study, you're going to blow that area up so that we can really get an idea of what it's going to look like when it's built. Is that what you're saying Bill? That we really want to analyze how the traffic will flow. Councilman Boyt: Not a big point Dale. Acting Mayor Geving: Well, listen gentlemen. We're not going to sit here all night. Councilman Johnson: Beyond what Gary's going on, on the agenda here public hearing notice to the newspaper is on the 23rd which is the day before Thanksgiving. At that point in time, it maybe adviseable to pull back to Monday the 21st if that's possible. I'm not sure why, we're just hitting holiday times and I just see something getting messed up. If it gets messed up then we just blew another week if it doesn't get out in the paper. The other thing is mailing individual property owner notices of the hearing on the 1st. Does that include the residents of the apartment building? I would think so. Councilman Horn: I think it goes to the owners because they're the lots of record. We have no idea who lives there. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't believe we ever really have a need legally to send notices to an apartment. Councilman Johnson: Legally, but I'm not talking legally. I'm talking morally. If we're going to be doing something to this apartment, I think the people living in the apartments should be notified somehow or another. Acting Mayor Geving: Many times we don't even know who those individuals are. Councilman Boyt: We can put them in the building. Acting Mayor Geving: We would be happy to do that and we should do that. We will do that. Councilman Johnson: Just put resident of Apartment 1. Acting Mayor Geving: We will do that Jay but I do agree with what you said that we should get the public hearing notice out earlier if at all possible. Now I City Council Meeting - November 141 1988 don't know if there's another newspaper that goes out unless Mary and the other newspaper people here tonight can get it into this week's edition which would be very helpful. Councilman Johnson: It has to go out on the 1st and then again on the 8th of December. It has to be noticed the 2 weeks before the meeting. The two issues before. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to encourage the newspaper people who are here this evening to give us the widest coverage possible over the next several weeks until the public hearing on the 12th. ~nis is really important. We're going to have a lot of public discussion on this and just like the Council members have indicated, where we get rapped all the time is that they did not hear about this or that they weren't notified. Let's get as much information as we can. This has a long termbearing on how our con~unity is going to look from a transportation standpoint. Let's leave that up to Gary. I'm satisfied. Are there any other questions? Now I'd like to hear from Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward do you have any con~nents before we leave this? John Ward: We endorse that change .... possibility of improving Lake Drive East...ingress and egress... Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, thank you John. Any other con~nents from councilmembers and then we'll leave this. A1 Klingelhutz: I'm going to put on another hat as a resident of southern Chanhassen. As a member of Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I guess my concern about any development...for Lake Susan is very real. I understand at one time or another development was coming in at the same area. There was even a sk~er proposed to take the oil, some of the fat and materials off of the water before it could get into the lake. My real concern is now that the lake is down considerably and we actually have a pennisula of mud coming into the lake from the creek coming down from Lake Ann. It probably has built up more in the last 5 or 6 years because development has been done to the park and some other developments up in that area than all the other generations of farming that was ever put in. I've lived on the lake all my life and I've never seen that pennisula of mud before. It actually showed up before the lake was down and if something isn't done to cure that, the dock the City put in last year will soon be engulfed with mud. I don't think that's very good for a lake. I really would appreciate it if you could have much concern about what you're going to throw into that lake from the new development. Acting Mayor Geving: And Gary, I'd like to have you address that. Not tonight. Make sure that you've covered that in the feasibility study and for the public because I'm sure A1 will say the same things on the 12th. Councilman Horn: In fact, not only address it but identify for us when and the source of that delta runoff. I'd like to know some history behind that. Resolution 988-123: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to set the public hearing date for December 12, 1988 and that we move along the schedule provided and we take every reasonable effort to notify the residents of the apartments of the public hearing and the realignment of TH 101 issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 31 -City Council Meeting - Nove~er 14, 1988 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Horn: I just had a question on where we are on forming our form of government con~nittee and what the status of that is. Don Ashworth: I received from Roger Knutson this past week but did not get for packet various documents dealing with this subject. Advantages, disadvantages, home roll charter and principle problems of charter making. In addition, I wrote right after our last council meeting to ICMA and to League of Cities asking for additional documents. I hope to have those so that I can package everything together in this package. It will all be into the packet for the 28tho Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask if you're satisfied with the status Clark. Whether or not the next appropriate step would be to initiate a study group. Advertise formally for a study group to begin looking at the form of government change. I'm not opposed in any way or in favor in any way but I do believe that we have agreed that we would look into this and I think the next step is to solicit frc~ the general public, people who might be interested. I've already received two calls from individuals who said they would like to serve on such a con~nittee. If that were a direction, I would like to propose that we place an advertisement in the paper that we are looking for members to serve on a study con~nittee to study the future form of government for the City of Chanhassen. Would that be about the way we would state it Roger? Maybe there's a more formal term than form of government but a charter study commission or group. Roger Knutson: I guess either one would be fine. This would not be the charter co~mission itself. Acting Mayor Geving: No, just a study group to begin... Roger Knutson: If I were putting it in the newspaper, to use words like charter, I don't know if that's... Acting Mayor Geving: I'm sorry I used that term. I shouldn't have. Roger Knutson: Just form of government. Acting Mayor Geving: Form of government advisory con~nittee. Don Ashworth: Are you looking to really form a government? Isn't the primary question the ward system? Acting Mayor Geving: That's the issue. Let's highlight that. Roger Knutson: But once you have a charter, remember the door is open. It's like calling a Constitutional Convention, you can't limit it to... Acting Mayor Geving: My feeling is this though Don. Even though the ward system was the thing that we focused on, I always felt that the Mayor's position should be a 4 year term for example. I would think that would be one of the things that we'd also look at. Just one of the things along with the ward system. 32 City Council M~eting - November 14~ 1988 199 Roger Knutson: You can do that without a charter2 Acting Mayor Geving: But those are the kinds of questions that I think we want the study group to come up with. If there are no other discussions regarding that, I would just like to direct Don to proceed with that kind of an announcement for the paper. Clark, are you satisfied with that? Councilman Horn: Yes, but along with that I'd like included in the package of information a canvas of adjacent cities just to which ones do have the ward system and which ones don't. I think this would give the group a good place to start. Don Ashworth: I do have a survey but I don't think that it gets into that level. It goes through the form of government charter...but it does not have that level. Councilman Johnson: Equivalent cities to Chanhassen. Outer fringe suburbs in the 10,000 to 15,000 range. What are their forms of government. Whether that's Champlin or whoever. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's move on. Bill, you had a comment or two on the Council Presentations. Number 1 was the public safety issue. Councilman Boyt: In our administrative packet we got a report from Jim on public safety statistics. There's a couple of these things that I'd like to point out. I think that Don you should communicate with the school district that we are almost 30 houses ahead of where we were last year in terms of building permits issued. They still seem to think that they got information from you that says that the City was slowing down in growth and they did publish that publically by the way. Then the other point is, I'm pleased to see that in August the Carver County people issued 25 moving citations. Hats off to Carver County. In September they slipped back to 12. Thumbs down to that, in my opinion. Councilman Horn: Maybe we had fewer speeders. Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's in public safety. That's all I had was just to make those two con~nents. That we brought in almost 300 and almost $50,000.00 in building inspection fees. I'll bet we didn't spend that on building inspection. Councilman Johnson: Bill? Your coherent about the schools. Did they publish it again? I know several weeks or months ago they published something saying we were stopping growth here. Councilman Boyt: At the last facility study task force meeting they just reconfirmed that that was the information the City had provided them. Councilman Horn: Can I comment on it? I was glad that Bill brought this up because I wanted to make a comment in here too. Obviously we're charting different things now than we were last year which makes it difficult to do a comparison but what I would like to see included in this, and it looks like this is already in a computer format. Is it in Lotus? 33 Council Meeting November 14, 1988 Don Ashworth: No, but it's s~milar[ Councilman Horn: What I would like to see on here is a trend of these per population so we can get an idea on a per population basis what the expenses are. I think that gives us a little better handle than just seeing raw numbers. Don Ashworth: I think I know what you're saying but if there is a question, I might have Jim give you a call direct. Councilman Horn: I think these are really good data that you can get out of this type of thing. You can find out and project whether things are getting out of hand or not. If you do it on a per capita basis, you can really get a handle on how effective your numbers are. Councilman Johnson: Also, you have to look at it, as we get more coverage, the CSO's are now both working their 6 hour shifts and everything. As we're getting more coverage, you should see more. So we'll have an increase in the number of citations written. That doesn't mean we're having an increase in the number of dogs running around or anything. It's just we're now having more enforcement. That's also hard to figure in at this point. As we're getting better in our data management and also better in our enforcement in the first place. Keeping better records and we'll be increasing next year our hours of service again so we'll see an increase, hopefully if we get the special patrols on speed next year, we'll see an increase in our moving violations again. Councilman Horn: I think if we keep good records and consistent records of where we're going, we can then make more objective decisions about what we need rather than constantly getting involved in emotional subjects that this is totally out of hand. Whatever that means. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's take your second item then Bill. It' s the Alan Olson. Councilman Boyt: A couple of related items here. We got early in the packet, I think it's the second item where Jo Ann is talking about the wetlands map. That, on the surface looks like good news. ~ne drawback I see is that we can't assume that because it didn't make their map that it's not a wetlands. There's too many of these little things stuck around that we don't see until we get out and walk the property. Jo Ann Olsen: The maps that they have... They've got the aerial. Councilman Boyt: The one I remember is sitting out by the cemetary out there south of town. I don't think anybody would have found that without walking through it. But it's a great idea. The reason I brought it up was because later on in the packet you talk about, and I really support, the identification of major stands of trees. I would like to see those two combined so that if we can get, they don't necessarily have to be on one mylar set but that we're moving to do both of those. Follow what I'm after? I would like to have the City identify where our major stands of trees, just as we do where our wetlands are. 34 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: That's what we're doing2 Councilman Boyt: And I see you're doing that. Jo Ann Olsen: Did you want thsm on the same map did you say? Councilman Boyt: No. Didn't mean to complicate this. All I meant to say w~s, I want to encourage you to inventory the hardwoods just like we're inventorying the wetlands and put them on the computer the same. That's all I've got. Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you Bill. Jay, you had two cor~ments here. One on signs. Councilman Johnson: Right. As I drove around tonight, I saw Elect Bill Boyt. Elect Dale Geving and a whole lot of Tom Hamilton's still out there. Councilman Boyt: Where? Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you pick them up? Councilman Johnson: I'm on Hwy 5. Your tw~ that I saw, I only did TH 5 tonight so the two I saw for you Bill, one's next to the concrete plant and one's right behind SuperAmerica. Acting Mayor Geving: You've got to remember too Jay. We have people that are picking these signs up so if you know where they're at, tell me where they're at. Councilman Johnson: SuperAmerica again. Of course Tom's people aren't here. He was sitting there filling up with gas on Saturday morning looking at two of them right next to the Standard station there. On either side of the Standard station. Acting Mayor Geving: Where did you see my signs? Councilman Johnson: Yours is right next to Bill's behind, did I say SuperAmerica? Holiday. Councilman Boyt: I'll grab them at the same time. Acting Mayor Geving: If you see any, let's do it this way. If you see anybody's signs, just pick them up and I'll pick yours up and I'll pick up Chmiels and anybody elses. We've had people out there picking them up but you don't know where they're all at. Councilman Horn: You guys are all going to be here 2 years from now reminding Jay about his signs. Councilman Johnson: I kept a map. I knew where every sign was. Acting Mayor Geving: We did that too but we don't always get them all but if we see them we'll pick them up. What's your next comment? 35 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: On retroactive fees. I discussed this earlier. I've been going through the City Codes and I'm wondering, almost everyplace where we establish a fee, the fee in the City Code it says the Council by resolution shall establish the fees annually and every January we establish what the building permit fees and this fee and that fee are. In our January establishment of fees, can we establish a fee for retroactive permits, i.e. the person wlno built something, got caught and the building inspector said go get a building permit? I believe we should have a different fee for that. The person who built on a wetland, got caught. Acting Mayor Geving: You're talking about a penalty of some sort? Councilman Johnson: An adminstrative fee because it's taken our staff extra work to go after this permit. It's more work for this thing. Like this wetland we had down here where staff worked with the people to get a wetland alteration permit. They did the work without the permit. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's leave it this way. I think we all understood what you're trying to get at. Why don't we have the staff discuss this either at your meetings and see if you can't recon~nend to the future Council where we're going. Roger, is there a legal problem with that? Roger Knutson: Just two con~nents. First, under the Uniform Building Code. If you build and then get the permit, you double fee according to the UBC. Acting Mayor Geving: So you double bill them? So if it's $100.0g, you charge them $200.00? Councilman Johnson: My permit for my basement was $18.0g. Acting Mayor Geving: If what Roger is saying, we already have a provision for doing that. Roger Knutson: Under the UBC. Other things we do not. We could look at that. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's have that as part of our January meetings then when fees are established. Any other corrments on retroactive fees? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see that on variances and the whole bit. When somebody does something and then comes back later, it's already done. Now I want a variance to do it. You get the choice, say take it down. We're not going to give the variance. APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TH 5 FROM TH 41 TO HERITAGE ROAD, EDEN PRAIRIE, CITY ENGINEER. Acting Mayor Geving: Gary, this is an important one for us tonight because I suspect our input could have a determination on what goes back to MnDot as recon~nendations in how we see our segment of this being built in terms of underpasses, trails, so forth. Do we still have, in your mind, a degree of flexibility of building into those plans s~me of our desires or is it at the point where it's fairly well fixed? What I read here in the Environmental Worksheet, that this is the plan and this is the way it's going to be built. I 36 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 hope not. Could you give us a report please~ Gary Warren: What you're looking at, the Environmental Assessment is really dealing with the preferred alignment and general impacts which lead up to the findings of no significant impact which is what comes out MnDot. It is heading towards such that if normal environmental impact statements were not to be part of the project. As far as inputs on the project specifics, trails, etc., we've got two steps. One, you'll be seeing at the next council agenda is requesting us, like we did on the first leg of TH 5 improvements, to give concept approval to the staff layout of the project. We have recently received that. This is the staff layout that MnDot presented to the public here two meetings earlier this month. We will be providing input to the Council. We'll have the opportunity to give specific direction on that concept plan. ~nat will be on the next agenda here. So as far as details on the case of the trails and any design impacts at all, there will be an opportunity to review the overall concepts of the proposal and the corridor impacts etc. which doesn't obviously go into detail like the plans and specs would but it gives the general impacts. Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's very important that the council elect, as someone said earlier, be familiar with this because you're the people who are going to have to really get involved in how TH 101 and TH 5 look as it's being proposed here on the 28th. We'll see this on the 28th, is that what you're saying Gary? Gary Warren: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: So for tonight's purpose, all we're really looking at is approval of the EIA. We'll start with Jay because I believe Jay, this is probably more in line with your interests certainly. Do you see anything here that would be a problem? Councilman Johnson: Are they addressing the pedestrian issues that have been brought out by the Chan Estates and the subidivisions there south of TH 5 as far as pedestrians crossing TH 5 within downtown Chanhassen basically? I see them talk about underpasses for pedestrians in Eden Prairie and the western side of Chanhassen out at CR 117 but I don't see it right where we need it the most. Gary Warren: The construction proposal, the document is for an 8 foot wide bike path that basically will go, for the most part, along the north side of the right-of-way all the way from 1-494 out to TH 41 eventually. Eden Prairie has reacted and requested that they have an underpass at several locations in accordance with their trail system. MnDot has indicated from meetings that I've been in, they were interested to see obviously how our referendum on trails was going to come out so they knew how to react as far as the environmental impact on some of that routing. So there is an opportunity here without an overall matser plan however, we have to be able to give them some finn guidance if we want an underpass for pedestrians, we've got to be able to tell them where obviously so there is maybe an added challenge here not having the referendum pass. Councilman Horn: See, I don't understand that. What's that got to do with this? Gary Warren: Well, we need to have a plan I guess. 37 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Horn: Yes, but the referendum didn't give us a plan. It just gave us the money to initiate the plan. That's been my concern all along. You don't have to wait for a referendum to get a plan in place. Gary Warren: What I'm saying is, we need to give them some specific direction. Councilman Horn: I agree with that. Councilman Johnson: Right now our trail plan's an overall plan. What we need is the detailed plan for this area. We've been talking about this since way in June. One of the high priorities has been pedestrian traffic across TH 5. It's dangerous now. The kids scoot across there at Dakota Avenue with that ridiculous intersection we've already got there with trains, buses, trucks and concrete trucks. We've got to get scraething better with our improvements to TH 5. Acting Mayor Geving: My analysis of t_his whole thing tonight was that we would have input, specific input and give direction to you Gary that you could carry forward on this. For example, Jay is absolutely right. We've always had a desire to get the traffic movement from Chan Estates and now in the Hidden Valley, across TH 5. We're going to have hundreds of kids coming into our downtown area. A~d it makes sense to me that we identify in this document tonight a need for an overpass of some sort. Councilman Johnson: Underpass. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't care whether it's an underpass, overpass but some way of moving pedestrians, kids with bikes even into the downtown area. Then secondly, we talk about a trail that runs all the way on the north side from TH 41 to Lake Ann Park. I'm more interested in what happens east of Lake Ann Park to the downtown. I want to see kids to be able to safely move from Lake Ann Park into the home areas of Western Hills and downtown, either with again, an underpass under CR 17 or an overpass. That would be within the jurisdiction of TH 5 because that's going to be built up certainly well to the north of that intersection of TH 5 and CR 17. It makes sense to me there also to provide some kind of a facility, either an underpass, overpass or someway of getting those kids to Lake Ann Park. Those are the two things that I see in here. That I'd like to have you address. Councilman Horn: Has Park and Rec had a chance to review this at all? They should be reviewing this in terms of their overall trail plan. Gary Warren: As I said earlier, the concept layout is really the detailed document and is another opportunity for us to give specific recor~me~ations on the plan. That shows the land. It shows grading cuts. It shows proposed trails at intersections and... That is something that we can sneak that in at this time. The Environmental Assessment is another opportunity obviously. The more attempts that we have here, the more chance we have of getting to the top I guess. I will for sure pass on the Council's recommendations and con~nents in that regard. Councilman Horn: Just a conxnent Jay. You know this issue came up long before June. It was a very hot issue when McDonalds moved in here. This very thing 38 City Council Meeting - November 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: It's really been hot this sun, her though with the TH 101 realigrm~ent. That has been in every meeting has been, how do our kids get acrosss TH 5 safely and we've been sitting back assuring them that we're taking that into account ar~ then it didn't c~me out in the first document. Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not willing to wait. I guess that's the point that I'm trying to make. I'm not willing to wait until we see the detailed study. I think we ought to take this opportunity to advise them these are our interests and we want to make sure that they're built into the plan. Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do with an EA. Gary Warren: That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying, obviously we're going to take a shot also at the next step. Councilman Horn: I think what Gary's going to say, they're not going to settle for general comments. They want specific details. Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we'll show them. Councilman Johnson: In an EA it is general con~nents though. Our general co~nent is, the assessment has not taken into consideration the pedestrian traffic crossing TH 5 within the downtown area and the crossing of the TH 5 and CR 17 intersection. That's our negative comment on the EA. Councilman Horn: Right and they're turn that back and say, well look Eden Prairie gave us specifics of how they wanted it addressed. Where is yours? Where is your input? Acting Mayor Geving: They made another co~nent in here that was the potential for an underpass at Bluff Drive. Not I didn't know where that was. I assumed that it's somewhere near the Industrial Park there by CR 17 and TH 5. I didn't understand that. I've never called it that in my own mind. Councilman Johnson: CR 117. Is that Galpin? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, Galpin. An underpass for a proposed nature trail along the most westerly part of Bluff Creek is under consideration. Well, I'd like to tell them not to consider it, let's do it. If they want definitive con~nents, let's tell them do it and put it into the plan because exactly the point was made here. Eden Prairie must have jumped on this some time ago and made their comments known and they've built them into the plan. They're in here. Gary Warren: They have, I believe have a master plan... Councilman Johnson: We must have given them our trail plan and that's one place where we did, we have a nature trail running the entire length of Bluff Creek that Tim Erhart had walked and that's one place where the nature trail starts. I thought we also had trails running up TH 101 and crossing there which just don't se~n to be taken into consideration. The exact how we're going to do it. 39 Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: We have some co_~aments from the public here. Go ahead Al. A1 Klingelhutz: ...development in Chanhassen Hills and we've got a big development in Lake Susan. The Industrial Park was laid out, I believe there were trails in designated areas including the Industrial Park all the way down to Lake Susan. Chanhassen Hills came in there with designated area along the lake that goes up to Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Hills and if you take into consideration all the development that's going to go in down there, you're looking at, and all the land that will be developed to fill in the MUSA line, you're probably looking at another 1,500 to 2,000 homes down there. I think it would be a great idea to have an underpass sc~newhere both at Lake Ann park so those people could get up to Lake Ann Park without crossing TH 5. Acting Mayor Geving: I agree and I'd like to direct Gary to do that. I agree with you entirely. That that's going to be a hot area for a lot of growth in the near future. You know what happened A1, when Dick Pearson was on the Council in 1978 and we built CR 117 south, we spent $10,000.00 for Pearson's tunnel. It's under the road. It's never been used. I understand dogs and once and a while a deer goes underneath there. We were always planning on that being a four lane road and that underpass would be for pedestrians. Dick had the right idea. He was just 10 years ahead of his time. But, I agree with you. We should build to the north now and get that underpass. They seem to be more interested in building underpasses. Is it cheaper? A lot more useable? Gary Warren: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: But that's in the plan. Apparently they like that idea. Let's go with the underpass. Councilman Johnson: That's good where the to~graphy. When we run through from Great Plains to Dakota, the topography is the opposite of what you want. It's got hills on both sides. Kind of tough to put an underpass in there. Councilman Horn: Into do~town will be real easy. Acting Mayor Geving: Anymore con~nents? Ail we really are looking for tonight is approval of the Environmental Assessment with the con~nents that are made here tonight. Councilman Johnson: We're just submitting comments. We don't actually approve this. We're not the RGU on this. Acting Mayor Geving: It says that it's recommended that the City Council approve the Environmental Assessment. Gary Warren: I guess you can phrase it if you will, we support the envinronmental assessment with the following concerns. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to at least take that motion tonight. Any councilm~mber wish to make that? Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of concerns to add. On page 15 of the abbreviated report that we received, it talks about noise. We're going to go through, it says 2 or 3 construction seasons. I think we should direct them in City Council M~eting - November 14~ 1988 ;307 sc~e way or other that we don't want them building this thing at 2:00 in the morning. There needs to be some kind of a limit on when they're going to run their heavy equipment out there because they're working in residential area. At least when they're in a residential, or right within whatever the magic distance is of a residential area, I don't think they should be working 24 hours a day on this thing. Councilman Horn: Possibly but if you look at minimizing the impact on traffic, if you recall, when TH 5 was resurfaced here, they did that all at night so we didn't have bottlenecks. I don't think we can make a carte blanche statement that that's a good idea. Acting Mayor Geving: It's something though that we should consider and it's certainly a good cor~nent. When a councilmember makes a comment, I think it's worty of consideration. Councilman Horn: Well, I think others have their chance to corrment also. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's get Bill's comments here first. Councilman Boyt: Clark, you're welcome to contradict any of this. On vegetation, page 17. We've done this with some developers recently. I think we should certainly do it with MnDot. that if they take out any trees over, I would say over 4 inches in diameter, they should replace them with caliper inch trees no smaller than 2 inches in diameter to equal similar caliper. I don't envision they're going to take out a whole lot of trees as I recall but I just think that's a good thing to have in there. Under the wetlands on the same page. I think we should point out to th~ that they need, all the required Chanhassen permits before they can alter any wetlands. Acting Mayor Geving: Would that be appropriate Gary for them to come before the Council and get those permits? Gary Warren: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so we would have jurisdiction over anything that they would alter. Councilman Boyt: That's all I've got. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, now Clark. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off Clark. Councilman Horn: Well I agree with the last one. I think in terms of setting for MnDot those rules, I'm just so damn glad we're finally getting the road, I don't want to screw up our chances. Acting Mayor Geving: I think the point here is that we don't want to stop anything or delay anything. Keep it moving and I guess that was the comment I made. Continue to make swift progress. That's right, we don't want to put a lot of roadblocks in front of this thing. Let's keep it moving. Gary Warren: At your discretion, point out that we're moving the project along but obviously we are sensitive to construction impacts and noise. 41 208 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: For the EA purpose, what Bill's comment is, in the FA we do not say you have to do this or have to do that. We don't give th~n conditions. We say you have not addressed noise at night in the residential neighborhoods. We would like to see that addressed because the City of Chanhassen is concerned about disturbance of the neighbor and will construction be happening at night that will disturb the nearby residential neighborhoods. So that would be the comment that we'd be making there on noise. They say they will comply with local noise laws. Councilman Boyt: We don't have any. Councilman Johnson: We don't have any but there are state laws. Acting Mayor Geving: I would entertain a motion in support of the EA. Councilman Johnson: With conditions? Acting Mayor Geving: With concerns. Resolution #88-124: Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to support the Environmental Assessment Report for TH 5 from TH 41 to Heritage Road with the recommended concerns discussed by the Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 42