The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 03 14M~ PI .%NHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ,/JLAR MEETING RCH 14, 1988 yor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The m~eting was opened with the edge to the Flag. [ C(t~2I~ERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving a~d Councilman Johnson S~;~FF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann O] sen, Jim Chaffee, Lori Sietse~a and Todd Gerhardt S~F ABSENT: Don Ashw~rth, City Fanager A] t( w~ .PROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to prove the agenda as presented with the following additions. Councilman .~ing wanted to discuss Dial-a-Ride and make a recommendation on a longevity srd for a former employee. Councilman Boyt ~nted to discuss the clock ~r, Heritage Park, architectural drawings a~t oil disposal. Mayor Hamilton ~ted to talk about insurance. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. C~NSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve t~ following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's r~cu~endations: b~ Resolution ~88-18: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Church Road sanitary sewer improvenents arzt authorize to negotiate change order to the Metropolitan Waste Control Oanmission. c i Approval of preliminary plat to replat 5 commercial lots into 6 commercial I lots, T.F. James Ommpany. ki Approval of CORE Application for Fishing Pier at Lake Ann Park. mi Approve Settlement for Brian Tichy. o~ Approve City Council Minutes dated February 22, 1988 ,. Approve Planning Co~mission Minutes dated February 17, 1988 I Approve Park and Recreation Cc~mission Minutes dated January 26, 1988 ; p; Approval of JUly 4th Fireworks Contract. A~i voted in favor and motion carried. C~NSENT AGENDA: (F) ~-WINCHRr$. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS OF FACT. llTfkeer Knutson: They've agreed to rework what they w~re doing and they would the opportunity to come back to you in t%D weeks so I would recom~er~ that ) be deleted and not acted upon tonight. M~yor Hamilton: l(f) then is deleted. 285 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (A) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. Councilman Geving: We have a resident here from Bluff Creek Drive and she's asked me to pull this off for a quick moment to get an idea of where that road will be moved to across from the bed and breakfast. Diane Gilbertson: I recently purchased 4 acres across from the bed and breakfast. I'd like to find out what they're going to do with the road and I see right now that the road on my side of the road is completely washed out and will have to be repaired at some point. Major repair or fill in or whatever they're going to do. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's part of the plan. There's going to be some extensive rebuilding of the road by the bed and breakfast, if that's the property you're considering. Diane Gilbertson: Are they rerouting that road? Mayor Hamilton: Not rerouting it but it is going to move to the northeast about 10 feet. Gary Warren: ..The complete road from TH 212 up to Pioneer Trail is being reconstructed or proposed to be reconstructed this year with a bitominous surface. The' area from the southern portion of the project will actually have curb and gutter, storm drainage, sewer installed to take care of the drainage problems that are out there. Because the current road ali~nt is very close to the bed and breakfast, we have proposed slight mov~ent of the road, 5 or 10 feet, the center line in that location to get it further away from that property. Diane Gilbertson: So you're moving it over on mine or no, you're an easement. Gary Warren: We are in the process of having easement documents prepared and will be meeting with the property owners to acquire the easements. Diane Gilbertson: Do you have any of this on plans or a survey or that I could see it? Gary Warren: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: I guess what I'd like to do is suggest that you call and meet with the City Engineer. It'd probably be easier than taking up the time now. Diane Gilbertson: This is all new. I got a hold of a Chanhassen newspaper yesterday and that's all I know because I'm not on any mailing lists yet. Resolution %88-17: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Plans and Specifications for Bluff Creek Drive and to authorize to advertise for bids. All voted in favor and motion carried. C o [ty Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 )NSf~T AGENDA: (D) AD~kRD OF BIDS FOR FIRE E~PABTMENT GRASS RIG2 )uncilman Horn: I'm wondering what our legal process is here. It seems to me lookirg through these bids, for very little more money we have an ~rtunity to get a heavier duty rig with much heavier duty tires on it. As I 1 ~k through the bids, I four~] out that one of the iba~s that was proposed as 1~ option on the recc~mm%ded bid, the $98.~0 was crossed out. Had that been ft in, it would have exceeded the bid for the heavier duty vehicle. I'm r~rePecering, are we obligated to take the low bid or go through a total ification again or do we have an option of saying that for a few dollars we' 11 ex~ the spec and go the heavier duty vehicle? We're talking the d~fference here between less than $10~.00. ger Knutson: Does it stay under ~ncilman Horn: Yes. ger Knutson: You're only required to get quotes and if you've asked the ~)tes from more than one person for the same thing, you're okay. You can srd the change. Cx~ncilman Horn: It just appears to me in looking through this .t~a.' t w~ 'have a g¢od opportunity to get a heavier duty vehicle with a bigger ar~ '~avi~ duty ti. res on it for very little more money. $9~.~. : . D~yor Hamilton: Was that included in the other ones Clark? was it included in or e and not the other? ,, Councilman Horn: All of them were 3/4 ton vehicles except for the one. The .se~ord lowest bid is a 1 ton vehicle as opposed to a 3/4. T~ price difference i~ like $9~.~. It's not 10 ply tires on it. Bigger tires. F~avy duty tire ar d it's a bigger vehicle. Councilman Geving: It's a good point but maybe one of the reasons ms that t~ ey wanted a ~aller grass rig. Dale Gregory: The reason, to explain that is, the vehicles are all speced out a~ 86,~ GVW. Chevrolet has to go to a 1 ton which is considered their 86,~ Gg;~;. Chevrolets, when they spec out their trucks, it's actually a 3/4 ton is only at about 82,0~ or 8M,MOM GgrW. That's why they have to bid a 1 ton just to meet the specs of a 3/4 ton. Actually the truck, the Ggr6 is still going to handle the same whether it's Ford's 3/4 ton or Chevrolet's 1 ton. mcilman Horn: So you're saying the bid fr~n Nelson-Lenzen isn't the low l? [e Gregory: No, I'm not saying there isn't that good of a bid but their lck is equivalent to Ford's 3/4 ton. When you compare the GVW's of both N=ks, a Chevrolet and a Ford, they both come out at 86,~0. ~ncilman Horn: I'm talking about the bid for a 3/4 ton Chevy Truck. You're sa~¥ing that is not a qualified bid? City Council ~k=eting - March 14, 1988 Dale Gregory: Neither one of th~n are. Both Chevrolets are P-30's which are 1 ton trucks. They've got 3/4 behind it but it's actually P-30. Both Chevrolets are actually 1 ton trucks. Councilman Horn: Okay, so we have a misprint on ours. (l~e wss quoted as a 1 ton and one as a 3/4. Dale Gregory: Right, they're both supposed to be 1 tons. It was a misprint on there. Councilman Horn: I noticed that we have a 10 ply all season radials of a larger diameter for that. What are the other tires? Dale Gregory: On the Chevrolet? Councilman Horn: No, on the recomm~ed bid. They're not speced. Councilm~n Johnson: Yes they are. Councilman Horn: No they're not. It's only size. It doesn't give you the plys. Dale Gregory: Tom Ford is an LT 235, 85-R. That's what the Ford is. Councilman Horn: Do you know the ply? This is other is quoted as a 10 ply which doesn't seem like a standard tire. It seems like a heavier duty. Dale Gregory: It's a heavier duty, yes. Councilman Horn: It seemed like for $90.00 it was probably a good buy. Resolution ~88-19: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the bid from Thurk Brothers for $14,158.00 for the Fire Department Grass Rig. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: E. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCEPT PLAN. Mayor Hamilton: The next it~n I wanted to have off was iten (e) primarily because I wanted to ask Jim and I didn't get a chance to ask him today, I forgot. It says in your recomnendation that, recognizing that time is a factor. I wasn't sure why time was a factor involved with this. Also, because after the referendum I ask talked with the City Manager at sc~e length about what our next steps ought to be in dealing with each and every one of these itens. Those that had passed ar~ those that had not passed. I don't feel that I've been answered yet. Consequently, I'm not sure what my options are or what are the Council's options are at this point in dealing with each and every one of these items. However, we can move on with the concept plan and discuss it further down the road. That was my reason for bringing this off. I feel that I have not been informed as to what our options are as a Council and where we go frcm here. I feel that I need to know that before I can start acting on individual items all of a sudden without knowing the whole picture. I want to know the whole picture. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 289 Councilman Geving: Possibly Tom we should have a work session on this whole th~ng. We didn't really havea chance to discuss it the night we met to certify the ballots but I thinkmaybe w~ should have a full work session and go through each of our thoughts on just what is our concept now. Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea and that's what I think the staff r~-~ed to put together s~me information for us on just exactly where we stand. What we need to do with those that passed. ThOse that didn' t pass. How do w~ pr~ with those that passed? That's my concern. I want to know what is available to. us and what is not. Just so the rest of the Council is aware of what my reasonirg is. I wasn't really ready to move ahead with this tonight but realizing that the concept plan is strictly a concept plan and there could be charges made at a later date, I guess I don't have a problem. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Fire Department Concept Plan as presentqd:. All voted in favor and motion carried. · ~.. - , . . ~,_.' ~.~ ~ CONS~ AGf~qDA: (G) STRATFORD RIDGE RMCREATIONAL BEACHLOT VARIASK/E - FINDINGS OF FACT. Mayor Hamilton: I also asked to have (g) off because I don't agree with the motion. I don't agree with the Findirgs of Fact. I find it difficult to believe that as a Council we can say that there is 31,0~0 some odd square feet of space available for these people to have a recreational beachlot and we're not going to allow them to have even a canoe rack or a boat or a dock or anything else. You've got 50~ feet of lakeshore. I think it's rather ludicrous so I totally disagree with our Findings of Fact and our decision. Mayor Hamilton moved for denial of the Findirgs of Facts. ~'nere was no second ar~ motion failed for lack of second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Findings of Fact dated March 10, 1988 for Stratford Ridge Recreational Beachlot Variance as presented. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and Councilman Johnson who abstained because he wasn't here for the original vote. The motion carried. ~l., CONS~ AGENDA: (H) YEAR ~D FUND CLOSINGS and (L) APPROVAL OF PL[OMBING/ HE~TI~ INSPMCTOR IN C(~~I~ WITH HEATII~ PERMIT ASD FEE SCHEDULE. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to discuss l(h) and 1(1) at the same time since they are tied together. It's ~ rec(am~ended that we close several of our funds, which I have no problem with. It's how we use the funds that I was concerned about. In particular the Plumbing and Heating Inspection on a full time basis. Again, this is an iten that I have talked to the City Ymnager about many times. I feel uncomfortable that we are now going to institute a full-time position without having reviewed all over positions within the city and looking at other jobs that I think are more important tlman this one. This could go forward on a job basis as we have ~-cn doing in the past with Hubert Forcier and I see no reaso~ why we shouldn't continue to do that process until such time as w~ have reviewed all the staff and know what our staffing ~s are for the future in City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 this city. I'm very concerned about that. Councilman Boyt: I would disagree. I actually find myself accepting your logic of reviewing the positions in the city to see what w~ need but I think we desperately need someone to carry out a qualified heating inspection. We have gone too long without that and everytime we do, it's a risk. I think we have an opportunity here to. staff this position for a year with the intent that it would continue but let's get somebody on board who can work closely with the city staff and develop the kind of relationship that we want to have with our contractors and make a commitment to this. It deserves a full commitment. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a full c(m~itment. It to be delayed until such time as we have reviewed all other positions in the city. We've been doing quite well on a per job basis with Mr. Forcier and I see no reason why that can't continue for a short period of time, like a month or so. Tnat's all I'm asking. Councilman Geving: Let's understand one thing though Tc~. Mr. Forcier is no longer available to use so your concept of having scmeone like Mr. Forcier is really what you're talking about. I kind of agree with you. I got the impression in reading my notes that we've already found an individual. Someone is working. I'm not so sure that's really the proper way of going about this. I get the direct impression that, in fact it even says it, we have researched the possibility of a mechanical inspector to carry out this and we think that we found this person. I think we need to study it and I would go along with your feelings on item 1(1). I know it's tied in with the funding but regardless of that, I would like to see us approve the funding transfers and table this particular item 1(1). Councilman Boyt: I'm not sure we can discuss an item that's tabled but I would say that number one, it is myunderstanding that we have identified an excellent person for this position. I think that going through the hiring process is going to take a bit of time but this is not a time to be fooling around with whether or not we need ~y as a heating and plumbing inspector. We all agree we need somebody. We have the possibility of an excellent candidate and I think we need to take all haste to move on this. This is not a time to step back and risk losing an excellent person while we rethink the process. Councilman Geving moved, M~yor Hamilton seconded to approve Resolution 988-20 the Year End Fund Closings as presented by the City Manager and to table the approval of the Plumbing/Heating Inspector in conjunction with the Heating Permit and Fee Schedule. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CONSENT AGENDA: (J) APPROVAL OF JULY 4TH BAND-CONTRACT. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the July 4th Band Contract as presented by the City Manager. All voted in favor and motion carried. City (buncil Meeting ' March 14~ 1988 291 CO~S~T AGENDA: (N) AOCO~ PAYABLE DATED MABC~ 14, 19882 Mayor Hamilton: I don't know what the rest of you had but a~ I was reading thZ.'ough mir~, I h_~_ 10 pages all exactly the same. I'm not sure how this happens. I don' t know if there's supposed to be 1 page or 10 pages. ~hey are all the same. I wish we could avoid that in the future. I didn't know if there was supposed to be more. Does anybody know? Barbara Dacy: Our accounts payable are handled by Jean and we'll certainly make sure that it won't happen in the future. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman ~eving seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated March 14, 1988, page 1 with the understanding that staff will find out if there were any other pages to be included. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE O3MPLIA19CE WITH CO~ITIONAL USE PEt~IT FOR A CONTRAC~f0R'S YARD, ~$. CARLSON. Mayor Hamilton: Before we go onto the next ite~ I would like to say that anyone who is here for it~n 9, it is going to be tabled. I talked with Mr. Carlson this afternoon. He requested that we Cable that item until two weeks frc~ this evening and they will be here with a different proposal. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to ~ahle 'evaluation of bu/lding · pexmit application to detennine compliance with Conditional Use Pezmit for a Contractor's Yard for Lowell Carlson. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: John PrFamm: A few weeks ago I w~s here and I proposed to have a commercial building on my recreational site out on TH 5 and CR 117. At that time the 22,000 square foot building was denied. I worked with staff and I worked with the SBA arz] the lenders and at that time I lost my financing but I 'ye come up with a 75% less in the building that will more conducive to the state hanes in that area and the agricultural zoned thing. I had a rendering of a building, what it will look like. It will be a two story hc~e. It will look the same as a ha~e. There won't be a secor~] floor in it. It will just be a 16 foot high wall on the side. I think what I need is one of the members of the council that voted against it to reinstate it so I can ccm%e back with the plans. This building would be like a 3 car attached garage and the house would be 3,000 s~e square feet so it would be like a big ha~e. If I could get someone I guees, is that what I rm~d to have a counci~r? Mayor Hamilton: You want us to reconsider the action .on your last? John Pryzmus: Reconsider with a different building and different structure. Councilman Boyt: 4,000 feet altogther? John Pryzmus: This particular one has 3,000 sc~e square feet in the house ar~ the~ I think a little less than 1,000 in the garage so it would be about 4,000. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Either Bill, Clark, Jay or Dale w~uld r~_~c-~ to make the motion to reconsider. Councilman Boyt: My concern w~s, John I don't want to send you down a financially expensive trail preparing things if it's going to be turned down in the end and I don't think you want to go there. I'm really looking to the other guys. Councilman Johnson: Do w~ need to reconsider his request because he's got a different request? Mayor Hamilton: He's asking us to reconsider the request that was turned down on whatever date so he can have it on the agenda on the 28th, is that correct? Barbara Dacy: Right. He can request a reconsideration by Council. Councilman Johnson: That would get it back to us immediately versus going back through the process? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so the reason for reconsideration is different. What's going to c~me back to us is going to be different? Barbara Dacy: Right, and the Council would still have that option at that time whether or not they would want to send that back to the Planning Commission but what he's requesting now is whether or not the Council would even consider reconsidering his original request. Councilman Johnson: I'll move to reconsider it. We have a different concept here. Considerably different than the old tezminal, truck terminal that was being brought in to be constructed on this site and used as indoor golf. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Is there further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes, there is. I just think Jay that the issue here is bigger than just shall w~ go back and take another look at this. We can look at it again and again and again. John is about to put more money into this thing and he shouldn't put another dollar into that, getting those drawings made up, if w~ don't think w~'re going to pass it so I don't think this is simply a matter of saying, well let's look at it again. I think if you vote for this thing, you're really saying that in all liklihood you're going to vote to approve it. Councilman Horn: I think too, if we're going to reconsider this we're saying that the reason we turned it down was not because of an ordinance reason ar~ a land use reason, it was because of an architectural style. All we're doing is changing an architectural style. We're not changing the intended use of this request at all. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the request by John Prym~us on his property located at tl~ northwest corner of TH 5 and CR 117. Mayor Hamilton and councilman Johnson voted in favor and councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt and councilman Geving voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. May~r Hamilton: I guess what you're hearing is that there are four people here who will not consider anything you do. com~cilman Boyt: I don't think that's my position. I just don't ~nt John to slmmxt money developing this thing unless people are actually going to vote for it. As I told John on the phone, I don't know enough about this issue John to mak~ an intelligent decision. John Pryzmus: I've cut it down 75% so all I need is for a golf pro to be there no more than 5 months a year so he has an office so he can teach indoors. Now thexe's no way I can expand it into being a big recreational cc~nercial site. So by having a m~all structure there that I can't do all this commercial stuff, that keeps in with an interim use, I thought I could possibly get at least a vote but like you say, you've already decided you're not going to vote for it anyway and the same with Clark and the same with Dale, I guess l~s, you are going to save me. I've spent a couple hundred bucks on this ~ now I w~uld have to spend another $500.0~ so ~at you are saying is you are never going to vote for it anyway and the same with Clark, as you already told me ar~ Dale said he w~uld look at s~mething but obviously he wasn't because if this wouldn't be acceptable when I already cut it down 75%...you would look at scmething but you just wanted to look at it if you're going to vote no anyway so that' s where I 'm at. Councilman Johnson: John, one thing I'm hearing frcm Clark and it's part of what I was getting at is you've got to bring s(~,ething different back. Last time you came in, if you had said you wanted video golf and indoor golf driving range and then when you got to Council you also had baseball batting ar~ other stuff tossed in. John Pryzmus: Cbviously if I can't c~me back in front of you, I've already reduced the size of the building by 75% ar~ I can't evem come back in front of you and reduce it because you won't let me even talk to you again. Like you're saying, I've already spent $2~,~.~ so I can see your consideration that you don't ~ant me to spend another $5~.0~ but I've already lost everything of the 20~. So now I know you're really worried about my $50~.~0 but you w~n't even let me c~me back ar~ talk to you. All the less, I can't obviously put in 8 batting cages and have all that. All I can have is golf pro with some nets and that's all I can have but you won't even give me that chance. Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting a little past where we ought to be here. I think John has received his answer and I think he had scme options available to ~u and that's to go back through the whole process again. Through staff, through Planning ~ission. John Prymuus: I don' t think I can. :"L~ . City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Yes you can. You just have to reconsider for batting cages and the whole works. That was what w~ just voted on. To redo the exact same thing over again. That plan doesn't count really. John Pryzmus: Staff said I had to ccme to you first. Barbara Dacy: One of his options was to come back to the Council to have it reconsidered. Another option was to refile the application. We both had discussed that issue and we felt that coming back to the Council would be the first step. He always has the option to come back at any time. Any applicant does. Councilman Horn: With a different proposal. Barbara Dacy: Scmebody can come through the process over and over again with the same thing if they so desire. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know what else to tell you John. I guess all you can do is try to convince somebody that they're making a mistake. Jack Brambilla: I'm a taxpayer in Chanhassen. I own a little piece of property down by the "Y". It's 609 Flying Cloud Drive. I have a note I want to give to each one of you people. I have two things underlined in my proposed report tonight that I'm going to bring up. It will be real quick. I have a piece of property there that I'm trying to rent out. I stood in front of this Council 11 years ago. I don't know if it's the same members or not and they authorized me under Ordinance 47-C to put a little used car operation. It took me one year through your Council to get okayed. I lost all my connections with my finances. I lost everything. I still own the property. 10 years down the road I finally own it. I pay a lot of taxes. Now I approach the City and I have a renter that wants to go into that little piece of property and put in there a nursery. Under the Ordinance 47-C, commercial greenhouses or landscaping are okay. Same property. I've been informed by Barbara that I can not put this man in there. I want to know for what reason. I've got the same property. ~ne same buildings. Everything's the same. Under item 2 it says commercial greenhouses and landscaping business okay. Why can' t I put this man right in there tomorrow and he can start his operation? If I wait two months, the landscaping business is gone. He don't need it in two months. He needs it now. Mayor Hamilton: Would you care to answer Barb? Barbara Dacy: Sure. The reason why is because that ordinance is no longer valid that you quote. Ordinance 47-C is a former ordinance. As we had talked on the phone, the City adopted a new ordinance in February of 1987. There are only five uses that are allo~sd in your district. All of them are conditional uses. I had thought as to what wa had agreed on doing is that you would suh~it an application for your client to sut~it an application for outdoor display for merchandise for sale which is a listed commercial use and I'd be happy to meet with you again and go over this. I just think we've got sc~e miscom~nication. City Council Meeting 2 March 14~ 1988 295 Mayor Hamilton: I certainly would think that staff would give every c~nsideration and the Council would so all you have to do is go through the process. Jack Brambilla: Mayor, if I go through the normal process and I was informed by Barbara, this would be about a month ar~ a half to two months before I'm even in front of you. My renter does not ~ this property tw~ months down the road. He needs it today for the greenhouse business. In 10 days when the weather breaks, he's got to be there to make it. He's got to be there or he don't n~ it. Mayor Hamilton: I understand that business and I guess I would think, if your renter was thinkirg ahead he would have ~ doirg this a long time ago if he ~ looking at your property. We have a process w~ have to go through and we can't change that. We really can't. If we change it for YOU then we charge it for everybody then there's no order to anything. It's just a process that's vexy orderly and one that has to be followed. Jack Brambilla: Again Mayor, when this was all wrote up to me 10 years ago and yo~ were on the Council at that time. Mayor Hamilton: Not 10 years ago, no. Jack Brambilla: When I received the okay to operate off that it was 10 years ago. I never received in the mail anything to charge what I already had bought ar~ now I'm just asking for what I already own. You're taking it away from me. I'%~ paid my taxes. I get nobody hour~ing ar~ knocking on my door. Now I finally get a chance to put the property to a decent use. The fellow fs going to clean it up. If you look on the one page I gave you where the City recognized that they ~mnted some landscaping done on it. They wanted me to plant some trees 10 years ago. It was a r~ation. I do have the paperwork. Now I'm going to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I would guess if you worked with the staff and went through th~ process, I'm sure we can move it through as quickly as possible. I would be willing to bet that the person who's ~anting to move in there, if it's that good of a location, he's going to stick with you ard go along with it. Jack Brambilla: Again, do I have to wait the tw~ months? Through the process here is slow. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd call Barbara tomorrow ar~ just --_--c how quickly you can move it through the process. Barbara Dacy: Maybe the Attorney can help out here too. We're dealing with State Statute reguir~nents for a public hearing for a conditional use. Jack Brambilla: When I purchased the land and I was in front of the Council, the City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin County gave me this paper and I was informed that this was what I had to abide by. I'm doing it. NOW I'm being slapped on the rear because you changed your ordinance. You never changed it with me. I was never notified. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: If you read the papers, it's in there all the time. We went through a very, very lengthy process to change our ordinances and it's up to you to keep yourself informed as well as it's up to us to try and inform the public. We make every att~npt to do that but there is sc~e notice on you to make sure that you're informed when you own property in the City to know what's happening. This was about a 2 or 3 year process we went through changing our ordinances. It was all published. There were public hearings. On and on so it wasn't as if anybody was trying to keep any information from you. We were hopeful that everybody in town was aware of it and had seen it. Jack Brambilla: Again Tom, how about if I w~uld have had the nursery in there? Would I have had to pull it out? Mayor Hamilton: No. You know that. Life never stays the same. Everything keeps changing. Jack Brambilla: Taxes go up. After I bought it was $400.00 and now it's $1,800.00 and I still can't use it. I can't believe it. Mayor Hamilton: That's why I would encourage you to w~rk with the staff and get the process acomT~lished as quickly as possible. Jack Brambilla: Is there going to be, if I tell my renter that wants to go in there, is there going to be any major dil~nas? Can I tell him he can print his literature up and get started on it? It's going to take him 30 days to set up. Mayor Hamilton: You can't do that based on anything we're doing here. Jack Brambilla: Do I have a dilen~na here when I get to this point to be turned down? Councilman Geving: I think that's the risk that you're asking yourself to take with your renter. I think, at least I'm sympathetic to what you're asking for. I don't know how the rest of the Council m~r~ers feel but it's just that you have to go through the process and I don' t know how soon you can get back here. I'm just looking at the calendar. I suspect the earliest w~uld be April llth. That would be pushing it. Mayor Hamilton: There are many things to take a look at. Traffic for one thing and ingress and egress so we can not not look at those items. Those are very important and we can't... That's a bad intersection as you know. Jack Brambilla: I went through the traffic. I went through the lighting. I went through the advertising. The sign permit. I've been in meetings over here where nobody even showed up and that's the sign cc~mnittee. They never even showed up. If this is going to be another year deal, I can't handle it. Mayor Hamilton: I would just encourage you to w~rk with Barb and I'm sure she has told you it would not be a year deal and if you are not satisfied working with here, I wish you would get in touch with me. Jack Brambilla: I can see Barbara in the morning. Thank you for your time. City Council ~eeting - March 14~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: Barb, will he ~ a DOT? Will he ~ s~mething from MnDot for access? , Barbara Dacy: He's already got an existing access. It's hard to say right Councilman Johnson: Local goverra~ent is hard enough but working with'the State is' s~mething else. Don Krueger: Gentlenen, my name is Don Krueger. I live in Chaska, Minnesota. The wife and I built, owo ar~ operate the Heritage Motel. The reason I'm here tonight, I've called planning and zoning of Chanhassen and talked to a lady by the na~e of Jo Ann. Told her what I wanted and she suggested I come to this meeting and take up a few minutes of your time to tell you. My situation is I'm not located right on the highway so I have not got the exposure I need. I'm also covered up by True Value's warehouse and buildings so people coming from the east can not see our hotel until they are past it. I have a ~mall sign at the entrance of Yellow Brick Road and that brings in scme people but it's not bringirg in enough. I guess what I'm asking, and I've talked to two landowners along TH 212 east very close to where that man's property, is and they agreed that if I got a variance and approval, I could put .up a sign o~ their property. I'm asking what procedure do I go through to get s~mething done. Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, wuuld you like to respond to this? Jo Ann Olsen: I explained to him that he would have to get the variance to the sign ordinance. He would have to go in front of the Planning Coemission and City Council and once again, they ~mnted to know whether or not that would be an acceptable proposal. I explained to them what staff's' position was likely going to be but he also wanted to hear the City Council's. Mayor Hamilton: Again, it's a process that we have in place that we need to go through which we r~ to follow the same for your case as we would for any other so you need to make application with the City. With Jo Ann or with Barbara and they would be in the office tumorrow if you would want to stop up ar~ make application for a variance to the sign p~mit. That would he your starting place and then you would be placed on the Planning Oan~ission agenda an~ then the Council ' s. PUBLIC HEARING: ~ITY DEVELO~ BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Ar.r~CATION FOR YEAR XIV. Barbara Dacy: Staff's recommendation is that for the upcoming Year XlV allocation of $32,197.00, we would mxsgest that the Council expend those monies for the South Shore Senior Center for a variety of projects which are detailed in the memo. Then, Council in the _r~a__r future would be conducting a public hearing for reallocation of the Year XIII monies which expire at th~ end of 1988. As you recall, we had designated those fur~s for handicapped access for the Community Center but given the referer~]u~ vote, that puts that project in jeopardy so in the future staff would be bringing back a public hearing request to reallocate those funds for a housing/r~ project. However again, the City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 action tonight is for Year XIV and staff is recommending that the full allocation be for the South Shore Seniors. Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple of questions. Specifically, w~ have a senior center that meets in the el~nentary school in Chanhassen once a ~=ek. I would suspect that they may have some needs that w~ may be able to use some of these funds for also. I'm curious if that had even been addressed, number one. Number two, I would be interested to know if there are other uses that w~ could put this money to rather than designating the entire amount to the South Shore Center, which would certainly be a good use. However, they have requested $15,000.00. I certainly have no problem with that. I think we could use some of these funds for other purposes within the City and I would certainly like to see us take a look at, which I have mentioned in the past. I'm not sure how many of the people from Chanhassen go to the South Shore Center. I know there are sc~e. I know there are some and I would like to know kind of on a percentage basis or in the numbers of those who go just to the Jr. High and don't go to South Shore or can't get there or something. I'm just concerned that we have two centers going here. We've done, I think a good job of funding our share of that center in the past and I think we'll continue to do that but I think there are other alternatives to be looked at for the use of these funds. It would seem to me that right now would be a good time to do that when we haven't anything real pressing, let's take a broad look at other uses that we can put some of these funds to. Councilman Geving: Tc~, I would like to cc~ent at the same time. We have ~ a big supporter of the South Shore Senior Center and I think Jo Ann will agree that we have done more than our share assisting the South Shore Seniors each year in the tune of $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 so I think we've made that attempt. We will continue to make that c~w~i~nt to the center. I too feel that we have $32,000.00 here tonight and I don't think we have discussed all the alternatives in Chanhassen. For example, one that I can see in~ediately and I hope that it can apply, we're going to be talking about the Dial-a-Ride system that w~'re going to install here in Chanhassen on April 4th. One of the big problems that seniors have is getting to the Senior Center. I'm thinking that possibly we could allocate a portion of these funds to the supplier of our transportation services so that the seniors can have pick-up/delivery. Pick-up at their home and delivered to the senior center and returned each time that they want to go to the senior center. I don't know if that's an applicable award item. Maybe you could address that Barbara. You don't have to address it tonight. The main thing is that I'm going to throw that out as a potential item because I do believe that transportation, the funding of a van for example, is not dissimilar to what I'm proposing. I would like to see s~me of these monies allocated to our own seniors here in Chanhassen and at the same time try to look at funding the seniors at the South Shore center. Barbara Dacy: I'll let the seniors address the exact percentages. It ~s my understanding that a number of them did participate in the South Shore center. In any case, to answer your second question about looking at the alternative~, r~member that the CDBG funds are tied. You have to prove, not only a benefit to low and moderate income people but there are other tests that Chanhassen in the past has had. We traditionally had a hard time meeting those tests for the Community Development Block Grant program. For example, we looked at land acquisition in the downtown area and $32,000.00 is not a substantial amount of Cif'y 2'99 Council Meeting -March 14, 1988 mol go: Jo at~ v~ fo~ Go'. t~ ho] pu~ wit ~y to carry out any type of those types of projects. We can certainly look D those options with the seniors in Chanhassen. Maybe the seniors again can .p me out here but part of their request is for a van that supposedly is lng to be provide s~me transportation services for th~n but I'm not sure ~tly what they had planned for that so maybe they can help me out. -Ann: I don't want to differentiate or say the South Shore Seniors and the ~n Seniors. The South Shore Senior Center is for and has at least 25% of the endance from Chanhassen I would say. However, I can not ever count. It's y difficult to locate where people live due to their zip codes. Everybody .ls you they live in Excelsior, 55331. We get scme Chan who live at 55317 it's an extremely difficult task. The seniors that meet here in Chanhassen y do not have a senior center. They have a senior club that mccts once a ~k and they have pot luck or whatever and it's a very valuable social tool them. I would never say anything to the contrary. The South Shore Senior ter offers many, many things that a senior can not get on a w~ekly basis. ng and eating and playing cards so I don't really think you can equate the · Now the van that we're asking the $5,~00.0~ for, our agency wrote and eived a grant from MnDot for a new van that we heard about last spring. We ~ we'll get it within a year. We ~ to come up with a $5,~0.~0 match. t's their reguir~ment and when Barbara called ar~ talked about C~BG fur~]s where might we use ~, that's one of the things that we thought we could the money to good use. That van picks people up in Chanhassen. It does go to Chaska and many of your people who live within the downtown area of nhassen do not come to the South Shore Senior Center. They are very happy h their w~ekly outing. Going to their club meetings. However, we have many ex~tePle who live in Chanhassen further out TH 7 ar~ so on, that come to that r. The other money that I think we requested when Barbara said there ~ms a money was to be put to use for a possible study of what we're going to do in l the next 3 to 5 years when the school district is going to tear down the old Se.~ior High School. So we thought that might be a good way to use the funding. · Ma]for Hamilton: I think that we probably have the same concern here that when the old High School is torn down, we may be looking at wanting to have a senior center similar to that in Chanhassen someplace. Not necessarily in downtown but s=~fnere within the commmity so it would be a good opportunity to use s~ of those funds for exactly the same study from our perspective. ~hat ha~oens_ _ if South Shore has changed it's location or when the school is gone so I ~ould like to ~ us allow the $15,~0.00 of the CDBG funds to go to the So~th Shore Senior Center and just hold off on the r~aining $17,197.0~ until su(~h time as staff has had an opportunity to research additional opportunities for us to use those funds. Whether it's to do a study for or with South Shore on~ their center, with one in Chanhassen or some other item that we're not re~.lly aware of at this time. Jo .Ann: Can I say just one more thing? I w~uld hope that if a center ever ca~ to be out in this commanity, that it would not just be a Cb~3nhassen center bu~ that it would be a combined effort of the unities that we're working with no~. I really feel that that would be a very, very thing for this commnnity. [ Mayor Hamilton: I think that's the approach that we have always taken. That i tls not the Chanhassen Center. That South Shore is not Excelsior or ~ssen or anybody else. It's a combination of 5 or 6 c0m~unities and it's ; City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 always fun to go there to have breakfast with the wonderful people up there and to see the other people ~rcm the other ~nities. It really is. Councilman Geving: Before w~ vote on that, is $15,000.00 sufficient for you now to move ahead Jo Ann? The Mayor has made a reconmendation and a motion. Jo Ann: I believe that would cover the initial request which was $6,000.00 something. Councilman Geving: $6,668.00. Jo Ann: And the van. ~hat would not leave much over for a study but... Mayor Hamilton: There would be a little excess there and realizing that there's also an additional $17,197.00 that we need to dispose of here in the near future and some of that may also be passed onto the South Shore. Councilman Boyt: I agree that the $6,668.00 portion of the salary for the Center Coordinator should be given to the South Shore Senior Center for all the reasons we've mentioned. I think that when it c~mes to the van, if we're providing roughly 25% of the attendance in the senior center, it's reasonable to provide 25% of the amount of money for the van. I'm a bit surprised that we haven't involved the co~munitymore in c~ming up with other ideas for how we will spend this money. ~ know that we're going to have the opportunity every year. Just quickly glancing through it, I came up with one that the Public Safety C(m~ission has been discussing at some length and that other con, unities have had funded, a civil defense siren. There's a pretty strong feeling by s~me parts of the community that they would like to have a civil defense siren cover their area that's not now covered. I think the cost for that is $12,000.00. Jim Chaffee had that figure but it looks as though he might have left. I would suggest that that could cover $12,000.00 of the money. A couple of other quick possibilities. I think that we should approach the possibility of a neighborhood clean-up. Since rehabilitation is one of the accepted uses for this money, the City could provide an advertising effort and s~me trucks to go around and pick-upwhatever people have in their yard that they want to get rid of. I think that would be a benefit-to the whole co~unity. There are several other items but those are an example. I think when it cc~es to the senior citizen center, we certainly want to participate. I think we should do our fair share but I don't think we should do a great deal more than our fair share because it takes away fr(x~ other worthy projects. Councilman Horn: I was a little disappointed when I went through this list of the other cities and their projects, that we didn't see th~m~ all because they seemed to have a lot of good ideas in there. In fact, many of them are related to transportation. Sewer and water connections and things like that. I would be relunctant to go along with an~ore than the basic request this evening until we've had a chance to study just what our options are in those areas. Some possibilities might be some continued funding of our coalitions and that type of thing but again, we don't know what the options are and I'd like to just agree with Bill that we make the minimum com~i~t tonight until we know what our options are. COl fe pr~ ev~ .. Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ~ilman Johnson: I support the Mayor's motion, to tell you the truth. I nk it puts out to a very vieal part of our c~mmmnity, our seniors, which :e is a very large group of. I was surprised when I went to the Senior ~_r the 'couple times I've ~n there and how many folks from Chanhassem were re and they actually knew they lived in Chanhassen. It's a great little ter. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have s__~e__= housing problems ~ng up in a couple years because that's really going to be a real probl~ I forest_ a probl~ for a senior center for our seniors and w~ should put .~y that way to help solve those problems our seniors are going to have in a years. I support the $15,00~.00 at this time and I also think it's a good m to hold back and take a broader look at the hotel and all these other ~ects that it can be used for. I think Tom's come up with a good fair split ~ will i~mediately start helping our seniors and hold back some for =ything else. MaWr Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. I iioclution ~88-21A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to ate $15,g00.gg of the ~ity Develo~nent Block Grant Funds for the Year to the South Shore Senior Center. The re~aining $17,197.gg shall be allocated at a future mac_ting after staff has researched additional opportunities for these funds. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Co~un~ilman Horn who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. [ · PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF E~ISTING SANITARY Sf~ER EAS~ LOCATED ON LOTS 1 A~2, CHAD[l% ADDITION, BUILDING BLOCK DAYCARE, HERB MASON AND ROGER PAULY. MaWr Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Co~ncilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. AlL voted in favor and motion carried. .. olution ~88-22: Mayor moved, Horn to approve Hamilton ation Request 988-2 of the existing sanitary sewer easement located on Lots 1 ~nd 2, CHADDA ~ddition, Building Block Daycare Herb Mason and Roger Pauly's property. All voted in favor and motion carried[ , ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY. , Ma~or Hamilton: I think we've all had an oppor~ity to read all of the ormation and comments that have gone on about this project. It's ~ to us ore so we're not unfamiliar with it. I know there are several of you here s evening who may wish to rake c(mm~ents but we'll have a brief staff report then we'll entertain cc~men~ frcm the public. BUll Engelhardt: I'm here tonight to present the feasibility study for Teton e Just to briefly update you. This is the Centex Project Phase 1 which is construction. Phase 2 to explain why the feasibility study was done was City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 to try and find a third access for the 2nd phase so that would eliminate the long cul-de-sac. Three alternatives were studied. Alternative #1 was a overview of the project in upgrading Teton Lane, an existing gravel road, to a private drive. Alternate #1 was looked at as a sole develo~x~ent section for illustrative purposes only. We' did go through and run numbers to determine assessments for sanitary sewer and water, curb and gutter and the full depth street section. Alternate %1 then would utilize the existing right-of-way of Teton Lane plus an additional 17 feet of right-of-way that would have to be acquired from the Donovan property and the full street section would be constructed. I won't go into a lot of detail. I've got some drawings on sanitary sewer. ~ne sanitary sewer was in this basic al igr~ent. Put the watermain also in connection into Road G. Alternate %2 was an interim method we felt that would provide adequate traffic patterns for the Centex develolanent. It was proposed that existing Teton Lane would be paved. There would be some minor regrading and reshaping and the drainage would be controlled with bituminous berms versus concrete curb and gutter. The ultimate section or the Alternate %1 would only be constructed when the adjacent property owners determine that they would like to develop and it's been made very clear in all the homeowner meetings that, at least in the case of Mr. Donovan, that he is not desiring to do any kind of developing and he can speak to that issue himself but it was made very clear that he was not interested in doing any development. The Alternate %2 cost was proposed to be directly assessed or put back against the Phase 2 development of Centex. We felt it was a direct benefit to the developer versus any of these people already have access to the roadway and then to CR 17. ~ne third alternate Was a cc~pletely separate alternate. A Way from Teton Lane was providing a connection to CR 17 via the city property. Centex development would lose one lot in there but we felt that there were s~me land exchanges that could take place and this Was a viable alternative and that would completely eliminate the use of Teton Lane as a roadway except for a small portion of it where Mr. Natoli would have access onto what we call Road G, to utilize the alternate to CR 17 as an ingress/egress. The Ware property accesses through the Pickard property through an easenent to Lilac Lane and the Pickard property accesses to Lilac Lane. The Donovan property, they access onto Lilac Lane in this area. If you'd like I could go into the costs a little bit and s(m%e of the details of the assessments or if you want we could just open it up to questioning. Mayor Hamilton: The costs seem to speak for thsmselves. I don't know if the rest of the Council wants to rehash then or not. I don't think it's necessary. Councilman Geving: I think the letter of March 10th is very important to this whole process. The letter from Centex. Maybe you could address that. Bill Engelhardt: I haven't seen that one. I didn't hear anything. Gary Warren: We got that at the last minute when the staff reports w~nt out. Any specific part of that Dale? Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure that the homeowners are even aware that this letter is in existence. Are the homeowners aware of this? Donna Pickard: Yes, we got a copy of it today. Ci :y (~ouncil M~eting - March 14, 1988 mcilman Geving: The reason I ask that this be highlighted is because this a little bit different scenario than what was presented at the h~eowners .~tings with ~ on the 9th. As I read this now, Atlernate %1, 2 and 3, :ticularly in Alternate %2, as I understand it, w~uld the Centex Develo~ :potation agree to pick up all of these costs in Alternate %2? Warren: That was a proposal that t~ w~uld do the... uncilman Geving: And they agr~ to that, is that correct? Warren: From what I understand, yes. We don't have anything in writing. ilman Geving: Because it se~s to me the number one fear that I read tl~oughout the Minutes of your meeting was the people and their concern for any a.,~essments for the improvement of using Alternate %2. ~ ~y Warren: There was a lot of discussion to explain Alternate %1 and %2. T~ ere ~s confusion as to what Alternate %1 was and they were looking at the a~ sessments as they relate to Alternate %1. We explained that that was sort of a base start. That Alternate %2 was not assessable the way it was set up. uncilman Geving: Did you show all of the h~meown~s your su~ of costs the feasibility on page 3 for Alternate %1, 2 and 3 so they were totally re? y Warren: They have a complete copy of the feasibility study. yor Hamilton: So w~ don't need any addition] financial information, I don't ieve. Do you have anything else Bill that you would like to say? B [11 Engelhardt: No, unless you have s~me questions that you want me to dig il ~to, I' 11 do that but like I said, everyone se~s to be pretty aware of it. W~'ve had t~ homeowners meetings. We've had very good participation ar~ they w ~xe excellent meetings. We had s~me back and forth cc~x~en~ and it worked out r. al well. ~yor Hamilton: Do Centex representatives have any c~m~nts they would like to lke? i~~B°yce: I would, for the most part, I think our letter more or less rizes our position. Alternative %3, we did take a little closer look at ain this afternoon ourselves. I guess one of the other ~rns we would with Alternative %3 is that the improv~nents for ~3 don't put in sanitary or watermain thus one of the questions I would.. . ayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. I'm not sure that b~ ~ clearly ~entified yet. I know there are ~ residents here that would like to make m~ c~ents. If you would, if you have something that's new that we haven't ~rd to this point or if there is one person who is going to speak for a group you, I would be more than happy to listen. To have you speak and tell us .~at it is that your concerns are. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Florence Natoli: We are the most important people on this. We are the terrible Natolis. Because of us, you've got a problem. ~nere's one question which I asked at the meeting two weeks ago ar~ it says that the rights to Teton Lane, to the property owners abutting Teton Lane at cost. Now what does that mean? What is this at cost that Centex was going to give the land back to the people living on the road, at cost? Gary Warren: It's one of the steps that has to be established. I guess right now the only thing w~ know is that Centex has a purchase agreement for the property at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 which includes some other work for Carlson out there. We don't know what the extra cost is on that. That's scmething that through these purchase agreements and such, will have to be arrived at. It will be sc~%at less than let's say $35,000.00. Florence Natoli: Can you force us to buy that road if w~ do not want to buy the road? Gary Warren: If we would do a 429 Assessment Project for example, that was acceptable, the City could put assessments against the property. Florence Natoli: Tnank you, that was what I wanted to know. Donna Pickard: I live on the corner of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. I guess, were you the one I was talking about the assessments? The neighborhood understands that Centex was going to pick up the full cost frc~ Alternative 92 and that ~1 was, the way it was presented was that it was presented with the assessments. The thing that we're concerned about is that the road, if #2, if that was selected, we are worried that that road would not last. I guess the life of the road is estimated at 5 to 10 years and that the traffic c~ming from the development would then determine that the road would be made a full develol~ent and that the neighbors would be assessed for improv~ents that do not benefit the people who live on the roads at all. While we understood the clarifications between ~1 and #2, we were worried that we would have to end up doing 91 anyway, even if #2 were to be selected now. I think there are the few of us who do live right on the road would be willing to buy the road at a reasonable cost if that were to happen but we would also like that to be determined. Jim Donovan: I'm on the east side of the road there, the majority part of the property. My question is, after reading the Centex letter here, first of all the last paragraph where they sort of try to hold a loaded gun to the whole project. I don't believe that for one minute because they've invested too much money in the project as it is right now. They're not going to pull out because of not getting their way in it. They'll do it. That's not a feasible and a reasonable stat~nent to make in the letter. I hope that the Council realizes that. Secondly, on Alternative 93, the first paragraph states there that it's least acceptable to Centex because no provision is made for assessing any benefitted landowner other than Centex. Well, as been's stated before, none of the land adjacent to that property is going to benefit from a upgrading of that property into a 2 inch blacktop road anyway. We use that road, or the other people use the road now as is. They don't need it to be blacktopped. The trips that are made per day on that road, right now the road handles very easily. With the Curry Farm Develol~ment going in there, there will be Ci~ Council Meeting - March 141 1988 1" ap~oximately as in your notes there, showing approximately 215 trips a day wh'_l~h would be 90% of that, 90% to 95% of that would be fr~m Curry Farms traffic itself. They would be the beneficiaries of this road. Not the people who: currently have property immediately adjacent so that commm~t in the Centex letter is not correct. We are not the beneficiaries of that road. It is Curry Faz ~ no matter how you want to state it. I think that the Council should take iht consideration that that road itself, as it stands right now, is more than ad~ guate for the needs of the people who use the road right now. We don't ~ it blacktopped. We don't ~ it to be used by Curry Farms people and a 5 to 10 ,ear use, I don't believe that that road would last 5 to 10 years with tru ~ks, moving trucks, things like that, going over that blacktop road. 5 to 10 ,ears is not a reasonable estimate for the lifetime of that type of road. A 2 ] ~h blacktop road. With 215 trips a day, it would never last 5 to 10 years wit ~ our thawing and freezing that we have here. I believe that that's not a re~ sonable estimate to make. Therefore, that would then become a public road and as such, a public road would mean that the people imm~iately adjacent to tl~ t road would be taxed to have it upgraded onoe again either by storm sewer, water, whatever it might be there. We then, not benefitting from this road once again and Curry Farms benefitting from it, we would be the ones who would be Ipaying for the cost of this rather than Curry Farms. Now if Curry Farms wa~.ts to pay for the entire cost of that right now to upgrade it to a full t ' that's a different story, to make it last but as it stands right now, road would not last. We would not benefit. I think this letter that d~." Farms sent that I've just ~ today, I just received in my mail tonight, not really show a true picture of what the story is. La~ry Kerber: I'm sure Alternative %3 does satisfy the Teton Lane ar~ Lilac copeople. It does nothing for me. It makes my situation worse. These le, if Alternative %3 is passed, they are allowed to buy total privacy for st of whatever they have to pay for that road easement back. Now I had o.b~ections to the street to the south of me. No one came up with a plan like th~s to offer me total privacy or to buy my way out or a relocation of the street. Alternative %3 is allowing the~ to do that. I would like to be given th~ same opportunity and I'm not. Alternative %3 does not give me an access_to my Iproperty unless I can buy the land that borders the road to the south of it. So {the Alternative %3 is not going to help my access probl~. Now if Alternative %3 is selected, there's a road to the north of me. ~%ere's already a ~oad that goes to the south of me. In checking with Carver County, I found ou~I can get no further access to my property. I'm bound now by what I've _got thee so I'm sitting with a piece of property with no further access out. The on/y my I can get an access, like I said, is to buy the land to the south of Al~ernative %3 and then, that would only solve access for a little sliver of my la~, existing land, across that creek that runs through it. It does nothing totthe other 2 1/2 acres of my property. Another point I'd like to make is, I th~nk it's point 10 on the proposal there, that if you do select Alternative %~3i this be changed. The cost of that road, if it does go through, should not assessed to the abutting properties. It should be a direct developer's cost lille the rest of the road costs are in the develolz~ent. If we go up there we c~u see Road H or whatever it is, I don't think Jim Donovan is being assessed fo] that now nor is Stu Remer who is benefitting nor is Richard Carlson, Franco or anybody else. It's a developers costs. Likewise that road going in is a d~ieloper's cost. The property as it sits, the City property, does not need t/~ ~t road. It can access directly to CR 17 so I Would really like to see that . City Council Meeting - March 141 1988 changed to be a developer's cost and not assessed to the abutting properties. Mr. Natoli: What I want to know is who is responsible for filling in the potholes on Teton Lane and who can w~ force to do it? The guy that owns it or s~mebody else? There are holes in that road right now that my car is hitting bottom. You can't miss them there are so many of them. You can' t go around ~ except unless you can go out in the fields sc~ewhere and you can't do that so I want to know who w~ can force to fix that road. Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue we're dealing with right now and I would ask that you would talk to our City fl~gineer and that he will answer that question for you. Mr. Natoli: It's an issue to me because I live right on Teton and I'm the guy who uses it. I have no way in and out except going over the holes. Mayor Hamilton: I realize that so Gary, if you'd give him a call tomorrow. Councilman Geving: It's not a city street. Gary Warren: It' s owned by Carlson. Paul Shervold: I represent Larry Kerber. Presently his property on the north is low and there is a culvert under CR 17. Now the water that's in~ediately to the west of there, there is a dike. The water is ponded there. It now causes damage to Kerber's property. Any additional develolmlent of this area, whichever alternative you choose, will only increase the damage to the Kerber property. As recently as a couple of weeks ago the water froze and ponded on Mr. Kerber's area, on his land and it will continue to do so for the rest of time and I would ask that you bear that in mind when you develop this area because it is not a proper disposal system made at this time. This was explained as long ago as last September with a meeting with your City Engineer and a person from Centex, a couple of people from Centex, that there would be probl~ with water and there presently is. This will only be aggravated, not ameliorated by your development of this area. I'd ask you to bear that in mind. Councilman Boyt: One question I have is, we talk about Alternative 93 would mean the losing of Lot 15. What's the value of Lot 157 Tom Boyce: The market value? Councilman Boyt: Yes. T~m Boyce: $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. Councilman Boyt: So when we look at real costs of Alternative 93, it's conceivable that we would add $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 to that? Tc~ Boyce: Plus I think in cost factors for a watermain in the road which we've estimated in our office at another $30,000.00. Plus property both north and south would depreciate... I' I' · Ci.~ Council Meeting ' March 14~ 1988 .i I: Cou Cou Alt I iss de~ t~ ro~ Warren: The watermain basically abuts the property all along CR 17. [tary sewer comes through the Kerber property on the south side so it's not far away fr~n that. ~ilman Boyt: So you're thinking $3g,ggg.gg... Warren: I'd say that's pretty excessive. ~ilman Boyt: We have a potential then of adding maybe $6g,ggfl.gg to ~rnative 93 which begins to make Alternative 91 look good in terms of cost. m interested to _,-~c how this works out Mr. Mayor. There are enough ~s on both sides of the situation it seams. As I understand it, the ,~loper agrees to pay all costs of Alternative ~2. That one of the questions k se~ms to be raised about Alternative ~2 is the life expec~ of the ]. It se~ns to me the engir~ring study said 10 years. How does this %oare with the typical urban section of road? ,. Ga.~ Warren: I guess we would hope to get 15+ years out of a typical urban se~. ion. !. Co .~Cilman Boyt: Could you tell me what the difference is? What gives us 15 wh~re you expect 10 here? Ga~ Warren: Basically we're not proposing to go in on Teton Lane and do any majt.~r sub-base correction work. Grade it out, cc~ it, put it a 2 ir~h bi,ruinous lift on it versus a 3 inch, for example for a standard urban section o Co .:.~cilman Boyt: If we did that, didn't put in the concrete curb but we put in a $inch asphalt base, what would that do to the cost of Alternative 927 Ga~ Warren: Increase ~. -, Bill" E~gelhardt: I don't think the difference ~n a 2 inch mat and a 3 inch mat, you' re probably talking in that stretch maybe $5, ~0~. ~ at the most. I' Co% ncilman Boyt: What kind of life expectancy are we talking about with the 3 in h mat? .. Bi !1 Engelhardt: The key is not necessarily the thickness of the mat but it's tl~ depth of your rock base. If you 2 inch or 3 inches, we'd still be using tl~ standard section of 10 inches of rock base in the city standard section arid tt~ t's the key to the whole thing. Getting 5 years or 10 years, if you s~ lcoat it every 3 years, you might stretch that life out 15 years. So the blacktop thickness is not the key, it's the depth of the rock base. If we put a ~afficient rock base in it so the 2 inches or 3 inches doesn't make any difference. Co.~cilman Boyt: Then let's start with the rock base. If we put a sufficient ro~k base in, then are we approaching the cost of Alternative ~17 Is that the he~r; t of Atlernative 91's cost? , City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Bill Engelhardt: The heart of Alternative 91 is also curb and gutter. ~nat's very expensive. You're talking about a wider road. You're going out to the full width of a typical urban section. Councilman Boyt: Let me propose an alternative then that has a 33 foot wide road with the full gravel base that you're talking about and the 3 inch asphalt but an asphalt curb. Give me a feel for the cost of that. Bill Engelhardt: It's going to be essentially the same as what we're proposing with the 2 inch. You're talking very few dollars extra because of that 1 inch thickness. Councilman Boyt: I'm not on the 1 inch of asphalt. I'm on the 10 inches of rock underneath it. Bill Engelhardt: But what I'm saying is, in the proposal that 10 inches of rock is in there. Councilman Boyt: In Alternative 92? Bill Engelhardt: In Alternative 92, yes. Councilman Boyt: So we have the full rock base we're looking at for a regular city street so the only difference we're talking about is another inch of asphalt really and that's a $5,000.00 cost. Gary Warren: And the width is less. Councilman Boyt: So we narrow the road and we get about the typical city life expectancy for a road for $39,000.00 to $40,000.00. Gary Warren: Tnat's about it. Plus we're not improving anything on Lilac. Councilman Boyt: Given that and where the City of Shorewood is coming from, they say they like Alternative 93, I would be interested in the neighborhood's reaction if one of their concerns is Teton Lane not being built to city standard, if we build it to a city life expectancy standard, does it then becc~e an acceptable alternative? Donna Pickard: I don't like you using our neighborhood as an access point to a development that's easily, I don't know how far away it is but it's just a development in our neighborhood. It is a develolm~ent down the road that is using Teton Lane only because of cost and ease. It's an existing dirt road. They don't have to do anything major but throw on an asphalt mat on. It's easy for them to do and I just feel kind of cheated that because of our location, that's why they're using it. They're not using it for any other reason. Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Pickard, then what you're telling me is that the key issue for you is not the life expectancy of the road but the increase in the traffic? Donna Pickard: Not only that. I'm on the corner so now am I going to have to bear future assessments on Teton, if there are any and by your definition your City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ,lng with this improved roadway .... but Lilac Lane is not a very good road this point ar~ t~ w~uld have to possibly, Shorewood or Chanhassen w~uld ~sibly have to, on that side, put an addition so w~'re looking at double ~ncilman Boyt: You're telling me it's not the road surface. It's not the ~ssments. It' s the traffic. [. Dol~a Pickard: It's not primarily the assessments, it's also the traffic. Su :e, I've got t~) toddlers, I don't want to have cars zipping down. You can pu' 30 mph posted on that highway there but you know they're going to zip down th ~re going 40. .. Co~incilman Boyt: I understamd. I'm just trying to get straight on your issue. Do~x~a Pickard: That's my issue. The other ~ers may have other issues. · Co.~.ncilman Boyt: Then I would gather that even if w~ included sc~e sort of up~r~i~ to the road surface of Teto~ ar~ added another $10,000.00 or $1~,000.00 for that, w~'re still talking about $55,000.00 to $60,00~.00, takes ca~e of the road in terms of buildirg it -' to an acceptable like expectancy. i. Coo~kncilman Horn: I support that alternative also. My major reason for that is I ~on't necessarily see it as the easiest access but I see it as the only r~le access fr~m this develolm~nt. If w~ put in Alternative 93, we've in effect precluded any rights that the Kerber property has with access onto CR 17t Besides that I think we have to try in all cases to try to minimize our nu~mer of accesses. Whether they County dictates ~ to us or not, it's only prudent traffic manag~aent to do that so I would support a modification to Al'.~ernative #2 to make the road more substantial. ,.. Co~ncilman Geving: This is a difficult situation. I've probably spent more ti~e on this issue, as we all did on it over the weekend, than we normally do on?any one single item when we have 16 or 17 it~ns to discuss. I really had to go l to the site twice over the weekend and once eve~ this afternoon one more ti~e to look at the potential for Alternative ~3. I haven't been out to your pl~e for a while Larry but you've got quite a few more neighbors now than you ha~ a couple of months ago when I drove out there. The road that's on the so~.th side of your hcme has certainly impacted on your develolmment there. wa~ looking at where that potential alternate road ~3 would ccme in, the Alternate #3 to the north of you, and of course that w~uld completely landlock yo~ with a road on the north and a road on the south. Probably prohibit you foX_ever of gettirg other access to CR 17, if you ever wanted to do anything wi~h your 2 1/2 to 3 acres there. I was looking at the trees to the north of yo~amd I noticed that Alternate 93 happens to be a fairly heavily wooded area. We~d be taking a n~xber of trees to put that road in and that kind of tur~ me against that alternative. I have a number of c~aments but it se~ms to me in lo~king at the neighbors concerns in the Minutes that I was able to read, they se%m to be very concerned about cost, potential cost for any assessments is A1 _.~rnate ~1 or #2 were to be selected. The more I looked at all of our a_l_ i.d.S_r_ natives, I too kir~ of came to the conclusion that I didn't like Alternate ~3 [for a number of reasons and just how far to take this Alternate $2 led me to ,. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 believe that if w~ did a substantial amount of roadwork, building up the base and the contractor now has agreed to pick up these costs which alleviates the homeowner's concerns, I don't believe w~ would be adding a whole lot of new traffic onto Teton Lane. Most of the people who are going to be using an improved Teton Lane would be the 7 hcmeowners that presently live there and I suspect some of the new people frcm the Curry development certainly would come out that direction but Lilac Lane isn't the best road in the world either. My feeling is they would probably drive south and come out south of Kerber's property there and come out to CR 17 if that was the direction they w~re heading. I think we're looking at what I'll term to be an intermediate solution to a very long range problem. Nothing ever stays the same as it was 10 years ago and if we could predict that this road could go in and we could upgrade Teton and it would last 10 years, that's about all we ever get out of any street in Chanhassen and I 'ye lived here 22 years. So 10 years is a pretty good lifetime cycle for any street. If we could do it at a cost that w~uld be minimal to the homeowners ar~ looking ahead to what may happen to Mr. Donovan's property or the Ware's, the Natoli's, we all understand that things change. Places where I never thought there would be homes have homes on tbsm today. Larry Kerber can tell you that 2 years ago he looked across his pasture and Rosilee Dodd had horses on top of the hill. It's changed a lot so in 10 years I could see sc~e of these 7 homeowners selling and redeveloping their properties. I'm looking at the potential for you to have the least amount of impact and still have the kind of street that Mr. Natoli talked about earlier. Certainly one that he could drive on without hitting his car in the ditches and bumps. Now I'd have to assume, if we were to take Alternate $2, the City would take this over as a public street. Is that correct Gary?. Gary Warren: If it was brought up to our standards. Councilman Geving: We bring it up to standards. We would take it over as a public street and then we would maintain it frcm that time on and it would still be meeting all of our rural standard for that roadbed. Gary Warren: It's actually in the urban service area so concrete curb and gutter is our standard for the urban roadway. Councilman Geving: Would that go in there? You don't have room for it. Gary Warren: The discussion we've had now is some compromise with bituminous curb. Councilman Geving: I can see that compromise would be a very fair one at this time because in the future if the land does develop, I suspect that would be the next thing we'd do. Thinking in terms of sewer and water and upgrading the entire roadbed. I am very much in favor of Alternate $2 for a number of the reasons I've stated. I still believe it alleviates the h~meowner's concerns. We will get 10 years wear and tear on this road. It's the best alternative that I can see in the three that's been presented by the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: This is probably the toughest issue for the night. I see Alternate $3 as the developer taking care of his own problem his own way. Not his own way but not affecting other people. He affects the city of Chanhassen property there. He has some effect on Larry Kerber. Alternate $2 though, from Ci'~ Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 u~ ar~ wi~ to st! if or~ set feeling o~ a public safety sta~point provides for slightly shorter ~de-sac distances on Road H there but probably about equal if not slightly ]er for Road G. Actually it does provide t~D different ways to get into ] G better than Alternate ~3 would because Alternate ~3, you're dependent ~ Road E to get you into Road G. Now you have Teton Lane to get to Road G Road E which is a plus for me for Alternate ~2. I~qat's also interesting ~ this one is later on tonight we're going .to theoretically approve a change another ordinance that would say Alternate ~2 wouldn't be allowed. That any ~ within the urban service area has to be to full city standards. I guess ~'re going to do Alternate ~2, we better do it before we change the ~nance a little later on tonight which to me doesn't make a whole lot of ~e either. I do believe that your cost estimates don't include the ,~.~ for 12 inches of subgrade on Alternate ~2 that they do on Alternate #1 ~o if we do the subgrade corrections putting in 12 inches of modified Class V ~ about $12,800.0~ more dollars. We're probably pushing up into the upper 2~S to do Alternate ~2. Is there a possibility of leaving a strip of outlot, v._e~ thin along the edge of the road to where the property owner on 2 is Curry Hi .~ls? You give yourself a 50 foot strip of land to put a 28 foot road in ge~e~ rally. Gau~j{ Warren: We only have 33 feet in Teton Lane right' now. Co ,~pcilman Johnson: How wide were yo~ going to put Alternate ~27 Co~Dcilman Geving: 33 feet. ,. C,o,~.~il.man Jotmson: t~. ,.. CoUncilman Geving: That's all we've got. CounCilman Johnson: Is the road going to go edge to edge? Councilman Johnson: How wide is the road? .. Bi1~1 Engelhardt: It's roughly 22 to 23 feet wide but we build within that 33 fo0~ strip. Just center it within the 33 foot strip. Co~pcilman Johnson: So the City would own property on either side of that 33 foo~., strip which is the normal boulevard? '; Ga~ Warren: It would be less than a normal boulevard. Councilman Johnson: What's a nonmal city street, concrete width? .. wi~ Warren: We' re 28 feet gutter line to gutter line. 31 feet back to back curb. .: .. Co ..upcilman Johnson: So we're going to have a 5 foot narrower road? .G~ Warren: It's the same issue with Church Road where there's a 33 foot rig.~t-of-way and we're asking for 17 additional feet so we can have more than 1 City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 foot on each side of the back of the curb. Councilman Johnson: But what we're planning on building here is a 25 foot road for 210 cars a day that's narrower than most other streets in the City. I don't like to throw another halfway done street in and I guess in order to do it, we have to buy 17 foot of property from Mr. Donovan to put the right street in there. Is that what we're looking at here? Gary Warren: We w~uld like to obviously have a 50 foot right-of-way consistent with our standards. Councilman Johnson: What w~uld it cost to put the normal 28 foot wide street in there? Gary Warren: Alternate #1 basically, $40,000.00 plus road cost is the total urban section with curb and gutter. Councilman Johnson: Ar~ the cost estimate curb was $8,400.00, curb and gutter, so we did the bituminous curb for a couple thousand than we're at $30,000.00 to $28,000.00 road cost to put a 28 foot section in this 33 foot area with asphalt. That gives us a road that's safe, not just durable. We need the width in the road to be safe also because people are going to be walking on that road, on the edge of the road, whatever, just as well as any other place. The long and the short of it is, there's a lot of problems with using Teton Lane. I prefer to solve their problems internally and use Alternate #3. The water co~es off of CR 17 and the sewer off CR 17, he doesn't have those problems. Unfortunately that does something to Larry but it doesn't create another substandard road in this City. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on the property to the north of Road E. Has Centex purchased all of the Richard Carlson property that shows on our map as the exception? You have not purchased that? It se~s like you could do a lot of people a big favor if you purchased that. The Shakelton, Cameron, Bransell and the Winsor property, most of which is for sale. ~ne road al igr~ent could be changed considerably and that whole area could be developed and cleaned up a tremendous amount. Tc~ Boyce: We looked at that at one time and basically 'the prices were astronomical. Mr. Carlson wanted in the neighborhood of around $200,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: What about the Bransell and Cameron and the Winsor property? I know all or parts of that are for sale right now. T~m Boyce: Tnere's one house for sale on the lot. We looked at that at one time. If you put th~m all together, they ended up being $400,000.00 to tear everything down. We just couldn'tmake sense of it. We looked at the City property at the same time. It also gets very hilly and wooded back in there. I think development costs in addition to tearing things off and tearing houses down would add s~me value. Mayor Hamilton: That was my first thought that there couldn't be sc~e way that land could be purchased and be made a part of the Centex develo~ent. That would certainly clean up that entire area, which r_~s to be cleaned up. It's Ci Council ~ting - March 14, 1988 · ! all fa% fa% hi., a fl( st] Ga] ess back there. I see this very similar to the Fneasant Hills subdivision re the road goirg through Pheasant Hills 4th Addition and out to Yosemite not been approved by the Council. It's exactly the same situation as this, _-cl. Develolmm~nt attempting to drive a road through a residential area that ~ently exists and the neighborhood doesn't want it. I'm certainly not in or of using Teton at this time for the Ce~ develoimment. I guess I .en't seen a good alternative but I 'm certainly not in favor of trying to s up Larry's property anymore than it already has ~n. But I'm not in Or of running the traffic down Teton, forcing Mr. Donovan to sell part of property that he doesn't want to sell in the first place ar~ then utilizing ubstandard street on Lilac that couldn't handle 210 trips a day at any rate. I don't know if there's another alternative. I'm not sure how to handle s because I don't like much of what I see I guess other than to not use ~n and to not use Alternate ~3 which means everything is going to have to w out to the south and to the east. I don't know if it's good or not. I ss I can't make that decision. There's t~) ways out. Teton is a private ~t at this point and I don't __"~c that w~ ought to be forcing develo[xment in xe just for a develotx~ent. If the Council decides that t~ want to use Dh, I would certainly not be in favor of anything other than the developer ,lng for all the expenses of it. Warren: That is the overview perspective of what w~'re left with because there's no access here or here. Ma~or Hamilton: There's one access going to the east out to CR 17 to the south of '~Kerber's property and then there's another one going south out to Lake Lucy so'it's not as if there's only one access. There are tw~. It still is a long cu~-de-sac, that' s true. There' s no question about that. CoUnCilman Boyt: We can't support that. MaWr Hamilton: Well, I won't support Teton so unless you can find me another alternative, I won't support going through Teton. CoUncilman Horn: Would Teton, as it exists today, serve as an ~mergency access to I this if we didn't allow Alternate ~3 or the upgrade of Teton? Really what we're looking for is an ~ergenc~ access to a lorg cul-de-sac. Ga~y Warren: We' re looking for a secondary access a~d an access that ~ can rely on to get in there as far as being properly maintained from a service condition standpoint. : Co~ncilman Horn: Apparently the Natoli's have to rely. on this access. Co~ncilman Horn: Yes, but they're going in there with a car. Most of the heSvy equi~xaent w~ would bring in there would, I assx~e be a little heavier du~y than the average passenger car. LOoking at it as a t~x~orary situation that would still allow us access. I tend to agree with the Mayor on this. I don't see a good alternative here either. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can offer an alternative. We take Alternative 92 and as the developer has suggested, a fourth alternative where Road H cum~ in off Teton Lane we put a cul-de-sac of sorts and a barricade. Tne cul-de-sac would be designed so that a snowplow could sweep right in front of the barricade and the barricade would be there to prevent through traffic. We would have · Alternative #2, which would be an upgrade of Teton Lane with at least a paved surface. I'm concerned that if we really need to have an energency access, that Teton Lane really doesn't fit the bill if we leave it alone. I agree with what's been said about the difficulty of increasing traffic through a neighborhood that doesn't want it and maybe that offers a possibility. Councilman Geving: I'm confused by what you just said. You indicated that you would like to see a barrier on Teton Lane with a cul-de-sac for a turnaround of our snowplowing vehicles. You also indicated though that you said that you would allow the developer to improve Teton Lane. Isn't that what you said? Why would they want to do that? Councilman Boyt: They would want to do that because I don't think we can use the existing 17 foot wide questionable roadway as an energency access. By the very nature of it, when we need to get in there, the conditions of travel are generally not going to be good and to put it on a road that's already questionable, I think doesn't provide that area with any increased safety level. They can increase it with a minimun amount of $34,000.00 will provide a 33 foot wide roadway which will allow the plow to get in there. Put a cul-de-sac at the end of it, the plow can swing around and now all we need to do is break through a simple barricade and we're onto Road H. Then if at some point that land develops, we're sitting in pretty good shape to come in there and finish the road off. If the Donovan land develops or the Ware or Natoli or some other significant chunk of property. I'm striking for a compromise Dale between having a 17 foot wide road that really doesn't give us emergency access. Councilman Geving: If you accept the $34,000.00, you're accepting the maintenance of that road. Teton Lane. If you put that barrier there, I just don't understand what you' re really buying. Councilman Boyt: What we' re accepting is the maintenance on a road that' s going Go get very little wear. It's going to have basically three families using it unless we need to break through the barricade to access it in an emergency. Councilman Geving: Where, for example the snowplow, how would that happen if we tried to maintain Teton? Gary Warren: We would access off Lilac Lane then. What Bill is addressing, I guess he's got scme value in that w~ get the upgraded road to an interim standpoint so we can rely on it. My concern I guess is that it's travelable, especially in ~m~ergency situations and yet we'd have a barrier at the end of it so it would not be used for normal ingress and egress. Thus addressing the neighborhood concern that it's not a thoroughfare type of arrangement. Cou (}ar Cou It de~ Cou pro Bil ri,~ su~ Council Meeting - March 14; 1988 m~ilman Geving: You didn't address this do nothing in the feasibility - ~y. The do nothing option. What are your comments ~ that?' Warren: The do nothing concept I think goes contrary to city standpoint .ther long cul-de-sacs. Lake Riley Woods. Those issues where w~ have said this is too long of a cul-de-sac. ~nat it should have a secondary access. ~cilman Horn: I guess I don't se~ that as a do nothing alternative. I see ~ as a wait alternative until the rest of this area develops. It's very Ilar to what we had in Chanhassen Estates and many other areas. It doesn't ,ide an immediate secondary access but it will provide that in the future. dnk what we're saying is, if we had s~me of these of these other properties ~loped we could get a more acceptable access at that time. ~cilman Geving: I have no probl~ with the alternative. I think it's ~bly a good c~m~ent. or H~milton: Alternative 93, can that swing any further to the north? Bill you move that? 1 Engelhardt: That drops off. ncilman Boyt: I think if we leave it as a 17 foot wide roadway, we run the k that the people who live on Road G and H, there's just a few there I ~se, but those people are never going to ~mnt that road to go through. If ut that 33 foot wide strip up there on the other side we're pretty clearly ~ng that someday that road's going to go through. Ma_~. r Hamilton: I don't think because you don't do it now you're not saying it,s never going to go through. [ Co~ilman Boyt: I know that but I also know that people get used to living on a ~ that doesn't go through. I think we have a chance to have the developer pa~-for paving that road. We can put a barricade up and still manage to plow in Ifront of it so we can get access. I like the alternative and I make that mot CO% La] Ma3 wi{ cu3 th~ ~on o ~cilman Johnson: I suggest that instead of making that motion without any ineering being done yet, that a more viable motion w~uld be that we do that ~ if that thing is feasible. mci lman Boyt: I ' 11 accept that. ry Kerber: What are you going to vote on now? Are you going to close off on Lane? or Hamilton: The motion is to make Teton Lane a 33 foot wide paved road h a barrier to be placed someplace, I'm not exactly sure where, and a ,de-sac placed on there so ~mergency vehicles can get through there but xe will not be through traffic. L~ ry Kerber: So Centex's traffic will not be using it? City Oouncil Meeting - March 14, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Larry Kerber: They will pay to upgrade? Okay, now that is going to be bringing a lot of additional traffic past my place. When we originally went in here, we were looking at three accesses and I expressed a concern. Now, where's that traffic going to come out? It's going to cc~e out, I'll have a lot more past my place. Mine is the quickest route. Mayor Hamilton: Either to the east or to the south. I think we're aware of that. There's only two places. Larry Kerber: I just wish, if they're going to save any money in this, Centex, and I'm certain they are, if they're just to upgrade that road and put a barricade there, that s~mething should be appropriated, some type of blocking, screening, something for my place there. I just really feel with all the extra traffic now. When we went into this, I had no idea. At that point we said three. Now we're down to two accesses. Councilman Horn: You've got no more traffic this way than you would if you had Alternative 93. Then it would all move past your place on one side or the other. Larry Kerber: Yes, but we don't have Alternate 93. Councilman Horn: That's right but if we did choose Alternate ~3, which was one of our options, you'd get just as much traffic as you're getting this way only they would be buzzing around on both sides of your property. Larry Kerber: Okay, but what I'm saying, if there's any money savings for the developer... Councilman Horn: There won't be. Larry Kerber: But we've still got an unaddressed screening issue at my place. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue. Larry Kerber: I realize it is. I just w~nted to reiterate on that. Councilman (~eving: I think that maybe we have to accept the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is looking for another alternative within the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: Let me understand the motion is to increase the feasibility study to include an option 947 Mayor Hamilton: Which is as Bill outlined which the staff will ~ back to us with additional information to see if it's feasible. Gary Warren: This is not a 429 feasibility study so really you can do with it as you want as far as the motion. st% fo( Col Do] {Omancil Meeting - March 14, 1988 ~ilmanBoytmoved, Councilman Geving seconded to increase the feasibility ~y to include a fourth alternative which will improve Teton Lane to a 33 t wide paved road with a barrier placed at the end to provide, for ~erg~ ess only. Ail voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion ~ied. Donovan: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask, could you please put that up there. ~s disturbed by s(~nething I saw there. This road here, Road H, that's a -de-sac on my property. or Hamilton: Well, it's not on your property. Wherever it is, it's not on ~ property. ncilman Johnson: When he final plats it, he can't do that. na Pickard: Can I ask just one quick question? The cul-de-sac they were king about putting onto Teton Lane here. We're talking about where the ricade w~uld be. Are we talking about beirg able to access by Natoli's or ting it closer down here? r Hamilton: I think that's one of the things we're asking staff to tify for us is where that cul-de-sac should be ar~ how it should barricade. or w~ su 72 bJ (k m~ I C~ SI ti t! 'ROVAL OF DOWNTOWN IMPROV]~4]~%~ ~ CHANGE ORDER, SHAFER CONS~ION. ~cilman (Mvirg: I think, first of all, when I saw that this was a change [er for $291,MMM.MM, it ~ to me there were a lot of things in here that :e very questionable to me. Were all of these changes, and they were )stantial, I see ~ all the way up to 47 on one part. Items on the C ~dule up to 43 and on the E Schedule up to 48. I don't know if these were .%secutive or how they w~re arrived at but who approved all of these and ~horized these cha~es as they were done in the field? :y Warren: ~he changes that you've seen here, scme of ~ are quantity ~nges. For example it is a unit priced contract so in example, I guess the "RCV pipe, there we just got a bust in the quantity that was in the original ] schedule so we're makimg a correction frcm that starz]point. The contract ~ say that we will pay as we constm~e this. uncilman Gevirg: Could you miss on the aggregate base, for example, by ,M00 tons for a total of $79,MMM.MM? Is it possible that s~meone really ~sed that whe~ they bid this or the specs for the bid were really that bad? ~an't imagine 13,~ tons of aggregate at a change order. ry Warren: This addresses the sub-base that we ran into on the West 78th feet. The actual granual material that ~ms out there was quite extensive. did do s~me salvagirg and we had a decisio~ because the soils actually rned out to be w~rse than what our borings had showed us. We made a decision at we w~uld use more granual material based on our soil consultant's ~emmendation for what he saw. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Councilman Geving: This was in the roadway now and in the parking lots? Gary Ehret: Dale is referring to the aggregate base. Councilman Geving: I'm talking about the aggregate base of the basin, number 5. This is item number 1 on bid schedule B. How could you possibly have missed it by that much? Gary Warren: That is material that we used for the parking lot here which actually was retrievable as a part of the downtown parking lot improvement project. The north side project that the Council has accepted the feasibility study on. In an attempt to address the business access issue and such, we went ahead and there was some discussion in an earlier agenda item here with the Council that we were going to be utilizing granual base to establish a good parking lot area for the businessmen to have while they're working on West 78th Street. Some of this would be retrievable when the actual parking lot improvenents were going to be done so it was not estimated originally because we didn't think we were going to need the parking lot aggregate. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you another question. On the granual bar, I'm suspecting that this is all related, that's a $48,000.00 item, is this related to the same item that you mentioned on the road and parking? Gary Warren: That was what I was addressing. Councilman Geving: Okay, so those two item, s were approximately $140,000.00 are really needed. How about the clearing and grubbing of 200 trees at $50.00 per tree. I don't even know if there are that many trees in the downtown area to begin with but to charge $50.00 for each of those 200 trees. Now I've looked at those trees. Those happen to be just brush behind Pauly's and behind the Pony Express. I can't imagine paying $20,000.00 to clear that area. I do that much work in a w~ekend. I can't believe this. I've seen that brush and that stuff that' s behind there. When did this happen? Gary Ehret: I couldn't identify for you Councilman Geving where every tree was but what I can tell you is this. $50.00 a tree was the bid price by the contractor for clearing and grubbing of the trees. The reason there are 200 on there is that when we did our bid take-off at BRW we came up with approximately 225 trees that were cleared and grubbed. When the bid take-off was put into the final form and went to the contractor, we made a computer error. It was entered as 25 instead of 225. ~nere w~re 225 plus or minus trees that were cleared and grubbed. There's very defined criteria for clearing and grubbing. We use the State spec on what is defined as a clear and grub tree and that is defined as any tree with a trunk diameter of 4 inches or greater. Believe it or not, there were that many trees. Not just behind Pauly's but down on the pond. Down by the bowling center. Wherever. I can tell you, not tonight, but I could tell you where every single one of those trees was. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you one other question. You have shown in here a hook-up for the new bank to our system here. Could you explain that? Why that was done. Cit it to CO1 de G~ of tc bu r~ it 0% COuncil Meeting - March 14, 1988 y Ehret: sure. ~e new hank roof drains come down in a 12 inch pipe that ~s out, if you're standirg on West 78th Street say looking west, it comes ; at the east hank very near their drive-up teller. It comes 'out of the bank h dumping into the ditch section. Those ditch sections are no longer there. hooked up that 12 inch pipe that takes all of the roof drains and connected to the storm sewer syst~. ncilman Geving: Don't you think the bank should have paid for that? y Ehret: It's no different, in my opinion, than dealing with the water erated for every single business. ~, one of the things we can do as y go through this is identify iteus that t/~ City has paid for through the ~ject that are attributable to specific properties and they can be assessed those properties. ~cilman Geving: Let me ask you another question. I notice in here there ~a number of signs that were purchased for the project. My as~ion is ~t these signs belong to the City of Chanhassen when the project is over. Is ~t correct? :y Ehret: No, that is not. It depends on which it~ you're talking about. ~cilman Geving: I'm talking about tt~ barriers for MnDot at the railroad :our for example. ~Warren: The J harrier is the propert~ of the City. ~y Ehret: Yes, that w~uld be it~ 25 of Bid Schedule B. ~cilman Geving: I just want to make sure that when we pay for these item, s, ;y are left behind when the project's c(x~pleted. Dy Warren: yes, we' re watching it. Fy Ehret: Taere are 3 or 4 signage items that you really do have to be aware . One is a fairly big ite~. It's like $7,3MM.MM. That is not what we spent date but I included additional dollars in this change order to cover what we ~ spend next spring. That it~ is all of the specialty signs that we put up ~oughout the whole are for the purposes of directing people to the downtown sinesses. Another it~ on there is about $8,3MM.MM and that is what it is sting us to rent the detour signage because the railroad did not get in and t in their crossing. That is not a retrievable cost. That is a monthly .~tal for the signs that you see out there as it sits today. ~ncilman Geving: Okay, I have no other c~mmnts except to say that I really s surprised when I saw this $291, MgM. Mg a~x]ment to the contract. I think 's excessive and I don't think that we're watching the project as it was ~ing along. The only legitimate expense that I saw on here was the ertime expense. ry ~hret: Every, I would say, to address that, 50% of the items on there are okkeeping item~. As an example, when we went through and did the utility City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 hook-ups for the downtown, you have absolutely no as built records of what was built in this downtown whatsoever. As a specific example, we had to assume because nobody knew that service to, let's say Bernie's Lawn and Sports w~s a 4 inch clay pipe sanitary service. That is a bid item that we put in the bid documents. When we got out there, we dug up th~ street and we found a 6 inch service. So the contractor needed say a 6 inch PVS bend to make that connection. What I have on that change order is the add of, for example 1-6 inch PVC bend because we did not have a bid price for it. The flip side of that coin is what that change doesn't reflect is the fact that we nowhave a 4 inch P~C we didn't use. Further in my letter I noted that this change order at this time does not address deduct or underrun it,s which we do have a considerable amount of. Councilman Geving: It always amazes me when I see a contract. S~meone gets the low bid and then they turn around and give you a big amendment to the contract after you've been in the process for 6 months or so. Probably w~uldn't have gotten the bid in the first place if all of these things had ~n considered. Do you have any ~t to that? Gary Ehret: If you like, I really don't feel that's true. Ail of the items on that list are either bookkeeping adjustments where we're adding some now and will be deducting ~ later. What we're trying to do is the very specific with exactly what you're paying for. As an example again, the P~;Cbends. We're deducting one but it doesn't show from that change order. It will show up at s~me point. Gary W~rren: Dale to address your concern here. Gary and I have been putting together and we're in the closing stages of the total sum~ary of the project that recognizes the deduct quantities and also that addresses the Phase II and the Phase III projects that are on the books for the future. It does show, as Gary is saying, I agree 100% here that there is nobody out here trying to extend the project more than what we are actually needing out there. It's a matter of it's a unit price contract and this type of flexibility is very common for a project of this magnitude where you have some things that you thought you were going to use and you didn't. Likewise, s(m~e things that you didn't think you'd need that you have to have. Councilman Boyt: First I would like to say that I think it would have affected all bidders equally because they all bid on the same package and we've changed it. What I think we need to know what the costs of our actions are. I recall last suamer that the Council did encourage the City Engineer to take every action necessary to get the project cc~pleted in a timely fashion and minimize inconvenience to businesses. Doing that costs money. I think we need to know up front what these costs are likely to be. Then we can make a reasonable decision. Looking at it after the fact and saying it's surprising that we spent that amount of money is a position I don't want to be in in the future. Councilman Horn: It appears to me that even if you take the deducts out, you're at least 8% over. What bothers me about that is this is called Change Order No. 1. Gaz pre $7~ goi thi di~ th~ an~ not Ga] are C~ the sta thi Tha its tba bas it Gar Cou bad got pro May unf thi has C0~1~ Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 f Ehret: We have tried to cover all change order itens that we are aware of pletely as a result of the construction last year right up to date. I have .jected a minimal amount of additional change orders next year but we had ~,00~.0~ of the contract to go, roughly. I don't know exactly where we're ~g to end up. We could have pluses. We could have minuses, we have not ~ any significant scope changes in here that should dovetail into additional ages next spring. ~ Warren: We're above ground which helps. We're dealing with surface ~gs. Things we can identify now. The biggest I know, as Gary related, we a't have, for whatever reason, an as built syste~ ur~erneath the ground so re were a lot of things that just, even with the best insight, could not be [cipated. Now that we're out of those areas, we've got the store syste~ all ~ected and the wat~_rmain and such, it's much more a known entity so we're anticipating any further surprises. ~ilman Horn: So we can expect less than an 8% override on anything that ~ins in this contract I would assume? Ehret: I would hope that when this contract is done and constructed, we 10% or less of the original contract a~ount. ~cilman Johnson: I noticed one of the biggest things in here is probably parking lot that wasn't in it at all. On the back street there. ~en I ~ted looking at the numbers here, the rubble excavation and a few other ~gs, re probably up over $1~,~.~ right there for that parking lot. ~-' s the main part of this 13, ~ tons of aggregate. That' s $79, ~. ~ by .~ld. The rubble excavation, $6,0~.~. That's money we're spending here ~ we're going to spend in the future to build municipal parking lots in [cally the same place. This rock is going to be able to stay there? Will ~ able to basically utilize this 13,000 tons again? Warren: That's our intent. There is some contamination that occurs just luse of the vehicles that are traveling on it but we're anticipating to be to use it. ~ilman Johnson: It was properly sub-based and everything in there? The dirts removed and now we clean it up ar~ throw the asphalt over it, we've the parking lot. The permanent parking lot. Warren: Rather than just throw some gravel out there, we dug out all the ~ings and rubble we found. We corrected the subgrade and we put in the ~_r amount of rock to construct that parking lot. ~r Hamilton: I just wante to say, I think some of the comments have dr and I think you're doing a great job Gary. You and your company and I ~k Shafer Construction is doing an excellent job. Bud Shafer has been on job everyday. He's had to answer my questions almost on a daily basis as Gary and I haven't always ~-~cn the easiest person to deal with on the ~town and I think Gary would tell you. Both of them will probably because I in here yelling ar~ hollering about things that are going on so it's not f they're going unwatched or unchecked and I think .they've done a heck of a City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 good job and they moved along extremely well last fall to get as far as they did so I'd like to commend you on the job that you're doing. I think it's good and I hope you can continue to do as good a job for the rest of the project. Gary Ehret: Thank you. Maybe the one thing I could add is that, how we arrived at what you have seen tonight, BRa, we keep what we call an it~n record account. On this entire job I can tell you where you spent every single dollar. We keep track of every single fitting. Every single hydrant. Every single piece of pipe and we sat down with Shafer Contracting for about a day and a half and hammered out every single one of these items. Where they went. Should we pay for it or shouldn't we so I guess if it's any cc~fort, any single councilmember can feel free to contact me and say I want you to tell me where I'm buying any single one of these items and I can do that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $291,201.66 as itemized in the March 9, 1988 correspondence from BRS{ and establishing a revised contract estimated ceiling of $2,725,772.96. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~c~l~{'io~ ~--~ NORDQUIST SIGNS, DATASERVE LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT: A. VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. B. APPROVAL OF SIZE (12 SQUARE FEET) OF AN OFF-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant has requested that it~n B he addressed first. The ordinance requires that the City Council approve the size of an off-premise directional sign. T~ applicant is proposing to locate the sign just south of the McDonalds site. ~nis is TH 5 and McDonalds and they're proposing to the directional sign approximately south of Lake Drive East. The directional sign will be 12 square feet in size. Staff is reco~mer~ing that 12 square feet is acceptable for this purpose. The purpose of an off-premise directional sign can be confusing for people who have to turn off of TH 5 onto Dakota and then know where to turn so we are recomnending approval of the off-premise directional sign. Councilman Boyt: What's our ordinance say about the size of the sign? Jo Ann Olsen: It says nothing. It just says it's for Council approval. Councilman Boyt: Any size sign at all? Dan Ryerson: I represent DataServ tonight. I don't have much to add to staff's report except a primary concern here, after discussing this with the other property owner, who I might add to staff I now have the signature, has b~_ primary the amount of traffic that we feel probably will stray down Dakota and end up in the residential neighborhoods. Sc~e of this would be truck Cit ~a jus pro alm goi' be 12 to put to su~ si~ Council Meeting -March 14; 1988 ffic. A way of illustration, I guess this would apply to the next ite~ too, very briefly a graph that shows the growth that we have experienced ar~ ~ected in DataServ's employees. As you can see frc~n 1987 to 1990, that ost doubles. Approximately one-fourth of these e~ployees projections are ~g to be in Chanhassen. If that 7~ acre site is further developed it could ~ore so we're looking at 75~ employees alone o~ this site and the need for traffic control starting out at the end of Dakota... ~ilman Johnson: In the drawing of the sign they're proposing, they utilize ~/uare foot of signage. About 6 square foot of it and the rest of it seems be just plain blank sign. Why do we need that much blank signage? You can in a 6 square foot sign. The bottum half of this is just plain white. Ryerson: I think the answer to that, ar~ we do have one of the artists who involved a little bit in the actual design but I think the answer has more 1o with the height of the sign to catch the attention of the driver. I pose that bottom could be simply open air but the design of all of these ns that we have asked approval for, is very similar in the shape and the struction which would be standard on these signs. The main reason is to put height of the name and the indicational arrow. ncilman Johnson: Right, which you do on the top 2 foot. Hamilton: But you've got to get it up there Johnson: There's lots of ways to get it up there without putting, I not sure what color or whatever I'd like the bottom half to be that's as possible. What I see is ro~m on this sign for future signage. the whole bott~n half of this sign is sitting there. Now this may be a added point for future businesses or. whatever who may develop out that '. It seems to me that what we need at that corner is a directional sign to business park which currently only has DataServ in it as the only person in What I see as every business that ever establishes out there, we've got a lo more land that could possibly be developed out there, is going to ~unt a si. on this corner. Very soon this corner is going to have six 12 square foot sii on it for the six people living there. I'd rather see Business Park East whatever the na~e of the business park is there pointing that direction and below that say DataServ and have room for ~%hatever as other companies go · there. I go do It Hamilton: I like the design of your sign. I think Jay may have a 'good nt. If tt~ bottom part, perhaps the City at some time could approach and say, may we put on there "Drive Carefully" or "Speed Limit 30" or '. "Caution, Children in the Neighborhood". S(~nething that would be a commmity value rather than just leaving it blank so that may be s~mething lid be beneficial to the City as well as to your own company. Ryerson: Oertainly we're not ruling that out at this time. I guess we ,~'t know right now what direction future develounent might take. ~r Hamilton: I just had a question on the arrow that you have on there. 's awfully ~nall. Is that going to be big enough for someone to see? t31 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Dan Ryerson: I guess wiser heads than I have decided it is. Sc~ebody designed this and I know they've done this in color. I believe that the lettering is in red and the sign itself is blue, is that how you describe it? Ann Rolling: The sign is gray. The size of the arrow and the size of the letters are according to specifications. Mayor Hamilton: What color is the arrow? Does it kind of stand out so the driver sees it? Ann Rolling: It's maroon. Tim Erhart: On this particular thing I was going to suggest to make the sign t~mporary...businesses down the frontage road, you can put four signs like this with the business park sign. Make this a t~z~oorary one feeling there are more businesses... Mayor Hamilton: Temporarily permanent sign. Councilman Boyt: First I agree with that. It makes a lot of sense. The other point is, you say specifications on the arrow. Who's specification? Ann Rolling: It's based on legibility of the sign... Councilman Boyt: Tne Uniform Sign Code says a 3 inch letter? Dan Ryerson: That's what w~ understand. Councilman Boyt: Let me understand your logic. You've got a big sign, or will have off TH 5 in front of your building saying DataServe similar to what's in ~den Prairie. Is that correct? Okay, that's easy to see so they're not going to have any trouble knowing geographically about where you're located. Then the reason for this sign is because we in fact all want to keep semi-trailers and other business traffic out of a residential neighborhood so we want th~ to turn here. Tne smallest thing on the sign is the arrow. Tnat doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason we want that sign there is so they'll know to turn. Ann Rolling: How big should the arrowbe? Councilman Boyt: I w~uld say, if it was me, make the arrow the biggest thing on the sign. Dan Ryerson: One other thing, we actually looked at the placsment of the sign because as you are going down Dakota and Lake Drive is the way you'll turn. The sign is on that side next to Lake Drive. If the sign wss across the street, then I w~uld agree that the arrow might be a lot more consideration but you're going that way, you see that road and the sign is there on that side. I think the very placement of it is a strong indicator of that's the way to go. councilman Horn: I think it's their sign and it's their arrow. Ci~ Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Cou siz All and Ae Jo Zo£ rec lax st] to va] of dfc do' do lo~ vi: Jo ~ilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the 12 square foot for the off-premise directio~l sign located as shown in Attachment 92. voted in favor except Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt who opposed motion carried. VARIAS~E TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO Ar.r~ow A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE DIRI~C~IONAL SIGN. %nn Olsen: They are proposing three on-pr~mise directional signs. The lng Ordinance allo~ ths~ to be a maxim~m~ of 4 square feet. Staff is ~m~ding denial. The Planning Cc~mission also recommended denial. We felt t a typical 4 square foot directional sign will still be, even though it's a ge site, will still be able to be used because there will be more traffic t's driving down the road and it will be drivir~3 at a slower spccd and will able to see the parking to turn into. We felt that the 4 square feet w~uld 11 be appropriate for a DataServ sign ar~ did not feel there was a hardship grant the variance. · Ryerson: I think at this time, and I don't know if this is the appropriate do it or if w~ would have to go back and make another application but I nk perhaps the original application ~ms unfortunate in that it asked for a ~iance on size which otherwise are automatically p~_~,itted up ts n~ber 4. I ieve that instead of asking for that variance, that there's another section the Ordinance that we would come under where we would be allowed two of se signs as low ground level business signs on-pres~ise. ~hat is a mitted use ar~ if we would be so permitted to ~end the application, I would p the request for a variance and simply ask the Council to grant at this ~ those two signs on-premise under the classification of the iow business n. Taese would qualify in size in e~ery way. Actually they are considerably ller. The requirement of the actual sign surface starts 2 feet up ar~ goes more than 8 feet high and we would be well within that. We could live with two signs on-premise. Again, on-premise, although I don't know that the n category that I've just described would limit us as to the content of the n but it is doing some of the same things that the directior~l sign would There really doesn't se~m to be any limit as to what we can put on it. We feel a strong need because there are 'several roads going to ~ployee parking ;, visitors parking lot, shipping and receiving and many of the same concerns ~ut not putting the business and truck traffic through the residential .ghborhood may apply. The safety concerns of not having it go straight to ~itors parking and ~ployees parking. ~r Hamilton: I just wanted to ask Barb, I don't have a copy of the inance with. Ann Olsen: The ground mounted is only one-p~rmitted .per street frontage. ~hnically you just have one on TH 5. Also, that big sign that you do have in front, I know we w~re discussing whether or not that was a directional but ually that's a ground. That was 8~ square feet was the maxim~. Da~ Ryerson: I thought that was a develolm~nt identification sign. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: Development identification ism ore for like Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Dan Ryerson: I understood that the permit, and that sign is under permit, was the sign in that category. Jo Ann Olsen: Was the ground low. Actually when we checked it out, the ground low profile, it was. Dan Ryerson: To the extent that we're asking for a variance, I guess I would ask for the extra sign as a ground low profile business sign. Jo Ann Olsen: But then you would only get one on-site diretional sign. Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to decide what it is you want and then perhaps cxane back to us. Dan Ryerson: I guess the question is, do we have to comeback or could we simply remove the variance part of the request that's come up here because the ground level business sign is simply a permitted use... Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest for purposes of this case that the Council go ahead and act on their request. If it is denied, then you would have the right to cc~e back anyway. Staff feels uncomfortable with the proposal that the applicant has made tonight. At first flush it doesn't appear appropriate but I think the Council should make a decision and then you can go from there. Councilman Horn: Could we further be willing to say that we would approve a sign that does not require a variance? Barbara Dacy: A sign that does not require a variance, we would just process it anyway. Councilman Horn: So as long as he's got that, he doesn't have to cc~e back? Barbara Dacy: I don't want the applicant to be walking out of here with the impression that they're going to be able to have another sign because we'r reading the oridnance the way he's proposing as he can't. Mayor Hamilton: We should act on it as they requested this evening and then you and the applicant can arm wrestle over how you're going to go from there because if a variance is not needed, you'll have your sign anyway. Dan Ryerson: We'll be happy to come back if this is too confusing. Mayor Hamilton: It's just difficult to change at the last minute. We have a proposal before us. That's what we had prepared for and to change at the last minute to something when we don't have all of us have an ordinance in front of us to review it ourselves, is not proper procedure as far as I'm concerned. Ci.~y Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 135 Dar is thj sic drJ mar Ryerson: I think we've addressed the questions on the requested variance that this particular signage, considering that this is a 7g acre site, I .~k that is an argument in favor of having a slightly bigger directional .~, if we went at it as a directional sign only, because it's quite a long ye that goes in there. I think just as a matter of scale. It's not as easy ~e a sign that's sitting in a big open area as it is to where there may be y buildings or shops or other driveways. Again, the person entering on Lake ye covers quite a distance before he actual comes to the DataServ parking lo~ where he turns. Again, this particular signage is really quite unobtrusive when you consider the size of that parcel. Councilman Johnson: I'll ccmam~nt and motion at the same time. I think the request is totally inappropriate. There's no other facility in the area. There's only one building you're trying to get to. There are only t~D roads .: go~ng in. You don't r._~ 12 square feet of sign to get in there. I'm sunprised that they would even request it cc~/ng into town here. Co~%cilman Boyt: I seconded it for a different reason. I think you probably ha~e some very good business reasons for wanting those signs. I'd like to see yoU try ar~ do the~ in the context of the ordinance for 4 square feet. I think yoU can do that and I'd sure like to see you give it a try. Ma ~¥or Hamilton: I think if there's a problem with the size of the signs, we ought to take another look at our ordinance and see if it ~s to be adjusted. I have absolutely no probl~ with this as it's attempting to advertise with their logo on their place of business. We're trying to e~courage businesses to cou~ to town. If you can't put up a sign that says you're here, what's the ser~e of being here? It just really kind of bothers me. We've gone thro~h this other thues when people don't want to put up signs. We ask a business to come into town amd as soon as they say yes, we' 11 c=ae, we say but you can't pu~ a sign up. I don't agree with that at all. I think if it's needed, we shOuld change our ordinance. I think perhaps out of this, that's what we may do. End of my coament. CoUncilman Geving: I certainly agree with you Tom. I don't want to frustrate an .~fmody that c(~m~s in here trying to build a business in Omnhassen. Ma~or Hamilton: We're happy to have you here. Councilman Johnson: By the way, the arrows on the typical 4 square foot sign are bigger than the arrows on the off-site sign. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny the variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 12 square foot on-pre~ise directional sign for Da~aServ. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL (IF GRADING PERMIT, B.C. BURDICK. Roger Knutson: Is this in the form set forth here in your packet? City Council Maeting - March 14, 1988 Mayor Hami 1 ton: Yes. Roger Knutson: What is the security amount in that blank? That's blank there. Do you know what it is? Gary Warren: No, we don' t have the estimate for the grading. Roger Knutson: So the number that will be filled in there is the estimate for the cost of grading? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Geving: Tae only c~zment I had is that, I thought from time to time we asked the developer to tell you, Gary, 24 or 48 hours before the grading actually begins. Gary Warren: Actually, the Watershed District has that require~%ent in there. Councilman Gaving: Don't you like to know when they're going to start the project? Gary Warren: Yes, definitely. Councilman Geving: ~nat was the only addition I was going to make that the developer inform the City Engineer 48 hours before the grading begins. Would you add that into your motion as item 10 or make an llth item? I think it's important that the Engineer knows that the grading is going to start tomorrow or the next day or sometime. William F. Kelly: I'm here representing Mr. Burdick. I had merely one question. I didn' t hear Mr. Knutson' s ~ent. What is the security that' s going to be required? I couldn't hear that, I 'm sorry. Gary Warren: 110% of the cost of your engineer's estimate of the cost of the grading. William F. Kelly: And I assume then t_hat that is the same security requirement of every applicant is to put up? Mayor Hamilton: That' s correct. William F. Kelly: Amd that is a cash bond or a letter of credit? Mayor Hamilton: That is correct. William F. Kelly: And you do not accept Performance Bonds? Gary Warren: We do not accept Perfonnance Bonds. We do accept an alternative of loan agreements. William F. Kelly: And would that be available too? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Gary Warren: That would be available] William F. Kelly: There are t~D phases to this. There's Phase I and Phase II. It ,.will not be done until the fill is available for Phase II. Will we be required to put the entire cash for both phases up at one time or can we do thi~ in two phases? _. Gary Warren: You are receiving a permit for Phase I grading so it would only apgly to Phase I. Councilman Johnson: It's a shame that they have to take out all those trees up there o~ that west end but that's the way it goes. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton secor~ted to approve the Phase I grading plan for Burdick Park 2nd Addition dated Nov~_r 19, 1987 as prepared by William R. Engelhardt and Associates with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a gradirg permit with the City (attached) andd provide the necessary financial securities called for in the permit prior to initiation of construction. 2. Ail erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of construction and the temporary sedimentation pond shall be constructed first. 3. Positive drainage shall be provided throughout the site at all times during and after construction. 4. The City's sanitary sewer located along the north boundary of the property shall be protected during construction and all manholes shall be raised or lowered to the finished grade at the applicant's expense. These manholes shall be clearly marked in the field prior to the initiation of construction and the applicant shall maintain a minim~ of 6 1/2 feet of cover over these utilities. 5. The applicant shall take special precautions to keep dirt and .debris from leaving the site especially on West 78th Street. 6. The applicant shall infom the City of his plans for disposal of the existing building on the west end of the property am~ c~mply with any City requirements relating to this demolition. 7. Any tmeporary stockpilimg of material on the site shall be properly protected with erosion control. 8. The applicant shall cc~ply with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit especially as it relates, to seeding and restoration of vegetative cover. 9. The applicant shall pay the City's grading plan review and permit fee prior to the issuance of the Phase I grading permit. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 10. ~ne applicant's engineer shall submit a revised grading plan which shows the temporary ponding and erosion control details, existing manhole rim, invert elevations and proposed manhole rim elevations. 11. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours prior to co~m~enoement of any grading on the property. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 7,277 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 251 LAKE DRIVE EAST (LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY), FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Councilman Boyt: A couple of quick questions. Gary, are you convinced there's enough parking here for the people? Gary Warren: I defer that to Larry. Larry Brown: Yes, it met the requirements from a planning standpoint. Councilman Boyt: As I understand it then, the lighting is covered in terms of there was some discussion at the Planning Commission about this being on a bit of a hill or the other houses around it being lower. What kind of thing are we doing to shield the lighting from the homes? Larry Brown: I'm not aware of any specific proposal. Maybe the applicant would like to address that. Dean Brown: You're requiring a 6 foot bern and bushes across the back of our lot so there will have to be 6 feet of something between our lot and the people behind us as well as the required. A lot of trees. ~aere's quite a bit of shielding along the back there. Councilman Boyt: The lights themselves are shielded to direct down? Dean Brown: Yes. Barbara Dacy: Right, there should be, I guess the term is cut-offs but that's an apparatus used to shield the glare and direct the light down. Councilman Boyt: I saw the 6 foot high bushes that are going to be planted along, I gather it' s the east side of the property? Dean Brown: Yes. It's our understanding not 6 feet of bushes but 6 feet of ben~ and bushes. Is that correct? Barbara Dacy: Right. The ordinance requires a 6 foot screen between parking areas of a residential area. Councilman Boyt: How do I read this when it says 6 foot shrubs at property line? That's the east edge or the top edge of the property. city council M eting - March i4; i988 .. Barbara Dacy: To me that means that they are installing 6 foot shrubs in height at planting. Coq~cilman Boyt: And that's on top of the berm. De~ Brown: As in accordance with your landscaping regulations. :. Maybr Hamilton: I was wondering if you are w~ll aware of the proposed change ali~a~nt of TH 1~1 and I didn't see that as it was laid out, that didn't rea!lY show. If that ali~t ever goes through, which is fairly unlikely. Baz~ara Dacy: I think the church is painfully aware of that aligrment. We've had several =tings with them. ~he actual design of that is still under consideration by MnDot but we're satisfied with the change that they're going to '~ake on the driveways is going to ~ate those design c~es. Dean Brown: We're making two acccmodattons for that. One, we're actually moving our emtrance down for the future proposal as well as in one of the re~an~m~ations that we're agreeing to is that we will not develop on a certain cozher of our land with the idea, the possibility of that the reroute will go through there. Ma~or Hamilton: We'll probably be finding out within a couple of w~eks what the disposition of that may be. Since we met with the Urban and Local Affairs C~mittee last w~ek, they approved the realtgrment and the expenditure of the fumds out of the tax increment district. It does have to go to the tax cc~ittee who has a lot of questions. The feeling of the cc~mittee %ms that ~ tax cc~mit~ will not pass it. La=.ry Brown: In the staff report there was a letter from Fred Hoisington addressing the possibility of the concept plan that would acccmodate their site plan so I think that's being addressed. Dean Brown: I'd like to compliment the staff. They've done a real good job an~ we've really enjoyed working with them. They've ~ very informative in going through. Second of all, what you brought up about the realigr~mant of TH 1MI and TH 5, as Barb knows, we' re very concerned about it and we want to make yo9 very aware that when those things do come around, that it's important to th~nk that what we're building now is the first phase congregational Church that will expand to a second ar~ a third phase. Those acccmodations are assuming that we can use that whole lot for both our building and parking lot. As !the realigrm~nt comes through, it's very important, as Bill brought out, that we want to make sure that we have enough parking so that any realtgr~ent at ithis point, we're building this again under the full assumption that we can go-to our 2nd and our 3rd phase so we can have our full parking lot. If that realignment occurs different frum what we're ur~erstanding everything to be right now and it drastically reduces our lot, it negates evezything that's going on so it's real important that when that comes through that we all have an ..understanding of what that does. I think there are a ntm~er of options that Barb and I have talked about but that's something we want everyone to be aware of~ The second thing that we're agreeing to but want to bring to your attention is the amount of fire protection that is required for our individual City Council Mseting - March 14~ 1988 building. We're sprinkling the building. We're connecting both the fire route from Chanhassen Estates as well as the one besides us and we' re putting on fire hydrants with a third one when it's put in, as well as providing a second access for ~ergency vehicles. Extensive fire protection, which we're glad that as a Council you're concerned with but at the same time we'd also like you to realize that it is an expensive proposition. We're spending almost $45,000.00 to $50,000.00 on just fire protection for our particular building and that's a lot. Again, we're agreeing to it because that's the way it reads but we wanted to bring it to your attention that that's something that a lot of people are concerned about. A lot of residents that go to our church, a lot of Chanhassen residents go to our church, are almost appalled by that to say why do we need a fire department if w~ have to do all this maintenance stuff so we do want to bring that to your attention. ~aat it is a concern. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the site plan for the Family of Churst Lutheran Church as shown on the site plan dated January 28, 1988 with the following conditions: lo The applicant shall provide details on type of shrubs proposed along the east lot line and provide 1 foot of hedge along the west property line between vehicular access and Lake Drive East. . Ail open areas disturbed in the first phase shall be covered with sod or o Two additional handicapped parking spaces will be provided with the second and third phases or as required by the State Building Code. . The future phases shall preserve the additional right-of-way required for the TH 101 improvenent. 0 The proposed access to Lake Drive East shall be relocated 60 feet to the south. . A second access to Hidden Court shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. . ~ne applicant shall receive a sign permit for the proposed sign which shall not exceed 24 square feet. . The steeple shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Codes. . The hydrant located in front of the proposed sanctuary shall be relocated to the south corner of the entrance from Lake Drive East. 10. The developer shall enter into a develolament contract with the City and shall provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the utilities. Ci~ Council Meeting - March 14 ~ 1988 11~ The developer shall obtain and c0~ply with all cor~itions of the Watershed District Permit. - . - 12~ A 6-inch sanitary sewer cleanout shall be provided on the sanitary sewer service and shall be located 12 feet west of the easterly property boundary. 13~ Plans and specifications for the installation of the sanitary ~, '. watermain and store sewer shall be ~,~mitted for approval by the City ~ Engineer prior to ccemencement of any grading. , 14, The plans shall be revised to show a 16 foot wide Class V driveway between the west access onto Lake Drive East and Hidden Court. ~nis access shall be constructed of a 6 inch Class V section. The location of the access onto Hidden Court shall be located a minimt~n distance of lMM feet east of Lake Drive East to allow for proper traffic movements. 15. A drainage swale shall be located east of the building pad to insure proper drainage away frcm the building and to t/~ south. 16, The proposed "courtyard" area as shown on Attac~ent 94 shall be revised to maintain proper drainage away frc~ the building and shall provide an adequate buffer from flooding during a 1~ year storm event. 174 The southwest corner of the site shall be revised to insure positive drainage away from the primary access and to the stormsewer system. 18. Ail fire hydrants shall be located a minimun distance of 30 feet away from all proposed structures. All hi, rants shall have a 6 inch gate valve between the hydrant and watezmain. 19. An acceptable erosion control plan indicating the location, type of erosion control and the City's standard detail for installation of the erosion control shall be submitted prior to final site plan approval. 20. Ail erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the c(alm~c~t of any grading and once in place shall re~ain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs prior to the onset of spring runoff. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time re, oval shall be the responsibility of the developer. 21~ Hay bales shall be placed around all store smar inlets. 22. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 23'. Erosion control check dams shall be placed at 10~ foot intervals in all constructed drainage swales. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 24. Working hours shall be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with no work allowed on Sundays and Holidays. 25. The developer shall promptly clean streets, on and off site, of all dirt and debris that has resulted from construction work by the developer, it's agents or assigns. 26. The lights proposed on the site plan shall be shielded so as to not impact the neighbors. 27. 7~e proposed watermain should be extended from the existing water service on the east property boundary to the existing 8 inch diameter watermain located south of the site on Hidden Court. The diameter of the proposed watermain which traverses the parcel should be a minimu~ of 6 inches while the extension of the watermain along Hidden Court should be 8 inches in diameter. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: To give you perspective, at least my priorities, the realigr~ent of TH 101 is probably second only to improvement of TH 5 in my mind of priorities that we need. The only thing to prevent us from doing that is if we can't get funds to do it. Otherwise it will happen. CODIFICATION, SfF. OND AND FINAL READING. Barbara Dacy: On the codification we~ave three ordinances for Council consideration. Ordinance No. 83 merely adopts the new book. 84 amends various sections of that. Ordinance No. 85 is the specific ~nendment amending the language to the Park and Recreation section. Councilman Boyt: As I understand it, Ordinance No. 83 is the big black book, right? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Boyt: Are we actually going to talk about any specifics in this or is the thought to just take it all and correct it later? I happened to stumble across something that is pretty nit picky in our animal ordinance. Is this an opportunity to change it quickly?. Do you want to discuss it or should we move along? I'll tell you what it is. It's two cats and two dogs. ~nat may seem like an awfully minor point but I think we should have scmething that says to people you can have two animals. I don't want to be living next to a kennel. Do we want to discuss this or not? Mayor Hamilton: ! don' t. Councilman Geving: Not tonight. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Barb can put it on the next agenda. Cit~ Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 May~r Hamilton moved, Councilman Gevirg seconded to approve to adopt the following Ordinances: Ordinance No. 83 as represented in Attachnent #1, _ Ordinance No. 84 pertainng to various am~ncinents to the Chanhassen City Code, andiOrdinance No. 85 pertaining to auending the Park and Recreation Section. All.ivoted in favor and motion carried. ; · : ZONING ORDINANCE AM]~DM]~TS, SECOND AND FINAL READING. , Councilman Johnson: Roger, I need some cla~ification on this. Part of this haven't had the first reading. Roggr Knutson: You can ~aive the first reading if you want. Councilman Johnson: It's just that we're now doing the construction of metal bui%dings in the industrial district and satellite dishes and antennas. Waiving the first reading and having only a final reading. COu~.~. ilman Boyt: I think we've discussed it haven't we? Councilman Johnson: I wasn't here last time. That's how it got on here is that you were discussing it last time. Councilman Boyt: On metal buildings, what we're really saying is we don't .~nt polebarns, that ~y can basically put up a metal building ar~ paint it. I t~ink the intention of the motion is stated pretty clearly. ~nat we don't wan~ a polebarn in our business area. Had we ~ restrictive enough to simply say. you can take a steel building and paint it ar~ that's good enough. May~.r Hamilton: I missed your point I guess. Councilman Boyt: In point a, Section 7(a), no galvanized or unfinished steel. It says just above that, to avoid polebarns. That means I put up an all metal building and put paint on it, it now is no longer unfinished steel but it can still look just exactly like a polebarn. Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding that that's not necessarily true. The polebarn has a more corregated exterior whereas some of the metal exteriors don!t necessarily look and have that corregated texture to the exterior of the bui.lding. The galvanized or unfinished steel is the materials that polebarns are~ typically made out of. There are metal buildings that are aesthetically appgal_ing. They can have the sheetrock interior but metal exterior so we wanted to leave that flexibility in there. Councilman Horn: So we couldn't have a building like is on Highway 13 which is an unfinished steel building. The architectural .styling is letting the outside rust. Barbara Dacy: That's the 410 steel I think, the ones that rust. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Horn: That's not unfinished? That's not classified as unfinished steel? Gary Warren: 410 steel? It's a natural oxidizing metal just like aluminum. Barbara Dacy: We had language in there about 410 steel. I wonder what happened to it. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we should take our time on that particular one. Barbara Dacy: I'm getting a little confused because the Comuission started out with actually no metal buildings and then when it got to the Council they said, well, we don't want to be too restrictive so we found the Lakeville's ordinance and that seemed to go right down the middle of the road. That we don't want polebarns but we can allow a metal exterior. Roger Knutson: Just a brief ccmxnent on it. I'm no expert on it, I'll just pass on what I have found. I sat through a long presentation on this subject. There are some very, at least in my opinion, some really outstanding metal glass buildings that look nothing like polebarns or sheds. If you ban all metal buildings, you're really banning a lot of good stuff. Mayor Hamilton: Basically the exterior is metal but the interior is the same as a block construction or a stand-up concrete construction. Councilman Horn: So how do we eliminate that painted metal green stuff like we have? Roger Knutson: I don' t have 86. Mayor Hamilton: Can you rework it? Can you leave that section out for right now ar~ recompose it? I think we just don't know. Maybe Roger can supply some of the information that he has. Roger Knutson: Something was left out. Councilman Johnson: We need to define polebarn better. Tne intent is to prohibit polebarns. Let's say what we're prohibiting. Barbara Dacy: ~nat's galvanized steel. I don't know. Tnis is what the Inspector is telling me. Whey they say polebarn, that means galvanized steel. Councilman Johnson: Otherwise we can just paint it. Roger Knutson: It's still galvanized steel. Councilman Johnson: It also says galvanized or unfinished aluminum buildings. Roger Knutson: If you slap paint on galvanized steel, it's still galvanized steel. It's still prohibited. City Council Meeting - March 14~ 1988 CoUncilman Johnson: But some of these buildings you're talking about are ga .~vanized that are painted. There's no such thing as a galvaniz~d alunin~ building anyway. You. don' t galvanize al~inum. CoUncilman Geving: Let's just table this. t. Co~ru2i~ Johnson: 'l~dble ~::tion 7. Barbara Dacy: How about if you just said delete Section 7? Co~.ci~an soyt: one other quick question. The last page of this talks about bu.~lding sizes and lots. We're not passing anything related to that are we? 4 ra Dacy: That's right. There should have ~ an atta~t from the ille Ordi~e. 3d. right, I' 11 a~lmit it. O~ilman Boyt: So that'~ hackground infommtion but i~ not: ~thtng that we're pa~ing this evening? Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 86 excluding Section 7 for reclarification. Ail voted in.-favor and motion carried. CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT AND SELECTION PRDCESS FOR REF~~ STUDY ~ITTEE. Mayor Hamilton: I made some comments earlier about this process and I am not sure that we have all the information yet that we r~. I think Don has started with some conments here but I guess I would prefer to have a session with the Council with the staff and try to figure out just how the beck we s~uld situate this whole thing. I think we need to have some direction before w~ just start selecting a committee because I think we want to look at the business people. We want to look at schools. We want to look at the clergy in t~wn. We want to look at service groups and I don't think we know yet where we w~nt to go. so we select a cc~nittee ar~ then all of a sudde~ we're stuck with trying to figure out where we're going to go with this. (k~Uncilman Geving: I think we're better off taking a little bit more time ar~ having a work session s~me evening where we can relax for an hour or so and talk about where we're going and not rush into it. We don't need to do this t~night. Hopefully we can have Don with us. He's got some thoughts on this ar~ unfortunately he's not here. Mayor Hamilton: There's a lot of people interested and that's good. C~uncilman Horn: Are we going to advertise for this? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's something we ~ to talk about. We don't know t~at yet I guess. .. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one point and that is, I think that I may be reading something into Don' s msmo that' s not there. However, I think it' s very important that we send a clear message to the people who were on the Cc~x~unity Center Task Force that they did a good job of gathering information and presenting it to the public. As I read this msmo, I didn't read that. Mayor Hamilton: I agree completely. Councilman Horn: I think he was addressing a different issue. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table consideration for the establishment and selection process for a Referendum Study Committee. All voted in favor and motion carried. Todd Gerhardt: Can we try to set up a night, long range, 3 weeks from now or something so we can meet with these people because I'd sort of like to get it while it ' s sti 11 fresh. The Council set up the date of Monday, April 4, 1988 as a work session to discuss this item. ~ISSION APPOINTMENTS FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS AND SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BOARD. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Jay Johnson as the Council's representative on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Dale Geving be appointed to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Geving: The reason t_hat I want to address this issue, I want to have it appear over our public video. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission voted at it's last regular meeting to provide dial-a-ride service in the City of Chanhassen starting April 4th. This will be a pick-up at your very own residence at any time from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. for anyone who wants to go to work, to school, shopping, anywhere in the conm~nity and I'm making this announcement because I think it's really a big thing. We've cc~e a long ways and it's giving people the opportunity to do their shopping and getting to work without having a second car for example. To our business park. It's something that I know Tom was working on when we were with the Southwest Metro. We've had it in Chaska now for several months. It's gone over very well. It's gone over very well over in Shakopee and w~ said, hey, how about trying it in Chanhassen. I'm sure that we're going to get a lot of residents who are going to pick up on this. Especially those people that want to go shopping. On the second page I've given you also a copy of the schedule and the amount that it's Cit~ Oouncil Meeting ' March 14~ 1988 going to cost you. It's very reasonable and how you can subscribe to this. I j~st want to make this public anno~t for the people that are listening in~.. the video. May Dr Hanilton: Just a thought, if it's going to start on April 4th and we hay a council mccting that night, maybe to kick it off w~ could meet at 5:3~ and we could all take dial-a-ride to City Hall. We could just have s~me pic :utes. Why not? Perhaps Mary could take a picture for us and that would be kin of a fun way to get it started. Might as ~all publicize it. ,. Co '.u~cilman Geving: I heard previously that Hubert Forcier was going to resign as 9ur Plumbing Inspector and I called Hubert last night and be said, after 27 ye~.s of service to the community he had to resign. It's on doctor's orders and!:, as much as enjoyed working for the City, he Just couldn't go on any further. He's 86 years old. I thought it would be appropriate if the Mayor could present to Hubert a plaque. Maybe not this sort of plaque but some sort of ~ecognition award. A letter signed by the (kamcil. Anyone that serves 27 yea~s for the City should at least get some kind of a presentation in front of the:. Council. MaWr Hamilton: I think that's an excellent idea and I have already asked the ~ of Oannerce to present Hubert, I hope he's not listening, with the Sen~ior Citizen of the Year award ~hich they give each June at the Jr. Miss pa .g~ant. He's a beck of a guy and I have a lot of respect for him and he's done a great job for the City. I think it would be nice to honor him through th~j Chamber. I hope we have the opportunity to do that. I would certainly thi~ that the City ought to present him with the Maple Leaf Award and have him up here one evening. Councilman Johnson: I discussed this earlier today with Jim Chaffee. Jim, I thi~k is starting the paperwork on this to see what is available. May~r Hamilton: We have the Maple Leaf Award which we haven't issued any of recently. It's a little plaque and it's saying thanks to him. Counci~ Boyt: I'd like to talk about oil disposal first, if that's alright. Talking to Jo Ann about this matter, we've talked in the Council before about this and the last time we had the discussion, it ended up with the prospect of ex,mining the potential for requiring all retailers of oil in Chanhasse~ to also provide for collection. I would like to get a sense of the Council that we Would like her to pursue that. May~r Hamilton: It's a good idea. Co~cilm~n Hor~: ! agree. Councilman Johnson: Yes. May~r H~nilton: We've talked about it before. I don't know that we've ever known that we had the power to tell them they had to do it. Councilman Johnson: ~nere's a State fa.w like that for used batteries. If you City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 sell batteries, automobile batteries, you have to accept batteries back from th~m. It's a recent law that went into effect I believe just this year. With used oil all you have to do is have a sign or have information telling them where they can take it to be recycled. That's tough because most people don' t know where. You go to Super America and ask them, they're not going to know. I totally agree with what you're saying. Everybody ought to do it or maybe, if Brown Standard is doing it across the street from sc~ebody else, it may be better that these people can just say that Brown does it or something. There has to be a little flexibility in there. We don't want to start getting drums of used oil laying around every little shop. Mayor Hamilton: The problem is, and I think Bill said it, you get someone like Super America who sells it. They don't even worry about collecting it. They don't change oil so what do they care? It goes out their door and it's gone. They don't have to worry about any additional expense of disposing of it. I don't know how we can accomplish that. If there's a surcharge you can put on. There must be someway that we can recover something from companies that sell it but don't do anything with it other than sell it. I think that's a good idea. We should look into it. Councilman Johnson: Tnere used to be a market for it but now the market has gone to pot. Mayor Hamilton: We could have a collection facility in the City also where people could bring it ar~ dump it and then we, based on the number of gallons that's collected, charge it back on a distributed, store rated basis back to all the sellers. I don't know if that would be legal but it would certainly be worth trying. We have to pay to get rid of it. If we collected it, we'd say we'll dispose of it somehow but we're going to distribute that cost hack to those who sell it. Councilman Johnson: Unfortunately where it's bought may not actually be Chanhassen. I buy a case of it when it's on sale someplace. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, but you may also buy your oil at Super America and then go to ~den Prairie to change your oil so it probably will even out, I would think somewhat. Councilman Horn: I think we want staff to give us a rec(mxnendation as to how w~ can handle this. Councilman Boyt: Number two, architectural drawings. I just want to touch on this briefly. In working on the Comnunity Center Task Force I was surprised to find that an architectural drawing that's watercolored is $500.00. The City pays for that. The Planning Co~nission this last meeting, one of our downtown architects brought in a couple of these, about $1,000.00 worth, to show them what it would look like if we had a consistent sign system. Nice idea but we didn't need a $1,000.00 to show that idea to the Planning Comnission. I think that we have to take a position that staff needs to be very careful in how they regulate the landscape and develo~ent architects who are doing work for the City, in controlling what we need to see in order to make a reasonable decision. I don't think we need to pay $250.00 to see it in color. Tnat's my Cit .. Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 poi ap~ mat thi put Cou COu it there. Then working up the ladder, the clock towex. It seemed like an :opriate time to bring it up. It's in the Administrative Section. The .~rials w~ were given, somewhere in about the middle of it, has a request to bids on the clock tower ar~ the entry mon~nents. It's my opinion that we lld not build the clock tower or the other entry mon~m%e~ts. I guess during ~il presentation is not appropriate to make a motion to that effect but I lk this r~c-ds to be considered again and it would be my intentions to see it on a future agenda. ~ilman Geving: Can I ask you why? ~ilman Boyt: We have it sitting up there in front. I guess my main reason out of what I see with the old City Hall. I have not talked to one ~)n, outside of the architect who thinks that it's a good location. I don't to have another dramatic statement that I'm personally uncomfortable with so I just ~ant to be on the record as very skeptical that the ccmmmanity a clock tower designed as we discussed it a year ago and those entry m~m~ts. I'm quite skeptical that they're going to say that it was money spent. CO .u.~cilman Horn: I have a question. MaWr Hamilton: Dealing with the clock tower? Co~ilman Horn: Regarding the procedures. Is that an HRA decision or City CO .]~il ' s? May~r Hamilton: Probably HRA. Cou~ilman Horn: I think so. MaWr Hamilton: It should be HRA. You can probably go to an HRA meeting and . pr~.e~en, t, you probably should if you feel that way, should go to an HRA meeting and~ tell ~ that. Co.U.~.Cilman Johnson: Bill, I would support you on the clock tower. At the poiht that they were trying to attract the 'Clock Tower Hotel ar~ stuff, it made a 1.~ttle sense. Right now I don't think the clock tower makes that much sense. I l~ke that tree that's there, where the clock tower is going to be. It's pre.~ty nice and that's kind of what (~mmnhassen is. It's more that. The neon clo~k tower, I never was really heavy on. The entry mon~ents I think are pretty passive deals. They're not too terribly fancy. I think they're more in tre~d with what the City is. I think we really do r-.~ to relook at the clock tower. With the current develola~m~t and fr~n what I understand, they're no longer projecting that we might have a Clock Tower Hotel. There was some where we ~uld have another clock tower on the other side of town so there was scram continuity between clock towers. Now there doesn't se~ml to be that. That's my ccm~ent. Maypr Hamilton: It seems like it would be a mistake, I think, to turn back fr~ a position we took some time ago in looking at an overall plan that took years and years to develop. To turn back now fr~m the focal point of that plan I t~ink would be the wrong thing to do. We budgeted for those things. We knew City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 what it was going to cost. I've had a lot of really good ~ts about the downtown. People frc~ Chanhassen. People frc~ other towns who think that what we're doing in downtown Chanhassen is just really nice and they like it a lot and to all of a sudden stop and not follow through with the original plans we had, I th~nk would be a mistake. Once things are done, I think it's going to look really nice. Of course, you're always going to have your detracters who are going to say I don't like it or it was a waste of money but I think Chanhassen, maybe we won't get it, but I think for once Chanhassen needs something they can be proud and that they can look at and say, this is a part of a plan that w~ came up with and it's s~mething we followed through on and we did it and we finished the whole plan. It's going to be a very nice downtown area. Councilman Johnson: Of course, with that little blue building behind it, it may not look... Mayor Hamilton: That's not going to be there forever hopefully. Councilman Johnson: In the near future, when the clock tower goes up, it's still going to be there. Councilman Geving: I kind of agree with what Tom is saying. We worked awful hard and we spent really hours looking at all of these plans. I'm not satisfied with the old Village Hall and it's the butt of a lot of jokes and I get a lot of comments from people that don't like it and I don't like it myself but I do believe that I'd like to see us carry through on this whole project. I particularly like the monuments. I do like the entrance monuments. I think that will be a very nice appearance. It's low key. It's done nicely. It has a lot of flowers in there and it can really show up pretty nicely as you come across that railroad tracks and see Chanhassen. I'm not totally sold on the clock tower. That's something that I never really was too much in favor of with the plastic with the panels but I do believe that it's important for us to maintain the course. Stay on the course that we had worked on and let's see this thing through. I said that when we looked at the dangerous intersection that I think we created at the corner of Pauly's and Great Plains Blvd.. I held my c~ents and my criticism of the area in front of the Pony Express. I still feel that's dangerous. I got a call the other evening from a young lady that was almost killed on that corner. As far as the clock tower is concerned, I'd like to see us keep it. Councilman Boyt: Last co~ent is about the Heritage Park. I think, and again this is going to be an HRA agenda it~ I suspect, I think we should not finish the area in front of the old Village Hall. I personally don't think the old Village Hall is going to stay there a long time and to put more money into something that I think already is a mistake, would be a further mistake. Mayor Hamilton: You mean just leave it dirt? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that I don't think we should put a concrete pad in there and patterns and plantings and that sort of thing. Maybe w~ need to do s~mething to temporarily take care of it but I have a hard time believing that that building's going to be there 3 or 4 years fr~m now. Ci Council Meeting- March 14; 1988 ki of Co% pre It' COl d~ do~ ar~ re, Dr Hamilton: What's goin~ to happen to it? Burn down? ~Cilman Boyt: We're going to find a better place for it. or Hamilton: Then why have w~ gone throu~ this whole plan? That's ~ ~ of a focal-point for the downtown to put that building there and then all a sudden in 3 or 4 years we're going to move it? ncilman Boyt: ~at's not the focal point that I want people to see ~ come downtown. Not the way it's sitting right now. or Hamilton: Maybe you've got a better vision than I and I thought mine was try good but when that thing is done, I don't know how you can say that. '~s not done and I think you have to wait until you see the final product. ~Cilman Johnson: In the future when we get the old depot back and stuff, ~re may be a point where we'll want the historic buildings, the railroad mt ar~ whatever, within a park setting that's more of a museun type area ar~ ~t thing may get moved. I don't know what we're going to do with it. I ~'t like it. That's rather obvious that the trapezoid is not one my favorite as but I don't think we need to totally stop that area. Hopefully they've ooked at the concrete patterns and stuff there. I think they really hadn't .ked at it much. ~~ugr Hamilton: Again, that's an issue for the HRA so Clark can carry those hts. back. Co,~cilman Horn: I've already carried the thought about the clock tower. I ~as 1~0% in favor of the clock tower as a concept until I saw the neo~ type of! clock tower that was done so I have mixed feelings about that myself but I dgg't think we can back up. As far as moving our historical center, I don't th~nk we're going to move the old St. Hubert's chnrch. That is the core reason ,t~.t that's where we have our heritage center and I don't think that can cringe. d .~snilman Boyt: But how can you put it on an angle like that Clark? It 't fit the church at all. Co~ilman Horn: That's not the point. What you said is that we'll have a h~storical park somewhere else. I disagree with that. ~me historical park w~ll be where old St. Hubert's is. The angle's a totally different subject. '.C~ilman Boyt: Don't we want to settle that angle before we put that cg c ete in? : Councilman Geving: I'd be willing to make that. ~a~ re~m~a~dation the H~. can take. I'd rather spend the money now and do it. Let's do it right. I~ the angle' s the problem, let' s change it. :- i' M~_ .r Hamilton: The next itsm is insurance. I just wanted to bring up the sgbject and see what everybody thought about it. At the beginning of each year w~. appoint various people to do various things. The Auditor and the Attorneys I' City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 and all these different types of things. Joel Jenkins approached me the other day and had mentioned insurance. He's in the insurance business ar~ he was curious what we do in the City insurance wise. As w~ talked, he was explaining different programs to me that he felt would be a benefit to our employees here that they are not getting at the present time because we don't have anybody on our staff who is an expert in insurance. I think it would be a good idea for us to look at the possibility of somehow having a person in the insurance field as a staff consultant such as an attorney or as'an accountant so we could go to them and say, on an annual basis or whenever we need to have it done and they can tell us you need to have your programs upgraded. There are some benefits here for the employees that they don't have currently that you should consider. I just think that we're not doing our employees a favor the way we're doing it now because the manager looks at it and if he doesn't have time, nothing ever gets looked at so I would like to just get everybody's feelings as to whether or not they'd like to even consider doing s(~nething like this. I don't know how it would be done. I don't know if it'd be on a fee basis. I have no idea. Councilman Geving: Did he give you some ideas of some of these areas? What are sc~e of the areas that he mentioned? Mayor Hamilton: Health insurance for one thing. I don't think the City has a good health insurance plan and he said there are sc~e real good things available that our employees don't have that they could have for little or no additional cost. That was just one. Councilman Geving: I agree. I think we should keep looking at these things. Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should look at somebody who is selling the plans as our advisor. It's amazing how, when somebody is selling a product, that that's the product that ends up being recommended. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think you want to ask an attorney to be your insurance rep. You've got to have somebody who's in the business. Councilman Johnson: There maybe people who do consulting who don't necessarily sell the plans but do consulting. Mayor Hamilton: That's like saying we need to have an accountant but we don't want an accoutant to do it because he might want to charge us for it. Councilman Johnson: I'm looking at a fee basis like a consulting engineer that comes in and does work for us. BRW. They're not out there actually digging up the dirt. Mayor Hamilton: It was just brought up as an idea and I think we'd have to have s~ne people in to give us their thoughts on how it should he done anyway so maybe we can pursue that. TH 212 TASK FORCE UPDATE. Mayor Hamilton: No action is required but you've got sc~e information before you about what's been happening with TH 212. W~'ve been getting a lot of Ci,t~ Council ~ting - March 14, 1988 le~ gtc 4t B~ all ar~ is re~ )rmation on it 'recently so if 2x)u have any questions, call your local tslator. Anybody have any quetsions? ~cilman Gevirg: I guess I was kir~ of curious about the make-up of this ~p that met. I was surprised there weren' t more people other than the 3 or aat came to Carver. Is this just our own Carver Oounty group? ~ara Dacy: The Task Force was created by a Joint Powars Agreement between of the participating c~mmnities. T~e Council appointed a staff person Mike Mulligan as the citizen representative and appointed Jay. Chanhassen ~ only one that has three reps. Everybody else only has one so we're well resented. ,~cilman Johnson: We only get one vote though, g~e three of us get ether. VOLK LAND EXI2HANGE, CITY OF CHASKA - CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CITY MANAGER. Hamilton: Don was going to speak to us about this. He's ~ working on s project. ex~%ra Dacy: Chaska is proposing t~o parcels to be swapped into Chanhassen in nge for the deannexation of Merle Volk's property. The two parcels that opose is an 18 acre piece adjacent to the Gedney property ar~ a 22 acre piece that's adjacent to the Arboretum property and north of 82md Street. This piece w~uld iron out a little jog in the municipal boundary. As you note, I ~hink the main point of Don's m~ao is in the last bullet. He strongly feels iif these two, especially the Gedney piece because that could be expanded Gedney ar~ therefore a larger tax base, D~n feels strongly that if lands remained in Chaska, Chanhassen w~uld not receive benefit frcm those as well as with the Merle yolk property, the westerly 4~ acres of which r here. If that land r~uains in Chanhassen, because of the A-2 zoning the develolamant regulations, Chan would not receive the benefit that it if it is built upon. ~he only way it can be constructed to industrial if it is deannexed into Chaska. At this point, at least urger the ger's recommendation that the Council consider this type of land swap to Merle Volk's property am] accept these two pieces in exchange. Co C~ st ~cilman Boyt: I can see why the Chaska City F~nager w~uld feel that they're ,ncil would quickly approve this were they give~ the opportunity. I don't .nk we're talking about c(x~parable values P~_re. It may be a good place to ,rt. I'd like to see if they can't offer us s~mething that offers the ~tual economic potential that the Merle Volk property is going to offer. CoUncilman Horn: S~mething probably closer. r Hamilton: Closer to what? ncilman Horn: To the downtown area. M~r Hamilton: How can they give us property closer to our downtown area? , ! City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Horn: Or closer to the MUSA line? Barbara Dacy: Unfortunately, the MUSA line is too far north in Chan. Councilman Geving: The parcels that they're trying to give us, I feel are of very little value to either Chaska or potentially to Chanhassen. Tnat parcel south of the Arboretum, I could see would eventually just be gobbled up as an extension ofthe Arboretum and be a non-tax stated iten anyway. It's of no value to the City of Chanhassen. I see us wanting a piece of property at least equal to the parcel that w~'re giving up which is a 40 acre contiguous piece of land. Hopefully in the northern part of Chanhassen, north of Llanan Boulevard. Again, reiterating some of the earlier c(mments of potentially the same economic value as the piece that we're proposing to deannex. Councilman Johnson: I agree. I don't think that this is an equitable swap at this time. I don't see where we're breaking even on it. I just don't see what we' re gaining. Mayor Hamilton: I've represented Merle Volk on this piece of property with the City of Chaska on a previous meeting and what I did was to show the City of Chaska what Chanhassen would be giving up in potential develolanent and what the taxes that would be derived off of that property would be should Chaska go ahead and develop it c(x~nercially. I can't r~r the exact numbers. It seems like it was something around 4 million dollars in taxes annually off of that property and I used a very conservative figure. At that point I suggested to Chaska that they go back and relook at their proposal and find property that was more valuable than what they were proposing for us to swap with them, even though I was representing Merle and he was very agreeable to that. He said, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. ~ne only thing that would make me change my mind is that the only way that that property is going to be developed, if it's going to do anything, is to go to Chaska and the taxes that would cc~e off that property of course would help the entire County. I think that' s something we need to consider. That' s, I guess two issues. ~ney should be willing to swap something with us that's of a little more use, a little more value to us and I had asked them that and got no reply from them and I'm happy to hear everybody here saying the same thing. I do think it would benefit the City of Chanhassen, I don't know how you could measure it but if that 40 acres went into (~aska's Industrial Park, the taxes that that generate would certainly help the whole county some. It would help the school district some and you have to believe that some of the people who would be working there, in whatever, off the 40 acres. If there's like a million square feet or s(m%ething, under a roof, there's going to be a lot of employees there. At least a percentage of them are going to live in the City of Chanhassen and they're going to do their shopping and some buying in the City of Chanhassen so we'd certainly benefit from that standpoint so I think it's important to consider all aspects of it but I would like Chaska to relook and dig a little deeper and find a piece of property that might be a little more value than the piece of the Arboretum that already is in the Arboretum and isn't going to be taxed. We should be able to benefit something. The Gedney Pickle Plant I think intends to make some expansion so that property may be a very good piece for us to pick up. Citl- Council Meeting -March 14~ 1988 Co~ ar~ Bar] hay, tal] Cou] acr~ acr, 160 dew goi May The' pla' HIG Gar to of~ vez cilman Geving: Except I'd really like to stay out of the flood bank. That is potentially a flood area. ara Dsc-y: So Barb you can carry that message back. It would be fun to you talk to someone in Chaska that has sc~e authority. I think you should to someone who can at least do something or make a decision. ctlman Johnson: It doesn't actually have to be 40 acres exactly for 40 ~ exactly but the value's got to be the same. If they want to give us 40 ~ that are a quarter of the value, then they better be looking at giving us acres at a quarter of the value so we end up with the same value. Same ~tial value. It's a long range off. There's a lot of area there still to ,lop. Because Chaska gets this 40 acres, doesn't mean that somebody is ~g to imuediately it's value to it. It may be 10 years before they get ~nd to putting something there. ~r Hamilton: They'd put the roads in /amediately and the sewer and water. ,'d do it right away. They are running out of space. They've got their ~ already drawn, amazingly enough, for that 40 acres. They've got the Is all drawn in there and sewer and water going through it. It's all done. ~Y FUNDING, CITY ENGI~. Warren: I think the document is pretty concise. The City ~ineer's ~iation is trying to encourage cities to formally support the mm~ndation of the Transportation Finance Study Omunission concerning the [tional 3 cents gas tax and the increase in the motor vehicle excise tax enues to 35%. I thought I'd pass on the recc~mer~]ations of that c(mnmittee the Council as a sample resolution if the Council is interested in icially going on record as supporting participation. I' guess we've all been y familiar with the need for the fun~ing. Especially as it relates to TH 5 TH 212. Ma~)r Hamilton: I wish the Resolution ms complete so we'd know what the rest of it says. Ga~ Warren: The part that's missing is the specifics on supporting the 3 ce~ts increase and the increase of the motor vehicle excise tax to 35%. MaWr Hamilton: So that's what the, Now, Therefore, be it Besolved would say? Fiance Study (kmmission specifically with charging the 3 cent increase an~ 35% additional. olution ~88-23: Mayor Hamilton moved, Cou~:ilman Horn seco~ed to ~opt th~ olution to support the rec~a~_ndation of the Transportation Finance Study mission as outlined in the City Engineer's report. Ail voted in favor and '.ion carried. City Council M~eting - March 14~ 1988 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor amd motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.. Sutx~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim