Loading...
1986 10 20 I I I 135 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving and Councilwoman Watson Staff Present: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy and Bill Engelhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Horn wanted to discuss the downtown plan, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving wanted to discuss the News Release about the City of Chanhassen and Councilwoman Watson wanted to discuss John Pryzmus and stop signs in her neighborhood. All voted in favor of approval of the amended agenda and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recomendations: a. Resolution #86-77: Approval of Resolution Amending Year XII CDBG Program. b. Final plan Approval, Blackstad Addition. c. Final Plat Approval, Buchheit/Hed Addition. d. Final Plat Approval, Park One Third Addition. g. Approval of 1986/87 Auditing Contract, Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company. All voted in favor and motion carried. Items (e) and (f) were pulled for later discussion. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Bill Boyt, 7204 Kiowa Circle: I would like to read a very brief statement about the Chan Vista Development am what we have noticed there. We have indicated throughout the past nine months, we meaning both the neighbors in Saratoga am off Frontier Trail, that this developer did not follow through on his verbal commitments with us as we were working through on this process. While he firmly committed to you am to us that Frontier Trail would not be used to access this development, as I'm sure you have heard, he has violated that commitment repeatedly. He has refueling trucks up through there, heavy trucks on what I think we would all agree is not a road that is in great condi tion. He has also had his employees parking up through there. We might be able to accept employee parking if he was working in good faith with us but we had an incident today that was reported to me of one of his people going 1 11 ~,(;!\ ..._ t) \Ul City Council Meeting - October 213, 1986 down through that bad curve on Frontier Trail at 413 mph. You know the I problems with Frontier Trail. I don't think that is acting in good faith. He has firmly committed to you and to us that he would take all possible measures to protect the trees and the watershed involved. You may have gone out and taken a look. I know the Ci ty Eng ineer went out there and looked and I understand the Acting Engineer was involved in indicating which trees would be moved and which trees wouldn't. I know losing some trees is unavoidable. I went out there and counted 213 trees that are more then 15 inches in diameter that were in the neighborhood of 513-613 feet high that have been removed. Those are lifetime trees we are talking about there. There is no erosion controls protecting the creek. What is he wai ting to have happen? There is no erosion controls protecting the marsh. We have found the City Staff to be responsi ve to us on this am we appreciate that response. I know you are concerned. I didn't come to ask for your action but I came to let you know what was going on. I would like to believe that the developer wants to do a quality job. I would like to believe that we can work together to get that done. We will be satisfied with nothing less then a quality development and he needs to understand that. I don't think you would be satisfied with anything less then a quality development there too. He has been looking for limits right along. I think he is pushing us to the point where we would like to see a very clear message to this developer that we will not stop short of a quality development. He should know that we will not compromise on this matter and that we aren't going to wait for a diaster to happen in order to take action. Mayor Hamil ton: Can you leave that with us? I Bill Boyt: Sure. John Pryzmus: I just wanted to let you know that I sold my property down here on West 79th Street so I'm moving my driving range now finally. I removed all the fencing and what have you from our agreement originally and I tore down the building and disposed of it out at the new range. I will be working out there berming along the east side of it and the rest of that driving range is pretty well made up but at this point I'm looking for investors out there to possibly come in and help me do some more dirt work and what have you with some money if I get another partner but I just thought I would come in. If you have any questions about some of the things. Originally when I removed trees and they were too close to the creek but I hired Bob Nyan to go in am pull them back away so there is nothing by the creek and then there was some ash and what have you that was out there so I burned that this last week and disposed of that so if there are any questions. Mayor Hamil ton: If I remember correctly, you don't have a permit to do anything out there. I'm curious why you are doing anything at all. John Pryzmus: I got a permit to get rid of all the trash and I got a burning permit also. John Pryzmus: The City. I Councilman Geving: Who did you get your burning permit from? 2 I I I la7' City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Don Ashworth: He did come to the City and made application. It was approved by the Pollution Control. PUBLIC HEARING: SEWER EXTENSION REQUEST TO THE JAMES COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CR 16/CR 17--:-- - - Charlie James indicated that he was present to answer any questions that might arise this evening. William F. Kelly: I am an Attorney here representing Mr. B.C. Burdick. I thought possibly before you would get into comments from the publ ic there might be an explanation by Staff because I'm not exactly certain where their sewer line comes from, where it goes to and how it proposes to serve the various properties, particularly my client's property, Mr. Burdick. I have comments to make after the presentation if I may. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Skip McCombs: This is response to the request to extend sanitary sewer to the T.F. James Company property. Sewer would be extended down the present location of Park Drive, extended up through across the highway and go along the north side of the highway. A stub would be extended down to pick up this property and then it would extend up along the west side of the James property to serve that area, this area and this area here with a trunk sewer. The total cost estimate of the project including the main trunk sewer and the east tributary and the north tributary would be $318,803.00. The projects that would benefit from the improvement are this property here that has been labeled as the Burdick property and that would be the stub coming across the highway to be served by the east tributary and this part of the James property would also be served by the east tributary. The rest of the James property total would be the 32 acres and 15 acres which would be 47 acres. Kerber would be this 37 acres and then this Parcel B over here would be 115 1/2 acres would all be served by the project. '!his is a trunk sewer assessment and basically, in talking to the City Engineer before he left, suggested that it would be assessed on an area basis and we used for .the basis for the possible assessment the lowest use of the land as it is zoned now so that when zoning might permit you a range of so many units per acre, we used the lowest possible units for that with the assumption that if more units were built on the property when it developed then there would be additional assessment to it to equate to the number of units. Using those, we come up with 245 units for 8 1/2 acres and this states the various densities that we used on the southern part of the Parcel B. We used 2 1/4 per acre which is zoned for commercial in the northern part which was zoned for low density residential we used 1.85 and so forth. As you can see here, it gave us a total of 531 acres and then we worked out the greatest assessments for those parcels. As you can see, some of them are fairly substantial because there are some very large tracts of land. What I showed earlier is the part of Parcel B, 150 acres. '!he part zoned commercial was carrying proposed assessments of $67,800.00 and the low density residential would be $111,600.00. '!he Burdick property would be $13,800.00. The James property would be $16,200 for the commercial and 3 13~} City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 $68,400.00 for the high density residential am the Kerber would be I $40,800.00. N:)w you need to realize that these are just estimates based on the projected cost as we see this. We have estimated the cost at this time but they could vary depending on the area that is developed, the cost of bids at the time and workloads of contractors and things that would effect the cost of the project. '!he Sanitary Trunk Sewer assessment has been set in an equipment rate of $600.00 per residential unit which would cover based on the 531 units would cover the $318,000.00 of the estimated cost of the project. I guess that describes the project, if there are any questions. Mayor Hamilton: Could you indicate or somewhere do you have a map that can show where the sewer is coming from? I guess that wasn't clear on anything we had. Skip McCombs: '!his is an existing Riley Creek Interceptor here and there is an existing 12 inch trunk that comes up here on Park Drive and attaches right onto the end of that and along the back of the properties here, it crosses under the state highway here, goes along the north side and then comes up on the east side of Powers Blvd. or CR 17 and this stub comes off also under the highway here to pick up across to this area here. Mayor Hamilton: So that whole thing is to be constructed? The whole thing you showed there? Skip McCombs: It would be constructed from this point up to here. I Mayor Hamilton: You go under the highway, does it go under the highway? Skip McCombs: It would be jacked under. '!he Highway Department wouldn't look favorably upon us of disrupting the highway. Councilwoman Watson: Would that also be true of the portion that goes over to the Burd ick property? Skip McCombs: Yes, I assume that would be jacked under there also. Councilman Geving: How far up onto the CR 17 or Powers Blvd. would you jack that under the road? From the intersection, how far north? Do you understand what I'm saying. From the intersection of Powers Blvd., how far north of that are you going to take that under the road? Skip M:::Combs: Well, we're on the east side we're coming right under it. This point is where we're crossing. I don't know the exact details of that hasn't been worked out. Councilman Geving: '!he thing that I'm thinking of is in the very near future we will probably have major road construction there if we ever widen TH 5. How deep is that trench that you are going to jack it under? Rodney Gordon: I think it is approximately 20 feet deep. I'm not exactly sure but I seem to remember it would be approximately 20-25 feet deep in that area. That is to serve the Burdick property to the south because that is I 4 I I I l~tOl ..>l.. ~'(tP City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 rather low property in that area so it would have to be fairly deep to serve that. Councilwoman Swenson: [X) you propose to go under the intersection or would you go under TH 5 to the west and then go east when you get to the northern section? Skip McCombs: Well, until you get out there and look at where all the existing utilities are and things you have a conflict with and dig around, it is hard to say where it will be. We will probably want to be not where it is the widest. We would want to be where it is a little narrower. If we had to do a little bit more then jack under that would probably be what we would do. Councilwoman Swenson: I was thinking of under TH 5? I think you would almost have to do that west of Powers Blvd. there. It is a humongous intersection there. I shouldn't think you would want to jack that all up. Skip McCombs: If you look here. '!his shows the edge of the intersection right here and the jacking would start right here. I would suspect that we might want to extend this out a little bit to get this but those are details that we don't really work out until in the preliminary phase. Rodney Gordon: It looks like on that map 1,000 feet west of the intersection of CR 17 and CR 16 and TH 5, right in that area so we would be west of the major portion of that intersection. Councilwoman Swenson: Is there any capacity limitation on that water corning through there? Don Ashworth: '!he sewer? Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, the sewer. '!hat's the same one we're going to have to hook into down further south isn't it? Don Ashworth: '!here is adequate capacity in that Lake Ann Interceptor for that distance. It is about a 48 inch pipe in that area. There is no capacity problems in that section of the line. Councilwoman Swenson: I thought he mentioned Riley. Lori Sietsema: He just said Riley Interceptor. Rodney Gordon: Originally when that was designed, there is a 15 inch trunk sewer going over there to Park Drive to the north to an existing manhole on the north side of Riley Creek and that was all designed at that time to have the complete capacity to serve those properties that we are talking about now. Coucilman G::!ving: We oversized that. Rodney Gordon: Yes, it was done about 8 or 9 years ago I believe and at that time that was designed to have the capacity to take the flow from those properties. 5 140 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: Because we always knew we were going to have to come across that way. I Councilman Geving: We've been thinking about rezoning that commercial area under property 1 which would instead of 113 uni ts we probably would get about 93 units and it would give us a deficit of $12,000.00 according to my calculation. How would you react to that if any rezoning of this area came under and we actually went ahead and did this with this project and the numbers I know are tentative at this time? We have an assessment hearing down the road and I would hope by then we would have rezoned this property, if it does get rezoned, we will know what the numbers should be. At that time we would take care of that deficit I suspect, is that correct? Skip McCombs: Yes, you could do it then or you could kirrl of suspect that some of these are going to maybe go up because we have used the lowest numbers arrl if you errl up talking... Councilman Geving: I would say the 113 would probably go to 93. Skip McCombs: You might lose 20 and I guess at the time you will say the possibily of getting more units out of the other.. Councilman Geving: I guess the important thing is for the other landowners to recognize that that could happen. I Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara, has the Eckankar Corporation been apprised of this? Barbara Dacy: Yes, they were on the public hearing list. Councilwoman SWenson: They did not have any response? Barbara Dacy: No. William F. Kelly: My comments are not necessarily directed to the explanation that Mr. Knutson has given to the Council but if I may address the Council at this time. Mr. Burdick is out of the country and I talked to him by phone and he asked me to appear here tonight. You may recall that I appeared last before this Council on the 21st of July. At that time we were here to discuss with the Council the proposed preliminary plat for Mr. Burdick's property which is one of the parcels involved in this particular special assessment district. At that time the issues before the Council were three. One, there was a question as to whether or not there was appropriate sewer available for Mr. Burdick's property. Two, whether or not there was an appropriate driveway arrangement for the property. You may recall the distance back from the intersection and three, the relocation of West 78th Street. As to issue one that we talked about that particular evening which was the sewer. Mr. Burdick, if you will recall, not only that night but previously when the initial plat was before you in April, had stated that he was willing to bring to this property a sewer and pay for the cost upfront himself without asking the City to finance the cost of installation. The night of our hearing on the 21st of July, a report was filed with you from the Manager that said that our I 6 I I I 141 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 request for the preliminary plat was premature because one, we didn't have any sewer to it. Now the only problem with that is that on that same night you adopted the resolution calling for these plans. The only problem with us was that we weren't told about it that night and when I looked at the agenda they had a different description for the intersection. Now we had described our intersection on your agenda that night as the corner of TH 5 and Powers Blvd. Now I had always heard of the intersection known as Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street as being the intersection. Now the property immediately across was the James property and that was the way I had always interpretted the intersection but 16 on that particular agenda said to consider the petition for sanitary sewer trunk extension for the Business Park to property at the northeast corner of CR 16/CR 17. I didn't even know where 16 and 17 were. Now that is the same description of exactly the same intersection but not using the description that I had been given and then it says, Jame Company. It wasn't the James Company property. Now, we were told it was premature. We weren't given a hearing. We were cut off at that time am you have made some decisions. The second issue as you may recall was the very important issue of the location of the driveways and the relocation of the roadway. In both of those instances, one the location of the driveways we were to wait until some report came in. Well, I don't think the report really has addressed the question of how far bac~ the driveway should be from any intersection and we were always willing to try to work with the Council if we possibly could on that but the second one, the second main issue which is involved in the development of the entire intersection is the relocation of the roadway. West 78th Street. Now it seems to me that it would behoove everybody and be beneficial to everybody here if we could sit down with somebody from the Council and Staff and Mr. James and my client and others who are interested in your Staff and your Council and sit down and say how best can we develop this corner without hanging somebody out to dry because that is what you are doing to Mr. Burdick. When you shift that road where it is, according to the plan which is up before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, if I read it correctly and I'm not certain that I am, it gives Mr. Burdick a 20 foot alley to this highway that is going to be relocated. We are not here to do anything to try to cause you any problems. We are simply saying, please give us a forum where we can sit and talk to you and we ask that somebody from the Council be with us at the time so you know what our problems are am you are not receiving our problems strained through somebody elses thoughts. I ask that you really not act on this tonight. You have a schedule attached to the report of the Engineer. I believe that schedule suggests that this hearing would appropriately be scheduled for the 3rd of November but they had it moved up at the request of Mr. Monk before he left. Now I ask that since you are not going to be able to build this until next spring and so much is dependent upon what is done here. How it is going to effect the properties of the City at this important intersection that you delay a decision am arrange for a meeting so that we can come and everybody is going to know exactly the time of the meeting, who is going to be there and what we are going to talk about. Please, don't make a decision tonight. You've got 30 days before you have to make this decision am still be on time. My client isn't in this country. Can't speak for himself. I'm here just filling in for him. Thank you. Mayor Hamil ton: Might I tell you I have the same concerns. I was concerned about the Burdick property and how this whole thing was going to effect what 7 142 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mr. Burdick had requestErl be done with this property and I was supposErl to I meet with the Staff this afternoon and I goofed and didn't make the meeting but it certainly is something that is really on my mim and I know the rest of the Council is concerned also what is going to happen to Jim's property. There is absolutely no attempt to cut him off am put him at the em of an alley. '!here hasn't been any decision made on that road. From the Council's standpoint we haven't even looked at any proposal for changing that road. I wasn't aware that it was on the Planning Commission for Wednesday night but if it is... William F. Kelly: It's there. '!he plans are there. 20 foot alley. Mayor Hamilton: That is something that we certainly will take a good hard look at but I agree with you. I think we should sit down and talk and put all the cards on the table am see what would be best for all of us. Councilman Geving: '!here is one more player in the game though, several players in fact. We haven't heard from Mr. James am we don't know what the Eckankar people feel about this whole proposal either. One person says let's delay this. Mr. James may have the idea let's move ahead with this because he may have some plans that he wants to start developing this property. Charlie James: We have been working on this project for over a year am during that time we have had numerous meetings with the County Engineering staff, with the Staff of Chanhassen, we have had at least half a dozen meetings, Mr. Burdick has been invited to several of those meetings. Mr. Burdick contacted me earlier this year am asked if I wanted to join in bringing sewer. He had a plan to bring the sewer at this point over here and I may not get this entirely right but he had a plan to bring sewer somewhere through here and wanted to know if I would join in that. My engineers studied that am determined that it would only be a benefit in an immediate area here and we would still have some other considerations and second of all, the City Engineer at that time, Bill Monk had studied that am said it would require the use of a lift station and he felt that where there was a natural gravity alternative for the City, that it is policy or good engineering planning to avoid lift stations because they are expensive. '!hey are expensive to maintain am this sort of thing so I had a meeting with Mr. Burdick at that time and he said, well look, I'm in a big hurry for my sewer. I have plans for my property. He said how soon are you going to proceed on this and I said just as quickly as we could get our plans together we would be proceeding with this plan so at that time it seemed that Mr. Burdick was quite anxious to see this sewer thing come to pass although I think he was reserving judgment as far as what the final cost might be as compared to the estimate that he had at that time and if my memory serves me correct his assessment on this would be approximatley one-third of what his cost would have been had he chosen to go it alone the other route. As far as the relocation of West 78th Street, that is an issue that we sort of got caught up in. We were ready to file a plat and all of this is quite premature but since the issue was raised tonight I would like to bring you up to speed from our perspective on this. We were ready to file a plat a year ago and at that time we were told that the relocation of West 78th Street was a dead issue am so we prepared our preliminary plat on that basis and did all the grading plans and 8 I I I I I ILl\:3 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 preliminary utility plans and that sort of thing and that it was at about that time I believe that the City engaged Benshoof to study the transportation in Chanhassen and we were asked by Staff if we would just hold off doing anything until that study came back and I think that may have been one of the things that Mr. Kelly was eluding to when he was saying about the driveway approach and that people were asked to hold off until this transportation study came back because that would involve potentially such things as medians, turns lanes and locations of driveways at that point might be premature. So we agreed that we would hold off and we scrapped our plans for our preliminary plat and when that transportation study came back, we were told that the study was recommending that the intersection of West 78th Street be relocated approximately 600 feet to the north. We were given a range of area on our property where that street might intersect with CR 17 and the other aspect of that was that they wanted to make sure that it would relate to the property across the street and to provide a future frontage road for the Eckankar property and also there is apparently a grade problem on CR 17 where you come down the hill and there is a stop sign that everybody shoots through. '!he County wanted to address that problem as well so we started coming up with design criteria for the relocation of that road and at the same time Mr. Burdick and I entered into discussions about was I going to buy his property or was he going to buy mine and as he said it was sort of like a Ford dealer trying to sell a Chevrolet dealer a car or vice versa. In any event, we then redid our plat at that point to be in conformity with the alignment that had been selected by the consultants to the City and we took it upon ourselves at that time to provide access through our property to Mr. Burdick's property and then in the process of subsequent decisions that we have had and the difference in going between the third plat now, there is talk that what will be suggested on Thursday night is that we would maintain a portion of West 78th Street as a cul-de-sac and that that right-of-way would be vacated back from 150 feet to 80 feet and there would be a cul-de-sac in there that would provide access as is now enjoyed to Mr. Burdick's property with the only remaining difference is the intersection at CR 17 of necessity and by request of the County and State would be closed. So, there is more then just a 20 foot blind alley or whatever the description was and I personally have spent a great deal of time and money trying to address the concerns of Mr. Burdick and I have met with him on a number of occasions and we finally arrived at a point where I felt that we were doing the most that we could do given the circumstances to please everybody and that is sort of getting the story ahead of itself but I guess I'm surprised now that if this whole matter is of so much concern to Mr. Burdick that he isn't here tonight. The comments from his Attorney I guess concern me from the standpoint that Mr. Burdick was always telling me that his willingness to participate in this whole endeavor with the sewer was predicated on a prompt resolution of the matter because he had plans that he didn't want to be delayed forever so I guess that is a little background from our perspective on this. Mayor Hamilton: What is your position now as far as this study is concerned and moving ahead with the sewer? Do you need to have action on it immediately or what are your plans? Charlie James: Well, I don't really see how the sewer at this point is really going to impact the relocation of West 78th Street for instance. There is an 9 144 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 existing water main right-of-way that runs along there that will always be there and it is proposed that this sewer we will be requesting and as well a lateral running along the existing West 78th Street and there is an existing water main right-of-way there anyway so all planning will have to deal with those aspects of it and I don't think that anything that is involved in jacking the road will effect the ultimate disposition of West 78th Street particularly now that we have been requestErl to come up with a plan that shows West 78th Street staying in place and I guess this will be presentErl to the Planning Commission on Thursday night. This road will loop up through here the requestErl 600 feet, be in conformity with State, County and Municipal standards and there be a cul-de-sac somewhere in here at about the location of the existing driveway on Mr. Burdick's property and then we are donating additional right-of-way because this road makes this curve here so that there can be a landing and stacking and a safe intersection here so this will just be maintainErl as a city street with the exception that the 150 feet of right- of-way that is there will be hopefully decreasErl to 80 feet in return for which I am willing to give this 80 foot strip of land here for the new road. I don't really see that the sewer is going to foul up any plans for driveway access or potential relocation of West 78th Street. It has to be there. One of the other things is that I don't know if some of you are familiar with the topography here but I know that one of the reasons this area was plllErl into it here is there is a ravine here that is about 30-40 feet deep and there isn't any way that this property here can be servicErl this way without a lift station. I know somewhere I have it in my notes with the conversation with Bill Monk who had studiErl this matter, he was greatly concerned that some of the sewage that would be generated from this area would be allowErl to go this way because there is a lift station serving this area up here right now and there is concern about doubling or tripling the capacity of that up there so that was one of the reasons that this area was incorporatErl in here and then I think the other thing that is being done to accommodate Mr. Burdick is that I heard someone mention 20 feet. In essence, in this area in here that pipe is being plt down 35 feet on the original plan and the reason for that is to service these lower areas on Mr. Burdicks property without the need for a pump or lift station and that extra 35 feet, that is a long way to dig but that is a cost that is being born by all the people who are part of that and not just Mr. Burdick so some consideration is being given to his situation there too. I have met with him several times in an effort to keep him apprisErl of the situation and to try to work some sort of harmonious agreement here and we took the alignment that was suggestErl by Staff and your consultant's Benshoof and he didn't like that at all and he came up with one that didn't meet design cri teria so then we came up with a third one that was sort of a compromise between the two and now we were told recently in a meeting that this is to become a municipal street rather then a county street, we are going to have to redesign the thing all again so this is what we have been doing for the past year is designing about 1,000 feet of street here. I honestly don't believe that, there is existing utility easement right-of-ways through here and I don't believe that anything here on this sewer would impede anything that was done later. Councilman Geving: Mr. Kelly, if we decided to delay this at your request tonight for a period of two weeks to November 3rd, which would be the scheduled date for this plans and specifications according to the schedule 10 I I I 145 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 I that is in our brochure, would Mr. Burdick be back at that time? william F. Kelly: I expect Mr. Burdick back one week from tonight. He has been out of the country for more then six weeks am that is the reason why he is not here tonight. You sent out your notices after he had left the country on business so he didn't even know this was comir13 up. I would like to if I could just respond for a moment. I think that Mr. James has probably explained as well as I could possibly explain the details am the difficulties that we are faced with with this particular corner. Everybody is designing everybody elses lam am the people who own it, the people that are going to end up paying for it aren't there. Staff is designing it, Mr. James is designing it, Mr. Burdick is not there. Please, if we can all sit down, we can end up with a good corner for Chanhassen but if we are going to say well, this doesn't mean anything, we're just putting in sewer. He is not sewering an open field. He is sewering an area that is going to be platted. Here is the plat. 20 foot road easement right here and that is what we're going to have according to the plan that has been designed for us. I I Charlie James: 40 feet. william F. Kelly: It says 20 on there. Charlie James: It is 20 on the side that is being given to the City... william F. Kelly: I only see 20 foot easement on the plan. Mayor Hamil ton: This is not the item that we're talking about anyway. We're talking about... William F. Kelly: But it's all one thing. Mayor Hamil ton: It is am it isn't. I can see no way that approving a sewer feasibility study is going to have any effect on what the road is going to do am obviously Mr. Burdick is getting a heck of a lot better deal going this way then he would be doing it on his own so the fact that he's not here and he is getting something accomplished. Councilwoman Watson: Ole of the things that Mr. Kelly brought up is an important issue. We do have to be very careful that we use the same numbers and names. I don't know how many people know that West 78th street is also CR 16 but I do think that we should be very careful that we use the same descriptions to describe something every time that we describe it so that everybody gets here the same way. I can understam why that is confusing. I think we should make an effort to make sure that the descriptions are always the same. I didn't know until very recently that West 78th Street was CR 16. Councilman Geving: If we call for the ordering of the plans and specifications tonight am have those presented back to us hopefully by November 3rd if that were possible, we would also have available to us the road realignment issue from the Planning Commissin hopefully. Mr. Burdick will be back in town and I don't think that the plans and specifications would al ter our thinking a great deal am would move us up another couple of weeks. 11 146 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 I don't think there would be a great deal of risk in doing that because we are I probably going to do it anyway am we're going to proceed with this project at some future date so I would say that proceeding with plans and sPecs is a logical decision. Don Ashworth: It takes 6-8 weeks. I don't think a 2 week period is ... Councilman Geving: Okay, whatever. Whatever period, I think it is logical that we move ahead. We're going to do it anyway whether Mr. James is here or Mr. Burdick is objecting tonight for a two week delay, I think we could go ahead with this and tackle the whole issue. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the Council proceed with the ordering of plans and SPecifications for the sewer extension request by Mr. James for the James Company property. This motion was subsequently withdrawn and another motion made. Councilwoman Swenson: Mr. McCombs, will the change in the street, just confirmation now, street realignment has no effect whatsoever on this project, is that correct or a new study or feasibility study or will it? Rodney Gordon: It the alignment is 600 feet north, we wouldn't be in that water main easement anymore. Our easement runs along CR 16 or West 78th Street if I remember correctly. Barbara Dacy: Under the proposal being considered, enough right-of-way is going to be maintained for utilities am/or same sort of easement. I Councilwoman Swenson: What if the change in the road doesn't occur? I guess I'm not clear. I want to know if we make a decision tonight am tell you to go ahead and figure the specs on this thing and then you work on the premise that the road is going to go 600 feet north or whatever it is, that if in fact that isn't consummated, is that going to change the specs? Are you going to have to go back am refigure everything to get it back to where it is? Skip McCombs: In the real world, the schedule here calls for January 12th to have the plans am SPecifications am between now am November 3rd, very little will be accommplished I think so it doesn't really make much difference. Councilwoman Swenson: So we could actually table this to the 3rd of November am it isn't going to make that much difference. Skip McCombs: That is correct because if you resolve the road and that happens in the next few weeks, our design will accorrmodate that. Charlie James: If you notice, previously you showed where the pipe would be laid am if I could just describe this. I'm a little bit more up on this because I have been living with this thing for a year but right now you jack 'IH 5 way back here am you go along the south side of the Eckankar property and then Powers would be jacked and then all they are talking about at this point is running this trunk up to this point here so whether the road, there I 12 I I I 147 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 is on sewer in this area right here now so if the road swings up here, we have the option that this manhole here of bringing the sewer down that way to service the rest of the property or if the road stays the same and never gets changed, we can go right along the existing right-of-way. I share your concern if we were going to be running, as this report covered running sewer east at this point and since no one knows where that road alignment is there, the sewer is just stopping short of any proposed construction area and so a decision will be made after the road alignment is agree upon whether we run the sewer down that road or along the existing utility right-of-way but right now it is sort of outside the construction limits. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hank you Mr. James. '!hat answers my question. Councilman Horn: Mr. James, would the two week delay hurt your plans at this point? Charlie James: I guess not. I'm not sure what the schedule is here. We are going to the Planning Commission on this Wednesday and then we go to the Council from there? Barbara Dacy: I will have to double check this. It is either the first Council meeting in November or the second. Charlie James: So I suspect that we are going to be back to see you sometime in November. Maybe the same night that you are considering this issue so I'm not going to get brain damage over it. Councilman Horn: I guess my feeling is that I see very little that we can gain either by delaying it but on the other hand it doesn't appear that we would lose anything if we did delay it for two weeks and that would give Mr. Burdick a chance to be here so it appears to me that it wouldn't hurt to delay it. Mayor Hamilton: Well, even if we approved to go ahead with the plans and specs, Mr. Burdick would still have plenty of time to meet and comment and to do anything prior to that the plans and specs are being formed really. Councilman Geving: It is still the planning stage. They will be working on it for 6-8 weeks. Mayor Hamil ton: My feeling is then we won't have to see it again. Councilwoman Watson: My understanding is that regardless of where the road goes, regardless of anything, what plans are, Mr. Burdick needs sewer and this is by far the cheapest means for him to have sewer to that property so not taking any streets or plans or anything else into consideration, he is going to have to have sewer. He has no plans without sewer so if we go ahead regardless of what occurs, he is going to have to have a sewered piece of property before he does anything anyways. Don Ashworth: I would ask that you not consider moving ahead with plans and specs. There have been continuous legal questions throughout this project. 13 148 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 This is the third feasibility study, exactly the same feasibility study. Mr. Burd ick peti tioned for two of those. To move ahead with plans am sPeCs am potentially get something out of order, it may be contested later. I would prefer that you hold off on plans am sPeCs for that two week period of time. I Councilman Horn: I guess based on Mr. Kelly, I would like your response as to what would be gained by the two weeks? william F. Kelly: I can't speak for my client. He is out of town. He is out of the country. I'm not in a position to consult with him. I haven't asked for much of a continuance. I have asked, if he gets back on Thursday or Friday of this week, we will be glad to have a chance to meet with the Staff am with the other parties so we can sit down and discuss the entire question of developin;J the corner. Beyom that I can't say because I think a man that owns property should have the right to come here and talk to you because when he was here last time to talk to you, he was told that his plat was premature because he didn't have sewer yet on the same night this same issue came before you for adoption. Mayor Hamilton: '!hat was for the James Property. I think there is a misunderstaming. The request is for the James property. As a part of that project, the Burdick will also receive service. William F. Kelly: I was under the impression that this is a public project not a James project. I Mayor Hamilton: Oh no. william F. Kelly: It is a public project because it is being assessed to all the PeOple who are going to benefit from it so therefore it is a public project. Councilman Geving: It is a private request for development. William F. Kelly: You can always start a public project by a petition. Mayor Hamilton: You are out of order and I will have to ask you to please sit down. Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that the motion to go ahead with the plans am sPeCs for the sewer extension to the James Company property located at the intersection of CR l6/CR 17 be withdrawn and as a result of a request from the Attorney for Mr. Burdick for a two week stay, this item will be tabled until the City Council meeting scheduled for November 3, 1986. All voted in favor am motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: BALL DIAMOND LIGHTING, LAKE ANN PARK. Lori Sietsema: As outlined in Mark's letter, there were two low bids. One for I a 6 pole configuration and one for a 8 pole configuration. '!he 6 pole configuration is sufficient for the use that we have for that field right now. 14 I I I ~&thI i4 H-;.':'iJ City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Adult softball, youth baseball and soccor. The 8 pole configuration which is about $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 more would serve lighting for adult baseball programs. Since we don't have any adult baseball programs, we are recommending that the bid with the 6 pole will be $60,717.00. Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to ask you. What was the amount of the grant that we received? Lori Sietsema: It was for $57,500.00 so it would be half of that. Don Ashworth: The original amount was closer to 63 then the State had a cut- back down to the 57. Lori Sietsema: OUr original cost estimate was for $62,700.00 and the State, because they were short on funds, cut it down to $57,500.00. Mayor Hamil ton: Will we be picking up the remainder then? Lori Sietsema: Right. We will be getting half of $57,500.00 and then we will have to pay the rest. Councilwoman Watson: Are we being at all short sighted? Is there a chance that we will want an adult baseball program? Lori Sietsema: Adult baseball is the only program that would need additional lighting. When I asked Mark about that he said that it would be no problem to add two more poles to spread out the lights because they will have the same amount of lights. They would just take the lights that we have and spread them more evenly and at that time if a baseball club wanted to play here, program. Councilman Geving: When we put this in, is it possible that we could also light the park shelter as long as you are bringing electricity into there? Lori Sietsema: Yes, they are going to stub and when they do build that building. . . Resolution #86-78: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the 6 pole bid from Collins Electric in the amount of $60,717.00 for Lake Ann Park lighting. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of the Ci ty Council meeting dated October 6, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to note the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated September 2, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. 15 150 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 I CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss the consent agenda items (e) am (f) at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. e. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County on MDIF Lobbying Effort. - - Councilwoman Swenson: I don't understand if this is all Mr. Boland's finished, I don't understam the inclusion of the County if the door is already closed. Barbara Dacy: '!he Joint Powers Agreement was a County procedural item that kim of got put off toward the end. As to Mr. Boland's efforts am so on, yes his work is complete. '!he Met Council has adopted the framework draft. '!here is a series of issues regarding how that was adopted am so on that may be discussed at a later time. Councilwoman Swenson: Whenever I see a statement that says the Carver County however desires to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement am sems us a check for $2,000.00. Councilman Geving: We'll take it. Councilwoman Swenson: I also have to figure out what's behind it because they I don't ham it out like that without some reasons. I want to know why they want to give us the $2,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: Because they did participate and it is merely a housekeeping item for them to enable them to get the $2,000.00 to us. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County on MDIF Lobbying Effort. All voted in favor and motion carried. f. Approval of Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for Q-Petroleum. Mayor Hamil ton: If my memory serves me correct, when we reviewed the development proposal for that particular piece of ground, I commented at the time to the developer that I would not be in favor of allowing that particular establishment to have beer or any type or wine or anything else. Apparently they chose to ignore that comment am have requested to have a non- intoxicating liquor license and I am opposed to that. Councilman Geving: Why do you feel so strongly about this thing? Mayor Hamilton: Because there is probably more vi~lations at a Q-Superette or Tom Thumbs or all the other small establishments. You generally have young PeOple working there. Councilman Geving: Do you feel it is more a policing issue? I 16 I I I 151 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I generally think and feel, because I'm in the business, that liquor stores police themselves quite well. They really don't sell to minors. I do know youngsters that have come to me and said that if they want to get a beer they go to a Q, they go to a Quik Stop, they go to a Tom Thumb. 3.2 beer is not, in my opinion, non-intoxicating. You can get just as drunk on that. Councilman Geving: IX> you think this is a big sales item with Q? In other words, if they didn't have it, is it crucial to their business? Does anybody feel that it is so crucial to their business that if they didn't have it they couldn't open their doors on November 1st? IX>n Ashworth: I would suggest in serving all of them because I think you are going to have difficulty denying this am allowing Holiday, Kenny's and Super America to. If the Council is going that direction then I would suggest that we eliminate the 3.2 beer from all of those similar types of establishments. Mayor Hamil ton: I wouldn't object to doing that but it would seem to me that can't you get to a point in a community, whether it is here or anyplace else where if you have three allowed now, why do we have to put it in everyone? If every guy down the street comes in am says I want to sell non-intoxicating beer you are going to let him do it just because you let three others do it? Don Ashworth: You can establish an ordinance limiting the number. Under State Statute there is no number on off-sale licenses but you could do it by local ordinance. The question becomes one of at what point in time does that ordinance pass? Councilman Geving: IX> you think maybe in this particular case, we are really establishing something that will become a part of the neighborhood. We're talking about almost 300 homes that will be adjacent to this facility and I think that is very accessible to a lot of people, youngsters. Maybe that is what we're really getting at. Not trying to discriminate but the reasoning behim the denial could be that it is in what we consider to be on the fringe of residential district. otherwise I think it would be highly discriminatory. Don Ashworth: Kenny's would be very similarly located. Councilman Geving: But that is more defined as a commercial district too. I think I have a little bit less problem with a Kenny's or even the Holiday station but this particular station is just across the street from 200 homes. Don Ashworth: Would you like to table action and I could invite the applicant in and also ask for a legal response to the issues presented? Councilwoman Watson: I would like to know whether it is better for us to rewrite an ordinance and start right now or whether it would be better for us to stop all sales of non-intoxicating beverages in all the little quick stop kind of things in our city so we aren't creating a hardship for just this person if that is in fact what we are doing because he did state very clearly when he came in that he wanted one and that it was a significant issue. 17 152 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I stated very clearly that I didn't want it. I Councilwoman Watson: I know you did but he did state at that time that would present a problem. Councilwoman Swenson: I totally concur with the Mayor's oplnlon on this. I worry tremendously about young PeOple driving into gas stations and picking up this beer and then driving. I think we invite trouble and I like to eliminate the source whenever possible. I do agree that we might run into a snag since we have already done so and by even starting a new ordinance at this point in time, would we be able to make it applicable to this particular case? I guess I don't see it quite so difficult in the Kenny's market as I do in the gas stations. I am more concerned with that then I am where they dispense gas and PeOple are driving. It is more likely for youngsters to come in and get it. Those are the only ones I care about it. I don't want to see these kids having it too available. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table this issue and direct Staff to give the Council a Staff report and an interview with the applicant and place it on a November agenda. Also included in the report a comment on what other municipalities are doing about this issue. All voted in favor of tabling this item and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: It would be interesting to know, if we could possibly find out, how much quantity of these things, for instance maybe Holiday sells. Would there be any way to find out if they would divulge that information? I WEST 65TH STREET/CRESTVIEW DRIVE SEWER EXTENSION REQUEST. Bill Engelhardt: I tried to address all of the concerns and questions that the Council brought forward at the last meeting in my memorandum. Why don't I put this map up so we can go through this in just a little bit more detail. This is a continuation of a public improvement hearing for the West 65th Street and Crestview Drive sanitary sewer. At the last meeting the City Council asked us to address several questions and again, we tried to answer them all. I don't know if got them all or not but we prepared a report where we investigated the 16 properties and conducted a telephone survey basically along with going out and reviewing the site and looking at all the areas. 11 of the 16 households were contacted. We attempted to get everybody. Some of them we couldn't get telephone numbers and this type of thing and couldn't meet with them but I think the 11 that we did talk to was a pretty good representati ve sample of the area. The age of the systems was a question that came up last week and the households run, I threw the high and low out and I get the mean average of the average, but the households run from probably the existing farm dwelling which is in the neighborhood of 80 years old to houses that were built within 4 years. The average age of the households is around 20-22 years old. Some of them are newer, some of them are older but they give you kind of an indication that your septic systems in that area are probaby around that 20 year age too. Of the 11 homes that were surveyed that we did, orginally 6 of them were found to have problems and that is documented in the letter that was sent out to those 6 households. Of the 6, 2 of them have been repaired or they tried to upgrade them. I believe that was the Bixler I 18 I I I 1lr.;~ JL fLY (u) City Council Meeting ~ October 20, 1986 property and the Benz property. The City, in addition to that, has installed drain tile along West 65th Street because of the high water table and I guess it is my professional opinion that that drain tile is not only taking the high water table down but it is also taking in any of the septics coming out of the septic tanks along with it. It can't help to so it is really hard to tell right now. One household may not be having problems but they may not be having problems because of the drain tiles and there is really no way for us to tell that. We did find that one of the households, and I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on it, but one of the households was connected to a storm sewer line and naturally that house is not going to have a problem either because it is the high water and the flow from the drainfields that are causing it to fail. We looke:l at the soils in the area. The soils range from a clay with high perc rates on the west half of 65th Street and eastern half of Crestview. The west one-half of Crestview has a sandy soil and generally you will find that the sandy soil perc rate will be much lower and acceptable to an on-site system but you are also going to find that the high water table system still doesn't function. In particular when your septic systems are in the neighborhood of even 12 years old, at that time they were installing septic tanks that were made out of concrete block and anytime you have a high water table, it automatically fills up your septic tank and you are going to have some problems. Systems fail today because of a number of reasons and one of the reasons is that the older systems that were installe:l did not take into account the water consumption that today's modern family provides for and you will find that the average household now has a dishwasher and grante:l it may have had it 20 years ago or a few of them had that 20 years ago but you are finding that they are using the dishwasher more, they are using the automatic laundry more so your water consumption tends to be a little bit higher. Consequently the design standards for septic systems at todays period take that into account so your drainfields are sized larger. You now have to install two septic tanks versus one septic tank and this type of thing. That is pretty much a background. I did put together a tabulation of those houses surveye:l and in general most of the information that you see on my report is just a summary of this tabulation. I apologize for the pencil on it but I think you should be able to read it. This in fact shows the 16 families that do own properties in these areas and the age of the household is listed for the properties that were contacted, the years that the present families live:l in that household, age of the septic system, if they had one or two tanks or a regular system. When I say regular system that is generally one tank. Number is the household, any problems and this is strictly the information that we receive:l directly from the property owners themselves. There was no attempt to verify it. We just took them on their word. If they said they had no problem we put down no problem. If they said they had a problem, we put down exactly what they said. It also indicates if any repairs were made and the estimate:l costs of those repairs, when they were made. The question was asked if they were in favor or against. It was split pretty much down the middle. We had I think it was 6 against, 5 in favor and 5 that were undecide:l and in those undecided it was a matter of cost. Not necessarily that they were against the system but they wante:l to see overall what happened. I will repeat that for you. 6 that were against, 5 that were for and 5 that were undecided according to this survey. I put the people that we didn't contact in the undecided so it is split right down the middle almost 50-50. 19 ],54 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: I have 7 for and 6 against: I Councilman Geving: '!hat's what I have. 7 yes, 6 no. Councilwanan Watson: By the comnunications that we've got. Bill Engelhardt: We did receive a letter from Mr. Palmer who owns the outlot in this area and he is in favor but his question was basically a design question on the alignment of the sanitary sewer through that area. I indicated to him that we would look at it. It is our feeling that the way we are proposing it down the center line of Lake Lucy Road is the right way to do it. If we were to move it to the north where it was suggested to move it, we would have shallower cuts, less cost but the trees along that area would be all taken and we felt that it would be more beneficial to keep it in the middle of the street. Not only because of the trees but just for ease of granting easements. We now own that. That is public right-of-way and we should just stay there and if that area is vacated, we can take an easement right across the center line and very simply describe it that way. Another question that came up was cost of mound systems or cost of upgrading the systems. I believe Mr. Benz indicated that the cost to upgrade his system was $5,000.00 and that included an alarm system which is the appropriate way to do it to today's standards. The cost for the Bixler property, I have indicated a number of about $2,700.00. '!hat is hearsay basically but if that is incorrect you can correct me. For constructing a new mound system in a high water table, I feel that you are going to be in that range of $5,000.00-$10,000.00 I and the way I come up with $10,000.00 is that if you have a high water table where you are going to have to expand the base of the mound for the basel area they call, in order to get the area underneath the mound large enough to get your perc rates that the soil, you're not only talking about consuming the area in the lot which increases the cost because of the amount of sand you have to put in, the number of drain tiles with the higher capacity pump but you are also talking about the restoration of it and a lot of people don't consider that but if you start sodding an area that is 10,000-15,000 square feet then there is a lot of cost involved and you are going to have to restore it somehow or the mound isn't going to work. other questions that have come up from residents along the proposed project have to do with the water main and I don't think it was clearly pointed out in the initial look at this feasibility study two weeks ago. The water main was included as an alternate. It is not something that has to go in at this time. '!he properties that would be effected by the water are really get with a very large assessment. I don't feel that the water has to be included. It would be nice to include it if all the property owners would be in favor of it but it is something that could be included in the future because the water main in this area is in the boulevard anyhow so if we were to go in and put in water, those property owners decided they did want water, it would be a simply matter of installing it and continuing it on from the existing watermain in the boulevard to service this property and we wouldn't have to reconstruct the street and bear the cost of reconstruction of the street so the watermain could be eliminated from this project. It was an alternate. '!he feasibility study, it was felt that as long as the sewer was looked at, they should examine the water too. The I second item was the street construction. We can guesstimate that the City next year is going to spend upwards of $7,000.00 on the street reconstruction 20 I I I 155 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 in that area just to maintain it. Our suggestion, and it is purely something that we will throw out on the table to you, if we are going to spend $7,000.00 in street repair next year, that is a dollar amount that could be taken out of this project to reduce the assessments for the street cost because we won't have to spend that amount of money next year. It doesn't amount to a lot. It amounts to maybe $500.00 per lot and when you look at the overall assessment, it isn't reducing it a great amount but it is something that could be considered to help these people out. The lots themselves range in size from a .7 to .8 acres and larger which translate into about 30,000-35,000 square feet. I think the smallest one is about 29,000 and the large one is the Shivley property which is about 4 acres so it is a very large lot. Typically, getting back a little bit to the design standards of today, the City of Chanhassen has an Ordinance in place that requires 2.5 acres for single family dwelling have an on-site system. There is a reason for that and the reason is that it has to meet the design standards for today and provide an alternate system so if you would look at these lots at todays light, they wouldn't meet the criteria for an on-site sewer system. However, when you consider that these lots are not outside the MUSA line and at some point in time, and maybe because of this project the lots will become inside the MUSA line, these lots could be divided. I'm not saying the people will want to divide them but they could be divided and you would have adequate room for two single family dwellings. Of course that depends on the placement of the existing homes but the potential is there for some of them to be divided. We also spoke to a number of residents about when we have to hook up to this system if it was approved. Typically you will find that any time you put in your sewer system they ask you to hook up immediately on it and to start using that system. Most people would do that but 1, they are starting to pay their assessments and they want to get the best possible service out of their money so they will hook up to it. However, somebody that doesn't have a failing system doesn't necessarily want to spend the money to construct from the lateral line to their home and replumb their house. It would not be objectionable I don't think to allow these people a 2 year grace period but stipulate that it would be up to 2 years so that if their system would fail during that period that they would be required to hook-up. That does two things. One, it does save them initial cost. Kind of help them get their feet on the ground from having the assessment, not having to spend the money to connect their house and two, they would not pay the SAC charge from the MWCC until the time that they did connect so I think there is a couple of things the Council could consider tonight. CXle is that the watermain is an alternate for this sewer problem. It is not a must. It was included to complete the study and to show what the cost could be. Two, that the street reconstruction which is about over 50% of the total cost, we're going to have to spend some dollars on those streets anyhow and the assessments could be reduced by that potential dollar amount and three, a two year grace period, up to a two year grace period could be allowed for hook-up to this system. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Councilman Horn: I think unfortunate as these assessments are, I can well relate to those. I don't see that we have any choice in this case. It appears to me that we have a health problem. I think we have to do something about it. 21 156 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: I certainly agree. Bill, as I see it there would only b= three that would b= effected by the watermain. Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Councilwoman Swenson: So that could be at their individual choice. If the three of them got together am said yes, we wanted it. You can't just take one for example. Bill Engelhardt: I would say that if all three of them didn't want it, forget it. I think all three of them have to want it. Councilwoman Swenson: That could be something that the three people involved could probably put their heads together am make a decision. The only question I have, you made up to two years Bill on the hook-up. I believe our Ordinance says one year. Bill Engelhardt: That is correct. That would be a variance to your Ordinance am I felt that in this particular project that it is a unique project am it would warrant that consideration but that is certainly up to the Council. Councilwoman Swenson: We fim deviations sometimes, as accommodating as they might be, breed trouble down the road. That is all I have to say. I agree with Clark. It is a health problem. Councilman Geving: I guess my personal feeling is that, I've been watching the numbers very closely on this project am as far as I'm concerned a greater number of the people that live in that area are in favor of putting this project in. I feel too that this is a health problem. We must do something. We must react and I would be very much in favor of having a deferred hook-up of several years. I read one place where someone was asking for up to five years or something like that. Several years, 2 or 3 years would be acceptable to me. I would be in favor, if we could, to defer the assessments to the extent possible, financially possible. I don't know about the road alternate. You mentioned possibly bringing in the $7,000.00 for the road repair that are anticipated next year. I don't know if we have ever done that before. It is reasonable however to assume that we would spend $7,000.00 am I have no problem with including that in the project and giving the homeowners a break of $500.00 a piece or whatever it works out to so I think is a fair recommendation. As far as the water alternative, I would say that it looks like water would be very expensive am we will leave that water alternate out of consideration. Personally, I think it is just a matter of time before this project would have to be forced upon the homeowners. It is a matter of time before the City would have to do this whether it is now or sometime in the future because even if we allowed the systems that are failing to be rebuilt and take care of their own, and I keep reading this in here. Let's take care of our own problems. I think there is a time when the City Council must act and I think that is why we are here to do this decision making process and this is a case for the good of the community I think we should proceed with this project. 22 I I I I I I 157 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: I would just like to talk a minute about deferred assessments. How could that be done and still meet project costs? How can we work that kim of thing out? I'm not talking about not hooking up for a period of time. I'm talking about Dale talked specifically about deferring it. Councilman Geving: I guess to answer your question. '!here are cases where we have deferred assessments for senior citizens for example am that is very possible. Some senior citizens have applied for this and we have granted it but there are some rules that have to be met when they do that. They have to disclose a financial situation and many people aren't willing to do that but that is a possibility. What I really meant Carol is that we would attempt to move the assessment period out to the maximum. In other words, give the people a break of up to 5 or 6 or whatever the period of time necessary to complete the project and give people a substantial amount of time to pay this assessment off. That is what I meant. Bill Engelhardt: If the project was initiated in this year, we wouldn't be assessing that until 1987 am the first assessment would be payable in the spring of 1988 so that does give you about a two year lag before any assessments become due. One thing too that I did forget to mention, in the case of this, we haven't really run any numbers but we could stretch this out with a 15 year bom issue too. Sewer is typically 15-20 years. The only thing that you have to be careful of is that you don't eat it up with interest. Maybe it would be more cost effective to do it within a 10 year period because of the interest costs and that is something that could be checked am established at the assessment hearing. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with the rest of the Council. I think we need to act on this am it is really a difficult issue because some of the people have repaired their systems and they apparently are working so I guess I have to believe that sometime down the road soon they probably will be failing again. I agree that we should extend this as far out as we can for the assessment period am also with Pat's comment that the three residents that could have water, if they don't want it, certainly it is up to them. If they decide not to then it can be dropped. Also the street issue. I have no problems with putting the $7,000.00 or whatever back to try to reduce that sum. Paul Wolf: I just wanted to comment about the road. '!he road on Crestview Drive has been in need of repair for 7 years. The road was turned over to the County and the agreement that they would maintain the road. '!he road has been in need of repair for 7 years. They have patchEd a few potholes. The road is cracking to pieces. I personally don't think it is fair that they come in and say we're going to bring city water am sewer in am we are going to bust apart the road and now you guys have to pay for it because they haven't done, I don't know, they can look on the books am see just how much they have written down in the last 7 years alone to see how much they have put in to repairing that road. The cul-de-sac is busting apart. The cul-de-sac was put in there so that the city vehicles could turn around, the county vehicles could turn aroum for snow removal am for the school buses to come up am turn aroum. '!hat has not been maintained. I would just like to point that 23 158 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 out too that you are talking about throwing this in. You said it is going to cost $7,000.00 to repair the road. I've been checking on just replacing the blacktop in my driveway and it is going to cost me $5,000.00 just for my driveway so how could it cost $7,000.00 for this whole road that goes up Crestview Drive? I don't understand that. I Bill Engelhardt: The way the $7,000.00 figure was arrived at is not to redo the road completely and put on an overlay as you would on your driveway. $7,000.00 would be just a minimum amount of maintenance that would be required to patch and seal both the roads. We kind of set a budget amount of what we can spend in this particular area. Councilman Horn: IX>es that road have a regular cement curb or the asphalt curb? Bill Engelhardt: Right now it is a rural section basically. Councilman Horn: So this isn't to City Standards at all. Jim Bixler: First of all I want to thank you for giving some consideration to the three families up at the end of Crestview Drive who have no problems at this point but I do kind of fail to see where you have addressed a letter that was sent out to 6 families back in May. I would like to know from a legal standpoint just what this Council and this village is going to do about correcting affulent running into gutters right now out there? Right now today. Mayor Hamil ton: When this is approved and constructed it won't be running in there any longer. I Jim Bixler: But that isn't what the letter said back on May 28th. It said we had 30 days to improve our systems. IX>n Ashworth: You had an opportunity to attend those meetings. '!he property owners that had received that came in. They asked for help from the City Council. A number of meetings transpired. '!he City Council made a decision to go through this process. If you feel as though there is some legal violation that has been followed, it is up to you to pursue. Jim Bixler: We have talked about health problems and that was one of your main concerns. '!he health problems still exist and it will exist until those houses are hooked up and on Crestview Drive I think there are enough children walking up and down that street that are being exposed to affulent flowing out of the ground that this Council should address that problem and take action against those homeowners who have not, whether they were here before and came before this Council. Mayor Hamil ton: '!hat is why this project came about in the first place. Those homeowners came here to discuss the problem. They said they had 30 days. Jim Bixler: When was that Council meeting held? I 24 I I 1L59 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamil ton: Can I just finish. That was in a May meeting am the neighborhood at that time asked that they be given more time and that the City look at the possibility of putting sewer in am investigate all the possibilities of doing whatever could possibly be done. I think the 30 days at that point, our Ordinance calls for a 30 day correction. That was unrealistic. '!hrough this whole process and all the meetings we had, this is the point we have arrived at now to correct the problem. Jim Bixler: Apparently I wasn't afforded that same kind of information because when I checked with Mr. Monk's office or at least the people who worked for him I was given some other information. Not regarding the Council meeting or a hearing on that subject but a mandate from this Village to correct my problem. I know where you are coming from and I certainly appreciate the consideration we have gotten on sewer. I would also like to ask one other question. '!here are additional families on Crestview Drive to the east of Galpin. Why aren't they included to reduce the total cost of this project. Why isn't the family that is right at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Lake Road, why aren't they included to totally reduce the cost of this project to all of us neighbors? Councilman Geving: Are you talking about the east side of Galpin? Jim Bixler: Yes. Councilman Geving: Is it Mr. Palmer's property? Jim Bixler: No. This entire area right here. Why are not these homes that are being constructed here also tied into that? Why can't we be looking at possibly 25-30 families sharing in a $200,000.00 project rather than just l6? I don't think even the people who are against this project would mind if there were a study made on the total number of homes that are in that area. Mayor Hamilton: Where does the MUSA line come in close to there? Barbara Dacy: The MUSA line does include the Palmer property but does not include this area where the gentlemen is referring to. Mayor Hamil ton: So those properties are outside of the MUSA line? Barbara Dacy: It is our understanding that the complaints and the situation is happening over here. Councilman Horn: What are the size of those lots? Barbara Dacy: They must be approximately 1 to 1 1/2 acres. Councilman Horn: Still not 2 1/2 though? Barbara Dacy: No, the Rolling Hills plat was subdivided many years ago. I Councilman Horn: Are there about 5 hanes there unsewered? 25 16"0 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Barbara Oacy: Yes. I Councilwoman Swenson: '!he inclusion of those in this project, we would have to go through the Metropoli tan Council. We would have to transfer to get the project and this could delay this thing ad infinitum because we would have to get a permit from the Metropolitan Council in order to extend sewer beyond the MUSA line area. Jim Bixler: Councilwanan are we not on Crestview ori ve beyond the MUSA line? I would like that identified. Barbara Dacy: Yes, these lots are beyond the MUSA line and the Metropolitan Waste Control Comnission is allowing us to extend on an emergency basis. Councilman Horn: Would there be a significant reduction to the rest of the people if that area were included? Bill Engelhardt: I don't believe, and I always hesitate throwing out numbers, but I don't believe that there would be that much of a reduction. You are going to find that your average assessment is going to be the same even if you include additional lots. The street costs are going to be the same. The lot areas are much bigger or about the same so I would anticipate that the cost is going to be about the same for those lots. The other thing, I guess I question and without looking at the topography maps real closely, those may not be able to be gravity served so a lift station might have to be installed which would almost increase the cost of the overall project. Councilman Geving: Of the five lots that are in there, do you know of any problems that we are having on Crestview with the sewage? I Bill Engelhardt: All I can tell you is I don't know of any and to be honest wi th you, I haven't checked either. Councilman Geving: I haven't heard of any problems on that part of the road. I don't know of any but I think the engineer is absolutely correct. If we include those, the costs would be approximately the same because we are going to do the same thing that we are anticipating for your area so I don't think a reduction in the overall cost would actually happen but your question is a good one. we hadn't really considered it. Jim Bixler: Is there any consideration to the homeowners that have improved can get with regards to the assessment itself? I have spent approximately $3,000.00 in improving my system. I know the Benz' have spent considerable amounts improving their system at the request and direction of this Council and the village and I think it would be very appropriate to acknowledge that bringing our properties up to Code. Councilman Geving: I will speak for myself and not for the rest of the Council but the suggestion was made that we defer the hook-ups for several years and that in itself is a variance to our existing Ordinance. I personally would not have any problem with those several properties of extending that even further to let's say 5 years but that is my personal I 26 I I I 161 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 oplnlon or until the properties have sold, transferred or whatever or your system fai ls and you would then be forced to hook up to the system. I personally would have no problem with that Jim but I don't know how my counterparts here feel about it but there about three properties, is that what we are talking about that are in that category. The Benz and the Bixlers so there are only two properties that are exceptions that have improved systems. Is that correct? Is there anyone else out there? Paul Wolf: I have a system that is fine also. Public: I think the Gilmores. Councilman Geving: Well, the Engineer could determine this. '!he thing that I was trying to get at is that those PeOple have spent a considerable amount of money like Mr. Bixler and Mr. Benz to improve their system, I personally would have no problem giving them an extension of time until their property was sold or some other circumstance forced them to hook up and in my opinion I could see 5 years for example. Now that is my opinion. I can not speak for my colleagues. Councilman Horn: Can I ask a question of the Engineer? Have you looked at these systems that have been improved and are they indeed functioning properly? Bill Engelhardt: As far as we know they are functioning yes. We looked at and have been out on the site and again, I can sit here and say they are functioning but with the drain tile in there you don't know for sure and it appears they are functioning. One thing that you will find is that if they don't maintain these systems in a proper manner, they are going to fail sooner and typically a homeowners doesn't do any maintenance on his system until he does have a problem and he has to pump his tank. '!hey really should be every other year at least at a minimum to maintain the system so SPecifically I can't say that they are. Councilman Horn: Is there a reasonable way to monitor that? Bill Engelhardt: The only way would be to monitor the ground water in the area to see if there were any septics in there at that point. Councilman Horn: I can go along with what Dale is suggesting if we have some reasonable monitoring method. However if we don't I have problems with that and I don't know as though by the time you get into the ground water, it seems to me that it is a little late. I don't think that is a reasonable way to monitor it. Bill Engelhardt: When I'm talking about the ground water I'm not talking about deep ground water. We would put in an inSPection tube in the end of the drain field or along side the drain field and sample that and that is right at the upper course of the... Councilman Horn: Who does that? 27 162 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Bill Engelhardt: You can have a testing company do it. You can have the City can do it. I Councilman Horn: Is there much cost involved with that? Bill Engelhardt: I can't tell you. It does take man hours for somebody to go out there and check. It does take man hours. Councilman Horn: I would be inclinErl to go along with it if the owners would be willing to prove to us that their systems are working through this type of a method that we can defer the hook-up. Mayor Hamil ton: And working doesn't mean running into a storm sewer. Councilman Geving: I think the thing to do there Clark is that we would have it inspected by our City Engineer. He said it looks good to me. 'ltley are maintaining their system. He would recommerrl that we proceErl with the deferment policy for these two properties. Councilman Horn: 'TWo? Councilman Geving: I'm just talking about the special case for these two, Mr. Benz arrl Mr. Bixler but all the rest of them hopefully we would defer the hook-ups. Again, I am speaking for myself. I have no problem deferring it for up to two years on all the other properties unless their system fails or the property is sold. 'ltlat is the key. I Resolution #86-79: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton secondErl for approval of the sewer extension to Crestview Drive and West 65th Street and authorization of the plans arrl specifications with the following corrlitions: 1. 'ltlat the City allocate the $7,000.00 for street improvements as a deferment to cover street costs for the street improvement. 2. 'ltlat the water extension not be done at this time unless the City receives a petition fram the three property owners to do so. 3. 'ltlat the City allow up to a two year delay in hooking up to the sewer if the property owner can demonstrate that their system is working appropriately. 4. 'ltlat the bond issue be set at a 15 year basis. All votErl in favor arrl motion carried. Resolution #86-80: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize the advertising for bids on the construction for the sewer project for West 65th Street and Crestview Drive. All voted in favor and motion carried. I Councilman Geving: en your hook-ups Clark, I thought we would like to put a stipulation in there unless the property is sold, transferrErl or the system 28 ;J~9 J,- ~i:iJl City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 I has been detenninaJ to have failaJ. Is that what you are saying? Councilman Horn: That is what I meant. Mr. Palmer: I own Outlot B, Waldrips 2nd Addition. I am in favor of the project for a couple reasons. Originally I came in for the townhouses. This would go very nicely with single family homes just because the driveways am everything fit in nicely now with solar. The possibilities seem much better. Everything seems to work. Bill am I had talkoo about one thing am that is that the City trunk charges are normally paid when somebody applies for a building permit. They make the awlication am they pay the trunk charges. I have askoo him if it would be possible that those trunk charges could be paid when we make application for a building permit instead of being all thrown into my assessments and having to pay it over a period of time, would pay it right when we awly for the building permit. Councilman Geving: Have you ever done that? Don Ashworth: That is the normal procedure for let's say existing lots. I'm skeptical. If the permits would be issued in advance of a special assessment hearing, then fine but otherwise we might em up with a lot of additional record keeping. Maybe you would have until September or October, 1987 to get your permits issuoo but if they weren't issued by October of 1987, I would reconmend that they go on with the assessments. I Councilman Geving: I don't think we have ever done that Paul. I don't recall an instance where we have done what you are requesting. We need to place this assessment against an imi vidual who owns the property am you are the benefitting property owner. I would personally recommend that it be placed against you. How you handle it with the people that buy your parcels, that is between you and the new homeowners. Paul Palmer: It means that I will be "paying it with the asses!:rnents. Councilman Geving: That is correct. Mayor Hamilton: Unless you come in with and you can subdivide it prior to that. Jean Shivley: I just wanted to clarify one issue and I believe all three members are here that are at the end of Crestview Drive, the Bixlers, the Wolfs and the Shivleys and we can say without questions that we do not want the water. It would seem that it would be economical to the City of Chanhassen even though the County of Carver is graciously giving you money that you would not even want to let the bids on the water portion of the project. Mayor Hamil ton: That was part of the motion unless you peti tioned us... I Jean Shivley: No. We can eliminate that consideration from your thinking. I would also like to reaffirm, I believe we did mention the hook-up charge and for our particular property, because of the location of the house it will cost 29 164 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 us as much to hook-up as to bring the sewer all the way up the sewer so two years is great but anything longer that you would be willing to consider as long as the site septic is not failing. My information is that we have two drainfields and we have lots of room for more so I would just urge some leniency on your part. One other issue I would like to clarify. I believe Councilman Geving indicated some surprise at the opposition indicated by the residents at the meeting last time. I guess I would only like to imicate to you my surprise at the price tag involved here. I believe a lot of the neighbors had no objection to a $2,000.00 or even a $4,000.00 septic assessment but $16,000.00 is a lot of money to anyone and being painfully aware of the market value of our property seeing that we just bought it, I have difficulty accepting the fact that this would increase our market value to the tune of $16,000.00 and I would hate to have to argue with you after your adoption of the assessment role. I Mayor Hamil ton: I think we were as surprised about the cost as you were. Councilwoman Watson: This is figuring that the Shivley's have one assessment, the Bixler's have only one assessment regardless of acreage. They are only going to be assessed the one assessment for the house that exists. There are lots of those properties that will potentially subdivide at some point but I'm just saying each one would have one assessment per household not someday houses. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Paul Wolf: I've got one thing to ask and that is, on the assessments that they have come up with, are those the assessments they are going to stick to for 15 years now or are they going to escalate up to like mine is $16,000.00 something, is that going to go to $32,000.00? I Councilman Geving: No. What will happen is that we award a construction contract am we will know what the firm price of that contract is am subsequent to the completion of the project, we will make an assessment hearing where you will be notified of the assessment hearing am the exact amount of the assessment placed against you Mr. Wolf will be known but it won't be the $32,000.00. It should be very close to the amount that is in the fesibility study. Paul Wolf: I'm concerned about it because we are really stretching the way it is already. Councilman Geving: We're hoping it will be far less if we get a good bid. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, CHANHASSEN VISTA 2ND ADDITION, GRADING PLAN. This item was deleted per the developer's request. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the the Accounts I Payable dated October 20, 1986 for check numbers 024227 through 024341 in the 30 I I I 165 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 amount of $1;856,575.14 and check numbers 027252 through 027362 in the amount of $2,047,872.16 for a total of 232 checks written in the total amount of $2,047,872.16. All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO INSTALL FENCE AT MFAIXM GREEN PARK, LYDIA PORTER. Lori sietsema: Mrs. Porter requested that a fence be installed, a 150 foot long fence be installed along her yard at her property line adj acent to Meadow Green Park because last summer people were using her driveway and yard as a park access. They would park sometimes in her dd veway am sometimes in the street and carry their things to the park to the backstop. '!he Park and Recreation Commission reviewerl the item. It tablerl any action am askerl homeowners around the area what they felt about the fence. One Homeowners Association did respom am they were opposerl to the fence. It was brought back to the Park and Recreation Commission. Mrs. Porter was in the audience am stresserl all the numerous problems that she does have. The Park am Recreation Commission didn't feel that a fence was going to solve her problem. They felt it would simply move it down unless they put the fence all the way down to the end of the park. '!hey were relunctant to put fence in the park. They didn't want to go that route. They could do it through signing or something else. '!he end of last season was the first time I became aware that there was this problem and I suggesterl that I erlucate the softball players that this is not a park access and use of such would not be tolerated. I did that when they were hasseling the park attendant at Lake Ann am last year went much more smoothly. '!he Park and Recreation Commission is recommending denying the request for the fence am asking to direct Staff to erlucate the softball players that it is not a park entrance. Mrs. Porter said this was agreeable to her but if the problem persisterl next year she would come to the Commission with a request at that time. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a possibility of putting a sign up maybe? Is there just one house? Lori Sietsema: '!here are just two houses that it effects because you can see the backstop through their yards. Mayor Hamilton: Can you put a sign up that says this is not an entrance to the park. Lori Sietsema: She said she has put signs up and she goes out there and she tells them. She says they just stream right past her with their baseball bats. '!hey weren't really in favor of putting no parking signs up because they neerl the street parking. Mayor Hamilton: I think your solution sounds good. Councilman Horn: Is there any problem, the homeowners have no covenants against them installing a fence themselves do they? Lori Sietsana: Yes they do. We askerl if they could put up their own fence. Councilman Horn: They can plant shrubs or something? 31 166 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: Not without permission. It has to be approved by the Homeowners Assocation. I Councilman Horn: Is it their local covenants? Lori Sietsema: Their landscaping is all done by the Association, their maintenance, so anything they put up in their yard. I know they can't have swingsets and they can't have fences but I don't know about shrubs and bushes. Councilwoman Watson: Is there any potential landscaping that we could do on our side that would make it less accessible for people to go through there rather then their doing it? It seems to me that it is as much a problem we created as anything else and if educating doesn't solve the problem, landscaping might be an alternative. Lori Sietsema: I'm sure the Park and Recreation Commission will discuss that. Councilwoman Watson: It's nice it's open. It is neat the way it is but I certainly can understand these people's problem. I wouldn't want a stream of people. It bothers me that standing out there and saying this isn't an entrance to the park doesn't stop them. Councilwoman Swenson: Inasmuch as Mrs. Porter felt that this was reasonable and stated that if the problem continued next year she would indeed be back I will make a motion. I Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adopt the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation to deny the request to install a fence at Meadow Green Park and direct Staff to educate the softball players next year that Mrs. Porter's property is not an entrance into the park. All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO DELAY SEWER UNIT CHARGES, PRAIRIE HOUSE RESTAURANT. Mayor Hamilton stated that the applicant Mr. Korzenowski was not present at the meeting. Mayor Hamilton: In light of the comments we have from Don, since we have never done this in the past I have a hard time feeling that we ought to allow a delay. I don't think his problems stem from putting in a sewer line. Councilman Geving: on the other hand Tom, if it means for this particular person or for a business a significant amount of money that would have to be paid would adversely effect his continuing business in Chanhassen or anybody else, I think the Council should take that into consideration and I do agree, we have never done anything like this for any developer or any single business. We have never made any special consideration on assessments and I think it would be extraordinary on our part to make a concession to Mr. Korzenowski. However, again like I said when I opened this conversation, if I it meant that it would help him financially to remain in business and if it came down to a real hardship case where it had to be verified or audited to us and it was a hardship case then I think I would feel different. 32 I I I l67 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I don't disagree with your comments except that I think the applicant would then have to demonstrate that this is the only the last resort. Councilman Geving: I agree with the Manager's comments. I think we have to act on this am we have to either approve it or deny it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to deny the request to delay sewer unit charges for prairie House Restaurant. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND TIME PERIOD FOR SIGNING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, - - SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Mayor Hamilton noted that the applicants were present at the meeting and they were asking for a 60 day extension on the contract. Barbara Dacy: '!hey had not specified a time period however Staff recommended that a 60 day extension would not adversely effect the timing on the project. Councilman Geving: I disagree. I see their October 9th memo asks for 60 days. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the Council grant the 60 day extension to Sunnybrook Development Corporation for the signing of the Development Contract. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton asked Barnie Schlender how the project was proceeding. Mr. Schlender stated that the primary reason for the delay was that they have had their commitment letter for some time but due to the fact that the mortgage business has increased so drastically in the past few months, there have been a number of delays which they have had to contem wi th. LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES. Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission has discussed this issue at length with concerned lake residents. '!he Commission realizes that any attempt to restrict lake access would violate State Law however, they are concerned with preserving the quality of the lake. So as not to confuse the two issues, one being the lake protection am the secom being access control, the Commission has recommended operational procedures while investigating other ways to protect the lake. They are going to be putting together a letter asking Lotus Lake residents how they would feel about restricting horse power am speed limits. As to the operational procedures, the Park am Recreation Comm ission is recommending that the City comply with the standards set by Department of Energy and Econom ic Development am they are recommem ing to keep the access open until a park area is built at which time the access will be closed to prevent parking problems, to keep car am trailer parking spaces free for access users, to set park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. consistent with other parks, to keep any restrictions equal for all Lotus Lake users, to employ a park attendant to enforce park rules and regulate the parking lot, to restrict car and trailer parking along streets adjacent to the 33 168 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 park entrance, to apply park rules consistent with other municipal parks as outlined in the City Ordinance. The Commission is also recommending that permanent barriers be installed at the access in Carver Beach. I Councilman Geving: I see that the recommendation from the Department of Natural Resources was to have one designated handicap parking spot near the boat ramp. I would like to include that with the recommendations down below. Why was that omitted? Lori Sietsema: V€ have two down there. Councilman Geving: Why didn't you include thEm here? Lori Sietsema: It is in the park plan that we have two handicapped parking spaces down there. Councilman Geving: Okay, the second question is, these are operational procedures. You should have picked up on that no fees will be charged for launching any craft. I would include that as a recommended item. 'Ihe other one is to set the park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. consistent with other parks in the City. Could we restrict that someway by saying daily throughout the boating season because that is really the only time it would be used? I would like to consider that as an extension of that statement. Consistent with other parks and this would be daily throughout the boating season. Mayor Hamilton: It will be used in the winter when people go out to go ice fishing. I Councilman Geving: We don't open up the park at Lake Ann during the winter season. Mayor Hamil ton: SUre we do. Councilman Geving: Sometimes I have parked out at the gate and walked into the lake. Many times. Don Ashworth: In the early spring they will close it down because we have had some vandalism during the thaw periods but we normally do open it back up. Unless you are referring to, you wouldn't have an attendant there during that time. Councilman Geving: No, I guess I'm just looking at it operationally, it is our intent then to keep this access open year round from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., is that correct? Sumner, winter, spring. Don Ashworth: We anticipate that there may be a request for like ice houses, you do have to get up and down there because the lift station is still there so it is going to have to be used on a daily basis. It is a very steep slope and Staff is going to be watching to see if we are creating any type of I problems. We may be coming back to you and closing it during the winter months. 34 I I I 169 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess that was the only question I have is when do we have this park attendant in attendance to enforce park rules? That is the only question I have. When do we start it and when do we end it? Do we start the park attendant when we start Lake Ann for example, June 1st arrl errl on Labor Day? I think we need to kind of tie that down. Lori Sietsema: I would assume that a park atterrlant at Lotus Lake would be there earlier for fishing season at least on the weekends until the season is in full swing. Councilman Geving: I think those are the kind of things I would like to see in this operational procedure because those are the types of questions people are going to ask. What is our procedure? Mayor Hamil ton: I guess I will follow up on that. For me this procedure is not specific enough. They weren't complete. In some cases I wasn't sure exactly what I was looking for but I wanted to have everything spelled out arrl pinned down more then what it is here. To say that we will employ a park attendant to enforce the park rules I guess leaves a lot to be desired to me. Again, I don't know who we are going to hire, where we are going to put him, what kirrl of authority are they going to have, are we going to post the rules of the park so everybody has an opportunity to see those, are you going to give them handouts so that they know what the rules are when they drive in? I guess I felt there was a lot of questions that you didn't answer. I wanted everything to be in writing so there is absolutely no question about what the rules are and who is in charge of what. Also, I was thinking about, where was the gatehouse going to be located? Lori Sietsema: There is a cement slab at the top of the hill so they would be able to see the parking lot at the same time. Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to consider putting a chain or anything across the actual ramp itself to close that off? I guess I was thinking more in the winter time. We may want to do that in the winter time so that if someone wants to put a fish house on, they still have to came to City Hall to get access to that so you just don't have the kids out there zipping around on the lake going for joy rides some winter night. I would like to see that closed off and not readily accessible to anything. Don Ashworth: You put the chain at the top of the hill so you wouldn't encourage people to go down there. Mayor Hamilton: Either way just so you can't get to it. Don Ashworth: Q'le of the problems is we should have really incorporated the plans with this submission because the plans themselves show like the gate house. As far as the rules, we anticipated those being posted in a similar to Lake Ann. We can go back through there am modify these to include how that would work if you would like us to. Councilman Geving: I think that is what he is asking for. Let's have a complete list of the procedures, definitive. 35 -<1 '''l,n. JLc'U City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I don't want to leave anything to chance. I Councilman Geving: Sure as heck if there is a loophole someone will find it within 15 minutes the first day we try to get 12 cars in there. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see signing down by the ramp itself posted with the park rules really spelled out so they can see them. I was also wondering if we shouldn't consider putting some signs every so many feet along Jack's property that says private property, keep out or something so we don't have people climbing over the fence. Jack Melby: That has happened already. Mayor Hamil ton: You weren't down in your yard so they decided to use it. Jack Melby: We were down there am they came right over. They were going to have a picnic. We were real pleasant, told them to leave. Councilman SWenson: Weren't we supposed to install a fence aloI19' there? Is it all the way up? Jack Melby: It is all the way up. Counci lman Swenson: Any they came anyway. Jack Melby: You can get around it down by the lake there is about a 10 foot stretch of lam there. I Mayor Hamilton: But you can get aroum it down by the lake. Mayor Hamilton: We might have to think about extending that down closer to the lake then. Councilman Geving: '!here may be some reason for us not doing that though. Don Ashworth: We should be signed at that park. this item tabled and brought back? So you would like to see Mayor Hamilton: I think it needs some clarification. Councilman Geving: It is a good start but it's not... Councilwoman Watson: I just want to briI19' up one comment because it was a source of question to me. wi thin these letters from the Department of Energy and Economic Development, a letter from the DNR am another letter from the DNR, another letter from the Department of Energy and Economic Development all telliI19' us that we can't restrict the horsepower but they can but there is never any explanation. Just that you can't do but we can at our discretion. If you have the right people, we can make that decision but you can't but there is never an explanation for why they can choose to make that discretion I if they wish but we can't. 36 I I I 171 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Lori Sietsema: we can ask them to restrict the horsepower. Councilwoman Watson: See, that is my question. Q1 Christmas Lake it is not. The riparian homeowners. 7 years from now. I'll be happy. I'll take the horsepower restriction for 7 years. That is just fine but you see they don't offer it to us. Jack Melby: I think what happened is they changed the law right after the Christmas Lake situation am they were going to make everything else controlled by... Councilwoman Watson: we certainly discussed this before March of 1986. Councilman Horn: I don't bel ieve the law did change. Christmas Lake was an exception. I worked with the DNR years ago and that law was always in effect but somehow Christmas Lake became an exception. Public: There was another law passed after that addressed solely to that and in there it gives the Christmas Lake rule that after 1990 or 1994 or whatever. We got a copy. Councilwanan Swenson: It is strictly for them. Lori Sietsema: They were the only ones that were gram fathered in. Before it was more or less a policy. It wasn't an actual State Law. As of March, 1986 it is a State Law that you can not restrict the horsepower for some am not for others except for Christmas Lake which was grand fathered in. Mayor Hamilton: When you say to restrict the car and trailer parking along the street adjacent to the park, can you define that a little more clearly. Lori Sietsema: Signing with no car/trailer parking along.... Mayor Hamilton: I know but along what streets. You don't want parking on TH 101 am let's say where we are going to sign it and not just TH 101 but other streets that are going to be signed. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we should make something crystal clear. '!he State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' letter of August 18th states very clearly that any restrictions placed on the surface use of public waters, lakes, rivers or streams on or after January 1, 1975 must have the approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Restrictions without this approval are invalid am not enforceable. Restrictions include times, speed, horsepower, area or activity restrictions. Did we get that approval on our water surface? Councilman Horn: Yes we did. With difficulty but we got it. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like for this Council to sem a letter to our Representatives in this State and take exception to this letter dated September 11th from Gretchen Blank. The tone of this letter is insulting. It appears to be certainly intimidating and it does not seem to me that it is the 37 172 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 type of correspondence that this City should be subj ected to. When someone I says that "this appears to be yet another attempt to limit boat access to Lotus Lake to riparian boat owners" and then it goes on in various places and it quotes the law. It says "any attempt to subvert the law will not be tolerated. Consequences to the City of Chanhassen could result in being ineligible for further grant consideration until the access is truly public, as well as withholding of payments on any outstanding grants. Additionally, the DNR has indicated to this office that access to Lotus Lake is a high priority for them. If the City does not provide a reasonable open access, the DNR will build one on land they already own." In an earlier letter this same individual indicated that if we gave them any more trouble that they would recommend that the DNR do it. "Let me assure the City and riparian homeowners that neither the National Park Service nor DEED will allow this to fade away. Periodic post completion inspections are made to assure continued compliance with both state and federC!l law. Attempts to by-pass the laws will be dealt with as soon as they are discovered. In summary, we will not tolerate any attempts to restrict non-riparian boat owners...". I really take exception to this. What she says and the fact that we have to follow the rules, maybe this is her perogative but I think to talk to us like we were a flock of children is insulting and I personally resent it. Tb be perfectly frank with you, if this is the kind of thing that we are continually and more and more often having to put up with, if I remain on this Council I'm going to start looking very carefully at whether or not we want any more grants from anybody. We keep getting grants and every time we get a grant they take something away from us. What are we losing? This belongs to us and the people who live in this City and I have no objection to people coming in and using the lakes. I That is fine. I think they are open for everybody but I certainly object to this type of attitude. Councilwoman Watson: And she makes it sound as though it is our sole aim in life to do this and we applied for a grant. We have made an honest effort to have a boat access. We have however asked that we be given consideration that those with more influence then we have been given. I don't think they can blame us for trying. After all part of that other lake that was given special consideration is in this City but they never came to us once with any discussion regarding any way, shape or form the boat access to Christmas Lake and yet there is a considerable portion of Christmas Lake that is in this City. '!hey never inquired. No one did. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like a copy of this letter sent to Chuck Dim1er and Boschowitz and her too. Councilman Geving: I kind of agree with you. I think we have to work with these people but this is a very arrogant letter. I would be offended if I got this letter. Councilman Horn: You did get the letter. Councilman Geving: This was addressed to Lori. I would have been very offended but maybe a response is appropriate. I think at this stage of the I game though we don't need to go back to the Park and Recreation Comm ission for these things that we are talking about tonight. Staff can handle the 38 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 III inclusion of the details that we have talked about. Councilman Q:!ving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the Lotus Lake Boat Access Operational Procedures item am have it come back on the Consent Agema at a future Council meeting, directing the Park and Recreation Coordinator to clarify exactly what the details of the operational procedures should be, am Staff should also submit a draft copy to the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association prior to the night of the Council meeting that the item comes back on the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: I would recommem that we put a board down by the actual launch stating the circular, God forbid that we should break a law. DEED says that we can't do this but we'll do it anyway. If they come back we will just have to fight it out but the 15 mph with a circular motion at whatever 40 horse. Lori Sietsema: W= can do that. '!hat is an approved... Councilwoman Swenson: Since that has already been approved. Put a big sign right down by the water so they can't say we didn't know what it was. Councilman Q:!ving: I believe that the Homeowners Associations are aware of these recomnendations. Is that correct? Can you tell me Margie? I Roger Karjalahti: We were aware of them but like Tom said, they were so vague now. When we were at the meeting they were discussed more in depth. Councilman Q:!ving: Did you have any in depth discussion am input into these that was not included? Roger Karjalahti: Yes, the board down by the, the Rules posted. '!hat was a real biggy am the counter-clockwise that is an Ordinance. I was real surprised that they weren't all mentioned. '!hey were real specific when I was here am then all of a sudden they were real vague. I think you guys are right. I think they should be clarified. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we should probably put in there too, as Tom said, the hours that the park attendant will be there. I assume it will be daily. Councilman Q:!ving: Here is what I would recommend. I would recommend that we proceed as I said with the tabling motion, have Lori go back am put in the details that we are looking for and the night before this is presented back to the Council on the Consent Agenda, have a copy of her final draft submitted to the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. Just for comments and review and one last thing, that they might see something that you forgot Lori am hopefully they will be here the night we discuss this and approve it or pass on it. I Roger Karjalahti: I just had one comment that was on a time schedule, Pat lives over by Riley I guess and theirs is broken down real nice starting at the beginning of May the man comes only weekems, the gate attemant am then starting Memorial Day on they also cover weekdays. '!hey had it broken down in 39 17Ll City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 a timeframe that made sense. During the summer they only had him come 1: 00 I p.m. to 8:00 p~. instead of coming in the morning when there isn't much boating pressure but toward afternoons skiers get out and a lot more partiers. Councilwoman Swenson: They are there eariler on the weekends though. Public: Yes, they are earlier on the weekends. Councilwoman Swenson: It has been for us, it has been very successful. Councilwoman Watson: Let's not forget some sort of response to our friend Gretchen. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, Don and I will take care of that. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton stated that Councilman Horn wanted to give a brief update on the downtown project. Councilman Horn: The HRA had an update on the downtown proposal. At the HRA two months ago we decided that we need to have a closer look at the financial impact of what is being proposed. I think all along everyone has liked the proposal that was presented but there has not really been a facing up to the issue of what is this really going to cost us. As I mentioned earlier this evening, I was a little disturbed to find out that some of the streetscapes and things have been done by the consultants ahead of the fact that we need details of the financial information. It turns out that Bob Voto was here and indicated to us a set of guidelines that he would recommend that we adopt as a Ci ty in pursuing the downtown proposal. His recommendation clearly pointed out that these projects should be self-sustaining on their own. That they would not cost the taxpayers any additional money. These again are just recommendations. I understand that there may have been some rumblings recently that there would additional cost to the taxpayer. I want to assure everybody that that was not the recommendation by anybody of our Council and as a matter of fact, it looks like the financial situation is somewhat different then what it was when we looked at the downtown proposal before. Quite frankly I think there are more conservative assumption that we are going to have to make at this point based on the Shriver Bill and what they might do to the Tax Increment District and I look at what they are doing and I find myself on a real fence here because as much as I like the downtown proposal and things that it would give us, I really understand what they are trying to do with the Shriver Bill and it is difficult for us in this stage that we are to suddenly have the rug of the government subsidies pulled out from under us but in fact that probably is what is happening right now. en the other hand if we have businesses that can't make it in this State, it isn't doing anybody any good so what appears to be happening is that if this Bill goes through, businesses will have their property values lowered. What that means to us is that the assessed valuation of our tax increment district will go down which means that a lot of the monies that would be retained in the district will just not be generated. What this does is it limits us to the number of options or incentives that we can give to developers. I think what is going 40 SL1 I I I I I 175 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 to have to happen is that the developers are going to have to pick up more of that on their own because in fact, business will be in a more favorable tax situation so I believe they can afford to pick up more of the bill. It is going to limit somewhat what the City can do but at no time did I hear anything in the meeting that either the HRA or any of our legal counsel would recommend to us, or financial counsel, that we would put any of this back on the taxpayers. The only issue that would be a potential candidate for that would be the Community Center. This again would be a referendum issue. If we did go to the taxpayers to be supported, they would have to be favorable. Mayor Hamil ton stated that Councilwoman Swenson wanted to comment about the News Release. Councilwoman Swenson: I think the copy that we have of this news release is good news for Chanhassen. I think we ought to let people know about this. Councilman Geving: I was disappointed the paper left Pat because that was the i tern I pulled out and I was hoping that we could get some make on that. Councilwoman Swenson: I would imagine that Don can get ahold of everybody. Councilman Geving: This is the most positive information I have ever received. Councilwoman Swenson: Chanhassen Village ranks low in revenue and budget administration expense per capita. Councilman Geving: I think the wording. I like what it says. These low rankings usually mean that your City is efficient in providing these services to your taxpayers. Mayor Hamilton: That could be something that we would want to put into the Chanhassen Post. The Chamber of Commerce that goes out to about 3,300 residents and business people. Those are the people that you want to have see it. Councilman Swenson: Can we find out what the subscription of this publication is? It might be interesting to see. Mayor Hamilton stated that Councilwoman Watson wanted to comment on the activities of John Pry~us. Councilwoman Watson: Yesterday I was out there and he is doing an extensive amount of grading. He did indeed take the stuff off of his driving range here and dumped it in piles out there and then is covering it up with huge piles of dirt. There is going to be more junk under the berms. I don't imag ine you can hardly grow grass over these berms he is talking about but he is doing a lot of grading. There have been various kinds of debris dumped out there. I sat there and watched him. He was driving the Bobcat and I sat and watched him for a few minutes while he did it and I know he knew who it was and I was unaware that he had any right to do much of anything out there because he's not settled his problems with us. He has no permit. 41 176 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I'm more than a little irritated that he was issued a burning I permit am a permit to do anything else out there. He shouldn't be given a permi t to do nothing until this whole thing is settled. Councilwoman Watson: I'm sure that part of the problem is that Jim Castleberry probably isn't aware of our difficulties out there. We should have some control over this man getting a permit to do anything on that property. Not only that, while he set this 75 foot line of debris on fire and there was no one watching it. The neighbor John Hennessey walked up there because the smoke was so thick. He walked up and there was not a sole in attendance of that fire am he called am someone came out am said, you're absolutely right. He can't just leave this fire and go away from it but that is exactly what he had done. It was an area of debris approximately 75 feet long burning with absolutely no one in attendance. Mayor Hamil ton: We should put out a memo Don to the rest of the Staff that if Pryzmus asks for anything, he doesn't get anything until this whole thing is settled. Councilman Geving: I thought we had an injunction against him. That was the impression that we asked the Attorney to get an injunction to stay off the property. No more dumping, nothing. Councilwoman Watson: I'm disappointed too. We revoked that permit one long time ago am no prosecution has taken place am unfortunately the City I Attorney has not done a real good job of explaining why nothing has occurred. Don Ashworth: He applied for some type of other permit. Are you aware of any other permit that has been? In terms of making an application and if you meet all of the requirements for a burning permit, I understam what you are saying and I will make sure that no permits for anything be issued but from a technical stampoint, if you came in am wanted to bum brush on your property and met all other requirements, you could do that. In this instance the imividual had made application for a permit, you revoked that permit. You started a process to put him through an approval process but he never followed through so you revoked the perm it. He was not to do anything more on that property until he came back in front of you. Why he has been out there this past week, I don't know. Councilman Geving: Grading, burning, whatever he's doing it should be stopped. Councilwoman Watson: He is burying debris out there as well. God only knows what is involved in the debris that he is burying but he is burying garbage out there. Don Ashworth: '!hat is my error in that, of any Staff member here, I think every staff member here is aware of John Pryzmus am the problems that we have had. Castleberry probably is unaware of that history portion. otherwise I can not see anyone issuing any other types of permits am I will inform Castleberry. I 42 I I I ~ ~l ~;;'-~,~ ~I '/ 'i _..-.- u [. City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: When we revoke permits like that, maybe a memo should be sent to the Staff so that everybody is aware of it. I realize it is more work but then maybe we're going to have to start thinking about putting on more help so that we can get this information to Staff so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Don Ashworth: You are always going to have problems when you have changes in people or new people or new posi tions. We put out a packet each week. Council members receive that. All Staff members receive a copy of that. I hold post and pre meetings to go through who it is that is prepar ing reports and then who it is that is following through on them so I think procedurally we have the thing fairly well covered but you are going to have some sl ips and in the case of Castleberry, I'm unaware that he was involved with the whole hoopla back at that point in time. I'm not even sure that he was around at tha t time. Councilman Geving: I get the impression that if we don't do something with this property, we'll have another 79th Street moved out onto the highway and it is going to be a mess for a long, long time. With winter coming on. Don Ashworth: I talked with Roger about this item today and again tried to emphasis the importance that Council put on it two weeks ago. I guess he has been out of town and unaware of what has been occurr ing . Councilwoman Watson: Just one last comment. Roger has not been out of town for the last several months that this has been in a holding pattern. By the time that we have our next Council meeting, I would like to see a written memo from Roger. Where we are, what is happening and who is doing what in regards to this case because if we let it go on much longer, the longer that property sits out there with nothing happening, the more that is happening to it. He is not leaving it alone. He is out there everyday. He is out there at night. Mayor Hamilton: You said you wanted to talk about stop signs. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, in the Greenwood Shores they put no parking signs because of parking problems in relationship to the park. I have one resident right in the middle of the no parking zone that wants that parking sign removed. Can you remove individual parking signs or must we remove all parking signs? Mayor Hamilton: Why do they want it removed? Councilwoman Watson: Because they feel that when they have company they can't park there because of the sign and actually if you need parking on the streets, in spite of those things, it can be worked out and there is parking within less then a block from this particular residence. '!hey are in the middle of the situation and want their parking sign removed. Councilman Horn: Tell them to petition. Councilman Geving: I agree with what Clark just said. Have them send a memo to us. We just have to operate efficiently in these cases. If we have a 43 -;1 F7f 10> r ',' .-L (l V City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 request, then we have sanething to work with. I Don Ashworth: No parking signs except by City Council. It is a resolution. It is required to make it enforceable and that resolution designates where they start and where they stop. Councilwoman Watson: Okay, then I will ask her to submit in writing her request for the removal of that one sign. I have a feel ing the neighbors across the street are going to be very dismayed at the removal of that sign. Mayor Hamil ton: The neighbors will be made aware of what she is doing and they can also petition to leave it up. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: HALLOWEEN PARTY, PARK AND RECREATION COORDINATOR. Lori Sietsema asked if any of the Council members could volunteer to dress up in a costume and answer a Halloween Trick or Treat door for the Park and Recreation's Halloween Party. ESTABLISH FINAL ZONING ORDINANCE WORKSESSION DATE, CITY PLANNER. The City Council set Monday, November 24, 1986 as the date for the final Zoning Ordinance Wbrksession date. I 1987 POLICE CONTRACT, DISCUSSION. Mayor Hamilton stated that Jim Castleberry wanted to be present at the meeting but was unable to attend because he was busy with the Fire Department. Don Ashworth: '!he County is doing it to us again. '!he Public Safety Commission at their last meeting endorsed a recommendation that we do have a problem with certain evenings. I should be letting you go through this shouldn't I, and I think it almost ties in now with what the County has done. You are going to look to a minimum of 5% increase as part of the Contract itself and then they are stating in where they will retroactively bill you for costs that could be another 10%. As far as I'm concerned, we didn't get any additional protection within the City when we went from 18 hours per day to 21 hours per day. We might just as well put the Contract back to 18 hours, take that $30,000.00 and implement our own police services for those particular evenings that we have a problem. It would be an extension of the CSO program. We have already started that type of program. There is concern with starting our own department. '!hat type of concept. I don't see it that way. I see it that our CSO program is simply supplementing services within this community. I see where using those dollars to take care of problems that we are having with particular evenings, back-up services, etc. is a reasonable way to go and a mechanism by which we can reduce the overall cost back to the City. Councilwoman SWenson: Do you hire certified police officers? I 44 I I I 1 F"J 01 -I.. (j i7 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Don Ashworth: On the CSO program we would be looking at two levels. One would be a less then certified person. Both Frank and Steve started in that category. Frank has been working for us long enough now where he has the certification. He is a licensed police officer with the weapon, stop individuals, etc. We are not looking to putting somebody on full-time and saying we are hiring you as a full-time officer. This is simply for those individuals who literally are looking for full-time employment and we would provide them with an opportunity to work part-time and gain some experience from this job before they take a full-time position somewhere else. That is exactly what we are doing with the CSO program but we are going to have two levels of officers within that program. One would be non-licensed and the other would be licensed. Councilwoman Swenson: They are capable of arresting and doing everything else? I mean they are full police officers? Is this the recommendation of the Public Safety? Mayor Hamilton: CUring the budget process I called to your attention that we had discussed this at a Public Safety Meeting and at that time I was the only one on the committee who was in favor of going into this so we said alright, we'll recommend to the Council that we look at it a year from now. What has happened with the County, we discussed it again after looking at what is going to happen with the Contract and it is an unanimous vote now after everybody having thought about it and after seeing the Contract and after we discussed this some more, feels it is something that we ought to do right away. It was unanimous. I was surprised that everybody can turn around completely. Councilwoman Watson: From reading this, I am no longer concerned about giving appearances of beginning our own police department. If that's what it appears we are doing, perhaps that is percisely what we are doing. Maybe these are the beginnings of a police department which we will undoubtedly have in the next few years and I don't think we need to pull any punches about the fact that we are beginning to supplement our Contract with our own police officers and we will virtually have the beginnings of a department. I'm not the least bit afraid of admitting that is percisely what we are doing. Mayor Hamil ton: I think everyone on the Public Safety Commission still likes the Contract system. I like it. I think it works. Things like this come up and it kind of aggravates you but this can be worked out anyway but the fact is that we need that additional coverage now. We're growing at a fast rate and like Don says to take the $30,000.00 and put it into our own people who we have control over them, we can put them out to the street where we want to have them and the hours that we want to have them out there. I think our $30,000.00 is spent much more effectively this way with our own people then with going with the County. Councilwoman Swenson: 1)) we have any input from the Sheriff's Department on this? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I have talked to both Jack and AI, not knowing how their police schedule looked, and I discussed the matter with both of them and they both are very comfortable with it. They said there would be no problem. 45 180 City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 They would work with whatever we want to do~ they would work us: work with our guys and there would be no conflict there at all. that we would not hire any County Sheriff people. They wi 11 We did say I Councilman Geving: I was confused by this memorandum from Don to us and then from Castleberry to Don. I got the impression that Jim attended the meeting wi th Gary and somehow or other I got the impression that this is a result of County Board's action but yet he did not actually meet with the County Commissioner's in this discussion and my feeling is, since this is a very sensitive item, that Don should have been involved in this. Tell me where you were all the time that this was going on Don because this is very sensitive to me. Don Ashworth: I was in South Dakota but anyway, during this whole timeframe I did meet with AI, I did meet with Marsha Rowlam from the County Attorney's Office for the City of Chaska and Jack Hendricks. The issue comes down to, the County Board sees this as solely an issue between the County Board and the City of Chaska in ironing out the suit. The problem is that it brings back all of the other contracting cities when they come up with a decision that they are going to increase those rates. Now the County Attorney's office is basically stating to the Board am the Board is to the position that settlement that they reached, this famous settlement that we keep going back to from 19 whenever it was, but that calls for the charging of actual costs back to contracting cities and as a part of that, that right now the County is using costs from 1985, actual 1985 rather then 1987 am Jack's I position and the reason that we had been doing this is he is saying that 1986 isn't finished. How can I give you actual cost for 1986 am surely we don't know what 1987 is so the actual costs I have were 1985. The Stipulation Agreement, not the Stipulation but this Court Order, that endorses the position of the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: Let me say this, you were in South Dakota. You are here now am I would expect now you would jump into this to protect our interests. We have already resolved. We signed the Contract for $28.00 and some cents per hour for the year. That was our Contract that they offered to us am we signed. Don Ashworth: They didn't sign it. Councilman Geving: Okay, it wasn't signed but now, it seems to me our position still should be that we could let live the Contract that we signed for the year for 1987 and the actual costs then, or first our viewpoint should be this that we hope we can get through 1987 since we have a signed Contract for ourselves. Let it stand through 1987 and at the end of 1987 pay the actual, because that is what we are getting stuck for anyway in a lump sum without the interest. It bothers me that we are going to have to pay interest for the amount of money that is going to be over am above whatever we have agreed to. Don Ashworth: To go with the comment to protect our interests. That is what I I have tried to do in the stampoint that up until this point in time, we have not been able to get the County Board to move off of this mandated increase 46 I I I Ii ~1 -~o~_ City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 from 18 hours to 21 and now the next one will be 21 to 24 hours per day. They will charge you for that under this Contract that is existing yet when we moved from 18 to 21 or when we move from 21 to 24, we will not receive one additional, there will not be one additional officer. Councilman Geving: What I'm trying to say is I feel it is the most important thing that I have had to deal with in the last few years is our Police Contract on an annual basis and the City Mananger has protected those interests. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is important to us to have you involved in this rather then our Public Safety Director in the negotiation process. This is dollars. I don't mind Jim working on the details and the operation but I would like to see the Manager involved in the money issue because that is where it is coming down to effecting us and secondly, I would say that as long as I'm sitting in this chair, I would be totally opposed to even a hint of starting our own police force and Castleberry has continued to strive, to push and to constantly, at every opportunity, work himself into the role of what I see as the Police Chief of the City of Chanhassen. I don't know if that is what he is working towards but it is not what I see as the objective for Chanhassen as far as myself is concerned as a Councilmember and I can not in my mind see us getting into a quasi police force of one or two people to supplement Carver County. That's my position. I will maintain that. As long as we have Carver County working for us, I feel that we have a good Contract and that we are getting full protection. The first thing that I know, two years from now we will have two or three cars sitting out here with the City of Chanhassen emblem on it, police will be on the side of the doors and we will have four or five uniformed policemen and we will start to think in terms of salaries, negotiation for union contracts, and a whole lot of difficult things that we have never had in the past. Let the County handle those things. That is my viewpoint. Mayor Hamilton: That's what happens when you grow. Councilman Geving: It does happen but until I am convinced that it is cheaper to do it any other way, I will be opposed to every hint that Castleberry or anybody makes to me of starting a quasi police force. Mayor Hamilton: The Public Safety Commission is also opposed to starting our own police department. However, we also felt that we are obligate:1 to our citizens for the maximum amount of protection that we can for the dollars we are going to have to spend. If we can spend $30,000.00 to have a couple of people working part-time for us in shifts that we need to have when you are going to spend those same dollars to the County and get nothing in return for it, you might just as well as put a couple of your own people on. Councilman Geving: I disagree. I'm glad my comments are being recorde:1 because several years from now I'm going to be proven right on this. I guarantee it. We are asking for a police force that is going to cost us a lot of bucks and my only other comment is I want to see the Manager involved in the negotiations from this point on to get the best deal for the City of Chanhassen like he has in the years past. It is difficult. I know it is not easy working with Carver County. 47 182 City Oouncil Meeting - October 20, 1986 Don Ashworth: I guarantee you. I have been totally involved in this. G:>ing I in arrl coming out of that meeting, I knew exactly what it was that we were looking for and I really think that what is being brought to you in terms of finally getting the Oounty to recognize that you have 24 hour car in this area and it is simply a question of who should pay for that car. What has been occurring is there has been a gradual process of shifting the entire cost over to the City of Chanhassen. Now that's not really right because 16 hours out of every day our car is the only east in car. If there is a problem in Victoria, Waconia, wherever it is, our car goes to respond to that complaint am you know, we just can not get the rationale of that position through to the Oounty Board. Finally, through this lawsuit, we had an opportunity to come in, I'll call it the back door, to allow us to renegotiate that position and come up with a fixed number of hours that they are going to charge us for, 18. The Oounty Attorneys agreed to it, the Oounty Administrator, the City of Chaska. We are not going to look for repercussions from any of those groups. I made sure that I made all of those contacts in advance of any type of general meetings that they had including our Commission. I feel very comfortable about this position and I agree with you. I do not want to negotiate contracts for full-time police officers and I like the system. It is the cheapest thing we are going to get but you can go from $230,000.00, which is what it will cost you this next year to $180,000.00 and you will not receive one hour difference of protection and in fact, if you use that differential and if the Public Safety Oommission is recommending to supplement part-time service, you can assure more service back to the citizens. Oouncilman Geving: Where are we paying over $30,000.00 to the officers that I we have? Isn't our Public Safety and Police Contract roughly equivalent to $250,000.00 right now? Isn't that what it is? Even more then that? Don Ashworth: It is $220,000.00 for 1987. The Department of Public Safety is like $50,000.00. Oouncilman Geving: Okay, so it is $275,000.00 maybe. Mayor Hamilton: Let's not forget, Jim is not a Public Safety employee. Councilman Geving: I understand he is not full-time. Mayor Hamil ton: About three quarters of his time is for fire. Oouncilman Geving: I know this. We hired him to be the Fire Marshall and today I see him as a quasi police officer and the chief of the Chanhassen's future police department and I don't think that is where we want to be heading. I just don't see that and then when I see him personally endorsing, I don't know if he is endorsing himself or is he endorsing the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: No. Absolutely not. I think you are off base. Oouncilman Geving: I'm not off base. I 48 I I I lQ'J' .uu City Council Meeting - October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: Yes you are because I have gone with him and he does not push for it. He presents a case and he doesn't take a side either way at the Public Safety Commission meetings. I was the one who pushed for it in the first place. Counci lman Geving: '!hen I think you are wrong. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I guess I disagree but something is needed and I think personally I feel that I would be remiss by not supplying the citizens of this community adequate police protection or the best from the dollars that we can. Jim is not pushing for it. Councilwoman Watson: cne last comment I want to make too. When you talk about not starting any police force. I'm not in favor of starting a police force either. Chviously we are in favor of the Contract system. I do not want to pay for 21 hours of police protection and get 18. It is as simple as that. It really doesn't have anything to do with starting a police force. It has more to do with I'm not going to pay for something that I'm not getting. I might just as well throw that money away as to give it to Carver County and not get an additional minute of police protection for it. Councilwoman Swenson: Somebody please refresh my memory. In Jim's letter, it says if we decide to go ahead and hire Chanhassen officers for 1987 per City Council's direction we need to begin the process. IX> you mean direction from them tonight? IX>n Ashworth: M:=aning if the City Council ends up approving. Councilwoman Swenson: I think maybe that should be a little bit clarified because it sounds as if it has already been approved and obviously that is not the case. IX>n Ashworth: Mike isn't able to get the Council endorsement of really the concept. What we are trying to do and then basically taking it back to the Public Safety Commission, work out the details as to the number of hours, the service levels that we will be providing, verify that within the overall budget limits that you already set for 1987 and bring back that specific package to you. Councilman Horn: I would like Al to be here when we discuss that. My feeling is that what we are getting is a reaction by the County to what was totally a surprise to me and I would think the County too, the way the Judge talked for that injunction for the City of Chaska. I can't believe that it happened. Councilman Geving: Why is Olaska pushing for the $33.00. I don't see what the advantage to Chaska would be to push for the actual $33.00. They are going to have pay that just like we do. Don Ashworth: The City of Chaska has not felt that the other cities and the County townships are paying the proper share of police contract costs. 49 184 City Council Meeting ~ October 20, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: They are saying that, Waconia has about the same number of hours of patrol as we do and they pay a heck of a lot less then we do so somebody is picking that up and Chaska says that they are the ones that are paying for it. None of the township contracts with the County and they get police protection. Who is paying for it? We're paying for part of it. Chaska is paying for part of it and the only reason Chaska is not including us in it is because we are paying our fair share. We are paying more then our fair share because we are also paying for the protection... Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to take the 1987 Police Contract back to the Public Safety Commission to come back with a recommendation to the City Council with some specific figures. All voted in favor except Councilman Geving who opposed. The motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 50 I I I