The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 10 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don AShworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss recycling con~nitt~; Councilman Geving had a resolution for the National Drug Free America Week; Councilman Horn wanted an update on the form of goverrment issue; and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss campaign signs. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Colony Point, Brad Johnson. c. Rome Development Corporation, 1450 Park Court: 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-814 to Permit Day Care Centers in a Free Standing Building as Conditional Use on Property Zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park District, Final Reading. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-814 to Permit Day Care Centers as Part of a Multi-Tenant Building as a Conditional Use on Property Zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park District. 3. Preliminary Plat Request to Replat Lots 1-3, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. 4. Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 6,700 Sq. Ft. State Licensed Day Care Center. e. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Sever Peterson. g. Approval of 1989 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract with Carver County. j. Authorization to Continue Participation in Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated October 10, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated October 5,1988 -92 City Council Meet].ng - October 24~ 1988 m. Set Special Meeting Date, City Planner Interview, October 29, 1988 n. Fire Department Bylaws, Reflect Change in Benefits. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (B) APPROVAL OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1200 LYMAN BLVD., BRENT MILLER. Councilman Boyt: I just want to point out that you would refer to pages 5 and 6 of the Planning Commission Minutes associated with item b. I'd just like to reference a point that I think, since we just finished talking about the budget, reflects one of my concerns for the budget. At the bottom of page 5 Jo Ann is being asked why we missed a situation in which somebody was altering a wetland. Her comment was, because I get about 20 a day on my desk and we don't have the man power. That didn't mean 20 opportunities to alter a wetland but it meant buJ. lding site approval requests and the time allowed for that. On page 6, Tim Erhart points out that 2 garages were built in wetlands. The response as to how that happened was on page 7. The City signed off on the building plan without realizing that they were in a wetland because they didn't happen to be on the map. I think this just reflects the fact that we're asking our staff to do more than they can do. I hope we all remember that when we look at the possibility of changing our planning staff. That's my only comment about that. This demonstrates the point. Councilman Johnson: Bill, on (b), I'd like to point two things. When I saw this and went over it, I then checked to see if we're required to show wetlands on the diagrams that are handed in with the building permits and we're not. So that is what must be changed. We must have those wetlands designated by that surveyor when he hands in his survey that we have wetlands in that area. Then if they build on that wetlands, that surveyor has now provided us bad documentation and the building permit is instantly pulled when we find out that the building permit was submitted. So I think we need to work on our ordinance there and change the ordinance so this doesn't happen. I don't think we have enough building inspecters. We never will to go out and do a pre-review of every building site to make sure that, our building inspectors aren't wetland experts anyway. But I think we need to do that change. The other thing that really upsets me on this particular one anyway, why aren't we prosecuting? When somebody goes, especially in a case where somebody with knowledge that a permit was required because they came in and asked and they were told a permit was required, then we went ahead and did it after they were told a permit was required and had letters back and forth. Okay, let's give him a permit now that he already did it. He did it slightly wrong. He didn't quite do it right. Let's go ahead and give him the permit. I think that's wrong. I think what we need to do is be tough on these. Too many times we're granting them. Now maybe we need to change our ordinance also here that if somebody comes in for a permit after the fact, that there be a substantial administrative charge on it for the cost of investigating that. This is something Don and I have talked about and with our planning staff problems right here, it's something I'm going to bring up after we get the new planner on board because right now Jo Ann doesn't have time to look but this would be another change to our permitting structure. City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: You made a couple of good points. I'd like to move on. I think Don has a couple of a good points he can follow up on and then come back to Council with a recc~mendation. I would move approval of item l(b). Councilman Boyt: Second. Councilman Horn: Was Barb here during this time? So when you're referring to these 20 a day, was that during the time period she was here or after she left? Jo Ann Olsen: We average, we get a lot of building permits and I sign off on th~m. Councilman Horn: And you're doing them all? Jo Ann Olsen: I have been. Mayor Hamilton: I think it isn't any'mystery that we're understaffed in the planning department. It's been that way for quite a long time and I think it was brought to everyone's attention more than once. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for the created of a pond in a Class B Wetland, 1200 Lyman Blvd., Brent Miller pursuant to the City Manager's recor~nendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (D) ROSEMOUNT, INC., OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK THIRDADDITION. Councilman Boyt: I called Lori today and I just talked to Todd before the meeting. If I had more time, I might have been able to straighten out an understanding of what happened here but the reason I called it to our attention is that I'm concerned when we have 87 acres that we're looking at and we end up with 2 acres of valuable parkland. I'm glad we got those 2 acres but we have 87 acres of development and we're netting about $12,000.00 in park fees plus 2 acres of land and that does not seem tome to be reasonable. We should be getting either more land or more money. Councilman Geving: I think you have to understand though that this was all part of the negotiations with Rosemount and I think getting the 2 acres for the industrial park for the people that w~rk at Rosemount and will be working at Rosemount is still a good deal. Plus the money that we're going to be getting in dedication fees. I wasn't involved in the negotiations but I suspect that there was a point in which, at any point Rossmount could have pulled out if we had suggested that we wanted either more parkland or more dedication fees so we were right to the limit of what we were going to negotiate with. I think that's why we got the 2 acres and the $12,000.00. I feel strongly that our negotiating team did a very good job. I don't feel bad that 2 acres because you've got to remember, this is not residential. The people who are going to be using this area are people who are going to be taking their lunch breaks. There are going to be people also who, a few from the community using that park shelter down there. 2 ares is quite a bit of land. I think we made a good deal. 94 J City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else Bill? I didn't know if you were finished. Councilman Boyt: Well, yes. I do have more. I would argue that the boat launch that we're getting is certainly a nice thing to have for the community and it's certainly an improvement over putting it through the trees which would have been the other alternative but when we're talking about 600 employees, we' re talking about heavy use on city parks. We've got a development here that I think we're all happy to have in town. I think that they should look at how they can be contributing more to the costs that we have in operating those parks. I would like to see, is there anyone frc~ Rosemount here? Okay, I guess what I'd like to see happen is, since you're going to have 30% of your property covered with some sort of hard surface, which is basically what you're limited to, and I would imagine you're going to be grading a good bit of that property. Is that a reasonable assumption? What I'd like to have a commitment to is that when you're doing that, you'll build some ballfields out there. It's still not impervious surface so you get the greenspace credit and the con~nunity and your employees get some fields to play on. That would seem like a reasonable approach. Rosemount Representative: We approach all of our sites... Councilman Boyt: So you'd be open to putting those in when you developed? Rosemount Representative: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill? Councilman Boyt: No. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Rosemount Inc., Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition: (1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 87.3 acres into 5 industrial office lots and two outlots; and (2) Final Plat pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (H) SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, FOR OFFICE/~REHOUSE FACILITY AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. Councilman Boyt: I just had one comment. They've discussed putting in a 8 foot wooden fence but in our conditions we didn't reference to that. We just said put in an opaque fence. There's a lot of opaque fencing I wouldn't be happy with so I would like to see us, under Council recommendations on page 3 of the staff notes, add that the fence under item 1 where it says, must be totally screened with an 8 foot wooden fence. I'd like to see that added. Mayor Hamilton: I've seen wooden fences that aren't nearly as attractive as a lot of other types of fences. They tend to fall apart. Councilman Boyt: Well, it's going to have to be maintained. City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. We have inspectors now to do that. Councilman Boyt: Great. They've indicated they would like to build it. I'd just like to see it in writing. Mayor Hamilton: I'm merely commenting on your comment. That there are fences that are better than wood fences. Councilman Boyt: Tom, if you'd like to suggest one, I'll change this. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not an expert on fences. I guess I didn't know you were either but I do think there are fences better than wood fences. Wood is not the answer. You don't like to cut down trees but you want everything to be wood. It's amazing. It's kind of hard to do. Councilman Boyt: Would you accept wood fence or better? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think opaque fence answers what we're attempting to do. To screen the storage from site. Councilman Boyt: What I don't want is an interwoven chain linked fence. Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't accept that either because you can see right through them. They are not opaque in my opinion. Councilman Boyt: I guess we can shorten this up. I would move that we amend point 1 under staff recommendations for the conditional use permit to include an 8 foot wooden fence. Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. I think there's another point where, a lot of times we talk in our zoning ordinance about what type of trees we wantand whatever. When we're talking about opaquing, if we want to prohibit interwoven chain linked fence, we should have it right in the ordinance that those are considered adequate for screening purposes. Councilman Geving: I'd agree with you on that Jay. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit request for Office/Warehouse facility and outdoor storage, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lakeshore Equipment with an amendment to condition 1 of the conditional use to include an 8 foot wooden fence. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (I) AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS, FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER TRUCK. Councilman Boyt: I just have a question that I'd like to clear up. Is there anyone from the Fire Department here tonight? Okay, you can probably answer this question for me. It's my impression that when you're taking the bid on this truck, that we're getting a truck that goes through the downtown, makes all the turns and you can set it up down there. Is that correct? City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Richard Wing: The very truck we're getting is the newest truck available~ I guess I can't comment about that. That's something that Dale...other than the truck is manueverable. It was purchased to have the least amount of backswing possible. I think if you were to set it up on West 78th Street with the outriggers, you'd probably have to put... The Fire Marshall suggested that. It would be unlikely that it would ever be set up on West 78th Street because the parking lots and most of the access would be coming from parking lots from the side .... to specifically answer your question about the aerial truck, I believe... Councilman Johnson: Richard, were you there when they did the drill at the Dinner Theater a few months back? Did we not have 2 aerial trucks that participated in that drill? And are those similiar to what we're purchasing? Richard Wing: The one that was on display at the Fire Station. The ones that were up here were very close to the one we will be buying. Councilman Johnson: And they manuevered to the position that they would want to be in for a fire at that shopping center? Richard Wing: There was no problem. Councilman Geving: As I understand it, we had the truck that was going to Bismarck in town for an evening and some of us had the opportunity to ride on that truck and they manuevered all the streets in the City. I was told that that would be approximately the same specs that we were going to get so I think the answer to your question Bill is yes. Councilman Boyt: In talking to the committee that's making this proposal, they assured me that number 1, it would go through all the streets. And number 2, they could set it up anywhere they wanted to downtown and that's what they were building into the specs. Mayor Hamilton: You've asked a question you already knew the answer to. You're wasting our t~e. Resolution ~88-112: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the authorization to take bids, Fire Department aerial ladder truck pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no visitor Presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION REQUEST, LAKE DRIVE EAST, OPUS CORPORATION. Public Present: N~me Pat Hallisey Bob Worthington Blue Circle Investment Opus Corporation City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order~ Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey of Blue Circle Investment people with the shopping center on Lake Drive East. I'm just curious what the proposed vacation entails before I can ask any questions about it. I don't have any knowledge of what they're requesting. Mayor Hamilton: If somebody would supply you with that information, you could perhaps read it. Councilman Geving: Do we have a visual? Jo Ann Olsen: We do not have a transparency but it's located west of your property. West of TH 101. It stops at the church. Right now it comes directly across and we're proposing to vacate that. Pat Hallisey: I have no objection as long as it continues to be a connector from existing TH 101 to CR 17. Bob Worthington: I'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. Just for the record I wanted to indicated that we're here in support of the request. I would be happy to answer questions that you may have relative to Opus Corporation. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us add another condition here that there be on deposit with the City a letter of credit for the construction of the streets and utilities. I think before we vacate a piece of property, we should be assured that the other street is going to be built. I see no reason that it won't be built but I'd like to have that letter of credit as assurance. Don Ashworth: The proposal as it's previously been looked at for Lake Drive East involves a number of property owners. The previous time that this was approved for a public improvement, we did not have that type of requirement at that point in time. Simply because we're moving the road slightly north or south, I don't see where that really affects the necessity for requiring that letter of credit. Specifically we'd be asking Opus to put up a letter of credit for the Ward property and I don't think that we've ever done that type of thing before. Additionally, you have Rosemount, the church..that represents all of the owners. Anytime you have multiple ownership, it becomes very difficult to require one of those four owners to put up a letter of credit for the other three. Councilman Geving: The point that I would like to make to you Bill, since you've questioned this is that a vacation of a street is only the movement of something that we had placed on a piece of paper as a plan. It isn't really a street. It's a proposed street that's on a map. No one is going to gain a great deal by leaving it where it's at. We've done this a lot of times but we've never asked for a letter of credit to assure us that that road is going to get built. I know the road will get built because that's the only access that we have to the Rosemount property. As for a letter of credit, I think it's City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 completely out of order at this point. I just don't see your reasoning. We have not done this in the past. The property owners who would be affected will receive the vacated piece of property and a new road will eventually built. It's just a paper transaction. That's all it amounts to. Councilman Horn: I don't like putting a last minute changes into things that we've set motion to for some time. We're heard it now here on a request from this. We've heard a request on a park issue at this point. I think those are areas that need to be negotiated up front and not at the time of final approval. Councilman Johnson: We will get a letter of credit on Lake Drive East, or West, from Opus when they build it as part of the Rosemount project. That's already going to be there. Part of the development contract. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I'm simply saying that we've giving up something that we now have the right to use. Councilman Johnson: We also have just now, by earlier action tonight, provided for it's replacement in the platting of Lake Drive West from the north which was conditioned upon this approval so we're not losing anything. We got exactly what we had before except it's moved at one point, only about 30 to 40 feet north. Councilman Boyt: Okay, Don you're comfortable that should we vacate this piece of property, we still have the right to put a road through without acquiring additional property? Don Ashworth: Absolutely. Councilman Boyt: That's my big concern. Resolution #88-113: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the partial vacation of Lake Drive East as shown on the plat stamped "Received September 22, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. Final plat approvalq of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition and recording of the plat with Carver County. 2. Provision of any utility, drainage or roadway easements as recon~nended by the feasibility study for improvements to Lake Drive East. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: AUDUBON ROAD UTILITIES, PROJECT 88-20A. Gary Warren: I should point out to the Council, you all got copies tonight of the bid results. It's a very favorable bidding climate. Machtemes is an excellent contractor. We've had good experience with him so we're very pleased with the bid results. Mayor Hamilton: Machtemes, you've had experience with them previously? City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren: Bill has had a lot of experience. He's out of Waconia~ Councilman Johnson: A lot of people bid on this one. This is a really good bid I think. Councilman Geving: Would the construction start this fall? Gary Warren: That's our intent is that they would start here. By spec they have 10 days to get their contract documents in order but I'm sure they'll meet that. The reason you saw so many bidders is because of the good construction season we had. They're anxious to get going. Resolution #88-114: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to award the bid for the Audubon Road Utilities Project 88-20A to Machtemes Construction in the amount of $87,638.75. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 7210 GALPIN BLVD., DAVE STOCKDALE. Jo Ann Olsen: This was tabled at the last meeting because it was so late and the applicant requested that. Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale. I've got some property on Galpin Blvd. and since the last meeting I've had a chance to review my situation and what's taken place since I bought the property. Also with me I have a friend who's an attorney...and I'm asking to assist me in the conversation. As you know, I received prior approval of a conditional use permit in 1985. Three m~zbers on this panel approved it at that time. I'm here tonight is to try to show you that there is in fact some hardship that I hope you will go along and be persuaded to making sure of a conditional use permit again. One of the things that I did do, since the permit was approved, as some of you may have seen, although I didn't do a lot of physical work on the property, I was going through the process, the normal process of doing the surveying, getting drawings worked on which was expensive and I had spent a lot of time doing that process. Prior to actually starting the execution of the project I was in the process of building my house and having the land subdivided based upon the Minnesota Mortgage laws. The legal description had to change and at that point in time, because of the description change, the permit had to be resubmitted. By the time I finished building the house, I had to put it on hold because of economic reasons. I'm sorry, I didn't put it on hold, I was still proceeding and then I was notified that the permit was not valid so at that point I decided to...proceed with it. During this time I had some unfortunate...difficulty in pursuing this project. I contend that if that did not happen, I would have been able to actually start the project within the timeframe or at least reapply for the conditional use permit prior to the change of the ordinance. As I stated before, it's my intention in moving to Chanhassen was to have both my residence and a contractor's yard and that was one of the original conditions on my property. The ordinance was changed and like I said, at that time I was being distracted by some of the processes that were affecting me. The investment. When I was back in a position to go through with the project, I talked with staff and they recon~nended I go through the procedure again. So again, I have incurred some expenses going through the process of doing soil borings, ...fees City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 and those kinds of things so I have been spending money all along. I also feel if I am denied the contractor's yard, in essence by property value would just have a progressive decrease because it won't be useable for anything else for the next 15 years or so until sewer and water are available. I also might note that my contract for conditional use permit did not state anything about the 1 year limitation. However, that was in the documents somewhere but I didn't have that... As you're discussing this, I'd also like you to consider the possibility of grandfathering this because of the original grant was approved. There is a contractor's yard within a mile. That seems to be the major stumbling block. It's use is real minimal. If you're concerned, I think you prbably should talk to... The other concern is the neighbor besides myself within 500 feet. At the prior meeting I presented a recon~nendation from him stating that his approval of my project. Again, I'd like you to consider the fact that there was a variance granted at one other time in the last few years since the ordinance changed to Gardeneer. As far as I know, that was not based upon any kind of hardship. As far as I know, they did not previously have a conditional use permit. As I stated before, I've made every effort to work within the system. Do things above board. I know there are times when people just go ahead and do their own thing and then at a later date that project is grandfathered in. I chose not to approach it that way. Again, I'd just like you to consider these things and hopefully you'll see these hardships are not self-imposed but in fact are created from outside influences. It's my understanding that if you perceive it that w-ay, it does give you the grounds for granting a variance and that's what I'm asking for. Councilman Johnson: How many employees would you have at this contrator's yard? Dave Stockdale: I have 12 employees. I have about 9 of them that actually show up at the yard. The other 3 just move in the field. Councilman Johnson: Do they all have parking for their private vehicles? Dave Stockdale: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Do they then get into your vehicles and leave or do they take their vehicles? Dave Stockdale: They use my vehicles. I have buffered parking through a berm situation so the vehicles wouldn't be visible from the street level. My site plan includes...for personal vehicles. Councilman Johnson: I think that one of the main purposes way back when, I shouldn't say we, I wasn't on the Council at that time but when the previous Council put in the ordinance to allow contractor's yards, they were considering yards like what Larry Kerber has. Where he's the employee and he keeps his vehicles there and he's go out and does his contracting and comes home at night. A very small, low intensity use. That's what I'd like to see contractor's yards be in the town. When you start putting cc~mercial businesses in, our plumbing business, other folks, they locate in the industrial yard. They come in, their employees come in, get in their trucks and head out to work. That's always been our industrial zone and that's where I see that fit. However, our rules don't prohibit this type of operation. That's one thing I guess we're looking at changing our rules again for contractor's yards. The Planning Con~nission is looking at that. In this case, I feel that the Minnesota laws prevented you 10 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 from having your contractor's yard way back when. We had approved under the old ordinance and that you would be here and you would be grandfathered if it weren't for the mortgage laws. That was the primary thing. I swing a bit towards, at this point, saying you do have a hardship here. I'm a bit, as you can tell, slightly opposed to as intensive a use in the rural areas. I know a farm doesn't have 12 ~mployees coming to it but, most farms but I 'm not totally convinced right now of the hardship and hopefully somebody else will convince me during this evening. Councilman Geving: I have a cc~ent or two that I'd like to make and I'm glad you asked about the number of employees because I think it's important that we understand that Mr. Stockdale is trying to bring a business into Chanhassen but more importantly, Dave was given a conditional use permit back in March of 1985 and at that time we saw fit to provide that conditional use him to have a contractor's yard. When I look back at the intent of what we tried to do, we tried to get a hold of all the contractor's yards and identify them throughout the city. Prior to that no one knew where they were or what they were doing so on a very honest basis, we asked these people to come in and register with us. Most did. In fact, they all did. It was our way of trying to find out what kind of businesses were going on. Now I find that we have caught Mr. Stockdale in a web of sorts because of timing and the fact that another conditional use permit was given to Mr. Ted Bentz who lives within 1 mile of David's location and an ordinance change that took place inbetween the conditional use permit and today. I feel strongly that David does have some very good grounds for asking for a reconsideration of this. We didn't vote on it at the last meeting. David felt that he should go back and gather his facts and he's done that. He's given us a letter tonight regarding his problem with the embezzelment in his business and he was working towards making that contractor's yard work. I must say Dave, that you' re trying to do the best you could. You came to us in all honesty and you probably, like so many people, we had one tonight, could have gone ahead and built something out there and no one would have ever known the difference because it is off the road and it could have happened. We eventually would have caught up with you I suspect but the main thing is that you were honest enough to bring this to our attention and as a result, you're here tonight. My personal feeling is that we're only hung up on a couple of minor issues here. One, and that's the neighbor 500 feet which you could move your business away from that area so that you could conform to our ordinance requirement. Is that true? Could you move your proposed site so that it did not fall within the 500 feet? Dave Stockdale: It would be on the same legal description regardless of how it' s proposed. Councilman Geving: Okay, the second issue then is the hours of operation which you can conform to our ordinance and it would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that's no problem? Dave Stockdale: No. Councilman Geving: The biggest issue that I see is that no two contractor's yards can be within 1 mile of each other. My proposal to the Council is to delete that item number 5 from our zoning ordinance for contractor's yards located in the A-2 district. If we did that, it makes sense to me because there are already existing in the city situations where we have more than one 11 City Council M,_-~ting - October 24; 1985 contractor's yard located practically on the same land. To delete this from our ordinance and amend the ordinance rather than grant a variance is the better way to go. I am personally very sympathetic to you Mr. Stockdale. I would encourage the Council to move along those lines. To grant this conditional use permit for the contractor's yard. If you're agreeable to the changes that I suggested in the hours of operation and moving your site and then maybe we could turn this back to staff and to the Planning Commission to amend the ordinance to r~ove the 1 mile distance. Those are my cc~ments. Councilman Horn: What is the exact distance that you are from Bentz? Dave Stockdale: About three-eighths of a mile. Frc~n yard to yard. The legal description is closer but yard to yard. Councilman Horn: I guess the question I had is, pursuing Dale's line, what kind of exposure would we have if we reduced it something within say, a quarter mile? How many more potential contractor yard sites w~uld we open up? Jo Ann Olsen: A few. I'd have to look at that one. Right now we're pretty much filled with the 1 mile radius. Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get a handle on is what kind of precedent would we set and... I guess I'd like to find another way to do it other than reducing the 1 mile limitation. I'd like to get the Attorney to respond to us on the validity of the hardship based on the facts that we have this evening. Mayor Hamilton: Roger, did you have an opportunity to review... Roger Knutson: Yes. I think you know, or many, many times what a hardship is. I guess you'll each have to make your own decision obviously...as to whether they meet the definition of our ordinance now. Councilman Horn: The fact that he lost financing does not create a hardship? Roger Knutson: No. It's a hardship for him. There's no question about it but not as defined in our ordinance. Councilman Horn: In our ordinance? Roger Knutson: And by State Statute. Councilman Horn: So we have no opportunity to change the description of what a hardship is? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Horn: Okay, let's attack it from another angle then. What about, why don't we meet the rules of grandfathering since we already approved this once? Roger Knutson: If he was grandfathered, he w~uldn't need another conditional use permit for one thing. Councilman Horn: Well, that's the question. Does he need a conditional use 12 City Council Meeting L October 24~ 1988 permit? Roger Knutson: He hasn't built anything on it. Councilman Horn: But is showing progress merely in the building or in the planning? Roger Knutson: The Supreme Court has told us that you don't get vested rights to proceed until you are digging a hole and putting up the boards. Councilman Horn: So digging a hole and pouring money isn't enough? Roger Knutson: A paper hole doesn't qualify. Councilman Horn: I can't find an easy answer. Maybe somebody else can. Councilman Boyt: I follow Clark's line of thought I believe. I would be opposed to deleting the 1 mile limit. I think that we're surrounded by co~unities that have said that they don't think that contractor's yards are compatible with residential development and I would agree with them. That's why the 1 mile limit's in there. I didn't vote to put it in there but I've been assured by staff before that there's no room for contractor's yards and since then we've approved one and we're now looking at you. I'm of the opinion that this isn't a type of business that we generally want to encourage. Although the people who have it, have the right to continue to do that. The other thing I don't want to do is I don't want to create an ordinance that we can no longer enforce. I think Roger has sort of sealed the deal. I think what you read in the Minutes, or at least the way I interpretted the Minutes of 2 weeks ago was that if we were going to approve a contractor's yard, this was the model of the kind of yard we'd like to approve. It certainly looks very much like a responsible type of business to have but I don't want to lose the ability to limit contractor's yards in our community. So far, the people that I've listened to, no one has come up with a way to balance those two out. I'm still listening for a way. I would like staff, if we're going to pursue this, I'd like to know on a much fresher basis, what the basis was on Gardeneer and why we granted that variance. I think we need to be consistent. I would hope that if we decide that we're in general support of this, that we ask Roger to come back with Findings of Fact before we actually take action. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a question of you. In the wintertime, what do your employees do or how many do you have there? Dave Stockdale: We scale back quite a bit. We do remodeling work and we do have some snow removal contracts. If we get to that point, I was going to ask to talk to you about adjustment on the hours for the snow removal. Mayor Hamilton: You do remodeling work so you're doing more than landscaping? Dave Stockdale: When I say landscape contractor, we don't deal with plant materials. We deal strictly with hard goods. Retaining walls, decks, fences, patios and we do a fair amount of remodeling work. About half of my work is remodeling. We have a relationship with Bachman's. We do their, on a sub- contract basis, we do all of their construction projects. Because of that relationship, I don't deal with the plant material. They do. 13 ~~ty Council Meeting October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a difficulty, as everybody else does I guess, in trying to figure out exactly what a contractor's yard is. I guess I mistakenly thought that you did more with plant material and if that's the case, I guess I still feel the way that when you have plant material involved, it's not to me a contractor's yard, it's an agricultural use and it shouldn't be classified as a contractor's yard. I think our problem lies in defining what a contractor's yard is. I think when the ordinance was passed, to me a contractor's yard was some guy who's out pouring cement with his dump truck or whatever and you're hauling their equipment back and forth. That, to me, is a contractor's yard. I'm not sure if this falls in that category or not. I guess if you're not using plant materials and you're doing construction type things, that probably falls into a contractor's yard. But I also feel that since you were given a permit once, I don't have a problem with allowing you to continue. I certainly feel that what has happened to you is certainly no cause of your own. I'd like to see you in town and I'd like to see you continue business here. It's the type of service that's needed and you should be here. You had a comment you wanted to make. Dave Stockdale: Just to one of the things that Mr. Boyt stated. He said he's concerned about having a contractor's yard, with how it woulde interface with the residential development. In fact that neighborhood is not a residential development and won't be until sewer and water comes through. It's zoned 10 acre minimum. One acre is 2 1/2 acres lots and that will probably not be used...so it's not really interfacing with the residential community. At that point in time when sewer and water comes through, I suspect that I would reassess my situation. Councilman Horn: Would it be possible for us to relook at this whole contractor's yard ordinance and in fact make the type of uses much more restrictive than some we're seen today. If we did that, we may feel more comfortable in reducing this mileage. If we knew that we're going to get the type of thing in that required the original intent. It would seem to me that if we made it more restricted and compromise and reduce the distance, we'd have something that might be liveable. Councilman Geving: I think the important thing here is that we're not trying to make an exception for you Mr. Stockdale. We' re trying to look at the city and the ordinance that we've created and try to apply it fairly. I again go back to the original intent when we captured this contractor's yard situation was to find out what kinds of businesses were being done in the rural area. That was our total intent. It wasn't trying to restrict anyone. We were trying to get a handle on it so that we could then decide how we should build the ordinance and make it better. I think Clark may have hit upon it. I only included my idea on the 1 mile so we might be able to find a way and I think we're still looking for that way. I want you in town and I want any other business that would bring 12 employees to our city. It doesn't have a great deal of impact on the rural area certainly. So I think since you've already had our conditional use permit from 1985, if things had gone right for you, you would have been out there for the last 3 years. No question about it. So I want to find a way tonight to direct staff to see if they can't come up with a means by which businesses like Mr. Stockdale's can be a part of Chanhassen. I guess I would ask our planner, our only planner right now, what her thoughts are in Mr. Stockdale's request. I want you to be fair and impartial. Not necessarily thinking about Mr. 14 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Stockdale's request but along the lines of what Clark was asking. Is there a way that we can look at that ordinance provision on a conditional use permit and probably define better what a contractor's yard is because there are a lot of variations of that. Jo Ann Olsen: We are doing that right now. We are reviewing the ordinance for contractor's yards. Making it much more restrictive. Better defining what they are. We have not gotten into details as of yet as far as like the 1 mile radius. I definitely don't want to rsmove that completely but we could look at... Mayor Hamilton: Who doesn't? Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Co~mission is working on the ordinance right now. Councilman Horn: How about if we keep the 1 mile in for the existing ordinance the way it is and then also allow a provision in there that if we have a more restrictive use, that it could be closer than a quarter of a mile. That way the higher intensity things that we are trying to keep out would still have the mile restriction. In effect, the less intense you have, the closer you can have it to another one. Jo Ann Olsen: I think the Planning Con~ission, what they've been giving the staff as con~ents is that theywant to restrict thsm even if they're within a mile or not. Councilman Horn: They may want to do that anyway. Even a mile, that's fine. Mayor Hamilton: When do you anticipate the Planning Cor~nission will have that completed? Jo Ann Olsen: They're going to be reviewing it in November. They'll be coming to the Council in December if it's not tabled or taken back to the drawing board. We have a pretty good idea. We've discussed it several times with the Planning Co~mission and we have a pretty good idea of what they want so we're preparing that right now. We'll take it back to them, I believe it's the second meeting in November. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, would what they're considering help Mr. Stockdale at all? I kind of doubt it. Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, I don't think that it was changing that 1 mile radius. Councilman Johnson: And it's looking at a less intense use probably than what he's proposing. The 12 employees, I think they're looking to make it even less than that. Councilman Boyt: You have to live on the property. Councilman Johnson: He does but his employees don't. Councilman Boyt: Let's not forget that an A-2 is a single family residential area. It's rural but it's also single family residential. I agree with a lot of what I've heard everybody say tonight. We've got contractor's yards defined 15 ~O~City Council Meeting -October 24, 1988 in our ordinances and they describe what you've described. So unless you change your business substantially or unless we change the definition substantially, there's not going to be relief there. I think one of the things to keep in mind is the City Council just approved a contractor's yard that has 5 tractor trailers operating out of it. I'm real wary of extending the ability of putting more contractor's yards in town. It's not your situation but it was one we approved on TH 169 in the last couple months. Councilman Geving: I would like to make a motion at this time to apprOVe the contractor's yard as proposed for Mr. Dave Stockdale located at 7210 Galpin Blvd. with the conditions as stated here on page 10 of our September 21, 1988 m~norandum of planning staff. There are 7 conditions on my motion. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Councilman Johnson: Dale, do you want to put any conditions on here, starting with 12 employees. If you get successful here, I can see him going to 20 employees and then to 30 employees. We're granting it at 12. We've talked about intensification. Do we want any conditions on the intensification? Not to exceed 15 employees or... Councilman Geving: I don't think there's anything wrong with that because I think that's a good point. We don't want you to start up a Frank's business out there or some kind of home remodeling business. I agree with you. That could be a very good. What would be a good number for you Mr. Stockdale? Dave Stockdale: I think 15. Councilman Geving: 15 to 20 maximum? Dave Stockdale: 15 sounds fine. Councilman Geving: I would like to add then condition 8 to my motion that this business can't exceed a total of 15 employees at this site. I like your idea Jay. Councilman Johnson: Dale, are we going to have to go through the variance procedure then? Councilman Geving: This is a request for a conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: But in order to get it, at the time we'll have to grant a variance also which you'll have to go before a public hearing and before our Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Geving: I don't understand that. Mayor Hamilton: Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: You need a zoning variance. Zoning variances go before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mayor Hamilton: We're not changing zoning. 16 City Council ~4eeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Geving: ~ne City Council can override the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at any time. That's why we are elected officials. We can make that distinction tonight to do that and we would grant him the variance as requested. Councilman Johnson: He hasn't applied for a variance. Councilman Geving: No, but if there was one required, this City Council could grant that. Councilman Boyt: I think that we're rushing into something that needs a lot more study. You grant this variance and you've just done away with the 1 mile restraint on contractor's yards. The City Attorney has said that, in his opinion, this doesn't fit our ordinance not meet the requirements of a variance. Planning staff is recc~mending that it be turned down. The Planning Con~ission voted to turn it down. Without further study, I'll vote against it. Councilman Geving: Mr. Boyt, let me remind you that in 1985 we granted this variance once. We granted the conditional use permit for Mr. Dave Stockdale to go into business. We gave him that right. Through no fault of his own, he ran into some financial difficulties. He was not able to consummate that conditionalq use permit and for that reason, because of the mortgage situation in the State of Minnesota, when he applied for his home mortgage, he was forced to subdivide his land into 10 acre minimums. That's what brings him before us tonight. If all of those conditions had not happened, Dave would have moved ahead and built that yard out there and we would have had a construction yard. A contractor's yard right where it was proposed. I don't feel we're violating anything that this Council didn't grant to Mr. Stockdale in 1985. Mayor Hamilton: The request is for a conditional use permit. Councilman Horn: If we, in our Findings of Fact, use that very line that this was granted at one previous point, would that surely differentiate or would that give us some reasonable findings of fact to indeed grant a variance. Councilman Johnson: Or could we reinstitute the 1985 permit? Councilman Horn: In other words, could we use that as a difference on any other future request for variances where this had previously been approved and that's our Finding of Fact as to why we allowed the variance in this case. Roger Knutson: It would help this move. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that's our key. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the things that the previous Council established was that a conditional use permit that isn't acted upon within 1 year expires. That's not my ordinance gentlemen. That's the City's ordinance. We can't ignore that ordinance in spite of a logical argument. Councilman Geving: Let me tell you something Mr. Boyt, we make the laws and we amend the ordinances. That's why we're here. That's our job. We created this ordinance. We have a right to change it. It's that simple. If you can't see that, I can't teach it to you. When we have to amend the ordinance, we have 17 08 City Council lv~-::~ting - October 24~ 1988 that right. We built that ordinance back in early 80. I was a part of it~ Councilman Johnson: In this case, we're stuck by State Zoning laws too. That to grant a conditional use permit that in effect grants a variance, we have to go through the variance procedures. He has to file for a variance. Public notice has to be made. Letters have to sent to all residents within 500 feet. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you. They did that already. CounciLman Johnson: ...in order for us to. Mayor Hamilton: We've going back over something we've already. It's a good point. You've already said that. Roger, is that true? Roger t~utson: Yes. Councilman Horn: I'm not against granting a variance as long as we don't open a real precedent and we have a Finding of Fact that substantiates what we're doing and can differeniate it from future requests. I think that's the key that we have in this case. I believe the Attorney sustains that position. Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to make one other point. If, after replatting this land, in 1985, that we then had come at that time in. I know for some personal reasons that you didn't come back at that time. You could have come back at that time. Gotten a new conditional use permit because the old one expired. It didn't expire for the 1 year but it expired due to the replatting as I understand the circumstances. What first got rid of the conditional use permit is that it goes with the land. When the land got replatted, the conditional use permit disappears. If at that time you'd come back for a conditional use permit, moved a couple feet of dirt, you would have had your conditional use permit. By not doing that, it's hard for us to say that 3 years later, two simple actions that could have been taken at that time, that were within your control, could have been taken by you, that would have preserved your rights to' the conditional use permit. It's tough now to come back and do it. When we look at the literal enforcement in this chapter, we call it undue hardship and practical difficulty. You have a business that's going. It's established. If you don't get this, it makes it to where you have a longer drive to work everyday. I know people who work in Maplewood and drive to Maplewood everyday. It doesn't really cause what I would consider an undue hardship or practical difficulty. Councilman Horn: Do we have any others in this category where they failed to exercise within the time and they would be potential to fall into this Finding of Fact? Jo Ann Olsen: The only outstanding one is Lowell Carlson but he never received a conditional use permit. CounciLman Horn: So this is indeed the only one. CounciLman Geving: I just wanted to ask Clark, would it be your interest then to add to this motion that we would ask the Attorney for a Finding of Fact using the fact that we did grant this conditional use permit on March 18, 19857 18 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 109 Councilman Horn: And that's how we're justifying a variance and it's something that we would deny from somebody else... Councilman Geving: I understand. I would add that to my motion. Dave Stockdale: Can I add just one more point? Just in response to what Mr. Johnson is stating. No, I did not go out there and take a Bobcat or a shovel and turn over dirt. That's not the logical procedure for executing what I was trying to accomplish. I was going through the normal procedure of having the documentation first. I could have approached it from a, more devious point of view I suppose and gone out there and turned clumps of dirt and come back and said, here, I've done what was required of me. Now let me have it. I didn't approach it that way. I in fact did proceed in a logical manner with my planning and surveying work. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-2 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which conforms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the storage areas. 2. The applicant provide soil boring information locating two septic sites for approval by Drs. Machmeier and Anderson for use ~of a bathroom facility in the contractor's yard building and provide a holding tank for waste water with a contract from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been pumped o 3. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County. 4. The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and holidays. 5. There shall be no'signage advertising the business establishment on site. 6. Conditions of the Building Department. 7. Conditions of the Engineering Department. 8. Rnployees can not exceed a total of 15. 9. The City Attorney shall prepare Findings of Fact Using the fact that the applicant was granted a conditional use permit on March 18, 1985. Hamilton, Horn and Geving voted in favor. Boyt and Johnson were opposed. Motion Oarried. HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT: A. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF TH 101 REALIGNMENT, FRED HOISINGTON. B. APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER TO IDENTIFY SAID REALIGNMENT. 19 City Council Meeting - October 24; 1988 C. ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP AND APPROVAL OF FIRST AND S~COND READING OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITy CODE FOR OFFICIAL MAPS. Fred Hoisington: Your honor and members of the City Council, we're near the end of a process as far as deciding on which of the original 7 alternatives will be selected for and become the subject of a feasibility study. The feasibility studies have been going one simultaneously with this decision making process. It's continuing but this really becomes the key decision that kind of triggers the completion of that and details. We have a lot of good news. As we go, we learn more and invented things all the time. We have two alternatives but we're evaluating three, as you know. Alternative 2, what we call new alternative 2 is an alternative that has the intersection at Dakota. The south leg of TH 101 will be at Great Plains Blvd. or something approximating that and then another intersection at Market Blvd. but only constructing, not as part of TH 101 but connection of to Rosemount Inc.. Now the ZA alternative you've seen many times. Again, the intersection of Dakota, a 4 way intersection at existing Great Plains Blvd. and then a new Market Blvd. becoming the south leg of TH 101. Then a third alternative is the old 2, new 2B and for the sake of trying to keep, what that is is a state of 2 in transition to either a 2 or 2A. I guess what our real concern there is that we're not sure, because of a number of reasons, we think that decision has to be made and you have to pick one or the other. You can't really pick one that's in transition because it's going to be critical that that decision be made now and then all the decisions at final are based on one or the other. Now let me run through. We have dealt with 6 criteria in this case. Future costs. Financing. MnDot preferences. MnDot and Carver County preferences. Roadway geometrics. Impact on existing businesses and in~nediate property owner acceptance meaning Wards and Rosemounts since they are the ones who's land it will pass it through. Let me just briefly cover some of our cc~ments in that case. One of the reasons we're using future costs here instead of present costs is you'll recall with the 2A alternative we were building at least a portion of the south leg of TH 101. To compare that to a now south leg TH 101 is very difficult. We're comparing apples to oranges in that case so we had to take a look at what is a reasonable future expectation for improvements south. What we said to you in this case, 4 lanes at some time in the future, we don't know when that will be, with right-of-way, 100 foot right-of-way throughout most of that and we think now we can compare. Don't get so concerned about the costs. You can build it any increments you want to build it in but for the sake of cost comparison, we felt it was necessary to do it in that fashion. Now we think that the 2B alternative, the one in transition, will be extremely difficult to get support from Hennepin County for the extension of the tax increment district, economic development district and not necessarily for the dollar to come from this improvement and I won't go into the details of that. We think that they could support either a 2 or 2A and would help us extend that district so that we could divide it the bulk of dollars to finance the improvement. The next criteria deals with MnDot's preferences and we would say that MnDot prefers 2A but I would not consider that one of the criteria that I would hang my hat entirely on nor would I suggest that that would be a pivotal one that you should consider ultimately in making this decision. The letter from MnDot indicating their preference for Alternative 2A. Affects on existing businesses which was a criteria that was added by the Council the last time we were here. One existing business would be affected by the roadway were it to stay where it is or were it to move to the 2A alignment and that would be Q- Superette where a stream of traffic on present TH 101 would be diverted away from the near front door of Q. That is, of course, a concern but according to 20 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 our attorneys, there would be no requirement for compensible damages or payment of compensation for that loss. Regarding property owner preferences. We asked both Rosemount and Ward, I think we have letters from both, asking which they would prefer and Ward prefers 1 and Rosemount prefers the other. What we concluded, and I've talked to both since we got the letters, what we've concluded is that they would accept either one. Both of them have given us that assurance. They would not fight us if it turned out to be either one that they do not prefer so you can see in the checklist that we came out with pluses all the way across in this case and what we came up within this matrix was something that wasn't as conclusive as I had hoped it would be. But what I will tell you is that we do have a preference as a feasibility study team for alternative 2A. Now our reasons for that. One, it's a more efficient roadway. One, if you get down to accurately figuring the cost, it's a cheaper roadway. The level of service is better balanced at all of the intersections. All level service D instead of D, C, E. 2A is further from the residential area than is 2. But I'm not willing I guess to stand here tonight nor is Don Ringrose who's with me. Nor is Gary Warren because we spent a lot of time talking about this, and say we recommend 2A because we just don' t feel that we' re strong enough there to make a firm recommendation. We like either 2 or 2A. We don't like 2B. We don't like the transitional one. If there's a reco~rmendation that comes, it should come through very strongly. It is that we do not want to see that sort of inbetween decision made. You're going to have to build some portion of this roadway south of TH 5 with this first construction phase, whenever that occurs and the costs are reasonably comparable in those cases. What we would recon~uend is approval of one or the other and then approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Approval of the official mapping coordinates but not the official map because we still don't have the right-of-way established. That will be established by the feasibility study and wants to be working with the Wards to determine exactly where the location of those roads shall be. So with that your honor, I would just open for questions. Councilman Geving: Can you still meet the schedule for TH 5 completion if you recommend and this Council selects 2A even though we have to buy land, acquire quite a bit of real estate and build a new road rather than going with existing TH 1017 Fred Hoisington: We've confident that we can still meet that schedule based on what MnDot indicates to us. It probably doesn't make any difference whether it's 2 or 2A. It's going to be about the same and' we think we're still... Councilman Geving: I have one other question then. We keep showing the south part of the Market Blvd. intersection. What would we do to the north side of the roadway that you proposed? Fred Hoisington: That section of course is going to be built as the second phase of the Market Blvd. project. As part of the downtown process. Councilman Geving: So it's going to go regardless of our choice here tonight? Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. Councilman Boyt: Although our Attorney says that we do have a good chance of defending against a claim by the Q-Superette people. I think we've indicated a con~uitment to those people when we let them build there. They built with some assumptions and I hate to take those assumptions away from them even if we don't 21 City Council ~4eeting - October 24~ 1988 have to pay them any money to do that. The toss up side to that, as I see it, is that it would be awfully nice to move that traffic flow away from existing neighborhoods and 2A looks like a good opportunity to do that. Right now I haven't worked out which of those is the best and I'd like to hear from other councilmembers on their thoughts but I think regardless of our legal liabilities, we definitely have a tie with that cor~nercial development that we've allowed to develop there. Councilman Horn: I disagree with that. I think that that was not surprise that we were looking at realigning TH 101. That area will be developed regardless of what it is. The only option we would have had at the time that development came into us, would be to buy the property. Under either option then would not be something that we would do. That would have been the only thing we could have done to prevent building at that point and it was very clear to, everybody was aware of the fact that we've been looking at TH 101 realignment for many years. The possibility that it could happen was not clear to everyone because we didn't know what kind of funding we'd get but I don't agree that we made con~nitments that we would never move TH 101 from anyone building a site. I think that's something that's done at their own risk. I think one thing we really have to be very sensitive to is how well these highway systems function. We've already got many limitations built into our total transportation system based on what's already there today. I think we should listen to MnDot and their recon%mendation and go-along with it because there are a lot of issues that we're going to have if we don't get the traffic moving as efficiently as we can with what we still have left to salvage out of this transportation system. Councilman Johnson: I have a few questions also. You made a statement, have to build some portion of TH 101 with each of these alternatives at this time on the south side. How much of, if we want to do Option 2 at this time, how much, it's shown on your drawing that we're realigning it all the way down to the point of the temporary connection. Would we have to go that far or would we have to go as far as Lake Drive? Fred Hoisington: Jay, because of the timing of the development or the planning that's likely to occur on this property, we have to establish an alignment in any case. Then we are going to have to establish a right-of-way width. I think we need to be sure that that's tied up. Most of the official map... Councilman Johnson: We don't have to build it? Fred Hoisington: We don't have to build it all. I think what we need to do, we'd prefer to build at least a portion of it. Probably, maybe with turn lanes here and then maybe just 2 lanes or something to connect down here but the important thing is the Ward's are going to want to have this alignment pretty much established because it will tie up more land if we don't. Councilman Johnson: Established and built are two different things. Okay, what about 2A? How much of it would we have to build in the in~nediate to do 2A? Fred Hoisington: We could probably get by with doing essentially the same thing. A little wider here and then neck it down and bring it over here and then we've got a temporary. In both cases a temporary to connect back into this. 22 City Council Mseting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: Let me ask you again, why on 2 do we have to completely realign 2 lanes all the way down now? We have 2 lanes functioning right now. Could we go as far as Lake Drive, connect to the existing TH 101 and then at the time that the Wards want to develop and change it all, that's part of their development or is that where the money's coming from anyway? Fred Hoisington: Let me say that in order to have a project that we feel would be attractive to Hennepin County and would support, give thom the ability to support our efforts here and we need their support. We don't think we have to buid a piece of that leg under any circumstances right away. The road, first of all Jay, is necessary but secondly, because this becomes kind of a portion of the local share on that roadway. A part that can also be assessed. Councilman Johnson: Why does Hennepin County give a hoot if we get rid of our turns and twists in TH 1017 Fred Hoisington: It isn't a matter of that. That needs to be done no matter what because it's a dangerous road but secondly, they won't do it because of that. They'll do it because they'll look at this thing and they'll say, how much of this should we be taking a chunk off? And how much is MnDot taking a chunk of and then how much is the City taking a chunk off? We've got to build it anyway to correct the project so I guess we want to make sure that you're leveraging as much as you can to make sure that you end up with a total value ~f the funding. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I think I understand that now. Mayor Hamilton: Just to clarify that a little further Jay. We mentioned earlier that Representative Kelso and Don and myself met with Con~issioner Darris about a month ago and discussed this project with him, being a Hennepin County C~issioner, and we asked them for their support. Told them what we were attempting to do. Told thom that we were looking to th~m for some funding. What Fred is saying is that they want to see how it is going to impact people who live in Hennepin County who use this road. They then can better assess and come back to their people and say yes, we should fund a part of it because the people who live in Hennepin County are going to benefit from it. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but they don't want to fund two-thirds of it. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying that. I didn't say any amount. We're just asking th~m to consider funding a portion of it. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that makes sense to me. My feelings on the thing are 2A is the most logical of the two. I drive a road right now, TH 62 at 494 in my avoidance of TH 5 I end up driving. Hopefully in the near future I won't avoid TH 5 much anymore. I drive a section that will be similar to what would happen with 2. Where you come across and people want to make a left hand turn right away. Those people really create a problem for me every morning because I don't want to make that left hand turn but they stop and don't merge with traffic. They've got a half mile merging strip but they don't use it because they're trying to get four lanes over and everybody ends up running in, I'm surprised there aren't as many accidents there. That's exactly what we'll be seeing here. The distances are a little bigger here but not that much. The further you have for that merge, the better it is. I think in the long run the City 23 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 will be better served by it. I see the proposed realignment on option 2 being pretty good too except for that one merge difference. I think that I would at this point support 2A over 2 just because the professionals on the traffic study side of thing say that that's the best. When we start getting an E class intersection for TH 101 and that's not good. That will create more problems in the future. The purpose of us is to make the best road system for the City of Chanhassen and for the long term growth of the City and I believe 2A does that better than 2 with everybody being a D instead of having one E tossed in there. Mayor Hamilton: I just want to reiterate what Clark had said about having TH 101 going down Lake Drive East which was never done. It was never said it was going to be done. We didn't know where TH 101 was going to go so I don't think we have any obligation to anyone who has built on that road. I'm very much in favor of 2A. I think it's the best plan by far. It answers and resolves a lot of the questions and issues we've had for years to come and I think it's a very good plan. I like it. Councilman Geving: I think we ought to move for a motion at this time. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to ask, I know there are some neighborhood people here who might have a con~nent or if they don't, that's fine. If they're just here to listen. I know we've heard most of their concerns previously. If they have something new they'd like to conm~ent on, I'd appreciate hearing from them. Pat Hallisey: I introduced myself a little earlier this evening. Once again I'm Pat Hallisey with Blue Circle Investment Company. We are the owners of the shopping center that's located at the intersection of existing TH 101 and Lake Drive East. What I'd like to do is address a few of the issues or statements that I heard raised this evening. First of all somebody brought up the issue that by moving from a plan 2 to a plan 2A there would only be one business affected. We're not the owners of Q or Total Petroleum or that store. We are the owners of a shopping center. The shopping center was designed to have up to as many as 9 businesses. Currently there are 3 so we're not dealing with just the issue of one business. We heard somebody refer that the counsel for the City of Chanhassen feels that by adopting plan 23t you would have no compensible damages with respect to our claims. We've submitted previous correspondence from our legal counsel who differs with that. However, it would be certainly my hope that as rational people we could come to some kind of an agreement and arrive at a plan where litigation or dispute between attorneys is not necessary. That has been our objective all the way through this process. We do not want to be in litigation. We will only be there if we're forced into it. I have heard some, what I feel to be, misconceptions with respect to what we were told and the conditions under which we built our shopping center. First of all, Councilman Horn states that it's no surprise, the possible moving of TH 1~1 should come as no surprise to us. Well, let me assure you, it comes as a great big surprise. During the planning process when we built our shopping center, we were told by the staff of the City of Chanhassen that TH 101 was going to be in the future exactly where it is today. That was an unequivacable statement. As a matter of fact, we sut~nitted a development plan to the staff, to the planning staff. We had to redo that development plan in order to accomodate the future upgrading of TH 101...in it's present position. There was a study done in 1981 regarding the possible relocation of TH lgl. It showed 5 alternatives for the redoing of the north portion of TH 1~1. All 5 of those studies showed the south leg of TH 101 in it's exact present location. I do have a copy of that study in 24 City Council M~eting - October 24~ 1988 my briefcase with me this evening if you'd like to look at it. So the realigning of TH 101, not so much the realigning, the moving of the south leg of TH 101 south of TH 5 does come as a great surprise to us and it is in direct violation of what we were told when we planned our development and made our investment. Mayor Hamilton states that nobody ever promised us that TH 101 would be relocated to Lake Drive East. We're not saying that anybody promised us that TH 101 would be aligned onto Lake Drive East. What we're saying is, we were told that TH 101 south of TH 5 would be in the future exactly where it is today. Whether or not we have a legal claim with the City of Chanhassen should you decide to relocate TH 101 in accordance with plan 2A, I think is a secondary issue and as I said earlier, one that we would like to do all that we could to avoid. What I do feel is the primary issue with that respect is that we did come before this city. The staff. The Planning Con~ission and the City Council. Received some very direct recon, nendations and were guided into making an investment. Whether or not there's a legal claim, I feel the City of Chanhassen has a deep moral obligation with respect to the economic havoc that would be brought on us if you relocate TH 101. And believe me, it would be economic havoc. Mr. Hoisington stated when he was talking about the financing issues with respect to plan 2 and plan 2A, that it was possible that part of these costs could be obtained through a direct assessment. I appeared in the informational meetings prior to the Planning Commission meetings dealing with this issue and I asked that question point blank. Were any of the costs attributable to TH 101 going to be directly assessed to the affected properties and I was assured that they would not be. That this would be a citywide assessment. That was a direct assurance from Mr. Hoisington at that point. Councilman Johnson addresses the similarities between Hwy. 62, Crosstown intersection and the possibility may happen with TH 5 and TH 101 should plan 2 be adopted. I agree that there are some similarities. Councilman Johnson himself pointed out one major difference and that is that there is a greater distancing and I think there's also a further major difference and that is, at this point in time, that intersection currently handles approximately twice the traffic flow that TH 5 or TH 101 is projected to carry in the year 2005. So there is a substantial difference between the two sections of road. I thank you for letting me address you. We ask that you do adopt plan 2. Mayor Hamilton: Just a couple of clarifications. As far as TH 101 south of TH 5, somebody mentioning it being exactly as it is today. I've been sitting here for 8 years and no one has ever expected it to be exacting as it is today. It's something we've always wanted to change. .I don't know who told you that but I would be surprised if somebody did. Cost, as far as being assessed, citywide, we haven't talked about costs yet. Fred certainly knows that he can't make any guarantees to you about how assessing can or can not be done. That's not his decision to make and we haven't even discussed it yet so that's just a couple of clarifications. Fred? Fred Hoisington: Let me just answer that question since Pat raised it. At the time they were talking about Alternative 3 and you recall Alternative 3 had no place to assess anything because residential was on one side. Q, we didn't figure we could probably assess for that. There was really nothing to assess of the improvement that we were talking about at that point in. time. We were not making a commitment. We knew we couldn't on the part of the city in areas where there is assessable footage and there is assessable footage in this project. There was not in 3. 25 City Council Meeting ~ October 24~ 1988 Pat Hallisey: Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify your clarification. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that TH 101 was to remain in it's exact condition. We knew it was to be upgraded. In fact the City has already done some work to the existing TH 101 to upgrade for what it felt to be the future needs as it came into TH 5. That work was done in conjunction with our development so we didn't anticipate that it would be in it's exact same form. What we did anticipate and had every reason to believe was that it would remain in it's exact same location. That's our concern. Gary Jensen: I'm Gary Jensen with the Holiday Station stores. Maybe I'm a little late in asking some of these questions. If Alternative 2A is adopted, would a full signalized intersection remain at Great Plains Blvd. and TH 5? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Gary Jensen: And would full access to 79th Street remain? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. As far as we know. Gary Jensen: Was Alternative 2 proposed with that same situation? Councilman Geving: Yes. Gary Jensen: Our major concern is on this in and out access to TH 5. Councilman Horn: You'll have better access because Market is completed, there will be a complete loop in front of your station. Councilman Geving: Your situation will actually be better because we are trying to get the traffic onto 79th and into the loop so it can either come out, back onto TH 5 and move west or go to our downtown area. I've usually found myself at odds with highway department recon~nendations but I'm not going to say that I am with this one. Greg Mater: My name is Greg Mater and I live at 81... I attended all the informational meetings and Planning Con~nission meetings and Council meetings and what I got out of all the meetings was that they were looking out for all the people of Chanhassen as a whole which I think 2A does .... gentlemen with the 2A option and I feel for his problem but I think looking at just one person's problem rather than a city's problem...Lake Drive East. They felt for us then that they're going to look at the city as a whole and decide from there which I think is what this city should do... Judy Shane: My name is Judy Shane and I just have a little question. I am just interested in what will happen to the land that is vacated between TH 101 when it turns down to TH 5? Will that become the city and parkland? Mayor Hamilton: We haven't even discussed it. I'm not sure we could answer your questions. Gary, did you have any thoughts on that or Fred? Gary Warren: In that case, it would go back to the abutting property owners. Councilman Geving: Yes, but I don't think we know where it's going to be Judy. That's the problem. 26 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Judy Shane: Would it go down to TH 5 on the east side? Councilman Geving: The general response to your question is that the abutting property owners will gain one-half of each of the vacated parcels but to tell you exactly where that's going to be located at this time, we don't know. Until we see engineering drawings and specifications. Councilman Johnson: Almost all of the Ward's property. Councilman Geving: No. Judy's concerned about the north side where it comes up where D is located and loops by the apartment building. That's where you interested right Judy? Judy Shane: Yes. Councilman Geving: Where we have that little park there. Judy Shane: You have the park and the city so you would be the owner. I guess I was just interested if it turns into commercial or... Councilman Geving: No, no. Roger Knutson: A lot depends upon how it's acquired and who's name is it in right now. I frankly don't know whether it's in the County's name, the State's name or the City's name and it's a fairly complicated question to answer. You really can't give a simple answer. Councilman Geving: We'll keep you advised though Judy because I know you're concerned but we can't answer it. Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live also in the Brookhill development. Personally I think it's a toss up and I hate to speak up one way or the other as a person. However, as a spokesperson for the Brookhill development, I'd like to point out one element that hasn't been mentioned. The fact that if option 2 is chosen, the fact that it's closer. The intersection has a secondary affect, namely that by default, if TH 5 gets saturated, Lake Drive East still will have to carry the greater portion of traffic because people will know if TH 5 is plugged up, they're going to take Lake Drive East as an alternative route which it's much less likely if you adopt the plan 2A. And I would just like to bring that to your attention in order for you to make a wise decision. Councilman Boyt: It might be a very good point but we've just said that that intersection in the middle was to stay open. Once Lake Drive East is put through over to Dakota, it would seem that people have 2 or 3 opportunities to drive over onto Lake Drive East. Councilman Horn: That's true but if the option is more currently where TH 101 is now, if it backs up only to that point, they can go down the old TH 101 and get on that way completely eliminating the Park Drive east portion of it effects the development. The only way they would be affected is if total area were backed up and then it would come back through Dakota and have to go back to Lake Drive East so it gives th~ a stacking distance between Market and existing TH 101 and more buffer with that option before they're back into Lake Drive East. 27 118 City Council Meeting ' October 24~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: It's a similiar situation that occurred in Eden Prairie when they put their industrial park in there. It cut through the industrial park and a lot of people tried it but it doesn't accomplish anything. I'm sure some people tried but, you think you're going to beat the light or something but it doesn't work. Councilman Geving: To answer part of your question Bill. We're just seeing one piece of this. Eventually that Lake Drive East, going east, will go all the way out to Dell Road on 184th Street and Eden Prairie already has plans of putting a light at the 184th Street so there's going to be another light going in there eventually. They have very definite plans of doing that. It's possible that you could take Lake Drive East all the way from CR 17 to Dell Road. Councilman Boyt: As we look at the shopping center down there, I thought I heard Mr. Hallisey say that he is open to some sort of negotiation that might keep him in business. I can remember, by the way, I remember reading through the packet which I think last time when we considered the whole TH 101 issue had a much more detailed explanation of the background of your situation. I don't quite remember it as being as clear cut as you remember it but that wasn't my money. The situation that I remember a year and a half ago when the golf course sent us a letter and said we'd like your help in expanding TH 5 so that it will be ready for the Open. The reaction was, it will never happen. Fortunately the City and Clark and several of you became very involved and even more involved in TH 5 and it's happening. It's pretty terrific but I can understand why the impression would be created that changes to TH 101 might be an awfully long way down the road. My concern is, if there's some way of mitigating the economic hardship, I think we would all like to do alternative 2A. That's what I'm hearing but I hate to do alternative 2A and sort of cast this gentleman to the winds when he's come into our town and made a considerable economic investment as a taxpayer. Just like everybody else is paying taxes. Councilman Geving: I would just like to respond to that, in response to Mr. Hallisey. I don't think anybody ever gave anyone any commitment that TH 101 would always be located where it was or is today. We have studied the realignment of TH 101 since 1980, that I'm aware of. And to suggest that a planning person or am ember of our staff made a con~nitment, which they're really not in any position to make because they are employees of the city. We are the decision makers. I suggest that you may have heard wrong Mr. Hallisey and that you may have made a financial investment in the community but not without some kind of risk on your part. We don't commit anything. A plan is a plan and our plans since 1980 were to always do something with TH 101. We are now making that move to change TH 101. Now, if there's some way that we could sit down with you as you suggest, and come to some kind of an agreement, I'm all for that. I think it's the right way to go because if we can talk about it, maybe we can work something out. Regardless of what comes out of our negotiations here tonight and deliberations and our final decision, you probably won't like any of the decisions that are going to be made anyway. But we're still willing to sit down with you and talk about it. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else? If not, I'm going to move for approval of reccaxnendation to realign TH 101 to the plan that's been presented to us as 2A. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. 28 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: I would like to add to your motion that we have the city enter into negotiations with the shopping center on how we can help them adjust to this situation. I still feel that we have an obligation to those people. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I don't have any problem putting it in there as long as if there's any additional information that Council can bring back that they think we should consider, then they should do that. Councilman Horn: I was going to suggest after we voted that Don talk to the developer and discuss with him incentives that we have within our tax increment district in terms of relocation and find out what those options are. I don't know that it's necessary to have it as a part of the motion. Councilman Johnson: I would not want as part of the motion to admit that we are causing any damages to the shopping center. As he said, he's got 3 tenants in the shopping center that's about 2 or 3 years old now that is designed for up to 9 tenants. We're not saying that we've got the most highly successful shopping center in the city going here. We've got one that's just opening up here down the block that is doing much better. I'm not sure why but the total viability of the shopping center as it is is questionable to me right now whether he's currently have a great business success and as such, the damages that will be caused by this, I don't want to admit to any damages. Mayor Hamilton: There's nothing in the motion that says anything about any damages. We're just saying that we're going to negotiate with him. Talk to him, whatever you want to call it. See if there's any way that we can find some type of resolution to his problem. That's all I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: Does saying that we're going to negotiate with h~m about his problem admist that there's a problem? Mayor Hamilton: We're going to enter into discussions with him to see if we can resolve the concerns that the developer has. How can that possibly have been... Roger Knutson: That doesn't... Councilman Johnson: Until he can show a measureable decline in business, etc., I don't see that there's any damages. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's something the attorneys can talk about. Councilman Geving: I do have a question and I'm sure the people in the audience who live south of TH 101 are concerned and want to know this. What will happen Fred if we choose this option to the existing TH 1017 Could you describe to us what could happen. It would be returned to us as a city street I suspect and then we could determine whether to abandon it, vacate it or whatever. Fred Hoisington: I think what would most likely happen with that south leg is, if the Ward's are interested in moving ahead with some planning, which they appear to be at this point, we would just simply work with them and figure out how we can replace 1 leg with an existing leg and hopefully avoid costs associated with right-of-way. We gave you the worse case situation where we would want to just simply work with the Wards to resolve that question. 29 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Geving: I guess if it becomes a city street, my feeling is that it should be abandoned. We don't want to maintain it. Snowplow or anything else. Mayor Hamilton: That's for the future. Fred Hoisington: You would not want 2A to be, or the south leg where it is now, anyway because it could become a shortcut so it would have to be removed. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the recon~endation to realign TH 101 to the plan that's been presented as 2A. Also, that the City enter into discussions with Blue Circle Investment Company to try to resolve some of their concerns. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #88-115: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving to approve the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment as presented in Alternative 2A to the TH 101/TH 5 intersection. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the adoption of the official map for TH 101 realignment and approval of first and second reading of Chapter 15 of the City Code for Official Maps. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as the noise decreases here, I've learned something recently from our Public Safety Department. I'd like to move to amend the agenda under Council Presentations ~o add Assumption Seminary. I'd like to update the Council on some actions that have been taken out there. I think that Council action is required. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to include discussion under Council Presentations regarding the Assumption Seminary. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW NEAR MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES. Mayor Hamilton: I think that all the work that Gary has done, and the Public Safety Cor~nission is pretty self explanatory. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Do you have anything you want to add or clarify? Gary Warren: At your discretion, I guess we tried to put it all in the report. I apologize for the magnitude of the paper but I think it probably comes down to maybe 3 issues. The stop sign request, the speed request and the children at play request. The stop sign issue I think is one that we've tried to respond to from...to get some specific information. It is interesting that information agreed relatively well with the calculations in the different manuals. 76 actual vehicle movements per hour at Pete's information. Looked at the criteria, the manuals which aren't a 100% factor. We recognize that State Statutes do provide for discretion and that's where we get into some discretionary community issues that with traffic information. Basically from an engineering standpoint, I guess I maintain our earlier position that with the 30 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 addition of stop signs from a safety standpoint, are not warranted at those locations. The intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Trapper's Pass, as I con~nented in the memo, is one that will no doubt be seeing some increased traffic movements and is one that we will continue to keep an eye on as the connection with Shorewood and also with the Country Woods are made. But at this point the vehicles do not justify it. Concerning the children at play signs. The documentation is pretty thick I guess and I contacted several other cities. St. Louis Park for example where they also have a policy of not installing those signs following the lead of the Department of Transportation and many of the traffic institutes. The fact that it is almost giving permission to play on the streets which is definitely not what we want to indicate. I think that the fact that you're in a residential neighborhood, just by the fact that there are homes there, is an indication enough that there are children at play. The signs has it's place such as parks and some of those areas but as a general rule of thumb in a residential area, it is not adopted by any of the agencies that we have... Likewise, I don't know if this is appropriate as a part of this or as a follow up maybe that I think the City should grapple with the children at play signs and establish a policy on our own as far as if we would allow them or what conditions would we want to respond to that. Then lastly, the speed study. We feel that based on our knowledge of the Department of Transportation's speed criteria from when we were working on Lake Lucy Road, that the Corrmissioner of Transportation would probably not warrant a reduction of the speeds out there. However, it's his discretion that I need to do that study and a resolution of the Council is the first step to get that going, so we would certainly support that. Maybe the last issue to touch on is the trail, the on-street trail issue. The research that I've been able to avail myself of and I've included in the packet there is just what we intended in the concept plan for the trails out there. The fact that to put an on-street trail at this time on Near Mountain Blvd. and Trappers Pass basically would require no parking on both sides of those roadways and dedicated lanes, one in each direction. State Statute does not allow bicycle traffic to be going against the traffic, so I'm certainly willing to take questions. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. Jim, do you have some co~ents you want to make? Councilman Geving: Do you have this copy? Jim Wehrle: I have Gary's letter, yes. What I haven't seen is the Minutes from Public Safety Thursday night. I attended the meeting and I know that Public Safety voted unanimously in support of everything we asked for provided that it didn't contradict any law any place where we had discretion .... they were unanimously in favor of it. I guess I agree with Gary that it has been narrowed down to a handful of issues. They've got the pond clean-up well underway and the coverings on the pipes which takes us to my third point. My latest memo on this subject, on the speed limits. Public Safety Thursday we had total support of the 25 mph speed limits on the basis of bike paths. I can't tell you how chagrin our entire development is to find out that the City misled us for 4 years as to the nature of our... We have all been told consistently, those of us who inquired, by all of the city workers that we were to have a 4 foot wide bike path on Near Mountain and on Trapper's and that's why those two streets were 32 feet instead of 28 feet and that it was going to be on the west side of Near Mountain and on the south side of Trapper's. We had no doubt that the Gary is bringing up has some validity to it and the regulations that are there saying that it's got to be 2 ways and all this stuff. It's a rude 31 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 awakening. We bought and built homes there on the premise of representations from the City and from the developer that this was the understanding. Obviously we're not going to resolve that tonight if we are not to have bike paths there as promised. We don't want tham off street because there's no room. The houses aren't set back far enough. We can't have them on both sides of the street. It would constrict the street too much and leave no parking so in the current trail system that's being put up for referendum, please exclude us from any considerations in that regard because we don't want it if that's the way it's got to be. I can only speak for myself and those I've spoken to but I don't know of one person in Near Mountain who wanted it if that's the price we have to pay. That's why we were hoping to get 25 mph speed limits based on. I don't know if we have any prayer of meeting any of the State studies that would justify a 25 mph speed limits. Obviously we'd like to ask for that but the other thing that Public Safety approved of was the placement of curve signs in some of our dangerous curves to be accompanied with signs of perhaps 15 mph which I'm not sure I understand all the legal technicalities that go with that. I understand those would be recon~nendations as opposed to anything else. We would certainly, in lieu of anything else, if we can't get the 25 because of the bike, we'd like all of our curves be posted with a curve sign and 15 mph statement. Would you like me to keep on going topic by topic? Mayor Hamilton: You go right ahead. This is your shot. Jim Wehrle: The next topic on here is slow, children at play signs. Once again, I think everybody in Near Mountain finds it astounding that we're basically being told that if these signs were put up, that we're so stupid that we would then think we could let our kids play in the street. You see these signs all across the nation. A moment ago it was said that these were appropriate in a park but in a residential area people should know there are kids. Does that imply that you shouldn't think there are kids in a park? I don't see the logic. I think that in our development we, the ones living there, would feel more secure with a periodic warning to the traffic coming through there, much of which is not our local neighborhood. People passing through, reminding them of the periodic danger of our children running across the street. It's been referenced here that we're a baby factory. Perhaps we are and anything that you can do to save the life potentially of a youngster that hasn't got the maturity or the sense not to run across the street in front of traffic, is well worth it and I'm just adamantly opposed to the concept that this is going to give us a false sense of security and we'll let our children play in the street. We firmly ask that you approve the placement of slow, children at play signs in our development. The fifth point in my memo that we've all been working from is the placement of stop signs. Now the Public Safety Con~nission, once again, I don't know what discretion you have on stop signs. If you go traffic counters that are put in are the final, final authority and you have no discretion to override how many cars were clocked and all that stuff. Obviously your hands are tied but if you have discretion, we have the unanimous support of the Public Safety Conm~ission from Jim Chaffee and the Sheriff, everybody on down for 4 of our intersections. The four being, Near Mountain and Trapper's Pass, Near Mountain and Mountain Way, Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass at the top of the hill and Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass once again where it curves around and comes from the other section at the bottom of the hill. There are other places we would certainly like to see stop signs placed but obviously at this point in time we have the best imagineable support I would hope from the Public Safety Corrmission that those places warrant it and we would like to see those put in. 32 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Geving: Jim, would you give me that fourth one again? I've got one here at... Jim Wehrle: Near Mountain and Trapper's Pass. Near Mountain and Mountain Way. Then the other two, Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass. Councilman Geving: And the other one, the fourth one would be on the north end of Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass? Jim Wehrle: Right. There are two. Castle Ridge has Cascade Pass run into it and it curves and runs into it twice. At each place it intersects. Councilman Geving: How about at Mountain Way and Mountain Blvd. Jim Wehrle: Yes, that's one of the four. As for the bike path issue, once again, if there's any way that you folks in discretion or in the regs can allow us to have the long promised 4 foot wide on street, painted, one side of the road bike path, obviously that's what we've all anticipated for several years. If that can't be, that can't be but the bituminous part of it has been paved in our outlot. The msmo that I saw from Gary, I received it Saturday, indicates putting gates across either end of it to keep out traffic as opposed to posts. The premise being that that would then make it accessible for smergency egress. Now that we've got 3 ways of getting in and out of Near Mountain, I don't know that that's a concern but what does concern is gates across there. How do you get the kids bikes on bike paths with gates across them? I don't know that it would be attractive and I don't think it's necessary. It'd be much simplier from our perspective to simply put up the fence post in the center of the path at either end and that would then obviously limit the ability of cars to go on there. We do appreciate the signs that went up indicating no motorized vehicles. The crosswalk, the crosswalk signs are out there on little temporary tripods. Obviously the sooner they can get up in sight on a pole, the better. Now a recap there on Pleasant View. We would be concerned with putting wooden posts out there. The metal posts will do just fine. We will come up with a decorative posts for Near Mountain that you so authorized. That was referenced in Gary's m~mo and whether we do it or whether Lundgren does it is besides the point. We'll have it done. We do appreciate~the street lights, the four that are apparently on their way and those are going to be well received and we appreciate that. I don't know if there's a whole lot more to talk about from my perspective other than we appreciate your consideration on all these and there maybe some other people from Near Mountain here that may have other things to say on the subject. Peter McKay: I'm Peter McKay. I live at 6390 Near Mountain Blvd.. I guess the thing I'd like to address you about, like I did the last time I was here and basically the engineer report came back as we anticipated it would the last time. All that does is basically count the cars. It doesn't take into account what happens to the cars when they come into the area. Looking at the map, it appears that everything is nice and flat and you don't get a perspective of the topography of the development as you come into it. I would like to see a stop sign at the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. Number one, as people come into the development, Near Mountain Blvd. goes downhill at that point. It's only natural and I observe it everyday as cars come in there, they gain speed going down the hill. There are young children that live along that 33 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 street. If a car had to stop at that intersection and then again start up, it would greatly decrease the speed that they travel through there. A lot of the problems with cars coming through happens when there are people parked on the street. People have guests for parties and there are cars on the street and it's very easy for a child to run out through the area behind one of those cars and be hit. It happens all over the town. All over the state at any number of times. I think the placement of stop signs is a very critical safety issue and that just judging things on a pure traffic count or an occasional visit by somebody from Public Safety, doesn't give you the true input that you gain from people who are there and observe the traffic on a regular basis. From the people that I've talked to in the area, again it's the people of the area requesting the signs. We are willing, or the people that I've talked to, are willing to abide by the signs. It's not going to be an extra burden to anybody who lives in there and it's going to slow down and control some of the traffic from the great number of people that right now are using Castle Ridge or in the future are going to use Near Mountain Blvd. as a short cut to other areas so I would urge you very strongly to consider the recommendation to place the stop signs at the intersections that they've been requested at. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you Mr. McKay. Are you talking about the north corner? Peter McKay: Yes, it would be the corner, the west corner of Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. As you come in off of Pleasant View onto Near Mountain Blvd. at that corner, as you enter. Not as you exit the development but as you enter the development. Councilman Geving: Because there's one proposed on the other corner as you come down Castle Ridge and enter Near Mountain Blvd.. So you have two of thsm there. That's what you're talking about? I understand where you want them. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: I wanted to ask you a question Jim. You said that there is through traffic and I guess I'm curious if you have any idea, any of you gentl~en, is it through traffic? Are those people driving through the area looking for homes or looking at lots? Peter McKay: This right here is a short cut up to Town Line Road. As this is connected down there and again it's going to be another way for the traffic to flow through. Jim Wehrle: I think Mr. Geving can...the evening he spent with me, just for the heck of it we sat here at the top of the hill and said okay we're going to follow the next person that comes in. It was about dinnertime. The next person that came in, we followed thsm right on down Castle Ridge and when they got down here to Near Mountain Blvd., rather than turning as a resident would be going towards their home, they went right back put onto Pleasant View and hightailed on out of there. Councilman Geving: He headed west. Jim Wehrle: Right. He made the right turn, a few people can figure out that they're allowed to make that turn or not. That's another reason for the problem I should have touched on tonight. That sign still should be a single plate of metal. I'll reiterate what Pete said about, a traffic count is only counting 34 City Council Meeting ' October 24~ 1988 vehicular traffic and we're one of the few recent developments, thanks to new regulations that you all have in place in Chanhassen, that don't have off street sidewalks. So not only the adults but the children use the gutter, more or less, and the streets as their sidewalks. That doesn't come into play in any of the traffic counts that you folks are taking and I think that's important to keep in mind. I would like you to give it further consideration to the changing of that right turn sign. Even at the Public Safety Commission meeting Thursday night, the Public Safety Commissioners could not properly interpret the meaning of the existing sign that's there and I think the problem being it's not on one plate of metal and it's two signs slapped together. Mayor Hamilton: I don't understand, Gary I guess why, if we want to put some signs in, whether they're stop signs or slow or a curve with a speed limit, why we can't just do that. Gary Warren: The City can do that. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't we do it? Gary Warren: Ail we need is Council action. Mayor Hamilton: We've done a lot of studying of this issue and if the people who live there want to have this, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do it. Put them there and then let them react to what's there. Then they can come back and say whether a sign is working or not working or it shouldn't be on this corner or that corner. Ther're the ones that are up there all the time. They're the ones that observe what's going on. I think we ought to listen to them and put up the signs. Give it a test period. Let them come back and say, hey it solved the problems or it hadn't solved the problems. It would se~m like the most logical thing to do. Maybe that's the problem. It's too logical. Gary Warren: Statutes do provide, and Roger correct me if I'm wrong, for the Council to take it's own discretion through the avenues of doing an engineering study and then still making it's own selection as far as signage is concerned. I guess our approach to it has been to provide ~you with the professional advice from the documents that are normally used as far as any applying of signs to subdivisions and it does not meet the criteria in that respective. Now the liability, a couple of cases that go wrong along with improper signage and such, I guess we all can probably take a guess at. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see how you can have a liability problem if you're trying to slow traffic down. What liability situation are you creating? Gary Warren: It's very clear, if you're slowing traffic down, is the only purpose for the stop signs, it's an inappropriate application for stop signs. Mayor Hamilton: It's not just slowing traffic down, it's trying to save people's lives I suppose. Gary Warren: I think we're all interested in doing that. I certainly support that but I think the premise of too many stop signs, lack of enforcement of stop signs, is going to lead to or can lead to irritated drivers who are going to come to rolling stops and who are going to pose more of a threat because the pedestrians and such in the neighborhood are relying on those stop signs 100% 35 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 and then they're going to run into the situation where you've got sc~ebody who isn't and is going to roll through. Then you're going to have an accident. Mayor Hamilton: I think there's no question, when you observe stop signs, people don't stop anymore. Hardly anybody comes to a complete stop. Everybody just drives right through them and the younger you are, the faster you drive through them. If you put a stop sign up and you put a crosswalk marking on there, I think it's going to help. I just can't believe it won't help. Councilman Johnson: I've spent a lot of time on this issue and I'd like to hand out to the Council the State Law and the areas of the manual, this manual that has been quoted in our notes so many times but we weren't able to read and go through. I've highlighted some stuff if you'll pass these down for me. I've got enough for down to Roger. I'm sure you don't want to look at it. I've highlighted here, when we first start here under local authorities, it says we do have the authority to designate any intersection as a stop intersection. Also within here, we can do that. The placement of signs, 3 pages in here highlighted says that we can place the signs as we may deem necessary. We will indicate and to carry out the provisions in this chapter, local traffic ordinances that regulate warrant to guide traffic. I think some of these signs apply at that point. Where we get into the engineering report and some of the recommendations from our engineering staff, several pages in here it starts A(t) and l(A-4) at the bottom is from this manual of Uniform Traffic Control devices where it says that the decision to use a particular device at particular locations should, which should is an advisory condition, be made on the basis of an engineering study for that location. Thus, while the manual provides standards for design and application of traffic control, the manual is not a substitute for engineering judgment. It's not the intent of the provisions of this manual to be a standard for traffic control installations but not a legal requirement for their installation. In other words, what they're saying here is that they do provide some conditions under which the guidelines tell you you should put in or you may put in stop signs but these aren't the only conditions. That you need to use your engineering judgment. Thus far the engineering studies from our engineers have depended upon only the three conditions for stop signs which are about 4 more pages in here where it says, multiway stop signs warrants ar~ they give three conditions under which you may warrant a multiway stop sign which we' re talking about here. What should be noticed above there, it says multiway stop signs, installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should ordinarily, not talk about weasle words, should ordinarily is about as weasily as you can get, be used only when the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. That's not a shall. That's a should. We have a lot of discretion on the placement of the stop signs is what I'm trying to get to here. What we need to do, what I think we need to do and I think several of these intersections do warrant stop signs. The 4 that the Public Safety C~ission, I believe in my judgment w~rrants a stop sign. But our liability as a city is based on what information we make our decision on. Thus far we have our engineers looking at these 3 conditions which are 3 of many conditions under which you can make this decision and say none of these meet. I think we need to get some transportation engineers who will take into consideration all the safety factors involved and tell us that this stop sign will either increase safety or decrease safety. There's many articles that were presented to us which described how the overuse of the stop sign has created hazards in the past or the overuse of a crosswalk sign. More people are injured in crosswalks, from that one article, they did a survey, 10 to 1. More people 36 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 are injured within a crosswalk than people jaywalking, of course I jaywalk everywhere. It's the same thing. You have the stop sign there. You pull up to the stop sign. You expect the person at the other side of the stop sign to stop. If he doesn't, then you cause an accident. That's what we have to watch out for here and that's why what I would like to propose on the stop signs is that we hire a transportation engineering firm to do a study to review these. I don't think it's going to take a huge study amount to do this. A huge amount of money but I'd like to know how much but I think some of this warrants it but I don't know if we have the information right now. If we, at this point, go and decide on these stop signs based on our own feelings that they are required, I have a feeling that we're opening ourselves up. We may be causing a problem to the neighborhood that they don't want. Many times my children tell me that they want something and they thing it's the best thing for them. I think that's why we're called city fathers to a point. I don't like that term very much myself. There are times when we have more information and we have more examples. We have more research into it that we have to make that decision. We have to come to the hard decision. I'm hoping that that decision, and I've got some real good reasons for some of the stop signs that I think when introduced to the traffic engineers, they're going to come out and agree with us that these stop signs could be warranted at which point we would have a good defensable case to install these stop signs. One example that I see is Mountain Blvd. and Mountain Way. As that curve takes those two curves, I sat in the corner driveway just off that corner, as the cars are going westbound on Near Mountain Blvd., they disappear almost totally from site behind a section of trees that are right near the end of the pond. You can't see them and I 'm down the way. The cars coming down Near Mountain in the other direction cut the lane and actually many of them are in the lane of traffic coming at the cars that can not be seen. I'm surprised we haven't had a head on collision in that intersection from observing the cars that I was observing in that area. A stop sign at that intersection, a 3 way stop at that intersection would definitely help to prevent a head on collision which I think is a very big possibility there plus we've got the pedestrian walking in that position. With that kind of information from a traffic engineer. Although our city engineers are a lot, they're not traffic engineers. Benshoof or somebody else. I think that we would have a very logical reason to approve these stop signs. Councilman Geving: Is it your feeling Jay that for tonight's action that you would rather leave the stop sign issue out of our deliberations and if any motion is made here tonight at all, that it would be to direct that kind of study so that we can put it into the hands of a professional rather than 5 people here that are not traffic engineers? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I think that's what I'd like to see on that particular issue. On the children playing issues, I'd like to see those signs put up at the entrances. I don't think we need 8 or 9 of them, whichever it was being recon~nended but I'd like to see it, as you come in off of Town Road. As you come in off of Pleasant view. As you enter any residential neighborhood, we should have those signs up. Especially this neighborhood which doesn't have the off street trails, on speed, I'm not going to bother handing out the State law on speeds but the State law on speed basically says, if you want to see it you can have it. Councilman Boyt: If you've got a copy, pass it down. 37 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Johnson: If you're interested in the speed laws- Councilman Geving: Make it quick though will you. Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to make it quick here. This is a big issue and I want to make sure that we understand where we are from a legal standpoint and everything else. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and Roger's over there going oh god. Amateur lawyer again. Under zoning within local areas, establishes when a local authority believes that existing speed limit upon any street or highway or part thereof within their respective jurisdiction and not part of the trunk highway system, is great or less than the reasonable safe under the existing conditions, they may request the co~missioner to authorize upon the basis of engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe. That I would like to make as a motion tonight that we believe that the speed limit of 30 mph within this area due to the curvature of the roads and the lack of trails, lack of off street trails, narrowness of the homes, all these other conditions that exist, that 30 mph is an unsafe speed and we'd like the corm~issioner to do his study, do his thing. Whether we have to hire s~mebody to do the study or not, I'm not sure. It doesn't say the commissioner will do the study. Councilman Horn: The State does it. Councilman Geving: By adoption of resolution. Are you making a motion to adopt a resolution in that respect? Councilman Johnson: In that respect, yes. I will be following the discussion that we move the cc~missioner and say that we believe that we have an unsafe condition and we would like for him to determine what those speeds should be and that those speeds should be reduced on his recommendation. I thought it was very interesting, I didn't find anything that said anything about the trails. That if there was a trail, that you can reduce it. Roger Knutson: Separate Statute. Councilman Johnson: But I did find some speed zones about school zones which we need to take up for Laredo Drive. We can drop, when school kids are coming in and out, we can drop Laredo Drive to 15 mph and that's by, almost City Council action. Very little input fro~ the con~nissioner on that one. I think that's something we need to take up in the very near future. Those are my three burning issues. Councilman Geving: Jay, I just wanted to say, certainly on my behalf, I don't know if the other councilmembers agree but you put a lot of personal time into this and I appreciate that because you took it and ran with it. You went up to the site. Did some radar studies and I think your report was very well respected by the Public Safety Commission. The Public Safety Commission in turn took your reconm~endations and I think for the most part pretty much was in line with your recommendation and recommended back to us that all the conditions are certainly feasible. It's entirely an engineering matter but those recon~nendations that are safety in nature or police in nature were followed as you recommended them. So I appreciate what you've done. Secondly, I just want to say for the record that on October 10th when we discussed this with the Near Mountain people and Jim had 12 issues that he had brought before us, we had 38 City Council M~eting - October 24, 1988 given our staff quite a directive to come back tonight with a resolution to those 12 items and I'm happy to see that our staff did one whale of a job. The Public Safety Con~nission. Jay Johnson. Gary Warren and Larry Brown and if I miss anybody, Jim Chaffee and others, gave to us tonight a very, very comprehensive report. From what I'm hearing, there's really only 1 or 2 small issues. All the rest have been resolved in my view and we're only talking about things such as the slow, children at play signs which I believe should be in place at that location. I know personally when I see a slow sign, I respect that. I do slow down and I think for the most part people do do that. I'd like to see some signs up there that Say slow, children at play. Whether it's on Town Line Road and at Pleasant view. In terms of the stop signs. I think that's an issue that we can put in the hands of certainly some engineering people, specialists in the field and we can resolve that. I think in the 3 or 4 recommended locations that came out, I'm very much in favor of what I saw. I too believe in what Peter said. I think that's probably a good location for one and the other three that Jay had identified in his msmorandum to the Council. All of the items that I saw here tonight, the culvert has been protected. I'm happy to see that. The issues regarding the pond cleaning. I think staff is moving ahead on that. We can identify that as an item that's been done. We're going to move ahead hopefully later this evening on the speed reduction and if we pass the resolution as proposed by Councilman Johnson, we can do that which leaves us basically with the stop signs. I'm pleased to see, especially pleased to see that we did a good job of taking care of the street lights that were proposed. We not only did you, we almost doubled the number that you requested Jim but I think the 4 that are being proposed will give you good lighting in that area. All the other issues as far as I'm concerned, is that your feeling as well Councilman Horn and Bill? That all the other issues outside of the stop sign issue and the slow, children at play and the speed have been resolved. Is that true? Do you know of any others? Do you know of any others that I mentioned other than those three? The stop signs. The Caution, Children at Play and the speed zone. Are there any others? Clark. Councilman Horn: Yes. There's the issue of the trail and what type of trail is feasible, if any, at that point. I think there's another issue of a recc~endation that was brought up at Public Safety which I think is good. It's a slow curve sign which are not related to the stop signs. I think those issues should be addressed. In fact, I believe those are the areas where we can make the most progress on this particular item. As a matter of fact, I got a different impression when I read through these Minutes than what I'm hearing here. I consider this with what Candy Takkunen gave, a member of the Public Safety Commission and when they met, they did not have privy to the engineering studies that were done at that point. Therefore, their recon~endations were based on not having an engineering studies. They said they would go along with these recommendations as long as they conform with the engineering studies. Now I have the impression here tonight that we believe that staff recc~nended stop signs. If I read this report properly, none of the stop signs were found to be significant or could not be justified from an engineering study. Therefore, it seems to me that the only thing we really have to control speed out there from a legal standpoint is the slow curve sign. The other point I'd like to make is in response to Jay's excerpts from the Minnesota Traffic Regulation Book. My opinion is that Minnesota is not as progressive as many other states in terms of traffic regulations. My feeling is, in having traveled in both areas, the State of California has had to deal with traffic issues far greater than we hopefully will ever see, is a far better authority on traffic than our own Minnesota 39 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Highway Department. If you'll look through the excerpts that we got from our Public Safety Commission, many of the logic behind much of what we're talking about here came from California. It wasn't something that didn't make sense to put up slow children signs. That wasn't something this group made up. It wasn't something Public Safety made up. It was made up by experts who have gone through a lot more traffic studies than we've done here. I don't think we can laugh those off as being ridiculous. To me those are valid inputs that we're getting from people who are far better versed in this subject than we are. I think to ignore that is irresponsible on this body. So I think we have to very carefully consider these things. I was very happy to hear Jay's corrments saying that maybe we need to bring a traffic expert into this because I don't think we have anything at this point that justifies our willy hilly stop sign placement as suggested. I think that's one of the reasons we see so many stop sign violations in this city is because we've done that in the past and nobody stops for signs in this city. I think they're ridiculous. The other thing I'd like to conxnent on is the development contract. That is our message to potential homeowners. We put in conditions in a development contract that is given to the developer of an area. It is encumbant upon him to pass those requirements onto people moving into those areas. I don' t think it' s city personnel' s responsibility to tell a neighborhood what's going to happen in their neighborhood. They're not qualified to do that. They certainly don't have access to all the history that's gone on. A way to do that is through the developer and interpretation of his development contract. I don't like to hear that the employees of this city misled people into thinking they were going to get things they didn't. First of all, they were not qualified to give you those answers and you shouldn't take answers from them unless you check into it. Also I feel that we're seeing the effects of not having a trail plan. There was not a trail plan put into place when that development started. In my opinion, it's not adequate yet today. I think there's a lot more work that has to be done. A year ago when they brought us a trail plan, we made suggestions as to things that should be added to that. Those have not taken place so I think there's still a lot of work that has to happen. I think that trail plan has to be in place before development starts. Not something that gradually creeps up on a developer as he goes into a development. I think that pretty well spells out where I'm coming from on this issue. I would be very relunctant to put in anything that doesn't meet a sound engineering criteria and some basic logic done by people who understand traffic. Councilman Geving: Very appropriate co~nents Clark. I appreciate it and I think the Council has learned from your suggestions here on what we should do. I want to read into the record, we keep bringing up this manual of uniform Traffic Control Devices. For the public, this is for your consumption. This is a memorandutm from the City Attorney and I'm going to quote. "The City is therefore required by Statute to abide by this manual. My recon~nendation is the Manual must be strictly adhered to. This will go a long way to insulate the City from liability claims." I think that's a very important document and we, as a Council, very, very much lean on our counsel to give us that kind of advice. Believe me, we follow it very dearly. When we get into trouble, we usually lean to the right and we ask Roger for his opinion. We have generally given very, very good sound advice and I want you to read that into the article for tonight because this is the basis for a lot of future discussions or questions that someone may have on why we did something or why we did not. We're trying always to stay out of litigation. Bill, why don't you take it from here. City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: Thanks Dale. I'd like to get a little bit of information, to change the flow around here for a second. When I read the packet I think the standard for a 4 way stop was 500 vehicle trips per hour for an 8 hour period. Right? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Boyt: What's the standard for a 2 way stop sign? Off hand. Half that? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt: You've got the book Jay. Maybe you can look it up. Councilman Johnson: It's in the page before that I gave you there. Basically an intersection of a less important road with a main road with application of normal right-of-way rules unduly hazardous. Councilman Boyt: I heard something about 300 also. I'm trying to get a base. Councilman Johnson: There's no numbers listed there. Larry Brown: There's no numbers. The MUTCB states that it either bases a one way stop where you come into a T intersection or it comes into a multiway stop where... Councilman Boyt: Okay, give me the number for a one way stop sign? Larry Brown: There is not a number for a one way stop sign. Councilman Boyt: So the only time there's a number is for a 4 way stop sign? Larry Brown: For a multiway stop sign. Councilman Boyt: More than one way? And then it's 500? Larry Brown: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: So I guess that would cover a 2 way stop sign. I'm sure, we haven't done this but I think following up on what Clark says, it would be very easy to find all sorts of stop signs in town where we have them, we don't have a great many but the ones that we have, I would venture to say that few of them meet this criteria. So we have already gentlemen, accepted whatever liability there is in stop sign placement. There is or there isn't by what we've already done. Councilman Johnson: I don't think you should dwell on this 500 number because it doesn't mean anything. The 500 is, if you hit that 500 criteria, that's one place the manual is definitely recon~nending you should put in a stop sJlgn because of that criteria. Also, there's a 200 criteria if there's people involved. Councilman Boyt: Jay, maybe I misread your figures but I thought they said minimums. Minimum traffic volumes. 41 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Geving: Per hour[ Councilman Boyt: Per hour. We don't have that kind of traffic. Councilman Johnson: That is one place where, if you're at that minimum, then they believe you definitely should have a stop sign at that location. These criteria in this manual is only three of many criteria. There is other criteria that aren't taken into that the engineers... Councilman Boyt: Hang on with me Jay for a little bit okay. That's one of the criteria. We have all sorts of stop signs that don't meet it. There are others. I appreciate your background as was previously mentioned. What people are really after here is a safe place for their children and themselves. Jay, I guess I disagree with you. The folks who are making this recommendation are adults and they've thought about it. They've discussed it in their cor~nittee. They live there. They are going to live with the results of this and I'm for giving them the stop signs that Public Safety recommended. I don't think we need to do an engineering study that's going to tell us what our existing engineering study has already told us. From an engineering standpoint, you can't justify stop signs there. But that's not the standpoint we need to be working from. We're talking about, how do we slow traffic down and I agree with the information staff gave us that said stop signs in this situation are probably not going to do what the people want them to do. Give me a better alternative. Until we have a better alternative, I think we owe it to these people to put stop signs in there. Public Safety has said, if you discount engineering, which we either decide to discount or not, Public Safety has said, put them in in some of those locations where they're requested in. I would like to see us on an interim basis put them in where Public Safety said it makes sense from a public safety standpoint. MnDot doesn't have the 2 footers out there with no trail or any other place to walk besides the street. None of us want those kids out there but they're out there. I don't think we have to have a detailed engineering study to tell us what we've already got from our engineering study. Which is that the engineering study won't support the sign. Let's go ahead and do it from a public safety standpoint which you've pointed out we can do. We've already done it whether we can do it or not. I think that where we should direct our engineers to spend some time is how do we control speed. We apparently don't control speed with twisting roads. Maybe we make the problem even worse. Clark, curve regulatory information is worthless because 3 years ago you guys put 2 signs on the road I live on. One of them says 15 mph. I'll give you $5.g0 for every car that slows down to 15 mph in a day. Councilman Horn: Those were wrong too. Councilman Boyt: It doesn't happen. They probably were wrong although the engineering study said the safe speed is 15 mph. We were told, you can't enforce it. So we probably shouldn't have those signs out there. I don't hold hope for slow curve signs. The trail system. Let's drift down to the trail system for a minute. The trail system has a lot of things that needs to have worked out but I think we need to find out if the community supports the concept or not before we spend a lot of money researching how we should build them. What side of the street we should put them on. We should find out, do people what the trail system in this town. When you think about a trail system, I sure 42 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 hope you don't think about your front yard. Instead you think about TH 101~ The fact that it doesn't have a trail. Minnewashta Blvd. doesn't have a trail and we're never going to build one without a major funding effort from the City. So I hope when the neighborhood considers the trail system, they think beyond their own front door. Although TH 101 practically is the front door of this neighborhood. So, in brief, I don't support an engineering study that's going to show us what we already know but I do support the stop signs. I think the trail system situation in this development reflects what Clark was talking about but in 1983 when this development contract was approved, you guys apparently thought that the City could build a trail. Well, I guess what we see as a result is the City can't build these trails and it sure is a rotten time to go in and try to build them now when people have their houses established and we should have built th~m first which is somewhat of a different point of view maybe than Clark but basically I think we agree. Let's put the stop signs in with it and continue to have the engineer study how we control speed from an engineering standpoint. Councilman Geving: I think that we can move on to resolve everything remaining left on the agenda here and that basically is the speed reduction. If we could get a resolution tonight from any of the councilmembers to have that study be performed, we could move with that now. What I'm trying to say is that I think we need to move ahead with the resolution for the speed reduction and Councilman Johnson has agreed to do that later on. I think we need to put up the slow, children at play signs. I very, very strongly believe that. If it's just two signs, fine. But there should be one going into Near Mountain. There should be one on the north end. Maybe another one but we need to put those in. I don't care if there's 2 or 3. In terms of the stop signs, I agree entirely with Bill. When I came here tonight I had identified the 3 stop signs. Mr. Peter McKay identified another one for me. I don't think we need 9 or 11 or 15 but I do think we need some key stop signs in the development that should have been placed there probably when the development was created. It's now time to do it. We recognize the problem. Let's resolve it. I remember very distinctly many years ago we didn't have a signal light at Dakota and TH 5. We had to kill 5 people before that signal light went in. ~nat's true. I can tell you for sure. We had to kill 5 people. We don't want that kind of accident to occur. If we recognize a problem, let's correct it now. My feeling is, if it's 3 signs or 4 signs in Near Mountain, let's put the stop signs in. I agree entirely with you on that Bill. Now it doesn't preclude us from having a study at some time but let's do it now. In terms of the pedestrian bike path, I don't know what those gates are going to do. I don't know what kind of fabrication you're going to go forth with. I've been out there and I've looked at it. It's just a tarred strip where the kids take their bikes, go across the road and head for the park area. If you put gates in there, they won't be able to do that. Our only intent is to stop 3 or 4 wheelers from going up that bike path. Now tell me why we couldn't do as suggested, just put a nice 6 inch post right in the middle of that thing and they won't use it. What kind of gates are you planning on using Gary? Gary Warren: The gates are similar to what we used at Lake Ann Park trail right down there. Basically they allow bicycle traffic to go through. They're locked in position with a gap between basically to allow bikes to pass through or people with strollers or anything to get through. They don't come tight together. There's a gap. Councilman Geving: They're not chained together or anything? 43 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren: No. And they are tandem locked with our City locks on them so that if we do have to get in there, we can easily do that. Councilman Geving: Then I'll withdraw my statement. If they do work and they have worked in the past. You know what you're doing. I'll back off on that. I have no other questions or comments Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hamilton: I haven't really changed my position. I'm interested in seeing the best thing done for the area up there. The people who live there have the best knowledge of what the problems are. I never thought I'd waste so much time trying to figure out if we should put a stop sign up or not. All the money we've spent just screwing around with this thing. If we do another study it's going to be, we should all be shot. Just put the damn signs in. Get it over with and let's see what the results are. I don't think that's too hard to figure out. The same with the pedestrian path. Let's put the path in. Let's mark it and try it. See how it works. Let's try some of these things. It's not in concrete. It's not set forever so let's try it and see if it works. Jim and Peter and going to be watching. They're going to let us know along with the other neighbors up there. If something doesn't work, come on back and tell us you need to make an adjustment. I just think we're wasting a heck of a lot of time over some dumb issue that we should have resolved a long time ago. Let's get on with it. We've got more important things to deal with here. Not from a standpoint of saving a life or anything but this could have been done a long time ago. Councilman Boyt: I have a comment in response to part of that. Listening to what the engineer said about the road width, there is no trail system available so it's not a matter of putting it in, it's not built into the roadway. Mayor Hamilton: If the road's 32 feet where the trail was supposed to be, I don't see any reason why we can't stripe 4 feet. Councilman Boyt: It's not. Mayor Hamilton: It's not 32 feet? Gary Warren: We've got two road sections out there 34 1/2 feet back to back and 31 feet back to back as you get further to the west. State Statutes require that if you're going to put up a bike path on the road, that you have to have one in each direction. Councilman Johnson: What about a pedestrian path? Mayor Hamilton: That's not a State road. Gary Warren: This Statute applies to roads as far as pedestrian traffic is concerned. Mayor Hamilton: Well, tell them we didn't see it. Councilman Boyt: Gary, didn't you say in the staff report that that road was 32 feet wide because it was required for the turns in that road? 44 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren: The discussion with the amount of curves in the road...when the preliminary plan was brought in here initially from the development, was hey, we've got some curvy roads here which means we're going to need a wider street section to accomodate traffic. It wasn't from a trail standpoint. Councilman Boyt: So that's my point. If we stripe a road that was never designed to have a trail on it, we may be going a little far there. Councilman Johnson: It might be dangerous. Councilman Horn: I'd like to point out under the children at play sign provided to us from the Southern California section of the Transportation Division. California law does not recognize and federal standards discourage use of children at play signs. There are times when installation of signals result in an increase in pedestrian accidents. It says if you're going to think of doing that, you should answer this series of questions. There's a series of 5 questions. The answer to every one of thsm in this case is no. I don't understand when we have experts who give us testimony, why we're going to reinvent the wheel and try to engineer something better than they could just because we want to try something. That philosophy doesn't buy it. Two years ago when Councilman Boyt was running for office he said that we don't listen to our professional staff is the problem with this Council. I think it's still a problem with this Council. We have professional input and we're not listening. That's all I have to say. Councilman Johnson: In this case, listening to our professional staff and I don't think they went far enough in their evaluation. I think they read the manual too narrowly and did not take into consideration, that's why I'm pushing for transportation experts to give us the opinion. I wouldn't be saying Dear Mr. Transportation Expert, look at this manual and tell us if our staff can rad the same as everybody else can read because if they do that, yes. We will get the same answer back. What I'm saying is, get a Dear Mr. Transportation Expert, I want you to take into consideration that there are no off street trails in this area. There are a lot of kids. There are curvy roads. There's a trail coming in at this location. The existing cars are going outside of their traffic lanes to make certain curves and things and that we are looking for a recommendation that, look at all reasons for which we would control traffic here. This manual does state that you should not, it does not say you shall not. It says you should not put in stop signs to regulate speed. You get a little difficulty when we have adopted this manual as our city manual for streets as we're required by law to if we use those excuses but I think ther are plenty of excuses that we can cite and when we go to the traffic expert, we should be citing to him what we believe the good excuses are already and having him confirm them and putting his little stamp of approval upon it to back us up here. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask Gary one quick question before I make a motion. Gary, how much is this study going to cost us? Gary Warren: I can only guess. About 2 grand. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I guess that seals the deal. I move that we put in stop signs as indicated by the Public Safety Com~ission. That stop signs be put in place until...or if the neighborhood says this isn't working, pull them out 45 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 but for right now. So I move that we put them at Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge. Castle Ridge, both places where that hits. That we put them at Trapper's Pass and Near Mountain Blvd.. At Mountain Way and Near Mountain Blvd That one sign be positioned on the east side of the corner of Near Mountain Bl~d. and it looks like Castle Ridge. Councilman Geving: So we're talking about 4 signs Bill? Councilman Boyt: Public Safety said frc~n a safety standpoint they could justify those signs and all I'm doing is adding a sign at Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Mayor Hamilton: Will your motion include putting in speed reduction curve signs with the speed reduction? Councilman Boyt: If the neighborhood wants that, I have no... Mayor Hamilton: That's what they asked for. Councilman Boyt: Put in whatever you want to put in. Mayor Hamilton: It's your motion. I'm asking you to include that as a part of your motion. To put in curve signs with the reduction of speed. Councilman Boyt: No. My motion would not include that. Councilman Geving: And I would second that motion. I think we need the stop signs. The other issue is the curve signs. Are you only dealing with the stop signs? Councilman Boyt: Only dealing with the stop signs. Councilman Geving: You're not going to deal with the Slow, Children at Play? Because I think they're just as important. Councilman Boyt: Alright. If the second will accept it, we'll go with the stop signs and the Slow, Children at Play signs as requested by the neighborhood. The stop signs by the Public Safety Department and the Slow, Children at Play signs. I have serious questions about Slow, Children at Play signs but let's try it. If it's not working, we'll pull them out. Councilman Geving: I second that. Councilman Horn: One further clarification. The recommendation by the Public Safety Commission as I understand it was that these signs would be recorm~ended... Mayor Hamilton: The Public Safety Commission said they would allow it. That's the motion. It doesn't matter that Public Safety said that they wanted an engineering study. 46 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I agree with you Clark on what you're saying. It's just that's how I referenced the points. I retract anything that implies that the Public Safety Co~mission is actually recommending these signs. (There was some fading in and out of the tape during the next few minutes of the meeting. ) Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the installation of stop signs at the intersections of Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge, both north and south; Mountain Way and Near Mountain Boulevard; and Trappers Pass and New Mountain Boulevard. Also, that Slow, Children at Play signs be installed as requested by the neighborhood. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Resolution #88-116: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt a resolution that the State conduct a speed study for the Near Mountain neighborhood. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: ...the motion was to put in the stop signs... Councilman Geving: But you got everything else. Jim Wehrle: The curve signs, yes or no? Not going to be addressed? Mayor Hamilton: No. He wouldn't put it in his motion. It was addressed. Everything was addressed that was in the memo. Jim Wehrle: Is the no right turn sign going to be corrected or left as is? Councilman Boyt: Left as is. Councilman Johnson: For right now. Now next year, if we have the money, we'll correct the intersection. That intersection hopefully will not stay the way it is. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a follow on motion. I would like to move that staff do more than a hip shot, $2,000.00 cost estimate on the engineering study. I'd like to get an actual estimate to do that study. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. Councilman Johnson: I can't believe it's going to cost $2,000.00 and take 40 hours to do such a study. Mayor Hamilton: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Councilman Horn: My only concern with that is, I totally agree we need that type of study. I think we need it for the whole city. We talked before about being consistent throughout the whole city. I think we need it for all because as Bill said, we've got a ton of stop signs that don't meet these requirements. I think they should all... Councilman Johnson: I don't think that, these requirements are not the only requirements for a stop sign. They are the three most obvious requirements for 47 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 a stop sign. I do believe that there's a whole lot of other intersections of the City that should be looked at. Maybe that should be an engineering project to evaluate and see what a cost estimate to do an engineering study of a larger portion of the City. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded for staff to get an actual cost estimate for an engineering study of the whole City. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried. Jim Wehrle: Can I ask a clarifying question? What you voted for, is that going to happen next spring? Next week? When. Gary Warren: The signs will be ordered tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: How long does it take to get the signs? Gary Warren: Two weeks. Mayor Hamilton: How long will it take to put them up after that? Gary Warren: Underground utility clearances are getting better so I would say we'd have them out there by 3 weeks. Councilman Johnson: We could get the underground utility clearances now couldn't we? Gary Warren: If we can get Mr. Lundgren to cooperate putting frames on also. Jim Wehrle: All we want are the posts. We don't want them framed in totally. Just wooden posts. Councilman Johnson: They're not allowed to be framed in. Jim Wehrle: By way of, the Slow, Children at Play signs. It was left a little vague. There are three entrances. The one co~ing in from Shorewood is the third one that we're concerned with. That's okay. Councilman Geving: We authorized the three signs. Jim Wehrle: And regarding all this discussion about people crossing the center line. There is no center line. Is that con, non? Councilman Boyt: There aren't on residential streets. You don't want a center line. Jim Wehrle: Thank you gentlemen very much. RECEIVE GRANDVIEW ROAD SEWER ANDWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY. Gary Warren: Council authorized at our last meeting that staff should have the feasibility study for the Grandview Road sewer and water prepared...but in short 48 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 form, the report did obtain some additional information as directed by Council as far as the existing system, s that are out there. Their age, their updating and such as far as that's concerned. Likewise, we did some research on funding sources and the majority of the report in the appendix has got that in there. In all honestly, in talking with Bud, I do not believe that we would qualify for any funding programs... Basically the report says that if we're going to do sanitary sewer and water for the Grandview properties, that we should run it on the current alignment for the 33 foot right-of-way. I feel a little more comfortable after receiving the report here that the septic systems were accepted...Anderson property have had some upgrading here in the recent past so that was our intent originally. To try to get whatever we could to know what the next time limit is out there. So the report itself recommends that the immediate issue, the water service for the Bernier property, basically just having them redrill their well or install new wells is the most appropriate route at this time. I think the report, the question that I have in my mind is what is the mechanism that we decide then if we do go ahead with public sewer and water systems out there. That's the hardest thing, or has been the hardest thing for I think all of us in this. The report will serve itself in the future as far as the costs for the improvements out there and the best way to do it. So I don't think we lost anything there except maybe some time but we should be thinking about when is the right time for sewer and water out there. I should also clarify, in future discussions with the City Attorney, as far as the public opportunity here to go ahead and declare an emergency out there and certainly with some of the bidding requirements that take time here. It's pretty finite and particular in that we could initiate a public improvement project or declare an emergency for the problem out there that basically right now would have to be the Bernier water. We could run water out there specifically for that property on an emergency basis but to service the rest of the area, would be extending ourselves beyond those provisions. Just to back off from my recommendation there. In my opinion, the whole area, if we wanted to go ahead it would have to fall on the regular bidding requirements. Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't the property, it gets sewer and water I would think when the people who own the property want to subdivide it. That's usually the determining factor. If the 5 property owners there all decided they are ready to subdivide their land and put more homes in there, they're going to have to have sewer and water and that's going to tell us that it's time to put it in. Other than having problems. They're having septic systems that are running out on the ground. Gary Warren: I think our reaction has been, what happens if a month from now another septic system fails or a well goes out? Nobody knows for sure. Mayor Hamilton: I know the Bernier's are here and I think some other neighbors are here. Resident: You speak of the subdividing. I don't think that's a concern of any of ours. I think we're out there and we like it the way we have it. I don't think there's any of us that want water and sewer to subdivide. Mayor Hamilton: I'm just saying, that's usually want generates that type of activity. Then that helps us to make our decision as to what we're going to do. But then those things change. People decide to sell their property and whoever may buy a property may decide to subdivide it also. 49 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Larry Brown: I met with the residents this evening after digesting the feasibility study and they have requested that I come before the Council and pursue the idea of running individual services for the sanitary sewer and forgetting about the water at this point. I might put our consultant on the spot here in asking his opinion of running individual services at this tJ~me if the Council wishes to pursue that option. Some of the drawbacks that are related to them is that puts the Sinnen property at a distance of 450 sanitary sewer service. There's obviously some drawbacks to that as well. The residents felt that by trying to pursue the individual services, the costs would be cut down extensively. Gary Warren: I think the report addresses that pretty much and was my strong concern out there that as the Will property, the Held property were having problems with their systems and wanting to connect into our system, that we started looking at facing the situation. We were going to have a lot of long individual laterals coming across country which is going to be a terrible maintenance headache and just a very inefficient way of providing service to the property. From that standpoint, I personally would be very much against allowing... Councilman Geving: As I recall, this whole situation started with Mrs. Bernier requesting us to look at this and her concern was water. Only water. I understand from looking at the feasibility study, that it's possible and you made the statement just a minute ago that the Bernier's have one of two options. They can install their own well. Upgrade your own well on your own or on an emergency basis, and I assume right now that this would be an emergency, that we could proceed with the Bernier's getting a hook-up to the City water system directly. All the rest of the study could be put on hold as far as the sewer and water for the rest of the residents in the area until such future time as they subdivide or whatever. Now I understand that this may come down to a public health issue in terms of the sewer. In one case. But for the sake of expediency tonight, I would say let's proceed with the Bernier's and their request for water as this was originally planned. I like the study. We got a lot of information here. It's not going to be wasted but let's proceed with the Bernier's. Let them hook up with the city water system and be done with it and let the rest of the people who are satisfied with their situation, at some future time we can make a project out of this if there's a subdivision in that area. Then we' 11 address it at that time. I think that's exactly what the recommendation of this whole study is about. It's leave it alone. Is that how you're reading this Gary? Gary Warren: I'm concerned about, to run water service to the Bernier property, the way I would be comfortable with it is if it comes down Grandview and up the road. Not to come cross country through backyard easements. Councilman Johnson: That's $27,~00.00. Gary Warren: It doesn't have to go all the way from there. You can just stop it at the Bernier's so you would save about... Councilman Johnson: They're the last one. 50 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Geving: They should be the first one shouldn't they? Wills are already in so you don't have to worry about them. But anyway, that's how I see this whole issue. It's really one person is the only one who's really having problems out there and that's Mr. and Mrs. Bernier and they're wanting water. Councilman Johnson: The one thing I would have like to have seen in this study is are there alternate sewage treatment sites available if the site fails? I saw them address the condition of the site but not alternate sites. Gary Warren: I guess with the limited time available here to get back to the Council was a factor. Also, the added expense if the Council wished to authorize any. Plus, you could have Machmeier... Councilman Geving: It says here, based on page 3 of the report, the Bernier's should either construct a new well or be permitted to connect to the city system. The cost for Bernier's to install a 1 inch copper service between lot lines from the Marsh Circle cul-de-sac would be approximately $2,500.00 plus any connection fees. Now doesn't that make sense? Why not? Councilman Horn: Because we're doing exactly what we started doing here and I'd like to know how we got the Held property put in in this cobweb method. Mayor Hamilton: The what? Councilman Horn: How did we get the Held property put in? Gary Warren: Early on we had a request for them to hook into the Hidden Valley system and there wasn't anything negotiated at that time or the developer willing to grant that to allow that to happen. I guess in all honesty, I would have to say that we made a mistake in that regard because like with the Held property, we allowed them to connect in with the understanding with a written agreement that they would pay their appropriate assessments if sanitary sewer and water were brought into that area. Councilman Horn: Two out of the five people here have had their problems pretty well fixed. Granted it's a bandaid method. They have no incentive at all to want sewer and water to come in. They're got their problem solved. These other people don't have their problem solved. What we're hearing tonight is, to solve their problem the way that we did it for the Wills and the Helds doesn't make sense and I agree with that. That doesn't make sense because we've got a hodge podge system if we do that but I don't know how those ever got in there in the first place. I think that was a mistake. Gary Warren: The Will property also, there's quite a difference of elevation. So as this report addresses here, we would not have serviced it from this connection stub here. Councilman Horn: Then why were they included in this study? Gary Warren: They were included because we were looking at the general area and they were a part of the system. Councilman Horn: Well, that's an automatic no when you go in for a poll on this situation. 51 City Council /~eting - October 24, Resident: It's just been a...we talk so often about not wanting to piecemeal and we have 5 homes already with 2 pieces and that's what I have never understood at all. How they let Harvey do all of this. We were never aware of it. None of us knew this was happening to Harvey's property. It just seems unbelieveable that all of this has happened and we just sit there wondering what's going to happen to us and we don't know because as you say, Harvey is certainly completely exonerated from this whole thing. It's 14, 15, now we're 16 to $20,000.00. He's free and clear...and the rest of us... I don't know how this happened and nobody seems to tell you. Mayor Hamilton: Mary, you wanted to say something? Mary Bernier: We've been up here and asked long before...for that development for sewer and water for consideration to be hooked up to it. We were denied and Harvey sneaks in there...and the rest of us sit. Victoria Held: We did not request that we hook up to the City. What happened is right at the last moment the Bird family refused to sell the home because of failing septic. Called me at work, my realtor called me and told me what was going on. We were called then by the realtor selling the house, Mr. Mark Paul who said I've got a great deal for you. Two options. Either you pay the cost of digging the new septic yourself. Possibly they'll pay part of it. We agreed to pay half. Then he came to us again, the realtor selling us the house with the Birds and said, better system. You could hook up with the city. We didn't approach the City. We didn't know it was a possibility. He told us after he worked it all our for us. We waited and waited until we ready to hook up. ~nen when I started calling to ask the City about what's the hold up, then we were told about having to sign for assessments. Again, not told that there was already one family that wasn't going to share the cost. We were thinking it was going to be five families. Now it feels, as I told the other families here, it feels like we were sort of slapped around. Well, the heck with you. These folks are getting nothing but you've got to share the cost of it whether you want it or not. All of a sudden...I don't know if these folks can be stubbed in. This was sold. The whole house was sold. Councilman Horn: And you don't even have a permanent system. You could come back and have a radial system put in with the assessment? Mayor Hamilton: What you'd pay to have your system put in? Peter Held: Less than $2,700.00. That's 200 feet of sewer. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, Gary. How'd that happen? Gary Warren: I might add, the Wills, I'd have to check with Jean Meuwissen...but my direction to her when the Wills hooked up, like any City policy here, that they had to pay an appropriate lateral assessment in addition to our hook up charges so Jean in that case would generate a comparable assessment that the Hidden Valley people were paying for their sanitary sewer. The Wills will be paying for that so it's not like they're getting a free hook up. Likewise, if you're down to four connections here versus five, the sewer and water is not being extended further so the costs are not for five type system so the cost would be proportionately less to service the four properties 52 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 43 down there. Wills certainly are not getting out scott free~ Councilman Johnson: I heard that one of the very, very preliminary plans on the Ward property is that residential would be planned for the area in~nediately to the west which makes a lot of sense to put residential in next to residential. Maybe that is the time that we should be looking at how to bring this in and whether it should go towards the Ward's property versus to Near Mountain. In servicing the Sin~on's and the Anderson's off of the Ward property as that develops. I don't know what to do about the Bernier's at this time on their water problem. We didn't get any information on the depth of the well. They may be having a...or over the years been having a problem. I'm not sure. Gary Warren: If I could have Bud maybe address, we did look at topography out there. As far as servicing this area from the Ward property, it wasn't practical to go west. Bud Osmundson: Well, the Will property might be. The existing stub and man hole that come up...were put in I'm sure for that... Councilman Boyt: Gary. ~ne reconxnendation of the consultants is not to extend the City sanitary sewer and water system. Is there some simple reason for why we should be doing this? Gary Warren: For why we should? Councilman Boyt: Yes, since the consultants say we shouldn't. Gary Warren: The consultant report was received Friday morning so he and I had some verbal conversations. So my cover memo that appears to conflict with their report, that's partly why. The report actually came out a little bit more strongly saying for right now maybe it's best just to allow Bernier's to upgrade and hold and wait and see what happens but I think that is most directly pointed at when is the right time. We did get more information here as a part of this study. He did say that the systems, some of the septic systems have been upgraded. That was my greatest fear is that we have a bunch of 30 year old systems out here that are going to go down again here as soon as we get done addressing one. That's been my thrust all along here is to bite the bullet so to speak at the appropriate time here and service this property I guess in the most appropriate w~y for the urban service area. Councilman Boyt: Okay, as I recall, the total cost figure was somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000.00? Mayor Hamilton: $60,000.00 to $70,000.00. $66,000.00. Councilman Horn: Was that for the 5 or 4 properties? Councilman Boyt Four properties so we're talking $15,500.00 a property. Have the neighbors indicated what they want to do? Councilman Horn: They don't want it. Larry Brown: Again, they were interested in seeking private service in the ground to help... 53 City Council Meeting ' October 24~ 1988 Peter Held: We paid less than $2,700.00 for a 200 foot sewer. Actually it was $1,500.00 in labor to install the sewer. The other approximate $1,200.00 was for the trunk or the access charges. Councilman Boyt: I think that Clark makes a pretty good argument when he says that this isn't in the long term best interest of the City when we've got a good system to tap into it in an individual fashion like you're proposing. Since there's no desire on the part of the neighbors to spend $15,500.00 a piece to do it right, I suggest that we don't do it at all in line with the consultant and I so move. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Johnson: Larry, did the neighbors want just water at this time or just sewer at this time? Larry Brown: Sanitary sewer at this time. Mayor Hamilton: The Bernier's want water I believe. Councilman Geving: The only problem that I have with... The suggestion was made by Gary that we let the Bernier's upgrade. Okay, we're talking about $3,000.00. $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 to upgrade that well. They may have that well in there 5 or 6 years and this whole area will be developed along with the Ward property and whatever and now they've invested this money in the ground and we come along, with a construction project to upgrade the whole area and we'll do it again and they'll pay double. That doesn't make sense to me. I still believe that they should be hooked up directly with their water to the city system for $3,000.00. Pay for it once and be done with it but don't upgrade their system. It's up to them. It's their business but I'm looking at it from the City's standpoint it doesn't make sense to let them go ahead and do that and then somewhere down the line force them to hook up to the city system as well. Mayor Hamilton: I agree partially with what you're saying. If they can hook up off of Marsh Circle for whatever the cost is, a temporary hook up to get their water problem resolved, we should all them to do that and they need to understand completely that at some time when this property is subdivided, that there is going to be sewer and water put in the street the same as every other residential street in the city and you're going to receive a full assessment for that the same as the other property owners. The same as the Helds will on their sewer. It's a temporary solution but I think we have an opportunity to resolve the problem that they have. To get them out of a bad situation. I see no reason why we shouldn't allow that. Councilman Geving: Would the Bernier's go along with that suggestion? Mary or Tim? As a suggestion? Mary Bernier: Is there going to be any condemnation charges because ...$12,000.00. Councilman Boyt: There's already easements isn't there? 54 City Council M~=eting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren: No, we do not have an access easement. It was denied by the developer earlier on. Councilman Geving: This would be an easement through Lots 15 and 167 Mayor Hamilton: But if you're just going to run copper over there. Councilman Boyt: It's going to have to be deep enough to not freeze. Mayor Hamilton: Well, of course. Gary Warren: If the same policy is applied that was applied to the Held property and the Bernier's are allowed to make a connection if we can get it through to Marsh Circle, that they'd still be responsible for assessments for water and sewer if we do bring it through, then I think it's the same finality that you were portraying earlier in the fact that they're making an investment here to give tham some extra but that still is not going to absolve them from something... Councilman Geving: But I think they understand. They've got a current problem. As I understand it, they are willing to take that risk to get the water that they're after. I think they understand. If this whole area develops at some future time in a whole construction project and they come in at $60,000.00, that's the choice that they would make. They would get a full assessment. Gary Warren: So they'll spend $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 now to hook into Marsh Circle or ...Creek, well either way. Councilman Geving: Either way. Give thsm the choice. Mayor Hamilton: It's the same thing. If it's less to hook it up to City water than upgrading their well, than that's the decision they have to make. Jay, you had a question. Councilman Johnson: I was kind of curious as to what the problem with the well was. I've never really heard. I just keeping hearing there's a problem with the well. Mayor Hamilton: They don't get any water out of it. Larry (Resident): Actually I think the problem is the city pumping water into their wells and... Gary Warren: The City draws it's water from 300 and plus feet from a different aquafir system than these shallow wells. Larry Brown: We might have to be concerned. The reason condom%nation was brought up was as expected through our regular platting processes, there would be a 10 foot total utility easement going down the lot lines of 15 and 16. Staff will have to look into trying to find a contractor that would be willing to work within those confines. That was the reason that condemnation was brought up. We may have to pursue going through that process to gain that easement if necessary. 55 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Roger Knutson: I would point out. If they want to get a new well this fall, unless there's total cooperation from the people we need the easements from, it can't happen. It can take, in the normal process is 5 months. Councilman Boyt: Or attach them to the city. Roger Knutson: If we need to condemn property, we need 5 months minimum. Mayor Hamilton: There is a motion on the floor. Councilman Horn: I have a question. Is there any difference in whether you need to conda~n on a city hook up like this versus a well? In other words, would you need to condemn to drill a well? Councilman Boyt: No. It's their own well. Councilman Horn: So there's no problem but we would have to condemn if... The other thing is that it seems to me if you put a well in, you get something of value even if city water comes in. If you use it for private ground water and things where if you put this in, it's a total waste of money. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion and a second to follow our City's consultant and to do nothing, is that correct? Councilman Boyt: Right. Do nothing. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to follow the advice from the City's consultant, OSM, and to do nothing at this time for Grandview Road sewer and water. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried. Councilman Geving: Now where does that leave the Bernier's and the Simmon's? Gary Warren: Upgrade their own. Councilman Geving: You're on your own I guess. Do you understand that Mary? Mary Bernier: We've done that for 30 years. Councilman Geving: At least it's not going to cost you $15,000.00. Councilman Boyt: How much did the engineering study cost Gary? Gary Warren: I haven't received the bill on it but he had to do it so fast... Councilman Horn: A thing to remember, these things don't get cheaper with time. Councilman Boyt: Give us a ballpark. Bud Osmundson: About $2,500.00. 56 City Council M~eting - October 24~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: The next item on the agenda was number 7. It's been deleted. It was Kurver's Point trail and c~mpensation. It was advertised and then deleted and I'm not sure why but the Kurvers have been here all evening and they would like to be on the agenda with this item. Since it has been advertised and appeared in the paper, I would like to move that we allow the Kurvers to present their case. Councilman Geving: I'll second your motion. Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't that be with Visitor's Presentations since we have no packet? Mayor Hamilton: Where we're at right now is item number 7 and that's where we're going to handle it as. They have a handout if you want to look at it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss the Kurver's Point Trail Construction and Compensation at this point. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. KURVERS POINT TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND COMPENSATION. Councilman Geving: Why was this deleted now? Gary Warren: We received the information Thursday morning and in our staff report... Larry's been trying since Friday to catch up with them. Mel Kurvers: I'll make it brief. My feeling on there, I would like to get this put the trail compensation. We don't like the idea of putting a trail in but if we have to, we would like to be treated compensation wise the same as Saddlebrook and some of the others. We've given up land along TH 101 for the trail along there. We have no problem with that. That calculated out and based on the cheapest lot, it comes to almost $60,000.00. That's a lot of money. If you put the trail around the interior in the project, we don't like to do it but if you're going to ask us for it, then we guess...like the rest. Saddlebrook and...building permits and... Councilman Geving: Do you have an estimate of that cost Mel? Mel Kurvers: On which is that? Councilman Geving: On the second issue. If it's placed on the interior. Mel Kurvers: If we put it in with concrete, which is what I feel it should be, it would be roughly $12,000.00. Councilman Horn: Is that what was requested was concrete? Councilman Boyt: I think that's what you wanted. Mel Kurvers: It was just a trail. It never came out as concrete. Councilman Horn: So it's not a sidewalk? 57 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: It would be 5 feet wide. Councilman Horn: But it would be asphalt. Gary Warren: A 6 foot trail was provided in the plans. 6 foot bituminous. Mel Kurvers: The 6 foot was bituminous. Councilman Boyt: The width is determined by what you build it out of and where it is and what the uses are going to be. There's a lot of variety there but when they put it in the residential area, on TH 101 it's going to be a different width than it's going to be when it runs through your development. It's going to be narrow through your development. Mel Kurvers: I just feel that if a trail has to go in, it should be something that would add to the development and not something that's going to take away from it. Mayor Hamilton: I guess this is an issue we've discussed before when we looked at the platting process with Kurver's Point. Some of the councilmembers wanted to have a trail along TH 101 that would run for what M~i, about a quarter of a mile I guess through your property or half mile and end? Mel Kurvers: It's a little over 1,600 feeet. Mayor Hamilton: A 1,600 foot long trail beginning on his property and ending when it got to the Sosin property. That's great. I suppose a lot of people drive over there and park and get out and walk back and forth and then drive home again. Then the same with the interior, I suppose it's possible that the people who live there may want to have a trail in there but it's not a huge development. There are not a lot of homes and I would think that an internal trail doesn't really accomplish a whole lot either. In any case, either way, if the trail is put in, I think Mel has a very good point that if a trail, an internal trail is put in, that the City should construct it and pay for it and then recover our costs out of lot fees as lots as sold and homes are built. The same as we have done for other developments in the city. I don't think he's asking for anything that hasn't been done previously. Councilman Geving: I could see the need for gaining a trail easement along TH 101. We've always had the vision of a trail system along TH 101 connecting the downtown to Pleasant View and so forth into the northern areas such as Near Mountain. We wanted that kind of a system for a while. Internally, I can't see the reason why we would need to have the residents, I think there's about 40 homes aren't there approximately? Right around 40 homes in this small development and except for their own use of such a trail syst~n, I really don't see any need for it. Although it's in the development contract, I suspect personally I just don't see why it needs to be there in such a small development because on the north end you've got the Colonial Addition and on the south you have Mr. and Mrs. Sosin's property and you're right in the middle. Where are they going to go. I hadn't seen this before. Kurvers Point request here. Their request to us to consider this but for $12,000.00, my personal feeling is that it's totally not necessary and I would like to see this removed from the requirements. I just don't see any reason for having the trail within the 58 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Kurver's development. That's all I have Councilman Johnson: I do see the need for the, we just sat here and talked about Near Mountain, the kids playing on the street. We don't want kids playing on the street. If you don't give them a sidewalk to walk down the street and connect to the trail system that we're putting up for referendum that we will eventually have a trail system running from Near Mountain all the way to downtown. That's the objective. At this location we have to get that. Now we have to get from the subdivisions, the people onto it. Too bad that years ago the City did not perceive to do this for Colonial Estates and for Fox Hollow and for the other subdivisions to where we have the inner sidewalks leading out to the overall trail systsms so we don't have to walk on the streets. So we don't have the neighbors coming in 5-10 years from now, like they are for Near Mountain this week, saying hey, you messed up. I think this trail system within these developments is needed. I don't remember exactly, I don't have the data in front of me. We don't have the development contract or our discussion when we put in these trails. I don't think we have enough information tonight to take any kind of action tonight. I'm not going to do anything on one piece of paper. I need to see that the plans, it says here the developer will submit plans for approval. I don't see those plans. I'm not going to talk about compensation until I see those plans. We have negotiated with other subdivisions. You put in the trails, we won't charge you the trail fees. I think that's what we're working on here. You want to pay the trail fees and they agree at the time that they would rather put in the trails than pay the trail fees as far as I can tell but now we've got to look back at the Minutes of those meetings and see that but we can't tell that from this piece of paper. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have adequate information so we better not take any action tonight. Councilman Boyt: This fits right into the category that Clark repeatedly hits me over the head about. Last minute changes. We've got a development contract. A development contract that was agreed to after a good bit of discussion and I remember it that night. I think you have an excellent development. I'm surprised that having this, as Dale said, having just sat through a development coming in after the builder is gone and saying, we've got a big problem. That we can turn around and say we don't need trails off the street. Saddlebrook, you mentioned Saddlebrook. Gary, don't run off, I've got a question for you about Saddlebrook. When we approved that development contract there were two trails in there as I recall and the developer said he'd build both of them. Do you remember that? Gary Warren: The developer in Saddlebrook, in building the trails, about 4,200 feet of trails and the City agreed to reimbursing a percentage of his costs. Councilman Boyt: But he's basically, in lieu of paying trail fees, he agreed to develop the trails. I don't see any trails over there. Gary Warren: Look out there tomorrow. They're upgrading... Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they're coming? Gary Warren: Yes. 59 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Boyt: So Saddlebrook is putting in trails and they're doing it at their expense and I couldn't agree with you more that the trails need to be in there before the houses are built. It's too late. Near Mountain, the prospect of putting trails in that development are slim given the 25 foot setbacks that the City Council approved when those houses were made. So I would like to see something worked out so the City builds those trails as soon as you're open to having them put in before the houses go in and then the people can decide. They don't want to live on a trail, they'll buy one of the lots in a development that's not on the trail. This is a park and Rec reconxnendation. I think that they have several styles of trails and they can find one that I think will upgrade your develoi~ment. It's already an excellent development and a trail can be put in there that fits the style of your development. I'm for it staying in. Councilman Horn: I agree. I don't think we need to change the rules in the middle of the g&~e. My concern is that this statement in the development contract is so vague. I don't know how anybody could get any definition from it. The developer shall submit a plan for approval by the City Council prior to construction. Compensation will be determined by the City Council at the time of trail plan approval. Why didn't we know what compensation was going to be when we approved this? Why do we wait until afterwards? I don't like surprises that come in afterwards. Don Ashworth: This is the development contract. We're down to the point of trying to... Councilman Horn: He's building. Don Ashworth: He's building out there... Councilman Horn: So why doesn't he know what the trails are going to cost him before that? Don Ashworth: This section here has not been finalized right? Gary Warren: I guess recalling the meeting from where it was discussed, that was a difficult item and it was agreed, the Council at that time with the developer that it wasn't that key to hold up the whole development while we're trying to resolve the trail issue and compensation so it was reflected and put in pretty much verbatim in the contract the way the understanding was at the time. Councilman Horn: Also, I think $12,000.00 is a number that we should look at. We should look at what a 6 foot bituminous costs because that is the standard trail. I disagree with Jay's con~nent about us not planning for trails. I think this body long before I got on it, has asked for a trail plan. In my opinion we still don't have one but we've asked for one. Probably before Dale was on the Council... Councilman Boyt: There was an official city trail map and it didn't get filed. Councilman Horn: The other thing is I believe that the way you interpretted the con~nents from Kurvers is that they wanted to, you want to put the trail in before construction. If I read Kurver's statement right, they're saying that the construction of the homes will damage the trail and they want to put it in 6~ City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 after. I think that was what you had stated~ Councilman Geving: Isn't there a point, the fact that they would rather have the city put in the trail and assess it to the homeowners. That's all they're saying. That's all they're saying. Kurver's Representative: 5he issue here is compensation. We are not opposed to the construction of the trails if it is desmed necessary by the City and that's your decision. The issue is compensation of whether we should... We believe we should be compensated for trails consistent with other developments in the City of Chanhassen. An issue referenced here was Saddlebrook and I understand the compensation in that is that the City of Chanhassen was constructing the trails in there. There's a trail dedication fee being assessed against the individual lot owners. I'm a property owner in Saddlebrook and have been assessed $138.00 trail dedication fees. If that is the standard, we believe $138.00 should be assessed against the individual property owners in the Kurvers Point Development and that fee should be collected at the time a permit is issued for construction. That's all we're asking for. If that's the decision, we believe that should be held up and we would agree to $138.00 assessment fee against Kurvers Point Development but no additional fees because that would be inequitable unless you demonstrate that there is a precedent set on other lots within the city. Councilman Horn: Or if you deviate from the standard trail which is what you're proposing to do by putting in concrete. Kurver's Representative: I believe actually there's no standard. I think that has to go back to what the standards are and the policy for the City of Chanhassen and overall trail plan. The issue of what will be the fee to the ir~ividual property owners. If you have an overall comprehensive trail plan, quantify the number and assess that against all, that's fine but our point is, we should be assessed an equitable rate as a property owner in Shado~nere. As a property owner in Saddlebrook and not anything in excess to that. Councilman Horn: I agree with that but I believe from what I heard of the trail presentation, that a standard trail, not sidewalks, standard walking trails is bituminous. If you choose to put that in concrete, I don't think you should pay the standard for the trails. Kurver's Representative: That's not the decision. Whether it's concrete, we prefer concrete but I think that has to do with your overall trail plan and the policy of the City of Chanhassen. I think as a policy maybe the decision for that, in residential developments that you have a concrete surface for a trail. Whereas if...maybe you want a better surface but that's not the issue. It's compensation. Councilman Horn: Is there any places where the concrete trails aren't sidewalks in the plan? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: They've changed the title of this from a trail plan to I think a safe walkway trail and there are some plans to put in concrete in places. 61 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: Laredo and Frontier. Councilman Horn: But that's a sidewalk. Councilman Boyt: I think the City's policy all along was to assess at whatever the applicable rate is when the building permit is issued. So if it's $148.00, which is my fee, $138.00 or $148.00, that's what would happen when a building permit was issued and that's fine. Kurver's Representative: ...that point that we don't get a special assessment for trail construction applied against the developers should be a blank amount. It should be assessed against the individual property owners when they construct the house in the form of a trail dedication fee. Councilman Geving: You're saying that every homeowner paying $148.00... Kurver's Representative: Whatever the rate happens to be. Councilman Geving: Whatever that rate is at the time we paid for the 6 foot bituminous. Kurver's Representative: The decision as far as where the trails are constructed would be the City's responsibility to construct that. Whatever consistent with Park and Recreation's determination... Councilman Geving: Can we do it for that Gary? Can we build a 6 foot bituminous for $148.007 Gary Warren: I doubt it. Councilman Boyt: When the estimates came in on Saddlebrook, it was actually underneath the trail assessment fee. Gary Warren: Saddlebrook is that little special consideration because tied in with the trails and the City's compensation to the developer, partial compensation for his expense is also the sale of Kerber East and also parkland property that the City was buying so that kind of muddies the water to what the real compensation for the developer is doing. Councilman Horn: Plus the fact that Saddlebrook had a much higher density. There were a lot more building permits taken out per square mile than there is for this. This was low density. Gary Warren: Saddlebrook was 140 units. Councilman Geving: Can we recap here? Mayor Hamilton: Jay? Councilman Johnson: Down south Lake Susan Hills. Didn't we negotiate down there even differently in that he's going to put in some trails and that we would cut the trail fee in half or something down there? Wasn't there some kind of... If I ra~ember right, it was a long time ago but he's going to install some trails and then the trail fees for those properties for 62 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 compensation for him installing the trails will be cut in half or something2 There was some negotiation there. I think with every different development, the negotiation goes different depending upon what the developer wants to do. Whether he wants to pay for them or he wants the people moving in to pay for them and the City install them. Like you said, Saddlebrook is different because of the parkland that was tossed into it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask a clarification question so we can make some progress. Given what you've said, what you want to know is what's the compensation plan. Is that accurate? Kurver ' s Representative: That' s the issue. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we use the compensation plan that's standard practice for the City. I think there is one. It's when building permits are issued, you pay $148.00 for the trail. You've already granted the City the easements and I would move that we collect the trail fee as permits are issued. Councilman Horn: I'll second that assuming we have a plan. Mayor Hamilton: And the city construct the trailway? Councilman Geving: The City would construct it. Councilman Johnson: The developer constructs in this case and we compensate him. Gary Warren: The plans and specifications submitted by the developer which were approved by the City, do show a 6 foot bituminous pathway. Your contractor's bid proposals do have that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your current bid from the contractor includes that as a work item. So they have contracted to do it that because then the City doesn't have to administratively go out and advertise for bids and get it in so it makes a practical sense to provide along with the developer and then just compensate him... Councilman Geving: Do we give him the full value of the cost of $12,000.007 Would we refund him $12,000.00? Gary Warren: I guess that's the issue here. Councilman Geving: Because it seems to me that it could be paid for this way and we reimburse him the $12,000.00. At the same time collect that fee at the time the building permits are issued. Whatever that fee is. It may not be a winning proposition doing it that way. I'm sure we'll come up short but it's a way to resolve it. Councilman Johnson: I still think we shouldn't take any action tonight on deciding these issues until we have all the paperwork in front of us. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to collect the trail fee as permits are issued for the Kurvers Point Development. Councilman Boyt and 63 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Horn voted in favor. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to move that the internal trails in Kurvers Point be deleted frc~n the development contract. Councilman Geving: I' 11 second the motion. Councilman Boyt: I'm amazed. Given our discussion earlier tonight that you would delete trails in a residential neighborhood. You're not making the road any wider. You're not giving Park and Rec a chance to respond to this thing. I think it's ill advised. Councilman Horn: Aren't we changing the whole intent of what we stated in the development contract? Mayor Hamilton: I'm not. Councilman Horn: Then I'm missing the motion. Wasn't there a plan for the trail at the t~me we had a development contract drawn up? Councilman Boyt: You bet there was. Mayor Hamilton: Sure, and I was opposed to it then as I am now. There's no need for it. Councilman Geving: I don't think a small development of 40 homes requires a trail plan or a trail in the neighborhood. The people that are going to be walking on that trail are all the people that live in that development. You're not going to have outsiders coming in there using it. Walking along the streets. Councilman Horn: So you've changed your mind? Councilman Geving: I have not changed my mind. What I'm saying is, I said it earlier. The very first comment I made tonight. I don't think there's a need for a trail within that development. Councilman Horn: Then that should have been decided when we voted on this initially. Councilman Johnson: Contary to what you say, I...with a lot less than 4~ homes. I've seen too many near misses of children on the street. Mayor Hamilton: It's a through street isn't it? Councilman Johnson: No it's not. It's a cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: Who were the near misses? By the people who lived there right? Councilman Johnson: Some by the people who live there and some by the boy friends of the teenage girls up by the corner. We've chased some of them down to have discussions with them vigilanty style showing up behind them at their 64 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 girl friend's house~ Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the internal trails in Kurvers Point be deleted from the development contract. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving voted in favor and Councilmans Boyt, Horn and Johnson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the issue until staff has had time to review it and provide a staff report. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason to reconsider the whole development contract. There are a couple of issues that have not been resolved and that's all we need to look at. Councilman Geving: Let's get this bituminous and concrete thing resolved too when it comes back. 1989 BUDGET, PdDCONSIDER POLICE SERVICES. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, we'd like you to go over the issues that surrounded bringing this back. My report touched on it. On October 10th the Council approved the 1989 budget to include the police budget with the direction to staff to take it back to the Public Safety Commission to decide whether we wanted to go with 24 hour coverage by the Sheriff contract or the full time CSO. As luck would have it, we worked out a compromise through the Chief Deputy and the City Manager. An option that had previously been presented in my m~mo was opted for at the Public Safety Conx~ission on Thursday night. That is, increasing the coverage from 21 to 24 hours a day through the Sheriff's contract and upgrading one of the part time CSO's to full time. It wouldn't be on our budget until the springtime of 1989. To determine at that time whether an additional part time CSO maybe budgeted for. A motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously by the Public Safety Con~ission on Thursday for that option. Councilman Johnson: As I review my motion that I made that passed the budget last time, we asked that they seriously review the options of staying at 21 and adding the full time CSO utilizing whatever difference there is within the Public Safety Department to increase on street visibility. They seem to have done that. Comply. I don't see that we need, at this point, to reconsider the budget at all. We told th~ how much money the Public Safety Department is getting and they can spend it. I think Public Safety C(m~ission has made a very good recommendation. I think the only action we're really requiring here is for the City Council to approve the contract at 24 hours because the Council has to approve all contracts. The contract that's listed in our packet is kind of blank. I would have liked to have seen the blanks filled in but in general, I think I would like to move that w~ approve the contract with the Sheriff's Office to be filled in by the City Manager with 24 hours as the amount of time in that. 65 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 CounciLman Horn: I second that. Councilman Johnson: Also, that we amend our pay classification system and include a full time CSO under the paid classification system. Councilman Geving: And that we direct the staff to continue looking at next spring. Councilman Johnson: Right. Whatever options are available and monies available to emphasize... Councilman Horn: I do have a question about that. What's going to change in the spr lng? Councilman Johnson: In the spring they say, or towards the summer more likely, they can re-evaluate the availability of money. Whether they have money at this time. If the revenue projections are coming in to put another part timer back on so we'd have two part times and a full time. Councilman Horn: That's the prime problem because in effect what we're doing is we're earmarking any revenue and excess for this purpose. Councilman Johnson: I would think that ~ould be earmarked from the Public Safety funds though. That if a revenue comes in from a park, which of course the park would apply for because I think park has cubbyholed some of their funds for park patrol but they weren't considered as CSO type people. But from talking to Lori, she was looking to put on some lifeguard type people who would, instead of being a lifeguard would patrol the park and tell people to pick up their cigarette butts and stuff. Councilman Geving: I get the impression, based on the recoa~mendations here, that the budget for the Public Safety Department is set for 1989 and this recon~lendatJ, on to look at the part time CSO in the spring is only a means by which Jim Chaffee can look at his total budget and say, can I proceed with a part time rec~rmendation. Come back to the Council and if it works, if he can work within his budget which has been approved, he's got his part time CSO. That's all we're talking about. Councilman Horn: Why would he need us... Councilman Geving: I think it's information. He's trying to give us some information. Councilman Horn: Then the motion is correct that Jay made. Don Ashworth: No. I should let Jim speak but I've gone through this so many times. We'd be going to a 24 hour contract with the Sheriff's Department. That will insure that we will get the power shift or the additional vehicle in here on the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday timeframe. We would also upgrade one of the CSO positions to a full time position. Any statements regarding what we may do this spring with more money that may be available, I would just as soon not talk about that at all. Whether we have money available or not, I guess that's another issue for another time. Right now, 24 hours contract and 66 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 upgrading the position to one of a full time position2 Councilman Geving: Can we do this Don? Can we take recon~endation number 3 and at the end of the third line where it says upgrade one of the part time CSO's to full time period and eliminate the last three lines? Don Ashworth: I totally agree. Councilman Geving: So that no one in the future will say that it was the intent of this Council, which may change between now and next spring, someone's interpretation. Councilman Horn: I have a cc~on question of Jay. Did your motion include adding a job description for a full time CSO? Councilman Johnson: That's the only way we can hire a full time ~mployee. Councilman Horn: But you're not authorizing...you're authorizing a job description be created for that. Councilman Johnson: Right. Change the pay classification system to include a full time CSO position. Councilman Boyt: You're not authorizing the staffing of that position? Councilman Horn: We don't do that. Councilman Johnson: We're authorizing the position. Don, do we authorize staffing of a position? Don Ashworth: I think everyone is saying the same thing. You're authorizing the creation of the position and providing the funds, that's part of this rec~endation is providing the funds. Clark is correct, it's staff responsibility then to fill that position once the Council has set the position with funding. Mayor Hamilton: But it can not be filled until we have reviewed that job description. Councilman Johnson: That's right. That's what I'm saying. Let's start that process. Mayor Hamilton: I will go along with this as long as we see a job description. That's the only way I'll go along with it. Councilman Geving: Does everybody agree then that we'll cut in the third paragraph at the end of full time? Councilman Johnson: It never was in the motion so. Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to point out on page 2 of the contract that the way the contract is reading now, we have given the Sheriff the right to select the personnel. Assign the personnel. Assign the vehicles. What kind of vehicles will be used. To determine what manner the 'service will be given in. 67 City Council Meeting ' October 24~ 1988 To determine what the standards it will be given in. To determine if and when any discipline will be given. All that is with the County and if we disagree with how it's done, the Sheriff decides whether or not we're right. I just want us to know when we enter into this contract, that the Sheriff has all the cards here. We put the money on the table but he's got all the cards. Councilman Geving: Bill, it's the same contract we've had for 8 years. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we can all talk and we'll get nothing done. Councilman Johnson: I have been speaking to staff on this and they've been talking to the Sheriff on it. It's too late this year to do anything about it unfortunately but I do believe that this will be an emphasize of the Public Safety Department next year to work on this contract. The County's excuse of course is, well this is the same contract that every city has. Well, we're unique. We are the only city going to 24 hours and I'm with you and next year I think that part of the Council's duty will be to direct Public Safety to get this contract more equitable prior to the 1990 contract. Mayor Hamilton: You need to understand that this same contract has been in use for a nLm~ber of years. If there had been any problems at all, they've been very well worked out with the County. They're very willing to work with us. They always have been. I see that there are going to be no changes on it. Councilman Boyt: As I said before, if I can finish, I agree and I hope that the relationship with the County remains in good shape so people, we're really working on this together. I think we have in the past. I hope we continue to. What I'm saying is, the contract language is such that I'd like to see it reflect what Jay was talking about. But the relationship hasn't indicated that we particularly need to change it. Councilman Johnson: No business in the world would accept this contract as a commercial contract. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know about that. We need to move on. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve increasing the police coverage from 21 to 24 hours a day through the Sheriff's contract and to upgrade one of the part time CSO's to full time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COURT SETTLEMENT, VOLK ANNEXATION, CITY MANAGER. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move to item 9(b). Merle Volk and his representative have been sitting here all evening. We have an opportunity to get them out of here a few minutes earlier. Don, would you like to, you want to handle this one right? Don Ashworth: I think really the City Attorney is better prepared. If there are questions regarding the item. It is a proposal to the current litigation instituted by Merle Volk. 68 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything additional you want to add Roger to what your letter... Roger Knutson: Not unless you have questions. Councilman Boyt: I'm glad to see that we've followed this route and we're practically ready to make a decision. Before we make the decision on this annexation, I'd like to know, one, are there counsel that specialize in this area? Roger Knutson: Full time no. I would say our office is probably handled as many annexations as any other office in the State. Councilman Boyt: Well, that may seal it up pretty good. What I'm looking for, and maybe you can assure me I don't need this. I really want to be assured that this is absolutely the best legal situation we can attain. So what I was suggesting was that we refer this for a second opinion to a more specialized counsel. You're telling me that's ill advised and I won't make that motion. Roger Knutson: You can certainly get a second opinion if you'd like. I have no problem with that. As far as this is the best you can get, that's always a judgment call but in my opinion, it is. Councilman Horn: We've already had a second opinion on this. Everybody we've talked to on this issue has given us the same opinion. I think we wasted several weeks when we could have settled this several weeks ago with the same thing we're settling on tonight. It's just a waste of time to pursue it any further and I make a motion that we agree to the court settlement as proposed. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. I do have a question. I'd like to have identification of the Chaska lands that will be annexed to the city of Chanhassen. Can those be identified for us please? Roger Knutson: I got their descriptions frc~ Gary. Councilman Geving: I have the description. I'd like to see it on a map. Gary Warren: The Arboretum property north of...and then this parcel here just north of the Gedney property and the railroad tracks. Right in here. Councilman Geving: And how many acres is that Gary? 25? 20? Councilman Johnson: It's supposed to be 40. Councilman Geving: Will we get 40 in return? Gary Warren: Pretty close. Councilman Geving: Tnat's really all that I ever asked in this regard. I wanted to make sure that we had 40 acres of contiguous property that was relatively the same value. We didn't get it obviously but I'm still not dissatisfied. The Court has spoken as far as I'm concerned. 69 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Horn: I think you should look at how you measure value. The way you look at value, equal value is to look at what the land is worth today. I think...we looked at potential for that property as to what it will be when it goes to Chaska. We could never make that property... Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the Court Settlement as presented in the Merle Volk annexation case. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: Jay wanted to talk about recycling and the Assumption Seminary. Councilman Johnson: Quickly on recycling. I'd like the Council to authorize the advertising for a recycling committee to help us set up curbside recycling which we've agreed to do next year. We agreed to do it but we don't have staff to do it. We need to get a group of volunteers to help us evaluate the various systems that are out there. Go out like a con~nunity center task force and look at this. I see us not instituting curbside pick-up for a long time if we do it with the present staff. I'd like to form a con~ittee and I'll volunteer to be on that comnittee. The whole recycling thing needs to be looked at closely and also the operation of our existing recycling facility. How we can improve that. I think somebody indicated to me that we're supposed to have a committee already. It's just been a matter of not getting one going. I'd like to make a motion that we advertise and get a con~nittee. Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to advertise for the creation of a Recycling Committee. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Assumption Seminary. I've been working with Scott Harr, as you know, on the barrels as the primary thing because that's what I work with is hazardous waste a lot. The gentlemen do not seem to want to handle the hazardous waste in what I consider a totally proper manner. They did some ill advised movement of the waste. They got lucky. None of the barrels broke. We have some very old wesson barrels, as you may have noticed by the pictures I presented last time. They moved the waste from their current position and inside the building now. What Scott and I had reconxnended to them to do before they move the waste was to sample the barrels and make sure what was in it before they start moving it. Then to overpack them in the proper, what's called a salvage drum. It's a drum bigger than that drum and then they could safely move them. They did not do that. They went ahead and made the movement and claimed to have only received our letter yesterday which was sent a week or so ago but knowing the U.S. Mail, obviously they received it yesterday. They are now saying that it's too expensive to sample the drums as I get this. They have now got what is considered by the State of Minnesota hazardous material being stored inside of this building. We've been messing around with this for a long time. I think we have to get very strong. We either have to get the State and get the State off their butt and get them strong on this too. One thing I'd 70 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 like to know, can the City go in there and declare this a hazard and do the proper actions and assess it back against the property? We need to get those barrels sampled. We need to get those barrels contained inside of adequate containers and then we need to get them shipped off and treated properly. Mayor Hamilton: Let's have Roger answer that. He's probably the only one here qualified to answer that. Councilman Horn: If you assess anything back to them at all, the property is going to come back. They're not going to pay for it. Councilman Johnson: It's not much money. He's saying it's a lot of money. I never did see, has he told us what he says the cost estimate to handle this stuff properly is? Scott Harr: We haven't identified the material. Councilman Johnson: So he hasn't said what the cost estimate is to do the sampling and stuff? Councilman Horn: How many barrels? Councilman Johnson: Around 20 barrels of this stuff. Mayor Hamilton: I think Scott's been following along on this and I've encouraged Scott in the past to write stronger letters. I don't know if he's done that but he should continue to do that and perhaps maybe even working with Roger and with his assistance write something that's going to have a time limit to it or something. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say that if the barrels have not been sampled by our next meeting, that the City will take action to do it either through the State Superfund laws or through our own action, whichever we can do. If the State of Minnesota gets in there and does it, I'll guarantee you it's going to cost them 2 to 3 times as much as if he voluntarily does it himself. Mayor Hamilton: Before we make a comment like that, we've got to know that we can follow up on it. I don't know that we can do that. We don't have the man power. We don't have adequate facilities or anything else. We can't go off half cocked making con~ents that we can't follow up on. Councilman Johnson: We would hire the same people he would hire to do that. Mayor Hamilton: We still need to make sure that we can accomplish... Councilman Boyt: Scott, what's the Pollution Control authority's response to this? Scott Harr: We've got hardly any response from the PCA at all. I've talked to the State PCA on several occasions and was told outright that's not an area we're concerned with. Carver County has been very helpful directing the owners where to go and they have been pursuing this. I don't have a lot of problems with the rate that things have been going on it. I think what irritated us is that we directed them to handle those barrels in a specific manner and before 71 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 they got the letter they put it inside in a way that they thought was handling it safely. My conversation with the owner today, they assured me that by the end of the week they would have arrangements made to sample these barrels. I think that they've put this on one of the last items. It's about ready to have the security lighting in operation and an alarm system is about ready. I agree with Councilman Johnson that if we don't have an answer by the end of the week when they are going to do it within the time...then we can work with Roger. Councilman Boyt: Is there a motion to that effect? Councilman Johnson: Yes. When I briefly talked to him he did mention that they were going to sample by the end of the week. Scott Harr: I told them that they would. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is your direction to them. They did not agree to that or did they agree to that? They said okay. I'll make the motion that, I'm not exactly sure of the motion I'm making... Mayor Hamilton: That the things are sampled by the end of the week or by our next meeting and if not, the City is going to take action. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that's the motion. Counc i lman Boyt: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the owners of the Assumption Seminary take action to sample the barrels stored on the site by the end of the week or before the next City Council meeting or the City will take action. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Dale, you had something to say on a resolution. councilman Geving: This week has been designated as the National Drug Free American Week. I don't know if the Public Safety Office or the Department has received any posters yet on this. I did have some posters in my office and was going to bring them tonight. I'd like to propose that we have the Mayor make a resolution stating that this is the National Drug Free America Week for the City of Chanhassen. I would make that motion. councilman Horn: Second. Resolution #88-117: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded approving a resolution declaring October 24th through the 28th as National Drug Free America Week for the City of ~nanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Clark wanted to talk about the form of government commission. 72 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Horn: Yes, I just wanted to know what the status is on getting that formed. Don Ashworth: The Minutes of October 10th are correct. I talked with Roger. The City Council can set up a con~nittee. If you'd like, they can authorize the advertisement of that particular committee. Councilman Boyt: What are we doing when we do this? Don Ashworth: I'm making the assumption that the con~nittee is really only looking at the issue of a ward system and bringing back to you whether or not they think it's a good idea or not. Councilman Johnson: That never does go out for a referendum per se? The ward system? Councilman Geving: I bet it does. Roger Knutson: The only way you can have a ward system is to have a charter and a charter needs an election. The way the process works, the District Court forms a charter commission. They write the charter without any input-fromyou or they can talk to you, whatever they want to do. It goes on the ballot. The voters vote it up or vote it down. You can have a committee if you wanted to to discuss whether you want to turn it over and talk to the District Court as to whether the District Court should authorize a charter. You would yourself have to authorize that. Councilman Horn: What all would the charter c~ission do? They only do the ward system or does our entire form of government? The charter decides. Roger Knutson: It sets a whole bunch of things. It'd be like Minneapolis' charter, I don't know how many pages it runs. 100 pages or something. It tells you how many people you're going to have up here. It tells you when your elections are going to be held. It tells you about how you finance things. To form your structure of government. Councilman Johnson: Well beyond just how you get elected onto City Council you're saying? Roger Knutson: Oh yes. Mayor Hamilton: It's how your whole city is going to function. Councilman Horn: I'd like to see a presentation of what that is. Whether the con~nittee puts that together or staff. Mayor Hamilton: If you have a con~ittee, then perhaps Roger or somebody from their staff who is familiar with that can come and make a presentation on it so everybody clearly understands what needs to be done. Roger Knutson: If you want written information on the...con~non charters, I've got it in my office. I'll just mail it out to you. 73 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 Councilman Geving: We could request for people to be on this study group[ There is an interest in the general population. Roger Knutson: Maybe I can suggest that the first step is just sending that stuff out to you and then you can look it over and decide whether you want to pursue it any further. Mayor Hamilton: You should probably send it to Dale and Clark unless Bill wants it or Jay but I don't. Councilman Boyt: I'd love to see it. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it. Mayor Hamilton: Don't send it to me. Bill, you w-anted to talk about campaign signs. Councilman Boyt: I do. There is a Minnesota State Statutue regarding campaign signs and where they can be posted. I intended to bring a copy of that. I don't know exactly how to put this so I'll launch into it and see where it goes. I don't think we're following this guideline. Maybe, I don't know if Roger knows them off hand to state this but I think we ought to be taking, ever at this late hour, steps to get all the candidates up to date on where you can put a sign and where you can't put a sign. They're not doing it. I don't imagine the City is going to enforce it so I don't know exactly how to approach this problem. Councilman Horn: They have in the past. Councilman Geving: There were 3 of us up here at one time that had all of our signs taken down and deposited in the City Garage. Clark and I had to go and retrieve them from the City Garage. I don't have any problem with what you're talking about Bill. I wish we would enforce the people that are stealing signs and tearing down the signs and that's an issue that I really want to talk about because I've lost about half of my signs to vandals. People that just put them up one minute and 15 minutes I come back and they're gone. Damnit, they cost a lot of money. It's expensive to run for a city election. You know that as well as I do Don as well as anybody else. Wayne. We've lost a lot of signs and it isn't just kids. I don't feel it's just kids. People maliciously having some people say, hey I don't like Bill Boyt. I'm going to tear his signs down and they go out and do it. I'll tell you, if I ever catch anybody I'm going to report them. I can tell them right now. I'll report them to Scott Harr and I hope that the enforcement people take it from there because I think it is a violation of our right. Those are personal, private property. Mayor Hamilton: It's part of our democratic process that when you have an election you put up signs I guess. My major concern is as long as when the election is over the people go out and take them down and get rid of the blight because that's exactly what it is. Councilman Horn: I haven't seen the gross violations on signs this year that t have in other years. One year they were plastered all over the telephone poles in town which is clearly a violation. In my opinion, it's up to each candidate 74 City Council Meeting - October 24~ 1988 165 to know what his responsibilities are as a candidate. He needs to know his spending limits. He needs to know where he can put signs and he needs to know what the rules are for the recording and everything else. That's not the City Council's responsibility to do that. I fully agree we should enforce those rules but it's not our responsibility on hauling everybody in and saying, okay since you're running for office, here's what you have to do. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see looking into the possibility of when people put up signs in the right-of-way, the City has to take those down. That there's a charge for taking th~m down. They can have their signs back but I'd like to see a sign deposit or something when they file. If you're going to put up 100 signs, I'd like to see a sign deposit and any sign the city crews have to take down gets removed from your sign deposit. Councilman Geving: Can I add just one thing? I think it's really important and I'm just adding to what you're conm~enting on Bill. I did contact Jean Meuwissen the other day. We all received the financial disclosure document about how much you received in contributions and how much you are spending and so forth. I talked to Jean briefly about that and her interpretation is, that every candidate must file that document with her and I just want to make sure that the candidates who are here hear that because it has to be filed 14 days before the general election which pushes us back to about the 28th which is this Friday. Friday or Saturday, so if you get a chance, make sure that every one of you candidates do that. I'm sorry, it's 10 days before the general election. I don't know if a lot of people knew that. Jean doesn't even know all the ramifications. She says I'm just learning this myself but she says I want to tell everybody make sure you send in that disclosure document by this weekend. That's just information. It's free. Councilman Horn: I don't know why we're taking the staff time for these sorts of things either. I don't think that's our staff's responsibility. Councilman Geving: No, but Jean Meuwissen is the election judge. Councilman Horn: You have to take them to her but it's not her responsibility to disseminate what to do with them. Councilman Geving: I agree with that but it's just a public service so everybody stays straight on this issue. I wouldn't want to see a candidate for example thrown out of the race because they didn't submit some document in due t~me. REVIEW ROBERT HAAK DRAINAGE ISSUE, PIONEER TRAIL, CITY ENGINEER. Mayor Hamilton: The last issue we have is the review of the Robert Haak Drainge issue which we've seen many times. I guess Larry, you've dealt with that. You've recon~nended that the problem is his and he's going to have to resolve it. It sounded like it was partially County. It would seem like the County would need to help him or should. Larry Brown: We pursued the County's participation many times and their response has been that the City's responsible for the watershed problems through the increased development in the surrounding area. So we're frustrated with 75 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 that but going through their records, we have nothing else to pin it on~ Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, can I suggest that we send this letter from Larry to the Haak's and to the DeJoode's to resolve this matter. Larry Brown: They have been sent. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 76