Loading...
1985 09 09 I I I : -, r- t-~, ~ ~_. REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 9, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenosn and Councilman Geving Members Absent Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Discussion on the Highway 5 and Highway ZlZ meeting, update by the City Engineer on Bluff Creek Railroad Crossing, discussion on the video recorder and when the tapes will be shown on cable television, newsletter discussion and a request from Mr. Siebenaler for an extension of tearing down his building. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn: On item B.Z., we said that the DNR also has to give approval on that, should that be a part of this contract or is that an implied requirement? Barb Dacy: The applicants have applied to the DNR for the 18 slips and only lZ of them were approved. I was waiting to tell you about that as soon as I got the formal paper work back from the DNR. Councilman Horn: So it is not necessary' to be a part of this? Barb Dacy: No, it was made a condition on the conditional use permit also, which is incorporated for that part of the development. Councilman Gevinq: On item e., I would like to know if we do go ahead with this tonight with the solicitation of bids, would the project be completed this fall? Bill Monk: Yes. The following item was removed from the consent agenda for further discussion: b.Z) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Red Cedar Cove, Fred Plocher and Daryl Geske. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: l.a. RESOLTUION #85-49: Accept Utility Improvements in Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain Znd, 3rd and 4th Additions. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -2- b. Red Cedar Cove: 1) Approval Final Plat. c. Approve Development Contract for Hidden Valley, United Mortgage Corporation. I d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Churches as a Conditional Use in the P-l, Planned Residential District, First and Second Reading, Judy Siegle, applicant. e. RESOLUTION #85-50: Approve Plans and Specifications for Creekwood Drive Street Improvements. f. Approve 1986 Police Contract. g. RESOLUTION #85-51: Approve Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Final LCMR Grant Application, Lake Ann Park Ballfield Lighting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE UNITED WAY: Ann Bryant: I am here from the United Way and I am here to request your support for an event that we have going on next week, September 18th. It is a new event. It is an occasion where we are going out trying to solicite funds from new businesses in the community. One of the southerly suburbs which we have pinpointed is Chanhassen, so we are looking for your support. We have a goal of $150,000. We have pinpointed small businesses because they are where we have to go if we are going to grow increasingly in the future. New allocations have been recommended to Carver County and your area. They have allocated new funds last year and encouraged other agencies within your area to petition for funding. I believe the resolution is just requesting your support for the day. I Councilman Geving: How are you going to come into our community and do that? What is the plan? Ann Bryant: We have pinpointed new growing agencies. In Chanhassen they have pin- pointed 50 new small businesses and we have recruited between 400 and 500 volunteers for that day and each one is assigned approximately 10 different companies to go out and meet with the CEO or the owner. So within Chanhassen there are approximately 50. This is a new thing. It has never been done any place in the United States by any United Way. So not only is the United Way of Minneapolis very exicited about it, but also Nation wide they are looking at it as a target that may be an example for all over. Councilman Horn: this to our local participate? The only reservation I have is what does this mean if we endorse businesses. Does it mean that we are expecting them to Ann Bryant: I believe it just means that you are supportive of it and encouraging them to support the United Way and the whole cause. You are endorsing it thinking it I is a worth while thing that they should consider supporting. We are not going to go out and tell the businesses that they have to support it because that is impossible and we realize that. We are just encouraging them to support the United Way. I I I Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -3- Councilman Horn: This resolution will be used in the approach to them saying that your Council had supported this? Ann Bryant: Right, just saying that it is supported by your Council. It might end up in the local papers. I am not sure what they all plan on doing with it. Councilman Horn: My only reservation in this and I know companies, at least that I have worked at, are very touchy about this issue. They don't like to have one of the solicitors be in management because they feel that puts on pressure on people to contribute. I am just wondering if we are being put on the same situation with our businesses. Councilwoman Swenson: Would you be encouraging these small businesses to collect from their employees or is it done independently? Ann Bryant: This is the first initial contact that has been made with the companies. If they are supportive and it is a situation where it looks like they would be agreeable to approaching their employees, that would be done. However, if all they would consider is a corporate gift, the United Way thoughts are not to be pushy. We are happy with whatever support we get. Mayor Hamilton: I agree that the United Way is a good thing and it serves and helps a lot of people. I guess I wouldn't have any problem with saying I am in favor of it and I support the effort that you are doing, but to go to a business and say your Council thinks you ought to participate, that is another thing. Ann Bryant: I believe that all it will be used for is to say that they support it, therefore it is something that you should consider doing. If one person doesn't want to participate, they won't. RESOLUTION #85-52: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution sup- porting the United Way as stated in the Council packet of September 9, 1985. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Amend August 5, 1985 Council minutes under ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CITY or CHANHASSEN, page 27, paragraph 1, last sen- tence, Councilman Horn: Otherwise, if those ordinances were not considered together, I would certainly concur that we go along with the Planning Commission's recommen- dation to leave it as is. Amend August 5, 1985 Council minutes under ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CITY or CHANHASSEN, page 28, paragraph 3, last sen- tence, Councilman Horn: That was some of the reasoning that went into making this ordinance more conservative on beachlot owners because of excesses already existing in that type of a development. Amend August 5, 1985 Council minutes under ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CITY or CHANHASSEN, page 28, paragraph 1, sentence 10, Councilwoman Swenson: We have had this ordinance in place for three years, but I do feel that it has been totally inequitable to eliminate all dockage of motorized units or overnight units on recreational beachlots. /-". ""..:'" ~~.'~2 Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -4- Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the August 5, 1985 Council minutes with the noted corrections. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Amend August 19, 1985 Council minutes, Page 3, under Conditional Use Permit Request for ~ boathouse, 469 Pleasant View Road, add the following comment: Councilman Horn commented that he was surprised that the DNR was not involved in this approval pro- cess and perhaps the City should look more closely at its requirements during the ordinance revision. Councilman Geving moved to approve the August 19, 1985 Council minutes with the noted corrections. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated August 14, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the Chanhassen Public Safety minutes dated August 27, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING FOR ~ INDUSTRIAL FACILITY, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LSR PROPERTIES: I Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order with the following interested per- sons present: Bill and Dawn Hulett, 6450 Pleasant View Circle Herb Bloomberg, 7008 Dakota Mark O. Senn, 174 W. Lake Street, Excelsior J. Nicholas Ruehl, 684 Excelsior Boulevard, Excelsior Beverly Lane, 400 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior Freeman P. Lane, 400 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior Darrell Hammond, 3030 Harbor Lane, Minneapolis Robert Sellers, 3030 Harbor Lane, Minneapolis Barb Dacy: LSR Properties is requesting an industrial revenue bond for financing in the amount of $687,000. The City's total allocation as entitlement to the community is $687,026. They are requesting 99 percent of our allocation. LSR Properties intends to construct an office and manufacturing building at the site in the south- west corner of Park Road and Highway 5. They have submitted the site plan for your initial consideration, and this will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council within the next month. The financing for the project is intended to be pri- vately placed. The City requires that a firm financing commitment from an established lender be delivered to the City prior to adoption of the final resolution. Attached in your packet is their application and the City's resolution regarding IRB's. The staff's recommendation is that the preliminary resolution of this project be approved subject to the condition that the bonds are privately placed and that all require- I ments of our resolution No. 81-07 be met prior to approval of a final resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. The applicants are here this evening. Mark Senn: To add a little bit to what Barb was mentioning. Our request is to pro- vide financing for the acquisition for the land as well as the construction of the I (:-' ~ ,,:. { , Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -5- new building for Lane Envelope Company. Lane Envelope Company is currently located in some rental space in Eden Prairie and wishes to undertake a much needed expansion. They cannot do so in their current location. One of our intents with this project is to provide the necessary expansion for Lane Envelope Company so that their business can continue to grow. The Chanhassen area is a very desireable one to us and espe- cially for Lane Envelope Company in relationship to where their employees and employment base comes from. In terms of the schematic we have prepared, it lays out the site on the southwest corner of Park Drive and Highway 5. This will be a 15,000 square foot building taking care of the offices for Lane Envelope Company and the manufacturing and production area. The second phase of the building is located in this area and would be an additional 12,000 square feet in a future date for addi- tional expansion for Lane Envelope. With that particular construction there is suf- ficient parking, etc. desired here to satisfy the requirements of the expansion area. Mayor Hamilton: Will the 15,000 square foot building and the office building be built together? Mark Senn: Yes, that will be constructed as phase I immediately. Mayor Hamilton: When do you project that the addition will need to built on? Mark Senn: We project that the addition would be built somewhere within a five year time frame. Mayor Hamilton: Are you involved in the Lane Envelope Company also? Mark Senn: No, I am not as an individual.- I MBYO' HBmilton, A'e the,e othe' pB,tne'B in this? Mark Senn: Yes, they are Bev and Freeman Lane. I There being no public comment, Councilman Geving moved to close the Public Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No votes. . Motion carried. Hearing. Mayor negative Councilman Geving: Is this going to be a single level building that you are pro- posing to construct? Mark Senn: Yes, it will be a single level. Councilman Geving: I noted here that you are going to relocate your entire existing operation to Chanhassen when this is constructed. Is that correct? Mark Senn: Yes, the existing offices, as well as manufacturing will be relocated in Chanhassen. With this particular project we will building the additional expansion space needed at this time so there will be some additional employment created as a result of that. Councilman Geving: It says seven new jobs with a total annual payroll of approxima- tely $150,000 and then there are 23 existing jobs. What is the total payroll with an operation like this? Mark Senn: There are currently 23 employees with the operation. We are anticipating with this expansion that this will change to about 30 employees. Councilman Geving: What is the total annual payroll then for the entire operation? L. ,__ _ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -6- Freeman lane: Approximately $400,000 a year. Councilman Geving: Do you have any idea right now how many of your existing employees live in Chanhassen? I Freeman lane: There is Shakopee, Chaska, Watertown, and Mound. Councilwoman Swenson: There seems to be a question here. The application of the department of economic development states construction will commence October 1 and will be completed April 1. The application of the City states construction will be in November to May. Mark Senn: The two applications were made out at different points in time before we new the actual time in relationship to the City review process and we had time to change it on the City's application. So the November date is the correct date. Councilwoman Swenson: You will see that it is corrected on the others so that there is a consistency of records. Mark Senn: Yes, we will. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to hear from the City Manager on the financing pro- po sal . Don Ashworth: I sincerely believe that this is the last industrial revenue bond (IRS) application that you are going to receive. I believe our standards are out loaded in terms of some of the changes that have occurred in Federal legislation I during this past two-year period of time. Most of the applications being looked at by City's are privately placed applications and the amount of the criteria that is looked at by those communities is significantly less than we have in ours and some of the criteria no longer match. If I was not assured that industrial revenue bond financing would not occur in the future, I would be coming back to you asking you to change our regulations or at least look at them. At this point in time I feel very comfortable with their application and I can confidently tell you that the City will not be placed in any type of financial liability situation because of approval. Mayor Hamilton: You don't preceive any other IRS requests? Don Ashworth: No. The Chanhassen's allocation is being totally consumed by this application. Our total allocation is very minor. I don't anticipate Chanhassen having an allocation amount for 1987. We simply won't have one. Councilwoman Swenson: As I understand it that you are proposing for private financing. There will be no public financing on this? Mark Senn: Yes, it will be a private placement. RESOLUTION 085-53: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the preliminary resolution of the Industrial Revenue Sond (IRS) financing by lSR Properties subject to the condition that the bonds be privately placed and that all requirements of City Resolution No. 81-07 be met prior to approval of a final resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. Resolution was seconded by I Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I <~ .~: ,~; Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -7- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARDENEER, ~ 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD: Mayor Hamilton: We have gone throught his before. The only new part of this is the letter that we received from Thomas Wartman withdrawing his permit for a conditional use. Councilman Horn: My only feeling was that apparently there were some other things on here that weren't on the equipment list, which we asked for last time. It seems to me that this could be, technically, interpreted as an intensification of a con- ditional use. In light of what has gone on, I think a yearly review is appropriate and we should make sure that there is no further expansion of what the existing con- ditional use is. Mike Sobraske: We have been there approximately Ii years. There has been no expan- sion of equipment and/or facilities. Councilman Horn: According to the report that we have, there is at least three other items of equipment over there that are not included on your equipment list. Barb Dacy: Those are not Gardeneer's. What I was saying is that two of the vehicles belong to the school and the other generator is for the school's pool. Mike Sobraske: I guess that was the whole reason why the pictures were in there to begin with. There is other equipment there other than ours. The building is, I believe, 70 - 75 percent leased. Councilman Horn: I think even with the fact that the equipment is not yours, there certainly was an over-intensification use. So I think even though your equipment list is valid, I still feel that there has been an intensification, which would make it subject to a yearly review. Councilwoman Watson: I would like to concur with Councilman Horn that we should have a yearly review. I think there has been a problem here and I think, perhaps, Gardeneer may, in the near future, outgrow these facilities. I think if we go in there on a yearly review, I think we can keep an eye on what is going on and have some feelings if they are getting bigger than any planned activity. Mayor Hamilton: I agree too, I think we all feel that since you have overstepped your bounds once we would rather watch it a little closer. Mike Sobraske: The landscape and nursery business is very much like an agricultural/ farming operation, which means for next year we are already planning right now. To review in May could be a real problem for us because we are into our season by two months, weather permitting. If, indeed, reveiwal would be then and we would have to get up and pack our bags, we will be left with some plant material which is going to be left on the site. If you would want to review it on a basis like, I suggest that we look at it very soon so that in going into our new season, I would know that we would have a place. Councilwoman Watson: I doubt very seriously that we would suggest that they pack their bags and move out at that point. If we found it to be a May review and that you seemed to have outgrown the facilities, there would be a period of time for you to move out. Mike Sobraske: I don't have any problem with that because there is no expansion or really any need for more equipment and/or building space. ~~ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -8- Councilwoman Swenson: You almost sound as if you anticipate that in May you are not going to be living within the confines of the agreement. Mike Sobraske: Absolutely not. I am a little gun shy, because by that time I have my equipment set up for the season and then.......... I Councilwoman Swenson: If all of your equipment and everything you do is within the rules, then you shouldn't have to worry about it being pulled out from under you. Mike Sobraske: At that time of reviewal, if they want to put hours of operation into effect, these last two weeks with the rain, we have had a heck of time working and we have had to put in a weekend in the last two weeks, just to keep up with the parade of homes and things like that. Those conditions are somewhat a little scary, in my business. Councilwoman Swenson: I have great sympathy with what you are saying and on the other hand I think we have to have sympathy for the people that live around you and your operation. I don't think a conditional use permit should be given to anybody who is likely to be put into a position where they are not going to be able to be considerate to the surrounding residences. I have a real problem with that. Either they accept the conditions and they can live by them or perhaps this is as good of time as any to find some place else. Mayor Hamilton: That is why I felt items three through nine would be acceptable. I am certainly not going to suggest that we tell him when he has to run his business. Councilwoman Swenson: This is my problem. We did have people who were complaining about the fact that their hours of operation were disturbing them. I Mayor Hamilton: I think they were complaining more about the area that they have moved into and the activity that was going on out there rather than what was going on within the area that had already been approved. Councilwoman Watson: I don't think there are any complaints regarding the operation within the confines of the school property. Councilman Gevinq: I think what we should do here is, since you have withdrawn your application for the expanded area, you have, in effect, removed the plant materials from the expanded area, and you have more or less gone along with some of the origi- nal items that we listed for you the last time you were here. I do feel that we need to amend the existing conditional use permit. The Mayor mentioned items three through nine. I have no problem with that. I think there is a couple in there that are no longer applicable, for example, Mr. Wartman apparently is the president. The main thing is that I want to get the annual review of your business in focus along with the vehicle list so that we know that the vehicles you have on hand today will be the ones that we will be looking for a year from now and not an expanded list. I would agree with the Mayor that what we should do is take the existing memo and reduce it by these two or three items, have staff come back to us with a conditional use permit that has been amended and place it on the consent agenda for the next meeting. I think it has to be worked up a little bit, we can't do it tonight. Mayor Hamilton: Really, the previous conditional use permit was not very specific. I would like to see some specifics put in there is all. It just helps us and gives us a better tool to prevent something like this happening again. I Councilman Geving: Have you talked to the Mancino's lately? I I I CJ;, Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -9- Councilman Geving: Do you feel that if we go with this amended conditional use per- mit out of the expanded area, that we will not get any neighbor complaints? They were the only ones that complained, correct? Barb Dacy: Yes. There were some other people at the public hearing at the Planning Commission and I have not heard from them since. Councilman Geving moved to table this item directing staff to revise the conditional use permit as discussed and putting the item on the next Council agenda as a consent agenda item. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. VARIANCE The above meeting. REQUEST 1Q THE REAR YARD SETBACK, 1820 PHEASANT DRIVE, HARLAN FELKER: item was passed unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals Therefore, no Council action is required. APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PHASE I: Bill Monk: I have noted in my memorandum that on July 15th, the Council did authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for the improvements in what was termed phase I of the South Lotus Lake development, which included four lots along the new proposed road as well as going down to the new park access. The improvements are detailed in the report along with a proposed assessment roll. As a part of that I did roll in a review of a petition from Hill Street residents concerning realign- ment of Hill Street what is a little bit above and beyond what has been talked about at the previous plat review stage. Mr. Hammand: (Mr. Hammand was referring to charts throughout his presentation.) The first overhead is the general location of where the project is located. The pro- ject is located towards the eastern boundaries and the south edge of lotus Lake. There were four items that we took a look at. The utilities, the street connection and to the development. The next overhead is the general location map, a little more specific on what we were charged to do. We were charged to take a look at the South Shore Drive going into the project and the utilities that would make that particular project feasible. The project included the South Shore Drive, which was estimated to cost about $37,720 and we made a reply to MnDOT and in that reply back on the deve- lopment they asked to add a turn lane along TH 101 for safety provisions. The turn lane and the South Shore Drive is estimated to cost $37,000. The turn lane as indi- cated in this graphic seeing South Shore Drive towards the north and the turn lane across TH 101. Water is available along the north or west side of TH 101, which is part of the park property and continues across lot 1 and northerly up Hill Street and turns back easterly on Hill Street. The project cost on the water line was somewhat in question of the method for assessment for each particular property. lots 1 and 2 have originally been assessed for water. Tubed to that, we have recommended the assessment to be the portion required to get water to lots 3 and 4 to be assessed to lots 3 and 4 and the additional lengths of line from lots 3 and 4 northwesterly be assessed to the remainder of the development. After we got started on the feasibi- lity report, a petition was passed to take a look at the relocation of Hill Street. We completed that work recently. As far as a feasibility from engineering and a safety standpoint, it is possible. But it is an additional cost of about $10,000 to build that from the original proposal. The total assessments for the projects on the original alignment of Hill Street, the City portion is $34,340, Block 1 - $6,757, lot 1 - $4,918, lot 2 - $4,918, lot 3 - $9,200, lot 4 - $9,200, Block 3 - $4,720 and Block 4 - $647. If the alternate alignment is used on Hill Street, as I said it is an engineering possibility with all the safety criteria being met. There is two ele- ments that might be pointed out of concern, which is the location of Hill Street would make this existing home a non-conforming setback. - !- -. ; .-... Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -10- Councilman Geving: Basically, the only difference is the $10,000 that someone would have to pick up. Mr. Hammand: Ten thousand dollars and it gives one property a non-conforming setback. Councilman Gevinq: But at the same time, how much additional footage is gained by lot 1. By realigning the road from the first alternative to the Hill Street alter- native, what is the lot size of that lot that is created? Mr. Hammand: It is significantly larger than your minimum lot size. Councilman Gevinq: There is a potential then for creating two lots. Mr. Hammand: That is correct. Councilman Horn: I didn't quite understand how the drainage would cost an additional $10,000. Mr. Hammand: You must pick up the drainage on this lot, picking up a catch basin taking it somewhat to the west and back to the north and we have picked up another system. Councilman Horn: There is more than just a berm along the edge there. Mr. Hammand: A storm sewer. Councilman Horn: It would affect your street areas a lot less. You would think you would save some on that. Mr. Hammand: The topography is such that you are in a hole and you have to get out of the hole. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I still don't see why there is such a significant difference from the other street to the Hill Street proposal. What are you going to do with the drainage on the original proposal? Mr. Hammand: It would go into existing runoffs and existing ditches, etc. But with this one there is a pocket and we couldn't get it graded enough to roll it out of there. Councilman Horn: It will create an additional lot? Mr. Hammand: That would require then, a replat of the existing plat, which would be an expense to the developer. Councilman Horn: What is the current area of lot 1 now? Bill Monk: Between 24,000 and 25,000 square feet. With the road realigned and the right of way put in, I believe it goes to just over 32,000 square feet. Councilman Horn: So really there is not that much of an advantage. Bill Monk: lot 1, conceivably, could be broken into two lots with this realignment. I have talked to Mr. Bloomberg about it very briefly and we came to a final resolu- I I I I I I r-. ,? t:-- .,,- J '__ :,~. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -11- tion on it. If a new lot was created on there that lot could go towards offsetting that extra cost for Hill Street, but it would access Hill Street and therefore be assessed for. Councilman Horn: What is the advantage to the property owner for this alternative? I didn't quite understand that either. What was the reason for petitioning for this alternative? Wes Arseth: Primarily it was the safety of the exit entrance on Hill Street. For some reason we have closed off the safest exit off of Hill Street, meaning the southerly access. Now we would have only one which is the one going in an easterly direction, and that is absolutely suicide. Councilman Horn: Why is this safer? Wes Arseth: If you have ever been up there, you have a curve going both ways. You can't see on either side going out of there. You take your life in your hands. Councilman Horn: You can't see north from that easterly access. Wes Arseth: No. You can see little as trees in the way and it curves and then there is a dip going on. It is really bad. That is one of the main reasons and the other reason is that I have noted that in the winter that sharp curve that is on Hill street is almost impossible to keep that clean from snow. You just can't do it. You can talk to the City people on that. Councilman Horn: So the problem is to eliminate the already existing problem of Hill Street. Wes Arseth: In order to close off the easterly exit, you would have to have some means of a turn around. The only way to gain that would be to put a "T" or an "L" to do a turn-around and then you can come back out again. It is up to you people. We are only trying to look down the line. The amount of traffic on TH 101 now is unbelievable. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, and it is getting worse every day. But Clark had asked you why you felt this alignment was better than the one that had been proposed. Is that simply because of the plowing? Wes Arseth: That is part of it but the other part is to acquire the land for a turn- around which is Rick Powers' land. He has to get something in return for giving the City a portion of land back there as kind of a trade off. Councilman Horn: But the current proposal is not to close that. Bill Monk: The original plat proposal was to come through here, close off this pro- tion and run the traffic back around here and try and eliminate this one. The people from Hill Street brought a couple of things to light. We do have a problem with this curve in the winter time just right now coming out and around and to eliminate this curve and the double curve effect in here. Perhaps it would be better to bring the road just straight out. If that were done, this could then be vacated and picked up by the adjacent property owner. If that were the case and with the petition that you have got that shows a scheme where this would also be closed off and there would be an "L" turn-around in this location could be put in and then the street would be brought out straight. The problems that occur when we do that is, of course, is the .i :J,,"'--;:-, , --!~ ,,--,_. '--v Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -12- setback of this house. But, again, Mr. Bloomberg didn't seem too excited because the orientation of that house is primarily towards the lake. The main difference is that by doing this, there is a natural low spot that goes right through this area. As we I reverse it we would be forced to pick up the water. We would really be bringing it in here and to let it go through here it would probably have an adverse affect on three and the properties over in this area. It almost forces us to pick it up, bring it over to the storm sewer system that is coming through the park and that does add the expense. The street costs, in the end, were about the same with the two alter- natives. That is the proposal. There is a possibility that this lot could be split, either now or at a future date and still get two houses in there. This one may seem as if it has, in a way, a triple frontage, but this easement will require that the house be built away from the street. It wouldn't be right on that road. We are pro- posing that the work in here with the turn-around was not included in the study but would be handled if this alignment were to be accepted as a maintenance operation. The bulk of the work in through here would be handled as a part of this project and the study was included as a city function. It was not proposed to be assessed to any of these neighbors. Councilman Horn: The thing I am having trouble with, it doesn't appear that either one of these is going to eliminate what apparently was a start of this proposal, which was to get rid of the problem in the corner. You still have offset streets he re . Bill Monk: But the right-of-way will be offset slightly. By the time that we put the 18 foot wide roadway in here, which is basically a continuation of what is there, this can fit through. It could even be moved farther to the south. We could pursue dedication of that through vacation of this also. Mayor Hamilton: That is what you folks would rather have is the northerly most access closed off to TH 101. I Rick Powers: Yes, that would be the safest thing. Mayor Hamilton: The only access coming out of there is going to be Ron Horr's pro- perty. Wes Arseth: With the water drainage problem that you would have and that $10,000 that somebody would have to pay for, is there any way of grading so that you can eli- minate that cost. Mr. Hammand: No, there is just too much difference in elevation. Wes Arseth: When I was looking at the map there was only a two foot difference from the Hill Street level to South Shore Drive. Mayor Hamilton: What's too much difference? Mr. Hammand: There is approximately a seven to eight foot differential between South Shore Drive and the low points on that road now. Hill Street is about the same ele- vation as South Shore Drive. ~es Arseth: That's the point that I was getting at, is there any way that we could grade and till that area and do it so to eliminate some of those costs. I Mr. Hammand: A lot of till would create entrance problems, for the existing house. /'. I I I (-0;- t? v Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -13- I Councilman Geving: Based on what I consider to be a few years of experien e nere, I think that if the recommendation of our Engineer's and these people who ar~ p~tting this together fo~ $10,000, that is not a big cost item. Rather than havin~ that water flow through there unchecked for years, we would probably have some ~uit in the future from somebody from Hill Street that would cost us a lot more that $10,000. I would rather do it right the first time. I Herb Bloomberq: I think that everyone agrees that it would be nice to eliminate those two accesses. The feasibility seems to be there. I think it shouldl be worked out. I do feel that lot 1 should be cut in half and made into two. Any hbme that is built there should be built in conjunction with that existing concrete str~cture. If that were wasted, of course, that would be quite a loss. There is a disad~antage that you would have to come in on the lower level to get to that garage. It would be I a basement garage, so to speak, as opposed to a main level garage. I think I could work around that. I don't know how we can simplify this, it gets a little dragged out with the replatting. Councilman Geving: I guess that what has bothered me most is the expense and time involved. I don't know how to meet that. [ Councilman Horn: I think for the expense involved, if Mr. Bloomberg could get an extra lot over there, he would be reimbursed for his expense, but the tim~1 is something that you can't recover. Councilman Geving: And don't forget, he is going to also be assessed for [this pro- ject for that amount too, if he creates an another lot. I Barb Oacy: Mr. Bloomberg has not submitted his final plat yet. Usually if there is some type of a discrepancy between a final plat and a preliminary plat, we would bring it to the Council's attention and evaluate it if it is a significant dif- I ference. I believe he could probably accomplish dividing the newly proposed lot 1 on his final plan and then we could proceed from there. I don't believe it Jould require another public hearing. Staff would feel that would be a minor change. We would, of course, review it when we recieved it just to make sure it is 0 ay. Councilman Horn: It means a lot to me to get two accesses off of TH 101. Mayor Hamilton: I would agree, especially when you have two you have a potential for accidents on both of them. The one going to be a much better and safer access for everybody. accesses like that where further to tHe south is I Councilwoman Swenson: And the 500 foot cul-de-sac is within our ordinancl. Councilman Horn: I think it really enhances the whole property. Councilman Gevinq: When we vacate that existing street, it is a tar road now and it is low. I feel that we really need to give Rick Powers something in retu n for a turn-around on his property to assist in making that street usable. He is picking it up, but you have got to look at what he is getting. He is getting an asphalt base and really he can't do a darn thing with. If there'is any excess dirt so~ehow that could come off this project that we could lay in there and level that out that would be of some assistance to them. Mayor Hamilton: You have got to get the asphalt up. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -14- Mr. Hammand: Plans at this point have not been determined to know if there is going to be any excess dirt or not. With that short of distance it is doubtful that there will be any significant amounts of waste. Councilman Geving: How difficult would it be to pull that tar out of there and blade I it out? Bill Monk: -- might keep believe it entrance. You might want that blacktop. could be done. to maintain a drive they have over in this area so that we When moving it out, from a maintenance operation, I I would expect that's what we would do when we close the Councilman Gevinq: And that is what you would like to do, isn't it, Rick? Rick Powers: Yes. Bill Monk: We would at least remove the blacktop by both closures. If more had to come out, I believe that the width would not present too much of a problem. Mr. Hammand: There is a water line there that you have to be somewhat careful of. I don't believe you would have a problem though. Wes Arseth: Is there going to be a cost to the Hill Street people or is that something that the City is going to pick up? Mayor Hamilton: We haven't really decided that yet. Bill Monk: The proposal is that if the Council wanted to go with the realignment of Hill Street as shown, the City's share would increase approximately $9,000, but there I was no proposed assessment for the Hill Street people at this point in time. Don Ashworth: If the Council agrees that they would be amenable to an additional lot, which could be brought in as a part of the final plat, there would be an addi- tional assessment amount on that additional lot. At a minimum, the cost would not be the $10,000, but would be more like $5,000 or $6,000. Councilman Horn: It is worth it to me to eliminate those two entrances. Mayor Hamilton: It is worth it to me too, to eliminate those two and to make the whole neighborhood better. It will blend in better with the one that is going to be built and I think it would work out nicer. Councilwoman Swenson: But there will not be any assessment to the Hill Street people, additionally. Bill Monk: That is correct. -- Councilwoman Swenson: I think that is fair. I don't think they should be penalized for having a park put along side of them. RESOLUTION #85-54: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of resolution approving the feasibility study for Phase I of South lotus lake and ordered the preparation of plans and specifications including the Hill Street realignment upon receipt of a hearing waiver "from the developer. Resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. Councilman Geving: One of the Hill Street people requested a street light. Could that be worked in there? I Bill Monk: Yes, lighting could be provided. AMENDED 10-07-85, page 9 I I I r-:, ,? .~> /~, ~ -~~,' Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -15- Councilman Horn: We are not going to hold up, we are going to put these lots in as part of the final review so there won't be any delay and a minimal cost? Bill Monk: Yes. -- The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE !Q ~ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ~ PROPERTY LOCATED JUST NORTH Q[ THE FOX . HOLLOW DEVELOPMENT, DAWN HULET: Barb Dacy: The subject parcel is located in the northwest of the Fox Hollow develop- ment and is presently zoned R-1, single family. You have two requests before you. One is a preliminary plat subdivision application and the other is rezoning the pro- perty to P-1. The proposed preliminary plat incorporates an existing house on the property. The approximate total of the parcel is three acres. The applicant is pro- posing it to be subdivided into six lots, including the Idt for the existing house. When the Fox Hollow subdivision was approved in 1984, the applicant brought to the attention of the Council of their intentions to subdivide the rear of their property. Therefore, a condition of approval was made on the Fox Hollow development that B-T Land to come up with a reserve of 50 foot right-of-way to provide a potential access to the subdivision. When the applicants originally came to us regarding the sub- division of this parcel, we looked at moving the right-of-way to the east to obtain a more straight alignment. However, the utilities were already in place and there would have been a significant amount of cost to alter that alignment. As presented, though, it does function well with the slight curve to the northeast. The average lot size, just the five lots, is approximately 14,125 square feet. The proposed den- sity is 2.0 units per acre, which is consistant with the development density of Fox Hollow. Because the proposed subdivision is, in essence, an extension of Fox Hollow Drive and functioning as a part of the Fox Hollow development, planning staff is recommending that the P-1 zoning district be applied to the five lots of the proposed subdivision. The average lot size of the proposed subdivision is 2,000 greater than what had been approved in Fox Hollow. Because that functions as part of the sub- division, we thought that would be appropriate. At the Planning Commission meeting, adjacent homeowners were concerned about the drainage on the north side of the plat as it would come down between lots two and three and down the cul-de-sac. We had our City Engineer look at this situation again, and we are suggesting the following two conditions: 1) That the cul-de-sac be lowered to an elevation between 920 and 921; and 2) That the swale be graded between Lots 2 and 3 to allow overland drainage. We have taken those concerns of the adjacent property owners and tried to address that. We are recommending approval of both the rezoning and the preliminary plat subject to that the rezoning should not occur unitl the final plat has been recorded and installation of public improvements have been initiated, and secondly, compliance with the City Engineer's recommendation contained in his memorandum dated August 9, 1985. Mayor Hamilton: Why did they request to go with a P-1 rather than just leave it at as an R-1? Barb Dacy: They felt that if they were to maintain the existing zoning as R-1, they would lose a lot because for all of the lots to acheive 15,000 it would probably necessitate removal of a lot. Staff's conclusion was, however, that the average development density was 14,000 square feet and is functioning as a part of the Fox Hollow development and extended a cul-de-sac from the Fox Hollow Drive. There is no clear separation between the two subdivisions, so we felt that request was appropriate. (:1, ir-? /~,l I" Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -16- Councilman Gevinq: In actuality, is this really an extension of Rick Murray's Fox Hollow? Is this really a separate planned development? What I am thinking is, I know Rick very well, and I am sure that at some time in the past this was available I land and I know people that have owned this and wanted the access. Is he involved in the development of it? Barb 0 a c y : He is to an extent in t hat '0 rig i n ally he allowed the right-of-way and he went along with the condition that the right-of-way.be platted. This is not a joint application. Mayor Hamilton: Is the access that we gave the property from Pleasant View? Barb Oacy: No. The existing residents are served by a private easement. Councilman Horn: I wonder why we had Rick Murray put the easement where we did? Barb Oacy: It was hard to say. Probably at that time you just didn't have the details. The applicants had thought that would come straight up and you would have a straight cul-de-sac, etc. Mayor Hamilton: How wide is that easement? Barb Oacy: 53, which is the standard right-of-way. Councilwoman Swenson: You are going to have to have variances on every single on~ of these lots. Barb Oacy: No. If and when you approve the rezoning as a P-l, there is no minimum lot size in the P-l. I Councilwoman Swenson: What criteria do we have other than the adjacent property? Have we ever had a PUO for this few lots? Councilman Horn: We haven't, but we have taken other cases where we have said we are going to include another chunk in a PUO or take another chunk out of a PUO. I recall we did that up in Steller's. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like a reasonable solution when having a difficult piece of property to develop. The applicant is maintaining 1.3 acres for their own use. Are you planning to subdivide that further? Dawn Hulet: No, because of the access and location of it, we really can't. If the actual easement from Fox Hollow had been farther to the east, we may have made the cul-de-sac come straighter. We have no plans and no desire to subdivide that. Councilman Horn: My only concern is that we have received a tack-on under the PUO umbrella. Lots that would not be standard if they were not under the PUO umbrella and tacking on the areas that would not, technically, be large enough for a PUO on their own. Mayor Hamilton: At least we are tacking onto an existing PUO so it really becomes a part of it even though it is a separate ownership. It really does become a part of it and looks more like a part of that total development. Councilman Horn: I look at the PUO as a large development thing where you gain something for giving up something. In effect, Rick Murray is giving up all of the park plan things for this PUO. This particular question of it hasn't done any of that. I I I I C:' i /' ,-, Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -17- Councilwoman Swenson: What do we get on a PUD? Barb Dacy: Each individual in the subdivision will have to pay the park fees as any other unit. I agree. If you look at the five or six lots on this space, it is not a classic PUD, however, staff felt that because it functions from the existing PUD that the rezoning application could occur. If you feel that you want to maintain the 15,000 square foot requirement, you can approve the preliminary plat, but deny the rezoning. That is your option. Councilman Horn: The conern that I had is the way we put this easement in there, it is very difficult to do that. I don't know how you do that with this 20 year old corner, Lot 1. How would you make that 15,000 square feet? Barb Dacy: You would have to drop a lot because you would have to move the lot line up over here and then Lot 2 would have to be increased to 15,000. Mayor Hamilton: Are you folks going to develop this yourselves? Dawn Hulett: We will probably have the same builders that are building in Fox Hollow. We have talked to Rottlund and we have talked with Brodt Builders. We were thinking about trying to finance putting the improvements in separately. They both recommended that we contract with the City. Both builders said they felt they would have all of them sold within a year. At this point we will probably just go ahead and contract with the City for the actual improvements. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to ask Dale and Carol a question. I would like you to look at Lot 1 and try and figure out whether you are going to have someone come to you for variances for decks and garages, etc. Councilman Geving: I would say yes, they would need variances with that lot. Councilwoman Watson: I would agree. Councilman Geving: your home that sits You presently gain access off Pleansant View Road. on Lot 6. Howald is Mr. Hulett: Sixty-six years. Councilman Geving: I don't have to be a magician to figure out that someday when these are developed that you are going to want to rebuild something back there and replace that house and probably re-subdivide Lot 6. Mr. Hulett: We have actually gone through an entire renovation of the existing structure. According to the recommendations of the contractor that I have dealt with he told me that the foundation of that house would be in existance long after he and I were both dead. Councilman Geving: The reason that I ask that is that we see these things happen were people have good intentions today, but tomorrow you sell and someone else comes along and their first inclination is to subdivide that Lot 6 again and split it up. Then we have got two very small subdivisions. Mayor Hamilton: I don't disagree with you Dale, but I don't think that we can specu- late what is going to happen in the future. i i G:) ("J J .;<,,~ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -18- Councilman Geving: the whole thing in Up. But the point that I am trying to make is why didn't they include there and try to make something greater out of Lot 6 to split that I Mayor Hamilton: That is why I asked the question earlier and I think that their reply was that if the access would have been further to the east they would have been able to take a larger portion of what their property that is existing now and they would have made an additional lot in there and they would have had less property. But the way the access is, you can't really get much closer to their house. Councilman Gevinq: If it were possible to come in off of Pleasant View Road and come into your home in this development, how would that work out? Could you then develop this this more easily than having this access off of Fox Hollow Drive? Bill Monk: No. Councilman Geving: What is the distance between the northern part of your property and Pleasant View Road? Dawn Hulett: It's not a distance, it's two private back yards. Barb Dacy: There are several parcels on that existing private easement. We did follow up on your question to look at extending the proposed cul-de-sac up to lot six. You will notice on the topography, though, there is a significant grade and we would not recommend that to be done because of the grading that would have to be involved to the side of that hill. Councilman Gevinq: The thing that bugs me is that here the people who own the home I on lot six are trying to develop their property and they still are going to be forced to use the existing access rather than the access that they are going to create for someone else; the people that they are going to sell their homes to. I understand what you are trying to do, but it seemed like it could have been a little better planned. Mayor Hamilton: What if Rick Murray came in and said that he purchased this piece of property and he wanted it added onto his PUD and he wanted to build five houses on their? You wouldn't object to it, right? Councilman Gevinq: I am not objecting to this, I just think that there might be a better plan. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I think based on the way that property sits right now and the way the access is to it, I am not sure how you can come up with a better plan. The only way it would be different is if they wanted to make bigger lots and put bigger houses on there or something, if they felt there was a market for that. Councilman Gevinq: I don't have any problem with the plan. Councilman Horn: I am curious and I would like to find out from staff how this ease- ment got put in the wrong place. It looks to me like that's what happened. Barb Dacy: two lots to explain the I believe, originally, the lot to the west of the right-of-way and the the east were originally designated as an outlot and then I will let Bill rest. I I I I Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 ~).;: ~" -19- Bill Monk: When you look at this particular site there are almost two distinct par- cels. The parcel with the existing house and this one. There is over a 20 foot ele- vation separation between the two. We did look at the possibility of extending this up drawing this line back, but these are already 15,000 square feet. So it doesn't really help them at all. The only answer really is almost to maintain this access. If they ever did want to develop this, they would have to come up with some public access over here and they would have to work that out with the neighbors, and I question if that is ever possible or feasible. So this became the alignment. When this was laid out there were lots coming across here, now we have shown the stream in here with the cul-de-sac more towards the center. For two reasons it was moved over. 1) There was a Planning Commission recommendation that the distance between the two streets be maximized; 2) If you moved over this way, because this is much flatter and it would come in better. One thing we really didn't figure on is we moved it over was what did happen to lot 1. I know it can be built on and fit quite nicely. The uti- lities were stubbed in here and it has never been platted in through here. We did look at possibly moving that over to this location to better center it. The problem was the utilites had already been stubbed in and at that point it was not cost effec- tive to move that access out to what it meant within the subdivision and to the Huletts for extending utilities up into here. That was the reason that we came up and swung it around but the separation as much as possible so that this lot would be impacted as little as possible. There is a reason for the layout. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the subdivision request 885-13 and the rezoning request #85-3 for the property located just north of the Fox Hollow development based on the plat stamped "Received July 25, 1985" and subject to the following: 1. That the cul-de-sac be lowered to an elevation between 920 and 921. 2. That a swale be graded between lots 2 and 3 to allow overland drainage. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, votes. Motion carried. The following voted in favor: Mayor Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative REVIEW MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM STUDY: Bill Monk: The Council may remember that some time ago the water study was authorized for the entire water system. That study has now been completed and is in the report. The City Manager and myself are working on several options with bond consultants on the possible funding sources for one or all three of the improvements listed. That is not a part of what is being presented tonight. I did not want to have this study floating around for discussion or distrubution without the Council having a copy. It is being brought to the Council before we can bring you the ini- tial financing recommendations. Mr. Bob Frigaard, an associate from OSM was present to review the various sections of the water report with the City Council. He stated that the study area included all lands within Chanhassen inside the projected development area expected to service city growth for the next 50 years. Past water records along with basic assumptions for per capita consumption were used in conjunction with land use projections as the basis for the final system recommendations. Those recommendations included: l)Installation of a trunk line along County Road 17 between TH 5 and Greenwood Shores; 2) Construction of a major water storage facility; 3) Construction of a trunk line along lake lucy Road between County Road 17 and County Road 117. These improvements are recommended to be completed within the next five years based on current needs and flow problems found in the report. Mr. Frigaard also made a spe- cial point of the fact that the water system model could easily be revised or modified as new conditions arise through platting or construction so the overall needs of the system could continue to be at addressed. or"J ~C Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -20- Councilwoman Swenson: I am not quite sure where your proposed well #5 is going to be. Bob Frigaard: On Lake Lucy Road. I Councilwoman Swenson: I was curious, well #4 is being utilized from the northern area. Is that correct? Bob Friqaard: Actually, they will all be utilized by connecting the selective well #4 at the present time could feed into the present well, but you do have some problems with some main sizes. You have some problems with some low pressures up in this area. We had some problems with some low pressures and they fluctuate quite rapidly depending on the use of the small downtown. By having your water tower up in this area, you do away with those fluctuations. This would still be riding on the same pressure that your existing downtown one does. So the pumps in your wells are adequate. This line on Hwy 17 would actually strengthen it and be able to get the water up here better. The line across Lake Lucy Road, right now, well #3 is really only utilized by high pressure system and it is tied together into this system acted by pumping to the high pressure zone and then pressure reducing valve back down in. That is pumping it up and coming back down and you are wasting your energy. Councilwoman Swenson: I notice in your introduction, you mention the future use of the Lake Susan and Lake Riley areas. Along Hwy 17 going south from the railroad crossings and I noticed that the legend shows the existing stopping just north of Lake Susan. You are showing a future line there. We are anticipating considerable development along that line in the near future and no where in your report could I see that addressed other than in your letter of introduction. Bob Friqaard: In the information that Bill gave us as to where the development would I occur, we pulled the nodes off there, without the map, I can't answer your specific question, but I would be glad to address it. Councilwoman Swenson: My question having to do with well #4, wouldn't that well better serve that area? Bob Friqaard: Actually the location of the well that you have here is pumping into the same pressure system, both 2 and 4 are pumping into the same system. So the fact that whether it is here or there, it really doesn't make any difference. In fact, in this case you kind of have a dual benefit here by having the reservoir up here and this well down here. If you do have a large demand, your well can kick on, your tank starts like another well and you start pumping from two directions. Councilwoman Swenson: I assume this will then be taken into consideration in the future. Bob Frigaard: Now that we have the basic information on the computer, any time something should change and there maybe a hotel come up, we can very easily plug in different data and that node would rerun it in a ten minutes time and give us the answers that we need. Councilman Horn: Is your computer p.c. compatible? Mr. Mittelsteadt: No, this is a main frame, so it is not p.c. compatible. The program that we use from the University of Kentucky takes a lot of storage space to utilize this program. I I I I .; if r.; .-d (. \~' Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -21- Mayor Hamilton: So you will be back and give us some information about financing so we can move ahead with this. Bill Monk: There is some questions about whether all views should be handled at one time or the trunks should proceed separately and so on, plus we have to look at funding options. That will be brought back to the Council within the next 60 to 90 days. Mayor Hamilton moved to accept the municipal water system study prepared by Schelen-Mayeron & Associates. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Orr - The CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR GENERAL RETAIL, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, RESTAURANT, GROCERY STORE USES, 581 WEST 78TH STREET, GARY .K!.B.L. DAVID ~ BELL CO.: Barb Dacy: Mr. Kirt indicated to me that he was going to have his consultant be here tonight. He couldn't make it for some reason. Councilman Horn: It seems to me, and I am not quite sure I comprehend this whole thing and what is happening, but every area here that we talked about is being down sized to some respect. Does this mean that he is developing less of the building? Barb Dacy: No. I believe originally space was not taken into account for the corri- dor square footage area, etc. He asked to rearrange things, moving the restaurant from the southeast corner up to the northwest corner. Councilman Horn: So basically, what he is down sizing now are things that is going into a corridor? Barb Dacy: Yes. He has got a corner extending from the west end to the central corridor. Councilman Horn: How can that be economically feasible? Corridors don't make any money. Mayor Hamilton: It is going to make it better for shopping if you are going to have retail there. It's got everybody on the corridor. Barb Dacy: When Brauer was doing those original evaluations of the parking space, we were just going by gross square footage of the existing building. Just to play it safe, we prefer to have him coming in with less square footage than more. Councilman Geving: Where does he make his connenction to the bowling alley? Barb Dacy: Until we have more detailed plans of what is going to occur there, the condition of approval is that Mr. Kirt negociate with us to work out an agreement to connect into all the three uses. He said that that was to his advantage to make the mall function as one unit. One point on the exterior. Phase I was for some cosme- tic touch ups as to the existing siding on the building and around windows, etc. One of the conditions of approval is that if he does a complete overhaul of the sod that he submit detailed sod plans. Councilman Geving: Who is really involved? Barb Dacy: being that center is, We had Mr. Freeberg do a design of the whole building and the objective the two uses don't have completely different exteriors. The bowling obviously, building their exterior in conformance but was agreed upon at ~.. /", r i :...'W touncil Meeting, September 9, 1985 -22- the last Council meeting. All that the condition is aimed for is just to make sure that the two uses are consistent and the building is architectually consistent. The Planning Commission felt that they do not need to see the plans and their recommen- dation was that the sod plans should be reviewed by the Council only. That is for the complete exterior upgrade if that occurs. I Councilwoman Watson: It almost has to occur at some point. Barb Oacy: We are all optomistic, but if something happens and he wouldn't sell the building or something. Councilwoman Watson: I think we should see to that. I don't think we would do anything about it, but it wouldn't hurt to run it by. Barb Oacy: That was the major intent of our conditions, to insure that the exterior is consistent overall. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the conditional use permit for general retail, pro- fessional offices, restaurant, grocery store uses, 581 West 78th Street, request H85-11 based on the site plan and text stamped "Received August 7, 1985" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Permitted uses in the subject area of the building are as follows: a. Apparel sales b. Grocery store c. Medical clinics d. Oaycare center e. Financial institutions f. Home furnishings g. Newspaper office h. Business and general offices i. Pro fessional 0 ffi ces j. Personal services including beauty and barber shops k. Print shops 1. Special ty retail m. Book or music stores n. Any other uses to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner I 2. Installation of curbing prior to building occupancy around the perimeter of the building, the loading area, entrances to the public street, and the island near the east property line as depicted on the approved plans B and C dated April 15, 1985. 3. Submission of a detailed landscaping plan and installation of said landscaping in conjunction with other site improvements. 4. Execution of an access and joint parking cross easement with Mr. Bloomberg. 5. Signage on site shall be limited to a free standing pylon sign and tenant signs to be mounted on the building walls in conformance with the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. 6. The applicant shall agree to enter negotiations with the City to develop an interior mall connection. I I I I c: , r~ .:. _~ 1.:.... =.,'___ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -23- 7. Submission of detailed facade plans for the upgrading of the exterior of the building to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: ~ Accept Planning Commissioner Resignation: Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the resignation of Tom Merz from the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ Planning Commission: Mayor Hamilton moved to appoint Robert Siegle and Steve Emmings to the Planning Commision. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ Housing and Redevelopment Authority: RESOLUTION #85-55: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution reappointing Clifford Whitehill as Commissioner to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. D. Solid Waste Committee: --- Mayor Hamilton moved the appointment of Carol Watson to the Solid Waste Committee. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION ~ 1986 PROPOSAL: Jim Castleberry: The Relief Association point system, which they would like you to consider is broken down into some specific areas. One is a monthly increase from $8 - $9, to change the vesting to 10 or 15 years. We spent a lot of time looking at this primary benefit, which I think it was Councilman Geving who last year asked me to give that some attention because I know it has been before Council for many many years now. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving had been looking at the lump sum benefits and had questions about it so we tried to take that into consideration as well. I realize that the clarity of this kind of thing is probably not as good as some of the other reports that you have read. With that either myself or Jerry Schlenk will entertain any questions that you may have. Councilwoman Swenson: One thing I am worried about, Jim, is that everything that I have been reading indepedent of things from the City, from the league and the newspaper, etc., is that I think we are all headed for a shake up when it comes to state aids. I think we are making an error to include state aid figures in anything we plan for a long range operation. It appears that the hand writing is going to be on the wall. What do we do then. We sit here and we have made a committment that there is no way that the people in this City can financially handle. It really scares me. I am kind of amazed because I was living under the idea that last year when we went through this that we had agreed upon a pattern that was going to be l' " '-' ~. ~~. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -24- something other than the increase department which would be looked at annually, and that we had a workable plan that had been agreed to. I was quite surprised when I went through this I saw that we have got a whole new suggestion now. I am worried I about planning on state aids to help pay for this because I don't think that we can afford to do that anymore. Don Ashworth: I think there is going to be a real difficult time for the legisla- ture. State aids as they go back to cities are going to be under scrutiny, etc. Fire insurance policies written within a city have been dedicated to be returned back to cities to provide relief for local fire departments. Recognizing that fact and that it would be affecting every fire department across the state, I sincerely question whether or not they would touch that form of revenue. I think we are going to have to continue fighting for our general state aid dollars. This particular account is a dedicated account representing fire insurance policies that are written. The increase that was put in late last year was a result of a lot of work that we tried to do in terms of a fixed dollar amount plan. We held off increases for a couple years to try and see how we could work that through. Yes, you do have two increases coming on top of each other, but I sincerely do not think that it is high on comparison to neighboring departments and just generally recognizing the problems that cities are having in terms of getting volunteers out onto fire departments. Quite truthfully, retirement benefits are becoming more and more of an incentive for these people to come on and they are more and more looking to 10 year vesting, 15 year vesting and some assurance that monies that they are putting in will, in fact, go to their families. That is basically what you have in these proposals. Councilman Horn: I look at it as they have retirement plans at the ment plans at their primary jobs. the Fire Department is a part-time job, typically primary job. Many people don't even have retire- I don't understand why this is a necessity. I Don Ashworth: The amount of pay isn't that high. If you look at it, the current value is $28,000 at retirement. Mayor Hamilton: It's not a paid department, it is volunteer. Nobody is making you do this. Supposidly, it is a volunteer department, but it's not. Jim Castleberry: I think that is a good point. I don't think they really consider themselves volunteer's in a true sense either. The Fair Labors Standards Act makes it clear that it is a part time position. The Relief Association has a retirement package that is an attractive one to keep people on. It is not so much in getting them in, but once you spend a lot of money and a lot of time getting those people trained, getting them up to speed there really has to be an incentive to stay on. I think we are looking at something comparable to what other cities are doing. Mayor Hamilton: One thing that certainly bothered me is that several of the guys that are retiring this or next year, I have always had the feeling, and you guys haven't really tried to hide your feelings, that you are trying to get the benefit pumped up as high as you can and then you are all going to leave. It has been a volunteer thing and I do know people on other forces who stayed past 20 years. It kind of gripes me that they are trying to get this thing up as high as they can and then they say they are leaving. They ask you why don't you stay on past 20 years, I agree, I can understand that there isn't a great deal of benefit, but at the same time if you felt good enough about the community and being on the department for 20 years, why not stay on to help the community and the department some more. I Jerry Schlenk: Most of them are leaving because they are getting too old. I will be the youngest one and that is 48 years old. The others are around 52 years old and that is getting too old to go on calls and fight fires. Earl McCallister is 65 right now. Bob Meuwissen is about 60 - 62. I I I 0:;-, ~~ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -25- Mayor Hamilton: another year or training. But I feel that Jack and yourself could certainly stick around two and help out some of the new guys even if you did mostly Jim Castleberry: in and I suspect his 40's. Some of the other guys, like Dale Gregory, will have his 20 years that he will stay on longer than that because of his age, he is in Councilman Gevinq: I think over the last three or four years the fellows who were the chartered members of our Fire Department could start to see the end of the tun- nel, we started to see a great push for retirement benefits more so than we ever had. It irritated me when I saw this particular item because last year when we made some significant changes, I thought, in the retirement and Relief Association area, I felt that we had laid down some ground rules and set some criteria where we wouldn't have to go back and look at this for another year or so. We bumped it up in 1982 and in 1984 and now we are talking about 1985 again, were you are proposing $160 per month for the rest of their natural lives. I do believe that we are starting to see a great push. I don't look at this as a yearly objectant for the Fire Department and the Relief Association to meet with the City Council and negotiate. I don't believe that this should be an annual process. It isn't like the annual budgeting process. I wasn't real pleased to see this particular item come to course again, after what I had considered major benefits last year. You are proposing some things here that are going to be extremely compensitory and very expensive to the City of Chanhassen. Jim, you made a memorandum to Don Ashworth and what I was hoping Don would do was to write his manager's comments in terms of what the overall cost of this whole program would be and just write down a brief analysis if we were to buy any of these packa- ges. I was looking at that analysis from Don because that would give me at least a dollar figure to look at. I remember back on this Council with Dick Pearson. He was a very big supporter of the Fire Department, but he was also a level headed indivi- dual and he was always very cautious about whether or not the City would have the capability of maintaining a long term benefit program for our Fire Department and we went very slow. From 1976 through 1980, there may have been one increase in there. We were very cautious about how we approached and where we were going with the Fire Department. I think we are getting a little bit out of hand at this time. I agree that you have to have some benefits and you have to have some incentives to attract people to the Fire Department. This year you have done a good job and I think you have brought in a lot of real good, young talent. I look at the comparison of how things happen in salary increases with a school board or City Councils or a Fire Department. Each time that one community bumps their particular fire department or city manager, or whoever it is, up another grade on the scale and then all the rest of them see that and they want to fall in line. I think that is what is happening here with the Fire Department attempting to compare ourselves with some other com- munities. I think the first thing they have to look at is "do we have a truely unfunded liability, what is the extent of our unfunded liability and we support major increases over a long term. My probelm with this particular package is I have no idea what impact is being proposed here for 1986 and into the out years. I am talking about 5 years from now. I don't know what is going to happen when some of these firemen retire, die and leave a widow and those survivor benefits will continue to be carried on for years to come. I have no idea of what those costs will be. That is where we have got to come from a Council standpoint and put together the best analysis that we can. My personal feeling is that once a person retires and we have an unfunded liability that we could afford to pay that individual off, cash amount, we know that we could administratively support that. We don't have to continue to carryon with that person for years to come and his widow, etc. I think, administra- tively, it is a lot more simple. That is why I prefer the lump sum benefit program. ~J U Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -26- Jim Castleberry: I would agree with you. I only reflect, to some degree, what the members of the association have brought up to me. Councilman Gevinq: question in my mind retired in the next process and I would how far we can go. I understand, too, that you are being pushed. There is no that the retiring members of our Fire Department and soon to be several years are going to get as much as they can through the do the same thing. But, we have to be very level headed as to I Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have a mandatory retirement age? Jim Castleberry: There is a 30 year cap on the retirement benefits as it stands. According to law there is no mandatory age. I think one of the things that will come into play, hopefully in 1986, is that a medical director and I are taking this whole area of physical fitness and try and institute some standards. Different standards will come with the different age levels, but some minimum level of fitness. Councilwoman Swenson: I remember last year someone said that, in all due respect for their efforts, these guys were scared to death because they didn't want these old guys around if they were in a pinch because they couldn't move fast enough or work fast enough. My question here is the safety of the other individuals involved. Jim Castleberry: I think the Chief and his staff may make decisions about who goes into burning buildings and who doesn't and what other kind of ancillary tasks other people can handle. There are a variety of things that need to be done. There is enough for everybody to do at this point. Councilwoman Swenson: What would prevent somebody from coming in at the age of 45 and working until they are 65. I Councilman Horn: I don't think that age is such a determining factor as is the phy- sical requirements. I don't think it should be limited by age. It should be limited by physical capability. Jim Castleberry: I think it would be pretty hard recruiting somebody at that age. One of the things that has changed significantly from 20 years ago is that when we get a new recriut now there is a whole lot of demands put on that person and their time outside of attending the calls. They have to go to school to get a state cer- tified fire fighter I and we send them to school again to get their first aid cer- tification, which is around a 45 - 80 hour course. That whole process takes a little over a year so those folks are involved in training outside the required department in addition in trying to make all the inhouse training, it is about a year before they even get to use some of those skills in fighting a fire or responding to a rescue. Mayor Hamilton: I think in years past when we have looked at various requests, and their is usually more than one request for an addition of something in a years time. We have had to go from $8 to $9. What is the bottom line impact on the budget. If you put in a lump sum, like you have suggested in here, what is the bottom line impact there. Also what I would like to see you do and what I think we have asked prior to you being here, Jim, is for the Fire Department to tell us what is most important to you. Prioritize what you want to get first. I don't see that here, and I I would like to. I am certainly not saying that we wouldn't approve'some, if not all of these things, but I want to know, in priority, which ones the Fire Department wants first and what the dollar impact is going to be on the City. I I I 001 ~U~ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -27- Jim Castleberry: I can tell you real quickly that the lump sum has no impact at all because is funded at the same rate. We have the option to fund it the same that we are doing already. Mayor Hamilton: We have talked about the lump sum a lot in the past couple years. They misunderstood and thought we were trying to take something away from them when we were trying to improve a system for them. I would like to see something here that says that they are or are not in favor of it. What is the tax implication at this time, because that's what their concern was previously, if you give them a lump sum they are going to be taxed for half of it. Is that still the case. I did talk to Frenzel and he was suppose to talk to the IRS, so maybe we can now get that. Jim Castleberry: It is still kind of a gray area. It seems to be that some depart- ments are definitely taking the averaging amount. That is something that I can take back and propose. The other one that is real negligable in terms of cost and I think I am quite accurate when I say $33 is the cost in the change in the vesting plan. I don't know if that will have any impact. Hopefully people are involved because they want to be and not strictly in for the money. We will come back with some different figures. I will bring it back to the Fire Department and see. Councilman Geving: I think Tom made an important point, prioritize what you want. Jim Castleberry: Would you like some more research on that state aid question? Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, I sure would. Don Ashworth: In relation to the budgetary impacts in the budget you will be able to see that the costs associated with the relief program will be around a $3,000 cost factor associated with the proposal they are presenting. One of the problems in the fixed benefit area, from an actuarial standpoint, the state law sets out the amount of money that is necessary to fund the two different ways of doing it. The figure in the back portion of the report, $46,000, is using the lump sum payment. That would then increase our payments dramatically. I think the majority of the members will take the money in a lump sum. Mayor Hamilton: As long as we can give some .assurances that they are not going to lose half of it to taxes. That is their concern. Don Ashworth: So when we come back again, we will again try to answer that question. I don't know how we can tie in the problem with how the state handles the accrual. How much money has to go into this plan. leaving it as the monthly basis and leaving the option means that we can fund it at the lower level, but it doesn't guarantee the City Council that the members will cash out on a lump sum basis. Councilman Geving: I think the critical part here, Don, is the fact that for the very first time we are going to have retired firemen. Right now we haven't got a problem. Now is the time to do this. If we are ever going to make a plan change, now is the time to do it before we get six or eight guys on a retirement program. Mayor Hamilton: Could you bring this back to us as soon as possible? Jim Castleberry: Yes. Mayor Hamilton moved to tabled this item until additional information is received. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -28- COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER PROGRAM PROPOSAL: Jim Castleberry: We are trying to assist Eden Prairie a little bit. They, realisti- I cally, probably benefit the most from the Tri-City program. They certainly have the most control. They now have a need for one full-time officer. They provide their second officer to service Chanhassen and Chaska to some degree. I took a look at this and what it amounts to is by hiring our own person we can provide double the amount of time on the street for a little less money than what we currently budget for the Tri-City program. Councilman Horn: Does that include the vehicle? Jime Castleberry: Yes it does. Chaska would like to go to their own, but they would also like to wait until they have their new building. They operate from the basement of the City Hall and they are really pressed for space. If we agree to the split, they would like to work with us and they would pay us a flat $10.50 per hour, which would include our mileage. If there was a special callout they would have to pay that two hour minimum or $30.00, which should cover our costs. There is a little bit of a built in profit off of Chaska on this. There is no question that we would have a greater control. The problem with animal control any where or any way you name it, whether you call it a community service officer or an animal patrol, etc., there is always going to be a turn over with employees. I think we can hold onto somebody for two years at a time if they are doing well. lately we have had a lot of turn over with the Tri-City program. I think the emphasis still has to be on animal control, but I also think with 20 hours a week there is some time in there to do some other things, to do some things that we really don't have the personnel for, such as the crime prevention, some of the house checks, rather than having our patrol officer tied up on some things that don't really require a police officer to do. We can have I the community service officer take some of those and enable the police officers to get back on the road and be more visible in other kinds of ways. We talked about as a part of the 1986 police contract that there is an increasing demand on our police department. Councilman Horn: That is something that I always here. If you look at what some of the major crime that is really ballooning, it is in your thefts and things and still we always here the emphasis put on traffic control. To me, I like to see that police car going through the neighborhoods. An animal patrol going through a neighborhood isn't much of a deterrent. A police car going through a neighborhood is a deterrent. Jim Castleberry: Yes and no. I agree a police car is a deterrent and we have to do some more of that. Right now, our car is pretty much going from call to call. There is not a lot of this patrol time. I think if you take the animal patrol van and relabel it a little bit and put Chanhassen Public Safety on it, I would probably put a red light on top. I think it does have an appearance of being a public safety vehicle. Councilman Horn: cerned about a van quite different. I don't think that there driving around that you are use too many people that to haul a dog around are in. that con- It looks Councilwoman Swenson: I am referring to the because some of these Eden Prairie have those four by fours for their safety patrol. design. I don't think you necessarily have to have a squad car other vehciles are now being adapted to that. I Councilman Horn: I don't think those type of vehicles get the respect that the squad car gets. I {-." ,r-' ~..'.' Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -29- Jim Castleberry: I would agree. I think there has to be a public awareness group and I think the whole idea behind crime prevention is putting some of the awareness on the citizens themselves and make them more aware and making them communicate with one another. We have only got a couple crime watch areas in the whole city. I think that is an area where we need to spend some time on. In regards to the car out on the street for traffic control, in your next monthly report they will look at sta- tistics for personal injury accidents and the property damage accidents. Whenever there is a personal injury accident, a lot of them are alcohol related. I would rather get some of those people off of the road before they get in an accident. Councilman Horn: I don't think anybody has a real problem with that, but I have heard so many people at work say that Hwy 5 is the place where they set up all the speed traps. They have a whole different perspective about our police force than I do, because I look at them in a different light. A lot of people there feel that they are really overly picky about the speeding along the highway. I have no problem with taking a drunk driver off the road, but, personally, speed limits are abominable anyway and I would really have trouble supporting enforcement of our speed limits. Jim Castleberry: Most of that kind of enforcement would come from state patrol from the highways. Our county cars don't simply have the time. Councilman Horn: These people were picked up for speeding by the county cars. were hired to do just radar enfor- Our cars do not do a lot of speed Jim Castleberry: There are some county cars that cement on some of the highways and county roads. enforcements. There just isn't enough time. III Cooooilwom'o SW,0500' Wh,t '" w, p'yiog oow? Jim Castleberry: Budgeted for 1985 was $13,200, but that includes reimbursing fund 209 for the vehicles. The actual service costs are $11,500. I Councilwoman Swenson: My point being that when Chaska builds their building, which they will be doing soon, we probably won't have this from Chaska anymore, right? Jim Castleberry: I see it as maybe a one year program. Councilwoman Swenson: We are really talking about a $4,000 increase, approximately. Jim Castleberry: No, I don't think so. What is reflected in the 1986 proposal is the add on of additional hours to cover Chaska. I think if you debit those hours you will come out just about even or a little bit less. Councilwoman Swenson: And that would give us how many hours? Jim Castleberry: It would be 20 versus 10. That is how the original proposal was written, without Chaska written on there. Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have somebody in mind that would be eligible for this and capable of taking it over? Jim Castleberry: We would have to advertise. We have had one person on the Fire Department who has a degree in animal sience or something that has expressed an interest, so that would be somebody worth taking a close look at. Otherwise, in speaking with Eden Prairie and other communities, we will be flooded with applicants and shouldn't have any problems. o elf. Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -30- Councilman Horn: I certainly agree with increasing the patrolling for animal complaints, but the part of it that I am really not quite sure about is taking over some of the house patrols and some of the other things that we have squad cars out doing now. I Jim Castleberry: The house checks get done pretty much by the patrol cars, but we aren't doing anything with the other crime prevention areas. I am thinking that there will be an extra 2 to 5 hours a week where we can assign this person to do a little more patrolling of the community. Councilman Geving: I believe that if I lived in Chaska, I would like this proposal because I would be pushing off another task onto someone else to administratively control for me for $10.50 an hour for 10 hours per week for Chaska, I think that we are taking on quite a burden. We are picking up a person that we have to supervise, a salary, administrate, pay, and the cost for housing this individual, buy the indi- vidual uniforms, providing the transportation. Personally, I think that some of the items that you have indicated here that the community service officer would assist in are duties that are now being performed out of the Carver County Sheriff's patrol, and duties that I think somewhat belong in your operation, Jim and I can't see the reason that can't continue. I don't believe in these figures. I sometimes have seen people that we have hired. They eventually become perminent staff members and now we have got another person to house who was, at the time, innocently hired as a part- time individual. If these individuals are hired, I would suggest that they are not permanent employees, we pay them no benefits, they are strictly part-time people and we have no intention for any future full-time employment. I personally think that your bottom dollar is cheaper if you contract it out. I would be much in favor in staying with the Tri-City affiliation or anybody else that does this rather than hooking up with Chaska. I have no interest with aligning ourselves with Chaska, getting involved in a short-term operation such as this, I would rather do it alone, continue with Tri-City and not get involved with Chaska. I Councilwoman Watson: I agree with the house checks being done. I do agree that it would be nice to have someone who did more patrolling on animals. The officer now does a very good job. The only problem is that he can only repsond, he can't look for potential problems. I am not sure about the business with Chaska. I think we are going to have the whole thing in our lap in a very short time. They are admitting up front that they don't want any long term deal. Whatever we decide to do we should decide to do for Chanhassen and how it would work out for us, regardless what Chaska does for their services. If we do decide to do that we should be absolu- tely sure that what they are paying covers the cost very adequately. Mayor Hamilton: As Jim knows, I am not exactly thrilled about this CSO program. Even though the numbers seem to indicate that it would be a benefit to the City, I am not really thrilled about starting the project. Why doesn't the County do this? If the CSO program is good and you can take officers out of it after a period of time, why doesn't the County get involved in it? Jim Castleberry: Probably because it just has never come the their attention. Mayor Hamilton: You should approach them about this. Show them this same thing. Take a Tri-City truck and put a guy in it and sell time to Chanhassen and Chaska. Jim CBstleberry, I would Bssume thBt he doesn't wBnt to tBke on the responsibility. III I I I ~Rf Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -31- Mayor Hamilton: If it is really a benefit and the benefits are the same to them that you are saying they are to us, I would think that it is something that they would want to do. Councilman Horn: They could set it up for more than just the two cities. Don Ashworth: The County is not going to get into animal control. Your question is, though, why don't these community service officer programs get involved with patrol and a lot of other things. Mayor Hamilton: But also with animal control. If that is what you use CSO programs for, there is no reason why they can't use it too. I would mention that the Public Safety Commission looked at this for quite some time and was discussed more than once. Richard Wing, who is rather conservative with spending, was convinced after a lot of investigation on his own that this would be a good program for the City, as did Candy Takkunen. But they did pass it and they did recommend to the Council that we accept the program. They did put a great deal of time into it. Councilman Geving: I can assure you, Tom, if we start a CSO program you will have a part time employee that we'll have to house, provide badges, uniforms, weapons, and any number of administrative types of things including payroll and supervision. It is something that we don't have now. We are adding costs and people that I don't think are necessary. I am not in favor of the joint agreement at all. I do like the idea of more patrol hours. Don Ashworth: What alternative do we have? Eden Prairie wants out. They have enough to take care of their own. They are giving Chanhassen and Chaska a good deal. They really don't need to do that. If we said no to Cheska, they would I am sure talk with Eden Prairie and ask them if they could do it for one more year. We could also talk to Eden Prairie and ask them to continue it for both cities for one more year. But at the end of that time, what have you got? Councilman Gevinq: I think you could still find someone to contract out. There has to be other people in this business. There have to be other firms that are willing to take on a $12,00 to $15,000 contract for animal patrol. Councilwoman Watson: That has been a real sticky deal. There are more law suits involving people's dogs who have been eliminated too soon and picked up and mistreated, etc. If we are in control of our own patrolling, we at least protect ourselves. We know who is picking up the dogs, we know where they are going, we know what is occurring and we can account to our residents what is happening if their pets are picked up. ~ Ashworth: I hear what you are saying, but if we can maintain this as a part- time position and everyone saying that this is a "part-time" position and that we are not going to consider anything more. Whatever it happens to be, you are getting additional help back to the department that young individuals who would like to take in and move up into the rights of officers. We are making it clear that we don't have a postion for those people here, but we are offering them a chance to work while they are going to school. It seems to work in other areas. If we can keep it to $10,000, it is a better deal than what we have got. Jim Castleberry: I think that echoes the Public Safety too, Don. It is my job to come up with alternatives and new ideas. 280 Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -32- Mayor Hamilton: As much as I dislike this, I don't have a good alternative either. Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed your note at the bottom of the projected costs page, I If Bloomington has agreed to continue serving Chanhassen without our Tri-City affi- liation, what is their proposal? Jim Castleberry: Bloomington acts as the pound, more or less. That is where the animals are stored. Each city right now has their own contract. We are billed directly from Bloomington. Councilwoman Swenson: In otherwords, when you say that you are not trying to indi- cate that they wouldn't be cooperative with us in taking the place of the Tri-City. Jim Castleberry: No. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't understand what our alternatives are. Jim Castleberry: I think if we said that there is no way that we can do our own program, Eden Prairie would probably continue for another year. They said they have acquired their own full time person and they don't need the extra hassle of trying to keep a part-time person to serve your two cities. Chaska has also echoed that they would like to have their own. Eden Prairie has been real kind to the City and to myself in many different ways. Councilwoman Swenson: What about Excelsior and Shorewood? Jim Castleberry: Lake and they are being mishandled. Dakota County had quality people to I don't know who they are using. I know Victoria uses White Bear the ones that were involved with in the deal where the animals were There just isn't anybody out there that wants to pick up dogs. a real problem with that. They had a real problem of keeping do that job. I Councilwoman Swenson: I tend to agree with Dale that putting another man on always presents a problem. But I don't know what the alternative is. We have got to pro- vide the service. Would it be beneficial to do this for twelve months and see whether it works? What will we have lost? Don Ashworth: I don't think you will have lost anything because the equipment that Eden Prairie has right now that they are using that we have paid our share for, basi- cally comes over to us. You are not talking about any additional equipment costs. Councilwoman Swenson: I do this with moderate reservation, but I can't see an alter- native. I don't know whether or not we should include Chaska or not. Councilwoman Watson: If they would pay their way it wouldn't make any difference. Mayor Hamilton: We are making money on it. Don Ashworth: The other thing is, as it stands right now with Eden Prairie turning the equipment over to us and Chaska and Chanhassen still doing it jointly, the van is to be used between the two communities, otherwise we will have to start hassling about who gets it when. Councilwoman Swenson: Will the van actually be Chanhassen property? I Don Ashworth: No, it's Chanhassen's and Chaska's. I I I ,--",...--),. r.-, .~ 1. t". I , /,. : 1'. ,.; .'.... -' '-' Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -33- Councilwoman Swenson: What are they going to pay? Jim Castleberry: This van is paid for. There are two vans that were purchased over the course of the program. Councilman Horn: If we paid the $1,280, who does that go to? Jim Castleberry: We are just reimbursing the fund for an expenditure made. Councilwoman Swenson: If we involve ourself with Chaska and then they drop out, are we going to have to pay them again for their share of the vehicle or can we make an agreement that we will give them those 10 hours but the vehicles are going to be ours. Don Ashworth: We can talk to them. We did an accounting with Eden Prairie as far as what they are keeping and what they are giving back. Out of that it is a wash. They can walk away with the equipment that they are currently using. What they turn back over to Chanhassen is the joint property of the two cities. That has a market value today of $3,000 to $4,000. A year from today, whatever the market value is at that point in time, we have to decide who gets what. Councilman Gevinq: Why can't we bend their arm on this, though, if they want to come in and have this service from us and we take it over that at the end of the one year the vehicle is ours. Don Ashworth: Do you think that they would immediately want to say, well we will do our SCO program right away as well and we want the truck too. They have as much right to the truck as we do. Jim Castleberry: A year from now that truck will have about 150,000 miles on it. The value is only probably $2,500 at that point anyway. Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Public Safety Director's and the Public Safety Commission's recommendation to hire a Community Service Officer (CSO) as pre- sented with a 12 month trial period. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAUKKA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, SCHROEDER PROPERTY: Mayor Hamilton: This is an item that we have seen previously. The developers came in and gave us their proposal and there were comments made regarding the size and the layout of the development. Don and I met with them a short time ago and we tried to convey to them what changes would be needed in their original proposal in order for the Council to accept it or at least give it some reconsideration. They have pretty much met all of our concerns that were stated when they were before us previously. Rather than have them come in and present this to us and have everybody throw up their arms, we thought we better take a look at it now and see if everybody has a great deal of difficulty with it and we will then tell them that. Councilman Horn: I would like to compare it with what they had. Councilwoman Watson: I would also like to see what was there for the original Chaparral platting. Barb Dacy: The original Chaparral 4th had 47 lots. originally came in with a proposal of 95 lots to the came to the Council they reduced it to 72. Now this is down to 63. They are proposing 63. They Planning Commission. When they is the third revision, which it ~; Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -34- Councilman Horn: From the original 47. Councilman Horn: But it is the same PUD. I Mayor Hamilton: That was Chaparral. This is a separate owner. Councilwoman Swenson: I count 30 lots here in the 10,000 square foot figure out of 63. I am not really impressed when they come up with lots of 32,000 and 31,000 and then come in and say that they have an average lot size of 16,000 square feet when you have got 1/2 of those lots that are 10,000 square feet. People do it to us all the time. It aggrevates me. Don Ashworth: Previously the guideline that you were using was a minimum of 11,700. Tom and I relayed that to them. The last meeting you had you talked about a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Bascially, that is the reason we brought the item back here. Are we going to hold to that 15,000, no lot smaller than 15,000 square feet, or to the 11,700. Councilman Geving: The only thing that I can say about this plat, it is a con- tinuation, in my mind, of the original Chaparral. As I drive through Chaparral now, I look at the decision that the Council made. I think we really devised a very nice planned area out there. It is growing, it is filling up rapidly, and it is beauti- ful. We did some right things with Chaparral in terms of the lot sizes. We haven't had hardly any variances in this area. I don't think this side of the hill is going to be any different if we do it right. Councilwoman Swenson: People are buying those lots in Chaparral, they are building nice homes on them and they are living in them. People are buying lots that size. I Don Ashworth: The original Chaparral was down to the 11,000 size. They are nice size lots. Originally, they had a big lot section. The Council had some concern. "Why is it that you want to do the smaller lot portion first." The fact that is, is that marketing does change and we have not had that bad of a problem with the first Chaparral as far as the lot sizes. Before we brought the guy back in, he brought in something like this that would not be desired, we wanted to see what you would say. We would carry back the position that the minimum he should present is 11,700, but I don't want to do that with the minutes saying a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Councilman Horn: My opinion is that in any PUD we wouldn't say a minimum of 15,000. That wouldn't be my position. Here we get into this, "what's a continuation of a PUD." The last thing they said if BT were coming in with this proposal and were part of the whole thing we would find it acceptable. Now we turn that around and say, okay, this is still all part of the Chaparral PUD, but it has got a different owner. A previous Council looked at that whole thing and said, okay, as long as we have an average lot size of this throughout the whole thing we are going to buy this whole concept. Now they come back, and we know this is going to happen to us because we have heard it up at Near Mountain - "sure, we are going to come in with the big stuff and then when it comes time to come in with the big stuff they say market ana- lysis says we have to have smaller lots now. Still you see other developers, and they don't advertise as much, but they are able to sell their lots. Don Ashworth: That is true, but you have to admit that staff-wise when this item came in, we presented you with the whole PUD and this was a part of that original one I and we gave you the statistics. Councilman Horn: I am not saying what staff represents, I am saying what the develo- pers represent. I I I >~~ [,-~, :~~~ Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -35- Councilwoman Swenson: There are six big lots here and all the rest of them are little ones. Sure, they can average it Bt 16,000, which looks good, but that is a lot of bologna. Let's say they can have 10 percent of the lots under 11,700. I just don't think you can take a PUD like this and take six lots and say that this is going to be 16,000 square feet and you have 10,000 square foot lots allover. Councilman Horn: I can see somewhat of an average on the lot size, but what I have trouble with on this particular parcel is that this is the best part of the whole Chaparral development and it can support a larger lot area. If he had this plot out in the middle of a corn field some place with no trees around it, that makes sense in that area, but here I don't know if it makes sense. Councilwoman Swenson: How many variance requests are you going get? I would go with a minimum of 11,700. HIGHWAYS 5 AND 212 DISCUSSION: --- Councilman Horn reported on the meeting for Highways 5 and 212. He stated that MnDot reported that improvements would be made to Highway 5 starting in 1986. There will be a four lane out to Wallace Road. He stated that it was his understanding that it would be a four lane out to Highway 4 in the 1986 phase. It will not happen now until 1989 because of the bridge going over between Highway 4 and Wallace Road. He stated that they don't have anything in their plans to go beyond that until 1989 with the four lane over the bridge. Councilman Horn expressed his concern that these things happen and the Council never hears about them. Don Ashworth stated there was a joint meeting being held with the Council and the HRA on September 19th and that would be a good time to bring this issue up. BLUFF CREEK RAILROAD DISCUSSION: -- Councilman Geving stated that from time to time questions are raised from the Bluff Creek people regarding the Bluff Creek railroad. He stated that he would like Bill Monk give a brief run down on what may be happening with this so reports can be given back to those people. Bill Monk stated that he hadn't got ahold of the state to find out, but would take care of it immediately. CABLE 11 DISCUSSION: Councilwoman Watson stated that she would like to know when the films of the Council meetings are going to be aired on cable television. Don Ashworth stated that there has been some audio difficulty lately so there hasn't been a regular schedule, but hoped that in October each monday night meeting (indicating the first and third monday) would be taped and aired that same thursday evening at 7:30 p.m. TH 7 CORRIDOR STUDY, UPDATE: Barb Dacy stated that they are at the point where they have identified some prelimi- nary funding ranges. The estimated cost of the study was at $50,000 and the Met Council will pay half. The remaining will be determined somehow between the par- ticipating communities. She stated that a lot of communities were concerned as to how much they were going to pay. Deephaven being the smallest community, population wise, they should not contribute as much as Minnetonka. Minnetonka admitted that they should pay a little more than some of the other communities. Dacy stated that they have established a range from $4,000 to $10,000 and work on that, but in the ']: c~, n', (;,,~,.u "--, Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 -36- meantime, try to even that out between the population, average daily traffic, the number of existing arterials in the city, and the amount of frontage of Hwy 7 that passes through the city. She felt that the City's obligation, if the decision is to I continue, would range from $4,000 to $6,000. The council discussed this matter and agreed with would help keep the them informed as to what will looked at during the 1986 budget process and will the theory of be happening. be considered this study in that it This item will be for the 1986 budget. The council felt that these studies were somewhat getting out of hand. They felt that the cities are more and more funding studies. Barb Dacy stated that one of the objectives that was agreed to have the consultant look at is that everybody realizes that public funding for transportation purposes is not going to continue in any form. The Met Council, as well, has committed to try and identify some other possible funding sources and supposidly there have been some type of innovative ideas that are occurring across the country. Dacy stated that they were going to try and see if the consultant could reseach that as well. She felt that the Met Council was looking at this study to be a model for some type of funding. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW: Barb Dacy presented the proposed schedule for the zoning ordinance for the Council's review. This will be brought before the Planning Commission on September 11th. The Commission wants to encourage the Council members to attend any of the meetings. NEWSL ETTER: After the Council reviewed the September, 1985 Newsletter they felt that many articles should be reconstructed and advised Don Ashworth, City Manager to do so accordingly. I SIEBENALER REQUEST: Don Ashworth reported that M~. Siebenaler had asked if he could have some additional time to take down his bUilding. Bill Monk commented that the Council did give one option that if he didn't occupy, the house could stay. He stated that if Mr. Siebenaler is just asking for an exten- tion to take it down, he is in compliance. After further discussion by the council, no action was taken. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1.b.Z.: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Red Cedar Cove, Fred Plocher: Councilwoman Swenson: We have got 18 townhomes units. What I would like to know is there was going to be six sewer assessments levied for six houses that were antici- pated. A condominium unit uses just as much water as a two bedroom house does. How come they get by with only that much and they don't get an individual assessment? Bill Monk: The property was originally assessed two assessments back in 1973. Later on as a part of the reassessment we proposed to assess it six additional units. That was for the lateral and trunk benefit of running across that property. That was our intent, however, those additional units were not upheld in court. As such, those six units will be reinstated as a condition of this plat approval. The City will be totally reimbursed for the original installation costs as a part of eight assessed units. The developer will be installing private improvements to service the addi- tional 10 units. It should be remembered, however, that 18 trunk units will be charged as a part of this approval. This is consistent with City policy. I I I I Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 ~2~ -37- Mayor Hamilton moved to approve Consent Agenda item 1. b. 2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Red Cedar Cove, Fred Plocher. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the Hamilton. The following voted in favor: and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by: Kathy Sundquist meeting. Motion was seconded by Mayor Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson No negative votes. Motion carried.