The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 06 2745 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ~ MEETING JUNE 27, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCI~ERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Johnson and Acting Mayor Gevirg STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, C~ry Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the agenda as amended with moving it~ 11, Preliminary Plat Extension for Sever Peterson to item l(r) on the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the following consent agenda iter~ pursuant to the City Manager's reccm~a~dations: a. Final Plat Approval, Colony Point. b. Final Plat Approval, MiD_newashta Meadow. d. Resolution 988-61: Approve Resolution Authorizing Execution of Public Service Agreement for South Shore Senior Center. f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-714 to Permit Retail Garden Centers as a Cor~itional Use in the BH, Business Highway District, Final R~ading. g. Curry Farms, Second Addition: 1. Approval of Plans and Specifications. i. Approval of Development Contract, Lake Susan Hills West. m. Approval of T~K~orary Three Day Beer License, Chanhassen Rotary. o. Resolution 988-62: Revised Assessment Hearing Date for Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project 986-13. p. Approval of Accounts Payable. q. City Council Minutes dated May 31, 1988 City Council Minutes dated June 6, 1988 City Council Minutes dated June 13, 1988 Park and Recreation Omnnission Minutes dated June 14, 1988 r. Preliminary Plat Extension, Sever Peterson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (C) FINAL PLAT APPRDVAL, HERITAGE SQUARE ADDITION. Councilman Boyt: In the conditions of approval, I would like to see item 4 changed. It currently reads, detailed facia, signage. I would like to see lighting and sound proofing. Tnat basically collapses 6 into 4 and adds sound proofing which we discussed in some detail and I was surprised to not find it in the conditions. Barbara Dacy: Number 6 is lighting. ~nat has to be suhnitted to staff. Councilman Boyt: That's why I moved it to 4. I just thought we might as well make them all. Sound proofing is my real issue. I don't really care how we handle lighting. It se~ms like it's already covered but as long as they were looking at everything else they can include that. Acting Mayor Geving: Any other co~nents on item l(c)? We are deleting condition 6 and moving condition 6 to amend condition 4 to include lighting and sound proofing. Councilman Boytmoved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the final plat for Heritage Square Addition with the change of deleting condition 6 ar~ amercing condition 4 to include lighting and sound proofing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (E) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1255 2(A) AND 2(C) TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PRfMISE DIRECTIO~ SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRfD 4 SQUARE FEET, DATASERV, FINAL READING. Councilman Johnson: I simply pulled this off so I could vote against it. You can't vote against it in the middle there. I'm just against going from 4 square foot to 12 square foot. It's just too big of a jump and I thought the 9 square foot or s~me other comprcmise was a little better off than what we're doing. Councilman Boyt: As long as we're discussing this, I thought that one of the concerns of a 40 acre piece of property was that however big the sign was, it could be bigger because it ~as less visible. Yet I see nothing in here that indicates that their 12 square foot sign is back on the property. Councilman Johnson: Tnat wasn't the vote. Tne vote was just give them 12 square foot. CounciLman Boyt: So myquestion is, on the one hand is it appropriate to amend this at this stage? That's one question Roger. Roger Knutson: I believe the answer is yes. It takes a four-fifths vote. Councilman Boyt: Well, we can't amend it if we wanted to then. It's not going to pass tonight. Roger Knutson: Tnat's correct. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you opposed to the amendment? City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 47. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest two things. One, that w~ change this so that it indicates the signs have to be a certain, if they're goirg to be 12 square feet, they have to be a certain distance into the property to take advantage of the 40 acre size. Two, I would suggest that w~ table this because if w~ vote against it, it has to start all over and if we table it we have a chance. Acting Mayor Geving: Would you offer a cc~prc~ise Bill, on bow far you recommend into the property this sign would sit o~ the 40 acres? Do you have any ttDughts on bow you might improve this so you could send it back to staff? Councilman Boyt: What we were discussirg was the apparent size of the sign to people who passed by say for instance on TH 5 and bow they have a nice sign with their logo and name on it up there now and I think that would be detracted from. I would suggest a ballpark of a couple hundred feet. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any staff input o~ this Barbara? Barbara Dacy: Maybe w~ should, if the Council is going to table the ite~, maybe staff should investigate that a little further because I think typically what you could expect is a lot of these directional signs are placed at driveway entrance fr~n tl~ public street right into the site. For example, tt~ ~L-~lynn site I can envision s~me. type of directory sign right at one of the entrances so the setback may cause s~me problems and we may have to ir~ar s~me additional headaches in the picture of who chose 1007 Who chose 200 ar~ what did you base it on? Acting Mayor Geving: Would you be satisfied Bill if we tabled this item, directed staff to go back and give us input? Acting Mayor Geving: Your only objection is that one point ~hereas Jay is strictly opposed to the amendment for the 12 foot. Councilman Johnson: I suggested several things last time which none of then c2me through. One of them was just what Bill was suggesting. A 4 square feet per so close to the road and further back you have different sizes on a graduating scale. TD~ other one was that you can only have tt~ larger signs for multiple facilities so if you've got a M~Glynn's and CPT and 3 or 4 different facilities that you need a larger sign for but you've only got one facility with one dock and stuff, staff proved that the 4 square foot sign is adequate. If it's a multi-establishn~ facility of greater than 40 acres, I don't have a problam with the 12 foot sign but carte blanche, 12 foot I 'ye got a problam with. I' 11 move to table this thing. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1255 2(a) and 2(c) to permit larger on-pramise directional signs and to direct staff to come back with a ~amise on the setback of tt~ sign. All voted in favor am~ the moti~ carried. 4~ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Horn: My only c~ent is I agree with Barb. I don't think it's reasonable to have an entrance sign stickirg way in the back of the property. It defeats the whole purpose of it. Tnat suggestion won't work. councilman Johnson: However it would have worked at this site that the applicant had. CONSENT AGENDA: (G-2) CURRY FARMS, S~COND ADDITION. GRADING/EROSION CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL. councilman Johnson: I really don't have a lot of problems with the Grading and Erosion control plan. I had a discussion with the Rs~mers today. They're getting real close and Curry Farm folks are compromising and they've come very close to an agresment between them, just so everybody kno~ what's happening here because this is one of our last swipes at it. I think that Curry Farms, the folks, Centex worked with them. I actually feel they're asking for a little much when they want sod installed on their back 25 foot. I suggested that they get seed but I just want to encourage Centex to continue working with ~ ar~ that we are watching that. I guess they do still have an easement that Centex needs to acquire. I'll move that we approve it~m~ l(g)(2). I just wanted to make a statement about the R~n~er's. Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second your motion. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Cne, I think we should specify Type II erosion control and not just erosion control but the best. Acting Mayor Geving: Under what condition is that? councilman Boyt: That would be under condition 3. Let memake one other comment because it's related to this. Maybe it's covered in the develol:ment contract but are we now settirg up this situation where the City is responsible for renoval of all erosion control? So even though that's not on here that's covered? Gary~rren: It's in the general conditions. I just want to make a note that haybales are getting more and more scarce, as you may be aware of tb~ farmers trying to get bales for feeding dairy cattle and such. We've been trying to be a little bit more lenient. Maybe going with a double deck of silt fence when we can't get the haybales. We'll get the bales when we can. Councilman Boyt: How about Gary if we went with the equivalent and then however one has to reach the equivalent. Gary h~rren: That's what I'm saying. Tne equivalent and we'll go with a double layer of silt fence or something of that nature if we can't get the haybales. councilman Boyt: My point is simply that I want something more than a single silt fence. Councilman Horn: Don't you really use strawbales? These are not feeding type bales that you're using for erosion control. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 49 Gary Warren: There's been a general shortage, at least the way it's ~ explained to me, in both areas. Councilman Johnson: Straw would have the same order. Councilman Horn: Straw may be a problen but you're not takirg away from a food for cattle. You're not going to keep cattle alive feeding them straw. Gary Warren: If w~ go with the equivalent I think... Acting Mayor Geving: ~he point is though, that the City Engineer is making every attempt to...construction. I think he's makir~3 a good effort in doing that. Councilman Boyt: Can w~ amemd to Type II equivalent? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, the item 3 has ~ amended to Type II equivalent for erosion control. Councilman Johnson moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for Curry Fan~s, Second Addition with the amendment to condition 3 to add Type II equivalent erosion control measures. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (H) LAKE RILEY W(X)~ S(7jTH: 1. APPROVAL OF PLAN~ AND SPH2IFICATIONS. 2. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL. Councilman Horn: I just had a question on that. I see you're recommending on this a 3 inch bituminous layer. It would see~ to me that on the Centex property you said all that was necessary was a 2 inch layer. I'm wondering why the difference in this. Gary Warren: The roadway, our standard section for a rural roadway is a 3 inch bituminous surface. In Centex, you're talking about Teton Lane? In there, the decision was made that because that roadway is basically servicing the Natole property ~ not a full highway traveled r~y, that 2 i~ was an acceptable c~npromise to the City. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any problem with that Clark? Councilman Horn: No. Acting Mayor Geving: You pulled off (h). Is that both 1 and 2? Councilman Horn: No, just 1. Gary Warren: The developer requested that he be able to comment on the develo~nent contract if you would allow him. 5~.ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Are we also making the same erosion control conditions on this develo~x~ent? Acting Mayor Geving: On this development contract and all others. I think we should make that amendment and you will catch that for us Gary, we would appreciate it. Councilman Horn: I did have one other question on that. ~nis is a public street, correct? Gary Warren: Correct. councilman Horn: Is it typical that we require the developer to sign a public street? Gary Warren: Yes. This will be turned over to the City after it is built to our standards and all subdivision signs are. councilman Horn: Okay, that w~s one question. The other question is, I don't really see why we want to put that kind of a sign on there. Warning? To me advisory s~s are just totally irrelevant because they're not enforceable. Acting Mayor (~eving: What item are you speaking of Clark? Councilman Horn: I'm looking at number 6. We're saying that we're putting a curve warning sign with a speed advisory. Gary Warren: This is the Uniform Traffic Manual and I guess enforceable or not, it is a standard I think from a liability standpoint that protects the City in a certain regard when they do have a cautionary sign up. Councilman Horn: Even though it's unenforceable? Gary Warren: Well, it's an advisory sign and it's up to the judgment of the traveler I guess to take it into consideration. councilman Horn: Okay, if it helps in the City's liability, I can buy it but I don't think it will do anything. Acting Mayor ~eving: We do have a request by the developer under this item, the develo~ent contract. Is the developer here? Jim Peterson: I'm with George Nelson Associates. As w~ originally proceeded through this, I went over this last time when we went through the Planning Cxx~mission recommendations. The latest item that concerns me is, as we got into this future street connection. We debated the merit of this connection to some degree and we talk about doing this connection and it was always my impression that we would do this connection as a public improv~ent project or through the 429 process, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Jim Peterson: Nothing ever to the contrary was ever presented, proposed, or suggested tome until Thursday afternoon of last week. Tomy way of thinking City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 you're now asking us to provide a $50,000.00 letter of cr .edit or whatever, cash equivalent for a year and a half in case the road ever m/ght possibly be built. To me that's changing the rules after the game has been established. When we talked about tbe easement, we...the easement and w~ wanted the road to stand the test of the public improver hearing. We doubted the merits of the road and felt that that public improvenent hearing could possibly strenghten your convinction or strengthen ours on the approval. Now escrowing this amount of money for a road Mr. Halla plats, through my docu~entatioo will not be built and if he does plat, or excuse me. If he does plat, he would not build a road according to this and if he doesn't plat, he would build the road for 10-20 y~ars, who knows how many years down the road. Without the public improvement process, I spoke last time to the value of the houses adjoining where this road will be and how it will affect their property value. I felt that was important to the process and I feel that after the last meeting that basically we had an agreement. That we would provide the easement. If the road ever got built we would be assessed through the 429 process and I feel that this is kind of drastic change from what we agreed to. I don't know how else to really put it. I think this is, it was a surprise to me to hear this. I don't think it's, to involve this amount of money for that period of time. I look at us as being a business in t/~ comnunity and I don't know that you would require this of any other business in the community. At this point we pay the taxes and hopefully have contributed in some ways. I think it's unnecessary. Any questions I can answer? Acting Mayor Geving: The only comment that I could make, I don't believe that we've treated you any differently than we would have done on any other project. Jim Peterson: Not any other development, no. Acting Mayor Geving: I think you can be assured of that. I know we agreed, or the Council agreed to this language. Could you explain a little bit Gary of why w~ put in Decembe~ 1, 1989 rather than July 6, 19897 Gary Warren: The reason being that if, I believe the July 6th being the deadline for the Halla property. December 1 was to give the City opportunity to process the authority for the road. In other words, if he platted before his July 6th deadline or at the last minute, that we had a couple of months there ~ahere we w~re going to be able to c(~ne back into Council to get authorization to go ahead with the project which as you're aware takes some time. Acting Mayor Geving: And in your view Gary, the request for the $50,000.00 as a reserve, that's nothing unusual for us to request that, isn't that true? Gary Warren: It's really a method of backing up the credibility for pa~ne~t of the assessments even if it does go on a 429 project. I guess I would look at it as if the developer had petitioned the City to put in a public roadway in his subdivision similar to Minnewashta Meadows. For example Gary Carlson where we've got this year going in as a public improvement. He is providing a letter of credit to back up the assessnents for the cost of that installation ar~ that letter of credit will be reduced as the assessments are paid off. Acting Mayor Geving: Isn't this a little bit different though where we requested the easement ourselves rather than the applicant? City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Gary Warren: The City is requesting the easement and in looking at what w~ had after the last Council action, staff didn't feel comfortable that we had the ability to construct a roadway out there with the conditions as they were approved. That's why we were recormlending an additional deposit. Acting Mayor Geving: Councilm~mbers have any co~wnents to Jim? Councilman Johnson: I see this, I was one of the people who really are for the easement and I see the easement as something in the future. As far as I see in July 6th, if Halla doesn't make his deadline by July 6th, or if he does make the deadline the road doesn't go in. If he doesn't make the deadline, he goes back to the replatting and we could possibly get a future road in there but probably not, he won' t be replatted in 1989 anyway. To go back and replat that he would have to replat it 1 in 10 and platting just doesn't happen that quickly. If he doesn't make the July deadline, he's in no hurry. H~'s already stated he doesn't want to build houses. F~ wants to grow trees so I don't see us building this road in 1989. I don't necessarily see us releasing the easement if everything falls through but I don't see the reason for the $50,000.00 myself because the chances of building this road by December 1, 1989, I can't see any possibility of it happening. Councilman Boyt: I think the easement is very important and I was under a little different understanding Jay. I thought that we took that for a certain period of time but maybe not. The developer shall provide the City with a 60 foot, no that's a different one. Gary, do you remember how long we took the eas~mmlt itself for? Gary Warren: I believe there was the same restriction on the easement. I know the discussion in particular from you Bill was trying to set up a deadline that was sort of a compromise position but the actual easement was taken without any time restriction on it. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that maybe one reasonable change to this would be if it is, if the plat is carried through, that as of July 7th we release this in terms of both the easement and the $50,000.00. If it's not, I'm inclined to agree with Jay that I doubt seriously that we're going to build this road and aren't we just charging the developer the interest on $50,000.00? Is t_hat how that works? Explain a bit about the cost of a letter of credit. Gary Warren: A letter of credit, depending on the bank, they charge from 1% to 2% of the dollar amount as a fee for the letter of credit. Councilman Boyt: So we're talking $500.00? Gary Warren: $1,000.00 maybe. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that about right Jim? Is that how it works? Jim Peterson: I think it's similar. I would say 2% to 3% but more important from our standpoint is it just lost $50,000.00 off our line of credit which we use in our business. I don't know if any of you use your lines of credit but it's important to us so it's not the cost of t_he letter of credit and we'll City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 gladly pay $500.00 or $1,000.00 but that's kind of the minor issue of the letter of credit. Acting Mayor Geving: What's the real issue here? The fact that w~ wanted to get that easement? I don't believe we ever spoke about the need for the $50,000.00 or any dollar figure for a reserve to assure the City that w~ had that money in a reserve account. I was kir~ of surprised to see it on my notes personally. I w~uld be in favor of dropping the $50,000.00. W~ have the eas~m~ent and that's really what w~ wanted. That's what we were after. Roger Knutson: The reason that was suggested is if you want to build, the developer suggested that you can have some very tough goirg proving benefit. If we took the developer at his ~rd and said do w~ want to fight the good fight later or do w~ want to win the battle ar~ the war and have it all solved right here, which it can be? So rather than have us fight the good fight later in trying to prove benefit, we decided why should the City put ~f in the position where it has to fight. If you really want the road, this provision says there's not going to be a fight. This provision says w~ win. It's over with. That was the rationale for it. Councilman Horn: I think the Attorney gave us good advice. I don't think there's anla~ay we can prove benefit when we take 9 out of the 16 lots ar~ take ~ off of a cul-de-sac. It's absolutely a negative benefit to putting that through frcm the Council's standpoint. George Nelson: I'd like to coament on the Council's comments. ~his is not a hypocracy but a ckanocracy and why not let this thing rest until you need the road? ~e'll give the easement. We've given it to you already until some point later should you need the road ar~ then let the public decide whether they're against it or they want to pay for it. Because you're asking us to pay for a road that we have no damn use for. It just depreciates the value of our property. Acting Mayor Geving: But w~ w~uld release that $50,000.00 letter of credit on JUly ?th° George Nelson: I understood now that you're not asking for a letter of credit. Acting Mayor Geving: That's what we've gotte~ down. I understar~ that w~ do have a request in our briefing package here tonight for $50,000.00 security for that easement. That' s what it says in my packet. George Nelson: And you will release that July lst? Acting Mayor Geving: July 7, 1989. George Nelson: I still stand on my ground that... I don't see why the Council needs to put thsmselves in a position where it can't lose if something that is of interest to the people in the c~m~unity. Councilman Johnson: I just see this road eas~nent as an essential piece for us to give future councils and future subdivision of this land, whatever years from now, that they say we're going to add another 20 hemes into this area, 30 bc~es into this area or whatever, that then we've got enough traffic that ~ want to City Counci 1 Meeting - June 27, 1988 cut back this cul-de-sac. Your rural cul-de-sac is a little different than an urban cul-de-sac. That's why I 'm pushing for the easement. As far as the $50,000.00, I don't think it serves any useful purpose at this time. Acting Mayor (~ving: And I would agree with that. I think our whole discussion when we got on this subject was for the gaining of the easement and we got that. This document gives us that. I would be in favor of releasing the $50,000.00 from this document here. R~moving it entirely. I' 11 make the motion to do that although this is not my item. I would like to refer this to Clark. Councilman Horn: My issue is not even that. My issue is we shouldn't have this in there in the first place. Jim Peterson: It was my issue. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to make the motion to approve the develo~uent contract with the deletion of the $50,000.00 requir~uent as security under item 6 whether a future roadway connection reserved regarding the Halla plat. Do I have a second to that motion? Councilman Johnson: As long as it does include 8(1) also. Councilman Boyt: That's the one we've been talking about. Acting Mayor Geving: I'm looking at the security and remove the estimated construction cost of $50,000.00. I'm amending that itsm (1), removing the estimated construction cost of $50,000.00 and credit acceptable to the City of $50,000.00 from that statement. Is there any con~nents in regard to my motion? Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: I would. Acting Mayor Geving: Any comments? Councilman Boyt: Yes please. I would suggest that what we're talking about here is a public safety issue ar~ it's contrasting and scmewhat opposed to an individual privacy issue. The cul-de-sacs are now and will continue to be a problem in Chanhasse~ and that we really should probably decide the issue. I agree with Roger that if we give up this $50,000.00, we are giving up our chance to build this road as a public safety stat~uent and we're coming to grips with the privacy side of people wanting to live on cul-de-sacs. If we either want the road to go through, and if we do I think we hang onto the $50,000.00. If we don't ~ant the road to go through, than let's face up to it. Acting Mayor Geving: We would only be holding $50,000.00 until July 7th. Councilman Boyt: Unless it's approved. Acting Mayor Geving: Unless it' s approved. Councilman Horn: I think Bill hit it right on the head when be said it's a public safety issue but I think he meant it backwards. The reason people build on cul-de-sacs is for safety. People with little children want to live on 10 .. City Oouncil Meeting - June 27, 1988 cul-de-sacs because that cuts down the traffic flow through their area. It's not a privacy issue. It's a safety issue. Don Ashworth: This item was originally presented as a 429 project and as a part of that we had looked to a waiver by the developer of his right to object to a special assessment for this roadway. We took that back to Roger, as the City Attorney, and he had suggested at that point in time that we look to the letter of credit as a means to insure that if we w~nt through a 429 process, we assess the lots still owned by the developer, we may not have any lots left by that point in time. ~ne City would be in a better position again if we had that letter of credit in there. If we make the amendment to- (1) that basically waives the necessity for the letter of credit, I would hope that we would add back in the right for us to again move ahead with that as a public improvement project and that the developer would literally waive his right to an assessment at that point in time if the Oouncil determines that that roadway should be built. Councilman Boyt: Waive his right to an assessment hearing? Don Ashworth: Waive his right to protest that assessnent. Acting Mayor ~eving: Any cc~m~ts fr~n the Attorney? Roger ~utson: I don't want to beat this to death but the question we asked ourselves when this came up the first time, what lots are you going to assess? You could say you're going to assess it against all the lots in the plat. That was the first thing that came to mind. Then we thought what your reaction would be, or a buyer's reaction. Any buyer is going to look at that provision and say, this is a pending assessment. That's true and so each of the lots in there, they're going to have to, it's not a legal requirement but a requirement of lenders, they're going to have to escrow at least 150% probably of the pending assessment. That isn't going to make a lot of folks very happy on something that may never happen. The other possibility is just to go against the lots you ow~ at the time the improvement bearing goes. Being creative we thought, what happens if he owns one lot? I asked C~ry, what's a lot going to sell for out there? Is it likely t~ are going to be $10~,000.00 lots? No. So if you have the oddball situation ~ere at the time this is ordered, you have one lot left and we put a $50,000.~0 assessment against that lot, it won't work. If he owns half these lots at the time, it may very well but we don't know. T~at's why we came up with this solution. Don Ashworth: But what I'm suggesting is, if we're dropping this solution, I think that it's still a better chance to assume that he might have half of the lots left on July, 1989. Roger Knutson: I would ~holeheartedly agree. ~mat is certainly better than leaving it with nothing. Acting Mayor (~eving: I would like to read into this the language that you're proposing Don so we get it proper and we'll add a new item. If we drop ite~ (1), the requir~t for the $50,000.00 which we have a motion on the floor for, that we would add an iten (n) which would be this waiver of the right to appeal a protest of a future assessment. 11 ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Don Ashworth: I would suggestion that wordage. Right now you have (1). Leave that in place ar~ right after the $50,000.00, add the wordage that you just stated. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Have you got that Barbara? Roger Knutson: We have standard waiver language that we can use. Acting Mayor Geving: If we can have the standard waiver language that you could put in at the conclusion of it~a~ (1). We have a motion on the floor to include that but to delete the $50,000.00 as a letter of credit payable to the City. That is the motion on the floor and we have a second. Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Development Contract for Lake Riley Woods South as amended on condition 8 (L) to delete the requirement for the $50,000.00 letter of credit and including the City's standard waiver language at the conclusion of (L). All voted in favor and the motion carried. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to back up and pick item h(1). I don't believe we really approved itsm h(1). Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the plans and specifications for Lake Riley Woods South as presented by the City Manager. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Horn: I did have one other issue on h(1), plans and specs and that's the addition of a deadend sign. I think we're really misleading people if we put up a deadend sign and they go in and buy the property and then later we cc~e and put a road through there. I think if the City wants to put up a deadend sign, they should have it deemed that that's going to be a permanent cul-de-sac. Gary Warren: We have in the development contract a covenant requiring that the property owners be notified of the City having this easement for the potential connection of that roadway into the Halla so that they would be notified... Councilman Horn: Does that co~e in for subsequent buyers or just the first time buyer? Roger Knutson: Tne development contract is recorded against the property. Councilman Horn: So any subsequent buyer would be notified? Roger Knutson: Yes. CONSENT AGENDA: (J) AWARD CONTRACT FOR UPDATE OF UTILITIES SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CounciLman Boyt: Just a couple of questions. One of th~m is, I see that the amount of money that we applied for from the block grant was $2,000.00 short. That's accurate right? 12 City Council Meeting - JUne 27, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Boyt: Why didn't w~ save enough money from the Block Grant to cover the whole process? Barbara Dacy: You might recall, or maybe you don't recall, from the March 28th meeting the Council did discuss at lergth tt~ amount that should be given to the senior study and other projects that were under consideration at that time. Prior to the March 28th meeting, the Council had already allocated s(xne for the South Shore Senior Center. Then it was at the 28th meeting, decided this type of split between the remaining two projects so that was just the decision at that time. In fact, I think the $7,500.00 was a minimtm~ that you could allocate for such a study according to CB(~) rules for a senior study. You have to allocate at least $7,500.00 so the remainder... Councilman Boyt: My other question is, why did we only see one bid? Gary Warren: We actually had two bids. That's where the price range of $6,000.00 to $11,500.00 came from. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and you considered the $6,000.00 bid so inappropriate as to not put it in the material? Gary Warren: It has the same scope basically but I did not have confidence that they had a finn understanding of what was involved with this. The finn of Rieke Carroll Muller has done t~D that we noted and we're looking at entering into it as a per diem contract so we're not talking all sub here. They would be reimbursed as the effort dictates but I believe in all honesty to'the Council, the $11,500.00 is more presentable... Councilman Boyt: And that is the cap? They can't exceed that? Warren: We would establish a contract not to exceed that. Councilman Boyt: That' s all the question I have. Acting Mayor G~ving: The only coument that I had, I had planned on pulling this one out myself. I definitely ~anted to see the other bid that we got. In the future bids of this nature, I'd like to see all of the bids in the package because I personally feel that unless we have a chance to see the other bid, we really don't have anything to cca%oare it to. I felt for $200.00 of work, which involves 37 hours for a professional project manager, 121 hour's for an engineering technician, 38 hours for a draftsman and 11 hours for a secretary, even at a very unreasonable $60.00-$80.00 per hour and then doubling it, I came up with something like a reasonable bid would have ~ maybe $7,500.00. That's what I thought would have been a reasonable bit on this particular project. Even including a fair amount of overhead ar~ profit but since I didn't have the other bid to cca~are it to I wasn't sure. I have no other c(mments. Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to award the contract for the update of the Utilities Section of the C~mprehensive Plan to the finn of Rieke Carrol Muller Associates in an amount not to ex~ $11,500.00. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. 13 ~ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 CONSENT AG~.NDA: (N) CITY CODE ~, SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS, FINAL READI~. Councilman Horn: I was curious, we did hold a public hearing on this? It seems to me that something like this we should have a public hearing on whether it's required or not. Acting Mayor Geving: Would this be normal Barbara? Councilman Horn: No, I don't think so. Acting Mayor Geving: This would not be a normal operation? Barbara Dacy: No, the public hearing isn't required because it's not an amendment to the zoning ordinance. However, it's up to the Council. Councilman Horn: I think any ordinance change that affects how people live should have a public hearing. One of the cc~lplaints that w~'ve gotten is that this thing was totally mismanaged in tezms of informing the public ar~ I totally agree with that. I think one of the ways we as a body counteract that is by having public hearings when we have an ordinance change. I'd like to suggest that we do that. Acting Mayor Geving: Any conxnents? Bill, do you agree with that? Councilman Boyt: Can't argue against a public hearing. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a problem with a public hearing. I do have, I was going to pull this one also. The wording in here, it says whenever the City Council or on a temporary emergency basis, the City Manager or Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may, by resolution. Now, how is the Fire Chief and City Manager, by resolution, going to call for a sprinkling ban? I think we have to reword this to where we have that the City Manager and Fire Chief do have the temporary energency basis to do this. They can do it on a temporary emergency without having a resolution and then it shall be followed up within some set time frame to have a resolution. Acting Mayor Geving: I would agree that those two words, by resolution, are meaningless in this context. Councilman Johnson: With the City Council side of it it's okay but it probably needs to be broken into two pieces. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that all you had there? Councilman Johnson: Yes and I agree with the public hearing. The other thing I was going to talk about was the lack of good communication on this one. We are guilty of poor comnunications with the citizens quite often. It's not that tough, I believe you can get a postcard type thing to go through Xerox machines. We could publish and print overnight cards to go to every citizen in the City if we would stock the stuff. Tne concept is there. We didn't really cc~nunicate this well enough. On Monday after the emergency call, we should have ha~ a mailing go out and when we switched back last Thursday, we should have had another mailing go out. A lot of people don't know what's going on. Not 14 City Council Meeting - June 27, 19B8 everybody reads the newspaper so we can't depend upon only the newspapers. Especially scmething as important as this, as our only c~municationa. I think this also points to the ~ for a public information officer for the City as a part time duty for scmebody that is the focal point for desiminating this kind of information. The other thing was, we had mass confusion up front. Something needed to be typed up and handed to the receptionist just fr~ hour to hour on that Monday and Tuesday. It seemed that everything was changing ar~ that actually was what was happening is that the energency was maturing. We were getting a better understanding of it. By later in the w~ek the ground rules were well enough known but I had a frier~ who for several weeks carried buckets of water to her garden just after she had her gall bladder surgery. She was told she couldn't get a permit just because she has stitches in her side but she can carry her buckets. She didn't actually tell anybody she had stitches in her side. She's just that kind of person. I think there's a lot of mice in the world that don' t create waves and when they don' t get clear instructions, they don' t know exactly what' s happening, they don' t protest ar~ they go carry their water buckets out there to water their gardens with buckets but that's all I've got to say o~ that. Acting Mayor Geving: I think we all learned a great deal fr~m this e~ergency ar~ it wasn't really an ~nergency. I think that the Fire Chief and City Manager acted in good faith to take care of a situation that I believe at the point we probably should have had a City Council meeting. There should have ~ some better senination of clearcut information as to what was really happening. Possibly even hand carried flyers from door to door. I think we finally caught up by using the television and of course we had very good coverage frc~ the local papers so we've learned a lot frcz~ this effort and hopefully the crisis is sc~=what past. Not to say it isn't going to happen again in a different way with a different means but I do think we do have an area now. We have an ordinance amendment where we can handle this. The Fire Chief, City Y~unager is involved. Certainly the Public Safety is involved. One of the things that I wanted to include in this ordinance amendment was a means by which the public safety department would be totally responsible for getting out to the media what these levels of water useage restrictions would be in this particular case. So we have to place the responsibility sc~splace and I believe that that's where it should be. That it should be with the public safety department in getting the media attention ar~ information. As far as Clark's recom~er, dation in texms of a public bsaring, I can see nothing wrong with that. I think it's a good idea. If we get the information out first ar~ then can have a public hearing. This is important. It's one of the more important things that we've talked about in the last couple of weeks. I think we've got it solved here or at least got a handle on it. No further questions or comments. We're going to direct staff to add whatever co~nents that were made tonight to this. My specific comma~t was that I would like to see the public safety department be totally responsible for the media attention ar~ dissemination of information and Clark Horn's suggestion here that this be placed in terms of the public hearing. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the table the final reading of the City COde Amendment, Sprinkling Restrictions until a public hearing can be held on the matter and to include having the Public Safety Department responsible for informing the public. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 15 6~.ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mary Bernier, 8155 Grandview Road: I have a few photographs here and w~lat I 'd like to air is, when they changed the planning on Hidden Valley Two, we were not notified. 0nly the original plans. ~hey have put up h~nes that have cc~pletely blocked our view of the lake. At the time this originally, I have it highlighted, I got the transcript of all the Council meetings we attended and it says that we're going to be looking over the roofs of these h~mes. Well, we' re looking right in the front door. May I show s~ne pictures? Acting Mayor Geving: Sure. Why don't you start down here with Jay. Councilman Johnson: Actually I was up there this w~ekend looking at it. We've talked before. I was noting those t~D story hcmes there. Mary Bernier: Tney were supposed to be split entries. We are looking directly at the first ar~ second stories. Councilman Johnson: You've got the big red deck there don't you? Mary Bernier: That' s right. We have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you just give us a couple minutes Mary. I'm fairly familiar with your pictures but we'll show it to the rest-of the Council. Mary Bernier: We were never notified of a change of plans. They have dug another hole. Now there' s one left. Councilman Boyt: Is there anything we can do about it? Acting Mayor Geving: Well, go ahead Mary. Councilman Johnson: Was there a restriction in the develo~xnent contract restricting those lots? Mary Bernier: It said split entry. I talked to the City Engineer last August. He assured me that they would be split entries and I would be looking over the roofs. I have it highlighted in the transcript where the question ~as asked and they assured us that we would be looking over the roofs. That's fine except we have nothing to see except, we can't even look at the roofs. We're looking at the main level and they' re right in our front yard. It also states, from the May, 1985 Council meeting, the deed restrictions require that no two of the same color package and house design can be located directly adjacent to each other or across the street. There are four gray houses in a row. There are two exact identical homes next to each other and across the street to others. These are not small hcmes. They are monsters. Taey've got big peak roofs. Great big chimneys. We have nothing left to look at. We live in an area where there are only five homes. We are in the same tax base as the rest of the City. We don't have sewer. We don't have water and we don't have streets. They always told us we were paying for the view. We have nothing now. We have no view. We have no nothing. I want to know how this could go through. Acting Mayor Geving: Did you talk to Gary? 16 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Mary Bernier: I have been up to City Hall. I have called Barb Dacy. I have talked to her last year. I've talked to the City Engi_r~--.x. I've talked to everybody and they just keep building and buildir~3 and building. It's not at all what they said they were goirg to do. Our property value b~m gone down and we intend to retire in a couple years and sell. We have nothing left to sell. Our view was part of it. We have no sewer. We have no water. We were assured that we could hook up to the sewer and ~ater eventually. Now they say no. We got a letter. No way he says. Acting Mayor Geving: No way what Mary? Mary Bernier: That we can hook up to this develoix~ent. Acting Mayor Geving: Those w~uld be public utilities. There ~uld b~ no reason why they could. Mary Bernier: Our hook up is right out our front. It w~uld be nothing just to go over to theirs. It's right out our front. Acting Mayor Geving: Maybe you ~ant to c~mment on that Gary. Gary Warren: There's a series of 4 or 5 properties, I don't r~e~ber exactly how many that are not connected there on Grandview R~ad. That the City sometime in th~ future w~uld have to look at brirging in an extension out to the Hidden Valley sewer to service this property. Mary Bernier: Our neighbor was put in already. Gary ~arren: We had one exception that allowed for that where we allowed to connect his own lateral into the sewer with tb~ understandirg that he, that tt~y were executing a waiver of assessments in the future to bring in sewer and water. Acting Mayor Geving: ~o' s home was that? Mary Bernier: Harvey Will. Gary Warren: Will's w~reconnected to the blockand then there wss another one, 8801. Larry Brown: A1 Sinnen I believe. Acting Mayor Geving: A1 Sinnen? So there's t~ up there that have connected. Mary Bernier: Al Sinnen's not connected. Gary Warren: I think there's only one that's connected. Larry Brown: If I may clarify. There is one h~ne that is connected out there right now with the possibility of a second one beirg connected on the ass~nption that we sign an agr~-------~ent stating that they will pay the assessments incurred by bringing sewer and water up there. At the time that I received several 17 Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 inquiries as to being able to hook up to sewer and water through the Hidden Valley subdivision, I went back to Hidden Valley, Merritor Development ar~ asked him if they would provide us with the easements to allow us to connect up to your subdivision. At that time, Ron Helmer had stated that no. F~ said I've been through that process once and I will decline any further easements so he refused us that eas~nent and therefore staff decided that what was left to possibly go to a Chapter 429 feasibility to investigate bringing the lateral sewer up to that. Acting Mayor Geving: Taat's semething we'll have to look at. action can w~ take? Mary, what Mary Bernier: I don' t know but I think something should be done. It isn't fair. We've lived in the City for 23 years and all we've had is gotten crapped on. We just sit there. We're small. There are only five houses. I think we've b~-n taken advantage of. We have nothing left. We're sitting there, what am I going to look at now? Right in the living rooms and bedrooms of all these stupid houses. Right off my big deck. Councilman Horn: I think we need an answer to how this happened. Why this development differed from what they were supposed to... Mary Bernier: We were never even notified. They just went ahead and built it. These are not split entries. Gary Warren: We' 11 have to do so~e research. Acting Mayor Geving: We'll bring this ite~ back Mary. Now that you've addressed it for us, we'll have the staff determine why it deviated from the plan. The houses are actually built. I know they're there. There is still one or two houses to be built. Mary Bernier: Our land is ruined. We've got nothing left. I would like to invite the Council to drive up there and look if they would. Councilman Boyt: You might want to contact the County Assessor. I would. Acting Mayor Geving: We'll take a look at it. Mary, I assure you that most of the Council m~nbers will make it up to visit. Mrs. Palmer, 1670 Lake Lucy Road: I've got just a little matter to talk about. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you here to talk about the assessments Mrs. Palmer? Mrs. Palmer: Well, the assessments but that road. Acting Mayor Geving: You want to just talk about the road for now? Mrs. Palmer: Yes. %~e road, they built the road so it cc~es out in front of our house in a big arc like and goes into our driveway. What is happening now is the people come...from Chanhassen and they go over the curb and when it was wet, they kept tearing out the curb and tearing out the turf but now it's dry and they go right over it. Tne thing is, it doesn't bother me, I drove slow but 18 City Council Meeting - June 27 ~ 1988 scmebody's going to get hurt there and I think when they designed that, I have no idea why they did it. We never had trouble before but in the middle of the night we hear cars going up on our yard, they miss and there's scrc~.~./Ting of brakes ar~ everything. Something's going to happen there. You've got put up a sign. A slow sign or I don't know, 20-30 mph or scmething like that. We old ladies, we drive slow enough but ~ young people, scmebody's going tb hurt there and I don't know why they ever did it that way. Acting Mayor Geving: Jim, do you know where Mrs. Palmer lives? Jim Chaffee: I'm gathering you're on the west end of Lake Lucy Road? Mrs. Palmer: Yes. Not way on the west er~. You know where that little old brown house that goes in like that and they made that real fancy curve going into our place. Well, you know when somebody comes with a boat, they have to go way out in another lane and it's dangerous to come into our place. I don't know why they put that big curve there but i£ t~ could cut off s~me of that bulge they've got in the road, a lot of that danger, someday somebody is going to get hurt. Acting Mayor Geving: Mrs. Palmer, I'll have Jim look into that and he will respond back to you. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT HEARING. Public Present: Name Address Larry and Kathy Kerber James and Doris Mielke Warren Phillips Ted Coey Elizabeth Glaccum Don Mezzenga Reinhold Gutmiller James and fL=celia Palmer John and Dana Hennessy 6420 Powex Blvd. 1645 Lake Lucy Boad 1571 Lake Lucy Road 1381 Lake Lucy Boad 1510 Lake Lucy Road 5816 Dickens Avenue 1801 West 67th Street 1670 Lake Lucy Road Acting Mayor Geving called the pubic hearing to order. Gary Warren: Bear with the scale on this. I just wanted to show the overview of the project area for the purposes of discussion. Lake Lucy Road improvement project was authorized, the feasibility was authorized December 2, 1985. We accepted the feasibility April 21, 1986 with a public hearing on May 19, 1986. Plans and specs were authorized on May 19, 1986 ar~ approved July 14, 1986 and the contract was awarded for construction on August 18, 1986. The project was basically ommpleted, for all intensive purposes, early this year. The Oouncil packet at the last meeting we prepared the asses-~nent roll in accordance with the criteria that was established in the 1986 feasibility study. Total construction dollars for the total project is going to cost arour~ $810,293.00. 75% of the project is proposed to be funded through State Aid ar~ the assessment 19 ~ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 roll was prepared based on that criteria. ~ne assessment roll cost is quite ~lex because ~e have a series of different assessment approaches. One, which calls Phase 1 and Phase 3 of the project were reconstruction along t.he original Lake Lucy Road assessment so the assessment for this area, seeing it was rebuilding an existing road, was based on upgrade of an overlay at an assessment rate of $11.25 per foot. Front foot was established which the Council also reconfirmed at our last meeting. Phase 2 of the project follows the new aligr~nent of Lake Lucy Road through the Stellar Plat, Lake Lucy Highlands and they we were basically putting in a road from scratch and therefore we had a $22.20 assessment rate for front footage plus right-of-way credits were given to the platted properties along this way to recognize the fact that the developer was dedicating the right-of-way as a part of the platting process. Stellar Court, which was Phase 4, which came off of the realigr~nent of Lake Lucy Road, was separate installation also. The cost for that improvement was assessed directly to the abutting properties here and those properties also shared in the Lake Lucy Road assessment in accordance with their frontage along Lake Lucy Road. I distributed, we received six letters today so I haven't had the chance to digest them and prepare responses necessarily but I have distributed those to the Council here prior to the meeting and I think I should just read in the name and property to our record here. A letter from Larry and Kathy Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd.. A letter from James and Doris Mielke, 1645 Lake Lucy RDad. A letter from T~n and Jean Kraker, 6441 White Dove Drive. A letter from Don Mezzenga which is basically the Greenery. A letter from Warren Phillips. Acting Mayor Geving: How about the letter from Elizabeth Glaccum? Gary Warren: ~nat ' s the last letter, from the Glaccum' s, 1510 Lake Lucy Road. One adjustment to the preliminary roll that was done as noted in the staff report was the Coey property. Tnrough additional research we found that two units were established in the feasibility study for assessment and therefore, 360 foot assessment rate was established for that property and the roll was modified accordingly. Acting Mayor Geving: First of all, I'd like to say that I think we would appreciate the kinds of letter that you sent to Mr. Gutmiller. Gary, I think you did a good job responding the very next day to Mr. Gutmiller and I don't know if he responded back to you as a result of that letter but it will well written and very timely. I think at this time I'd like to hear from the various people who have sukmitted letters and I'll start with the one of the six that I have in front of me. Mr. and Mrs. Larry and Kathy Kerber. Would you like to speak to that Larry or Kathy? Larry Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd.: I own the parcel to the south of Lake Lucy Road and the west of Powers Blvd. and my concern with this project was, there was a blacktop road with adequate base, graded shoulders, put in approximately 10 years ago. 6 inches thick of blacktop. Not one patch made on it or repair made on it at the time it was tore out. It ran past my property. I have approximately 300 feet on Lake Lucy Road. Now this road was removed along with the rest of the makeshift road. I guess it was a gravel road with sealcoated. The road past my place was a regulation city street at the time it was put in approximately 10 years ago. Tnis was also removed. Why I don't know. Why it couldn't have just worked in with the regular roadway but it was removed and now I am asked to pay the same assessment that people who had virtually no road are paying and I don't believe I've got any benefit from this new road. The old 20 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 road, the 10 y~ar old road was driveable. It wasn't deteriorating. It was in good repair. It had shoulders on it. We were able to mow and maintain ~, which I did and now that road was taken out. A new road was put in and I'm asked to pay for a new road when I had one in and I just don't see any benefit to my property. It was safe. Police could get to my property. Fire. Traffic can go by. Granted they didn't go much further than my place because after that there wasn't much of a road but I just don't feel I received any benefit fr~m this new road and the old road was in good or excellent cor~ition past my place so I just don't feel that I should have to pay for the new road. Acting Mayor Geving: I do believe though that the road was widened considerably ar~ the old road did not have a concrete gutter. Is that correct? Concrete gutter or any kind of a curb. There was no curb on that whole road. Larry Kerber: No. The new one be_- a blacktop curb. I don't know, if a curb necessary? Did I really need one? Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know. It's part of the standards that we had to put in when we built that road. We r~ed the curbing. It's a State requirement. Larry Kerber: Okay, but I guess what I'm asking is, it was a State requirement so we had no choice? Acting Mayor Geving: Basically the City had no choice. Larry Kerber: Had the old stayed, I w~uld have had to put a curb anyway? Acting Mayor Geving: Probably never w~uld have updated it except that the whole length of that Lake Lucy R~ad had to be r~oved ar~ rebuilt. That was the decision of this Council. Larry Kerber: Yes, I know it was but at the time I asked and I was told that I should bring it up at the assessment hearing. I questioned it at that time and I was never given an answer and they said this is something you bring out at the assessment hearing. So I guess if I was supposed to have a curb, assess me for the ~b. Acting Mayor Geving: There's more to it than that though. I think you'll find that there's an awful lot more gravel underneath that base. I think you' 11 find that the road is wider than it was at the time that you had the old road there. To me there's considerable benefit to that corner lot. Larry Kerber: Is my lot worth or... Acting Mayor Geving: I would say it is. Larry Kerber: Who's going to pay that more? They had a blacktop road there Dale that was in good shape. It didn't have potholes. It wasn't broken up like the rest of that road and I actually don't'see a benefit. Like I say, if curb is a benefit, assess for the curb. I can't ~ an assessment for the whole road being I had a road that was useable. Acting Mayor Geving: Any Council comments? 21 ty Council Meeting - June 9.7, 1988 Councilman Horn: I rem~m%ber that question coming up and it seemed to me that there was some engineering decision as to why that had to be included. I know the question came up. Gary Warren: Jeff Roos is here from McCcmbs and Jeff, maybe you could answer that. Jeff Boos: If I can your honor. That question did come up. As a part of the design of the new roadway we did have to have to remove the old blacktop because the new roadway is a wider roadway with a distinct crown in it. As you mentioned, in order to quality for the State fur~s, we did have to put a vertical faced curb on the entire roadway so we had to excavate to put proper base in because we not only had to design the curb to State specifications, we had to design the pavement thickness to State specifications which required ~letely removing the entire old roadway and starting from scratch. Acting Mayor Geving: How much length was there frem CR 17 to the end of that pavement? What was the extent of that? Jeff Roos: There was approximately about 200 feet I suppose of blacktop that had been put in and stood up well but after that, it was gravel and the City had made attempts several times in the past to try to put some sort of more permanent surface or sealcoat type surface on Lake Lucy Road, the r~n%ainder of it, but it never stood up. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Jeff. ~nank you very much. Any other comments on the Kerber's ccmmnents? If not than I'm going to move onto itsm 2. This is a question of us, Mr. and Mrs. James and Doris Mielke. Doris Mielke, 1645 Lake Lucy Road: There were two issues at the original hearing t_hat we were very concerned about and one was the drainage on Lake Lucy Road. Where this water would flow when we had the curbs and everything and the secor~d one was safety for our driveway. We believe that the original hearing gave us some assurances that the water would drain to both the north and the south side but in fact it doesn't. We have all of the water from both the east of our place and the west of our place cc~ing down. If you ever want to see what happens, come out with a water truck and poor a little water out by Betsy Glaccum's house and it will run right down to our property. From the west, the same thing happens and coming from the west it will wash out our driveway. It washed out very badly last year. This year we've only had one major rainfall about six weeks ago and it was starting to wash out again so we have a real problem with our driveway washing out. Secondly, the safety issue is one that I'm most concerned with. It's very difficult to go in and out of our driveway. Even with cars coming around that corner at 30 mph, we are in a very vulnerable position. We have especially a lot of trouble with the trucks that are going to all the different construction sites now. They're cc~ing around that corner at 40 mph. we can not see as well. ~nere is a huge hill to the west of us and the curve right on that hill and so we can not see going in and out of our driveway very well at all and I'm really concerned about that issue. I don't think it has improved our property at all. Acting Mayor Geving: Jim, could you conm~ent on that? Jim Chaffe, our Public 22 City Council Meeting - June 271 1988 Safety Officer Jim Chaffee: As far as the speed goes, w~ can get the deputies out there to run some radar and hopefully slow the people down. Especially the construction traffic. As far as c(x~ing out of your driveway, we can't be out there every time you' re ccming out of your driveway so we ask you to use caution. Doris Mielke: Is there a possibility a stop sign could be put on Lake Lucy B~ad to make everyb~ stop west of us? Acting Mayor Geving: I think the answer to that is no. I would say. Gary Warren: We did install a hidden driveway sign to warn westbour~ traffic of that. Acting Mayor Geving: We'll have Jim take a look at that. Doris Mielke: I b~a_ ~ what Mrs. Palmer is saying too. We hear these cars scr~_--~ching around the corner and really whizzing by in the middle of the night ar~ it's not a safe road anymore. Acting Mayor Geving: It wasn't the one road that we had a number of cc~plaints on though Jim. In your report in our Oouncil packet, I don't believe Lake Lucy Rsad was listed. Jim Chaffee: It was not. This is the first I've heard of the cc~plaints on Lake Lucy Road but what we'll do is we'll get a traffic survey, radar survey completed out there by next Gouncil meeting so we'll have an accurate log of the speeds and vehicles. Doris Mielke: In conclusion, I don't think it has benefitted our property at all. In fact, I think it has deteriorated our property quite a bit. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to just respond to the comment from our City E~gineer regarding that drainage. C~ry, are you aware of any, of course we haven't had any rain so it's pretty difficult to determine that but ~%at about the washout that they were talking about last year? That's before the construction right? Gary Warren: We were out last year more than a couple times working to address their concerns on the driveway and one was to install a swale on the west side of the driveway so that the water could actually get caught before it got into the right-of-way and go down underneath the culvert that's in their driveway out to the east where it was traveling before and that ~s the solution that we had implemented. Now I haven't ~ out there today but a month or so ago that swale seemed to have been modified and filled in somehow so I don't know if the Mielke's were filling it in for grass or just what but I think if that swale were kept open it would drain properly and keep a majority of the water out of the driveway. Acting Mayor Geving: ~buld you take a look at that this week? And would you also get back with the Mielke's please? Councilman Johnson: I just ~unted to make a quick c~m~ent ~hen the Public 23 ~.ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Safety Director brought up putting a radar patrol out there to get what the average speed is. When you take a marked police car and set it where people can see it from a mile away, which they did when they did the survey on West 78th Street, they didn't find anybody speeding. I suggest that you don't be so obvious if you're trying to make a count to see what the real traffic is. Pretend like you're actually trying to give th~n a ticket or maybe actually do it. Anyway, that was the last, we had directed that w~ set up radar traps and ended up getting a radar survey on 78th Street. Larry Brown: We do have the radar survey that was done by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in our file and that is how the s~ limit was reached out there. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's talk about what's happening now. Councilman Boyt: In regards to the speed limit. I remember that discussion and as you recall, there was concern about posting a limit that we couldn't enforce. It's coming hc~e to roost. It's time for the City Council to ccme to grips with the idea that we can't enforce our speed limits and we need to take action to do that. I think the whole conmunity would like to see the spccd limits enforced. Acting Mayor Geving: The next item I'd like to address is the assessment hearing co~nent from Tom Kraker. Is that the correct pronounciation? Are you in attendance? Gary Warren: He indicated that he may not be able to make it in his letter. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, Mr. Kraker is not here. His letter is added to the assessment hearing and we have it for the record. Gary Warren: I might note that his first co~ent that he did not receive any notice on the feasibility study. The feasibility study was actually approved in May of 1986, as I mentioned earlier and at that time the property was in ownership of Merle Stellar. We checked the notices and Mr. Stellar did receive property notice. Acting Mayor Geving: Tais is a very recent letter as it's dated June 23rd. I would like to have the staff respond to this letter at the conclusion of tonight's assessment hearing. Make sure that you respond back to Mr. and Mrs. Kraker. Next we have a letter from Don Mezzenga. Don Mezzenga: Our piece of property is located on the southeast corner of Galpin Drive and Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road has never ~n used by us on our property. Can you move that map so I can show you. It might be a little clearer if I can show you. This is our piece of property right here. This is CR 117 or Galpin and this is Lake Lucy. Our bx~ne is right in here. ~nis area is farm. Our access has always been directly onto Galpin Blvd.. This is the area that we're being assessed for. As I said before, we've never used that road for anything. Our equil~nent has always come in and out from Galpin Blvd.. As we all know, Lake Lucy Boad has ~n upgraded and we've been assessed. It's obvious that Lake Lucy Road was designed for one purpose and that was to service the new home develol~nent to the north. We derive from that road nothing. It's a beautiful road but we have gained nothing. In fact, the thing that really upsets me is that upon receiving our assessment, I find that our assessment is 24 City Council ~eting - June 27, 1988 more than double the assessment of these folks who use that road daily who generate a great deal of traffic. Because they live there they have to have their garbage hauled, their paper delivered but they must use that road. We never use the road. Our assessment is over $18,~.~. Their asses~ents are right around $7,~00.00 or $8,0~0.0~ just for one lot. The fact that our piece of property was even considered to be assessed for this thing that doesn't even related to us at all is inc~mpr~siveable to me. ~en I saw the figure of our assessment, that was even a little more difficult to swallow. Basically w~ function without Lake Lucy R~ad. We will continue to function that way. No way do I see any justification for our being assessed for that new road. As I ur~erst~ it, assessments are based on how a person benefits from improvement. Our benefits are zero. I don't want to stand here am~ talk about the negatives of the road. There are s~me. I would appreciate the Council and whoever is responsible for assessing properties to give this really, I'm sure you already have, a serious look. I think it's a terrible oversight on someone's part. It's totally unjustified. Any questions? I'd be happy to try Acting Mayor Geving: I think you have gotten some benefit Don. C~viously the fact that that road covers several hur~red feet of your property, is an improvement to your property even if you don't front on Lake Lucy Road. Don Mezzenga: How? How does it benefit the property? Acting Mayor Geving: I think that road, just by being there is going to give you substantial increase in property value. Don Mezzenga: You mea__n my taxes are going to go up? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes. Don Mezzenga: That' s good? That' s a benefit? Acting Mayor Geving: It's unfortunate but I think the properties ~lves benefit. Don Mezzenga: We make about $1,200.00 a year on our crop. Now you tell me how my taxes going up aS being assessed $18,000.00 is a benefit to me. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe it's a benefit. I believe the project itself, fr~m start to finish, from CR 17 to Galpin Bl~d. is a big benefit to the City · and it's a definite to the people who live along that road. Don Mezzerga: Of course but they should be assessed for that benefit. I'm talking about, I'm being selfish here because I'm being assessed a trema~dous amount of money ar~ I don' t agree with you. You're talking about maybe in the future the property will be worth more for develofzm~nt. I don't want to develop this property. I'd like to live there and enjoy it for the purpose I bought it but that's old stuff to you folks. I'm talking about right now. How do you possibly justify charging me $18,~0.0~? Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we couldn't build the project up to the corner of your property and dropped it off there and forgot about it just because you would have objected to this assessme~t hearing. We r~ed to cc~plete the 25 ~i~y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 project and we swung it by your property. I believe there's a benefit. Any other Council comments on this? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Gary. I know that when we consider assessing property we sometimes do it on a per unit basis to take into account larger lots. When we assessed this it was strictly frontage footage. Gary Warren: The policies established frcm the feasibility study on was front foot assessment. Tnis particular property received a credit because it was a corner property for one half of it's shorter side to allow it's total frontage on Lake Lucy is 1,069 feet roughly. We did give him a credit which brought down the assessment rate down to 822 feet approximately. Acting Mayor Geving: How many feet credit did you give? Gary Warren: The credit would be about 250 feet roughly. It is consistent I guess with assessment policies that...benefits fr~m the improvement. You've got approximately what, 12 acres? Don Mezzenga: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Unfortunately, we can't come back and assess scmebody should they ever decide to divide their property up. It occurs to me that one issue that I'd sure like to hear from people as they present this, is who are they proposing pay more? I would gather you're proposing that the people who live and access the road pay a higher rate. Don Mezzenga: That would he the rationale thing. People who gain the benefit should pay the assessment. Councilman Boyt: Benefit is always hard to measure in the long run. As you say, let's talk about it right now. That's only one frame of reference that has to be considered. Whether you care to develop it or not, there's potential. The bill has to be paid. As you're aware, a tremendous amount of the total bill was paid by State money so you got a great road. I see your point. If it was any of us sitting on that corner confronted with an $18,000.00 bill, I suspect we'd be standing right where you're standing. I don't have a good way out of this. What these people are proposing is that we go back and reassess everyone else? Is that the logic of this? Gary Warren: Or defer their assessments until development. Don Mezzenga: Wouldn't that make sense? Wouldn't that make just a great deal of sense? Councilman Boyt: You said you have how many, 12 acres? Don Mezzenga: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Are we talking about lots along here that are consistently large? Like an acre plus? Gary Warren: The platted lots on Lake Lucy Highlands, Barb correct me if I'm wrong but I think the 1 per 10 criteria with 2 1/2 acre minimom. 26 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right. The lots in Lake Lucy are 2 1/2 minim~n~ Councilman Boyt: Okay, so you're looking at a lot then that's about 5 times the size of your neighbors? Don Mezzenga: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: Well, there's a certain logic to taking a situation like this one and deferring it. Councilman Horn: I'd just like to respond to one statezent and that is that this was done for the.., and that's not true. There are many people who live along that road who told us w~'re tired of having exhaust systems drop out of our cars from driving over this highway so it wasn't done just for the develoia~ent. It was done for everybody that lives along that road. B~ma~ber when this came up and a few people objected to it, we told then at that time that there w~re a lot of people in the south part of the City ~ho would like to have their project done first ar~ use this State money for it. We tried to make this as painless as possible and still get the project done because a lot of people really wanted the road. That road was not driveable the way it was before. Don Mezzenga: Mr. Horn, are you saying that Lake Lucy Road would have been upgraded if that develoIanent would not have gone in there? Who would have paid for that road? Who would absorb that horrendous cost? Not those few people who were worried about exhaust systems falling off in front of their house. This young man had a perfectly good r.oad and is being assessed. I'm talking about very simple facts. I don't benefit from that road. You say potentially. I understar~ where you' re coming from but I can't take that to the bank today. I like the example, I've heard of deferred assessments. If ar~ when I or someone else decides to take that 12 acres and develop it, then hit that person with assessments. Acting Mayor Geving: ~ho' s going to pay the construction costs of $610,000.00 if we do that Mr. F~zzenga? How are we going to do that? Don Mezzenga: I don't understand your question. $610,000.00. Actirg Mayor Geving: We have a project here that costs $610,000.00. Councilman Horn: The bill is due today. Acting Mayor Geving: And someone is going to have to pay that. The City of Chanhassen is going to have to pay it. We pay for this bill by assessing it 78% against our State Aid Funds, which ~ have. We have, like Clark said, a lot of different projects we could have put that money against. We had an overwhelming desire on the part of the citizens to improve Lake Lucy I%oad. A lot of the people who live along your road and your neighbors ~nted us to build that road. If w~ took the other 24%, whatever it was, 22%, and deferred it and gave all these people that are out there who now have a 22% assessma~t against the $610,00~.00 and said w~'re going to defer this until scmet/me in the future, who's going to pay the money that's been assessed against you if we don' t do it the way we're proposing to? It's got to be paid. There's a bill due. We paid 27 7tyCouncil Meeting - JUne 27, 1988 our contracter. The bill is due. ~ne project is completed and this is the final action that we would have to take at the City level is to assess the property owners so that this can go onto the tax rolls and the bill is then paid through your taxes. Don Mezzenga: I understand that. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, who's going to pay it if we defer it? Don Mezzenga: To me it's very simple. You had many requests. You had requests for that road, is that correct? Acting Mayor Geving: We had many requests. Don Mezzenga: If you c(m~unicate back to those people what it's going to cost th~m to have that new road, that's very simple. Then suddenly the voices will fall. If they know what the new road is going to cost, it's easy to say yes or nay. Acting Mayor Geving: Tnose people wanted this road Don and they were willing to pay... Don Mezzenga: Then they should be willing to pay the assessments. That's all I 'm saying. Base the asses~ents on benefit. Acting Mayor Geving: We are. Tnat's exactly what we tried to do. Don Mezzenga: Are you trying to tell me that I am getting more than twice the benefit from the folks who live on Lake Lucy Road? On what basis? Acting Mayor Geving: On a per foot basis I would say yes. Don ~zzenga: How? I w-ant to hear your logic on that? Acting Mayor Geving: You're getting just as much benefit for the footage. Don Mezzenga: I don' t use it. I don' t use it one bit. Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not going to argue with you about it but we do it the fairest way we could and this project, that was on a per foot basis. That's how the assessment method works. DOn Mezzenga: It' s a horrible inbalance. Acting Mayor Geving: This is how we do all projects in the City. We either assess them on an area basis or on a front footage basis and this happened to be one, it's like many others that we do on a front footage basis where we feel that you benefit. DOn Mezzenga: It seems that your inflexibility is inexplainable. The fact that here sits this piece of ground and I know I'm being repetitious but it seems that you're not listening to me either. These people are using that road 24 hours a day. Ambulance, fire, everything and that's fine. They're being assessed less than half of what you're assessing me and I don't use that road 28 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 one second in a year. Now you explain that to me and I don't want to talk about potential value. Defer my assessments. Acting Mayor Geving: No, we couldn't do that. I would not... Don Mezzenga: A lot of people do it. Acting Mayor Geving: ...on our part to do a deferred asses~ne~t. Prior to my coming on the Council in 1972, a previous Council may a very big error by deferring lots of, hundreds of thousands of dollars deferred sewer assessments. We paid for those in the early 1980's when those assessm_=nts were due. They never did get billed. The pipes were in the ground. The project was ccmpleted and tb~ people that had good intentions of building ar~ redeveloping their property, never did so we could never collect those deferred assessments. Now if you sat there for the next 25 years and never developed your property ar~ we're still paying 9% on this money that we borrowed to pay for the project, who's going to pay that $18,000.00 Don? Who's payirg for it? Don Mezzenga: I think that's the responsibility of the City. Acting Mayor Geving: It belongs to the City's responsibility. Don Mezzenga: It is the City's responsibility. Acting Mayor (L°ving: But not all the people. Only the people who benefit. Don Mezzenga: That's precisely my point and you show me where I'm benefitting from that road. You can't. Acting Mayor Geving: You live on that corner ar~ you've got a new road. Councilman Boyt: May I make a suggestion here? I think we're dealing with about 5 people who have frontage assessments in excess of 500 feet for widely ranging net assessed amounts. I would suggest that one possible alternative, even though this road is a terrific deal given how much State money is in it, is that w~ take all the lots that have 500 or more square feet ar~ defer one-half of their net assessment for 5 years to collect. That gives you some flexibility to spread this out. It recognizes that you are paying, what I saw in a quick look, the largest single assessment of any group being assessed here and ~=t it puts a cap on it so that it doesn't carry out to who knows when. We have one concern that maybe another council person, if they want to support this, and that is that we're running up a 9% per year bill on this that I really don't think the City should be paying and I think that should be included in the clock on the interest rate should be running from today but the amount shouldn't be assessed for 5 years. Acting Mayor Geving: I appreciate your suggestion Bill. I know we're trying to reach cc~promises here but this is a matter that involves a lot of money. I'm not about to make a decision tonight with our financial consultant's opinion on your suggestion. I think your suggestion might be workable but I'm certainly not going to have the council vote on that suggestion tonight. It would be far better to let our financial people look at that alternative and determine whether or not it's viable but I appreciate ~hat you just said. 29 Council M~eting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Horn: Two things. First of all, I'm assuming on this that we're going to set up a payback period of a number of years anyway. We typically do that which accomplishes what you're talking about. Councilman Boyt: What I'm talking about Clark is that we would take half of that amount and collect interest but his 8 years would be divided into one-half of his current assessment and 5 years frum now it would be divided into whatever, his 3 years r~aaining. The formula needs to be figured out. I'll grant you that but I think my intent is to ease the burden on people who find that they have a tremendous amount of footage. Acting Mayor Geving: I would question, first of all, I don't know if the rules allow us to make a specific deferment for a particular hcmeo~rs who are being assessed because of scme road. I would have to defer to our counsel because you are splitting a very important and rigid assessment policy and you're trying to deviate from that and I'm not so sure that the rules will allow us to do that but it's certainly s~nething we can look into. Again, I'm not aware of where we've done this in the past. Where we've taken a homeowner and said because of your unusually high assessment, we will defer your rate over a given period that's different than all the others. I don't know if we've done that Bill. Councilman Horn: ~ne other comment I was thinking about and having thought about it further I'm not sure it's workable but it seans like what we're talking about here is benefit and people who have a driveway access to the road certainly have a different benefit than those that have a sideyard benefit. The hole I see in that logic is that someone can always move their driveway but it seems there is, and we have two cases here where someone really has a sideyard rather than a frontyard type of assessment. I'm wondering if we shouldn't have different rates for those. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that that was the credit that the City Engineer already gave. He gave one-half credit for this particular lot because it was a side yard rather than a front yard and that is our normal assessment policy. Councilman Horn: We did that also on Kerber's? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes sir. We've done that always in assessment policies. When you' re fronting a street, such as you are Don, which is Galpin Blvd., and your sidelot is the newly paved and constructed road, you would get a one-half credit for that and that's exactly what Gary explained earlier. This is our policy so we already do this. Tne credit he got is already there. Don Mezzenga: Maybe this is a difficult question to answer, do you have any idea how much deferred land we' re talking about? You've got my 12 acres. Is there a ballpark in that? Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not going to continue this very much further but I 'm going to refer to the City Manager and ask his opinion on the request by Councilman Boyt on whether or not a deferment such as he is suggesting could actually happen. Don Ashworth: I would respond with the point that you had raised. I think that the City Auditors should really respond to that question. As that issue arose out of the '72-' 73 bonds, there were definite opinions and positions put forward 30 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 again by the Auditor's office and it's really difficult to estimate what the total impact maybe. You've give~ us a suggestion ar~ we can surely look at that. We can bring back what the cost of that would be to the City on a yearly basis as well as a rec(mmendation of the Auditor. Acting Mayor Geving: We're sympathetic to what you're asking for Don. Don't get us wrong. I understar~ your situation. You have a very large tax asses-~ent that's going to be placed against you and it will be spread over 8 years or so. We'd like to make that easier if we can ar~ I think Councilman Boyt has come up with a suggestion. Maybe it will work but we do have to give this to our financial people. They will plu~ this into their calculators and give us s~me options. Thank you very much. Don Mezzenga: Thank you. Councilman Horn: Another option might be to exter~ the payback period. Acting Mayor Geving: That's a possibility too. However again, that's probably already be~n worked out in fine detail in terms of the rec~ation that ~ms given to us tonight. I'd like to now hear from the fifth person ar~ this is Mr. Warren Phillips. Warren Phillips, 1571 Lake Lucy Road: I thought I had a legitimate complaint until I heard this man. I would like to r~ind the Council that maybe we wouldn't be having so much discussion tonight if you folks had liste~ a little earlier on. I have a copy of a petition that was signed by 18 property holders on Lake Lucy R~ad that was given to the Council in April, 1986 that said we didn't want the road so where you get the idea that people on the road wanted it, I don't know. Kerber's on here ar~ Harvey's, Kruegers, (~ristianson and everyone along the road. What we wanted was a blacktop road on the same configuration through there. ~he safety problems that have been mentioned tonight you've created. The probl~ with this man's property you've created. We could have gotten a blacktop road across there for the same assessment to our properties, yes we were told at the t_{ _me__ it would have cost us t~ to just blacktop the existing street through on the original right-of-way would have ~ about a trade-off. The money we got from the State, ar~ I'd like to point out that that State money is our money too. It isn't a gift frc~ s~y. It was essentially to benefit the new development and for s~me future agenda that has never been revealed to us. My concern, in terms of my property, relates to the low area adjacent to the Mielke property. We were told that the road would drain along the north side. It all dumps to the south. I have a letter fr~m the Engineer suggesting scme corrections that were never fulfilled. I wrote a letter to the Council, a copy to the Mayor, July of last year. Never got a response. I do have the signed receipts that the letter was delivered so I don't have a lot of faith. I didn't expect to get my assessment down but I just want to be on record for a few things that I think the Council could probably do that would make things a little more ac~le to those of us on the street. First off we were told if the street couldn't exit on CR 117 in the old location because it was a hazard. At least that was a 40 mph spccd limit there. Now where the road exits onto CR 117, it's a 50 mph spccd limit along that portion of CR 117. That doesn't seem like a very good exchange for us. We w~_re never told that there would be-no parking. It's one street that deader~s on CR 117 and CR 17 on the other side. It's got a bicycle path that leads to noplace and you can't park your car in front of your property. Some of us have long 31 76ty Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 driveways. It snows in Minnesota. If you want to leave you car out on the street overnight if you have to get out early in the morning, we're denied that priviledge. Is it possible that you could limit parking to one side of the street and allow it on one side? Either side, I don't think would make much difference. It's plenty wide. Gould we have a light on the west end of Lake Lucy Road? There was one where it joined CR 117 previously. There's no light there now. I think that would help with nighttime driving through there. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that on the new portion of the road? Warren Phillips: On the new portion of the road. Where the new road exits. I think that would be an improvement. Could we have scme directional signs on CR 117 prior to the intersection from north or south? We had those previously on the road. My own property, the frontage of my property to the west boundary of my property, the road was raised about 4 to 5 feet. The property dropped off sharply previously but the widening of the road to the south, it drops off even sharper now. Taere's no way that I can maintain that and in fact, they dumped all of the grass and things that rooted up over on that side of the road and it's a very steep slope now and all I would ask is if sc~netime in the future if there happens to be scme fill around the City, if they would come back and take a look at reducing t_hat grade sc~ne so it can be taken care of. I think that would be a fair trade-off. You can't expect any reduction in the assessment. I just wanted to express my feelings on the property to let you know. I am on record that we are going to have rain someday and that area is going to flood in front of the property and then I may be back to the City for some more... Acting Mayor Geving: Warren, could you show me exactly and the Council exactly which one of those lots? Just so we get a good reference to where you live Warren. Is it the middle of the project? Gary Warren: It' s west of that little pond. Acting Mayor Geving: It's on the south side? Warren Phillips: ~nis property and there's a roadway that goes out to the point ar~ this is the Mielke property here. This area right in here is very low. We were told the water would be drained from this way along the north side and then there's a natural flow that goes through to Lake Lucy that way. Instead all of this water now, you reduce the absorption area, you put gutters on so there's no ditches, the water can't run-off before. I was told that that would be, some run-off ditches would be put on the north side so the water here in front of Glaccum's would flow north. None of that's b~n_ done. I have a letter that says it will be done and as a result, the water really starts flowing right about from here and it goes diagonally right over to this drain that goes under the road and the Mielke property, then it turns and c(m~es out this way. So this low area is the area that' s... Acting Mayor Geving: Taank you very much War~en. I think the things that you have written to the Council on JUne 27th, as far as I'm concerned, they're all reasonable possibly except for the last item but in terms of the street light, the fill, drainage, any conn%ents on that from any of the CounciLmembers? I think all of these are very reasonable requests and I'm going to direct our City Engineer be in contact with you inmediately and try to resolve all of these to your satisfaction. 32 City Council Meeting - June 27 ~ 1988 Councilman Horn: I would like the City Engineer to c~a~ent on the cost of the road without the State Aid. I'd also like to point out the other, our money, but if we don't use it scmebody else uses it. Warren Phillips: Why don't you use it in the way that the citizens want to use it? Gary Warren: The question Clark, the cost of the road without State Aid? · Councilman Horn: Yes. Gary Warren: The total project cost was... Councilman Horn: No, I mean had w~ done it with the other rec(m~endation. Gary Warren: You mean just on a rural, typical road section? Councilman Hom: Yes. Gary Warren: Actually the assessment costs are based on having to overlay that so the assessment is based on if we would have had to do it the othex way. Councilman Horn: That's the cc~ent I wanted brought out. Acting Mayor Geving: The next is the request for an appeal from Elizabeth Ann Glacc~. I know she's here. I talked to her earlier. She gave us this letter. Would you care to respond to this or... Elizabeth Glacc~: I just wanted to he on record with my letter. It's self explanatory. To pay that all at one time would be very difficult for me. Acting Mayor Geving: So you're appealing the payment be scheduled a longer period of time? Elizabeth Glacc~: Yes. If you'd just read the explanation. Dsle, can I make a comment to the Public Safety Director? Acting Mayor Geving: Sure. Elizabeth Glaccum: I live on the corner of Yoma~ite. I've lived there 2g s~me years. I live right on the cor~r and when the road was built we were supposed to be able to see off to CR 82 and when we..turn the corner as you come up into my driveway, you can not see the top of a school bus as you're makirg the turn c~ming down...towards me. In other words, if I'm making the turn and a school bus is coming, I can r~t see the top of the school bus. It is a very dangerous situation. 5:30 in the morning I wake up with the screeching of the motorcycles. The construction people have to be on the road to their job sites by 7:~0. They toot their horns at my drive~ay to let people know around Yosemite, don't make that turn because we're hauling concrete and things like that and they would not be able to stop. It's more than dangerous. I know we probably can't have a traffic light. Maybe we could have a caution light. I personally have called mane of the contractors. I've gotten names off the sides of the truck and I've said, if you don't tell me your driver within the hour, I 33 7C~ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 will get a squad car out here to ticket your men. That's how bad it is. Jim Chaffee: That' s for tooting their horn, is that correct? Elizabeth Glaccum: No, not for tooting their horn. It's a dangerous situation because the incline of the road and they're speeding so hard and so fast that you could not possibly stop. That corner is for school bus children. A dog crossing the road, anybody. ScreWy going out for their mail. You could not stop a construction truck there. Jim Chaffee: Okay, we're talking speed again? Elizabeth Glaccum: Yes, we are talking speed definitely .... that road was not done properly. I was the most...my front hill with the wall. I'd like to go on record, that wall will probably fall down within a year... Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much Elizabeth. Are there any other comments that anyone would like to make? Doris Mielke: I would like to add, at the bottom of my letter, I'm saying that most of the benefit is going to Curry Farms, Pheasant Hills, those are the people who are really getting a lot of benefit from the road and I'm wondering how much they're being assessed. Acting Mayor Geving: They're being assessed on the same principle, on the same method that we assessed the entire project. Doris Mielke: Only if they have frontage on the road? Acting Mayor Geving: On a front footage basis. Doris Mielke: Tae people that are back then that are coming off and using that road all the time are not being assessed? Councilman Boyt: C~ntex had a per unit. Gary Warren: They're assessed on a front footage basis. Councilman Boyt: But it was spread out over the 53 units right? Gary Warren: Actually it was deposited with the City in escrow to cover the assessments. Whether they choose to spread it over the develolm~ent, that's their perrogative. Councilman Boyt: I thought it said in our pack here that that's exactly how it was spread out. To be spread equally over all 53 lots in Curry Farms. Gary Warren: The comment is not accurate. Councilman Boyt: It's not accurate? Gary Warren: In that case, that was being discussed and... Acting Mayor Geving: But it was still based on a front footage basis? 34 City Council Meeting - June 27 ~ 1988 John: I read the letter from Mr. Gutmiller and Gary Warren's respond ~hich, in my opinion, says absolutely nothing. This road is basically for the benefit of the developer. So far the property's made a profit. Me's not paying a single assessment. I looked at the assessment roll tonight, his name isn't on there. Had it not been for he and his realtors..., that road would have never happened? Acting Mayor Geving: I disagree with you John. John Hennessy: I don't think so Dale. You have to be all in favor of 100%. What did the ask for? BO acres of Greem Acre's lar~ which generates about $1,760.00 a year. My guess is if anybody is paying as low as $2,500.00 for 22 lots, that that would be the minizma~. You' re ge$%erating about $50,000.00 at least in taxes. How can the City say no to this road? Acting Mayor Geving: That road was a thorn in our side for the last 20 years. It's been our desire for a long time, since we couldn't maintain it, to rebuild Lake Lucy Road. That was a decision of the Council and it was a request frcm a lot of citizens to do that. John Hennessy: Outside of F~_rrill Steller ar~...how many residents along that road, can you name even one that really wanted that entire project? Acting Mayor Geving: I can't name them tonight but there were. John Hennes~:Canyounameone? Acting Mayor Geving: John, I'm not going to argue with you. Warren Phillips: We had 18 property owners on the road all sign the petition. John Hennessy: ~hat you did to Mr. Gutmiller is just wonderful. Me had peace and quiet. He had maybe 2 cars a week going down that deadend road. Nobody out there. He's now got constant traffic. I've been down there twice and seen motorcycles where they're leaning over on the side to the point where they almost scrape their knees because they're going so fast. To have peace and quiet ~ now that's all ~ taken away from him .... the city is so prone to let' s develop. Let' s be the Richfield of the 80' s and 90'.s. ~ can' t we be rural Chanhassen? What's next? Dana Hennessy: Why can't they just, on the other properties, like the farmers that are still there, I think maybe you should look at maybe giving t~ a little bit of different treatment because just think, if you were driving down the road ar~ see all the new people that were...you can obviously see the income levels of those people. They are a lot greater than the people that existed there before ar~ also, it's interesting how Mmrrill Steller got in right under the wire before the new ordinance and he got his land developed in 2 1/2 acre lots and now Mr. ~zzenga and Mr. Gutmiller can't develop their land because you changed the ordinance. So now they've got to pay these high taxes a~ they can't put their land into 2 1/2 acre lots. Maybe another alternative would be to let these guys develop their land. If you k~ up with things you kind of ~c how some people slid right urger the wire to get their land developed and then you cut other people off. That just isn't fair. 35 8C?tyCouncil Meeting - June 27, 1988 .. Acting Mayor Geving: We didn't do it just overnight. Dana Hennessy: Just about. I went to all those meetings. Acting Mayor Geving: I think the Met Council forced a lot of that on the City of Chanhassen but the decisions that we made were long in cc~ing and they weren't made at 12:00 on a given night here in the Council chambers. Dana Hannessy: But still by the time they got their assessments, they weren't able to divide their lots because you changed the ordinance. Acting Mayor Geving: That ' s probably true. Dana Hennessy: It is true and now they can't. Ted Coey: My only cc~ent was, I was here 3 or 4 times when we had all the meetings when this thing was being passed and I think all that we're hearing here is just exactly what we tried to say 2 years ago. Is the people on the road didn't want the road the way it was. Now it's cc~ing back and everybody is saying the same thing. What you should have done is taken the properties that were going to be developed on the west end, put a road in off of Galpin Lake Road to serve them. Let us have the road the way we wanted it. We still would have paid our $11.00 and whatever cents for the road but what we have now is, I've got 20 acres there and I moved from Lotus Lake which got overrun by people and now I'm in the middle of a freeway. I bought there because I wanted to be in a horsey area. Not have cars all over the place and what you're doing to us is you're saying, hey we're going to put down what we want and not what you want. Now the people are coming back and saying hey, we're getting stuck for all these assessments ar~ we didn't want this. Why didn't you stick it to Klingelhutz? Why didn't you stick it to the guy who's got the Acres? ~ney're the ones that should have paid the tab for the whole god damn road at the far end. Not us. We should have gotten stuck for our road the way we wanted it. Just a side road. That's where it was at and you guys didn't listen and that's why I think some of the councilpeople were voted off last time. I voted against thsm and I'll vote against them again because we want things the way we want them. You guys aren't living out there. I think you have to listen to people when they're coming up here that have been in the area. I've lived here for 15 years and I'm a newcomer compared to Kerber and a lot of people here and what about us? We've been here for a long time. We live in the City. You're catering to all these new develol~nents. Centex and all these people who are coming in throughout the area. W~ should have some sort of preference because we've ~--n here. At least listen to us. That's what it's all about. Newspaper Reporter: I'd like to ask a question. You said that the road had been a thorn in the City's side for years and years. Acting Mayor Geving: That' s correct. Newspaper R~porter: Could you ccmnent on that? How is it a thorn in the City's side? Acting Mayor Geving: The road was improperly maintained for a long time. We weren't able to bring our trucks out there because the base of the road was gone. We couldn't maintain the road any longer. The little bit of blacktop we 36 City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 had, we actually scraped up a~ pulled off and w~ graveled the road to maintain it the best that w~ could. We ke~t it in that state for a few years. At that point we decided the best thing to do for the whole City was to blacktop Lake Lucy Road and rebuild it and that's exactly what happened. It just couldn't be maintained any longer. Reinhold Gutmiller: Why I have to pay $2.ff0...$teller property has new hcmes there .... all the water backed up...drainage ditch. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that you may have responded to that, didn' t you Gary? Could you tell him about the drainage ditch. I don't know if that was one of your questions that you wrote. You wrote and asked about the assessment policy and the method of assessirg. Reinhold Gutmiller: ...it's all wetland around there anyhow. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe you got a credit for that wetlar~ though. Gary Warren: He got a 93 foot credit for the wetland. Acting Mayor Geving: Jay, do you have a question of Mr. Gutmiller? Councilman Johnson: Actually about Mr. Gutmiller's property and it's to Gary. How did you figure 93.25 feet on this as his reduction? Is that the wetlands from his drive~ay w~st? Gary Warren: It's based on a percentage surface area basically using wetland cor~ition versus the total acreage out there. That percentage is applied against his front footage. Councilman Johnson: So if you've got 1,ffffil foot of frontage and 90% of your lar~ is wetlands, you only get charged for 10~ foot of frontage? Gary Warren: The minimum assessed rate ~s 18ff feet to represent 1 unit so yes, up to 180 feet. Everybody had a minimum to 18~ feet. Councilman Johnson: So it's not how much w~tlands fronts the road, which in his case is over half his property is probably wetlar~s fronting the road, but how much of his property is wetlar~? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Johnson: He is actually in effect, less than 2 units here ~hen you talk at 180 foot per unit. Larry Kerber: Mr. Phillips talked about the no parking signs and you said you would look into some of those things. Is that scmething you' re going to look into? The possibility of taking thsm down? Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know. We'll look into the issue. I don't know what the issue is going to bring but we'll look into it. Councilman Horn: Also, we need that whole drainage issue reviewed. 37 ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Ail of it. Councilman Horn: All of the concerns w~'ve heard about water flowing the wrong way. We want to cover that. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded the motion to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Acting Mayor Geving: Ladies and gentlemen, before you leave, tonight I appreciate you all coming and presenting your case. We will take a look at each one of the people who made a presentation tonight. All the 6 letters that I received here. The seventh letter is Mr. Gutmiller's and we will direct staff to return to this Council on the first meeting in the month of July which will be JUly llth and we'll bring back to the Council all of the comuents and recomu~ed solutions to some of the suggestions that were made tonight by the various councilmen ar~ by members of the public yourself. So be here on the llth and we will discuss and finalize this issue. Councilman Johnson: I also would like, since the public hearing is over but I guess this is a Council con~ent, I do see a benefit to this road going to people not fronting this road, i.e. Pheasant Run or whatever Pheasant whatever it is up there. I guess the whole Curry Farms is getting assessed effectively. I'd like to look at what the possibility is. Those people do utilize the road a lot. I realize there is $600,000.00 of State monies that is basically the rest of the City's portion of getting this done that was put in here and crippled us from doing other improvements around the town for a while. We're doing the same thirg now down at Bluff Creek. Using up the next 3 years worth of State funds or whatever to do Bluff Creek. I'd like to look at whether, I know that there was some thought to it and some discussion previously about who really benefits to this and a road like this doesn't benefit, in my opinion, just the people adjacent to the road but the people within an area, within a range of that road, that their access has been greatly improved. Councilman Horn: You're thinking something more like the storm sewer type of assessment. Councilman Johnson: Right. A more area wide assessment type of review of it. Roger Knutson: You did not notify property owners of the public improvement hearing establishing the project, you can't assess them at this time. Councilman Johnson: I'dl like to look into whether we notified the Pheasant Hills, or the property owners who owned Pheasant Hills at that time. Roger Knutson: The answer is no. Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to cut this off gentlemen. I'm going to make a motion at this time to table agenda item 4, Lake Lucy Road assessment hearing until July llth. 38 City (~ouncil Meeting- June 27~ 1988 Acting Mayor Geving moved, (buncilman Johnson seconded to e~hle the Lake Lucy Road Assessment hearing until July 11, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: We may have voted prematurely here. Acting Mayor Geving: We voted ar~ we're done with this issue. We have directed staff to ccme back to us with the c(mm~mts and the recc~mmm~ted solutions. Councilman Boyt: I have a quick question. When does our interest clock start running? When is the City building up a bill on this? Gary Warren: When the tax assessment roll is adopted. Councilman Boyt: So so far it's not costing us anything to carry this over? Gary Warren: You closed the public hearing and you're tabling adopting of the assessmemt hearing? Acting Mayor Geving: That's correct. We have closed the public hearing. We have ~ah_led this to July llth at which time we'll hear it again with the reco~m~m~ded solutions. Councilman Boyt: I think there's an important point here Dale. Councilman Johnson: We sold bor~ls last year. Councilman Boyt: The City's costs are building on this project. Acting Mayor G~ving: Sure, I know. That's why it's very important to make this assessment hearing. Councilman Johnson: The assessments will go against the properties next year whether we do it this week or t~o weeks from now. We start collecting the money next year, not next ~mek. M?X~LYI~q PROPERTY: A. TAX INCREM~ DISTRICT 92-1 AND ~CONO~C DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2. B. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AUDUBON ~ B~'iW~N SO0 LINE RAISROAD AND TH5. Don Ashworth: City Council tabled action on this it~ close to a month ago to allow the City to present the it~ to our school district ar~ to the County. We did that. I attended the County Board meeting and we had planned on having sc~y at the school but t~ changed the meeting time. Anyway, both the County and the school have acted to approve the proposed tax increment district plan that you have in front of you, before the Council, and staff would recommend that we do such. Acting Mayor Geving: ~his is also a public hearing, is that correct? 39 ~y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Don Ashworth: That' s correct ~ Acting Mayor Geving 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. 7~e public hearing was closed. Acting Mayor Geving: At this time it would be appropriate then Don, I'm hoping that we can get a letter from the school. We did get a response from the County A~inistrator. I do not see one from the School District. I'd like to see that in our packet. It would be appropriate to table this issue until the documents notifications are... DOn Ashworth: I would like you to vote. Acting Mayor Geving: Would you like to move ahead? Don Ashworth: Yes. I did talk with the School District today. They are in agreement on their meeting. They did look at it. They did approve it. Bob Ostman is the one who contacted me. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess that's what I was looking for was a letter. DOn Ashworth: He stated that he would put it in writing and Mr. Ostman has always been honest. I'm sure that... Resolution ~88-63: Councilman Boyt moved, councilman Horn seconded to approve the Tax Increment District $2-1 and Economic Develolm~ent District No. 2 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution $88-64: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize a feasibility study for Audubon Road between Soo Line Railroad and TH 5 and that the firm of William R. Engelhardt and Associates be designated to prepare the feasibility study. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ACCEPT QUOTES FOR INSPECTION/CSO VEHICLE. Councilman Horn: It appears to me that by specifying a specific color on here we limit scme of our options. Sc~eone might have something that would meet our criteria on their lot that they could give us a good deal but by specifying the color we've eliminated that possibility. Now I can understand how you might want to have a uniform color on a CSO vehicle but I don't understand why you need it on an inspection vehicle. Jim Chaffee: My thoughts on that Clark are to keep the Public Safety vehicles all the same color. With all the networking ar~ computerization going on, I felt they could find a vehicle that was comparable in a light blue color. If you wanted we could go back and vie for a different color. I'm not particular. 40 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Horn: It's only a rec0~nem~ation for the future. You might knock out certain bids that would be really favorable by putting that restriction on so if you can, and I understand what you're trying to do with the uniform code and I see that for the CSO vehicle but for inspection vehicles ar~ the fact that our last one was white, I think you'd do better not to specify unless you really Councilman Boyt: I can' t find a quote here right at the minute. I remember reading through this a stabanent frc~ one of the dealers about the rush nature of the bid. Can you tell a bit about that? Jim Chaffee: We were, I think maybe you' re referring to the quote of Timnerman saying that they had to order an 8 to 1~ week timeframe for the vehicle to come in. That would take us through pretty much the busy part of the season. Right now one of our inspectors is using his own vehicle and charging gas for that vehicle. We felt that it was important to have the vehicle as soon as possible to carry us through the sun~r months. Councilman Boyt: In Mr. Tin~n~'s letter he says, due to the urgency of these vehicles or the r~ for these vehicles, it actually limits his ability to effectively bid. It se~ms to me that when w~ pass a budget, we can start looking then. He talks about on the second page of his letter, as Clark points out, that they would be able to expand their search if there wasn't such an urgency in getting the vehicle. I can understar~ why there's an urgency in getting the vehicle now. I would like to see us take action when w~ approve a budget to go out and begin the bid process for the items that have ~ approved. Does that seem like it would fit Don? Don Ashworth: Bsusmber that the adjustment adding tke additional inspector was actually a mid-year adjustment by the City Council and I will agree that it's ~n a good 4 to 6 weeks since the City Council took that action, fkmmver, the question ~as one of how do we ~lish that in terms of total dollars so w~ have not ~_n sitting by idly during the last 4 week period of time. We have tried to move ahead with the whole process to insure that when w~ came back to you, and I think you' 11 re~auber w~ put into the packet let's say 4 weeks ago, the request to start preparing the specifications. ~here is a set of procedures that w~ do follow in every purchase and I can say that fr~n the date that you approved that mid-year inspection position, we have moved as quickly as possible to get this to the point that it's at tonight. Councilman Horn: Did we notify Mr. Timmezman that that timeframe would not be acceptable? Jim Chaffee: Yes, I did. I told him. Councilman Horn: And he was still unable to locate something? Jim Chaffee: He indicated that he could not, when I talked to him just 2 or 3 days ago. Councilman Horn: Because he implied in his letter that he... Jim Chaffee: I see that. 41 ~ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Horn: I want to make sure w~ at least pursued then. ~nen I have no problem with the bids and I would reconm~end approval. Resolution 988-65: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Blazer from Nelson-Lenzen in the amount of $14,010.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #88-66: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity from Ti~nerman Leasing in the amount of $11,256.68. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW NEAR MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD AND PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION. Acting Mayor Geving: This seemed rather clear to me. I thought that the people in Near Mountain did a very good job in bringing this to our attention. There are several letters involved and Jim Chaffee, I believe that maybe you could refer to this. Give us a little bit of insight as to how we can resolve this and let's get on with it. Jim Chaffee: I think my msmo is more or less addresses the history which as we searched through it, it kind of made it a moot point with the access being now authorized for the new Trapper's Pass. I think Mr. Wehrle is here and he is the one who brought it up initially to the Council. We have looked at it. I've talked with Gary Warren on the intersection. We have no problem with it from a staff's standpoint, of straightening the intersection out. It's just a matter of when. Whether you want to do it now. Use State Aid funds or if you want to put it off until late in 1989 but the important question bec(xnes then if we do wait until 1989, do we want to put up a sign from a liability standpoint? I guess from a liability standpoint we would like to do that. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to have your recon~endation Jim on whether or not we do it now or we wait and do it in 1989. Jim Chaffee: From a public safety standpoint, I have no problem with doing it right now. Frcm a dollar standpoint, that's something the Council would have to decide. Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much. Jim, would you comnent please since you started this whole issue with your Near Mountain presidency. Jim Wehrle: I think the residents of Near Mountain would like to have the intersection straighten out as soon as possible obviously in the most prudent fiscal fashion that the Council can see it's way clear to doing it but as soon as possible. Councilman Boyt: I don't know how we made the $10,000.00 mistake but if the corner has ~ functioning and was functioning until we put the sign up there. I understand the liability that the City has to properly sign it's corners. I would suggest that we can put a sign there that doesn't limit car turns, since you have said that those seem to be appropriate. It's the trucks, trailers and longer vehicles that can't make that turn and we can do that for a lot less than $10,000.00. Then we're not spending $10,000.00 that the City doesn't have to 42 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 8-7 correct a problem that's been there for 4 years and really wasn't a problem until we put the sign up. I suggest that we change the sign to read something to the effect of no right turns for trailers, trucks or whatever. Vehicles over 30 feet or whatever from a public safety standpoint we need to do that. That will correct the problem a~d we can be done with it. Then the cars can make the right hand turn. We've stopped the dangerous vehicles frcm using it and we've saved $10,000.00 that we don't have .to spend. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's hear from the engineer on that. Can we do it Gary? Gary Warren: You can sign, we can make just about anything as far as signs are concerned to restrict the traffic there. I don't know, it will become more of an enforcement issue I guess from that st~_ndpoint. Acting Mayor Geving: Is it a 'long term solution that Bill is suggesting? Gary Warren: I think if I understand the concerns as far as the Near ~kmntain neighborhood is concerned, it's to be able to get bus traffic in and large vehicles. Not just the passenger vehicles. I don't know if that necessarily addresses the neighborhood schoo.1 buses. Acting Mayor Geving: What I've got, this option ahead of me, it says cc~plete the project in 1988. What is the extent of the project? What kind of a project would it be and how big a job? Could we do it in a couple of w~eks? Let's do it. What's wrong with doing it and be done with it once ar~ for all? I r~ when we put that in Bill and maybe we made a big mistake when we did. I guess maybe we were listening to a lot of neighbors at the time but renember a lot of the residents to the west are very vocal on this issue and we didn't have a Near Mountain. Near Mountain was a develolzm~nt, it was at plat stage ar~ the people to the west were making their points and it was pretty much decided at this Council to do what we did. Maybe we made a mistake when we did it and it's time to undo it for all time and make it right. If we can do that in several weeks and we can do it reasonably cost wise, I don't know if this $10,000.00 is accurate. It was an estimate. The engineer says he can do it. I'd like to think that we can go ahead ar~ clean UP this project. Councilman Boyt: Dale, this is a neighborhood that's saying that they don't want traffic. Acting Mayor Geving: I know that. Councilman Boyt: They certainly don' t want truck traffic through the neighborhood. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think they're going to get it. Councilman Boyt: They're not going to get it the way that corner is now for sure and if we sign it properly, the corner will continue to do what it's done all along. I don't think we have $10,000.00 to sper&]. I would support a sign but I'm opposed to spending $10,000.00. Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we don't know how much it's going to cost. Go ahead Jay and then we' 11 take a vote on this. 43 ~y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I need to know whether we have school bus traffic that is trying to make that right hand turn out of there or the left hand turn in. Jim says we do. ~nat's one consideration right there. The other consideration is exactly what we did earlier this evening and this is, this was done through the citizen input. To change it without citizen input from the people further down Pleasant View would be terrible. This is another public hearing, a public announcement to the people who got this intersection designed the w~y it is now. They had a reason they wanted it to be done not just for us to switch their reasoning backwards a few years later so I think that we owe it to our citizens to inform the people along Pleasant View that w~ are reconsidering this intersection. As far as they're concerned, four years ago we should have had a sign up saying no right hand turn. That's what we promised them and the mistake was not putting the sign up 4 years ago. That's what the mistake was. The sign should have been put up before the first house went into Near Mountain then the school bus company would know they can't make that turn and they would have found an alternate route. The trucks would know they couldn't make that turn so they would have found an alternate route. Acting Mayor Geving: I hear you Jay. I like your suggestion. Clark? Councilman Horn: ~nat was going to be my point too is that we can't do anything unless we open that up to a public hearing again. The other problem that I'd like to make is that I think we need to evaluate Bill's reco~mer~tation from a City liability standpoint not just a safety issue. Part of the point that's come out here is the reason they put the sign up in the first place is we're liable if we don't have a sign up in the City. I know when that question first came up, it seemed like a strange consideration to put on the developer to make that kind of an entrance and that wasn't the developer's plan to put that entrance in like that so I totally disagree with the Public Safety (lmmnission's recommendation that we should get the developer to defray those costs. He put it in that way at our request and it wasn't only our request I see as I read back through the Minutes, it was MnDot's recc~nendation. I don't know how MnDot ever got convinced that that's the way that intersection should work but s~nehow it was their recomnendation and when they make a reccm~nendation like that, it's not really sc~nething that you can turn around. Acting Mayor Geving: I think I'm listening to the Council here and I do believe that we do owe it to the people west of this area to have at least a meeting where they can voice their opinion and I think that's the way it should be done. In the meantime though we do have a situation that we want to make sure is taken care of. Can you assure us of that Jim, for the present until we have this public hearing? Until we make a decision? Okay. Jim Wehrle: The status of the sign...will remain down, is that correct? As it currently is designed? Acting Mayor Geving: I believe it's down now. Jim Wehrle: Yes. It has ~__~n since the last time I brought it to the Council and the pledge you made at that time was it would stay down until it was resolved so I assume it will stay down. If, before this hearing is held, frcm a study by Gary or whoever would be done to show a plan 1 or plan 2 or plan 3 of what could or should be done to that intersection ar~ how much it would cost, would be nice. I can't imagine spending a fraction of $10,000.00 to round off a 44 City Gouncil Meeti~ - June 27~ 1988 sharp corner. T~ere's perhaps some concern that we get into ~he~ the new one is going to stay or be altered. It's currently there... I can't imagine it being more than a couple day project... Councilman }brn: ~en we agreed that that sign should come down, it ~ms before we had the input from our Attorney stating that it was a liability issue to the City. That has put a totally different complexion on that probl~ and I don't believe that we can sit up here ar~ be responsible knowing we have a liability situation and allow it to continue. Jim Wehrle: I've read that correspondence and I don' t know whether there' s ~--..n an exact determination that at any point anybody said that there w~uld be a sign go up there. There's nothing in the Minutes of the past meetings, no determination by Council that there would be a sign ever' put up there. Perhaps it was people's understanding that a sign might go up there but it's my interpretation by going over the past Minutes, that what was done in lieu of a sign, that that angle was to discourage traffic going back through Pleasant View. It was never determi~ by anyone that there should be a sign saying no right hand turn from my reading of the Minutes of the past Minutes and correspondence and having ~ that way for 4 years, ar~ having ~_n down for the last couple of months while it w~nt to Public Safety and back here again, I ass~e this will be on the next one? I imagine the need to put tt~ burden on the 300 driving residents of Near F~untain of not being able to make the turn to go to the new park, their church in Excelsior or whatever the case may be. Councilman Horn: I think our Attorney has to c~m~t on this. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you r~mm~er this situation Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes. I'm not a traffic engineer. The only cc~nent I can really make to the situation is that if you have a dangerous situation, I'm saying if you have a dangerous situation and you don't do something to warn motorists about it and someone is injured, t~ have the making of a claim against you. Acting Mayor Geving: Is it your recc~m~ation that that sign should be put up? Roger Knutson: I don't know enough about the intersection. I don't like to do this. Jim Wehrle: Can I ask a question? Has there been a determination that there is danger here scme~ because the only thing that I've ever heard alleged as being dangerous. It's inconvenient to make that turn but it can be done. It's inconvenient for a school bus or a truck because they have to back in, or he pulls in, back up and then do that a-little bit but... Acting Mayor Geving: I think the fact that they have to make that kind of a turning motion would d~ it to be unsafe. I think I would, as an observer, say that. I don't know if it's unsafe or not but if they have to make several gyrations to turn right and go west on Pleasant View, I would say that is an unsafe condition. Councilman Horn: Let me cc~m~nt on that. I don't have trouble making that turn staying in my lane but I don't have trouble driving downtown here ar~ not run into any of the curbs either. What happens is, I know people are going to swing 45 ~y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 over into the other lane when they make that right hand turn so you tell me what's a safe lane. What should be a reasonable thing that somebody could maneuver? Jim ~ehrle: Excuse me Clark. I'm not sure I follow. ~he swining into what other lane? It's one lane. There's only one lane going in either direction. Councilman Horn: Pleasant view. When you make a right turn into the right hand lane of Pleasant View, there are going to be people who will swing over... Jim Wehrle: Going west or going east? Councilman Horn: Going west. There will be people who will swing over into the easterly lane. Jim Wehrle: If you're on Pleasant View going west, from TH 1017 Councilman Horn: No. I'm in Near Mountain. I'm coming out of your development and I'm going to go into Excelsior to church. A certain percentage of those cars are going to swing over and cross the center lane into the eastbound lane. I can maneuver that and you can probably maneuver that but some of the~ aren' t. It's goin~ to be the one who doesn't that's going to ccme back arzt say, you have a safety issue that you didn' t address. Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's a very important thing when I see, and Bill pointed this out to us here, a letter from a Public Safety Director to the City Manager is indicating that he's gotten some complaints from a school bus driver and one from the Fire Department ar~ they are basically saying that this is a hazardous situation. ~ne Attorney points out that if we know that it's a hazardous situation, then it's an unsafe situation for us and it's public record at this point. I guess I'm going to have to refer to Jim Chaffee and your reccmm~er~tation on this Jim and where we should go with this issue. Could you give us tonight, what you'd like to do with this corner? Jim Chaffee: We need to straighten it out, as the Council has indicated but we also ~ to put up a sign for liability purposes until such time as the Council gets a report back from the City Engineer. That's the way I see it. Acting Mayor Geving: That sounds good enough for me. The signs will go up. Jim Wehrle: Will there be a notice to all the residents in the area about this hear lng? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes. Jim Wehrle: Can the sign go back up concurrent with that notice so people will understand? Acting Mayor Geving: I think that would be appropriate. We're not going to just run out there tonight at 12:30 and put it up. We'll make sure that it's coordinated with the public hearing. I would like to ask, when, how soon could this be placed in front of the citizenry as a public hearing? Barbara? Anyone? How long a notice would we have to give? 46 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 9! Barbara Dacy: A typical timeframe is 10 days2 Acting Mayor Geving: ~at kind of a timeframe are w~ talking about? Gary Warren: Not until July 25th. Acting Mayor Geving: It will be July 25th is the earliest Bill and I'm open for a motion on this. Councilman Boyt: I have a question and then I'll be happy to make a motion. Jim, are you saying, as I understood it initially, one of the concerns was that people w~re driving in their personal vehicles and were being inconvenienced by not being able to take a right turn. Jim Wehrle: One day that was the case. Councilman Boyt: So the probl~ the sign was creating was it cut down people's ability to go right on Pleasant View? Jim Wehrle: And the sign also was on Pleasant View saying you couldn't turn left into Near Mountain. Councilman Boyt: So both of those and their major c~mplaint was from personal automobile traffic? Jim Wehrle: Yes. T~ere had always ~--_..n the ongoing concern that you eluded to here. It was difficult to make that turn and it also was a great restriction on our scheduling of the school buses and I guess potentially if a fire truck were c~ming for some reason fr~m Lotus Lake c~ming to on Pleasant View, he w~uld have difficulty turning into our intersection but... Councilman Boyt: The intersection may very well ~ to be changed. What I'm looking at is the sign itself and I think if we can post a sign there that allows personal vehicles to make that turn, we don't have anything in our records that indicate that that's particularly hazardous, although it may be inconvenient but we certainly can not allow vehicles with any lergth in excess of personal vehicles to make that turn without taking on a liability risk. Is it possible to indicate, have a sign that w~uld take care of that? Gary says it would be. Alright, what does that do it us Boger? Roger Knutson: It goes back to the same thing we discussed. Is it safe for automobiles to make that turn? Gary Warren: The intersection is, if the question were put to us, is not a standard intersection. I think fr~m that frame of reference, that in itself I think is a liability. Roger Knutson: So what you're saying is it's not safe for cars. Councilman Horn: As far as what the intent of the signs were, there may not have ever been any method spelled out in ~hich this would be controlled but the intent always was that there would not be right turns onto Pleasant View or left turns off of Pleasant View into this develolm~nt. 47 9%ty Oouncil Meeting - June 27, 1988 Jim ~ehrle: The reason being that they didn't want the traffic going down Pleasant View. Councilman Horn: That plus MnDot recc~aended that as an improved traffic flow pattern. Jim Wehrle: You still have to keep traffic from going west on Pleasant View. Acting Mayor Geving: I think w~ beat this enough. Let's go ahead with a motion. I think we've got enough information now to move. Jay, you've got one comment? Councilman Johnson: Yes, one more ~t. A total restriction of turning, would our liability position only be cured by a total ban on right turns or would a precautionary sign provide us some liability? Saying some kind of wording warning people of the turn. Right turns at your own risk? That doesn't sound real good. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's move ahead on this. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to post a no right turn sign at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard. That the sign be posted simultaneously with notifying the residents that the City will be considering the reshaping of the intersection and inviting ~ to a public hearing on July 25, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Acting Mayor Geving: We have directed staff then to ccme up with these estimates of cost, Gary, for alternatives on the 25th as well as the motion. SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST TO S~CTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 SQUARE FOOT PYLON SI(t~, 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLF~R. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve permitting SuperAmerica to install an 80 square foot pylon sign with a maximum 20 foot height prior to receiving a conditional use permit with the following condition: 1. The applicant must conform to any conditions made as part of the conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. R~man Mueller: Just a quick question on the recon~endation from staff about being able to place the sign contingent on conditions being placed after this point in time. That puts us in-a little strange situation where we can put our sign up .... close your store to do it. I'm wondering, is there any assurance from City Council, is this going to be too drastically changed from what was spoken about in the previous meeting? Councilman Horn: I think there's a precedent here. Cbviously, we found that the Holiday has an 80 square foot sign. For ~ to cc~e back and tell you that you have to close your store for you to put up an 80 square foot sign, they'd have a little trouble supporting that. 48 City Council Meeting - June 27, 19BB R~man ~'~eller: I understand there would be some problems there but I'd like to avoid any problems. Acting Mayor Geving: I think you're on safe ground. OIL RECYCLING ORDINANCE. Councilman Horn: I'm going to move that w~ include waste oil recycling as part of our current recycling and have it done at a central facility such as public works as Don has reco~m~ed. Acting Mayor Geving: I will second the motion. I think I'd rather second this for explanation of what your probl~n is Bill. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I've ~ working on this for a year and a half and that's simply not enough. This is a major problem and to say that we can cover it by having one pick-up spot that's open 8 hours on a Saturday isn' t going to get it. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you saying that the recycling center because it's only open on Saturdays would be a major obstacle to this plan? Councilman Boyt: We have got to make this as convenient for people as we can because what they're doing right now is damaging and very convenient.. I think that we have suggested in front of us options that are, given the damage, at a fairly reasonable cost. I would like to see the City contract with 2 or 3 pick- up spots which I think pretty much would limit to the facilities that now change oil in town. Don suggested $5~.~ to $1,~.~ might do it. I think that's an awfully good expenditure of City money if it k~_ps oil out of our lakes. think that we should require all new sites to put this in. We're talking about a $1,00~.00 expenditure. Scu~=thing that can easily be, if it's built into the new facility, it can be provided for, it would be a neat, orderly and safe spot to hold it. Gertainly the City should provide collection at it's garage in the recycling effort. If I had it my way, honestly, if I thought it would pass, I would say every place that chooses to sell oil has to collect. We're talking about a $1,000.00 expenditure but we're talking about oil that gets collected and doesn't get dtm~ped. But since that won't pass, I think Don's suggestion of contracting is excellent. I think all new sites that are going to sell oil should provide waste collection. Councilman Horn: I thought that was my recc~~ation to go along with Don's rec(m~er~ation. That it be at the public safety and also set up a contracting site so we can have 18 hours and 7 days a w~ek coverage. Councilman Johnson: You didn't say that. Councilman Horn: I said Don' s reccm~m~ation. Acting Mayor Geving: Does that sound like what you want done? Let's say Brown says he'll take the oil as a contracter and at the same time Don's suggestion says, we'll open up the recycling center ar~ public works garage and we'll pick up this used oil on Saturdays. Does that satisfy yours? 49 94 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Boyt: You've got 80% of itl Acting Mayor Geving: And there's no ordinance. Tnere's no ordinance under this proposal. This is strictly a business proposal. We would set up a contract with someone who would take the oil. Councilman Boyt: We don't exactly have a bidding climate here because there aren't many places that are going to collect it. I think if we could have 2 or 3 pick-up sites, 2 anyway, that it would give us some flexibility here so that people wouldn't be limited to going to one place in town. We've just got to make this easy Dale. Acting Mayor Geving: Your problem is that the recycling center is only open on Saturdays? Councilman Boyt: Right. Acting Mayor Geving: Can we beat that Don? Is there a better way to do that? Don Ashworth: My suggestion is, whether it's Sinclair or Brown's, again if we offer both of them the right to bid on being named as the City's waste oil center and how much they would charge us for that designation. Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you, is there a benefit to a Brown's or Cenex or anybody else to pick up this oil? DO they resale this oil? Don Ashworth: It depends on the time. You get times where you really did not get enough money out of it to make it worthwhile collecting. Other points in time there's been enough money in it fr~m a private standpoint to make you think about putting in the time that it may be worthwhile. Acting Mayor Geving: So it's not a question of us having them bid, it's a question of whether or not we can find someone who would take this oil and we would pay them a subsidy to have that outlet for us at whatever cost that might be? DOn Ashworth: Yes and if it comes back as $20,000.00. Acting Mayor Geving: Then it's unreasonable and we've got to look for another alternative. DOn Ashworth: If it's $300.00 or $500.00, I think that's a much better alternative than having it on Saturdays at the public works. Acting Mayor Geving: I kind of like both. I like both because the recycling center, I was very impressed with the recycling on Saturday. Saw people out there that helped you with it and I don't know what this facility would be if ~ dumped oil and so forth but I suspect you'd have a big tank there. You'd have some kind of collecting spot and somebody would come then to the center and pick up this used oil. Do you know Bill, what they do with this used oil? Councilman Boyt: Yes, they refine it. Tney refine it. 50 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Acting Mayor G~ving: So there is a useage for someone selling i t~ Councilman Boyt: There' s a go~d market. You have to recognize that we are, the Sinclair station already takes oil but maybe what we're missing is an aggressive advertising program here and an assurance that you're not going to get there and be turned down. The City, by spending a fairly small amount of money, can take a big step forward. I like that it doesn't require an ordinance to do it. Maybe that's a good way to start. Acting Mayor Geving: I think w~ have to start very innocently. We're starting s~mething new here. People have been throwing their oil in their garbage for years and it's an educational process for one thing. We've got to get s(aue media attention. Get it in our papers. Get it wherever we can. Maybe even flyers to hcmes and start people thinking about recycling their oil. I'm very much in favor of this if we could k~-----p it on a low key basis and maybe there is a Brown's Standard or Cenex or somebody who would take it and get us started on this. Jay, do you have any comments? Councilman Johnson: Yes, a couple. I spent a lot of time actually today on this one. On the phone with staff and whatever ar~ with oil recyclers. I spent some time thinking on it. I've got an alternative if nobody wants to bid. I do like the multiple. I don't think w~ r~ to have it as one. If they both would be willing to do it at a reasonable cost, let both of ~ be an authorized City oil recycling center or whatever. What I see doing that, when w~ start saying something like that is seeing the City pulled into any liability with that oil tank that he's got. What he sees, if he's a smart businessnan looking at this, he sees a deep pocket coming in to share a cost of an undergrour~ storage tank that he has existing and is aging. The City has to look into it's liability at that point. An alternative, which if nobody does want to participate with the City in this case, an alternative proposal on an ordinance basis would be, that I was thinking of, is anybody who changes oil, not who sells oil. If-a Superette sells a couple cans of oil, I don't want waste oil going in to these people. If they're handling food, deli items, drinks and cigarettes and whatever, I don't want the~ handling used oil. It's not ccu~atible so I don't think everybody who sells oil is cc~p~rtible with recycling oil but anybody who fixes cars, their hands are not handling food items so they are more compatible. Anybody in the repair business that changes oil, be required ar~ here's where I go different. This is the fallback position type deal. At a cost to the person bringing the oil in, at no more than 10 cents a quart or s~e cost. So we're saying that Gary Brown is not doing this out of your own. It's taking your staff some time to do this work. They have to stop what they're doing and get this guy's jug of oil and carry it over there and dump it down so 10 cents a quart, that's 50 cents to charge your oil in your car. You've already spent $6.00 to $7.00 on the oil ar~ the filters and everything else. It's not a significant increase. If w~ can get it for the City paying them $300.00 or $500.00 a year, that's what I'd prefer because there's no cost to the citizen. It will encourage them to recycle more. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's propose this. We've got a motion on the floor. We've got a second. We're going to start a project here as proposed by the manager. Very low key, educational program wherewehave a dual program and let's start this off and see if w~ can't make a go of it. Let's put a review time cycle on it. Maybe 60 days or whatever. ~mever Don can get hack to see when we would actually implenent this. What educational materials you would 51 9~ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 need Don to crank up the entire cc~munity. In the meantime that will give you time to contact the dealers ar~ see if we can't kick this off. We've got a proposal. Councilman Horn: Just a response to Jay's ~nt. My initial reaction was exactly what you said. Bequire people who do actual changing. Acting Mayor Geving: Because they've got to get rid of theirs anyway. Councilman Johnson: They have the tank. Councilman Horn: So they'll have the facility to do it. But as I thought about it more, I said that logically doesn't match with what we're trying to accomplish here. People who do that are not the ones that have a problem with putting it in the garbage. It's the people who buy their oil at the K-Marts and places where they don't change the oil. ~nose are the ones who do it so why put a restriction on these people when they're not the ones creating the problem? Councilman Johnson: ~nat's why I turned it to a profit mode for th~m. Councilman Horn: That's what we'll do with the bidding process. Don Ashworth: We' 11 have it back before 60 days. I ' 11 try for 30. Councilman Johnson: Also, any new stations, we'd like to get them into the program. Acting Mayor Geving: It might be one of the requirements that we place on a new Q-Superette or something that sells. Councilman Boyt: That takes an ordinance change doesn't it? Councilman Johnson: Those are conditional use. Isn't it, gas stations? Barbara Dacy: In some districts. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us enter into, find out how much it's going to cost us to have a guaranteed drop-off site and not limit the number to one particular place but if we can sign up... Acting Mayor Geving: I think this is what Don is recomnending in the motion. The motion is before us. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to accept the City Manager's recc~ation to set up the Public Works site and also set up contracting sites for the recycling of w~ste oil. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~LING: A. APPROVAL OF R~CYCLING CONTRACT WITH CARVER COUNTY. Jo Ann Olsen: This is to fund the recycling center that we've established. It's a contract with Carver County. Mike Lien is in charge of this and he wanted to speak to the Council to get their feelings on budgeting for next year. 52 City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 97 Mike Lien: We've discussed the recycling center concept with Jo Ann and raised a couple of concerns about the level of funding for it I guess and it's a, as we see it, a fairly expensive drop-off site. Before cc~mitting the County to a project that could come back in for money when you come to the County, I wanted to just talk with you a little bit about it and see what you:re, I hate to use tt~ word level of ccmmti~nent or just your views on the whole recycling program using Chaska and your future of it I guess. To just give you a little better feel for my concerns, the County does have money to fund programs. We' re not saying we w~n't fund Chanhassen program. We've bccn bugging you for years to do something. TP~ fur~ing that the County ba__~ is we've getting in enough money from a n~ber of sources which we, by law, have to share at least to a certain degree with the cities. We've got three mechanisms we've gone by. One of a grant up front to get the program up and running such as we've given to Chanhassen, Watertown, Waconia, Norwood and Young America and some of the others that are already up and going. Also we've got tw~ fur~ing mechani~s that kind of give you an incentive once the program is up ar~ running. We'll pay you $4.00 a ton for every ton recycled and we'll also give you 50 cents per household in the City for expenses that you've spent on recycling programs. I guess what we have today is the contract for ~hat we would consider the start up funds which start up the grant and the other programs. I guess the concern I raised with Jo Ann is I see this money not going for equilm~m~t such as we've used in other programs but more for the operating costs of the facility. The pick-up cost. The advertising and things like that. ~ne way we've done it with other cities where we've given ~ a big boost to buy equilm~nt and then we talk about the more limited, on-going opearting funds that you can expect over the next couple of years. I just wanted to raise that concern with you. We are a little worried about the ~ount of the grant especially for half a year and with the fact, I'd like to cut it back a little bit. Probably closer to $5, ~0. ~ than the $8, ~. ~ to $9, ~. 0~ proposed here but I also wanted to talk to you directly and get a feel for what you folks saw the program... Acting Mayor Geving: Now, as I understand it, we're only talking about funding for 1989, is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: We're working on curbside pick-up. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, then if curbside pick-up comes in, then we would not have this? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Acting Mayor Geving: Now, when we arrived at the $8,~gg.gg and some odd dollars which you've got broken down here. Is this your budget? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: I think, fr~m what I saw on Saturday, this is working. The volunteer program. How many different volunteer groups do you anticipate taking park in that? Jo Ann Olsen: I think I have maybe 6 or so. Acting Mayor Geving: They get $75. ~. 53 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: Each time. Acting Mayor Geving: For a whole day at this? One Saturday? To me that's the most important item in this whole thing is getting a co,migent frcm a volunteer group. I'd like to make that a flat $100.00 period. I saw a lot of people up there on Saturday and those volunteers are hard to get when it's 90 degrees out. It's really tough. It's well worth that to me. Jo Ann Olsen: We've already got their cc~itment. Some of them are Boy Scouts where they're doing it for their badges and they don't... Acting Mayor Geving: I understand that in a case like that the funding is different there but I'm talking about a church organization or the CAA. Any number of volunteer groups. They can use that money and put it to good use in our community. As far as I'm concerned, they're the people that make this go. I watched Chaska for a long time and how they got started. It took a lot of dedication by a lot of committed people. I suppose you could say they did it for nothing but they were really doing it for an organization and that's what is going to make this thing work. Councilman Horn: I would move that we fund the project. I don't think there are many programs that are as important as this one. Acting Mayor Geving: I ' 11 second the motion. Councilman Johnson: Mike, were you trying to get us to decrease our funds or what? Mike Lien: Let's be a little bit blunt here. I guess I am uncomfortable with going to my County Board and saying I want $9,000.00 for Chanhassen for the next half a year. Based on the programs we've had before and everything, I'd like to cut it back... Councilman Johnson: What kind of funds did they have? What were the other program costs? Waconia, what was their start-up? Mike Lien: Waconia right now, they're working on a grant... The City of Chaska perhaps is the one that we could relate to Chanhassen as much. We gave them a grant of about $8,000.00 about two years ago. They still have parts of that money that they haven't used right now. We specified in there that the money had to go for equipment, operating expenses and things like that. Now in this case the City is providing the building and we're buying equipment for th~ to operate the center from. For example we're working with th~m right now to provide a can crusher and forklift and things like that. Here again, pieces of tangible equi~ent is what most of the money is set up to be used for. Not the operating expenses or for on-going maintenance expenses and things like that. In this case here we're kickin in money, most of the money is going to he pick-up company for the cost of picking up the goods from the drop-off centers. Not to buy a piece of equipment. Councilman Johnson: So we can do it differently and instead of having a company c(x~e in and drop off the piece of equipment for us, we can get money for you so we can go buy the equipment and have th~ just come in and haul it off. We'd 54 City Council _~cting - June 27~ 1988 have to then store the equipment and be detrimental. We'd e~d up with the same mess Chaska has sitting outside their recycling center all ~k aroumd. I think w~'re doing it a much better way and this money will help us prove that the first year. I think this City, as you heard us talking about oil recycling, into and cc~nitted to doing this.. I'd like to see our County show us s~me commitment too. I think we'd like to continue asking for this for this year ar~ we will run the center in future years. I think what w~'re really going to ~ the help is getting the curbside going. I like the way they're using the money here versus trying to get can crushers or whatever. If ~ get to the point where we need the can crusher, maybe we' 11 have to go ar~ get it ourselves. Acting Mayor Geving: Mike, let's analyze for you very quickly and I know you've looked at Jo Ann's budget. Just about everything that she's got listed here is advertisement. She's got mass mailings in here. She's got newspaper advertising. Advertising t-shirts. Promotional campaign items. I believe that what she's put together is probably a very conservative estimate of getting this thing going. If it takes $8,60~.~0, I have to believe she's put together a pretty good package for the City ar~ I'm going to stay with her budget. believe what she's trying to do, we can't reach nearly 8,000 people in C~anhas~ and 3,500 hc~eo~a~ers if we nickle dime this project. We've got to do it upfront. We do it right the first time. If it means mass mailings, newspaper ads, kids wearing t-shirts, volunteer organizations prc~oting this and it costs us $8,6BB.BB, I'm all for it and I think we've give~ you a reasonable budget Mike to take back to your Carver County Ommmtssioners. I'm pleased with what Jo Ann has done. We have done something in this co~mmity that no other coaxmmity did for a long time. We w~re into recycling long before __m~_ny of your other c~axnunities in the County. We're spurring ahead on this one. Believe me, we're going to make this thing work and we'll make you look good. Mike Lien: I'm hoping that you're not, the one thing I want to prevent in standing in front of you tonight was to belittle your efforts or anything like that because I've had a good relationship with you on the leaf ccmposting and things like that and like I said, we've bugged you to do s(~ething and now you're doing something and I don't want to look like I'm saying to you, golly that's a bad idea. You're doing some novel things in this. I think, for example, paying the volunteer groups. I have no problem with that. I think you r_~ that type of thing. I guess what I'm hoping is that we can somehow cut back a little bit on the collection costs. I see that as fairly excessive cea%roared to what some other cities are doing. Acting Mayor (~eving: Well, that's part of the operation so we can't get into the operations. Tonight we're really not here to talk about 1988. I think 1988 is, we' re moving on that. Councilman Johnson: We have to approve the contract. Acting Mayor Geving: We've got a contract here. Mike Lien: The contract was for money to go through the 1988 program. Acting Mayor Geving: And what we're saying is we've give~ you a budget and I think it's reasonable. 55 tOO City Council ~4seting - June 27, 1988 Mike Lien: I guess I'm not, beyond the advertising and the promotional things, the advertising w~ would do for you. I don't care if w~ do it. We give you the money and you do it. ~nat is fine. Promotional, I think some of the promotional items that you've come up with are really good. I'm hoping we can trap some of the costs on sc~e of them but there are several things that I just wanted to point out that it is high maintenance cost program that you're looking at here compared to some of the others. It's not to mean that maybe that's the only thing that's going to work for Chanhassen that we're going to find out. I'd just like to raise... Acting Mayor Geving: We don't know that yet Mike. We're just starting this and we're going to do it right. I think in order to keep our forces instilled in doing this, we're participating with the County. A lot of this, the County has urged us to do but we've picked this up on our own. We probably would have done this anyway. Tnat's why I think you've got a really glowing example over here in Chanhassen of a program that's working. I don't know what's happening in Watertown. I know the Chaska program has been going for some time and it's very effective. I think you're going to find the same thing here. I don't want to belittle the program. The don't want to belittle Jo Ann's expenses and what she's put together as a budget. Let's do it right. Give her the funds she needs to do it right and you can go to the County Cxmxnissioners and sell this program. I know you can and we're willing as a Council, to come in in 1989 and pick up this project and carry it. Participate in the funding. We've already made that motion. Mike Lien: I' 11 relay that on to the Oarmissioners when we discuss it and I guess we'll talk about the funds that are available and things like that. Acting Mayor Geving: We're willing to take on the participation in 1989. We don't know what that dollar value is. Jo Ann, do you have a figure? What are we cc~mitting to? Jo Ann Olsen: For 1989, it would be, I don't know if ours would really increase in cost too much. It would depend on how much money we get back from the marketing. Acting Mayor Geving: We need to have an estimate here tonight if we're going to vote. Jo Ann Olsen: It would be doubling the amount. Acting Mayor Geving: So you're talking somewhere around $17,000.007 Jo Ann Olsen: It could be but the fact, what I want to point out is that that budget is high. ~nat's if we, like already we haven't spent $200.00 that was already budgeted for and... Acting Mayor Geving: Give us a reasonable estimate. Jo Ann Olsen: It could be over $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 if we keep it open two times a month each month. Acting Mayor ~eving: We'll be going into a budget cycle here in the next couple months and we need to have that kind of figure. For tonight's comnitment all we 56 City Council M~eting - June 27, 1988 1 01' really need to say is that w~'re going to participate in the program in terms of funding for 1989. Now does that mean that we're going to particpate 100%? We're going to pick up the entire cost? Jo Ann Olsen: We would still be requesting funds fr~m Carver County and we would get the 50 cents per household and $4.00 per ton. Acting Mayor Geving: How much do you thing we could get from that Mike? Mike Lien: You would have available to you, now this .is money that, there are two sources of funding other than the grant. One is the 50 cents per household. Chanhassen has 3,000 households so let' s say $1,500.00. Now I should say that that money is available for both yard waste cc~postir~3 and drop-off center funding. The other source of fur~s would be the $4.00 per ton rebate which we're required to have a performance based fur~ing program for the cities meaning we've got to reward you for the more you do, the more we give you. At this point that's $4.00 a ton and I think the program we er~ up with will be essentially the same whether it's $4.00 or $6.00 or ~hatever. I would guess that, from what I know of other drop-off centers, if you're real successful, you' re going to come up with a couple hundred tons of stuff so we're talking here, let's say $500.00 to $1,000.00 probably on that. Total is we've come up with about $2,500.00 for 1989 that the County would be kicking in for a bat~m~nt programs in Chanhassen. That much you can more or less count on having. Acting Mayor Geving: If we w~re to estimate $10,000.00 of our money,, would that be in the ballpark for budgeting purposes? Jo Ann Olsen: I wanted to add plastics and add to it which will add to the cost. I think it will be $10,000.00 to $12,000.00. Acting Mayor Geving: In addition to the $2,500.00 from the County? I have a gentleman back here that's ~ holding his hand up. Did you have something to add? Rick Schneider: I work with Mike. I just wanted to make one note and that is, you talk about potentially having curbside and it has ~_n shown to be the most effective means of recycling. At the costs that may c~me into place here for next year, you could very easily come in ar~ encourage that program with a company for that kind of money. I'd just like you to keep thinking about that. Perhaps if you wanted to at least discuss ar~ look at that avenue. Acting Mayor (~ving: Rick, that's a very good option and we would appreciate looking into that. Rick Schneider: You're not sure which way... Acting Mayor Geving: We don't know. That's something that Jo Ann would have to investigate. Mike Lien: Forgive me for not introducing Rick. Rick is a staff person who was hired last year to, his specific job was to work with the city staff's ar~ stuff to set up this on approval. 57 tO2 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think we've got a novel approach here other than what's been going on with the rest of the County. I think it can be sold to the County Cce~missioner' s as such. Jo Ann, you said this year ' s budget may be a little high? Jo Ann Olsen: We get reimbursed. The budget, of the $2,800.00 that's what we'll pay off R & W but we're going to be getting reimbursed with however much money we get back from the glass company. However much tonage we give to them we get reimbursed so that won't be the total cost. The yard waste containers, we're going to stop the brush because that's just taken to landfills anyway so that's going to be reduced right there. Volunteer groups, that's going to stay the same unless you want to increase it. The mass mailings and the promotional, I would like to do some more on that so that would add to it and then again, I wanted to add plastic. Acting Mayor Geving: From your standpoint Mike, all you really need to know tonight is whether or not we're going to participate in the program in 1989 and that we're going to start a curbside service? Is that correct? That's what you need to know? Mike Lien: Yes, that's what I need to know. To take this proposal to the County Ccmxnissioners. To be honest with you, I would express to them s(xne of the concerns I was just expressing here right now. Plere again, I'm not saying I'm against it but I w~uld feel I would have to make known to them that I am a little bit concerned about the expense of the program. Acting Mayor Geving: You can also tell them that we're going to make it a first class operation for the County and we' re going to make th~n look good in their recycling efforts. You made a big' point last year on what Chanhassen did to make the County look good. I believe we were one of the 2 or 3 cities that were highlighted, especially in the leaf cc~sting so we've got success behind us. I'm not concerned about our ability to carry this thing out. Councilman Boyt: Mike, are you saying that in all likelihood more money is available if we put it into physical assets? Mike Lien: I'm not saying more money is available but that that general amount of money is there or we've got precedent set for giving that amount of money. Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying is we're likely to get more money if we put it in physical assets? Mike Lien: I think the situation w~'ve got here is that you're basically paying another cc~y to buy machinery to service your program. That's what the cost is going to R & W Sanitation for. Whereas in other programs, we have paid to buy that equiBment so the City has it in hand... It's just a different approach I guess. Councilman Boyt: I'm inclined to agree with you. My question is simply one of the bottom line. Do we get more money if we put it into physical assets? You don't know, is that what you're telling me? Mike Lien: I'm saying that I've got a budget like anybody else does. I've counted on having to spend for Chanhassen at least as much as I had to spend for 58 City Council Meeting - JUne 27, 1988 Chaska which is $8,000.00 or there abouts. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, if Jo Ann scaled here budget back to $8,000.00, would that satisfy your needs which I think she could easily do because she does have a number of things she hasn't done yet. Mike Lien: I believe we can. I guess I'm saying that I'm more comfortable talking to you about the $5,000.00 for this type of a program but I do believe that we're not going to spend the entire $8,000.00 or $9,000.00 that's here either but I do feel, I did ~ant to express scme concerns about the a~ount of money and what it's doing. Councilman Johnson: How long have you known about the $8,000.00 or $9,000.00? How long have you know how we want to do this? Or your staff? How long has your staff participated with us in planning this recycling center? Mike Lien: We've talked for quite a few months. ! guess the proposal as far as how the money ~as to be expended was just brought to my attention last week. I'm not sure, Rick, it was ~ere very recently where we, I think got a feel for the way the program was going. Councilman Johnson: Because I know we've been working on this thing for months and months and what I see as an eleventh hour saying, geez, I know we've ~ talking about $8,000.00 but I think I want to give you $5,000.00 and that's ~hat I see ccedng. I know that's probably not what you're saying but to me this is the eleventh hour. We've already done t~D pick-ups on this. We're already operating. It's a beautiful clean operation in ~ison to what I saw down at Chaska when I visited your center down there with beds sitting outside and barrels of who knows what sitting around the center. We want to keep it clean because that's our city facility there. We haul eveything away at the end of the day there I believe. It doesn't sit there for a couple weeks. That's how we're going to do recycling in this town and I think that we will prove that this is a good syst~u and this is the way to do it. Not tt~ way that's being done elsewhere that could be creating more problems than we want to handle. I really think that I'd like to see you go to bat for us instead of go up against us and if you're going to go up against us, I want to know what day you're going to be going up against us so we can come along and fight for what we believe is right. Mike Lien: Let's put it this way, I'm very happy to hear about your talking about willing to ccemit for 1989 as much as $10,000.00 or $12,000.00. That is much more, I'll give you credit, that is muc/~ more tlman any other city or town has talked about potting in at this point in hard and fast dollars. I'm not as concerned as I was when I s~ up here and that was one of the reasons I came here was to make sure that you knew what you were getting into, which, not to belittle Jo Ann or anything like that but I want to hear it myself because it's sort of my neck on the line too if I've got to come back to the County Board next year and say, we've got to fund Chanhassen. To be frank, the money probably isn't ther next year because we're finding some limitations on our fur~ing too. So I just wanted to express some concern. I'm not saying that I'm going to recommend that the County Board...but I intend to giving them an explanations. 59 104 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: We've going to quit the debate and we're going to vote. There is a motion on the floor. Thank you Mike and thank you very much Rick. There is a motion on the floor and there is a second to participate in the funding of the project for 1989 in the amount, and I'm going to put in a dollar figure of $10,000.00 as our participation for 1989. When we get to the budget we will get to hard dollars. Approximately $10,000.00 so when we get to Don's budget we can put the figures in. Anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Boyt: I have a problem with oannitting to a budget we haven't even discussed yet. I think the intent. Say we intend to fund it. Acting Mayor Geving: That would be fine. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded that the City Council intends to participate in the funding of the Recycling Project with Carver County for 1989 in an amount of approximately $10,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. R~CYCLING: CURBSIDE PICK-UP. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the authorization to create a recycling cxanmittee for curbside pick-up. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: What about two. Do we need to authorize the application for grant monies? Acting Mayor Geving: No. That was just the curbside. We did that. It's all a part of the first one. Councilman Boyt: So your motion included both? Councilman Horn: Yes. DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION R/~C~ATION ON ~S TO BF AND A-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. Acting Mayor Geving: This might take some time. I hope we can limit it. Again, I think we're all familiar with the Planning Omn~ission notes. We've read your letter Tim. I think at this point we don't need your comments, I don't believe Barbara. Let's go right to Planning Commissions comments frem Tim. Speak briefly. Tim E~hart: I will. Which one do you want to take first? Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go with the BF. The recomnendation are amendments to the BF and A-2 Zonding Districts. You might just want to co~m~nt briefly about them. Tim Erhart: On the Business Fringe, I think the ccm~_nts you made tonight earlier, if we have a dangerous situation, I think we're obligated to do 60 City Council Meeting - June 271 19BB '05 something about it. I think we have a very dangerous situation down in that area where we're allowing, not only allowing but promoting the intensification of business' direct access onto TH 212 where the sgccds, in the report I think you can see what the spcc~s are. It's just doesn't make any sense. Now we've got lots of land in Chanhassen. We've got a big ccmmaercial industrial develogl~ent just outside the area here and we have a downtown we're trying to support, we really don't r~ to prcmaote cclm~rcial develogment in this area where we're not providing facilities to Support it. I think it's very dangerous. Secondly is that I think we have, again having enough area for commercial ~ industrial here, I think we have a real opportunity to preserve this area for people who live in Chanhassen 30 years from now. As the whole city gets developed and we have 2~,{]00 people living here instead of 8,~, that we have some space available that's open ~ green. I think those two things tied together, to me it's the time to make a decision on this. We can do it today and preserve this area simply by converting it to A-2 without a lot of expense to the City. I think your cc~ment on staff is the concern that we have and you expressed Roger, was that these people won't have anything to do with this land if we do it, if we convert it but A-2 still allows you to bu/ld hcmes no matter what size lot is existing, they can build at least one house on it. I'm not too sure that that isn't increased value over it's value as ~cial today considering the history of commercial successes in that area. In scme cases, we've made a big investment here in the downtown area. In fact we run into a situation where somebody wants to push us on it in converting it to A-2, look at what it would cost to cct~pe~sate what you might consider Ag, I think it's worth it for the future of Chanhassen to preserve that area and to eliminate, I think a real big liability probl~. Acting Mayor Geving: Now are you speaking for the Planning Ccm~ission tonight? Are you representing the Planning Cxm~ission's views? Tim Erhart: I think so. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Ommission has endorsed this. Tim Erhart: That's mycomnents on tt~ BF. Acting Mayor Geving: Should we take the BF first and just kind of walk through it? Go ahead Jay. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see some numbers. I think it's a proposal we should pursue to look at it and have scmaebody, through the City Attorney's office, prepare us a scenario of our liability, which I believe at that point would be, as far as what your opinion of takings are and staff. That's not the kind of stuff you h~nt to publish and I believe would be client privledged information, whatever but to make that decision I think we have to look at the financial side of it. I'd like to be able to make that. I'd like to be able to do that because I agree with you on that area. That part of the BF, well intentioned as it was ,hen it ~ms created. It used to be a business-type area and it made sense at that time to k-_~p it there. It also makes sense not to. I'd like to see a little financial analysis as to ~hat we're getting ourselves into. Same concepts look nice ~ then you find out that those little concepts can costs a million dollars and we have to say how nice is a million dollars worth so that's where I'm coming from. 61 106 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: So what you're saying Jay, you suggested that the Attorney look into some of the legal ramifications of looking in this direction and converting that to real dollars? What is our financial liability as w~ll? Councilman Johnson: Right. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that a fair question Roger? Can this be done? Roger Knutson: Sure .... the uncertainity that sca~eone else w~uld conclude. Acting Mayor Geving: But it's a fair comment that you can take... Roger Knutson: It might work for the City appraiser for example. Councilman Johnson: But by him doing it for us, we're obtaining legal advice from him. If we ask the City Appraiser to do that for us, we lose our Attorney client priviledge on it. Acting Mayor Geving: Tnere's no question that the basis for what you've recommended from the Planning Cc~nission as moved and unanimously agreed to Tim, is opening our eyes to the whole area down there. Maybe we made some moves with applicants that came in and had a good idea at the time and maybe the Council considered it and said, yes that doesn't seem like such a bad place for that kind of business not recognizing the long term viewpoint and what this would do if we continued to proliferate. I think your cc~nents are very appropriate. I appreciated reading th~n and I know it took a lot of thought on your part and certainly the Planning Omn~ission has studied this and given us their considered opinion on it. You're speaking for th~ and I can see that, I think you did your homework. Councilman Horn: When I read everything that Tim had put together, it wasn't very clear in my mind...then I read the staff report and thought back to why we established it in the first place and I believe it w~s established as a planning issue or a zoning issue before we had any applicants that came in. There's a logic there that makes sense too. It's moving it to areas that created less traffic than what was already put in there and I agree with you, I don't think any business like the type that has gone in down there in the past like the used car sales and some of the business to the general public, are reasonable at all. It was the intent, as I recall as Barb was explaining it to us for the business fringe, that they would be the low traffic type of things. Where you go down there and operate your business but you wouldn't create publing c~ning in and out of there all the time so I weigh that with what is it taking? What can we allow as a reasonable use and the logic says, that's the kind of thing you put in there. Something that makes it less of a hazard than it was before but it still allows them some type of use. I think as far as A-2 goes, you can faro it or put a house on it. Obviously that land is not fannable or a very small portion of it is farmable. As far as putting a house down there, there are a couple of houses down there but it's not very attractive to have your driveway coming right out on Highway 212 so my thinking has kind of come around back saying what staff reoam~nded for that made some sense. I'm still concerned about those safety issues and that they're good points. I'm trying to find a reasonable middle ground where we can do both. It's going to take, as Jay said, a lot of what the Attorney tells us, is allowing a reasonable use going to make that happen? I suspect looking at it now, we would have been in a much stronger 62 City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 position to go to A-2 or to leave it A-2 than having now gone to this change, to try and go back, it makes it a lot tougher. Tim Erhart: I think the intent of converting to A-2 was simply trying to reduce the a~ount of development in either the next 20 years or until such time the City really wants, at some time to acquire it and make a park or maybe the State wants to make a... By making it A-2 you can reduce the amount of develofm~nt and also reduce the amount of traffic that passes there. Councilman Horn: I think the thing that broke the logic strin~ for me was allowing a nursery in there because that does cater more to a public type thing and that's the one, as I think about what wa tried to do, it doesn't make sense. That's where I think we went across the line in what's reasonable. The others are not much traffic generaters but the nursery I think is beyond what wa had in Councilman Boyt: The Planning Cc~mission Minutes of May 18th, Barbara made the c~uments that there are several possibilities here which certainly looking at the Zoning Ordinance is a good one. One of the best things the City can do is set appropriate zoning. She also mentioned though that let's consider other approaches to s~me of the motivational issues here in the zoning. The traffic issues for instance. We have occasionally heard discussion about a frontage road. Is that ever realistic? How much is it going to cost if we do a frontage road? It seems to me I've heard figures of $5~,~.~ for a frontage road at some time. Is it conceivable that wa can consider that as an alternative? I guess I'm saying, even if we rezone it we're still stuck with a huge problen that we've already got in the amount of traffic that goes through that dangerous section of highway. Are we better off to open our perspective a little bit and look at how do we resolve the issues that we currently have and does that set us up for a better future? I agree with you. You talk a lot about the nature of that strip of property and all I'm asking is that when wa look at our report, consider the possibility of zoning it some other zone than what it currently is, let's look at other options that would be s~me sort of a permanent fix. Tim Erhart: I think Barbara had in her report suggesting about $50~,0~.0~. Councilman Boyt: Regardless of the cost, I think wa need to have that kind of information. As Barbara mentioned, maybe those properties don't have the capability of paying off that sort of assessment but we need to know that because I think that has an impact on what kind of zoning is permissible. It's rather inappropriate to encourage any kind of business if we know we' re never going to be able to resolve the traffic probl~. Barbara Dacy: Decide to build the new TH 212. Councilman Boyt: Well, outside of building the new TH 212. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess what you're saying is that wa not only have, we created the problen because of some of the businesses that we've let into that area but what will happen in the interim between now and the time that wa do decide to take some action ar~' we get 2 or 3 more applicants coming in here? They have every right in the world to move ahead in that business fringe area and develop. I'm not an advocate of moratoriums but I certainly wouldn't want us to have a couple more applicants come in in the near future before we get 63 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 something in place if our desire is to prohibit it. If w~ really want to stop that and take another look, we definitely want to be able to put in place some mechanism just to hold things as they are until we can get that done. Tim Erhart: I was stunned when that retail or that lar~scape thing went in there. I go and buy gas down there quite often and I tell you, you go in that service station and try to make a left turn to get back to my house, it is scary. Acting Mayor Geving: It's almost impossible. Tim Erhart: It's real scary. I think if we're going to let businesses down there... Councilman Horn: As far as making it work, I think it was just the last individual. If you consider what was there before, a used car dealership, gas station, to me those... Acting Mayor Geving: Those were appropriate though in that area. They've been there for years and they're going to stay there for years. Councilman Horn: It's part of what we tried to do by resorting was to restrict that. I think we lost sight of what we were doing with this nursery. Barbara Dacy: At least you know that that's not going to go in there. Councilman Horn: There's still a chance to tighten up. Whether we change it to A-2 or even tighten up the business fringe even more to keep any kind of retail out of there .... and then we don't have the change of zoning type of taking that people will c(~plain about. Barbara Dacy: I think the Attorney would agree that the moratori~n option is not a good one for the City to pursue and maybe we would need to look at the language for the uses in the BF district. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale is a very broad it~. It could be trees, widgets or used cars or anything. I will pursue from the Council's cc~ments that you basically concur with the Planning Co~ission' s rec~n~endation. Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that would be, at least what I've heard here. Jay, do you agree that that's pretty much where we're going with this BF? Alright. I don't know what you're looking for tonight Barbara. Just concurrence on that issue? Tim Erhart: I think the one question I'd like to have answered in my mind...to revert back to the A-2. What is the real cost of liability? If scm~ebody is going to cc~e in here and say hey, you guys are taking and I want thousands of dollars. Acting Mayor Geving: It' s certainly possible. Tim Erhart: Because I kind of think that question, to do it right, I think that's what it's going to come down to. Is there a liability? 64 City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 Acting Mayor Gevin~: You don't know if there's a liability until somebody lays it on you. Councilman Horn: You wonder if it's a legal liability and a moral liability. What damage are we actually doing to people from a land value star, point for instance? Obviously that's not a legal issue or may not be a legal issue but it's a moral issue for us. Acting Mayor (~eving: I don't know if w~ made a mistake in rezoning the area like we did but I think we had good intentions. I think we had the best of intentions. Based on all the discussion on ~here w~ w~re heading, it probably seemed reasonable. What are you looking for tonight Barbara? Barbara Dacy: Basically whether or not you concurred with the Planning Ommission. Acting Mayor Geving: On the ~F District, yes. Do we want to turn the coin over now ar~ talk about A-27 Tim Erhart: Regarding the long letter on the A-2. I think it's pretty simple. I think in 1984 when we talked about contractor's yards ar~ contractor's yards is really the prime issue I'm trying to deal with there. I don't think anybody envisioned in 1984 the develo~ent that we were going to see in south Chanhassen. In 1984 it was still, I think perceived by most people on the City Council as agricultural land. It's not agricultural land today. What you have there in south Cha~ssen is low density residential period. There are two fanners left in south Chanhasse~ so I think we have to find sc~e uses here that fit low density residential. Even if you believe that industrial uses is c~n~tible with agricultural land, it's not ag lar~ anla~ore today. There are houses all over the place and more c~ming in. Acting Mayor 6L=ving: And we knew that too when we started with sc~e of our sewer projects and so forth. We knew it ~s going to develop. Faz~ers would go. Tim Erhart: But you probably didn't know how fast it was going to occur with this change in the 1 in lq which drove almost everybody to subdivide their land. Councilman Horn: T~ere was another thing that we tried to do there too and that was to protect some of the small businesses. At that point the only option them had was to try to rent space in the industrial park or leave Chanhassen and we didn't want that to happe~. This is an interim type of use to try ar~ keep people in business until you're going to be forced out at some day. It really put people on notice that at some time your operation is going to have to cease and we're going to create a use for it in the agricultural area on an interim basis. That's why they were all conditional uses because if they became a problem and over intensified, when they c~me up for review... Acting Mayor Geving: That may be true but what we created was long tezm. of these people that we thought were going to be an interim solution just to keep the~ in business in Chanhassen, they not only have beccu~ a business but they've expanded the business into the adding areas ami I don't know how you shut then down. We legitimized the~. We had them cc~e in ar~ become fonmally 65 llO City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 recognized as a business as a contractor's yard and if you don't allow it, where are you going to put them? There are more coming. There's going to be others. Councilman Horn: We've approved every expansion. Acting Mayor Geving: Sure we have. Councilman Horn: But we don't have to. When it becomes an over intensification, shut them down. Acting Mayor Geving: So people w~uld say they belong in the industrial park. Keep them in the industrial park. I don't know if we can. There is probably twice as many construction yards out there that we don't even know about that are working out of their yards and garages and so forth. Tim Erhart: I think more important is you don't know when they expand. You've had 1 or 2 come in here asking for expansion, I'd be surprised because I live next to two of them and they just sort of expand. One year they got a little bigger and the next year. Councilman Boyt: What's the possibility there Roger, if we don't have an accurate means of keeping track of contractor's yard size, do we in effect after say they've been that large for a year, that we basically grandfathered them in at that size? Boger Knutson: No. It becomes a matter of proof. You have to prove what they look like. What you approved when you approved them. Councilman Boyt: How many trucks they had or whatever? Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what you have to do is you almost have to take a picture. A picture of the business as it existed on a given day. ~ae guy owned 3 pick-ups, a Bobcat ar~ x number of loads of rock and dirt and whatever ar~ that was his business. Councilman Boyt: Do we have the capability of keeping track of the contractor's yards we now have? Barbara Dacy: Yes, by site inspection. Councilman Boyt: I mean realistically. We can do that? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: We're getting better at it? Barbara Dacy: With the addition of Scott Hart, we are. Councilman Horn: He has to inventory everything that he's allowed on a conditional use permit. Councilman Boyt: It seems tome that possibility the ordinance alreadycontains an effective elimination of additional contractor's yards if the Council simple enforces what we have to work with. If we've got that they can't be within a 66 City Council F~eting - JUne 27, 1988 111 m/le of each other, we've basically covered Chanhassen right now but do we have the dedication of purpose to enforce that? Councilman Horn: I agree. I think it is controllable with what ~ have. If it isn't being controlled, it's because we're not doing it. Acting Mayor Geving: But what about some of the Planning Ommission c~mm~ts on what should be in ar~ what should be out? What should we exclude? That's part of Tim's reccaxmendation. Churches, public buildings should be in and be ~nts certain things out. Do you have any ccument on that? Things that don't fit. Councilman Horn: I have no proble~ with doing it. I think that what w~'re talking about here has to do with contractor's yards as a conditional use but I think there are. I think the list he's given us is more appropriate. Tim Erhart: I guess the kind of c(~mnitment w~'re looking for is the general co~uents, to look at the uses in the A-2 ar~ come back... If there are a number of uses that you'd like at a contractor's yard to mean...why don't we look at ~ all. Councilman Horn: I might take exception to bed and breakfast though. I know there's a proposal for the Assumption S~niD~ry property to make it a bed and breakfast and I think that's, I would love to see some type of good use made for that property so this might be the excpeption to the rule. Councilman Boyt: I think the work you put in on this justifies certainly carrying it further forward. I think we would be very fortunate if other Planning Commissioners would take on other zoning districts and do as thorough a job as you've done with these. It's certainly a step forward ar~ to have that kind of dedication is great for the City. I would support it. I think you've scratched the surface on a lot of tough issues and I'm not sure that I would agree with everything you want to remove should be removed but I'd sure champion your efforts. Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty %~11 agreement here. Bed and breakfast, I think s(xae size restrictions, I think it's Northfield and a few other places that have some bed and breakfasts that are pretty large. They're small hotels with 20-30 rooms and stuff like that so whs~ w~'re talking about the lady down on Bluff Creek who's got 4 or 5 rooms or w~hatever it is, that's one thing. Pretty low intensive. I'm not too sure about te~por~ retail nurseries. If it's not in there, I think w~ should have the public in the final rec=m~er~ation. Public buildings. Tim Erhart: Let me explain that one a little bit. T~e atte~fc there was to allow enough people like the one here who csme in here and filed with us. Acting Mayor Geving: Natural Green? Tim Erhart: Yes, the one that was going to replace. To s~mmhow let the~ go in on a t~oorary basis but when it was converted to a truly residential district, that that penmit would be autu~aatically be removed. ~hat you don't ~unt the~ to do is to go in amd invest in a lot of buildings amd p~rmanent structures. Even though you might want it now as a good thing for the City. ~hat you don' t ~nt to do is go for the permanent... 67 ~ ~"~City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how you do that. I don' t know how you do that. I like the idea of temporary but I don't know how you control that. I don't know if you can legally. Councilman Horn: Taat's exactly our intent with contractor's Irards. Acting Mayor Geving: I think you've heard frcm us tonight. It's getting on to 11: 30. Councilman Johnson: I don't think retail, t~mporary or otherwise, is good down there. W~ say we don't want the book store down there. I just don' t think retail is good in the A-2. You attract too much traffic. Acting Mayor Geving: Barbara, you heard from the Council tonight on some of the direction. That w~'re basically saying, Tim has done a terrific job here and you just need to fine tune it and come back to us. Thank you very much Tim. You did a good job. And I w~uld agree with Bill. I really personally like the idea of Commission members taking on a task. I've always said that people who want to take on a special assigr~ent. Clark has always had an interest in our vehicles for example. He just digs right into those. Those are special assigr~ents and I'd like to see people do that. Barbara Dacy: I also think Mr. Erhart's enthusia~ is also reflected in the Cc~mission's willingness to meet three times in July. CITY COUNCIL SALARY SURVEY. Don Ashworth: You received this from the League of Cities and basically would ask the City Council whether or not you wish to consider that at this time. If there's other infonmation that you would like to have before considering that type of change. I should note that any action that the Council would take can not become effective until after the next regular general election. Again, there is no necessity to make comparisons but I anticipated the Council would w~nt to so I-'ye included literally all size communities. I have also circled those communities that I think are closer to ourself as far as the amount of work effort that council m~mbers are required to go through. In other words, Orono may be larger but I do not believe at the current time that the total work effort of an Orono councilm~mlber is anything close to what you are going through yourselves. Acting Mayor Geving: Or at Eagan or ~den Prairie. I think ~en Prairie, they may be a lot bigger but I think in terms of the amount of effort in think in this Council probably. Anyway, go ahead Counci~rs, give us your views. Councilman Horn: I think the closest comparison we could cc~e to would be Chaska and we're right in line with them. It's my r~endation that we do not change. Councilman Boyt: I like the figures Don pulled together and I agree completely with Clark. No change. 68 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 113 ' Councilman Johnson: I'm agreeable. I think we're in line here. I really believe that we're all pretty much volunteers here working at 35 cents an hour. If we were into this for the money, we'd go flip hamburgers at ~Donalds and make more money every month. We' re not here for that purpose. I don' t turn the money back in, that's for sure. My wife finds uses for it. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess I'd have to agree. I appreciate getting the amount of detail that Don provided. I too spent some time looking at cc~parable cities and I think we fall pretty much in line with the cities that I'm familiar with. Chaska's about where we're at. Prior Lake and some of the other ccamunities and I would say that there should be no change at this time. I'm satisfied and I think we can, as a Council, let that rest for the renainder of this year ar~ this term which means that this would not bec(m~ an issue again until not this election but the following election. (kay, counci~rs? AEMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: DISCUSS CAPITAL IMPROVf24~T AND SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM. Barbara Dacy: We recc~mer~ that you support the first iten and based on the Manager's comaents, that you not participate in the second. Acting Mayor Geving: Her recommendation is to participate in the single f~mily mortgage revenue bond. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one ccaxaent on this. To me this is the best means of opening our coamunity up to people who are trying to get started in a home. Acting Mayor Geving: ~he'first ~ buyer is perfect. Councilman Boyt: It's much better than sx~ll houses on small lots. Acting Mayor Geving: I was kind of impressed actually with the dollars of the houses that they could participate in. I was very pleased at that. That kind of fits the Chanhassen housing price range that they can reach here. I agree with staff on this. If we don't have any other questions, let's move ahead on this. Do you want to make a motion Bill? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the single family mortgage revenue bond program and the City's participation in that program and do not participate in the capital improvement portion of the recc~xaendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1987 AUDIT REPORT, CITY MANAGER. DOn Ashworth: Just that if we can set up a meeting date hopefully to talk about the 1989 budget as well as what actually happened in 1987. The City Council agr~ to meet on August 8, 1988 at 7:~0, a half hour prior to the regular City Council meeting, to discuss these items. 69 114 City Council Meeting - June 27~ 1988 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.. Suk~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 70