Loading...
1988 09 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Geving STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworhh, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Jim Chaffee, Lori Sietsema. and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations: a. Final Plat Approval, Stratford Ridge. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to A-2, Agricultural Estate District, First Read Jng. d. Resolution #88-90: Final Acceptance of Lake Riley Woods Addition Improvements. f. Approve Execution of Letter of Understanding for Utility Service to Beddor Property. g. Approval of Plans and Specifications for HSZ, TH 7/TH 41 Site. j. Approval of Accounts. k. City Council Minutes dated August 15, 1988 City Council Minutes dated August 22, 1988 Planning Con~nission Minutes dated August 17, 1988 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (C) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, TIM ERHART. Mayor Hamilton: Barb, I had a question on item l(c). The staff is recommending that the subdivisJ, on request to plat a 1~ acre parcel as a meets and bounds description, I thought we're not doing that. I think as a matter of practice we haven't done meets and bounds for quite some t~_me. I curious to know why we're doing it now. Barbara Dacy: To clarify condition 1, Parcel A, the 10 acre piece will be a platted lot. probably be a lot number, Erhart Addition and the remaining parcel, the 66 1/2 acre parcel would r~main as meets and bounds. The subdivision ordinance permits that the parcel can be further subdivided and it can exist as a meets and bounds. So we will have the lg acre piece as... 12 City CouncJ. 1 MeetJ. ng- September 12, 1988 M~yor Hamilton: I thought that the parcel, and I don't remember the name on the parcel, maybe you reme~oer do,mn by Pat Swenson' s. I can't remember the name. They were reqg~esting the same type of thing. Councilman Horn: Is tgat ~fnere ~ turned two lots into three? Mayor HamJ. lton: They wanted a meets and bounds description on the portion that was bei. ng divided out to make a homestead and we wouldn't allow them to do that. I guess I just want to make sure that we're doing this consistently with that. Barbara ~Jacy: That lot yeu might be referring to J.s J.n the urban service area and J.f they're in the urban service area, you have to plat everything. We wrote the SubdJ. visien Ordinance fer the rural area te allew seme flexibility fer these larger parcels. Mayor Hamilton: Then on one of the condJ, tJ.ons, condition 2. The app!Jcant previde, it says at least a 3g foot. I'd like to change that to say the applicant previde the minimum of a 3g foet roadway easement. That's on page 4, conditien 2. I just think it clarifies it better. Hopefully it will be wider than that. Any preblem with that? Mayor Hsmailton moved, CouncJ. lman Johnson seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat fer Tim Erhart with the noted changes. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (H) AHENDHENT TO CITY CODE, SOLICITOR LICENSES, FINAL READING. Councilman Horn: ~'~f question on that is, unless I've missed something, it appears to me that high schoole~s who go through the neighborhood selling newspapers or the Fire Department selling dance tickets are required to get a permit from the City even though, since it's an organization, it may be at no cost. Is that correct? Did I interpret that properly? Jim Chaffee: I'm saying yes. I'll leave it up to Roger to follow up on that. Roger Knutson: 10-142, page 2 specifically exempts newspaper sellers. Councilman Horn: Sometimes it's magazines. Kids and their magazine orders. Roger Knutson: They are not exempt. Councilman Horn: That's the v~y I read J.t also. Then I'd have to vote against this. Mayor HamJ. lton: I had exemptions. It would seem to me we ought to specify that anybody who is lJ. censed by the State should be exempt. Also, I was wondering about garbage haulers and cleaners. We do have cleaners who pick up at homes and del]ver clothing. I feel that they should be exempt. Garbage haulers, I guess I had a question on that. Should they be exempt or not? What's your thought on that Roger? City CouncJ. 1 Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't the cleaners be exempt because they're doing it by appo intment? Mayor Hamilton: But they're not. The cleaners that have been in town, if you put a sign in your window and they have a regular route that they follow, if they see the sign that you want to have a pick up, they'll stop. Councilman Johnson: You've inviting th~n in. This is for the people who aren't invited and are knocking on the doors. Mayor Ham].lton: Since somebody is making an attempt to control everything that happens in town, I want to make sure that those that are trying to function in town, can do so legally. Roger Knutson: I don't think garbage haulers are included as written. If you read the definition of peddler, solicitor and transient merchant, someone who comes and picks up your trash on a regular basis, unless they're going door to door soliciting customers, would not be under this. A peddler is someone who makes and sales and delivers articles. I don't think they fit the definition of any of these people. They're not taking orders. All they're doing is taking your trash. Mayor Hamilton: But they do from time to time solicit. They'll come around and say, knock on your door and say, here's our rates. Roger Knutson: Yes. If they do that, they would have to get a permit. Mayor Hamilton: 10-145, investigation and issuance of licenses. If there were to be an investigation, I think it should be at the applicant's expense, should be a part of that. 10-147, I don't know that it comes in here but how about political soliciting? As candidates are going door to door, where is that provided for in this ordinance? Councilman Johnson: He's not selling anything. Roger Knutson: Would not be a solicitor under the definition because he's not selling anything. Don Ashworth: Under 1~-146 Roger, would that not include the group that Clark was referring to? In other words, if school members are out trying to sell magazines as a part of the school band program or something like that, as I read that? Roger Knutson: Yes. Don Ashworth: So you really are covering charitable groups like that? Roger Knutson: If it's charitable, patriotic or philanthropic organization. Councilman Horn: Except that they still are required to have a permit from the City Clerk as I read this. The organization. Don Ashworth: Right. There would be no fee. They just simply have to notify US. City Council HeetJ. ng - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Would that be an overall permit for all their activities or would each different band sale and football sale have to be covered or just be one? I would assume it would just be one permit that we give to Chaska High or to DJ. strict 112 even. Don Ashworth: I don't see %~nere it would be overly dJ. ffJ. cult but to give you an exaeple. ThJ_s past sun~ner we had a group of teenagers that were selling candy bars door to door for literally a fJ. ctious group and they were solJ.citing an!rwhere from $1.gg to $1g.gg for a 25 cent candy bar and it was not for any religious, charitable group at all. It was sJ.mply a way to make money. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other comments? Is there a motion on this item? Councilman Johnson: I move approval. Counci~nan Boyt: I'll second it. Mayor Hamilton: Are you satisfied Clark that your groups are included...? Councilman Horn: Yes. I got the answer. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Final Reading of the Amendment to the City Code, Solicitor Licenses. CouncJ. lman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Horn voted in opposition and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask a con~nent Tom? I know I was late. On item (i), I can not make September 15th's budget worksession. If we could find another date. Don Ashworth: I'd like to discuss that maybe_ later Jn the agenda. Dale wJ. ll be out of town ant3 so will Jay. Mayor Hamilton: if we can hold that off to the end of the evening, we can try to find a date that's good for everybody. VISITOR PRESENTATION: REQUEST TO PROCLAIM CONSITUTION ~EK, SANDY BUNKER, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Sandy Bunker: C©od evening. I'm Sandy Bunker from the Daughters of Ohe American Revolution° I've been in contact with the City offices to request that the Council proclaim Constitution Week the !Tth through the 23rd of September. I have pulled a proclamation sample... Resolution ~88-91: CouncJ. lman Horn moved, Hayor HamJ_lton seconded to approve proclaJ.mJ.r~3 the week ef September 17-23, 1988 as Constitution Week. Ail veted in favor and the motion carrJ, ed. City CouncJ. 1 Meeting - September 12, 1988 Father Barry Schneider: I would like to request the CouncJ. 1 at this time to consider speed zoning the area past our school on TH 101 and the church to perhaps 15 mph. It is presently 30 and with children right on that street, and sometimes Fam~.ly of Chr~.st youth on the other side, I think 30 mph ~_s a little high. I guess I started thinking about that because my dog got hit there last Monday night and now I'm thinking of human beings. Children and perhaps even on the other street corner by our kindergarten. There are little children there, babies traffic coming out and they're stopping on that street. I would request the Council to consider a speed rezoning. Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about on TH 101, on West 78th Street? Father Barry Schneider: TH 101 up to Great Plains. Through there. Traffic used to slow down because there was a stop sign there. The stop sign was removed and the traffic moves much more quickly now. Mayor Hamilton: I think we can not do that since that's a state highway and the speed limit is minimum of 30 mph. I think that's correct on that but we could perhaps do a better job of signing. We'll do what we can to try and get the speed reduced but I know that the minimum speed that we can put up is 30. State law. Councilman Horn: You might be a school zone. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we could get it school zoned and have additional signage to try and slow traffic down. Gary Warren: I'm meeting with MnDot on Friday so I'll bring ~t up. Councilman Boyt: Would it help to have more enforcement there? Are people actually doing 30 mph in that zone? Mayor Hamilton: Pretty much. As I travel down there, they se~m to be. Councilman Johnson: When the deputies did a survey there, they found the average speed was 31 mph. The survey was done with a marked police car which was seen well in advance so the people weren't traveling their absolutely normal speed. I saw them two blocks away. If you're going to do a radar survey, it should be kind of hidden. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Jim, you and Gary can work on that problem. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING BOAT MOORINGS AND SWIMMING RAFTS, FIRST READING. Public Present: Name Address Mr. and Mr. Lynn Hall Roger Byrne Dave Peterjohn Mr. and Mrs. Mike Schroeder 3980 Hawthorne Circle 6724 Lotus Trail 3921 Hawthorne Circle 6600 Lotus Trail City Council HeetJ_ng - Sephenieer 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Barbara Dacy: This proposal is 'to amend the current Chapter of the City Code regarding boats and waterways. It was originally known as a water surface useage ordinance. Because of a variety of issues that have come up over the last boating season, staff has prepared the proposed ordinance for Council consideration. We have notified all of the Homeow~er's Associations, the lake rights as well as the lot owners abutting the lakes in Chanhassen. Basically there are four changes that are being proposed. The first change is adding this itee 2 in the water surface useage ordinance regarding the ability to moor a person's boat in the lake in front of a lot in which they reside. As now written, this under 2, does not exist. The proposed ordinance would require that you would have to have a home on the lakeshore site. Lakeshore site means a lot abutting the lake and you would have to moor the boat withJ, n 25 feet Jn front of your lakeshore lot. This was as a result of a couple of issues. Number 1, the Park and Recreation Comnission considered a number of requests about mooring boats in front of park property. This change has concurrence of the Park and Rec Commission. Secondly, this provision would consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory uses and principle uses. As now written, a dock is an accessory use and if you have a lakeshore setting, you would need to have a principle use or a single family home before you could have a dock on a lake. The second change is in regards to swinraing rafts. This also was considered by the Park and Recreation Commission regarding the ability to have a swiffming raft in front of park property. The way J_t is proposed here in Section 2, we would be adding a proposed subsection (c) requiring that swimming rafts must be located wi. thin lgg feet of lakeshore property. Again, with the home located on the lot. The third change is regarding the removal of swinging rafts and docks. One of the biggest items that the Park and Recreation .Con,mission was the use of the Carver Beach swiffraing raft. Because this swin~ning raft has been used for a number of years by a number of people around the lake, the ordinance has been ~ritten to allow this particular raft to become a non- conforming use so this section of the ordinance allows the re-establishment of non-conforming swimming rafts and docks established in the lake. That's under Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. Now, the fourth item that's going to be considered is this particular section does not include the ability to moor a boat. So for example, if you do not own lakeshore property at this point in time, you would moor your boat in the lake, you would not be able to moor the boat next season if this ordinance is adopted. I cited a particular example in here in the staff report that the City Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding Outlot A of Kelllyne Addition. I know both parties, Hr. Hall and Mr. Peterjohn are here to speak on that particular situation. What City Staff is proposing is that there probably are a number of these situations where either lakeshore property is vacant and people have been mooring their boat on the lake or sc~e type of previous mooring that maybe there should be a process incorporated into the water surface useage ordinance for the Council to review each of these situations on an ir~tividual basis and have the ability to apply certain conditions. If that is Council's policy, then we ~uld suggest that Section 6-22 be revised to account for that process. Lynn Hall, 398~ Hawthorne Circle: I understand and respect the thoughts that planning and Council have put together in regards to these situations and don't disagree with your thoughts on it with the exception that I understand, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that owners of rafts would not be treated the same as the owners of boats is a right situation where essentially they're City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 equal uses. The provision of allowing a variance process to be gone through or boat moored would be available however, I understand the proper procedures here that would be necessary for the Council's four-fifths vote to approve such a move, then it would be very difficult for me to obtain any type of a variance such as that. I may propose or suggest the idea of a conditional use process thus controlling giving the City Council to maintain a level of control over this. My situation, which planning is well aware of, I purchased a piece of property that was sold to me with the understanding that I had a legal non- conforming use and that that legal non-conforming use was verified and documented by the City. In adopting this particular provision in the ordinances, I'd be stripped of a right that had been granted previously as a legal non-conforming use. I guess to put it quite simply, I don't feel that that's fair under these provisions. I guess I'd hate to see the City take a position on changing this ordinance and on this matter that they consider some alternatives. If this ordinance were to be put into effect, it would essentially put my back against the wall. When I purchased the piece of property for a reason of being able to use the lake. An establishment of a right that I'm now having taken away. You leave me no alternative but to defend my property value and the rights that were granted thereof. In further adding, I hate to see the City put into a position where potentially they're spending the taxpayers money to settle what I think to be somewhat of a minor disagreement between a couple of neighbors. I guess in closing, I would just hope that an alternative could be sought in controlling this particular situation and my previously established rights of non-conforming use be maintained. Roger Byrne, 6724 Lotus Trail: I'm not too use to public speaking so kind of bear with me. I guess I don't agree with staff and I don't see the need for this ordinance at all. I don't see why they even brought it up in the first place. Like this gentleman said here, I think it's more neighborhood squabbles with neighbors and stuff like that than having anything to do with any control or anything. I can't see any control problem on any of these lakes. There's a few things out there and they've been there for a long time, a lot of them and some come and s~ne go but the Council gave lakeshore owners the right to have 3 boats moored on their property. They can have unlimited number of small boats pulled up on shore and the public don't have any right to have anything out there if this ordinance goes past. Now this ordinance, the water surface useage ordinance was passed in, I don't know, I think it was '83. That thing had been worked on for 2 or 3 years before that by citizen cor~nittees and through the Council 5 or 6 times. It had been amended and amended and finally they got it right. The way they wanted it and that's the way it went through. Now all of a sudden they come back and say, oh no, I guess we gave somebody some rights that they shouldn't have had. We better amend it. Don Ashworth there brings it on himself to draft this here ordinance and put it up before the Council. They said it went through the parks committee but I don't think so. I don't think the Parks committee had anything to do with it. I think it was Don Ashworth and George...and that's the way it is. These people know that and it's just discrimination against the public to use that lake just like anybody else. It's just as much our lake as it is as if you were a lakeshore owner on the property. This ordinance is wrong and I think you people know it's wrong and I think you should vote it down. You shouldn't even consider this ordinance. We've got enough ordinances out there to stop anything you wanted to stop on the lake. You' re stopping too much stuff, people can't even use it except the people that own lakeshore. They have all the rights in the world and the public has very City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 little on that lake. I hear talk about the raft in Carver Beach. They say~ well maybe we can get that one out of there and the City will put a raft out there. The City has 15 years to put a raft out there. }~ give that land to the City more than 18 years ago and you haven't done anything to that park. That park has been there. It's a mess in there. It's full of poison ivy~ They talk about a path through the park. It's full of poison ivy. The poison oak. The kids can't even go in there. What little bit we have there, we've done ourselves. Now you want to take us out of that. The public has a right to that lake just like anybody else. I think that raft should stay there and I think you should take this ordinance and, we don't need it. It should have never been drawn up. It's just plain discrimination by a few people in this town that are trying to jew everybody else out of their rights on that lake like everybody else. I think you people know that. If you look deep in your heart, you'll figure that's the way it is out there. Like I say, I'm not very good at this but I hope I got my point across. I had some other points but I feel kind of blank up here. Dave Peterjohn, 3921 Hawthorne Circle: I'm Lynn Hall's neighbor and I'd like to say first that I thin]< this is a very unfortunate situation for both Mr. Hall and myself but I think it's a situation that happened with Mr. Hall's previous homeowner that I think misrepresented the rights that [~. Hall had in purchasing the property. Just a little background, I own a piece of property that I built a house on that abuts up to Outlot A, which Mr. Hall and his wife own the rights to and have a house off-site of the lake. When we investigated purchasing the property several years ago, we had looked into covenants. Covenants for this particular outlot stated very plainly that the outlot owners and the people who have rights, do not have a right to have a boat or a dock on this piece of property. When Mr. Hall purchased the property, he was completely unaware of these particular covenants from the previous owner so I guess our feeling is, ~aving a boat moored down there is an argument that Mr. Hall has with the previous owner. I think where the issue comes into play for us as homeowners, presently you can have up to 3 watercraft on a piece of property for a homeowner. This particular piece of property is 2g feet wide that separates our lot with the neighbor's lot. There are two other potential buildable or questionably buildable lots that this outlot that are going to be perhaps built upon years down the line that may have these rights as well so we're looking at potentially 9 boats that could be on a 2g foot outlot. I don't think that the intention of this ordinance would allow something like this. One of the things that I wrote to you in the letter was that currently in the Chapter 6 on the ordinance it says, Section 2(b), there's a dock setback ordinance. Presently from lakeshore owners, if they set their docks, they have to be lg feet off their lot line in order not to encroach on the neighbor's property. One of my suggestions, if we do allow boat mooring, is to have the same sort of restrictions. I'm not advocating doing that. I personally am not ~n favor of boat moorings but the way it stands right now, you can not have a dock within 10 feet of your lot iine. I can't see why you couldn't have a boat, or you can't also have a boat within !g feet so that's our position. I think it's a very unfortunate situation. I feel for the Hall's position but I think that we, looking down the line on what the value of our property is going to be when we sell our property. When the City expects property owners to pay premium taxes for the right to have boats on there, I feel that I would be against having boats moored on Lake Minn~ewashta. City Council Mee[ing - September 12, 1988 Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail: I live right off of the parkland area at the end of the park strip and by Fox Chase. I'd like to speak against this ordinance. I agree with Rocky there. I've lived in Carver Beach for over 10 years and my wife has lived there for over 20 years. A couple years ago we bought Mr. Winter's farmhouse there down along the parkland there and we talked to the DNR and we talked to the people there and we applied for a permit with Carver County Water Patrol to moor our boat out there. We spent the money to get the official mooring and that kind of stuff and now we find this ordinance which, in our opinion, seems to be drafted specifically towards us. I believe it is a misuse of the City Council. The City Staff. The taxpayer's dollars and the time of all the people here who had to come up here to try to stop this ordinance. There's no danger that anyone's identifying to the people down in that area of Carver Beach. It's a situation where the environment, there's been the raft and all the other things there for many years. It seems like this ordinance is being prompted by a small group of people who want to make the lake look just like they want it to look and be just like they want it to be and the heck with the rest of the people. I think that's a misuse of the power of the City. I do not believe this ordinance is a result of any complaints, at least that I'm aware of, of people in the Carver Beach area. I think when we have problems in the area, we try to work it out with each other and I think that's worked for many years. I don't believe there's any citywide impact here that this ordinance is addressing. The big issue that is affecting the people of the City of Chanhassen. Laws and ordinances are designed to protect people of the City and to protect the rights and the priviledges of individuals and I do not believe this ordinance does that. In addition, as the way the ordinance is currently written, it seems to be specifically discriminatory towards people who have bouys. That has been specifically left out of the copy that I had. Apparently they have made special provisions for some of the process of dealing with people who have mooring bouys and I don't think that's fair to us and I think that should be changed if this ordinance is passed. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask the City Attorney a question. Can a non- conforming use be sold to a new resident? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Johnson: So as long as a use is continued, the new property owner could buy it? Roger Knutson: Non-conforming uses run with the land like a conditional use permit, zoning, variance. Councilman Johnson: But if they skip a year, don't put out a mooring buoy for a year, if they have a non-conforming use that's going on, and they skip it for a year, what happens? Roger Knutson: They're out. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems personally with the direct land owners that have a house and have a boat across from our park there, our C~.ty Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 parkland on a mooring buoy out away from the edge of the shore. I think what the Park and Rec seems to be against is people leaving their boats up on the City's property on the edge of the land and call that mooring of boats. I'm not sure if that is considered mooring. I've always considered mooring as to having a buoy out there and you tie it off the buoy and the boat floats free of the land. I'd like to see those people who have been doing that for so long, it seems to me to be prejudicial to exclude that and leave the raft. The raft's more of an eyesore than a sailboat sitting out there flittering the wind. That's where I sit on this ordinance. Councilman Horn: I have a question of Roger too. In fact, several questions. There seems to be disagreement in the notes that I have on whether that was a legal non-conforming use at the time it was transferred. Apparently there were covenants in existence at that time which obviously we don't deal with but was that a legal non-conforming use that was transferred? Roger Knutson: I'm not the best person to tell you what the facts are. As far as I know, they're violating any ordinance today so yes, they're a legal use. Councihnan Horn: Apparently there were some questions on staff's part as to whether they could or could not moor a boat. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Hall's Attorney and Mr. Hall has stated that the previous owner, Mr. Bohling had stored a pontoon boat. The Peterjohn's and other neighbors have contested that there was no boat storage there. At this point, Mr. Hall is mooring his boat out in front of the outlot in conformance with the Water Surface Useage Ordinance. Councilman Horn: Did he come in for a non-conditional use permit at the ti.me that the ordinance was put into place? As I recall, when that ordinance was put into place, all outlots had to come in for a non-conforming use requirement and they were logged as such that they didn't intensify their use. Barbara Dacy: They didn't come in for a conditional use permit but the City did take an inventory at that time in 1982 and identified which beachlots existed at that time but they did not go through Planning Commission and City Council. Councilman Horn: When they took the inventory, was their a boat on the outlot? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Horn: Then that would seem to set precedent of what has transferred. As Roger said, if they don't use it for that use, the non-conditional use goes away. Barbara Dacy: In talking with Roger about that though, the City Staff at that time conducted a survey on June 11, 1981. There could be an argument made that that particular day, a particular homeowner's association did not choose to put out their dock or have boats out yet so what we're doing in trying to analyze these beachlot ordinances, trying to get affidavits from homeowners to verify exactly what existed at the time of the ordinance adoption. It's going to be difficult for the City to prove that what's on a dock out there, in this case on a one day survey. City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Horn: As I understand these conditional use permits, and we're going to come to it later in the contractor's yard, it's up to the person requesting that to outline what is included in that. What the use is going to be. How many trucks or whatever. It would seem to me that it would be incumbant upon the homeowner to request that conditional use permit and define what his useage is. If the City goes out there, in fact doing him a favor and if he has a greater use on that than what the City had indicated, he should have requested that at the time that the permit was granted. The non-conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: That's the policy we might take again. We just identified what beachlots were non-comforming in 1982 and did not have them in for a specific process. Councilman Horn: I specifically recall when that was enacted and the way it was to be been was that each use of each beachlot was to be recorded and only that use would be allowed in the future. Nothing over and above that would be allowed. Barbara Dacy: If they wanted to expand that, they would have to come back and get a conditional use permit. That's correct. Councilman Horn: The other problem I have is that I'd like to ask Roger, if we make an exception on this swin~ning dock, does the City have any liability because we're allowing it to be moored in a non-conforming fashion off City property? Roger Knutson: The fact that it's conforming or non-conforming to your zoning ordinance in this case, would not make it to mean more or less dangers. There's always potential when °you allow anyone to do anything that you can get sued. There's a State Statute that says when you issue permits, you should be free from liability so I guess I would not be particularly worried about any liability problems. Councilman Boyt: Who is liable? Roger Knutson: Whoever moored the boat there. Councilman Boyt: Boat or raft or whatever? Roger Knutson: Whatever. Councilman Horn: Do we have an owner? Isn't part of the process putting an owners name and things on this type of structure? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I believe that's required. Roger Knutson: On rafts. Councilman Horn: So would this be an association raft or how would it be identifY, ed? Who would be the owner of it? Barbara Dacy: Who are you talking about? Councilman Horn: I'm talking about the raft at Carver Beach. 11 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Barbara Dacy: It would .be the raft that's out there now? Councilman Horn: And who owns that? Don Ashworth: Hr. Bryne I believe. Roger BrFne: Everybody's. That raft has just been there for 30 years and everybody uses it. It don't belong te anybcrty. Councilman Horn: That's my concern. Our Attorney told us that whoever owns is responsible for it and we're saying nobody owns it so in that case nobody's responsible for it. Roger Bryne: It's been working for 30 years. There's no reason it's can't work for another 3g years. You're net responsible for it, why sheutd you worry? Councilman Horn: We have more Attorneys in the -.~erld today. Roger Bryne: If you don't own J.t, you're not responsible. The CJ. ty J.s not responsible J.s what he said° ~y worry about it? Let whoever owns it worry about it. Councilman Horn: Do you agree with that? Roger Knutson: If you thJ_nk it's a nuisance or it could cause problems, I think you have perhaps an obligatJ, on to consider the public good. I'd be more worried and concerned, if it J.s a legitinate concern, about someone getting hurt rather than vPno's going to £3ay the bill. You're heavily insur.et for this sort of thing. Roger Bryne: I don't have a problem with o~s~ing the raft. if you want to say i own it, that's fine. I'm not ducking ownership by reason of worrying about liability. The only reason I say I don't own it is because I know everybody in Carver Beach owns that raft. Everyone in the world has the right to use that raft as far as everybody in Carver Beach is concerned. That's ~ny you got that petition ami we got 265 names on it. I can get 5~ to 6{J~ more real easily if I wanted to do some more hiking, which I got tired of. Everybody I contacted said, yes sounds good. b~ny would they want to take 'that away? That's crazy. CouncJ. Lean Horn: We don't want pu to be liable for something that everybody uses either. ~-~y poJ.nt is, I don't think Park and Rec was aware until recently, at least from the Minutes I read, that that was a public beach. Is that true Lori? Lori SJ. etsema: The current Park and RecreatJ. on Cor~nission was unsure of how that minJ_-beach got there. Researching the file, it was approved by a former Park and Recreation CommJ. ssion. CounciLean Horn: I think that was a surprise to a lot of us. But it seems to me that now that Park and Rec is aware of it, that's what it is, we should have a plan from them as to how they intend to use J.t and then I'd be much more comfortable if we included a raft out there. If ~ were going to do that, that the City maintain J t and keep J.t up rather than making some private individual 12 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 responsible for it. I'm uncomfortable. I don't think that's fair to him That's all I have on this issue. Councilman Boyt: Well, Clark once again we're going to agree. First, it's my understanding that Park and Rec did discuss this issue? Just to clear that up and that a couple of con~nents came out there about the concern about whether it was in fact being treated as a public beach. Would like to see that if we're going to keep this piece of property, and I assume we are, that the City has an obligation to make sure that it's a safe and useable piece of property. To do that, there's a couple things that I would like Park and Rec, I guess basically I can just say I'd like them to look at that issue and come back with a recommendation. I personally have concern that as I read the ordinance now, it's not possible for anybody, Minneapolis, Chanhassen, Chaska, anybody to put a raft in any lake that we've got and leave it. They have to put their name on it, if they were conforming with the City ordinance but once they did that, we could have 100 rafts or we could have one raft. We have no control. Is that your understanding of the ordinance? Jo Ann Olsen: You have to be a lakeshore owner to do that but... Councilman Boyt: So it is limited? Barbara Dacy: What we're adding is that in addition to being a lakeshore owner, you have to have a home on the property. Jo Ann Olsen: And it has to be in front of your property. The way it is right now, if you have lakeshore on Lotus, you can actually moor on Minnewashta. Councilman Boyt: You could moor on any other lake. Once you're a lake owner, you have this tremendous right to put it up anywhere but if you're not a lake owner, you can ' t? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well, I think we have 250 signatures of people that say they want to use it and if we're right to say we've got potentially more people who would use it, then Park and Rec should certainly look at how we can make best use of this piece of property and it sounds like establishing some sort of swin~ning beach even though it's not very far away from one we just established. It might be reasonable. I think that we should definitely put signs up there that this is a public beach and that we should certainly look at how we can provide parking. I understand that's going to be a bit of a problem but if it's going to be a public beach, we need to have parking and we need to have it clearly signed that it is such. On the raft, my position would be on all rafts, that if they're not owned by the City, they have to be out in front of a person's piece of property where they can be properly supervised. I don't want rafts that are unsupervised on our lakes. If it is the City's, then it would go without saying, I suspect, that the City would put it out in front of a piece of City property. Then in terms of, I want to be certain that we're setting a situation here that isn't so specific that it just limits boats or rafts and really should be talking about private property. That we should have no storage of private property on public property. We have a responsibility to protect public property and be sure that it has public use and private property is not part of that. There should be no anchoring of private property outside of areas 13 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 that are owned by and directly under control of the person who has that anchorage. However, there's an interesting point that was brought up here by I think Mr. Schroeder when I talked to him over the phone. The DNR I gather had plans to put lg boats on Lotus Lake with public moorings. Does staff know anything about that? Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. Mrs. Schroeder: ~!nen we purchased our home, this is what we were told by the DNR that there would be lg permits issued for the west side of Lotus Lake. Barbara Dacy: And when did you purchase your home? Mrs. Schroeder: ~ years ago. response. So we applied for a permit and never got a Barbara Dacy: That can certainly be checked. Councilman Boyt: This opens up a process that I had never even considered and that's public mooring places on our lakes. I don't know, since we don't have a system in place to do that, it's a little bit of a scary idea to turn up and yet I think the City should probably look at it and find out just what's going on here. Apparently the County has a right to grant these and the County accepted your application but never sent you a response? Mrs. Schroeder: Correct. Councilman Boyt: So maybe nobody wants to deal with this issue but I think if we' re going to, very wary of creating a situation in which one person has access to mooring because they took action and nobody else has access and we now effectively limit anybody else from getting it. I think we should research the issue and maybe Park and Rec would be the logical place to do that since we're talking about a recreational activity. No matter who o~ans that raft, it needs to be maintained in safe operating conditions and I think that needs to be the case for all rafts, docks and what not in public waters. They're too attractive for other people to come, stop by and use. I'm basically in agreement with the ordinance as stated but I want to be sure that when we do it, we're not losing the public's long standing right to use that beach. That ~'re simply making it a safe use of the beach a~-~ we' re making it a public use of the beach ar~ not a private homeowner' s beach. That' s all I've got for now. Mayor Hamilton: There seems to be agreement, it's incredible but there is. There seems to also have been a long standing tug of way going on within the community between the people who live on the lake and the people who do not. That tug of way continues today by some who live on the lake to keep those who do not live on the lake off the lake. I think it's really unfortunate since the lakes belong to everybody in the con~nunity. We should all have the right to use them so I think really what Bill and what Jay and Clark have been saying is that, instead of legislating it and trying to keep people off and to keep kids out of the swimming holes they've been using for 3g years, we ought to try to work and come up with something that's useable and workable for all the residents. Someth].ng that's reasonable. I think as a part of that, the City needs to look at what lakeshore we have, and we do have quite a bit of it, and we need to sign that as city property and if we so designate it as a beach, then 14 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 fine. We'll call it a beach. Then we need to take the raft that's there out and put in a raft that's in good repair and can be used by everybody without worrying about kids stepping on nails or something else happening. A board coming off. We need to sign it so we say no diving. If you want to j~mp off the raft, that's fine but we need to be also sure that the water's deep enough so even jumping in, somebody's not going to become injured. We need to sign it to say that there are no lifeguards on duty and that you're using it at your own risk, even though it is a city park. I think for the beaches, those are the kinds of things we need to look at and I agree, I think the Park and Recreation Commission should look at all the land that the City owns and what potential use we have of that land. Is there one beach or are there 6 beaches that have potential use? As far as mooring boats, Bill mentioned the possibility of permits and that the County does issue permits. However, in the past when this issue has come up and people have gone to the County and asked for a permit, the County has been relunctant to give a permit unless the City is willing to approve it so you're kind of chasing your tail on this issue. Nobody will issue the permit. We've always worked closely with the County and if we felt a permit shouldn't be issued, we've told them that and they haven't issued the permit. But I think along with designating where the City property is and signing it, we also need to think of a permit process. Where can we put out mooring buoys so people can put a sailboat out or put a canoe out. Put a fishing boat out and have a permit process that people can come in, get a permit to put their boat in and they can leave it there all year so people who do not live on the lake, have an opportunity to use the lake. That entrails a whole lengthy process of looking at what can be moored at those buoys and for how long do you have it and when is your permit up and all this kind of thing but I think it's something that we need. It's time for us to go through this issue. It raised it's head about 6-7 years ago and now it's here again and it's time to do something positive about it. I think a permitting process would be good and it's something that we need and I think it can be workable. They do it on Lake Minnetonka and you look at how Minneapolis does it on the city's lakes. It works out very well for them. It's a little different situation. You don't have people living on the lake with lakeshore access but people use the lake so I think there are, unless the ordinance says in effect that we can use in doing a lot of information off of, so I would charge the Park and Rec Cor~aission and Lori to move ahead with this item and put it back on your agenda at your earliest possible convenience. With that, I guess I'd like to see us table this until such time that we have additional information back and can take positive steps to make the corrections that are needed. Councilman Boyt: Before we reach a second to that table, I would like to see you add that the Attorney be directed to reach a finding in support of this ordinance because I think we're probably going to be challenged by somebody and I'd like to know what our legal grounds are before we launch into it. Councilman Horn: We certainly aren't setting any precedent with this. Many other cities have ordinances like this. As a matter of fact, the beachlot ordinance was structured very much after the White Bear Lake conservation district beach ordinance. White Bear Lake also has an ordinance similiar to this for other structures on the lake. In fact it does require that the setback, similar to a zoning ordinance, in using it. The purpose of these is to resolve neighbor disputes. That's why it was generated in White Bear Lake because two neighbors, if the lakeshore was straight, things would be very simple but lakeshore goes like this and somebody assumes that the lot lines 15 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 don't always run parallel with the lot lines on shore and that's why these ordinances were put into effect, I don't think there should be any problem legally if we enacted something like this. Mayor Hamilton: Except I would like to be sure that as the Park and Rec Con~nission works with the lakeshore and the property that the City owns, they may want to add to this ordinance. They may want to change some things that are proposed in here and I think they should have that latitude to look at this and see how it's going to fit in with what they're going to attempt to do. I think for us to say this is what we want right now, might be a little premature. Let them take this and say it's something that perhaps we support but massage it as you go along and see if you can't work some of the kinks out. Either add to it or take away from it so it works out best for everyone. Councilman Boyt: And you're also suggesting then that we be sure that they have White Bear Lake ordinance to use as a model? Mayor Hamilton: I think they should use that and they should talk to Minneapolis, and talk to Minnetonka and see how they regulate moorings on their lakes. Councilman Horn: Minnetonka and White Bear Lake are both under conservation districts. Their ordinances were very similar. The primary purpose again for that, as it was structured there, was not so much a lakeowner versus a non-lake owner, it was mitigating a problem that came up between adjacent lake owners. That was the primary impetus. Mayor Hamilton: Eden Prairie may have information also. They have several lakes. Councilman Johnson: From my visits out there this summer, I've seen very few boats moored along there as far as existing moorings that this ordinance would be taking away. As far as boats being pulled up along the shore, that's something different and that's what I would like to see taken away. I think where we stand, the hardest place we stand as far as being sued or whatever, is the people who had a house there and have had a mooring buoy out and a boat attached to a mooring buoy all along, not sitting up on City property but actually attached to the mooring buoy. I'd like to know how many of those there are there that have been doing that over the last few years and I think that this is a good area that we could put in a few public mooring buoys. I don't know how much in a lottery or whatever, to get to them because I personally, if I owned a boat would like to have a place where I could put it without having to be a lakeshore owner. I don't own a boat though but I'd like the Park and Rec to look into the ability to, and this would really give us control over the public mooring of non-lake o~er boats here. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what I charged th~m to do. Are you in agreement that we leave the ordinance? I would then move that we table this item until the Park and Rec Co~ission can review it and bring it back to us. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding boat moorings and swimming rafts until the Park and Recreation Co~7mission has reviewed the item. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF DOGWOOD ROAD ABUTTING WOODCREST ADDITION AND TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, R & R LAND VENTURES. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Resolution #88-92: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Vacation Request #86-6 to vacate a portion of Dogwood Road abutting Lots 2810-2847, subject to a retaining a 20 foot drainage and utility easement in the aforementioned lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL AND FIRE STATION EXPANSION. Councilman Boyt: Gary, as I recall, in some of the other contracted works, that 10% contingency fee has been a number I've come across. I see this as a 7% fee. Aren't we safer to set up a contingency between 10% and 15%? Gary Warren: Actually contingencies have gone from zero to 15%. You're talking about contingencies regarding budgets? It depends on how much risk we think we have .... that's appropriate. 10, we'd be more concerned. Councilman Boyt: It's not money we're losing and I'd sure hate to spend the rest of it and come back and say where are we going to find? Gary Warren: You've got a contract estimate here. What we have, even above and beyond 7% in the City budget is different. Maybe he's overstepping his bounds there giving us a recon~nendation in that regard. We have our own fund that's been set up for that. We don't take the 7% and set it aside, we're working from our already established fund. Councilman Boyt: Except I've got some uses for some of the other money. Maybe that's more the point. I want to be sure we protect enough so we've got the funds we need. It seems to me that we talked about the ventilation system and clearly those of us who spend any time in this chamber realize the ventilation system is in dire need but there's another item that's in need and that's the sound system. I don't know why we can't fix the sound system but it occurs to me that it's very easy to sit in the back of the Council chambers and now know what's going on because you just can't hear that well. Mayor Hamilton: I think I mentioned Bill, you're saying you want to have some of the funds to redo the chambers. That was something I presented a long time ago along with the initial plans with the city. I wanted for the expansion, I wanted to have the chambers here redone because I've never been satisfied with them. I think they were poorly done in the first place and we could use to redo them here very nicely. I agree with you. Not just the sound system but we need to redo a lot of things here. CounciLman Johnson: It's not only the sound system that provides some of the acoustical problems of the room. It's the design of the room. We need an 17 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 acoustical engineer to look at this room. Councilman Boyt: We just need to tear it out. Mayor Hamilton: Right, basically start over. Councilman Boyt: So I'd like to see us earmark funds to make progress in that direction. I don't know if there's enough money here to really do everything we want to do but I don't want to see us continue with what we have now. Councihnan Horn: It'd be nice once to see us spend less even when we get a windfall rather than trying to find other veys to come up to spend the whole thing. I'd like to see us save money once in a couple of these projects. Resolution #88-93: Mayor Ha.~ilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the City Hall expansion and Fire Station expansion and remodeling be awarded to Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. for a combined base bid of $1,249,2~.~ff and that the City accept City Hall Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. The total award bid to Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. for the combined City Hall and Fire Station construction with the alternatives as indicated to $1,276,Sgg.gg. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. TH lgl REALIGNMENT, UPDATE. Mayor Hamilton: For those of you who are here for this particular item, please realize this is strictly an update. We're just getting additional information from the folks ~fno are doing some additional consulting work and there's going to be no decision made on any route tonight. Fred, are you the primary presenter here this evening? Fred Hoisington: We don't want to spend a lot of your time this evening because a lot of the things that have been done in the past 2 weeks since we were last here, are rather intangibles. They're t~hJ. ngs that we can't really show you and won't until we can actually do a tabulation or matrix kind of presentation and that will cc~e on the 26th. The biggest portion of the job is still to be done. I shouldn't say still to be done. A great deal of it has been done already. The traffic analysis itself, but that is the biggest element of the analysis and the part that Mr. Benshoof has been just cramming his computer with over the past 2 weeks and will continue to do so until about the 19th at which time we expect to at least have a preliminary report done. Meet with MnDot soon thereafter and back to you on the 26th and hopefully have everybody pulled together so if we aren't able to make a decision, we're very close to being able to make a decision at that point. We'd like to do a couple things tonight though. The first of which is to look over the evaluation criteria that is, at least at this point, we are using to evaluate 7 different alternatives and then we'd like to run over the 7 alternatives very briefly. We're kind of con~nitted to these alternatives now. They're basically the same ones you've seen, that you saw last time, with a couple of minor modifications. Howard Preston from BRW is going to run through those for us this evening. What I'd like to do first Barbara is, would you put up the criteria or at least the first stab at criteria? We are looking for input from the City Council with regard to the 15 that we have identified and the way we identified them was through all of the neighborhood meetings. The business persons meetings and so forth, that we've 18 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 had over the past several weeks. Some of th~n relate to engineering kinds of things. Others relate to public concerns. Others to purely traffic kinds of concerns but as of now, we've identified these 15 and we would appreciate or expect you to input to us by either suggesting we eliminate or add to this list. Let me go through them just briefly. The TH 101 continuity, what we're thinking of there is that in the ideal situation, a TH 101 or any State trunk highway would not have right angle turns in it. It doesn't mean we're goign to have the ideal situation here but obviously if we use TH 5 as a common link with TH 101, we are going to have the continuity criterion would not be met because of the right angle turns that would be necessary from that roadway. A key factor or a key cr~terion will be number 2, the levels of surface at key intersections. Unless we can achieve certain levels of service, somewhere in the D area, the level of service D, MnDot isn't going to be too happy with us so that's going to be an extremely important one that we meet in the best possible fashion. The third would be traffic safety. In other words, that's geometry. Are the curves correct? Do they require super? If so, can we maintain all of the required geometry and sound engineering standards in the design? The fourth criterion of separation of through from downtown traffic. Fairly clear. Either we accomplish the separation or we don't. Downtown accessibilty, which has been a concern all along. Whether we will maintain good accessibility for those wishing to get downtown. Number 6, other business and property accessibility. Are we taking anything away from some properties as a result of any of the alternatives? And residential accessibility as well. Do the people who live in the subdivisions to the south for example, have at least e~ual access to the highway system and to downtown as they presently have? Number 8, pedestrian safety. We've spent quite a bit of time on. Given the several alternatives, we' 11 be looking at which ones provide the best access to downtown. Not only including TH 101 but TH 5. Then residential impacts. There we're primarily talking about noise, traffic in closer proximity to residential areas. Noise is one of the things that we can at least reasonably measure and make comparisons for and that's one that's been mentioned on a number occasions by the residents who live in that area. Project costs and fiscal responsibility. There is a great deal of variety or a grear range of possible construction or project costs, in this case, in that we could have one let's say that could range as low as $300,000.00 and another one that could range as high as 3 million dollars. We don't know that yet because we haven't assessed the cost but we're in the process of doing that. Of course, it's all a product of right-of-way acquisition and construction and whether we're duplicating roadway segments and so forth. What we're trying to structure there is something around the mean project cost. Something within a certain distance one way or the other as a criterion. If it's within that range, then it would be acceptable. If it's above that, then perhaps it would not be. Acceptance by MnDOt. A criterion that almost could be dropped out of the list because if it isn't acceptable to MnDOt, maybe it makes a little sense to have it in there so probably number 11 could be dropped out entirely and is more a given that it has to be acceptable to MnDot. The ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule. We're still assuming that we are on that schedule and that we will stay on that schedule with whatever changes we might make that would have an effect on TH 5. Environmental impacts, primarly wetlands. Development impacts, are we taking more right-of-way than we really need and are we taking more land off the tax rolls than we really need to to accomodate the traffic needs of TH 1017 Of course, an important criterion in the public's acceptance of the alternatives and I'm sure through the public hearing process we'll have a good sense for where the support is and where the support isn't for the various of the 19 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 alternatives that are being suggested for evaluation. Now, before we go into another quick look at the alternatives. I would just open to questions or suggestions or ideas having to do with the criteria and if there are none, we can more right onto the alternatives. Councilman Boyt: I'm understanding that you don't have these in a priority order. Fred Hoisington: These are not in priority. These are strictly random at this point. Councilman Horn: Number one, I would suggest that even though these aren't in priority ratings, that an importance rating be put on each of these criteria. I don't believe they all have the same weight and I think they should be weighted and I would have liked to have seen that for your presentation this evening. We could have discussed our agreement on the rating. The other thing that I think has to happen is that when you apply each of the alternatives to these criteria, they have to be done in terms of how well they meet each of these criteria. Then you take the rating of each one times how well it meets the criteria for the score and that's how you come up with a more objective criteria which adds priority to it. The other thing, it's probably in here someplace but it wasn't clear enough so that I could pick it out and that was minimizing the ]m-pact to through traffic on TH 5. Now is that included in any of these others in a subtle way that I missed? Fred Hoisington: Minimizing which Clark? Councilman Horn: Minimizing the impact to TH 5 recognizing that that is the major concern that we have is getting traffic through on TH 5. TH lgl is an important issue but it doesn't overshadow TH 5. Fred Hoisington: That would be included under number, primarily the level of service criteria number 2. If those work, then MnDot will consider TH 5 as functioning well enough to have the common leg if that proves to be one that's workable. Councilman Horn: So ~nen you're talking about levels of service at key intersections, you're not just talking about how well the intersection works? You're talking about the overall flow on the total thoroughway itself. Fred Hoisington: The real test of a highway and how well it functions are it's intersections. In essense, if the intersection functions, the flow of the entire leg or segment will also function. In essence, we're talking about the entire flow, that is correct. Good point though. Excellent point on the weighting and we thought about bringing a weighting to you but we can score the alternatives without any difficulty at all but we have dJ. fficulty with weighting because we don't know what the Council weights might need to be. What we can do is we can work out something so we can give you that opportunity the next time we're here. We could go so far as to suggest some weighting but I'm not sure I would be so presumptuous as to think that I could necessarily do that. Would you want us to bring something that would allow you to do that perhaps next time? 20 City Council Meeting - September 12~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I think you need to have some musts and wants and then weights within your musts and wants because you've got two different categories there to begin with and then there's going to be weights within those categories. I don't see any reason why you couldn't suggest some based on your feeling for th~n and give us a starting point so we can all look at them and try to manipulate them however to a point where we're all comfortable with them. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we could give him a good start tonight. I came with my top 3, 4 5. After that I quit because those were the ones that were most important to me. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't weight them. I guess I could pick out the musts and wants but I guess I wasn't prepared to do that this evening. I'd rather have it presented so I'd have some time to sit and work on that alone. I don't see any reason why we need to do that tonight. Fred Hoisington: We can make some suggestions if you care to. Councilman Johnson: I actually have one I'd like to add which is separation of residential neighborhoods from state highways which is one of the things we're trying to achieve on the north side. You're running a state highway through... Mayor Hamilton: 9, 13 and 15 pretty well cover it. Councilman Johnson: I was thinking residential impacts, as he introduced it, as residential... Mayor Hamilton: If you add one word there, minimize residential impacts. Councilman Johnson: Yes. I do see the difference between an engineer's rating and a politician's rating of the importance of these various criteria. As I've heard the engineers talk about the continuity of TH 101 being so important and I don't have a heck of a lot of feel for the importance of continuity of TH 101 when you go several miles out of your way on TH 12 to get to it and everyplace else on TH 101. That's never going to be fixed either. Not that we should make it any worse than it is but it couldn't get any worse. If we rerouted it on TH 5, it would be better than it now being rerouted past the grade school. Fred Hoisington: Jay, let me just say that you don't have to worry about the engineer's weighting. All you have to do is worry about what the politician's weighting but the planner is going to do it and you know, they just can't miss in that respect. Councilman Johnson: I've got to check to see if my boots are on. Fred Hoisington: I think you've given us good direction with regard to the criteria. What we'd like to do then is to very briefly run through the 7 alternatives that we have and I'd like Howard Preston, who is BRW's in-house project manager for this project, to run through those alternatives for you. Howard Preston: Since the last meeting we've been doing a number of things. One is developing some additional alternatives and taking a look at the alternatives we presented at the last time and refining the design slightly. So what we have to show you this evening is in the packet that's been passed out. I'll just 21 City Council Ymeting - September 12, 1988 take a few minutes to go through each of these. Just basically to start j there's two points to keep in mind. One of the things, work task that we've gone through since the last meeting was we take a look at the geometrics. Getting a loot at item 3 on Fred's evaluation list. Taking a look at the gec~aetrics and it appears that all of these alternatives are substantial conformance with YmDot's design guides. We haven't done detailed design work yet so I don't know that all of the items that would be included in any one of these when the detail is on it but in fact every item will in fact, it appears they are all in substantial conformance with the design guides. The second it~n, ...other issues %fnich is the environmental issues, we looked at an alternative alig~Ynent that would pull Lake Drive south of the wetland and ponding area. We haven't done a complete environmental analysis but it appears that either one of these alternatives would work. Either north of the pond or south and that's so,netting that could be negotiated with the Rosemount people during their development process so I think that leaves the City some flexibility to go either way. The fJ. rst alternative is number 1 in all the packets that I handed out, is simply this is what's in MnDot's plan at the present time. It maintains a full intersection at Dakota and has a full intersection at Great Plains. It has a right-in/right-out intersection at Park. That's what's in YmDot's plan right now. The second alternative was new. It's something that you haven't seen before. Basically, for lack of a better na~e, call this the Dakota Avenue alternative. What we've done is we've created a full access intersection at Dakota. That was one of the comnents that was presented or discussed the last time because of the commercial development on the south side of TH 5. What could be done to provide full access at that location? So this one provides a full access intersection at Dakota. It brings TH lgl, the north leg down to line up opposite the existing Dakota Avenue intersection. The next intersection then is at Great Plains Blvd.. We would propose a full access intersection at Market and then the connection of Lake Drive through the Rosemount property across the Ward property to hook up with Lake Drive's present location. So this is a new alternative. The third alternative is pretty much the same as the one that was presented earlier. It has some Lake Drive alternative. The intersection of Dakota is restricted to the right turn is headed out. The new TH lgl that was brought kind of down to the Lake Drive alignment and then heads south to the Ward property and again the connection to Lake Drive through the Rosemount property so this is pretty much the same as what was presented. Councilman Johnson: Does that maintain where you can come in TH 5, take a right in to the north, go across the tracks and into downtown in that direction? Howard Preston: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Take a right off of... Councilman Johnson: Dakota. Howard Preston: Correct. Councilman Johnson: Why would we maintain that railroad crossing at that point and add another one just down the road from it? Howard Preston: The answer would be to maintain the continuity of West 78th Street. I'm not sure, there was another reason but that was part of the original proposal. The fourth alternative is also an alternative that you've seen before that brought the TH lgl realignment and a new aligmnent and basically to that commercial property to the site v~nere VFW is behind the 22 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 con~necial that sat at Lake Drive and Great Plains Blvd., then swings the alignment down south through the Ward property in the general direction of Lake Drive East. This is also something that was presented earlier. The fifth alternative is what was previously referred to as the north leg option where the north leg of TH 101 is intercepted with TH 5 and then we move to continue on TH 101 would be through the reappointed boulevard intersection and that would continue on. This is the alternative that would require the con, non section on TH 5 between existing TH 101 to the south and the new north leg. I think the only item that might be different is at one time there was talk of connection and we didn't provide that connection... The sixth alternative is what we previously called the Market Blvd. alternative that brings the south leg of TH 101 up to connect with Market Blvd. to the north. It has the north leg of TH 101 going away at that particular location, it provides for a right turns in and out at Dakota. A T intersection here at the new north leg. A full access intersection at Great Plains and the idea is to get the present alignment of TH 101 that is through the Ward property here would be removed and the TH 101 south leg would be opposite of Market Blvd.. So this is pretty much again the same as what was presented earlier. The last alternative is a variation of Market Blvd. alternative. We have the south leg of Great Plains Blvd. south of TH 5 would be eliminated and there would be connections opposite the north leg of TH 101 down...so there would be some access provided between TH 5 and Lake Drive with access in back of the con]nercial area on Dakota. So those briefly are the 7 alternatives that we will be evaluating on the present evaluation criteria. Fred Hoisington: Just a couple of comments, Howard already covered having to do with ones that represent changes or differences from what we have seem before. The second alternative, the Dakota Avenue alternative is one that of course has been considerd many times in the past. It's a matter of cost and one of the things that triggered that alternative was Clark's concern last time that we should not have excluded any on the basis of cost. At least not up until this time so we went back and we said perhaps we should at least keep that one open. It does keep everything else pretty much in place but there could be some rather high costs associated with it. The last alternative, number 7... Mayor Hamilton: Before you go that Fred. Number 2 here, where then does the flow of TH 101 traffic go? Is it using TH 5 or you're still going down 78th Street? You're going to use TH 5? Fred Hoisington: You would have a common section. The common section from here to here but the advantage here is that now you have a greater separation and probably more acceptable to MnDot if we have a short separation. Councilman Boyt: I have a question about this one. Then what you're saying, since we're keeping basically all the roadways open that are open now, we're straightening out where TH 5 joins TH 101 or TH 101 joins TH 5 but we haven't shut any roadways off. What's going to draw people on TH 101 to use TH 5? Why don't they just continue to stay on West 78th Street? Fred Hoisington: You come down TH 101 in this fashion. It will be the perception, in fact more than just perception. It will take longer for them to take this than the other one. Therefore, they will need to use this one before the other leg. 23 City Council Meeting - oepnembe_ 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Tell me about going across Dakota and using Lake Drive East. Will it keep them off that? Fred Hoisington: I think it's the same kind of situation. Both 78th Street and Lake Drive are 3g mph city streets. The speed limit on TH 5 will be 55 mph that people will perceive tfnat it is quicker to get between the two points at 55 mph than 3g mph with stop signs at various locations. Councilman Boyt: I'm not convinced but I understand your point. Fred Hoisington: The important thing is that there are trade-offs. This one has some rather high costs potentially to put the aligmment in this location. At the same time, we don't know the flow of traffic in that... We' 11 know that when we come back to you next time. The other alternative is kind of different. It's the last alternative and what this represents is a local connection in her and as Howard indicated, would allow us to eliminate this one. We're not suggesting that it works better but there could be some confusion of people using TH lgl in this fashion and mistaking this for the turn that keeps them on TH lgl. We're simply testing it to see how it works. This leg may not work but at least for the time being we felt we had to add one in and take a look at that. Howard Preston: The purpose of that connection ].s simply to provide some additional access to the con~nercial properties that fronted along Lake Drive and it also gives an access back to the cor~ercial properties...so it's primarily a local access function. I know you sea~ed a little skeptical before but I think the ideas that there were stop signs along here and the design is obviously a city street as opposed to an arterial trunk highway. I would think most through trips that don't have an origin or destination, were down in this area, would choose TH 5 as the preferred alternative. I think most trips would. That's not guaranteeing that all of them would but most of them would. Fred Hoisington: The only thing that I guess we might entertain is, we know that Biii would like to suggest maybe 3 or 4 of these have more significance than others. If there are any directions you could give us right now, that would suggest that, we'd be more than happy to take your suggestions. Councilman Boyt: If I could use that as an opportunity to say something about this. First, you need to know the weighting of these once and which ones, if any, are musts. And you've got to know the musts before you can do anything else. Now you've got the objectives down, if we don't add any to these tonight, I would think the first goal would be to determine what the musts are and throw out any of those alternatives that don't match them. Save yourself some time and save the City some money. Other than doing that, I don't know, although I'd like to, i don't know how i can throw out alternatives until I know what the musts are. I can tell you right off hand that my most important, I don't think they're musts because I'll let the State and you guys decide those, but for me the most important objective is number !2, the ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule. I don't know that that's a must but it's dog gone important. The second one is residential impact. To me personally, that's the second most important non-must on the list and I think it's going to have a lot of say with which of these alternatives survives. Then I drop down to the traffic safety design standards which I tied in with the level of service at key intersections. Ail of one. Those were my top three. ! had environmental 24 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 impacts next but I think if you can take into account, for me, those three and how the alternatives fit those, it will help me make a decision about which one is a better. I think they're all important. I think you did a nice job of establishing the criteria. Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than trying to satisfy each one of us individually, you need to apply some weights. Some musts and wants and weights to the criteria that's been established and then apply them to each one of the alternatives before us so that we can review those collectively. Not individually and then decide which ones meet our criteria the best. I don't think we can throw any out until we've done that. Councilman Boyt: I agree with your last point. They're not in the best position to weight these. Councilman Horn: They're not going to weight. We're going to weight these. They're going to evaluate each of these alternatives against these criteria. We will weight the priority of the criteria. Councilman Boyt: Do all the alternatives meet your musts, as you understand them? Is that how you started the presentation tonight? All 7 of these will fly? Howard Preston: Based on the level of detail that we have here, appear to be in substantial conformance with the DOT's design standards. None of them have any glaring deficiencies. There could be some exceptions later on when we get into the detailed design but they're not apparent ones. If approved, they could all meet their design limits. Mayor Hamilton: I think what we had said earlier is that we allow them to establish some weighting to these numbers. They haven't been doing this in a vaccum so they have some idea what the weights should be on these. Bring them back to us so we can do some fine tuning but I would suspect that they're going to be very close to what our own is going to be. Then apply those weights to each alternative. Then some will drop out. Councilman Horn: I see the s~e process we used earlier in our session to determine what the City's priorities were in general. We all took our weighted scores of each and I think we can come up with a composite of all of our priorities and come up with a consensus of that. I think that's a good procedure to use. Councilman Boyt: I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that it's a procedure that, I think we run the risk, if we know how these alternatives match the criteria, that we'll weight the criteria to get the alternative we want. Why not just weight the criteria and turn them loose? Fred Hoisington: Could I suggest this? It's very difficult to do that in a group session. It can be done very well if you were to do this. If you were to take that list and give me your weightings. Not ratings now. I'm looking for weightings and the maximum number is 1~0 so all you get is 100. You can attach all 100 to one of them. You can attach 1~ to every one of them or however it works out so you not exceed 100 and then what we can do is we can put them down on a composite sheet and do some averaging across. I suspect we're not going to 25 C].ty Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 see a great deal of disparity there and we'll come back to you next time. If you could send those to us, then we could show you what you came up with. Councilman Horn: You were going to take out number 11 right? Fred Hoisington: I'm going to take off number 11. Does that sound like an acceptable way to deal with that? Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to go with lg~? It seems like 1~ tops would make it easier to do the weighting. CounciLman Boyt: The system that I know that I know is easy to use is to use 5 because basically most of us can differentiate about 15% or 2g% difference between these and not 1% difference between them. If you've got 1~ fives on there, give them all 5. If you've got 3, the most important is 5, least important is a 1 or a zero. Fred Hoisington: I'm looking for something that shows relative weights in this case. Councilman Boyt: That would because if you've got all of them fives, you're saying they're all equally important to you. Fred Hoisington: You're doing the same thing we are. Councilman Boyt: I'm just dropping you down from lgg to 5. I can count 5 easily. Councilman Johnson: His system, everybody would end up at a total score of if you added them all up. Fred Hoisington: Let's say you have 7 criteria that you feel are good, have some weight here. Councilman Boyt: I'm not rating. I don't have to have only one top one. I can have 2 or 3 that equally important to me. Give them all fives. Give all three of those fives. Fred Hoisington: W~at you're doing is ranking. CounciLman Boyt: We don't need to discuss it now. Fred HoJ. sington: But the key thing is that you all have to do it the same or I can't... Mayor Hamilton: We've had a weighting system that we've used earlier and Don has that and I would suspect that Don could go back and dig that out arr] refine it and send it out to us so we can all understand it rather than sitting here all night debating. Fred Hoisington: If you could send that to us as soon as possible. Mayor Hamilton: Don will get it out to us with a letter of explanation and then we can apply that so it will work out well. Okay, Fred did you have anything 26 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 else you wanted to present us? Did the residents here have any questions you wanted to ask of Fred? Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm with the Blue Circle Investment Company. We have the con~nercial property at Lake Drive and TH 101. I'm a little confused by a couple of things that were said. In regards to TH 101 continuity, you said something about right angle turns on TH 101 using right angle turns is not real acceptable. If I understand the proposal that you're routing onto TH 5 is going to in some places have a right angle turn. Is that correct? Fred Hoisington: For example, this alternative for TH 101 would have a right turn and then a left turn, in other words, 90 degree turns. Whereas the alternatives, this one for example, would be continuous because there are no right angle turns so that would be the only distinction. Pat Hallisey: That is not using TH 5. Fred Hoisington: No, it isn't. That's correct. Pat Hallisey: I think if I saw all of those plans correctly, everything that put TH 101 onto TH 5 had a right angle turn. Fred Hoisington: Exactly. Pat Hallisey: So any proposal would put TH 101 on TH 5 as a right angle turn and that's not necessarily very good from a design standpoint? Fred Hoisington: I think what we decided in this process is that, that's probably not unacceptable. It's not ideal, would be a better way to say it. Pat Hallisey: My other question was, you keep referring to the Dakota Avenue intersection there to some extremely high costs. Can you tell me what those high costs are and how they're high in relationship to the other alternatives? Fred Hoisington: I would only say that the...is an already existing building. Whereas other cases you do not have to take buildings... Pat Hallisey: You'd be taking the apartment building north of TH 101 and TH 5? Fred Hoisington: We're still looking at alternatives that wouldn't take too much. It's conceivable that we could get an aligr~nent. Pat Hallisey: But it's basically a property acquisition costs? Fred Hoisington: Yes. Pat Hallisey: I just wanted to ask the Council if they received the letter that we had written regarding our concerns? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Resident: Regarding the Great Plains Blvd., why wouldn't you just eliminate that and/or make that a right-in/right-out and eliminate that land there? That seems to me that the more...you put down TH 5, where you're going to hang up 27 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 traffic. The other thing is, what is the distance between Great Plains and Market Blvd. in terms of feet? Fred Hoisington: It's about 1,9gg. Resident: Okay, so it's just barely over the limit? 7gg feet. Fred Hoisington: Yes. Resident: That's not very far when you' re traveling at 55 mph. Wqny that one? Sa~ebody asked about the proposals. You could eliminate that because if you put...there's no reason to have this. You could simply take that right-in/ right-out on both sides and then eliminate the intersection altogether. A cul-de-sac on the one end and just leave it open on the other. Howard Preston: That's something that we thought about. In fact I think that's come up several times in the coversations. Basically it's the desire to provide enough access. I'm not sure exactly what the right definition of enough is but enough access...that if this intersection were only right-in/right-out, that would not provide enough access to downtown off of TH 5 after the City has gone through all the efforts to redevelopin9 it's downtown area. Resident: We have Market Blvd.. You have Dakota. This proposal on the bottom down here, do we really need three in a space of, what is that distance, 3,ggg feet? Howard Preston: Need? t don't think it's a need as much as it is perception. There was one issue or one reason that came up that indicated that it would improve one situation to keep that open. What was happening is that you were looking at levels of service 2g years out. Basically when the City is fully developed and in a number of intersections that...putting more and more traff]~c on the ones that exist and you would have...problems at intersections. I have an additional intersection open that seemed to pull some traffic away from some of the other ones and even the traffic volumes out of all the intersections... So there appears to be, that was the one reason that it was seen as preferable to have a linear section possible with access on but the other reason is we were trying to keep that at a minim~n. You're absolutely correct, the more lights, the more traffic signals there are, the more potential for congestion and the harder it is to get through this whole area. Resident: I guess as a resident of the conwnunity who unfortunately has to travel TH 5 everyday, both going and coming from work, I'd like to see as many lights eliminated along TH 5 as possible. If that means having to wait in line to get in and out here, that's fine because I can get to my destination quicker and not be sitting in stop and go traffic. Mayor Hamilton: I think we all have the same concern and I guess we need to move on. Mark Eidem: The Dakota Avenue intersection, it came to my attention that that light system was bought and paid for by the Association 9 years ago as a safe crossing. Mayor Hamilton: That' s not correct. 28 City Council Meeting - September 12~ 1988 Mark Eidem: It is according to those who dug them out at our annual meeting~ Their concern is, on many of these plans, there is an elimination of safe pedestrian crossings. They do not consider a safe crossing is the right turn lanes are also not stopping. Only the through traffic stops but the right lanes will continue... If these are intersecting, that these right lanes are not to be controlled? Howard Preston: This move off of TH 5, for example, can not be controlled because there's no conflicts. You're going to be making a right turn, all they can do is make this right turn. This right turn onto TH 5, there will be a yeild sign there. Mark Eidem: It isn't the same as a red light. That was their concern. This area, on many of these intersections, have no crossing in this area of town that doesn't completely stop traffic. Mayor Hamilton: One of the evaluation criteria Mark is pedestrian accessibility and safety. That has to be addressed in each one of these so, I think you're making a good point but that's already one item that they're going to have to consider. Mark Eidem: I just wanted to make sure that you understood that. An entire group of homeowners are very concerned. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see that these alternatives, are not necessarily the only place that is a safe place for pedestrians to cross is a semifore white crossing. We've got a lot of topography out there where we may be able to provide a pedestrian overpass or something like that. I'm hoping that the engineers are looking into these kinds of alternatives where pedestrians don't have to cross in front of traffic. Not all traffic stops at red lights. Uli Sacchet: I'd like to coherent about the cost of the Dakota crossing. There isn't much you can say from the resident's viewpoint. You all know that we go by TH 101 on that Lake Drive East or for that matter, in between TH 5 and Lake Drive East and we do like to control TH 5. However, when we discussed it in the neighborhood, we thought that having an option along Dakota intersection idea would be less expensive than any of the other ones because of acquisition or right-of-way. You don't have to buy and possibly move the c~nent plant. You don't have to turn down a shopping mall and so forth. Do I see this correctly, there is... one building that would have to go away, is that correct? Fred Hoisington: I don't know. That's a very hard question. We'll tell you next time. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, NEW AMERICAN HOMES. Barbara Dacy: I just wanted to clarify that Staff's recommendation is to approve the proposed site plan based on the plans stamped "Received September 9, 1988"...engineering m~o behind the cover memo was written in regards to the packet that went out... 29 City Council YmetJ. ng - Septe~TfOer 12, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: Essentially they're meeting all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They meet all the parking setbacks. Landscaping. They're providing all the access points where they're necessary. They've provided us with a secondary access on Lake Drive East. Lighting. They're meeting all the requ i r~ents. Mayor Ha-hilton: Are the applicant's here? You're New American Homes right? Do you want to add to what the staff has said? Frank Kr~mer: I can tell you a little bit about the building itself. We have the site plan. This is the old site plan that doesn't have the second access on it to Lake Drive East but it shows basically an L shaped building. 45,ggg square feet with access points here and here onto TH 5. We're meeting all the landscaping requirements of the City. The building elevation is designed with a clock tower or bell tower in the middle which will be the focal point at the higher point of the property so it will be easily visible off of TH 5. The building is designed with a truss, peak roof to blend into the neighborhood and have it as a good neighborhood retail outlet. The building is designed for one or two major tenants staged at either end of the building. The smaller shops... If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Councilman Horn: How many of our 7 alternatives affect this property? Barbara Dacy: 3, 4 and 7. CounciLman Horn: And you're aware of those alternatives right? Frank Kramer: Yes I am. Councilman Horn: So many times we hear about the things that go in and people say gee, no one ever told me about that possibility happening. I just want you to be aware of it. Frank Kramer: I guess I wasn't aware of any alternative of TH lgl realignment when we platted the property 2 years ago, or 3 years ago I guess now, there was no discussion of this intersect plan at that point. If there would have been, we could have made some arrangement for some right-of-way at that point in our platting process and probably help the w~nole process along. At this point we have a whole lot that is platted and we would like to proceed forward with the project. Councilman Horn: Which alternatives would this proposal eliminate? Frank Kramer: All of them that use Lake Drive East. Councilman Horn: So in other words, you couldn't use Lake Drive East as an al ternative? Barbara Dacy: The same alternatives, 3, 4 and 7. Councih~an Horn: When we were going through the downtown development, when we didn't have a solid proposal in place but we knew something was coming, we put on a building moratorium. This seems 'to be ridiculous that we can go ahead with this proposal at this stage when we know something's going to happen down there. 3~ City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 We have to keep our options open. I know where you are from a legal standpoint but you have to understand the type of position you're putting us in. You do understand that? Frank Kramer: I've been working with the City staff now for over a year hoping that something concrete would come forward. At this point, each parcel of land has cost me $100,000.00 a year to carry. I can not continue to carry it for the City. I've done that for a year and at this point... You have to look at it from my standpoint also. Councilman Boyt: Could you show me how the roof is screened from the neighbors? Frank Kramer: How the roof is screened from the neighbors? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Are the neighbors in a position where they're going to see the roof? The top of the building. Not the front but the top of the building. Do we have any property that looks down on this site? Frank Kramer: None whatsoever. It's a high point of the development. Councilman Boyt: What are your intended hours of operation? Frank Kramer: Our intended hours will be probably 7:00 in the morning until 11:00 at night. Councilman Boyt: Do you understand that there is a potential for Dakota and TH 101 to be closed? That intersection to be closed? Frank Kramer: I guess I understand there is. Again, there's been commercial development along there already and I guess I'd like the City not to turn it's back totally on that and make statement for Pat and mYself, I think we've done a lot of development in this area and we see it as a viable retail neighborhood business and would not like the City to ignore that. Councilman Boyt: This previous developer sent us a letter commenting that he didn't have the perception that Lake Drive East was going to possibly be anything less than it is now. I just want you to understand that if you put this in, you're putting it in with the possibility that we'll close Dakota Avenue. So if you break ground, you're breaking ground at your own risk. That we may also take out Lake Drive East and TH 101 as an intersection so TH 101 may swing well to the west. Frank Kramer: I guess I look at all your site plans. Ail of the alternatives either have an intersection at Dakota or at Great Plains and as such, I think the access to our site would be adequate. Councilman Boyt: How many trips per day are you planning on having to your site? Frank Kramer: We haven't had a traffic study conducted. Councilman Boyt: You think Lake Drive East as it stands now can withstand that traffic? 31 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Frank Kramer: It's over designed for a residential street. It's not a residential street...and was designed as such. It can definitely handle that traffic. I paid dearly for that road there. Councilman Boyt: So we have a situation in which you've met the City standards for landscaping. I don't remember comnents in the staff report about the types of trees you're plantin9. Frank Kramer: This is our landsca~ plan. They've put in a ntm~ber of different plants. The~e are 57-6 foot Colorado Blue Spruce. We have a lot of small trees. Councilman Boyt: That Colorado Blue Spruce iine, that's shielding you from the highway? From TH 5? Is that how I understand the layout? Frank Kr~-ner: No, we're shielding our back delivery area from the neighboring properties. Then we have one deciduous tree in the parking area and along the boulevard. Councilman Boyt: I'm surprised that the neighborhood hasn't commented more about this. I'd like to know more about their particular interest in this development. I think that the City would be undertaking a tremendous financial liability if we did not approve what you're doing but if it was me looking at the possibility of carrying this for another 6 months versus the possibility of starting in the ground ar~ having the City close those intersections, I'd think twice so I'll vote to approve because we really have no choice but I think you're rolling the dj. ce. I don't think you take into account what it will do to that if we close that intersection and that's a very real possibility. Frank Kramer: As a developer, we've developed over 75 parcels and soon to have probably the biggest project in the United States going. I think we know our risks... Mayor Hamilton: My comments are totally different from the others. I'm a little upset I guess that you feel you have to move ahead with this based on ~Jnat's happening in that area. I also understand the costs that you're incurring but you knew that up front also when you bought the land and that's part of the price you pay for development. Are you going to have a Tom Thumb type of anchor in there or what type? I presume you're going to have a grocery of some type or attempt to have. Frank Kramer: ...all of them have a strong interest. We've also had a national drug store chain indicate a very strong interest. Mayor H~ilton: I guess I'm getting strip shopping centered out. I think we're going to have to rename the City strip city or something. I certainly wish we could find an ordinance that would eliminate a grocery store on every corner and a drug store on every other corner and promote the City as a whole rather than a little strip shopping center everyplace even though I realize this would probably be a benefit to the neighborhood in that area since they wouldn't have to cross the street to do some of their shopping. But we also have a central business district that we're trying to promote and encourage shopping and development there. I kind of agree with Bill. We're kind of over a barrel and 32 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 if I approve this, it will be very relunctantly and you won't get much cooperation from me on your whole project so I hope you realize that. Councilman Boyt: We have an option. I guess we draw the line in the sand and table it. I would move that we table. Roger Knutson: Is that tabling it for two weeks? Mayor Hamilton: Until we reach agreement on an alignment? Roger Knutson: I suggest you bring it back in two weeks. Then you'll have a full Council here. There's apparently some division on the Council. If you want to table it for two weeks and have a full Council. Councilman Johnson: Is everybody going to be here in two weeks? Mayor Hamilton: There's a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review for a 40,000 square shopping center for New American Homes for two weeks. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.~ APPROVAL OF CONTESTED ASSESSMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 86-11A. Don Ashworth: If I could lead off, first of all, the label that we've given to this item, I don't really agree with. Staff is the one who initiated a number of the items as far as being pulled off of that last agenda. With that, I'd like to speak to four properties that we've had an opportunity to meet with the property owners involved. The Council has copies of correspondence in the packet. The first two I'd like to talk about are the Old St. Hubert's Church and the Church property itself. In that regard, there was concern at the last meeting regarding the assessment for the Old St. Hubert's Church in the amount that had been shown for that. I did have Gary Ehret go back and one of the issues that had been brought out was a concern regarding the assessment for the cemetery property. We had confirmed with the Attorney's office that that should not be included as a part of the assessment. Even as of our last meeting, Gary Ehret had thought that he had that totally deleted when we realized that the computer program associated with the lateral assessments for sewer and water had not taken that into account. That produces a new assessment amount for Old St. Hubert's Church of $6,462.85. The school and church property maintains the 1/2 of the watermain assessment and there was an increase due to storm sewer. That assessment is basically staying at the $18,010.22 for a total assessment for the two parcels of $24,473.07. In regards to the Sorenson property, the City Council had asked that we look at the rationale for the assessment. If Council will recall, we do use a method of assessment where if you have full frontage on a street or have already received a street assessment on one side, the assessment is only to be one-half on the other side. That would delete about $16,000.00 and drop that assessment from the $41,462.00 amount down to $25,215.00. The fourth parcel is the Brown property. That really has the same issue regarding frontage. In the proposed roll in front of you reduces that 33 City Council Meeting - Septe~7~oer 12, 1988 assessment for street by $9,217.gg. In addition, in meeting with Mr. Brown, he believes that he has paid for lateral sewer and trunk storm sewer so in adopting a potential roll, in other words, for that $9,217.gg less figure, he would also ask that the Council give him the flexib].lity for him to work with staff and if he can show that any of those amounts have been paid, that that portion be assessed would be deleted. That really concludes those four. If at all possible, barring comments from the Council or the audience, I would ask that a motion be considered for those four. Councilman Horn: Are you suggesting some timeframe that that can be worked out? Don Ashworth: Let's say within a week as far as Mr. Brown is concerned. Councilman Johnson: What about the rest of it? Don Ashworth: The rest are satisfied with the assessments. Again, based on the correspondence and the reductions that I've noted here. Harry Pauly: What about the increases? Are you speaking about those now or are those coming later? Don Ashworth: They're coming later. I simply wanted to eliminate the four that I do note the people are here and they literally, these assessment fall in line. I think we can dispense with those four and then discuss really the r~na].ning ones° Councilman Boyt: On Brown's Service here, I must have missed it Don. In just a very few words, was that the corner lot decrease that resulted in the $9,217.gg? Don Ashworth: That's correct. It treats the car wash as though it fronts on 79th Street, which in fact it does. Councilman Boyt: Has it even been assessed for fronting on two streets? Don Ashworth: Yes, it was assessed for the frontage on 79th Street as was Sorenson's on the opposite side of the street. CouncJ. lman Boyt: So what we've done effectively is reduce the assessment to one street frontage? Don Ashworth: One-half of the side yard assessment. Mayor Hamilton: Father Barry, do you have any con~nents, questions? Father Barry: No, I think our Attorney's and we are agreeable to this amount that involves the easement agreements that you discussed with Don. I have not been able to show them these doct~nents but we agreed on this finally on Friday and I have not been able to show the...people these documents but by telephone they feel that what I've told them and read to them, that this is just and equitable. Mayor Hamilton: I would then move approval of the assessments noting the changes and decrease and the noted changes. Those are the ones that we're dealing with right? 34 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Don Ashworth: Four parcels Councilman Johnson: The Sorenson, the two St. Hubert's and Gary Browns? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Horn: I'll second it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the assessments with the noted changes for Mr. Sorenson, Gary Brown and St. Hubert's Church property and St. Hubert's Church and School property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: As in regards to, I see Mr. Hanson is here and Mr. Pauly, as Council is aware, we are in condemnation with the Bodine Hendrickson and with the Bernie Hanson property. Personally I don't see where that's really an issue on the assessments. I haven't had a chance to talk with Bernie but as I understand the Court did agree with the City's taking this past week. Now it's just a matter of how much money. I don't see where the assessments are really an issue on yours one way or the other Bernie. Bernie Hanson: If we proceed to that point, if we ever get something accomplished, yes. Up until the other day, we didn't even have a direction we were going. Don Ashworth: Harry, I'm not sure if you wish to comment. You had a chance to meet with Gary Ehret right before the meeting. You had some questions regarding differences and I did not participate in those discussions. Harry Pauly: I've had a little bit of a problem with the size of the property that's left is 3 feet on the side. 3.6 I guess on the side of the building that they built a plaza planter box on that's still in my name but I have no access to it or use of it. I don't feel that I should be assessed in the square footage of that piece of property as well as the front footage. Don Ashworth: Gary, did you verify? Should the assessment be modified to take that into account? Gary Ehret: Well, in my opinion, no. The assessment methodology was always the assessable front footage and the assessable square footage of the parcel based on fee title. I understand Mr. Pauly's concern regarding use of it but it doesn't change the condition of the parcel. What you're talking about is roughly 3 1/2 feet of front footage. 3 1/2 feet by I believe about 80 feet deep. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem though if we're actually taking whatever footage of property, 3 feet or 4 feet say, we've taken that and built a planter on it, Harry has no use of it. Is he going to have to go out and water the plants now and the trees that he didn't want to have planted there? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me either. Councilman Johnson: Did we plant trees on Harry's property? 35 City Council Y~eting - Septenioer 12, 1988 Harry Pauly: The planter's on my property. It's fastened down to my building. They punched holes into the side of my buJ_lding to anchor the planter on. I didn't even know they were there until one Monday morning I come to work and here they're pounding on the side of the building. No one ever asked. That's just the way it happened. Then I've had water in the basement from the planters when they water the shurbs. Mayor Hamilton: Can you answer the question Gary? I'm asking Gary to answer my question, why we shouldn't purchase that property or do semething. Gary Ehret: If you choose to purchase the property and do it at this time, it is not shown... Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that Harry's got a good lawsuit against us if we don't purchase it o We built on his property without his permission. Gary Ehret: We sought easements from Mr. Pauly. Mayor Hamilton: Did you get them? Gary Ehret: It's part of the condemnation action. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem that you may need to resolve that somehow equitably. I don't know what the value of 4 feet is. It's 4 feet by how long? Gary Ehret: Roughly 7g feet. Harry Pauly: 8~ feet. Roger ~nutson: If you have a condemnation case going, I'm not personally working on it, I don't know the specifics of what we're taking and not taking so I can't ce~-ment on it but I'll sure find out. If we're occupying Mr. Pauly's property, you have to pay for that... Harry Pauly: I know it's not in the condemnation. It's 2g feet behind in the parking lot but not any of the land on the east side of the building. Mayor Hamilton: Well, would you investigate that? Roger Knutson: I'll check that out and someone will be in touch with you or your attorney tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: And then the assessment would be modified. Would that satisfy you to have the assessment modified? Harry Pauly: I'm objecting to the whole assessment as far as that's concerned. i don't feel that there are many property owners there...assessments alon9 that and then they're turned back to the ones who are remaining there, that they're picking up the entire debt. That parking lot has got to be probably the highest priced parking lot in the City. I don't feel that it's any better as far as parking cars is concerned than anybody elses parking lot but for square foot, I'm sure the assessments on that is higher than any other parking lot in the City. 36 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Gary Ehret: The rate for that parking lot is higher than the work in other parking lots but it's a function of what was constructed... For example, the bowling center lot will not be linked to reconstruction rate that was charged for the construction activities. The bowling center lot is cheaper than that lot. It's a function of the work that was completed. Harry Pauly: Another point we brought up, Gary and I did about the parcel of land where the plaza is on. Acquisition of that property should not be included in the assessment. That was strictly a City project. That parcel for the plaza. Don Ashworth: I would agree with that. I guess I'd like to meet with Roger and Gary and explain that but I don't think, that was included in the overall assessment for the parking area Gary. Is that correct? Gary Ehret: Correct. Don Ashworth: I think that reasonably should be eliminated. I think that is a cost that the entire con~nunity is benefitting from. Harry Pauly: That would of course change the assessments of the Pony and the other places too. Don Ashworth: Any change that was made like that would affect all the property owners in a similar fashion. Harry Pauly: I think at this point we should table this again for another day or session. Mayor Hamilton: We can table Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus again to clarify those issues that have been brought up. Does that cause a probl~n Don? There's certainly some questions here that need to be answered. Don Ashworth: No question. What I was going to suggest is the adoption with the understanding that that amount would be reduced and based on Roger's work regarding acquisition but I think we're going to be alright because what we've been working is an October 10th certification deadline and I believe that they are willing to give us some additional time this year to the point where that should not create a problem. You have to give the property owner 30 days to pay without penalty so that's where the problem comes in. Gary Warren: That clock now, the County allows that clock to run after October 10th. In fact, I think they have all the way to December 1st. Mayor Hamilton: So we can approve the others and table Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus until the 26th? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: My question would be, who's going to pay the difference? Don Ashworth: Personally I had felt all the way through that that was an HRA type of a cost. Everything that I've talked to the HRA about has been in terms 37 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 of that plaza area being within the perv].ew and scope, all of the costs to date, turning the building, the renovations, everything have been back with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Clark, you can correct me if I've misstated that but that's what I had considered it all the way through. Councilman Boyt: There's a slight difference here when Mr. Pauly talks about the City. This is really an HRA expense? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: bhich is a separate unit. Mayor Hemilton: I would approval of the assessments other than the Pauly, Pony and Pryzmus and have those brought back on the 26th for clarification. CounciLman Johnson: There were two Pauly' s. M~yor Hamilton: Right. Any of the Pauly, Pony, Pryzmus items will be tabled until the 26th. The others will be approved. Councilman Horn: Second. Philip Hillman: I didn't know about this until about a month ago. Mil wife %~s going to take care of it but she's sick. I'd just like to comment that I'm referring to Parcel No. 25-35gg-38g which is the apartment building at 389 Chan View. My feeling is that the tax assesm-nent is of no benefit to me. We've already paid for one assessment according to my belief. Of course, I listen to the City Manager and everything. It's not as simple as it sounds so if I'm saying anything that's not correct, please bear with me. It's also my understanding that the parcel around and adjoining my property of 389 Chanhassen I believe are paying the assessment so I'd just like to make the point that I'm willing to pay taxes, we all have to do J.t but if I'm being singled out, then I'd rather not pay the taxes. Mayor Hamilton: The whole property east of his was assessed wasn't it? Don Ashworth: I think he's referring to the residential properties. Councilman Johnson: To the ~st. Mayor Hamilton: Everybody to the east, to your buildJ, ng and to the east because the draJ.nage is that way, was assessed. Philip Hi!tman: I might not know what I'm talking about here because this is what my wife heard fr~m the neighbors. So is that not true that the people adjoining my property are not being assessed? Mayor Hamilton: The residential property to the west of your property have not been assess~i because they drain the other way. From your property east has all been assessed. Philip Hilhnan: I'm not being singled out? Mayor He-n i 1 ton '~ No. 38 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Resolution #88-94: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the contested assessments for the Downtown Redevelopment Project #86-11A except for the Pony, Pauly's and Pyrzmus' properties which will be brought back on the 26th of September. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PROPOSED GARDEN CENTER ON 3.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. B. REZONING REQUEST FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. D. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN CENTER AND HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. E. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT. Mayor Hamilton: This is an issue we've talked about many times before. Hopefully he's found a piece of property that he can put his business on. Barbara Dacy: Do you want me to run through the items? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you should. The last proposal for this property was an auto service center. Barbara Dacy: The parcel is located between the Chanhassen Office Building and Redmond Products Building. The parcel is bisected by the Hennepin County and Carver County line. The east half of the site is zoned IOP and regarded as industrial. The proposal is to rezone and redesignate the eastern half of the property from industrial to con~nercial. To rezone it from IOP to BH, Business Highway. That would be consistent with the... The last time the Council saw these two applications for rezoning and the land use plan amendment, it was Council's direction to table action on these two items until a specific site plan could be considered. The applicant has done so and the Planning Commission recon~nended approval of the proposed site plan with the two modifications to the recon~nended 12 conditions of approval. They took out the originally proposed condition 4 and instead put that there should be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. The other, condition 2 there's a word change regarding the Wetland Alteration Permit process. I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about the traffic generation from this site and follow it a little bit more from the Manager's con~nents. As you all know, this frontage road will be serviced by the full intersection of Dell Road and TH 5 when TH 5 is improved. Obviously, we're working on the Dakota Avenue and TH 101 realignment intersection issue. To give you a feel for how much traffic a nursery/garden centers can generate, what I did is kind of undertook a little mini-study. On a scale of intensity of garden centers and nurseries, I believe the most intense would be the Lyndale Garden Center over in Bloomington there. They have everything from soup to nuts and several acres of property. When I called over there regarding parking requirements and so on, the owner said don't even use us an example because we're just one of a kind in the State and region. The next step down from that I think would be a Frank's Nursery. As compared to 39 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 this proposal, it's more intensive as far as the retail items, a larger store. There is outdoor display and storage however. A more c~nparable garden center to the applicant's proposal is the Shorewood Nursery on CR 19. Similar in size sales building. Has a cash machine in it. A couple of other items regarding landscpaing or whatever but prJ.marily outdoor storage areas. In asking the owner about his parking demands and so on, it depends on the time of year obviously. It go from having one car when days are slow to several. He did quantify that the parking area in front of the area...anywhere from lg to 2g cars... Another rule of thumb that we tried to use is transportation studies from California. If you can believe anything that comes out of California I don't know but it was a professional transportation book that we use that established some ratios of trips per day per employee... To compare what the Kronick proposal could do versus other retail uses, just to give you an idea, on that same parcel. On just the BH parcel, you could locate the Town Square development. The 18,ggg square foot retail center on that western half of the property that's 18,ggg square feet of retail and you're looking at a traffic generation of approximately 3,6gq. Another example that I just pulled out would be a drive-in bank and trips are determined by the amount of windows that they provide. Usi~rg the information submitted by Mr. Kronick, we're estimating that at most, that 1,1~ trips per day could be generated from the site. That's using the California numbers. I've got to believe that that's very, very high. It's based on information that I had at hand. In any case, the point is that the proposed use is and can be less intensive than other uses permitted in the district. Traffic and transportation access to the site...at this point. Just briefly, staff had recon~ended two additional conditions for approval. One is that the enclosure for the mulch bag and fertilizer bags be constructed by October 1, 1989. The applicant had requested a little more leeway to construct that. Secondly, depending on when the City concludes the grading work on the pond and so on, the applicant requested the ability to be open prior to the parking area being paved so we recomended a condition that the parking area be paved within 4 weeks of the completion of the City's grading activities and also giving City Staff the ability to determine gnether or not you can issue...prior to paving of the parking lot. It's really going to come down to a weather and timing issue so we want to build in same flexibility. Mayor Hamilton: Jay, did you have anything you wish to add? Jay Kronick: Nothing to add, no. I'd be happy to answer questions. Councilman Johnson: I think staff's done a good job on this one. I think that's a pretty good location. Yhere are some risks as the TH lgl realigm~ent study, which you sat through earlier, you spent the whole evening listening to the problems. There are some things that haven't mentioned there. One is the possibility of closing 78th Street. I guess I did mention it once but there's probably going to be a considerable difficulty with the railroad [o get two crossings of the].r railroad that close to each other at grade. Those negotiations are going to be tough. If that happens, then there could be some limited access for the Chanhassen residents to get to your property. They'd have to go down to Eden Prairie basically and back track in. You have the people going eastbound could have s~e problems there. The whole long range of things, that's the only thing I see creating a problem here for retail operations along that strip. I do believe this is a fairly decent area. I don't like that intersection too much because I have been through there. As I drive through it, I try to avoid that one personally. I'm all for this one. City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Horn: I have no comments[ Councilman Boyt: I have the same one about the intersection. That concerns me. That is currently a very bad intersection. We're fortunate that the traffic that we have there at any particular time of day unfortunately is the wrong time of day but it's fairly concentrated and it's a little scary to think that we're going to be encouraging more traffic. I don't know what our alternative is but I sure hope you're considering all this TH 101 as you make your plans so you don't get surprised. The rest of my comments are really directed to the conditional use permit so I can wait until then. Mayor Hamilton: I think the intersection, it's not good but certainly as you drive by there you can see there and it can certainly be signed better so people understand more clearly where you need to go. Perhaps we can ask the State to help us out to make that a better intersection. I think it's a good location. I think you'll get the traffic. You'll get the people down there. It's not that difficult to get in and out. I don't think TH 101 will affect you in the least so I'm very much in favor of getting you in there. Get you going. It's only been what, 2 years? I would like to move approval of the Land Use Amendment Request to change from industrial to commercial. Resolution #88-95: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #88-3 to redesignate 1.7 acres of industrial to con~nercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: We have a rezoning request to go from IOP to Business Highway. I would approval of that. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Boyt: I have a conment. It's probably too late to do this. One of the reasons for waiting to rezone this until we saw the request was so we could do these hand and glove. I have some questions about the conditional use permit request. I get the most impact with an individual vote on item (b) because as I recall to rezone takes a four-fifths vote and that's a unanimous vote. So I hate to do this because I think we're basically in agreement on this but I would prefer that we not vote on (b) until we've covered (c). If we get (c) worked out, (b) can fly through. If we don't get (c) worked out, (b) won't make it. Mayor Hamilton: If you have a problem with (c), then that seems to be your hot..., so you go right ahead and talk about it. Councilman Boyt: Thanks. I think that one question I had, there's really a series of questions. I think vehicles stored on site should be screened. I know you're screening your building. You're doing some work to screen the greenhouse. I didn't get a sense for how many vehicles you were going to be starting with initially. I thought it might be something like some kind of a small forklift or something on that order. 41 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Jay KronJ.ck: ...otherwise vehicles consist of a small pick-up truck and... Councilman Boyt: I don't particularly have a problem with vehicles that are considered to be normal employee sort of vehicles. Pick-up trucks, automobiles. My problem is with ~nat I would consider to be industrial or contracting oriented vehicles. I'd like to see part of the conditional use permit be that those are screened. Do you see that as a burden? Jay Kronick: t think I initially...will probably be accomodated in the mulch and fertilizer storage area... Councilman Boyt: Good. That was another one of my questions. Gary, maybe I read the map wrong. It looked to me like the garden center was 7 feet below the pond's high water mark. That can't be right can it? Gary Warren: No... Councilman Boyt: So if anything, the garden center is above the high water mark? We're not talking about... Gary Warren: Or at least the 2 foot criteria. Councilman Boyt: As I understand the plan, later on tonight we're going to be talking about a weir system to catch oil. Are we going to have that included in the ponding site? Barbara Dacy: A skJmner? Councilman Boyt: No, not a skhTmer. I'm talking about a system that we're-now moving to that basically handles o~.1 and other on surface contaminates by trapping. Larry Brown: My apologies, we talked about this this afternoon or this morning was, are those skinr~ing devices, the skin~ner that you see on our pond outlets now... Councilman Boyt: What are we going to do about oil runoff? Mayor Hamilton: Everything is running in the opposite direction. Councilman Johnson: That can be skimmed. Councilman Boyt: So we're going to put it out on the street? You're telling me this ponding isn't going to be servicing this particular piece of property? I thought it was. Gary Warren: The ponding along West 78th Street. As. far as oil expected from the site, is there something that I'm missing here? Something beyond the requirements? Mayor Hamilton: All runoff was to be towards the south and to use the West 78th Street ditch, I read. 42 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Okay, I missed that point. I'm not saying that there's going to be oil above and beyond what would be usual. All I'm saying is do we have any means of controlling or are we interested in oil that leaks out of the parking lot area? Gary Warren: I think if it's something excessive and I don't know how I define excessive but this is typical, a less than intense than say Redmond Products or anything else that we've got out there. Councilman Boyt: I would want as another condition, and I gather that you've already talked to staff about this, that this property is not approved for operation as a contractor's or landscaping business. I really see two conditions that I'd like to see added. That be that we have the vehicles on site other than typical vehicles. If we have any construction, any industrial type vehicles screened and that the property itself not be the source of a contractor or landscaping business. One last point is on your greenhouse. Can you tell me how the greenhouse is going to be covered? What the roof is going to have on it? Jay Kronick: For much of the year it would not be covered at all. For approximately four months of the year it will be covered with an 8 mil polyethalene. The ends of it would be attached... Councilman Boyt: You're going to screen the building with pine trees or something to that effect? Jay Kronick: I agree to a permanent 6 foot evergreen hedge along the perimeter, three sides, the north, west and south sides. Councilman Boyt: And how high above the hedge does the greenhouse go? Jay Kronick: The top of the greenhouse, the top is 9 1/2 feet. Councilman Boyt: So 3 1/2 feet. I have some concern that we have an entrance to the City that for four months of the year is going to have a building with a polyethalene top to it and it's not rigid. I think that that's a tough way to have people come in. To go by, even 8 mil which is fairly heavy stuff. Mayor Hamilton: What are they going to do, see that and turn around? Councilman Boyt: They're not going to see that and turn around but I think we're doing everything we can to have an attractive entrance to town. We're fighting upstream right now because we've got the Redimix and a few other items here but I'm not real comfortable with approving a situation in which, going into it I know it's going to have a flexible plastic roof. Mayor Hamilton: I can't believe that that has any adverse affect on anything. If I see that or I would suspect if most people would see that, most normal people see that and they'll say, there's probably a greenhouse operation. I can go there and buy some plants. I see these things all over. I don't know, maybe you have terrible eye pollution with it. When you drive into a city and you see that as part of a growing and thriving con~nunity. Councilman Horn: You're talking about 3 1/2 feet above a row of evergreens? 43 City Council Meeting - Septe~er 12, 1988 Barbara Dacy: And 6 feet is at the time of planting. We wanted an immediate hedge. Councilman Boyt: The hedge is not going to be_ maintained at 6 feet? Councilman Horn: No. Councilman Boyt: We're going to have a hedge that grows up, is that the idea? Councilman Horn: So your 3 1/2 feet will be decreased every year. Councilman Boyt: We've got two different things going here Clark. Barbara Dacy: When we talked, it was staff's direction that it be installed at 6 feet. Maybe we did go so far as saying to keep it at 6 feet. There is an option there also. Councilman Horn: If we put in evergreens, why would we trim them off at 6 feet every year? Mayor Hamilton: Probably to keep the sunlight cc~ni.ng into those greenhouses. Jay Kronick: When you get up to a certain growth, that's going to be a problem but I think to address the issue Tom spoke to, this greenhouse is a selling point. People will see it, oh there's a garden center. I can probably pick up my plants there. I want people to know that there's a greenhouse there. I think it helps sell... Gary Warren: Maybe the concern as far as the plastic covering is more of an ongoing maintenance standpoint. I know construction sites look very bad when you've got it flapping in the wind and all torn so maybe we cover it with a condition that specifies that it be maintained in a suitable appearance. Councilman Horn: It would seem to me that you could let it grow to a height where it would provide an adequate screen and still wouldn't screen out any sunlight for the greenhouse. I don't understand that unless I'm missing some angle here. Councilman Boyt: What if we put it in at 6 feet and let it grow to 'the peak of the roof. Then if he's got his 8 mil plastic on there in good repair, it's not noticeable. I don't have a strong sense that this is going to be a blight on the community. I don't mean to communicate that. I think that it is a fairly important decision that we're going to live with long term. And as he said, the building is going to be something that people are going to see. Jay Kronick: I guess rather than increase that hedge, that I use a transparent... As shown on the plan, the greenhouses are oriented east/west to accomodate the setback r~/uirements and so forth. I think I'm 7g feet in. It's these long surfaces that are covered with plastic. The ends would have a wood finish to them. I would prefer to orient the greenhouses so they run north/ south thereby minimizing your concern a~] probably eliminating it completely. I'd be a lot happier. That top structure could still be seen from the highway but it wouldn't be this 4g or 6g foot expanse of platic. 44 City Council Meeting - September 12~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: If it fits in there, I don't have any problem either. Councilman Boyt: I wish I knew. I know what my concern is. I just can't project as to what the best solution to my concern is so maybe we can put in the conditional use permit, it gets back to the business of keep it attractive. I guess that's the heart of the issues. I would like to see, especially if you run it north/south. I would think then that that hedge continuing to grow up becomes less of a probl~n for you because the access to the greenhouse end of it is really east/west anyway isn't it with the sun? Jay Kronick: The sun's probably high enough at the time of year that it's needed that even a 9 foot hedge, if it's planted far enough away from it isn't an impact. The visual impact you're trying to minimize is what I'm trying to attain because it helps sell my business. Councilman Boyt: You have a nice sign. Well, for conditions I would propose, and we'll see what flies and what doesn't. I propose that the vehicles as mentioned be screened. That we have no contract or landscaping business operating on the premises and that the hedge as mentioned be allowed to grow and the building be oriented north/south as you've indicated you're willing to do. That's my motion along with the staff conditions. Jay Kronick: ...I guess I was suggesting a different orientation to meet the concerns but I would not like to see a situation where I must orient north/ south and had... I was suggesting it as an alternative because I would have to compromise the size of those structures. Councilman Horn: I don't think this motion limits you to the direction. Only to the hedge. Councilman Boyt: I did but I'll pull that part of it off. Mayor Hamilton: So he can maintain the height of the hedge? Councilman Boyt: I guess we're really saying north/south or 6 foot. Is that what we' re saying? Mayor Hamilton: It would have to be less than 6 feet. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request ~88-13 based on the site plan stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front of the sales building. 2. Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8. 3. The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility eas~nents and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. 45 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 4. There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the CJ. ty with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. 6. The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into tine public sanitary sewer system. 7. Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 8. A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer service prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 9. The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40 foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities. 10. A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. 11. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" J.n accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 12. Details for the service connection to the 10 inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 13. An enclosure screening the bags of mulch and fertilizer shall be constructed by October 1, 1989. 14. The applicant shall arrange to pave the parking area within four weeks of completion of the City's work. Upon approval from city staff, the applicant may receive an occupancy permit prior to completion of the paving work. 15. Ail industrJ_al vehicles stored on-site shall be screened. 16. No landscaping or contractor's yard shall be operated on the site. 17. The hedge used for screening the greenhouse must be 6 feet in height or the applicant will orient the greenhouse north/south. All voted J.n favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Rezoning Request %88-3 to rezone 1.7 acres of property from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District subject to approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 46 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stam~ed "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Request ~88-11. 2. Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer's conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement for the City's storm water ponding area located on Jay Kronick's property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON 39 ACRES ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON HIGhgSAY 212 JUST WEST OF THE ASSUMPTION SEMINARY, HARRY LINDBERY. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Conm~ission recon~mended denial of the Conditional Use Permit by a 4 to 2 vote. There's been no changes in the staff's conditions should the Council decide to approve the conditional use permit. I believe it should have been included in your packet is the correspondence from the applicant's attorney. Beyond that we have nothing further. Councilman Boyt: My first question is of the applicant. Could you tell me about the vehicles you're going to be using. The number, size, type, storing on the property. Harry Lindbery: It will be all the way from 1 pick-up on up to a tractor trailer. Councilman Boyt: How many tractor trailers will you have? Harry Lindbery: Probably 4 or 5. Councilman Boyt: Are you aware that currently the City only has one contractor's yard that has a tractor trailer and that operation only has one tractor trailer? Can you tell me why do you need 4 or 5 tractor trailers? Harry Lindbery: A lot of our business is taking light poles and things like that. They take them, we have jobs scattered all over. Some are in North Dakota. Some in Iowa. Some in South Dakota. Some in Wisconsin. Some of them won't come in probably for a week. It won't be a heavy traffic in and out. I asked the Minnesota Highway Department and they said that they didn't see any problem with it. It would be the same driving vehicles that they use right now. Councilman Boyt: I thought they indicated that at a minimum we'd need to have a turn off lane. Harry Lindbery: They said if the traffic got heavy and we've got plenty of room there and if we need to take and make a turn off lane, we can work that out with 47 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 the Department of Transportation. Councilman Boyt: So you're prepared then to build the MmDot installation of a right turn lane and left turn lane if required? Harry Lindbery: If they're required, yes. CounciLman Boyt: Will you tell me, it's my understar~ing that the hours of operation of a contractor's yard are limited between the hours of 7:gg a.m. and 6:gg p.m.? That's how I understand our ordinance. Harry Lindbery: i think that was it. Councilman Boyt: So it would seem to me to be reasonable then, one of the probl~m with tractor trailers is that it's common for the motors to run all night long. Harry Lindbery: No. That's the reason we want to make a building so they can get inside. We would be, I would have at a minimum of 5gg feet from any building there. That's why we chose behind the creek ~Jnere it's screened by trees, they must be 25 to 30 feet high on the south and the railroad tracks on the north are between 15 to 2g feet higher than where our building's going to be located. You have a copy of what we're asking and it's ideal location for not bothering anybody. Councilman Boyt: Are there any home sites that look down on this property now? Barbara Dacy: The Hesse Farm subdivision is 3g to 4g feet higher in grade. Councilman Boyt: So there's really effectively no way we can screen this industrial equi~ent from those houses? Barbara Dacy: No, but staff's position was to make sure that the ordinance requirements... One of our conditions was that a 6 foot screen be installed around the north side of the storage area. Obviously we realize that there's no screening value to that for those folks but at least we have it. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest first that the Planning Comnission reacted frc~n emotion rather than logic in denying this. I would agree with the two commissioners who said if we've got it on the books, we can't be playing around with everybcdy that comes in in terms of whether we approve something or don't approve it. It's there. You meet the conditions. I would suggestion however that it's quite reasonable to not allow you to have more tractor trailer use than any other facility. Any other contractor's yard and I would propose that we limit the tractor trailer use to one since that's what we currently have. I think we're sitting in probably one of the busiest pieces of traffic in our community. Any time a tractor trailer is going to take a turn across that highway, it's running a risk. I would suggest that this is one of those things that unfortunately we didn't adjust our ordinance to take care of it but given what our ordinance is, I can't see denying it. I can see putting in conditions to try and make it as safe and as much of a fit with what's developed around it as possible. One condition I would like to see us add to the staff's list is to limit tractor trailers to one. 48 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Who's the contractor's yard that has only one? Barbara Dacy: It's Merle Volk. Councilman Johnson: He only has one? Barbara Dacy: On the vehicle list that he submitted us for his conditional use permit application, that's what was on there. Councilman Johnson: With all the heavy grading equipment he's got, earth movers and stuff, I can't see how he's only got one. I don't think he drives those big earth movers out to the site without using a tractor trailer. I doubt if he has only one. From what I understand here, I don't see restricting this to one to be reasonable, personally, for what his operation, as I understand it is going to be. There will be times, probably around Christmas time when everybody is back home for the holidays, that his full crew will have all their vehicles in there. There will be other times when they don't. I'd hate to say, well gee you've got to take your semi home with you because we can only have one truck in here and Joe got here before you did so you take your truck up to Plymouth and park it at your house. I'm not sure that's a reasonable condition. I'm not sure that I'm ready to try to kill this project by doing that. My biggest concern for this project actually is a very slight concern as to why they, when they've got what looks to be a nice little path through the trees, they chose to cut through the edge of the trees and take out some of the trees and make a more straight sight line into the project. I would have thought that you would even be better shaded if you had, where you cut across the creek and head to the west a little bit there and follow the opening of the trees and then curve it back. Put a little curvature in the road instead of that nice long straight shot. It makes it a little more difficult to build but you might save a tree or two. I didn't have a chance to go look at this site and see whether that's a significant change or not but it seems easy enough to do to do that. That creek is very important to me. The DNR is interested in making it into a trout stream and stuff. In fact, they tried to claim it was and they were able to prove that it wasn't but I have been told there are trout living in that little stream behind your place there. If that's the same stream that runs behind the Assumption Seminary. According to the people who live there, at the Assumption Seminary, there are trout in that stream. I was up to my knee in that stream in mud so I know it's not dry. It's running pretty good. What are you going to do with your, are you going to do vehicle maintenance in here? Harry Lindbery: In the wintertime when our season is over, we will take and work inside the building to maintain our equipment. Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have a full time mechanic? Harry Lindbery: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Okay, what's he going to be doing during the rest of the year? Harry Lindbery: He's going to be working on rigs because we have front end loaders and we have a bulldozer, different things and they need to be maintained all the time. 49 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: What do you do with your used oil? Harry Lindbery: We would put that in a tank and then there's a waste oil man comes and sucks it out in a small transport and he takes it away. It's a truck similiar to like they bring fuel oil to houses. Councilman Johnson: Is that an above ground tank? Harry Lindbery: We would prefer to put one below ground but we could adjust. That way we would eliminate the hazards of some kid coming along hunting rabbits and if he didn't see one, take a shot at the tank. Councilman Johnson: That's true in that area. Going below ground, have to be checking into the new rules for underground storage tanks for petroleum products. Harry Lindbery: We already checked with Hederman. He said he can comply with all of the State requirements. Councilman Johnson: He's one of the biggest tank guys in town. I've heard some pretty good answers so far. What is the maximum number of semis that you would need in there at any one time? You say you own four. Harry Lindbery: I would say five. Councilman Johnson: On the average, how many would you have there? Harry Lindbery: Probably two. Councilman Johnson: During the winter pu'd have more but they're basically sitting aF~ being maintained because_ you're not operating much during the winter? Harry Lindbery: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: During the smgner, how many times a day would a semi be ce~i.r-8 in and out of here? Harry Lindbery: Not more than once. It isn't something, it isn't high traffic. Councilman Johnson: What do you use your semis for? Do they go pick up your product at the factory and take it to your work site? Harry Lindbery: We do that and then we haul, some of our machinery we have to haul because you can't drive J.t on the road. Councilman Johnson: When you get it to the work site then does the truck dead head back ~nile the machinery stays at the site? Harry Lindbery: They'll usually stay until the end of the day and then come back at the end of the day. Sometimes they would just drop the machinery off or something. Different days and different jobs are different. 5~ City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: In comparison to your nearest contractor's yard which is the garbage truck place, you would have less trips per day. How many employees are going in here? Harry Lindbery: I think we have 12 including myself and office that wouldn't be there at the present time. In a couple of years...that I don't know. Councilman Johnson: I think they've answered most of my questions. Councilman Horn: Isn't it a requirement on the conditional use permit that there's an equipment list? Barbara Dacy: No, there's not a requirement in the ordinance. Councilman Horn: We have required that though in the past. I think we should require that of all conditional use permits that are being issued. It shouldn't be vague. These are not standard uses. These are something that's allowed on a more or less temporary basis until development comes in. As a matter of fact, my intent was, when we put this in place that it actually was more of a ma and pa type operation such as what the other municipalities around here have for a contractor's yard. I don't know what your gross revenues are per year but I suspect it's probably getting right up there which certainly wasn't the intent of this. Obviously, that's...disallowing at this point but I think we need to take a look at our contractor's yard ordinance and keep with the original intent of what we were trying to do because this to me is going to be a pretty big operation. I think we need some type of limits on what we allow for a contractor's yard in terms of equipment lists. To me, if I understand it right, this exceeds by quite a factor what our current most intensive contractor's yard is in the City. Barbara Dacy: On the number of vehicles, they're approximately the same. The tractor trailers, there are more of those. Councilman Horn: So the size of the vehicles is much bigger. If you went by gross weight allowed per vehicle, it's much bigger. Barbara Dacy: Ail of your conxnents are consistent with the Planning Commission action on contractor's yards. Councilman Horn: How many employees are at the Volk site? Barbara Dacy: I've got the file here if you give me a minute. Councilman Horn: I would guess much less than 12. Mayor Hamilton: It depends if you're talking about just Merle's operation or are you talking about the whole site? Probably 25. Councilman Horn: Merle's operation. Mayor Hamilton: Merle's operation is one person. He sold out. He's the only one there now. If you want to talk about J.P. Norex, then it's a whole different ballgame. If you want to talk about the nursery that's there, during their busy season, they've probably got 25 or 30 people working for them. 51 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: What about the waste operation? have? That's probably pretty intensive. How many employees do they Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. They haven't started yet have they? Councilman Johnson: Not at that location~ Councilman Boyt: They were talking about 3 or 4 trucks, is that right? Councilman Johnson: They own 4 right now. Barbara Dacy: The staff report said 4 employees in 1984. Councilman Boyt: In Merle Volk's? Barbara Dacy: In Merle Volk's. Mayor Hamilton: That's if you talk about just Merle's operation and Merle is now down to two, maybe three counting himself but there are others. He wasn't the only one in that location that have been approved so there are more people than that but if you go in there at any time during the day, drive into his operation, there's probably only 1 or 2 people there that are working in the garage. The rest of them are out in the field. The same as what their operation is going to be. They come to work in the morning. They get their equii~ent and they go out to the field and they work. They come back at night, get in their car and go home. It's not like it's a place where people are hanging around all day. Councilman Horn: I think we have other businesses in that category too. Barbara Dacy: The Gardeneer has lg full time employees and 25 seasonal employees for the same site. Councilman Horn: I don't have any other comnents. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a good location for them and I don't see any need to limit the number of vehicles in there. It's a contractor's yard. It's a construction type of operation. You go out to the site and you work and you come back and it's not causing traffic in and out. There's hardly anybody there ever. As the City develops and continues to grow and move in that direction, then you're going to pack up and move to some other location where you're out. You need to be out and away from where the residential people are. I see contractor's yards as an asset to the con~nunity and as a temporary facility in the corr~unity because you don't stay there forever. I think it's a good place for you and I hope you do well. You're not going to be handling any hazardous materials are you? Harry Lindbery: The only thing that you could say might be hazardous is fuel or waste oil but we would have that contained in tanks. I don't think it's, it doesn't have any special taking to handle it. Mayor Hamilton: I just noted where you were doing some special hauling, I thought perhaps you were hauling hazardous materials from one spot to another. 52 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Harry Lindbery: No. Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem with it. Barbara Dacy: If Council wants to include in their motion to identify, as part of this application identify the 15 vehicles, if you want to make that clear in the motion...to specify an equi~ent list. Mayor Hamilton: I'd move approval of the conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on 39 acres zoned A-2, Agricultural Estates and located on TH 212 located west of the Assumption Seminary with the 17 conditions as outlined by staff and with an 18th condition being that we receive a vehicle inventory. Councilman Horn: I' 11 second that. Councilman Boyt: I move to amend. I'd like to see, I might as well take a shot at all of these at one time. I'd like to see three additional conditions added. Condition 19. The total vehicles to be limited to include no more than 1 tractor trailer on the premises at any one time. I guess I would make that more specific, the inventory sheet would include only 1 tractor trailer. The second one, no machinery shall operate between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. This is an area that as we've noted, residential properties look down on it. I don't think we have the right to allow a business to come in there that is the potential noise generator heavy equipment can be and operate any other hours besides our typical construction hours. That would be condition 19. Condition 20 would be that no shipping activities are to originate on this site. Meaning you're not to do any job of shipping activities. I don't think that's in the spirit of a contractor's yard. I don't think this whole thing is in the spirit, as Clark mentioned, of a contractor's yard but I think we help get it there by limiting what we do to strictly contracting activities for those sorts. So you shouldn't be using that office as an origination or jobbing office. You shouldn't be bringing in equipment and turning it around and shipping it out. Bringing in materials and supplies and shipping them out. Mayor Hamilton: Those are the three additional conditions. One tractor trailer in inventory. That would be 19. Number 20 is no operation from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.. 21 is no shipping activities. Councilman Boyt: What I mean by that, and I didn't do a very good job of describing it is something that's not typical of a landscaping type operation. Maybe we need a cleared definition on that by staff if it passes. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a second on that motion? Councilman Johnson: Let me ask for clarification on this point 21 there. Do you mean operating like a transit facility? Where he's hauling for other people goods and services so he's got a commercial vehicle coming in here and being maintained like a trucking company? Councilman Boyt: Something that he's not making direct use of would probably cover it. 53 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Are you going to break these as three separate motions or are you going to lump them all together? Mayor Hamilton: No, he wanted to amend the original motion to bring in three additional conditions. Councilman Boyt: That's how I made it. Councilman Horn: I' 11 second that. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how we can limit to one tractor trailer. It's like in a grocery store and saying you can only have two people in at one time because you might have too many cars in the lot. l~nat's ridiculous. I don't understand it. I don't think you understand contractor's business. You ought to understand it before you try to limit the way they make a living. You wanted to make a comment about the number of tractor trailers. Jeff Carlson: All of the conditions that you've outlined, including two of the three amendments, are liveable. You're right, however, that one tractor trailer would effectively put him out of business because his operation is of the size that needs the units that he is describing. It's not possible for you to limit that. It's just not possible. The other, the condition 19, did I understand, is that the timeframe within the ordinance itself or is that a different timeframe? Councilman Boyt: No, what I'm saying is the timeframe within the ordinance says you may operate from 7:gg a.m. to 6:gg p.m.. What I'm saying is, there are to be no heavy equipment operating at any other hour. Jeff Carlson: Inbetween those? Councilman Boyt: Right. Just clarifying that we don't have heavy equipment running. Jeff Carlson: I don't think that's a problem either. It's the number and that really gets to the intensity or size. I understand it's an emotional thing and it's a subj~t that was debat~ that way at the Planning Commission. My only point would be that the staff did a very good and thorough job on this. He actually had to pass 2g conditions coming in, 3 more now. He's worked very well and very closely with staff and condition 18 just can't, it's the same as saying no. I guess my point would be that it really isn't, or I question ~nether it's really necessary. If there was a safety problem. If there was a problem getting out onto the highway, he will have to deal with the Highway Department on TH 212. He's talked to them and at any point in time that he's required to use his land and deal with the highway, he's ready to do that. I would urge you to do 2g instead of 21, if that's possible because number 18 is really just one that he's not capable of cooperation from my client. He's willing to, I think it's clear and meet with your staff, he's willing to adhere to any reasonable condition to operate. Everett Olson: I live out there. I live at 2675 Flying Cloud Drive. I'd have you come down there and visit apr3 watch that traffic at 5:gg in the morning until 9:gg in the morning, and the same thing in the evening. If you're going to cross that road with tractors and trailers, I'll guarantee you that there 54 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 will be people... I've lived there for 23 years and it's just gradually getting worse and worse and worse. Every fall the railroad tracks seems to set that swamp on fire... Every year they've had to...and this year it won't be long so if you can tell me how you can cross that highway with tractors and trailers like I said at 6:00 in the morning and the same thing in the evening without somebody getting killed in there... The sugar factory, all those tractors and trailers come out there. Just come down and live with me for a week will you? ...that will change your mind. Mayor Hamilton: Traffic keeps getting worse everywhere I guess. Councilman Boyt: I think you've put your finger on maybe the heart of the issues. We're talking about intensity of use. We're talking about an ordinance, as Clark has said, it was never intended to allow this kind of contractor's yard to operate. We're talking about a type of use that Chaska doesn't allow. A type of use that F~en Prairie, Minnetonka doesn't allow and we're talking about putting it on one of the worse pieces of highway we've got. I think it's very reasonable to say that you can't use any tractor trailers. The last contractor's yard we approved, which is as I recall the Planning Commission was against that one as well, has no tractor trailers. Has all pick ups but since we have one in the City that has a tractor trailer, I can't see being more restrictive on you than them but I can certainly see being no more lenient. I speak in favor of my own amendment. Councilman Horn: Could we get the Attorney to comment? Mayor Hamilton: Can you limit them or not? Roger Knutson: I guess I'd have to defer to your City Engineer. If the City Engineer indicates that there is a serious traffic safety problem that would be created by tractor trailers crossing and entering that property, and they can document it, then yes it could be a reasonable condition. On the other hand, if you don't think that can be documented, if your City Engineer is not comfortable with that, then that in all likelihood would not. Councilman Boyt: What about intensity of use? Roger Knutson: I'm not sure of the question. Councilman Boyt: I mean that we're running 4 or 5 tractor trailers from time to time out of there. That's intensity of use. A separate issue. Roger Knutson: I guess I would again defer, let him tell me how dangerous that is. I don't know. Mayor Hamilton: What's intense on 39 acres? Don't you have to look at that? Gary, do you have any con~nent on that? Gary Warren: I was just going to say, if MnDot is willing to give them an access permit on TH 212, it's their charge. That's one of their responsibilities. I'm sure that giving access permits, if they consider it an unsafe condition, that they would not allow it. I haven't specifically done any safety studies per se but in this case, it's controlled by MnDot. 55 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a letter from MnDot or anything saying? Harry Lindbery: No, I do not. Jeff Carlson: We could get that as one of the requirements if you wanted to. He has talked with them and certainly that could me made a, he has to get it. Roger Knutson: It's a requirement whether you say so or not. They've got to get an access permit or they can't c~e on the highway. Councilman Johnson: It's covered by number 5. Mayor Hamilton: I can see right-in/right-out access requirement more than trying to limit the size of his operation. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why we should be trying to create an opportunity for a more intense contractor's yard in an area that is underneath residential development. They look down on and by that kind of traffic. Mayor Hamilton: What kind of traffic. I don't know what kind of traffic you're bying. You've got maybe 5 trucks in and out once a day, if that. That's not very intense. Councilman Boyt: That piece of highway along there, you know, we all know is not anybody's idea of a good place to be_ turning across of trying to get across. People do it. Tractor trailers probably do it. Mayor Hamilton: If we attempt to limit Mr. Lindbery's access to the highway and use of it and use of his land, then we should also go to Gedney Pickle and say, you can only have 5 trucks in and out of here a day. I don't care how many pickles you send around the world but you can only use so many trucks. It's the same thing. It's the same thing when you're talking about traffic in and out using the road right? Be reasonable. Tim Erhart: I think the difference here and what the Planning Commission saw was that this is an area that's zoned A-2. Many, many points we talked about. One was access and one was the people on top of the hill looking down and we came to the conclusion that somehow our original intent in the ordinance of contractor' s yards as acknowledged here, was somehow getting misconstrued into an industrial park. As a result, we' re taking action to work with staff to try and tighten up the contractor's yards provisions. In a very unusual event, the Planning Con~nission I believe in an almost unanimous vote, voted against the proposal even though the way we're interpretting the zoning ordinance would allow it. P~ voted against it. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, it was a 4 to 2 vote. Tim Erhart: I think it's inconsistent. We feel to allow this to go in, and I think I agree with Bill that we should try to restrict it as much as possible to be comparable and consistent with contractor's yards. Mayor Hamilton: I know that you're opposed to contractor's yards period and I certainly disagree with that. I think they're a very important part of a con~nunity and there is a place for them and they do a good service to the 56 City Council Meeting - September 12~ 1988 con~nunity. I don't care if it's A-2 or what it is. A-2 is a good place for them and Bill said he doesn't think this w~s the intent of that ordinance. I don't know what the intent was. As far as I'm concerned, this was the intent of it was to have these types of operations w~rking within your community. The same with Merle Volk's. I see no problem with that. They function within the community just fine. As that area grows and expands, they'll be gone because they don't want to be near residential or commercial development. So it's going to be the same thing with the Lindbery's. As soon as that develops there, they' 11 be gone. Tim Erhart: Unfortunately it's not an automatic thing that they're gone as we've found in other areas of the city. Mayor Hamilton: We have an amendment to a motion on the table. Councilman Horn: Can you repeat the amendment again? Mayor Hamilton: The amendment was three conditions to be added. One, that 1 tractor trailer be allowed on the premises, to be included in inventory. No more than one. That there be no operation frown 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.. and that no shipping activities be allowed in or out. Councilman Horn: Was 19 left that way or was it left that they would have to comply with MnDot's requirement for safety? Mayor Hamilton: He's going to have to do that anyway. with MnDot. They have to comply Councilman Johnson: That's condition 5. Councilman Boyt: I think we're talking about a lot of issues when we talk about 19 and I'd like to see if this passes with 19 in it. If it doesn't, we've already got the developer indicating that the other two are acceptable. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded an amendment to the motion to include the following three conditions: 19. A total of 1 tractor trailer be in inventory for the contractor's yard. 20. No operation of equipment take place on the site between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. 21. No shipping activities originate from the site. Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the amendment, Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Johnson and Councilman Horn voted in opposition to the amendment and the amendment failed with a vote of 1 to 3. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the original motion to include the above two conditions numbered 20 and 21. All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. 57 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request %88-11 subject to the following conditions: 1. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing, berming or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be suhnitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sundays and Holidays is not permitted. 3. Light sources shall be shielded. 4. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 5. Compliance with the conditions of MnDot including installation of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDot. 6. Installation of bit~ninous driveways, parking areas and loading areas. 7. Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9, 1988. 8. Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9. Installation of a holding tank. 10. The building must be sprinklered. 11. ProvJ. sion of one handicap parking space. 12. Contractor's yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordinance, are permitted. There shall be no shipping or other non-contractor's yard activitJ, es. 13. The applicant obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Depar~nent of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits. 14. All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and disposed of properly. 15. The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100 foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales. 16. The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. 17. The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skinmer. 18. The applicant submit an equipment inventory. 19. No operation of equipment take place on the site between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. 58 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 20. No shipping activities originate from the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SOUTHWEST COALITION OF COMMUNITIES UPDATE, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: I don't have anything more to report. Mayor Hamilton: Did everybody get a letter from Bob Lindahl today or yesterday, whevever it was? It kind of dealt with this Southwest Coalition. Did you get a copy of that? They want us to contribute $100,000.00 over the next 3 years. If we do that, TH 212 is impacted and it moves that process up 16 months. I just read it this afternoon so I can't remember everything that was in there. Another one was 21 months it moves it up but it was all the con~nunities, including the County. Conmunities of Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen and the County would pay $100,000.00 each. It was a $400,000.00 payout of those four government bodies. Clark, do you remember more about it than that? Councilman Horn: No. I didn't take it very seriously at this point, especially with the specifics. The part that I did take seriously is the fact that we had con~nitted at some time in the past that this thing would be coming up to us again and as a matter of fact it's the same procedure that we used to accelerate TH 5. But the actual amounts and the total amounts to be contributed have not been discussed by the approved coalition. That's merely his reconmendation. I would certainly have con~nents to make at the next coalition meeting regarding the specific numbers. Mayor Hamilton: I'm trying to remember more about the letter. It was something to do with if we came up with $400,000.00 then his law firm, now he's the councilman from Chaska. He works for a law firm, I don't remember the name of it, they are going to try to find matching federal funds, which apparently he feels they can find so it would be $800,000.00. That's why the whole project gets moved up. Councilman Horn: Also MnDot would contribute. Councilman Johnson: Are we saying $400,000.00 would give us' 16 months closer to TH 2127 Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Johnson: My first gut reaction to that is, that's a lot to pay for 16 months on a project that's probably going to be many, many years yet going. It's a drop in the bucket in the length of the project. Mayor Hamilton: It was 16 months and 21 months and I can't remember what each one was. I'll get you a copy of the letter because I think it was worth reading. I can't remember all of it. Councilman Horn: I think it's too preliminary at this point. We need to get a coalition meeting where we finalize the details and then we can talk about it. 59 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: The next ].tee was the Volk annexation. Clark, Don and I met with the City Manager of Chaska and Bob Rudtke and Bob Lindahl two weeks ago. Discussed the annexation, deannexat]on and basically agreed, we both agreed with the position of the other that a swap be made. BasJ. cally what it amounts to is we're kind of over a barrel and it's like playing a poker game when the other guy's got all the cards and he won't give you any. Councilman Johnson: Yours are face up and his are face down? Mayor Hamilton: He's got all the cards period. Councilman Horn: He's got all the cards pericd but if we go along with this we may get a tip. Mayor Hamilton: At least they're willing to do a land swap as was presented to us a while back which was some property by Gedney Pickle so they could expand and still be in the City of Chanhassen and a remainder of the Arboretum property would then become Chanhassen property so the Arboretum would be 99% within the City of Chanhassen. That seems to be as good a deal as we're going to get and based on the Attorney's comnents that if you don't take it, you'll get nothing because they will not be obligated to give us anything and the referees are almost assured to go ahead with the annexation. Councilman Horn: It turns out when you're not free standing, you don't have very many cards in an annexation procedure. Much as I don't like what's going on in this particular situation, I'm even more concerned about the future because I see other potential properties that would be candJ, dates for this along our border even though at this time Chaska says they have no interest. In talking with Dick Pearson, he said part of the reason that the Village was organized ufnen it was, was to protect some of the land in the area that was going to be annexed by Chaska and the property owners at that time didn't want to go to Chaska because ].t was cheaper to be in the Village. It turns out wi. th all the development and things that are going on in Chanhassen now, it's probably cheaper for those property owners to be part of Chaska and there's nothing to prevent them from giving us more requests to join Chaska. As I understand, at least the way they explained the annexation procedures to us, the cards are all in their favor. I haven't heard Roger's con~nent on that yet but that's what they led us to believe and I was under the premise that we felt we should take what they were offering in terms of actual land area rather than go through the annexation procedure and end up with nothing. Roger Knutson: It's really difficult to generalize about these things. You have to look at them on a case by case basis... We fight a lot of annexation...most of them are fought between cities and townships. It's rare to have...between two cities. It doesn't happen that often. Councilman Horn: Don't you agree that a free standing trade center has the advantage in this case? They can provide services that we can't because we're outside the MUSA. Roger Knutson: They can provide sewer and you can't provide sewer and sewer's critical to doing something, I'd say that's a very, very big card in their hand. 6~ City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There are several factors here that I think we need to look at~ I'm very much in favor of the annexation and you need to realize that the action taken was not by the City of Chaska. It was taken by the property owner. He requested that Chaska annex his property. I think it's good for the whole area, I've said that before and I firmly believe that. There's 40 acres there that will develop into conm~ercial property, industrial property. The taxes off that are going to benefit the school district, the County and the city of Chaska but it will benefit the City of Chanhassen also because certainly some of the people who work there will buy homes. Certainly they' 11 shop in the City of Chanhassen so I think it's a benefit to the entire economic area that we live in and I think that's an important factor to look at. I think it's important also that we work well with our neighbors, Chaska which it was a very congenial meeting and I think even though they held all the cards, it was from my aspect and I think from Clark's too, that he saw the position we were in. Chaska was not the one that was the driving force in this but it was Mr. Volk. We understood their position and they're certainly willing to give some property that they City may be able to develop. Certainly with the Gedney, if they expand, why that's certainly a potential for us. We're not totally losing out on this and our negotiations with Chaska have been very amenable and very congenial and I think it's important that they remain that way. Councilman Horn: I would like though for us to look into what we can do to protect any other properties from potentials for that such as Gedney Pickle and the Glass property. Councilman Johnson: One thing we do have on our side is that even though they're a free standing economic center, the Metropolitan Waste Control Co~nission still has control over their sewage treatment plant that they own. They did say you have enough capacity to support this 40 acres but I do believe I remember that they really emphasized that they don't have that much extra capacity to support anything else. Mayor Hamilton: They have to do the same thing as we do. They have to take 40 acres off someplace else. They have an internal MUSA line similar to us so when they pick up 40 acres, they do have to take 40 acres out someplace else which they will do. There is a swap within their City taking place also. Councilman Horn: But they're already serving Gedney Pickle. It's already in their capacity. They don't have to expand their capacity. Councilman Johnson: Wasn't Gedney on the previous swap? Mayor Hamilton: No. Councilman Boyt: I remember back, gosh it must be almost a year ago when we discussed the Merle Volk interest in developing a contractor's yard a bit more intensively than we had in the past. I supported that effort and Tom and I lost the struggle. We're sort of seeing some fallout from that. I can't argue that we were right or wrong but we're seeing a result of that decision. I think it's important in this decision that we send a signal to other property owners, to the City of Chaska and to the people in Chanhassen. I'm with the rest of you, I faced the facts here of the case and have, I think from the begining when we first starting looking at it, but I think it's appropriate for us to play our one card. Not that it gets more from Chaska but I think it sends a signal that 61 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 needs to be sent and I think our card is that v~ file an action to contest this. We want to cooperate with Chaska and the other surrounding communities but I don't think we want to send the signal to anybody that we' re going to give it away. So along the lines of the direction that Don has been proposing, it's appropriate for us to file an action. Councilman Horn: Are you suggesting then that we don't support an &~endment to go along with the annexation? Councilman Boyt: At this point, that's ~nat I'm saying. Mayor Hamilton: You'd rather take nothing. Councilman Boyt: No. Mayor Hamilton: That's what you'd get. CounciLman Horn: .What happens then is if it annexed, and the results are dealt with in the annexation court and Chaska has told us that if it comes to that, they would be under no obligation to make the same trade if it went to court. Councilman Boyt: I understand that. At the same time I don't downplay the impact of the one card we have which is time. It's expensive to everyone but there's a certain value in simply going through what in all likelihood is a motion but it's a motion that has an impact. There are motioned as an impact. It costs us very little money to carry this one step further. Mayor Hamilton: For what reason? I don't understand your reason. If we're going to be paying Attorney's fees for nothing. If we lose, which we've been told we're assured to do, we're going to gain nothing. If you put your pluses and minuses and you list them down, the minuses far outweight the pluses. Councih~an Boyt: There's a ton of minuses on this thing. I think there's one plus. The plus is that ~ are not leaving legal avenues untouched. We're doing all we can to defend the situation and in all likelihood it will come to a quick resolution right where it is now but the difference will be we will have exhausted legal remedy. Councilman Horn: And we will not have the 4g acres. Mayor H~milton: I don't know why we need to get attorneys involved in everything. We can resolve this without attorneys. Councilman Horn: Besides that, we probably will lose Gedney in the process because one of the areas that we would pick up is in the area that they are proposing to expand. We may lose_ them anyway but that practically guarantees it. Councilman Johnson: Actually, if they give us this property west of Gedney in this switch, would that make it more difficult for Gedney to argue for them to be annexed into Chaska? Councilman Horn: Right. 62 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I'm not disagreeing with any of that~ Councilman Johnson: What you're saying I believe is let's take it one step here, file our petition or our protest of this and then do the land swap. Once we file you're saying that Chaska will remove their offer. Don Ashworth: When we met with them, if you recall, I did state that I would be recommending that this item be turned over to the Attorney's office and that I anticipated that the solution would come through that form of a process. I think that that is what Bill is basically saying. I think that Roger's office, to double verify our position and if an out of court settlement is required, to have him notify us of that. I really don't think we're adding that much time or cost. Councilman Horn: You're saying Roger hasn't researched this? Don Ashworth: Roger has researched it, that's correct but he has not gotten to the point of researching it to the extent of literally filing the case. If you feel we're in a position to pass it, and come to agreement, then go ahead and proceed in that fashion and that will be cheaper but from our meeting at Chaska, I think my position to them was that I anticipated that this item would end up being resolved passed through the Attorney's office. Councilman Horn: As I understood it, we were going to get an interpretation from our attorney because our interpretations up until this point had been gotten from their office. Now I thought that v~ would have that tonight. Mayor Hamilton: I think Roger did give us that. Councilman Horn: I guess I'm missing what we're going to gain by this except stalling and spending money and possibility jeopardizing the swap. Councilman Boyt: Listening to what Don has said and I talked to Don earlier, I don't think we're jeopardizing anything. I think what we're doing actually is we're saying to the con~nunity as a whole, we exhausted our legal remedies. At this point we haven't. We've exhausted our good faith remedies but now what we're doing is we're talking about a land swap and I don't care how you look at it, it's not even. It may be the best deal we can get but it sure as heck isn't even in anything other than pure geographic acreage. Given that, I think that we, the cor~nunity, deserves to know that the legal remedies were exhausted and that this was in fact the legal answer. Mayor Hamilton: Why can't you look to the economic benefits of the entire area? This entire area is going to benefit economically. It's to the benefit of this entire conxnunity and every resident living here to say fine, we've reached agreement. We'll swap the property. It's going to benefit this whole region economically. Why waste more time, more money, which we don't have screwing around with this thing? Councilman Boyt: I don't think we're talking about much more money. I don't know, we might be talking about $500.00? Mayor Hamilton: I'm not up to throwing $500.00 away. 63 Xtlty Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Counci]~an Boyt: I don't think it's throwing it away. It's my perspective. It doesn't sound like it's going to carry the day but I think it sort of seals the door that we exhausted all our remedies. Councilman Horn: I have another question. We also said at that meeting that we would come up with an actual dollar difference to our tax rolls of this property versus the Volk property. Do we have those numbers? I didn't see those in my packet. Don Ashworth: I was proposing that the item be turned over to the Attorney. This is not the correct article that should have accompanied this item. t don't know if it was the one in the Villager but the one there came down to a recommendation that staff would be reconmending that the item be turned over to the Attorney's office to seek fi. hal resolution or to defend the City. Mayor Hamilton: I move that we turn this over to the Attorney's office to settle this damn thing. Councilman Boyt: That was my point. Why make it so complicated? Mayor Hamilton: I certainly don't expect it to go to Court and I would expect that the Attorney would settle this thing between attorneys with one phone call. Councilman Johnson: If that's a motion that needs a second, I'll second it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to turn the Merle Volk annexation issue over to the City Manager's office to settle. Ail voted favor and the motion carried. BUDGET WORKSESSION: 1he Council decided to hold the Budget Work Session on Monday, October 3, 1988 at 6:3~ p.m.. Councilman Boyt: I think there's a really important point that we haven't discussed yet this evening and that's the City Planner position that we're advertising for. The reason I think that's an important point is because think as I understand the ad, we're going out to get somebody that's not as qualified as the person we're losing. I think that's a mistake given the intensity of what the City is going through. Councilman Horn: What led you to believe that? Councilman Boyt: Because we're advertising for someone with 3 to 5 years experience and we're offering less than we're paying our current person. It doesn't figure that we're going to get s~ebody that good or better. Mayor Hamilton: Well we did last time. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us advertise for a Director of Community Development. Pay the person $3,~.~ to $4,~.~ more than what we're offering now and go after somebody that could lay the groundwork to build what I think is going to have to be a department that has more time to think about 64 City Council ~ting - September 12, 1988 where we're going, and how we're going to get there and probably a departmen% of 2 1/2 people rather than 2 people. Mayor Hamilton: A con~nunity development director is a different position. Councilman Boyt: It depends on how you define the position. I define the position as our chief planner who would also be involved in working with community development but would be the person that keeps planning coordinated. That speaks from as much experience or more than what we're losing and it carries us through what's going to be a real intense, when TH 5 opens up, if we're busy now, what are we going to be like ~nen there's a four lane highway into town? Mayor Hamilton: I'm in favor of a con~nunity development director but this is just a part of what I've been harping on for the last couple of years now. We need to review our total staff picture and determine where we're at and where we're going to go. As part of the budget process, Don and I have done some talking about that already and we got our backs up against the wall now because we're losing our planner and probably our assistant planner too. She's going to have her baby and be gone for several months and may not return, you never know so we're in a difficult situation where we'll probably have to go out and hire a consultant to help us out. But I think as a part of our budget process, in fact I don't think, I know I'm going to be making recommendation staffing wise, that we need to make some adjustments. Like I say, Don and I have talked about that preliminarily and I've been doing some work on it. We're going to talk about it some more and I think we need to talk about that as a part of our budget session. I know that there's a lot of urgency to getting a planner. Councilman Boyt: We've got the ads going in. Ail we're talking about doing is increasing by $3,000.00 and changing some of the responsibilities. This step is an important one to take and we need to take it now or we're going to run ads for somebody that's not going to fill the job that we need filled. Councilman Horn: And we're going to fill the job before our next session? We're going to fill that position before we have our budget meeting? Councilman Boyt: No, we're not but we're advertising and why put an ad out there that's not going to attract the kind of people we're looking for? Councilman Horn: Why put an ad out there prematurely if we're going to discuss the subject in depth? Why go off half-cocked? Don Ashworth: I've got to fill the position. I have to start it. Right now it's going to be potentially December 1st, assuming that I can get the ad in the newspaper. Councilman Johnson: With this ad, I don't see a lot of problem with the beginning salary at where it is but I see 3 years experience as the stumbling block here because you're going to have a lot of people looking at, somebody coming out of grad school who's got 3 years experience now, $32,000.00 is a pretty good salary for them. Councilman Horn: This thing is not capped. experience and it's not capped in salary. It's not capped with years of 65 Councilman Johnson: I think the years of experience is too low. Councilman Boyt: It depends on whether you're talking about our existing hiring policy or what any other business would do if they weren't this City. But if we have the hiring policy that we're not going to pay beyond the mid-point, you definitely are talking about a cap. When you describe the job as a number of years experience and a started salary, you have described the people that are going to apply for that job. Councilman Horn: But you're putting us over a barrel unnecessarily. This ad is going out. There's nothing that prevents this ad from going out. If we get somebody with 5 years experience and $35,090.g~, we're going to have time to discuss that before we actually start screening these applicants. Mayor H~m_ilton: I think there's a lot of good people out there in that range. I can't believe that 5 years experience is not adequate. Councilman Boyt: We have a resource. Somebody who's been in the job market and in talking to Barbara and saying, what would we need to get somebody, given the way the market is now, her description was, you need to pay $35,ggg.g0 to $36,ggg.g0 if you're talking that kind of power. I think we're talking that kind of power and we've got somebody who knows what the market is. We don't lose anything if we run this ad and indicate more experience and the kind of salary range she's talking about. We lose nothing. Mayor Hamilton: When we got Barbara Dacy, we were in the same situation we are now. Here's a person who came and applied for the job because she wanted to move back to Minnesota. I suppose if she were coming in here now and applying for this job, you'd tell you take a hike but she turned out to be an excellent person for us .... in talking to her, I'm sure that's right. She had no experience at that time to speak of. We were paying her a Iow salary. CounciLman Johnson: This city has changed a lot. Mayor Hamilton: We're still growing but we're still moving up the ladder. We didn't require 3 to 5 years experience last time, now we are. We're moving up along the way the City is moving up. I feel very strongly that we can find another Barb Dacy out there~ Another Jo Ann Olsen. I think they're out there. Councilman Boyt: I'm sure they're out there. Mayor Hamilton: And they'll come to work here for that money. I really think SO. Councilman Horn: I don't think we have to decide that... Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's worth taking the risk. We're putting the ad in. We do have to decide that. Councilman Horn: The ad is minimu. It's not capped. You think people only with 3 years experience are going to respond to that ad? I don't know how many ads you've put in but everytime I place an ad, I get a ~fnole collage of people that respond to these things and they don't limit themselves to whatever you put 66 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 in the paper. Councilman Johnson: It does indicate certain things though Clark. When I look at an ad, and I see 3 to 5 years experience or something in there and I'm sitting at 10, I don't bother messing with that. Councilman Horn: Do you want somebody with 107 I don't think we're that grossly... Councilman Johnson: There may be people with 10 that are in that range. think 3 is way too low. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim 67