The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 03 02 CITY ~IL MEETING 2, 1987 Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the to the Flag· PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Johnson. PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd ;rhardt, and Cecilia Ray, City Attorney. OF AGENDA: councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to t~e agenda as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried. SENT AGENDA: councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the following consent agenda item pursuant to the recomm~ations of the City · · b. Resolution 987-16: Approval of Year End Transfers. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION REQUEST, NYMPH ROAD IN CARVERB~, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Jo Ann Olsen: The proposal is to vacate Nymph Road in Carver Beach. It's a 40 foot wide right-of-way. The reason for it being proposed to be vacated is because there was a variance proposal on Lot 1 and they are requesting a variance to the 30 foot frontyard setback from Nymph Rsad. ~ne Board of Adjustments recommended denial of the variance and they also recommended to get a vacation of Nymph Road in process. ~ne topography is very stee~ The City has no plans to improve Nymph Road. Fox Chase is just to the north. Lot 1, is the one being proposed for a home· There is a home on Lot 2. Lot 3 is a buildable lot. Lot 4 is not a buildable lot and Lot 5 does not have enough lot area. councilman Boyt: Excuse me, did you say Lot 3 was buildable? Jo Ann Olsen: It's got 14,000 so it w~uldmeet 75% requir~m~ent. councilman Boyt: And Lot 4 is not buildable? Jo Ann Olsen: It does not have enough lot area or enough street frontage. councilman Horn:- If Lots 4 and 5 were combined would there be enough? Jo Ann Olsen: It's under separate ownership but if they are combined. There is a possibility for the street to be petitioned in the future to be improved because certain lots do depend on it for street frontage. If the City Council does recommend approval for the vacation of Nymph Road, the City Attorney has recommended that we table action for 60 days to allow Staff to onc~ again notify all property owners effected to make sure they understand what it is City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 we're proposing. If you recommend denial, there won't be anything more you will have to do. Mayor Hamilton opened up the public hearing. There were no comments. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: One question I had. Jo Ann when I looked at the road on the north, does that have a 33 foot right-of-way? Jo Ann Olsen: It has been vacated from this point on. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't go through a highway. Jo Ann Olsen: No, it could possibly be improved to connect with Nez Perce but again it would pretty steep topography. There's enough right-of-way to use. Councilman Boyt: As of yet we haven't talked to the owners of these other lots? Jo Ann Olsen: They've been notified. We haven't talked to them personally. We haven' t heard anything. Councilman Boyt: What would be the problem or would it be possible to change the distance we%;e granted on that road, Nymph Road, from 40 feet down to 36 feet and still keep the road optional? Gary Warren: I think the difficulty we have with the road right now is the steep grades that go through the area. Our maximum, by Ordinance, is 8% that we allow as far as the steepness. Councilman Boyt: And what's the grade on this road? Gary Warren: I don't have the exact numbers. We walked the site out there but I'm sure that it's well over 8%. Councilman Boyt: So you're saying then that we couldn't build this road anyway? Gary Warren: Well, I guess you could always build it but it would definitely be cc~r~romising standards as far as grades are concerned. Councilman Boyt: Have we made a practice of that in the past? Gary Warren: Rare exceptions. Councilman Boyt: What I'm getting out of this is if we're going to build the road, it's got to be 40 feet. We've got to have 40 feet to work with. Is that what you're saying here? Gary W~rren: Yes, our typical urban section is a 50 foot right-of-way. Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 Boyt: Ar~ the~ w~ build a 28 foot road on that? Warren: Yes, 24 foot. lman Boyt: What happens to us here if we have 36 feet and we build 24 as far as the road? Warren: As far as the section is concerned? lman Boyt: Yes. Warren: We would have to compromise on the amount of boulevard area of the curb and gutter so it's not an unsurmountable difference that couldn't make up. lman Boyt: Have we considered doing s~mething like that in the past? down our eas~nent for a road? Hamilton: Not generally. Not that I recall anyway. Boyt: As I recall the conversation of a few weeks ago, it seemed me that one of the things that we're giving up here is potentially the if we ever put a road back in there we'll have to go back in and buy this property. Hamilton: If we vacate it. :ilman Boyt: If we vacate it. I guess I'm trying to get a sense for if it's reasonable to narrow our variance down ar~ not vacate it to give everyone they want. Horn: Just a point of clarification. There is another potential ~ss to at least Lot 5 right? There's a 33 foot right-of-way? Ann Olsen: Right. ~ilman Horn: So w~ could go down Kiowa to that? Gary Warren: You're still fighting the same challenge as far as grades coming our of Fox Chase to the north there. It really drops off tremendously through that entire area. Councilman Horn: So are we saying then that Lots 4 and 5 aren't accessible and couldn't be accessible and aren't buildable lots. If we don't give them an access, they' re not buildable lots. Gary Warren: In order to make them buildable, what you're saying is that we would have to compromise on our road standards? Councilman Horn: I believe we have compromised in the past to at least a 7% grade. I don't know what the maximum is that we've allowed but it would be very nice to know what grade we would to compromise to to find if this is even 40 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 feasible or not. If it's 15% or something like that, obviously it isn't feasible and we might as well vacate it. If it's something that would be reasonable for a reasonable compromise, then it looks totally different. Gary Warren: It's something we could easily research here if the 60 day notice is the desire of Council. Councilman Horn: I can't see cutting off access to buildable lots. CounciLman Johnson: It builds on an interesting concept. Councilman Geving: I normally would never be very anxious to vacate a road. In fact I've always stated that as a position but after having been at this particular site, I recognize that the grade is extremely steep and I suspect that it would be not only a difficult road to build but an extremely difficult road for the City of Chanhassen to maintain. If we were to even think of the possibility of sacrificing our standards to put a road in there, I think you in fact create a more dangerous situation by narrowing the road where a steep area that it is would require actually a bigger road. We should be going the other way rather than trying to compromise and bring the width of the road down. I would like to ask Gary, and I know you've seen this site. I think we've all seen the site. In your opinion Gary, would you say that it would be wise for us to vacate this road and never build it from an engineering standpoint? Gary Warren: I would say from an engineering standpoint, I would feel comfortable in saying that. Especially in light of some of the other similar roads in that Carver Beach area. We have challenges right now with maintaining. We're fighting a very difficult situation when we have a grade such as this. Councilman Geving: What is the road that is just to the south of this particular one that I used to always call Devil's Kitchen Slide or whatever it is? Todd Gerhardt: It' s a drainageway. Councilman Geving: But that would be comparable I think in steepness to what we're talking about here because if you've ever been down that road, it's a thrill and there are days when you can't go down it because of the ice. Gary Warren: I would support that. I think there are too many things here that would be difficult for us to deal with with that road. Councilman Geving: From a practial standpoint Gary, let's look at the Fox Hollow situation. Could you arrive at this lot by coming up through the Fox Hollow develo~ent? Gary Warren: Tnere is actually a road somewhat roughed in because I did go around from that side also and drove up as far as my tires would allow but the steepness of that side also makes it very difficult. ."ity Oouncil --D~cting - March 2, 1987 ~ouncilman Geving: I drove down through there Sunday and I was trying to picture myself getting close to that Lots 3, 4 and 5 ar~ again, I didn't think that I would be able to do it. Warren: It would be a very difficult transition too coming in especially the wintertime. If we connected say Nymph Road to the Fox Hollow ion there, if you're coning down that hill. Geving: I would suspect there would be times when we would actually have to close off the road. Gary Warren: We could very well get to that point. Councilman Geving: I do have a question for you Jo Ann. Could you tell me who the owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 are? Jo Ann Olsen: I didn't write down their names but Lots 3 and 5 are urger the same ownership and Lot 4 is under a separate ownership. Councilman Geving: I thought you told me one time or learned that some of this was owned by the State. Is that true? Jo Ann Olsen: I think that is within the 350 feet. There wasn't any of the properties along this road. Councilman Geving: So Lot 3 and 5 are the one ownership but you don't know who that is? Could I ask the Collver's? Keith Collver: From the list of names that I got from Carver County abstract, they listed all those three lots as being owned by the State. That was off the 1986 tax list. Councilman Geving: So you don't know who they are? Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me that we're not going to have access to some of these lots is the only problem I had. Figuring out how whoever owns those lots is going to gain access. Councilman Geving: I would like to know who the owners are. Who we're dealing with? Mayor Hamilton: I was merely attempting to say that the only problem I have with vacating is if we're not going to have access to some of the lot sites, I can't vacate the road without access to the lot. We're going to force someone to sell in betweer6 When you have an owner between two lots, they're not going to have access to their property so I can't go along with the vacation until that is resolved. Councilman Geving: My question to you then is how are you going to get to those people in LOt 3 without building a road and that's going to be extremely expensive? I don't want to pay for the road. 41 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue right now. I'm just saying what are we going to do with that property if we do vacate it? How are you going to get there? The only way they'll get there is to parachute in. Councilman Johnson: Unless it can be combined with the property off of Deerfoot. Mayor Hamilton: 7~nat's true. That's what I said. The only way you could do it is to force them to sell to a neighbor or combine the lots and I don't know if that's right either so I think until that issue is resolved, who owns the lots and how they are going to gain access and if they ever want access. There are too many questions hanging to be answered I think for us to make a decision on this. Certainly too many for me to make a decision. I'm not satisified with the information w~ have to make a decision. Councilman Horn: I'm not either. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the street vacation request of Nymph Road in Carver Beach for 60 days until additional information is available and the affected property owners are notified and their comments received. All voted in favor of tabling the it~n and motion carried. Councilman Horn: Could we get a better handle on what the grades would he if we tried to build those? Gary Warren: Sure. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, could you also find out who owns the lots on Deerfoot? Jo Ann Olsen: I looked at those. They are all under separate ownership but I'll get with th~m. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 452-467, CARVER BEACH, KEITH COLLVER. Mayor Hamilton: This was one that had ~cn to the Board of Adjustments right? And you denied it. Did you review this again tonight or this was not on your agenda? Jo Ann Olsen: What happened was the item was tabled at the Board of Adjustment's meeting so they could go out to the site. They did make a decision. It was denied and the Collver's never got a chance to go in front of the Council so that's what they're doing tonight. They are requesting a frontyard variance from Nymph Road right-of-way. ~here is a 30 foot required setback. Their house is going to be 26 feet away so they need 4 foot variance. It's a steep slope. They wanted to orient their house to be perpendicular to Hopi Road and to follow the other existing homes along this road. There is adequate room for the house to meet all of the required k Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 and the Board of Adjustments recommended denial because there was no P. Hamilton: Dale, is there anything you wanted to handle or Willard? lillard: The Board met three different times. We feel that there is no p. We feel that the house can be turned enough to gain the 4 feet and feel that there is no hardship there. Hamilton: And you met at the site? [lard: We met at the site, yes. Collver: I just feel that 4 feet off a dead road is not that great of a that the Council couldn't grant me this variance to make the look uniform. A strict interpretation of the setback, I don't feel is fair at this point on this particular house. 4 feet off of a non- istent road that you don't plan to improve I feel is a fair trade to have a in some kind of uniform plan. That's all I've got to say about it. Mayor Hamilton: If 4 feet is going to put it out of sync with the neighboring , I wouldn't think that 4 feet is even going to be noticable. Keith Collver: When you're dealing with a 56 run on that north side and you turn it 4 feet, it brings the bedrooms down behind the driveway. Just by the way those lots are angled away from the street. You have a house basically behind the other house. You can see the little corner of it there and y behind the driveway. If there ever was a garage there, you would have what would appear from the street to be a house behind a house so I requested a variance to try to put the house straight to the road and make it look good to the neighborhood. Councilman Johnson: I think in a mere two months I started a tradition on hardline on variances and in this case I agree that there is a self-inflicted hardship and by our Zoning Ordinance we're not allowed to grant the variance. As far as putting a garage behind the driveway, you would have to put it on your property to do it by this little diagram but I don't think you'll allow him to do that. I can't see that he's going to block his air. I believe that he can probably swing the house enough to where that treed lot would not be bad looking. Councilman Boyt: I noticed that the house next to it is setback 22 1/2 feet and you're looking at setting yours back 30 feet which is the Zoning Ordinance requirement now. I like the idea of trying to blend with the neighborhood. At the same time, I've given a lot of thought to tb~ integrity of our Ordinance. At this point I would say that I'm not ready to grant a variance that doesn't fit with what we've said we would give a variance for. If somebody can show me how we can do that and be consistent, maybe I could change my mind. I would like to believe that we can get this Nymph Road thing straighten out. I recognize that costs you 60 days ~ maybe more before we City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 get it straighten out and I'm sure you want to build. I don't want to violate the Ordinance as it stands. Councilman Horn: I guess I have the same problems everbody else does. It seems to me that strict adherence to the Ordinance in this case would be to a detriment of the overall neighborhood. Unfortunately it says that these things are supposed to be causing a hardship to the applicant. In this case I think the hardship is more to the integrity of the neighborhood. I don't know if that really falls into the strict definition of a hardship or not. If I could justify that in my mind, I would certainly go along with this. councilman Geving: I don't have any other comments other than to say that we were at the site and I believe that the developer is creating his own hardship in this case because I think the house could be shifted enough to provide for all the setbacks that are required and that he is in a sense creating his own hardship. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I feel the same way. I don't see that a hardship exists. There seems to be plenty of room to move the house and I don't think 4 feet is going to have a significant effect on the neighborhood. I'm not willing to compromise our Ordinance at this time either. councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the variance request for the front yard setback on Lots 452-467, Carver Beach because there is no hardship. All voted in favor of denial and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION. Mayor Hamilton: We have a resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings should they be needed. I hope you realize this is something that is not going to used indescriminately or immediately but as we negotiate with the property owners in the the CBD area, if need be, we need to have a resolution to go ahead with condemnation. Was there anything you wanted to add Don? Don Ashworth: No. It's really the clock begins running and this resolution does start that clock to ensure that we can look to a June 1st construction date. councilman Geving: The question I had DOn was, it's possible that since the whole discussion of the downtown area has started to firm up and people recognize that something is going to take place, that the values of land will shift dramatically overnight. It seems to me that there are individuals who will benefit by picking up a piece of property or let's say jacking up the price, if we want to condemn it, if they know that development is emminent. My question to you is, is it possible that we could freeze the value of a piece of property so that these kinds of things can't happen and increase the cost to the city in this condemnation process? DOn Ashworth: I asked the same question back to our appraise being concerned that we may see some increases because there have been some relatively recent sales. His position ws just the opposite. If we're unable k Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 negotiate with those owners, those recent sales will only help to support City's position whatever the value is. The only thing you would have to of is that there was some type of misstated sale in that whole Now you're starting to talk about illegal types of activities. ~ilman ~eving: I'm not talking about the illegal ones. I'm talking about ones that you can't prove that they're illegal but you know. We're a ic body here and a lot of what we talk about in terms of the downtown has known by a lot of individuals for a long period of time so they recognize hey, if I could just acquire this piece of property I know the City wants to build something in that area as part of the downtown ect and it's to my advantage to grab as much as I caru At the same time I'm thinking that, Ihn thinking the cost of the downtown project now has ust doubled because everybody is going to ask for as much as they can get. on new sales or the cost of new sales and so forth. I guess that bothers because I just know that this money, we're only going to have so much money go around and if we have to pay two or three times the cost of something it we could have gotten two years ago when we were talking about this. Ashworth: Figures have ~ completed and they did come in within the of the feasibility study. Again, if there are any recent sales, they 'ill only help demonstrate the value that we've placed on the properties. ia, did you wish to say anything more? ~ilia Ray: No, I would only point out what Mr. Ashworth did mention that can't start the whole process which in a sense will freeze the value the whole procedure starts with a 90 day notice ar~ you can one, take · within the 90 days and it starts a whole process of appraisals by appointed commissioners ar~ the landowner can have their own appraisal ~nat will determine the value. ~ilman Geving: Are you saying then that it's incumbant upon us to move on the resolution for the condemnation? ~ilia Ray: If you want to obtain possession of the property, yes. You should begin the process. Resolution %87-17: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the resolution authorizing condemnation in the CBD Area. All voted in favor and motion carried. FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT, WALDRIP'S 2ND ADDITION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, PAUL PALMER. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lake Lucy Road at the corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road. The applicant previously came in for a townhouse development which was denied by the City Council. I apologize for the plans not getting in with your packe~- The applicant is proposing six single family lots. All the lots have the adequate street frontage. ~ney have the minimum lot size. They meet the lar~ use plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The two plans you have, alternate %1, the realignment 45 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 of Lake Lucy, a portion of Lake Lucy Road was going to be vacated. Alternate 91 followed this vacation. The applicant had a short cul-de-sac coming off of Galpin and then two of the lots, Lot 5 and 6 had private drives off that cul- de-sac and Lots 2 and 3 have private drives from the north off of Galpin Blvd.. We found out that there was always going to be a 16 foot bituminous road maintained along with the sewer and water so we had the applicant give us an alternate 92 which brings in a cul-de-sac which would allow all lots to have street frontage. He still shows the two flag lots for Lots 3 and 4 and Staff is recommending that these not be approved. That the lines just go straight up. The flag lots are removed and that they maintain just one access onto CR 117. The land is in the urban section and normally that would be a 50 foot right-of-way, bituminous surface with curb and gutter. The applicant, to reduce cost, the City and the applicant agreed that a rural section could be installed here instead. That would be the bituminous surface but no curb and gutter. This is similar to the other streets in the area. As far as sewer and water, sewer will be brought along with the improvements to Crestview Drive, will be brought off of Pheasant Hills along Lake Lucy Road. Water will be serviced from Galpin Blvd.. As far as drainage, Lot 6 had originally been proposed as a ponding area for the overall area. The Staff is recommending that they have pipe come in from the pond to the north which will direct drainage to Lake Lucy Road and that will satisfy the drainage area for Lot 6 and will allow it to be a buildable lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: . That Palmer Court cul-de-sac shall be extended to Lots 5 and 6 and shall be constructed to a rural section. 2. That there shall only be one access for the site from Galpin Blvd.. . The applicant shall be assessed the difference in cost between 16 wood wide bituminous drive and a rural street section. e That the applicant will provide a 12 inch pipe for the discharge from Waldrip's Pond across Lot 6 to Lake Lucy Road. . Grading of Lot 6 will accommodate surface overflow from Waldrip's Pond and provision of a drainage easement consistent with the overland flow. . The developer be required to petition the City for the inclusion of watermain and roadway improvements as a part of the existing West 65th Street/Crestview Drive sewer project. . The developer enter into a developer's agreement with the City to guarantee the completion of these improvements and acknowledge acceptance of the special assessments. . Submittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan, especially as it relates to fill and storm sewer construction on Lot 6. 10 Council ~ting -March 2, 1987 9. The flag lots are not permitted. lman Boyt: First, there is a sign on Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd. says five lots sold. Is Mr. Palmer here? Hamilton: I don't know as though a sign makes any difference. We're at a request for six. ~ilman Boyt: I'm just thinking in terms of notice to the neighborhood. that they have to be noticed or anything but to me that sign is saying to that we're going to put five lots in here and then the person is coming and asking for six. Hamilton: I think that sign has been there for about three years. lth Olsen: No it hasn't. It was just put up. Hamilton: There was a sign there for a long time. Ruth Olsen: Those were for the townhouses. Councilman Boyt: So, I would like to either have the sign taken down or the right sign put u~ Then, I noticed in your staff comments you said something about it met the Zoning Ordinance. I think one of the things I saw in the new Zoning Ordinance was something about an attempt to match lots with surrour~ing lots. Was that just in the PUD? Jo Ann Olsen: That was the PUD. Councilman Boyt: Although these lots certainly appear to be pretty substantial, they are in a neighborhood of fairly substantial lots. The other thing that I have is Lot 1, having ~n out there and walked around, is certainly low. I didn't look at Lot 6 particularly but there really is quite a steep grade out there on all those lots. T~ey are going to have a substantial driveway situation coming in off of Palmer Court and going up to any one of those houses. I don't know what the grade is but I can imagine they can regarde that to whatever they want it to look like so we're looking at a change in topography there. The other thing, I wish Mr. Palmer was here, maybe he'll take this in on TV, because I understand he owns a piece of property just to the north of this and I went out and walked'on that and there is substantial trash on that piece of property. It's not really relevant but I think he should clean it up since it's in violation of the City Ordinance. Those are my cc~ents. Councilman Horn: At the time we were looking at putting this road in and changing Lake Lucy, it seems to me that I recall one of the options in going up here was to come in from Lake LUcy RDad and not come off of CR 117. Jo Ann Olsen: I have an overhead transparency of that_ They had a cul-de-sac up to here, that was one of the options but that one was not approved. It was the option... 11 47 48 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: But ~ hadn't seen this at that time either. Councilman Geving: The ballgame has changed since then. Gary Warren: Attachment #8 follows the rural roadway section. Phase 3, alternate #1. Jo Ann Olsen: The realignment of Lake Lucy Road and one of the options had it all the way up here. Another one ended it I believe back here allowing another access point. Mayor Hamilton: What you have on there is the alternative we selected, I believe. Jo Ann Olsen: The feeling was that this property in question still has to be accessed from Galpin Blvd.. Councilman Geving: I've got several questions and I think I too would like to look at Phase 3, Alternate 91 because for the record, this is a new proposal to us tonight that when we made the decision to go with Phase 3, Alternate 92, we weren't considering the '~otential" Whitetail Ridge development. I would have to take another whole look at this proposal because it was my original intent that we would bring that cul-de-sac off of Lake Lucy Road as we showed in Phase 3, Alternate 91 to pick up the Whitetail Ridge development. Now, there is a long history is this, as everybody understands and there is a substantial amount of documentation going back 3 or 4 years on what was proposed, when we finally resolved the issue on this based on the neighborhood complaints and neighborhood desires to maintain a single family resident look about this particular development, we had agreed upon five single family homes. The reason for that is on the east end of this development there is a very deep hole. In fact it was always planned that what is now considered to be Lot 6 or proposed Lot 6 was to be a ponding area because of it's depth. If you look at the elevation on that, I would like to refer to that because it's very important to our further consideration. The elevation of that lot is at 995. As we proceed west, we go from 995 to 1005 in the next portion of that same lot we move more to the west and we move up to 1035 and finally way over to the west end, 1040 so there is a substantial difference between Lots 1 on the new plat and Lot 6. I have a very strong feeling that if we were to approve this with six lots, some day that individual who buys Lot 6 is going to have a substantial amount of water damage or water problems and with the dike that's been built to th~ north and that ponding area for the Pheasant Hills project, I think that there could be some serious problems if that dike ever broke loose. There is also a statement or two in the discussion with the Planning commission about the possibility of taking some of the dike fill material and building up Lot 6 to a depth of approximately 1,000 feet. I think that would not be a good idea. In fact, I would really say that that should never happen and I would like to ask our City Engineer for his recommendation on that at the appropriate time. My feeling on this, as we negotiated this entire process through many, many meetings with Mr. Palmer and finally evolved at development of five lots, we never ever considered the eastern most lot as a lot. It was strictly a drainage area. If the proposal is to pipe that excess water from the north 12 Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 Lot 6, it's got to go somewhere and I suspect that we may be creating problem further downstream by doirg that so I have a lot of reservations what I see here as proposed Lot 6. Even if the Council were to consider I would say that whole area is going to have to be raised approximately 6, 7 feet where the house pad will sit. That's a lot of dirt moved into area but I don't see any other way of doing that if you want to make a .ot out of Lot 6. A couple of questions and comments to follow up. I would to the Fire Department's letter if we could for a minutes about the of hydrants and their consideration in this .process and I believe that were right on with their comments that they could eliminate some hydrants the proper placement of these on the development so I think their comments most germairu This is the first time I've ~__-~n_ a comment from the Fire in regards to hydrants and placement of hydrants. This is a new lent for me. I was particularly interested in the City Engineer's letter. I think his comments were right on in terms of some of the '.ions that he is building into the case and he is telling us let's not some of these things and at the same time he's trying to' tell the Council that there are some things that if we go ahead with this project, we want to lake sure that the drainage and the grading are properly done. I liked your comments Gary. Would you respond to my question at this time. What is your engineering reccm~m~ation as far as Lot 6? Gary Warren: We looked at that from the original proposals and some of those I've gathered from reading history on it but as you state, the original submittal was looked at as a five lot site when some of the original work was done. I don't know the transition on how it ultimately got to six but in looking at the present submittal, there are a couple of factors. One, is that Waldrip's Pond, as it's called there to the north, was sized to provide retention of the 100 year storm with ~ provision that, as with any kind of storm water sizing, there are always bigger than 1MM year storm so that the overflow of the berm or the dike, as you call it, from that area, we need to provide for that contingency if in fact that it would overflow. I think that the pond ~ especially the discharge outlet does reduce substantially the rate of discharge through the development there so I feel a little bit more comfortable in saying that we could get by by pipirg from the existing dike across Lot 6 as long as we provide the proper filling and swaling on the top to take care of anything over that. I don't have a plat in front of me but there was fill provided to make that a buildable lot and Jo Ann correct me if I'm wrong, and some of the fill there, there has ~_n some discussion I think from Bill Engelhardt, about we are looking for a swale site for when Lake Lucy, if it would go through as planned, we would have to get rid of this material someplace and Lot 6 was one of the options we were looking at to use the swale for so there are some workable things about the solution I guess that I thought made it to the point where we could approve it from my standpoint, frcm~ the drainage standpoint. Councilman Geving: What are your comments about taking fill from that existing dike area? Gary Warren: I guess I would want to look closely at it. The dike elevation is based on the 10~ year storm which means that' it could be overtopped with anything larger than that but that typically is what we do size ponds for. 13 49 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 That is the accepted standard. Councilman Geving: If dirt were to be hauled in to make Lot 6 a buildable site, how much additional grading would have to be done in terms of the number of feet to bring it up to an elevation that you would be comfortable with and what would be that elevation that you would recommend? Gary Warren: Off the top of my head it's hard to say. ~ fill that would be a minimum for the storm sewer across the lot, we looked to have at least two feet of cover above that storm sewer that would be coming across the lot but as you pointed out, it is a very low area and there would have to be some transition up into the side slope. I would have to look at a topo to say for sure. Councilman Geving: Just one other comment from you Gary. What is your feeling about bringing the extension of the cul-de-sac that we built into the end of what we now know as Lake Lucy RDad and extending that to the west to pick up these 5 or 6 lots as we have depicted here in the earlier phases and so forth? Do you have a comment on that? What would be your professional opinion as far as coming from the east as opposed to the west? Gary Warren: I think that it is workable from either side from an engineering standpoint. The only thought that I would have is that I know that there are homes built now that's part of the Pheasant Hill development that abut on what the homeowners have in mind is going to be an abandonded road because I had a few calls from people earlier on saying when we regrade this we know the road is going to be gone so some of the people apparently have purchased with the fact that they were not going to be abutting on a street there. We would change here and bring the cul-de-sac from the east, as this other alternate would be, there might be some difficulty with the people who purchased lots. Councilman Geving: What about the cost differences in coming from the east and extending that cul-de-sac to pick up the... Gary Warren: We might run a little bit more length to service it probably but it wouldn't be substantial I don't think. Councilman Geving: It's basically a wash? Gary Warren: Yes, because we've got the existing base in there for example so we wouldn't incur but minor costs to upgrade that whereas the other side of the corner run, with the work that will be done with the sanitary sewer going in there, there are some efficiencies there so it's kind of a horse a piece. Councilman Johnson: We're adding a new subdivision here at the edge of our town. To me it's the time to put in an urban road section rather than a rural road section at this point in time. We'll just end up having to upgrade this. The other roads are put in a long time ago and we're putting in some single family homes there, I think the urban section with the curb and gutter is more appropriate at this location for one. I agree with Jo Ann and everybody else on getting rid of these flag lots, 3 and 4. Moving those house pads down out of those trees. They're going to have to take out all of the trees up there 14 k Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 in order to construct it like they've got it shown here and that's really to make it a lot worse with the neighbors right next to them by taking all the trees that on the top of the hill there. I would definitely agree we have to pull those flag lots out and move those houses down towards Court. I would assume with Palmer Pond I guess it's called too, or Pond, will cause a local elevation of the ground water such that Lot is going to have ground water at a very close to it's surface. They would y have to bring in a considerable amount of fill in order to build I don't think you're going to be able to dig very deep. Do you want respond to that one real quickly Warren: My recollection of the house pad for Lot 6 would be up on the and the majority of the fill would not be for the building site. Pond is not designed to retain permanently the storm water. Eventually it would release it over a period of days depending on the storm so it's not to be a water to stay in grour~ water. :ilman Johnson: So there w~uld be no pond during the dry season at all? It will completely dry out? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Johnson: I want to protect those trees and would like to see this go to a urban section versus a rural section. What was the purpose for a rural? Jo Ann Olsen: Cost. Councilman Johnson: Pheasant Hill right behind here, did they get rural sections? Gary Warren: I think the rationale, Crestview and 65th Street, which are just flip flop on the other side of the county road, were allowed to go with the rural section because they were existing roads that instead of inflicting the increased assessments on the residents at that time to bring it up to full rural section, realizing that it hasn't been that way for a while, that they allowed it to stay with the rural section as we put in the sewer. Likewise, the existing road right now for what ultimatey would become Palmer Court, we looked at that in the same vein that it was an existing situation and not a brand new road that was being proposed and therefore I guess we were interpretting our reaction from West 65th and Crestview. Councilman Johnson: I personally don't see it the same. Existing individual family homeowners that are going to have, like 65th and Crestview are going to have some costs associated with the sanitary sewer and everything as is is a pretty good size assessment. Here we're talking a development for profit that to me we're developing slightly substandard by not making it into an urban section. Mayor Hamilton: My only comments are this has been a difficult piece of property to deal with in trying to get a development on here. When we realigned Lake Lucy Boad I was looking forward to closing off the access on 15 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Lake Lucy Road onto Galpin Blvd. and I wish we would have seen this sooner so we would have had an opportunity to access the property from the east ar~ cul- de-sac it so in fact we could close off that entrance that we've wanted to do for quite sometime. If that's a problem with people who have already purchased along Lake Lucy Road, which I think needs to be investigated. If it's not a problem, I would rather it come from the east, going east to west than I would west to east. I certainly don't have any problem with the six lots. I think it's a buildable lot that can be made buildable and very accessible. As far as I'm concerned they can put their pads wherever they want. I think it will be a nice addition to the area. Councilman Geving: What did you say about the urban section, I didn't catch that? Mayor Hamilton: I didn't comment on that. I certainly hadn't thought about it. Rural is fine with me. Mr. Palmer, do you want to make any comments? I see you got here a little late but hopefully you caught most of the comments. Paul Palmer: I'm the owner/developer here and I've been here before trying to develop this piece and do something that is going to fit with the land and fit with the community and fit with the neighbors and fit with the Council and fit with everyone. Every time I show up I seem to run into roadblocks in trying to put something into this project that's going to fit with the land and fit with everyone else. The single family home sites are what the neighbors want. Everybody is comfortable with it, that I've talked to at least, comfortable with the single family homes. The access, Lake Lucy Road as it now exists makes the most sense. Sewer is coming in there. They are going to blacktopping it again. Bring it back to it's present condition. They need the access. They need the service. They need the easement for the sewer line in the event that anything were to go wrong with it. It seems like the natural transition then to make it a road so the access, the easement and everything is there. To put the water in the street. To do it just we would a normal street in the rural section. Using the rural section again fits in with our surrounding neighbors on the other cul-de-sacs. Each cul-de-sac that is within 100 feet of our entrance is the rural section cul-de-sac. In regards to the dike to the north, the dike to the north is set up to be a 100 year pond. My only comments in regards to the dike is that it seems humongous out there. Now maybe it's designed right and maybe the elevation is at the 118 where it's supposed to be. If it is in fact at the 118, that's where it's supposed to be and that's where it should remain. In looking at it, it seems much higher than that. If you've been out there. It just seems much larger and that's why my comment that if there is excess dirt there, there is a possibility of using it. In working an engineer, Pete Knable with Ron Kruger Associates, we calculated that the cut on the hillside and I see you have my drainage plan? Did you get a copy of that? Councilman Geving: We don't have it. Paul Palmer: This reworks the drainage and shows how these homes could be moved down here. The whole objective here is not to lose any trees. We have some beautiful maple trees here. We have some beautiful pine trees up here. We intend not to lose one tree out there if we can help it. It just makes it 16 ;ity Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 note desirable. By cutting through the hillside here we'll end up with a cut )f approximately 3,300 square feet of dirt. This area here, a fill, will take ~pproximately 5,200 so that leaves us short by about 1,900 feet. We feel we ~an easily locate that dirt ar~ put it in there. ~ouncilman Geving: How far will you raise the elevation of this lot? Paul Palmer: This elevation here, the objective will be to raise it around Uhe building pad yet leaving a natural drainage swale over the back area back here. This is all going to be raised 2 feet above the pipe so that in the ~vent that even if more than a 100 year storm happens and for some unforeseen reason it did drain over the dike, we would still have the natural drainage coming along the lot line and then out. This is designed so it that it all fits in with the plan for the drainage to go out this way. All this does is put in the pipe making sure that we don't create a hazardous area for the neighbors there. We put in a pipe there that's now covered and so the natural le flows down here and out along the property. lman Geving: Did we vacate Lake Lucy Road? Hamilton: It says, to be vacated. Paul Palmer: I don't think you have done it yet. Hamilton: We haven't done it yet. We just decided the aligr~nt. Paul Palmer: Well, if you did yes. I guess if you thought of it that way. My feeling is that this is a natural easement for the sewer and the water. Sewer is coming down this line to approximatey this point here and over to here and there will be a manhole right there and they it will be going up this way so this has to have an easement there so that the sewer can be served. Councilman Johnson: You say those two houses are moving down on Lot 3 and 4? Paul Palmer: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: He's going to cut the hill here and then move ~ down. Paul Palmer: I just didn't move them down because that was on tt~ other plan but that's the whole objective to cutting this hill and we have probably more that we could cut. We could proably cut through here a little bit more and spread this out a little bit. The trees don't start until about right here ar~ the pines are up in here. But this whole hilllside there really aren't many trees so we shouldn't loose trees there so it should work out quite nicely. Councilman Geving: Is there some way Gary that we can hold harmless the City if we build on Lot 6 for any future water damage and the potential for a home builder to come in a few years from now and have problems? we know that this is a waterway. It's ~n that way for years and we're attempting to place a home on this Lot 6. Even if we fill it we may have water years from now that the City could be somewhat liable. 17 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Paul Palmer: The objective here is to eliminate any excessive water and the pond to the north stops the flow there and we're taking care of that with the pipe so that's won't affect the lot. What would affect the lot would be any drainage off of this hillside and this hillside. Our whole objective here is to provide for that natural drainage to continue. We're not going to shut that off and make this into a ponding area back here. We're going to create the fill that's going to sit around the house so that this then becomes a nice level area back here but with a natural swale coming right down here. Councilman Geving: I guess the ony problem we've always had is when we've tried to create a nice situation for Mr. Palmer, we in effect create a different problem for someone downstream. That's the caution I have in the particular waterway and drainage. We did a study. Did you read the study that we bad done on this particular property Gary? Gary Warren: The drainage? Councilman Geving: Yes, and what was recommended there about running that water across the road and in through the property to the south? Gary Warren: If it's the one I'm thinking of that led to development of Waldrip's Pond, I read that drainage study. Paul Palmer: And that isn't changing. We're not changing any of that. ~e dike remains there. The water remains there. All we're doing is putting it in a pipe now to eliminate any hazards for the neighbors around there. The end result is instead of the water now draining across Lot 6, it now is at the end of Lot 6. Again, where it would end up without t_he pipe so we're trying to create an environment here that eliminates any water hassles and yet makes Lot 6 useable. If you remember, the whole reasoning really behind Lot 6 not being serviced was because water and sewer had to come in behind the apartment building and there was no way we could get the sewer up to it without a lift station which was too costly so Lot 6 never was considered. We have the opportunity to consider it now, we would like to take advantage of it and in the process we've got somebody who's interested in putting a $200,000.00 home back there right now so that increases the tax base substantially. Councilman Geving: Do you have any comments regarding the extension of Lake Lucy Road to the west rather than bringing it in from the other side from Galpin? Paul Palmer: Again, I think the overall objective for the area is to create a natural setting out there and to eliminate traffic. The thing that I see, by bringing it from the east to the west, we really don't eliminate much road. We eliminate about 100 feet of road. All we do is take that access off out there on Galpin. Councilman Geving: But that's pretty important to eliminate that access on Galpin because we just created a new access. Mayor Hamilton: But we're moving all the trips really down to the new access. 18 Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 .ilman Geving: The reason I ask you that question, they way you've got it ~roposed now, I would propose to the Council that we make that an urban :tion with curb and gutter because then it would look just like Pheasant because you're creating a brand new subdivision here and I think if going to do that, then we go the other way and spruce it up with curb gutter and make it nice rather than a rural sectioru If you bring it in ind extend it from the east, then I say continue on with your old Lake Lucy , leave it in the rural section ar~ cut it off just short of Galpin Road. Paul Palmer: I know in talking with some of the neighbors out there, we're to run into a problem. ~ilman Geving: What's the problem? Paul Palmer: The problem is they have looked at the back of that Lake Lucy Road there. ilman Geving: Who has? Paul Palmer: Pheasant Hill abuts Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Geving: But who has the problem? Paul Palmer: Some of the homeowners who have purchased there anticipating that that road will be closed off. I didn't make that proposal. Councilman Geving: They were speculating when they did that. They took a risk. Mayor Hamilton: Based on what we already had done. behind their doing that. There was something Paul Palmer: My objective here is to eliminate as much road as we can. True, we have an access there that is not the most desirable access. We intend to do things to improve it. ~ne present foliage out here to the north is very thick. That will be cleared out again, to provide better visibility there at the access. If we look at MnDot's report, they have not had any accidents at that road that I am aware of. Back when I brought the townhouse probject to you, we checked with MnDot to find out where their accidents were. Their accidents were all down on suicide curve to the north. They did not have any accidents at this intersection. We intend to improve the visibility there. Councilman Boyt: My question gets back to the sigru Why is there a sign up there that says five lots? Paul Palmer: It comes down to I can't really put a sign up there that says six lots. Five lots were preliminarly approved. I knew that the Council probably wouldn't have any problem with the five lots. I put up proposed five lots because I didn't want to... Councilman Boyt: I would think you are proposing six lots. That's what I'm looking at. 19 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: He has approval for five. Paul Palmer: I had preliminary approval for five and I didn't want to be misleading anyone in anyway that I had six lots in hand when I didn't have six lots in hand. I knew that we could work with five lots. Councilman Boyt: Well Mr. Palmer if I was living out there I would be very upset if I saw six lots after you put a sign up that said you were comt~mplating five and I think you would too. Mayor Hamilton: ~ne road thing that Dale's talking about, even though and I particularly really wanted to close off the access at Galpin, I guess it does make more sense coming in from Galpin. ~nere aren't going to be that many trips on there and as long as visibility is improved on that intersection which is bad now. That was really the main problem we had before is the visibility on that corner is very poor so if you can keep the foliage out of the corner why that should improve that. I would suspect they're aren't going to be that many trips. It certainly would cut down the number of trips using that intersection. Wayne Poppe: I was here when you were rerouting this road back in May and the one thing I want to interject right now is everyone is concerned with the homeowners who are going to build on Pheasant Hills and not have this road behind them, this existing Lake Lucy which of course is abutting my property also which back on May 19th we were looking at vacating that. Mayor Hamilton: Which property is yours? Wayne Poppe: Due south. I'm right south of Mr. Palmer. I guess I don't understand what the argument is because these individuals here all said they are concerned that that road should be vacated. Councilman Horn: It wouldn't be vacated. It would be vacated over here right. Wayne Poppe: All of a sudden we're concerned about these individuals who get to build but we're not concerned over here with the existing road. The road is still dangerous as far as I'm concerned. Granted we're going to cut down access on that road but it's still a dangerous road. It's got a bad entrance. I've got a cul-de-sac on each side of me and I've got a 60 foot lot inbetween two cul-de-sacs and we're going to continue to do the same thing. I have a problem with that. The biggest problem I have is with the density in general. I think six lots is way too many for that piece of land. I think four would be more reasonable. Just looking at the topography and the things that he wants to do with that, I can't believe that anyone will build a $200,000.00 home on a swamp and that's what he's got down there. Mayor Hamilton: I think you're exaggerating the situation a little bit. Wayne Poppe: I would say that a $200,000.00 home is a slight exaggeration also. I've got an acre across and I'm looking to get $90,000.00 valuation on my home. I can't very well believe someone on a lot a quarter the size of 20 k Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 ine can get a $200,000.00 hc~e on there. It's very hard to believe. ~ilman Horn: I'm trying to recall our discussion. ~ne Minutes we have were on the last proposal on this property but we didn't get any Minutes from discussions of the highway. It would appear to me that what we may have in that case was to approve phase 2 because that's what we could see at that point and leave the options open to service the outlot property. He was · down fr~n the old Lake Lucy Road when the develolmment came in. Jo Ann Olsen: He did mention obtaining access from Lake Lucy. Roger was there and he questioned Roger what if they vacate Lake Lucy and he said as long as they still have some street frontage, it's okay and that's included into the motion. Councilman Horn: So there's nothing that said what we would definitely do with Lake Lucy Road but keep our options open as to which way we would serve Jo Ann Olsen: It was left that Waldips would be left with frontage on Galpin. Councilman Horn: And that's all? I don't recall the reasoning why we would have dome that. ~nis to me seems to be a superior method and I wish we would have those Minutes to tell us why we did that. Councilman Johnson: Clark, are you talking about Alternative 91 versus Alternative 92? Wayne Poppe: The conversation centered around the economics of the most ideal entrance. You cut $6~,0M~.00 off the cost of that road leaving short enough Councilman Horn: But the road's already there. Wayne Poppe: Well that conversation centered around eliminating that intersection. Mayor Hamilton himself said he wanted to get rid of it. If I can quote from May 19th Minutes, "we want to get rid of that intersection. One of our objectives is to use that intersection..." ~nat's what Mayor Hamilton said May 19th. Councilman Horn: We're talking about the one to Galpin. Wayne Poppe: That existing Lake Lucy access to CR 117. He wants to make a Councilman HOrn: Do we have the numbers on what the increased cost would be to come in from Lake Lucy as opposed to Galpin? Gary Warren: No, we haven' t looked at that. Councilman Horn: When you see it all layed out...I agree with Dale on that. 21 City Council Meeting - March 2~ 1987 Ruth Olson: I own a piece of land just to the north of this proposed development. I have some kind of helter skelter comments as people were talking. One thing about the pond is that some comments were made about how it's dry most of the time. That pond to me is not a pond. It has hard wood trees in it. It's not kind of your normal duck pond. It's a woods and I've walked down there many times. Right now it is low because we haven't had any moisture for a long time. It stinks. It just smells. Last summer it was filled all summer. We had a fairly moist summer and it never was empty. There was always water in it. The comments about what about the water in the ground for that long, I have real concerns about that. Paul, I'm not opposed to you developing this site. I know it's going to be developed. My concern is that it is done sensitively. I sometimes have a hard time trusting that you will do what you say. When you say you won't take out one tree, I would like that to be a stipulation that the City Council says, no trees come out. I have a hard time believing that you will do that. That you would develop that piece of land without taking one tree down. Paul Palmer: We' 11 try but we can' t guarantee. Ruth Olsen: Yes, see I don't trust that. You just said in front of the City Council that you would not take down one tree. Paul Palmer: I said our intention is to do this whole project without taking down any trees. I love trees. I was in the nursery business. Ruth Olsen: You left dump garbage on a piece of land next to me. You told me you would clean it up. You never did. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could just your comments to the Council and not have a debate with Mr. Palmer. Ruth Olsen: ~ne point of this is that I don't trust that some of these things will be done. I liked Mr. Johnson's comments about the pads for the property haven't b~n shown to me but it sounds like they are very far up to my property and that concerns me. Mayor Hamilton: I think Mr. Palmer already stated that they were going to be moved south. Ruth Olsen: For Lots 1 and 2 also? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, they are all south. Councilman Johnson: Nothing is near you anymore. From the plans he gave us tonight for the grading, everything is moved. Ruth Olsen: I have some concerns about change in the topography. It sounds like there has to be a lot of earth moved. That concerns me a lot. This might sound nit-picky but in an area where there are naming streets after Pheasants, Hummingbirds, Cardinals, I also don't like the name of Palmer Court. Namely, I too as a neighbor am concerned about thinking that this was 22 Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 a site for five lots and now all of a sudden it's six. I very much to that. kman Geving: I have a question I would like to pose to Gary again. important that we understand how the assessment that we placed against lots in relation to the people who paid for their assessments when we through the north service sewer and also those people who now have y bought east of the proposed cul-de-sac on Phase 3, Alternate 1, if can look at that? Look at the proposed road that goes up to the Hills area and Outlot E I guess it is. How would those people be because I think that is the key thing for me? Have you thought about Warren: To be honest no. I haven't looked at that. Geving: I would like to have you refer to Bill Monk's comments that are in our packet tonight. I don't have figures and I don't have his of March 18, 1985 in terms of dollars and cents but we want to make sure that all of these lots are assessed in the same manner that the north service area was assessed originally when that entire process was consummated so whatever that is plus interest I suspect wouldn't it Don? Placement of the assessments on these individual lots? I want to make sure that that is done and is part of any motion that we make tonight. You might want to look at that and get real sharp on that because that's one area Gary that we're constantly referring to assessments of the 1972 north service area assessment policy and that will be part of what we talk about. Just one other comment, I really, after looking at this more thoroughly, I really like extending that road from the east and cutting off the access on Galpin Blvd.. I think that's the most sensible way to go because we've got a hard base there that has been in place for years. We're only talking, as Mr. Palmer says, about a few hur~red feet between what we built there for the Pheasant Hills property ar~ that development and what we now would extend this to. I don't think the difference is all that great so it makes more sense to me to just continue to extend that and Tom, you'll get your elimination of your cut through on Galpin. I think that is the only point I would like to make. I do believe that we should stay with the rural section obviously because that would be a continuation of Lake Lucy Drive. That's all I've got to say. Paul Palmer: In regards to extending it from the east then, who picks up the cost from White Dove to my property? Councilman Geving: There obviously are other people that own property in that area. There are people who own that property and t~ will be assessed. Mayor Hamilton: That's what we were trying to say the first time around. Councilman Geving: I know but now this whole picture has changed. We didn't have this information available to us at the time. Mayor Hamilton: I know but now we'll have to go through that whole process again too if w~'re looking at the asses-~nents for those areas. 23 City Council Meeting - March 2~ 1987 Councilman Geving: I don't know how many feet it is there. A couple hundred I suppose. Councilman Johnson: Bringing it in from the east and assessing the people along on the east side as you bring it in, you're hitting the backyards of a lot of people. Tney replotted Outlot E I guess it is on those drawings. Now, there are homes there. There are streets there and they back up to what everybody had assumed was going to be vacated back in May. I was at the Council meeting and heard the long discussion on this and finally decided let's vacate this. It wasn't a formal vacation but that's what was the talk so everybody platted Outlot E assuming there wasn't going to be a street there. Now we come by and we assess them for a street that runs across their back property line and the other side of the road is a swamp. Is a wetlands which is undevelopable. I don't know who owns those wetlands. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we could move ahead with this with the condition that Gary take a look at the access coming from east to west. Perhaps just bring that one issue back to us for review. Wayne Poppe: I've also got a problem with the assessments since I already have a cul-de-sac to my south and it looks like one to the north, I would assume that I would sc~ehow be excluded from these assessments on both roads. Mayor Hamilton: That's what we're not sure about. That's the information we don't have and that's what Dale's asking for. If it comes from east to west, then we'll need to look at who is going to be assessed and it would be different than what we have now. Wayne Poppe: Also the homeowners to the south were not given notice of this sewer project because they weren't part of that project. My assumption is that we're still not part of that project and I don't know what this road will do to that assessment or anything else. It seems to me you're really affecting my lot in a big way. Jay, in response to your question also, your evaluation of the vacation, the vacation of that land extended all the way to CR 117 which included my lot. I think in looking at the problem with the new homeowners, I think you also have to look at the problems with the existing h~meowners. Councilman Boyt: Can we ask or can we require larger lots when they are already above our minimum? If these lots are all buildable, is there any way we can actually require a lot that's over 15,000 square feet? Mayor Hamilton: As long as he meets the density requirements as outlined in our Ordinance, I don't know how we could require that he do larger ones. Councilman Boyt: So really, other than the intentions of the neighborhood to ask for five lots, we have no means of accomplishing that? Mayor Hamilton: You could deny the request for six and that's the issue we're voting on. 24 Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 Boyt: The question I'm trying to ask and maybe you've answered it, is can we do that? Can we say to somebody that you have to put five lots in there, you can't put six if they are all buildable lots? ~ilia Ray: I don't believe you can require larger lots. However, if you find as you've been discussing, the capacity of the lots to be developed. Mayor Hamilton: ~nere would have to be a findings of facts by the Council stating why we would not allow Lot 6 to be built upon and then that would have to be approved by the Council specifically the finding of fact for that lot stating that it could not be built upon and then it would be up Mr. Palmer as to what his action w~uld be from there. Jo Ann Olsen: Also, if I may add they did bring you the final plat and that final plan approved five lots. Councilman Boyt: So you don't ~ to approve the amendment is what you're saying since it's already ~_--n approved for five w~ can reaffirm five? Jo Ann Olsen: You still have to have the findings of fact. Councilman Boyt: On Lot 6 it indicates, if that's a 118 level for the dike, is it then possible that is the dike is filled that we're talking about pushing ground water up to 1187 C~ry Warren: I think that is what Jay was touching on earlier. The capillary action of the clams and that's a hard thing to correlate a direct relationship. No, if the water is at 118 in the pond, that wouldn't expect you to see it in the surrounding area. There would be some increase but it's really hard to say. You're talking about a researched investigation to idenitify that impact. Councilman Boyt: So it's possible that LOt 6 though would have this hydrostatic pressure coming up from the ground water when the dike area was filled? Gary Warren: There's some effect sure. It depends on exactly what the soils are and what kind of clay lens or whatever that can screen out the transfer of the water. There would be a lot of things that would be involved. Councilman Boyt: I understand from the Planning Commission, the dike is there forever. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plan amendment and preliminary plat for six single family lots on Outlot B of Waldrip's Second Addition (Alternative ~2) with the following conditions: . The cul-de-sac shall be extended to LOts 5 and 6 and shall be constructed to a rural section. 2. There shall only be one access from the site onto Galpin Boulevard. 25 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 . The applicant shall be assessed the difference in cost between a 16 foot wide bituminous drive and a rural street section. . Provide a 12 inch pipe for the discharge from Waldrip's Pond across Lot 6 to Lake Lucy Road. . Grading of Lot 6 to accommodate surface overflow from Waldrip's Pond and provision of a drainge easement consistent with this overland flow. . The developer be required to petition the City for the inclusion of watermain and roadway improvements as a part of the existing West 65th Street/Crestview Drive sewer project and that no fill be taken frc~ the dike or ponding area north of Lot 6. . The developer enter into a developer's agreement with the City to guarantee the completion of these improvements and acknowledges acceptance of the special assessments. . Submittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan, especially as it relates to fill and storm sewer construction on Lot 6 and that any construction on Lot 6 must be personally approved by the City Engineer and his comments from his letter dated February 6, 1987 as well as the comments and recommendations from the Chanhassen Fire Department per their letter dated February 4, 1987 plus the comments from Carver County regarding the road access. 9. The flag lots are not permitted. 10. Ail lots must be serviced by the cul-de-sac which name will be consistent with the names of the streets in the area. 11. The determination of the road access to these six lots will be determined by the City Engineer on a cost basis and brought back to the City Council to determine the most feasible route to access these lots. 12. Tree removal on the property will be consistent with the Ordinance and that there won't be any clear-cutting of this develo~nent. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. LEAF COMPOSTE UPDATE, MIKE LIEN FROM CARVER COUNTY AND JOHN GENEREUX, CARVER COUNTY CONSULTANT. Mike Lien: We're just here to give you a brief overview of some of the things we've done last fall. Give you some interesting information I think and talk just briefly about things we want to do this spring so we won't surprise you. Just to refresh your memory and for the new council members, we've had a leaf comp. sting programming going in the County for the last five years. The City of Chanhassen has participated by having the city crews pick up leaves and 26 k Council Meeting -March 2, 1987 them out to the Arboretum while we compost them in the fall. Last fall, to receipt of a Council grant by the County, we worked with the City and nd of went a step farther with what we're doing in the City here. We had a more publicity. We used a paper bag as opposed to plastic bag where we ust throw them in the pile and they will decompose with the leaves. We made t in sort of a cadillac program at least in parts of the City to experiment different collection methods ar~ things like that. We appreciate the cooperation in that and one of the reason we're doing that is because the Council grant where the County is experimenting the different means of ..ollection of leaves. Looking at the different costs~ Different ways of ..omposting once we get them out to the county then final uses. O~e of the ain reasons we're doing this, we wanted the council grant, it would be for ionwide application of type data so if we get some data in Carver County may apply to other parts of the metro area. Also, the main goal I want to keep in the back of your mind, when we're talking about leaf composting .t's something the County is working with and coordinating with the city. we want to do is get out of the business actually. We want to get the ram set up, running, advise the cities themselves, if t~ choose to do it, then each city have different things they want to do and not do but also perhaps by a garbage hauler or nursery who is going to be composting leaves ar~ using the product. With that in mind, I would like to put John , our consultant to run some quick figures by and some interesting things that w~ found in the City of Chanhassen this fall. John Genereux: You already have this report I believe. These are just two or three figures from the report. Basically, we wanted to show was how much ~rence we get when we run different kirks of programs. You can see the ~irst chart, Chart 2 with the discussion of the percent of people who ~ed a 'ram versus the people who use the program. We needed to find that those [e who were going to throw the leaves in the garbage as opposed to people were going to use them for some purpose. As you can see, even in the city of Chanhassen we took two neighborhoods that are quite a bit different for comparison purposes, Frontier Trail area and Carver Beach area. You'll see the Frontier Trail area was more applicable for what I think the rest of your town is going to be eventually. You've get both a high need and high use rate. It was a very efficient program from the standpoint of use. If you look at the next figure, which is Figure 3, Comparative cost, it was surprising to me I guess that the efficiency of the system was much greater here in Chanhassen than the two towns we compared it to. The reason is that the city crews cost a lot less than a packer truck does and we are right next to the Arboretum so the shuttle service is fairly quick. This is part of an overall discussion of the County and we have been having with the Met council about the r~_~ for a lot of different sites instead of a few very large ones because the transfer question comes in there. T~at shows up real quickly in that figure. Tbs third figure is the one I wanted to talk about for just a minute. If you go to the Frontier Trail section in Chanhassen, this is the need for tree and grass compost service in the spring. As you can see, in the Frontier Trail section here, almost 80% of the people in here say they are getting rid of brush and other debris in tt~ spring. They have to go to the garbage. ~here is no other to handle it. Less so in the Carver Beach area again because they have more woods in which they just place the material. We're setting out this spring to help the County with experiments in this 27 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 spring collection. ~nere are going to be three different programs. One is with the private hauler whom we have just contracted to do this sort of program. The second one we're hoping to work with the City of Chanhassen in having the crews do two spring collections. Pick up the brush and the leaves, the same system as the fall, dropping off at the Arboretum and the proposal is that the City will be reimbursed for their cost from the County. Again, we can only do it in one neighborhood. We don't want to do the whole city. We're trying to try the thing out and we found to do side by side tests is the best way to do it. The third is where we will actually pull a chipper behind a truck and chip the brush as we go. That will be in Chanhassen and will be a third location. Again, Chanhassen has a special place in a sense because you've had an on-going system and all we're doing is piggy backing onto it by trying different methods so if we can the cooperation of the City to provide the crews, the same way they did last fall, except for in this case you will be repaid for those services. We may want to continue that into the summer with grass although grass I don't think is as big an issue as people have thought it had been but that would be separate and we could deal t_hat later on. I guess the proposal that we had ~-~n discussing with Jo Ann a little bit is if we can have your assistance this spring in terms of this program and again, we will give you back the results in the same way that we gave you back the reuslts of the fall program. Councilman Horn: Did you say you didn't use plastic bags? John Genereux: We used both plastic and paper. Councilman Horn: Were they brown plastic bags? John Genereux: People put out their own. We didn't give out plastic bags. Councilman Horn: The reason I mention that is because last year after the leaf pick-up out by the Arboretum we got a big west wind and there were brown plastic bags blowing for miles down TH 5. Up in the trees and in the gound and they stayed there for several weeks. John Genereux: I think we covered the ones on-site. They could have blown off the site yes. It was the same wind that blew my fences down as I recall. Mike Lien: We did have an unfortunate instance with that. We did try to get most of the~ ourselves but apparently we must have missed a few. Councilman Horn: They were further than a mile away from the site hanging up in sumac trees. Mike Lien: One of those little lessons we learned that hopefully will not happen again. Councilman Horn: I think the idea would be to just dump the leaves and take the backs away and you wouldn't have that problem. Councilman Boyt: Having lived in the area and had your people come by and offer us bags, I agree with your comment that you mistimed it a little bit. 28 Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 It was a little bit late. ~owever, I would be real interested the next time surveyed if you would ask if the people would be interested in $3.00 a instead of $1.00 since that was the average cost you indicated in the repor~ I know fr(a~ the neighborhood that they loved it along Frontier Trail. They would love to have you do it again. John Genereux: If we looked at the overall economics, in terms of what it cost to haul or do the same thing, not including his collection time, we assume that was zero because he's got to come by anyway, just his pick-up of that bag and hauling it to the landfill time and it cost him more to it than this system does. It's amazing. His costs are $48.00 per ton for that part of his operation and the cost here was like $41.00 per ton so if anybody tells you your city crews aren't efficient, you can tell them they are. GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR SITE ACQUISITION. Gary Warren: As Council recalls, we updated you overall on our ground storage reservoir back in January ar~ we were at that time dealing with the property owner, Mr. Owens. The property that we're looking at, in overview here, is 'where the star is up here on Lake Lucy Road and Powers Blvd. and specifically in that corner we have roughly, for our planning puzposes right now, we're looking at a two acre site because we did extend the site out to meet with the plat to the south here where there is a proposed road. The City Attorney, myself a~d Barb Dacy met with Mr. Owens initially on February llth to discuss the results of our appraisal and to review the dollars as we saw them. Tonight Roger wasn't able to attend but Cecilia is here to talk further as far their next steps that would be appropriate. Cecilia Ray: As with the downtown redevelopment project, we can take possession of this parcel. The process, first we need a resolution from you authorizing us to begin condemnation. Then we send out notice to the landowner and within ninety (90) days you can take possessioru The whole process is we file a petition with the Court asking for appointment of commissioners and three commissioners will be appointed. They determine a value of the land as it's damaged by the taking. ~nen one point through this whole process, the City and lar~owner of course can be negotiating for a price. Within 90 days of the Commissioners appointed, they must file a report of what their assessment of the damages is ar~ within 10 days after that filing, you notify the landowner of what the amount is. Anytime within 40 days after the filing of the report, the City or the landowner may appeal the Omn~issioner's report. If that happens then it goes to trial. Mayor Hamilton: I see we're a ways off on what the value has been appraised at and what Mr. Owens thinks the value is. Gary Warren: In talking with Roger earlier today, he noted that fact and at this time he said that we would continue to work with Mr. Owens and try to reach some reasonable solution here that the difference was quite a bit so that we ought to get on with the process. 29 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Resolution ~87-18: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the resolution authorizing condemnation of the property for the water storage reservoir site on the Owens property. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR DESIGNATION. Don Ashworth: For the position of City Engineer and City Planner, we've brought those positions back to City Council and literally set up special meetings where the Council, as a whole, could review those positions. In terms of the public safety direction and park and recreation coordinator, those two positions typically, the Mayor and myself have met with the top candidates as I've gone through the review process and selected those. We followed a similar procedure this time around. We brought it down to three candidates who I thought were excellent. We did complete the interview process this morning. Mr. Jim Chaffee and Mr. Scott Harr really came out of that process virtually deadlocked. I don't know if you want to take them back to the conclusion or me to and that is that Mr. Chaffee's personality is vibrant. His entire presentation was so heartwarming that in my own mind I think that he is the candidate that should be selected for the position. I feel very confident that the Council will enjoy working with Mr. Chaffee. I did have an opportunity to have Dick Wing, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee in on all three of the interviews. He whole-heartedly concurred with that recommendation with Mr. Chaffee. Mayor Hamilton: The three of us agreed that Jim Chaffee was, not by far but he certainly was thebest. Councilman Geving: His interview was what really sold him? Don Ashworth: Really sold him. It brought out more than what could have been brought out on paper. Councilman Geving: Because on paper I wasn't too impressed on what I read on Mr. Chaffee. Don Ashworth: He went from 2 or 3 to number 1. Councilman Horn: Not only that but I don't see any fire experience at all. Don Ashworth: He is lacking the fire experience yes. In the interview process he does demonstrate the ability to bring in the fire elements. Right now, in his position in Minnetonka, he is responsible for plan reviewal as a part of any plans submitted from the planning department through police and he is familiar with sections of the Code that would deal with the Fire Marshall area. He is the first to admit that he has not had experience in that area but he also demonstrated that he knew where to go to get the answers and how to get the job done. I felt very comfortable with his responses. Councilman Boyt: Looking at what we see on paper, and I talked to Dick Wing this evening and I understand that it's two very close candidates. I mentioned this previously and so here it comes again briefly. I think the 30 '.ity Council ~ting - March 2, 1987 :ion of this importance that the Council should interview the people. the final two candidates. Especially when it's this close and I ask that w~ schedule a ~ting this Saturday to do that. Ashworth: I was trying to get that type of response from the Council two ago when we discussed the procedures but if you would like to do that s fine. I can't remember if you were at that meeting. lman Boyt: I wasn't. lman Horn: We said we wanted to see the top two. Ashworth: That's true but it was put in the form of a re~mm~er~ation for top two unless I mistook your motion. Does the Council wish to review I believe the Mayor said that what we've done before and Councilman said yes, I like that, make sure we keep abreast of what it is you're Geving: I would be confident that you fellows h ave had a chance to this down to three people. I would personally go with your ~ommendation but that's entirely up to the Council whether or not they want go through the interview process. :ilman Boyt moved that the Council convene on Saturday for the purpose of .nterviewing the top two candidates and making a decision for the position of Safety Director. T~ere was no second and motion failed. ;ilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to appoint Jim Chaffee for position of Public Safety Director per the City Manager's recommendation. voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. (a) Park and Recreation Cc~m%ission Minutes dated February 10, 1987. :ilman Boyt: One thing and I wish Lori was here, I would really like to Lori and Don for the verbatim minutes. Lengthy though interesting and really reflect a much clearer picture of the thinking that underlies the ' ~ions that were going on in the Park and Bec Commission. I was impressed ,ith the way they approached the issues. I was particularly impressed with :ir discussion of the trail plans and I would like to get a sense ar~ the lson I asked for this to come up was to get a sense of what the Council's · ' might be on two issues. One of those issues, they spent a great deal ~f time with Mark talking about siting future parks. The first thing I would ike to find out what the Council's feeling is, is it worth the time of the and Rec group, would we like ~ to go out ar~ determine the best site future parks that reflects probably the results of this upcoming community What are your thoughts on going out there and getting some feeling where we should put these parks? 31 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Councilman Johnson: This was also slightly discussed at the last Chan Athletic Association meeting in that I believe we ended up saying that we believe there is a need for a park with ball diamonds on the south side and we didn't really get into size or anything but hopefully in our next meeting we'll bring more discussion into it more than we're going to tald to the City about it but I believe I personally think there is a need and I think the Park and Rec are the people to start looking for it on the south side. 15 acres is fairly small if you're going to put some ball parks and stuff in there. Some of the ideas is to form leagues with Chaska because the kids go to school with Chaska. We've got some problems with baseball skipping one grade where there is nobody in baseball. Part of it was we need more little league, Babe Ruth type of park area on the south side as a compromise for travel for interplay with the City of Chaska was a thought there. Mayor Hamilton: I don't necessarily think that it's a bad thing to do. It's probaby a good thing to do to have some idea where we might want to put a park in the future as long as it's just that, future planning. As areas develop then we're going to want to take a look at the proposed development and how that site might change depending on what kind of development is proposed. It may also change depending on how the whole park system is evolving. We may decide to take funds instead of a park land in that particular area but I think it's like anything else, planning is part of our responsibility to plan for the future and look where we may want to put this in the future. Councilman Horn: I really agree. I think if we're going to go through the exercise of putting out a survey to find out how people think on the issues, we should try to get as much information as we can from them. I think anytime you solicit input from the people, we should find out how they feel about' things which was why I supported the referendum issue. I think this is another example of we should try to get people's feelings on as many of the issues as we can. We don't often get the opportunity to find out how a large majority of the people think and I think we should take advantage of that. Councilman Boyt: I have one other quick one and that is the park dedication fee at $415.00 and when they worked through that issue, in the Park and Rec Minutes, when I remember reading the formula it had something to do with the amount of land and the number of people on it. When they took, and they went in rather extensive discussion on the Gagne property, started out saying can we get 15 acres here and found out that they couldn't even begin to approach 5 acres there. It seems to me that we need to look at this park dedication fee issue and I would like to know how the rest of you feel about that. Mayor Hamilton: We look at it every year and make adjustments to it. Councilman Boyt: Have we made any recent ones? Mayor Hamilton: I think it's r~mained the same for the last couple years. Councilman Johnson: I attended this meeting and I think one of the big issues there, as you know I'm interested in this type of stuff and I wanted to meet the new commissioners, one of the big concerns was the fee system is very good for urban lots but when you look at 2 1/2 acre and 10 acre lots and the number 32 k ',ity Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 people per that acreage, the park dedication fees are really not comparable you look at what will happen in the future when those lots are :esubdivided, we're going to end up with 1 acre of park and we'll be park ~ficient throughout the southern area of the City so the rural area arzt what r~cd for parks there has to be considered differently than the urban area. have to plan for the future. I think that was the whole part of that ~iscussion and everyone was very frustrated that $415.00 is the same for a 10 ~re lot as a 15,000 square foot lot. Hamilton: When that was subdivided at sometime in the future, then would be more funds generated off of that land. ~ilman Johnson: But the parkland is already gone. Hamilton: I suspect that all the land is not going to be built on in rural area so there would still be an opportunity to have a park :ilman Johnson: And the 10 acre lots will help there too. Hamilton: We don't normally try to take prime acreage for parks. You to take some marginal acreage that you can't necessarily build on. lman Boytf/~at's get-ting back to'my earlier issue of-. si.t~ these-~_ s getting a pretty good idea of where we want to put them now. We, I think a sense of where the valuable property is out there. Certainly the do. It's never going to be cheaper. Hamilton: Your comment it's never going to be cheaper, I would be against purchasing anything now. Just going out and buying it and · these are where the parks are going to be but to plan ~, to site .an ths~ and say potential here. Geving: And then pick them up as developments come iD, I don't think we want to go and buy any land. ~ilman Boyt: I think we have several options of what we do once we know it is. We need to start somewhere. Mayor Hamilton: I just have one comment I would like to make and direct it to Jay since your many, many, many comments at this meeting. I think it's not the role of the Council members to attend these commission meetings and inter- rupt their meeting and keep them from conducting their business. I think if you want to attend and make comments based on their requesting information, that's what our role is. We're not a part of each commission. Councilman Johnson: A private citizen attending a public _m~cting. Mayor Hamilton: I never heard a private citizen talk that mucl~ There were many people who were very upset and I got calls about this so it's just a ~t. 33 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 10, 1987 and the Public Safety Cc~mission Minutes dated February 12, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: There are a couple items that I would like to see us begin discussion. One of them is I would like to make a motion that Staff be directed to examine the possibility of linking walkways and where we put walkways with traffic volume. What I'm proposing is that Staff look at where should we put walkways and one means that they consider is the volume on the road. Thinking about, we have a need. Councilman Geving: Is this a walkway, or a hiking trail? Is it a nature trail? Is it a school route for children to take? Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing is something other than the road. Mayor Hamilton: I think this is a function of the Park and Rec commission. That they should be reviewing as part of the trail system. We talked about a trail syste~. Councilman Boyt: ~nis is a different issue than a trail system. This is closer to the kind of thing that we're going to have on Frontier Trail. The kind of thing we have out here in front of Chan Elementary school. We hit a volume of traffic in which I don't think it's safe to walk on the road. Councilman Horn: Is he talking foot traffic or car traffic? Councilman Boyt: I'm talking car traffic which if it comes risky to have your child out there walking. I'm thinking and this is talking without a motion, I'm thinking that we could look at establishing some sort of criteria that would tell us that a walkway, in this area is appropriate. Councilman Johnson: You're talking sidewalks basically. Councilman Boyt: I might be talking sidewalks and one of the questions I would want them to look at is what material should we use here. We've talked about this issue or I've heard City Council talk about this issue. It's not going away and I would like to see us begin to take some action so that we can have a consistent plan to put walkways, be they sidewalks, nature trails, bike trails. Trails, I'm not so concerned about because I consider that a recreational use. I'm really concerned about how does a person on foot get from A to B? Mayor Hamilton: I still think it's a function of Park and Rec and that should go to Lori as a charge to her and have it brought up to the Park and Rec Oannission for their review. 34 City Council M~eting - March 2, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to do that. I'll amend my attempted motion to that direction but I think that sort of action' should come fr~n the Council. I don't think that I should call Lori and say Lori I want you to put this on the agenda. Don tell me what you prefer or Tom ar~ I'll do it that way. Don Ashworth: I guess I concur. If you're going to have a work function carried out to bring it back to City Council, I agree with the Mayor that Park and R~creation Commission is currently updating that entire trail system. That will include both sidewalk systems as well as bike trails and walking paths. I think to have a motion to ensure just that that is restated is not a bad idea but I feel confident in tellirg you that that's what they're looking at right now. You will see recommendation for a sidewalk system on Laredo as it would connect on Frontier and that will be a different recommendation then what would exist for Minnewashta Parkway which will function more as a recreational type of systen. Councilman Horn: You're saying that a motion isn't necessary then? Don Ashworth: I don't think it's necessary but if you would like to take and ensure that that direction is given to the Park Commission, that it represents council's action, I have rD problem with that. Those are the work instructions that have been given to Mr. Koegler as part of the previous... Councilman Boyt: I know they're discussing it ar~ I%n comfortable if that's a reasonable way of approaching it. I would have another quick issue here and that's oil disposal. I think our success with leaf pick-up, as mentioned today, really suggests that we could be very successful if we had some sort of method of picking up oil. It's a tremendous contaminant. Mayor Hamilton: We talked about that Bill. I guess I can remember going back 7 years ago we visited other communities where they had at the public works they had a large tank where people could bring their used oil from changing out of their car and they could come and dump it in there. At that time in some of the cities they were still putting it on their rural roads as dust control which you can't do anymore but it would probably be easier for the City perhaps to dispose of it in bulk than it would be for some individual to throw it in the garbage or something. Councilman Horn: I thought there was a state law that any area that sold oil had to dispose of it. Councilman Geving: I think garages are supposed to have a tank. Councilman Boyt: Clark, the way that reads is that they have to notice you as to where it can be disposed so Holiday and these places ~ to have a sign up that says you can take it across town and get rid of it. I think what's common practice is that gas stations will take it and add it to theirs if you ask them. I~ concerned that a lot of this stuff gets poured down drains and I think that' s really tragic. 35 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Don Ashworth: Staff still has it on a work assignment to write up two articles. One on our water is clean and get that over to the Chamber which I saw Todd and Karen were working on earlier today as well as you asked us to look to the points for oil pick-up and we will include that in that up-coming publication as well. Maybe South Shore could help us too. Councilman Boyt: The third one is I've heard from the Park and Rec and I've even heard it from my wife that we should do something to solicit voluntary dedication of parkland. I don't know if a motion is appropriate given what you mentiond before but I'm concerned that this is an issue that I hate to see us sit back ar~ not do. I'm curious if there are people in the community who would think that would be appropriate. There might be some tax advantages to giving the City some land for the individual and I think we need to be actively recruiting these people. It's a good idea and I would like to see us take sc~e action. Mayor Hamilton: I was a little upset at the Minutes of the Park and Rec, I think it was Jim Mady who was chairing the meeting said that I had made the comment but it was nothing more than a comment that we looking into and he said who would want to follow up on it anyway. I made the comment so there would be some follow-up because I do think it's a very viable opportunity for the city to follow-up on. To have some land or funds, either way. I think it was mentionee in the Minutes that there were maybe 5 or 6 people in the community who could do that but I think people might be very surprised at the number of people in this community who are capable of or are willing to donate land or funds. We have a rather affluent community and there is a resource there that isn't tapped. I agree with you that that should be a charge back to Lori to follow up on. Councilman Geving: I think this belongs in one of our publications. Whether it's the Chamber's Post or whether it's our own publication. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the Park and Bec Commission give some thought to it first and kind of organize it instead of just putting a blurb in the paper and not know what we're doing. Have some organization to it and I know that some communities actually put out a brochure stating what you can purchase and what the costs are. We don't have to have everything. We can certainly start someplace. Don Ashworth: Would the Council then be receptive to like the Lake Ann shelter building, one of the things that is needed there such as hotplates, the kitchen facilities that are needed there. I could anticipate that you could get a donation to put that in but the question becomes one of would you accept having that and there being a plaque on the side saying donated by... Councilman ~eving: I don't see anything wrong with that. I think that is why people do it so they can get, a lot of people are anonymous and it feels good to them to see their name on a plaque. There's nothing wrong with that. 36 ',ity Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 Duncilman Boyt: If I could build on the point just a little bit. I would ~ink that one way for you to consider approaching this or the Staff to ~nsider approaching this, is given your knowledge and several of you have ~ here for quite some time in the community, you have a good idea of who ;ome of these people might be. Not all of them but I would foresee that we .~uld approach those people individually with a presentation about what we ;ould like and that would greatly enhance our chances of getting them. If we 'o to them and tell them what we have in mind and I would like to see us do ust a first class presentation because I think it's a good idea to follow up .n. That's all I have. Df~MMUNITY DEVELO~ BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR YEAR XlII, PI2~NNING DIRECTX)R. ~arbara Dacy: The purpose of tonight's discussion on this topic is to narrow it down to two or three items for fur~ing for the public hearing on March [6th. The two, at minimum, that is recommended as one for continuing funding ~or the South Shore Senior Center and the second one is for the possibility of ~unding construction costs for handicapped accessibility for the community ~nter. If the community center task force finds that that location is not appropriate or that one should not be built, then the City does have the availability to conduct another public hearing and find a project for those particular monies. The third project which is number 5 in tt~ memo is from HERO (Hennepin Economic Resource Organization). They have attached their ram function in the packet but I~ meeting with the Chairman of the Board I really don't know a lot about this organization and I have as to how many Chanhassen persons will be benefit. I can come with my recommendation on M~rch 16th. ~ne fourth option is to turn ~t or all of the allocation back. Hamilton: That's not an option. I think that would be being very to the South Shore Senior Center who has benefitted th~ past three I think from our CBDG funds and I certainly agree that we should to support that organization whole-heartedly since about 50% of the pants in that center are Chanhassen residents. I feel very strongly that we continue our support of their efforts. I also agree with item 2 that we could use some of these funds perhaps for the handicap accessibility to the community center. I think that would be good use of the funds ar~ if it 't work out we can reassign them elsewhere. Barbara Dacy: You should know that the proposed allocation of $2~,000.00 to $25,000.~0 probably isn't even half of what will be required for that building. Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's a start and it's something that we're going to need to have for that facility. Councilman Geving: And you ~ a significant amount of money in one chunk to be able to do something. Councilman Boyt: Could we consider, I noticed in the Park and Bec minutes they comtemplated whether they should have a trail that went over CR 17 or 37 City Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 under CR 17 and said there was no way they would ever get any money to fund doing it the same way. Would that be a possibility for these funds to go for like $4,000.00 or so to assist in building a trail under CR 177 Barbara Dacy: The major test to that is the benefit to low and moderate income persons. What I could do in the meantime between now and the 16th is take that idea back to the Hennepin County Staff and verify whether or not that would be viable option but that low and moderate income test has always ~,~n very hard for us to prove because we... Councilman Boyt: Nobody that's more like to be walking. Barbara Dacy: In comparison to other communities, our percentage of the population is less. Mayor Hamilton: But it's probably a good point and maybe you could check on that. Councilman Geving: I would like to ask, is there a possibility that anything having to do with the Fire Department in terms of training, equipment, materials, basic supplies, whatever, could be considered as a beneficiary of these funds? Is that a potential? Barbara Dacy: The only application I can see under their statement of objectives would be under the public services catagory. Councilman Geving: Would you check that out? Not for tonight but for some future purposes. That was just one of the thoughts I had. Other than that I agree with the rec(mmendation. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION, TERMS OF OFFICE, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to elect Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving to serve on the Southwest Transit Commission for another term. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving who abstained and motion carried. LEAGUE OF CITIES LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: This is the meeting where we meet with legislators in the evening. They have reception following the conference portion. The question is really one of how many Council members desire to attend the daytime session. I can send in a registration for you and then the number who would be interested in atter~ing just the reception in the evening. Mayor Hamilton: This is an annual event held over in St. Paul and we have generally the last 7 years I've been here, they have a reception with all the State legislators and a huge banquest facility. You can walk around and talk to legislators, ask them any questions you want. Meet other local officials. Talk to them. Prepare notes. We then, with Chaska and Prior Lake and Shakopee have invited our legislators to dinner at a local restaurant near the 38 Council Meeting - March 2, 1987 ~1 so we can sit down, whoever attends, we sit down with our legislators we talk on a more personal basis with them so if anyone would like to ~ttend. It's always an enjoyable evening. It gives you an opportunity to your legislators and get to know ~ a little bit better. March 10th. lman Geving: I'm going to go in the evening. ~i~ Horn: Evening. ~ilman Boyt: I'm out of town. :ilman Johnson: Evening, I can't make it in the daytime. NG WITH ~ LEGISLATORS, PIANNNG DIRECTOR. Dacy: I wanted to start out my comments with how many will be able to March 19th between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m. just prior to the HRA meeting. Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn stated they could lman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. by Don Ashworth Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39