Loading...
1987 05 18CHANHASSEN CITY OOUNCIL RE~XAR MEETING MAY 18, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeti.ng to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving ar~ Counci~ Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashw~rth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy and Jo Ann Olsen APPROVAL OF AG~qDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the addition by Councilman Geving in the Council Presentations of Conflicts and Relationships: All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's reconmendations: a. Approval of Fireworks Permit, Minnewashta Fireworks Committee, William Naegele. c. Resolution #87-44: Approval of Change Order No. 1, Crestview Drive and West 65th Street. h. Approval of Softball Tournament ~=quest, Chanhassen Fire Department, June 12, 13 and 14. i. Extension of July 1 Deadline of Rural Subdivisions, Robert Buresh. k. City Council Minutes dated May 4, 1987 Park and Recreation Oannission Minutes dated May 5, 1987 All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, r.FAN ON ME PROGRAM, MARJORIE ADAMS. Marjorie Adams: I am a member of the School Board for District 112 and we are currently having a campaign called the Lean on Me Project and we're wearing these black and white buttons that I brought for you tonight. This has come out of the whole child initiative and that is a pilot program that is taking place in 10 sites throughout the state. You have probably heard about it. It was developed because we, in education, have felt that children have such complex lives and problems and issues facing them so we're trying to get the involvement of teachers, parents, the community, to alleviate some of these problems. Tt~ idea of the Lean on Me Project is to emphasize cooperation and helping others and we're hoping that you will proclaim the week of May 18th to the 22nd as Lean on Me Week and that you will wear your buttons ar~ when you see them or when other people ask you about them you will think, have I done something for someone else today that I didn't have to do. City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Marjorie Adams then read through the Lean on Me Program Proclamation. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the proclamation declaring the week of May 18th through 22nd as Lean on Me Week. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to move item 2, Kerber Boulevard Curb, Gutter and Drainage Improvements to after item 11 on the agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving stated that there was another visitors presentation. Pastor Brian Pike: These are some sheets that have been piling up in my office. Things that have been occuring in Westside Baptist Church in the City of Chanhassen. We seem to be having some type of a problem. We're not sure quite what and so I wanted to present that tonight and ask you if you could help us with it. I don't know if we as a church have done something to upset somebody along the way but if we have we want to make that straight. We're uncertain of why the problems that we've been having we're having so we're basically coming to you, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council to find out what the trouble is and see if we can't get it resolved. It started with this waiver of conditional use permit way back in February for us to move into Murphy Machine. On the second sheet there is a picture of Murphy Machines. It came to the point where this City Council said it was alright. The Minutes of the meeting show that as found there on page 34. At the bottom is says your decision was based on, after page 36, you find Section 4, Temporary Structures and Uses and you have allowed us a waiver of conditional use permit I guess and allowed us to go into the Murphy Machine Building. Since that period of time, if you go back to the letter dated April 13th from George Donnelly to Mr. Murphy, the owner of the building, he wrote a letter to Mr. Murphy and said t_hat he was asking for a floor plan of the building. I submitted that floor plan to him and those are right here. He looked this floor plan over and asked us to make some changes. He came in to our facility there several times. He asked us to make changes and said basically that he understood that the City Council allowed us in here and that maybe we wouldn't have to make those changes because they had already allowed us in here but then the next letter, April 21, he sends us that we are in Building Code violation and they came out there and basically said that we need to make all these changes and he wasn't sure if we would have to or not but he said that he would close us down in two weeks or we would be forced to close the facility at the end of that April 21 letter if these things were not met. I told him at the time that we moved in here. We put $1,000.00 into that building to make it look like a church inside and we're in the process of purchasing property in Chanhassen to build a church. That is requiring about $5,000.00 down payment on and as a church, we're a brand new church, we're doirg everything we can to come up with that $5,000.00 by JUne L You can check that with Mr. Klingelhutz, his realty and we are going to be able to meet that I believe so I told him the two week deadline was really going to be difficult. We do want to make some of these changes. There are some changes in here that we do have difficulty with and do not see the need for as well so City Oouncil ~ting - May 18, 1987 I came hack to him. I came into this office here just in the past week and showed him the Article of Section 4 there that allowed us in there ar~ he said he would check with the City Attorney and the last letter that I just received Saturday, May 15th which shows that hasically all these people who he sent the letter to at the end, George Donnelly, the buiding official, Ron Jaworski, the Building Inspector, Steve Madden, Fire Inspector, Elliott Mesh, the City Attorney's office. This letter is from Jim Chaffee, Director of Public Safety and he said the same thing. We have two weeks again and we're going to be closed down. Now it seems to me that ~ City Oouncil has told us that we can be in there and we do want that place to be safe. I think I have as much concern as he does that our people are safe. We're just trying the best we can to worship God in this place and it seemed to me to be a pretty safe place when we went in there. I still believe it is. The lighted signs and things, some of those things we've already purchased. These exit signs, we%~e changed the front door lock. 7he panic bar, we haven't been able to find yet and the biggest problem we have is an area where he's asking us to build a wall. He's asking us to build a wall right across this area here. Here is tt~ furnance in this corner ar~ he wants to put a wall across here to make this a long hallway from the auditorium over here from our office area here. That is a 6 foot wide by a 12 foot long area that we use for our fellowship time. We put out coffee and donuts in this area. ~bere are tables there and we have coffee ar~ donuts in that area and they go back out into here ar~ eat their coffee and donuts, we have about a 20 minute break between Sunday School and our morning service. We don't want to lose that are~ The space we have is tight as it is. He says that this would he a furnance room. We wouldn't mind putting up a wall right here ar~ cutting off this furnance room. It's kind of ugly space anyway. It's got a sink hack here and it would be a 6 foot by 6 foot square room. I do not understar~ what he's asking for in these furnance drafts. I don't know what that means. I haven't asked him yet but we do want to make tt~ place safe and we really don't want to keep running into these deadlines that they have been giving to us. We just don't have the funds this month, probably until sometime after June 1st when we make th~ closing date on that new property. What can we do? Mayor Hamilton: From my perspective and reading these letters, ISu more than a little upset by the tone of them and I would have to do some investigating to find out why we are not cooperating and why our Staff feels it necessary to write these types of letters to a church who is trying to make a go of it in the community. It seems to me we're here to cooperate, not to start hammering people over the head. I'm really irritated by these letters. I think you can continue to operate, from my perspective, as long as it's safe ar~ if we have to bring in somebody else to look at the facility to make sure it's safe, who is outside the community.. Just so it's safe for your people ar~ yourself to function there. How many people are there during the daytime hours when you're not in service? Pastor Pike: ~axim~m of five and usually about two or three. Mayor Hamilton: Do you do any kindof night time activities? Do you have evening worship at all? Pastor Pike: Yes, Sunday evening at 6:00 and Wednesday evening at 6:30 we City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 have services in th~ evening. Mayor Hamilton: So the lighted exit signs is probably a good idea and to change the locks was a good idea but these other things. I think we need to investigate as to why they are so necessary and certainly why a two week moratorium. That certainly is not acceptable and it's not even reasonable. Any one else have cc~ments. Councilman Geving: I understand Pastor Pike that you're really only objecting to items 2 and 5. The items you have circled here, is that correct? Pastor Pike: Yes sir. Councilman Geving: So those are the two items that have somehow were to be alleviated or revised. You said you could construct possibly a smaller, wallboard type of wall there inbetween the furnance room but you could live with all the other conditions and I understand what the Building Official is trying to do in terms of the safety of the operation but I do believe item 2 is unreasonable and also 5. I guess, as I said when we granted this waiver, that it was frustrating for us as council people to make decisions based on an emergency which we deemed to be an emergency for a one year period and then to have our building official reverse or alter our intent. Construe our intent differently than what we intended. The intent of the Council was for you to be occupying that facility for a year during this emergency period. Now, we didn't discuss that night some of the things that may have had to be constructed to make that a safe facility. I think we assumed that that would be done with whatever was needed here. Some minor things. Certainly nothing major or that would cost you as a small church beginning to nuture in Chanhassen a lot of money. So at least it wasn't the intent on my statements here for the record that it was to get you in that facility for a year so you could get a start in Chanhassen and that there would not be any major roadblocks placed in front of your group by the City Staff. I hope that whatever roadblocks have ~n created here, will certainly come down because we want you in Chanhassen and we want you to build in Chanhassen. Those are my stat~nents. Councilman Horn: I share Dale's sentiments. I'm somewhat familiar with this type of thing. Over in Minnetonka where our church is located, we've gone through similar things trying to put a kitchen in and ended up having to spend $50,000.00 for fancy exhaust, extinguishers, made us go to bigger furnances and I think our real problem here is the State Fire Code which obviously our official is trying to enforce. Institutions that have congregations in them, for whatever type of institution are really caught by the State Fire Codes we have and I guess Ihn curious if there aren't some ways to get a temporary waiver to these fire codes or something to that nature. But not knowing the situation, it would be my guess that's probably what it is. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that given the time of year, one way to gain some extra time here would be to turn the furnance off. If the threat is the Fire Code, then we stop the source would probably relieve some concern. City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I agree with most of the things said here. I know what draft stops are for and what they're doing. I think number 5 is necessary and won't be that expensive to do. I don't understand why he wants you to make a 12 foot wall when a 6 foot wall appears to me on my knowledge of the Codes to be just as fine. You seem to he happy with the 6 foot wall. Pastor Pike: What is, he's got a 20 foot door on there? Councilman Johnson: 20 minute. A foot and a minute have the same little abbreviation there. It's a fire rating of a door. Mayor Hamilton: It takes 20 minutes for the fire to go through that door. Councilman Johnson: What the draft stop is is to prevent the fire to go up into the mezzanine above the furnance. I assume since they say there is a mezzanine, it is above the furnanoe a~] that's a matter of plugging in some holes. Is there an upper level above the furnance? Pastor Pike: Not above the furnance itself. There is an upper level that is close to it. If we were to build his wall, then we would but if we built a wall across the other sectio~ T~ mezzanine stops. The mezzanine is right here. It is over this section. It is not over the furnance area. councilman Johnson: So if you build a 6 foot wall you don't need the draft stops. I think we ~ to see if there is some reason. I think we all seem to agree on the same thing that there seems to be some reason why he wants you to go 12 foot instead of 6. I know what he's trying to do. He's trying to protect your parishers and I agree with his intent. I agree with the panic bar. I agree with just about everything in his intent. I'm totally appalled on the tone of the letter. We don't know all of his side of course. We've given our input to our city administration tonight. Mayor Hamilton: Let me say one other thing. I think whe~ a situation like this arises, it would seem to me that it ought to, if our building official seems to think it's such a serious violation of a Code and there is in fact a real danger to the congregation that it ought to come back to the council or at least brought to the City Manager's attention so he can help ~ building official determine what the proper steps are to be taken and not to set the tone that he did. Maybe you would like to respond to sc~e of that. Don Ashworth: I think you have a difficult time when you have an industrial building and you're going to be charz3ing the use on that. State Law is clear in that you are not to be occupying that building before it is safe. I'm concerned with some of the things such as the door closures, etc. I can relook at the tone but previously from the City Attorney's office and I guess the council can relate to times where people have not conformed ar~ the Attorney's office has asked that there should be absolutely no question as to what it is the City is looking for and it should be stated exactly what that is and when it should be done. ;~ain, I think if something were to happen, it would be a very serious thing for all of us. I can assure the City Council that nothing will be done until after this item reappears on the June 1st age~ At that point in time I will put it onto the age~da~ I will have a City Counci 1 Meeting - May 18, 1987 report from the Building Official and I will have Mr. Chaffee present to discuss the conversations that they have had with the Pastor. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and there should be some alternatives available. If there are things here that may be true, according to the State Fire Code. However, I have to believe that there can be alterations to that and there are other things that can be done so what are those and how can Pastor Pike accomplish those things with the least amount of expense. I think those are what you're attempting. Councilman Geving: Another thing too, I think the church has to be somewhat assured that they are going to be able to occupy this building until they actually build their own building. They have got parishers that are coming to Chanhassen now. They are getting used to coming to this facility for their worship and I suspect that if you were to completely change this on the church and Pastor Pike, it would throw your whole congregation to a state of confusion as to just exactly what the status is after May 29th and I don't believe they need to have that short term two week deadline that says either these items are cleaned up or they move out or as our building official says, we'll bring in our Attorney's office. I think there are some things here that they not only have done but are willing to do. Tney are showing good faith by first of all, they came to the City in good faith. They wanted to do the right thing by asking whether or not they could occupy this facility as a worship facility. I know for a fact that there probably has been all kinds of meetings like this done without our even knowing about them. Tney could have moved in there and probably would have been in there for months before we would have known that there was a worship group meeting there but they tried to do the right thing by coming to us and getting it up front what they needed to do to make that a worship facility and they've done that. I think if we can take care of the items 1, 3 and 4, which you are very willing to do. You probably have already done them, then it only leave this item on the construction of a wall and these draft stops which you don't see to be a problem Jay and as Bill said, if we can just delay this by turning off the furnance, that might be a good solution at least for a while to give us some time and let your parishers and yourself know that you don't have a two week deadline to meet. I think that's the thing here is this panic period that we placed upon the parishers and the church by saying you must be willing to sub~it to this by May 29th or out you go. That would bother me a lot so I think the intent of the Council, at least the intent of what I said, we want you in that facility and we want you there under a good relationship with the City. If we can make that happen with some alternatives and our Staff can find out what it is that would alleviate items 2 and 5 and we can work it out, I think we'll be okay Brian. Pastor Pike: I do have to go to Mr. Murphy and get an okay on any structural changes also. We took the place as it was ar~ we also signed that we will come to him with any structural changes. I'm assuming that he won't have any trouble with that wall over this furnance area. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. It's temporary. You can just take it down again once you leave. I think you should be in contact with Don and get a meeting together so everybody clearly understands where you're at. City Council ~'~_ting - May 18, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: CHURCH ROAD SENER, ~%TER AND ~Y IMP~S. Public Present: ~rle Wanous C~ry Carlson Harry Campbell Jim Frizzell Gary Warren: JUst to give an overview of the project and the numerous alternatives, you're aware that May 4th we accepted a feasibility study and we're talking about the Church Road area north of TH 7. This is the general area where the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has shown here, the dash line is going to he constructing in August, most likely, the Lake Virginia Forcemain. As a result of that, the Commission is agreeable to replacing the existing road section out there and therefore, there were some comments that this would be an opportune time if utilities are to be installed, that this would be an opportune time to do it and have the road surface actually paid for by the Commission. None of the properties have sewer or water. From an engineering standpoint, to provide service to this area for both sanitary sewer and watermain, they have an alternative that's included in the Council package here and mailed to the affected people that shows the running of sanitary sewer fro~ our existing sewer to the west of Carlson's property, through the Carlson property and this is just our best guesstimate of how he might subdivide this property here. It's not subdivided at this time ar~ then go up and down and basically service the existing property on Church Road on both sides. This is preferred frcm~ the sanitary sewer standpoint because the south part of it down here which is relatively low, earlier alternatives that were shown in the feasibility study require us to take bm]f the property from the north and half from the south and out this way where this saves a few dollars in sewer costs. From the watermain standpoint, it's not shown on here but we would propose servicing the area by jacking from our existing 12 inch watermain on the south side of TH 7, jackir~ which would basically be a trunk cost, the City would absorb, and then running the watermain up Church Road to service existing properties ar~ them loop the system which is important to this area across our existing watermain on the west side again of Carlson's property. This also allows for more properties to be able to pick up on the assessments to help defray some of the costs. ~he City of Shorewood, we have a letter that we received which is in your packets, is agreeable to water there for the park. They are not in support of the sanitary sewer because they do have access to tt~ Metropolitan Interceptor on West 62nd Street. In the preliminary assessment table that we worked up, we did try to recognize that in that we did not include the first 15M feet of park foo~ge here figuring that it could go to the north. This property could subdivide like any property in the city and therefore, Staff feels that it is appropriate for the rest of the footage here to be assessed. Likewise, on the Wanous property which would be basically be Lots A, B and C shown here, we did not assess him for the first 1MM feet because he technically could be serviced by the sewer from West 62nd Street so we did give some reduction because they would go to the north. Maybe what I can say at this time is to go ahead and construct City ~ouncil Meeting - May 18, 1987 the facilities here to our standard with curb and gutter, sanitary sewer and watermain for all properties is probably going to run upwards of $65.00 per front foot of assessments just to give you a general feel. Total construction dollars at $177,000.00 to $178,000.00. We thought it appropriate to look at that at this time because it is a feasibility. The original petition that was received by the City addressed a request for sanitary sewer and watermain for the area and was supported basically by the Wanous and Campbell property in this area. This alternative basically provides service specifically for those properties and would connect to an existing stub and would hook up to the Metro interceptor to the north. Likewise, again the watermain as was shown in the original alternate proposal with trunk watermain coming across, the watermain for the whole area here ar~ just a stub out into the Carlson property because of the uncertainity as to exactly when that would happen but again, providing us for the ultimate connection for looping our syst~n~. The costs associated with just specifically providing sanitary sewer runs for the Wanous and Campbell property and the City of Shorewood, would run approximately $32.00 per foot or assessment per unit of roughly $5,000.00 per unit. This last option here would be for providing watermain and sanitary sewer and it does show roadway improvements but basically the recommendation that I have as a second option would he that the roadway be left as a rural section without a curb and gutter and that would reduce the roadway assessment by maybe $4.00 or $5.00 per lineal foot. Dick Koppe is here from Westwood Planning if you have any specific questions and with that introduction I guess I would turn it back to you Mayor. Mayor Hamilton: (kay, I would like to ask for comments. Any residents here have any comments they wish to make? Merle Wanous: I would like to ask Mr. Warren, how did he get the willingness of Shorewood to accept to pay for the waten~ain? Have you contacted them? Gary Warren: In planning I talked with Dan Vogt, the adminstrator from Shorewood. We have a letter from them stating that they are not in favor of the sewer but because of the park and sprinkling of the ice rinks up there that they were okay on the water. Merle Wanous: I talked to him today and their water is going to be in on Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street so they are running a main for that new development, 73 homes that are being built so I don't think they would be interested in the watermain there at all and he definitely was against the assessment. He said there' was no way the village, they drafted a letter and he said he didn't think they would get involved with water so that's why they didn't particularily address it. We did ask for a small project. It was going to be cost saving but we're coming to the point now where it's getting to be a financial burden. We like the sewer, as far as the option that we have from Campbell and us to the end if it could be put in now and a saving to us. We could hack the $5,000.00 but adding of the curb and gutter. I guess we can live without the water. His first study indicated that we had to have an 8 inch watermain otherwise the water would be stagnant to the other lots because it wouldn't be moving and now because of the change, because of the new development, 6 inch would be okay. I just can't see that I guess and if Shorewood does put water in, we probably could get water from Shorewood a City Council _~-cting - May 18, 1987 lot cheaper in the future. Gary Carlson: We, up at that e~d of the City, really appreciate your giving us some attentior~ Someone always asks where do you live Carlson? I live in Chanhassen north of TH 7. ~hat's not (]~m~assen. Yes and it's Carver County so we apprecia%e your attention up there ar~ taking the time to consider an improvement in our area. For the future of the community, it's hard to justify expenses to make something into the future that some of the neighbors feel they can use and some can't. But when you ar~ I can see that 45% of that improvement can be paid for by the Metropolitan Forcemain installation, now is the time. We'll never get a buy like this. Some of the residents, nobody can afford assessments but I've had a lot of questions. How's your water pressure because I did bring in sewer and water from the west side. Boy, it's right there every minute of the day. I never have up and down pressure and I can drink the water. I don't have iroru I've gotten all kinds of questions from people. Everyone up there will get that payment back ar~ here it is, a chance for us to make an improvement and for you to show Shorewood up there. This is the kind of streets we put in in our city. That is a major connector street. You have to go one mile east to Eureka Road or one mile west to Smithtown Road to get onto TH 7. Sure, we can put it back to a rural road anytime. This Metropolitan put in the line and put the road back but here the City of Shorewocd has already put a park right in Chanhasse~. That's a beautiful park. ~here's a hockey rink right in the city and all the city is asked to do at this time is put a piece of road around it. I would say if I had an opportunity, I would ask for it to come all the way down 62nd. Although that's a shared road, come on Shorewood, get with it. You've got hundreds of cars that come from all over your community here. Come down here and out here out to TH 7 and this is a major interchange with Minnewashta Parkway and all the beautiful homes that have gone in right across here. Here's a chance for the Metropolitan to pay for 45% of the improvements and I'm talkir~ in favor of whatever easements I can give up to get it in and put it in right. Once the improvements are in, put in a decent street. The City benefits from it. If Wanous in the future has his grandchildren out here playing in the park and there is no place for cars to make a swerve or pull out of the way or if someone's on a bike, there's something to look into. Although the park is in Shorewood, it's owned by Shorewood, it's in Chanhasse~ ar~ if there's an accident anywhere along this street, this baseball diamond here pulls in a lot of traffic, the City is going to be in any lawsuit that comes up in regards to the traffic in and around the city park so Shorewood is paying for the park and put it there, all we have to do is why the beck not. Here they're paying for this street, down West 62nd, down here, let's just add a little bit extra and bring it up to a full grade decent road. I know this church is planning on expanding and they're not going to be able to expand on a country road. TheI~re not going to be able to build although that's in Shorewood so there are a lot of things going on in the community and based on the future, it's a good chance to take advantage of it. Harry Campbell: I vote for the plan that they have up there right now. To go more than what you cost there, I would have to sell out. I couldn't afford to live there and I'm perfectly happy with a 2~ foot road. We've been getting along fine o~ that road ar~ as far as up this property line and this c~rch up there, that isn't our concern. Our concern is what's on our road right there. City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 All we did when was we took up a petition, me an Wanous for that sewer. We didn't take up for curb service or 28 foot road or water and all that stuff. We thought as long as they're going to dig that road out, we might as well give us our sewer in there because our septic tanks we may be having trouble because they've been there a long time but as far as the water, no because I just put a brand new well in and so did Jim and I don't care to have the water one bit. The rest on the system there, I can't go for it. If you ain't going to put in more for that, I'm going to have to sell out. I'm going to have to leave that. The other thing is, dividing my property to two lots. I've got 200 foot frontage on my property and I'm 95 feet from Jim's property. Now where are you going to get that to put another house in there, I don't understand that. That's going to be an awful small lot to stick a house in. That's all I got to say. Jim Frizzell: I guess my feeling on it was, this is the option we kind of walked out of the last meeting when we accepted the feasibility study. This was the option that looked the best. We answered the questions of the petition of getting sewer in to Harry and Mr. Wanous and we didn't address the other items, water and enlarging the road because we didn't want it virtually and I think I speak for Kerber also. He didn't want any of that. This latest addition, which came after the last meeting and after we accepted the feasibility study, we just got in the mail on Saturday, I haven't had a chance to review it too much but it looks like we're bearing quite a bit of cost for an addition that we might not want anyway. I guess if I voice my opinion, I like that option the best. I think it answers the needs of the petition that was set out in the first place. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: It's a complex issue of looking on one hand into the future and say what's going to happs~ with this proprty and what's best to be done to support the future and at the same time looking into current residents and saying what can we do for our current citizens. It seems to be two opposite things. The citizens don't need the wider street. Tney. don't want the wider street. They don't want the water as far as the three that started the petition in the first place. I'm torn to tell you the truth between the two. Between good planning and taking the opportunity to make a small improvement to the benefit of a small group of people. That's all I want to say right now. Councilman Geving: I agree, it's a tough decision. We got into this because of the petition for sanitary sewer and when we went for the feasibility study we said let's take a look at all of them. Let's take a look at the possibility of improving the road way in and giving water and I think now that the numbers are before us and the citizens have had a chance to see what those numbers would cost in terms of an annualized interest and assessment for each of the 10 or 20 years for whatever it's assessed, what they're telling us is if this were a project that we approved lock, stock and barrel with all three of those items in there, that they probably couldn't afford to stay in the area. I think the feasibility told us exactly what we wanted to know. It's certainly feasible. Definitely feasible to put in sanitary sewer, water and 81' .City Council ~ting - May 18, 1987 the roadway but I guess I would have a hard time putting all three of those improvements on the residents who really didn't want all of the improvements when they made the petition. I have a question on the City of Shorewood as well as it's ~ brought up earlier. I've read a lot about the city of Shorewood over the years and they have been one city that has not extended water to any of their develoI~nents and I don't know if they still do so I find it very hard to believe that they were amenable to associating themselves with this project and willing to contribute to the tune of $27,0~.0~. I would have a hard time believing that they have changed their policies in the City of Shorewood that much. I know a city councilman for example that was run out of town because he was trying to put in city sewer and water. ~hey are very conservative so I suspect that that's not really true. I really have a hard time with this because I know what can happen. When you make a major improvement it lasts for a long, long time and it will outlive the people who are there now and others will benefit from it and I know that the people who pay for it now will also get their money back someday if they ever sell their property. That sewer and water will be worth whatever you put into it so I have a hard time d~nying putting those items in but at the same time I would have to believe that I would want to go with just the sanitary sewer which was the original proposal. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I think Dale and Jay have expressed what I could say and that is it is a complex issue. I think it's probably a subject of creeping elegance as it turns out but it is a tough to know where to cut things off once you get started when you're given an opportunity like this. I believe we need to do s(auet/~ing at this point but it's a matter of how far we go. Councilman Boyt: Gary, do we have any idea of how much traffic goes down Church Road? Gary Warren: There was an estimate in the feasibility study, it was going to double in the future. 500 cars are estimated now ar~ future projections are it will carry 1,000. Councilman Boyt: Did I hear you right that that road is 20 feet wide? A paved surface? Gary Warren: That ' s correct. Councilman Boyt: What's our percentage of roads in Chanhassen that are paved at 20 feet? Gary Warren: Very ~m%ll. Councilman Boyt: Would you consider that road safe? Gary Warren: I think, depending on the driver, I think for the average driver it's a safe road. Councilman Boyt: ~ing the park there, it really bothers me that that road is 20 feet wide. Especially, 500 cars a day, maybe that's not a great many if they are clustered around rush hour but I see that as the real challenge. I 11 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 guess I feel that it's one of those things where if you're paying the bill it's awfully tough I suppose to have th~ water put in. At the minimum, I think we should do the sanitary sewer because it's crazy to miss the opportunity and I would suspect that in the long run, missing the opportunity of the water is going to be deemed to have been a mistake but from the City standpoint, I would support sewer and I would sure like to have somebody else talk a little bit about the road. It disturbs me but I'm not sure what to do with it. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything addition to say about the road? Gary Warren: We have for example West 65th and Crestview are roads that developed in the past which is similar to what Church Road would be here. Basically, they are being maintained under the current road construction, sewer construction up in those areas. It's a very visible area. It's wide open. It's not like you've got steep bluffs on either side of the road so from that standpoint and there is a lot of clearance between the road and abutting property so you can see people, kids, whatever, approaching you so I guess that's why I say it's not a hazard based on it's width. Councilman Johnson: Do people park up there? I know the Chanhassen Little League plays on that field. What happens when they have a Little League game? Merle Wanous: They park in the church parking lot and walk across. Councilman Johnson: Because that's not much of a road. Merle Wanous: It has never ~ much of a road. It has always been, we've been kind of stuck up there but to have us pay to improve the road when everyone else is using it, seems to be very unfair. Councilman Johnson: I would agree with you there. Gary, is there an estimate in here about keeping a rural section but widening it or did it go just either 20 foot road or? Gary Warren: Taere isn't per se on the feasibility study. I just ran some numbers before I came down and strictly the widening of curb and gutter would add about $5.00 per front foot. Councilman Johnson: What's that per person? Gary Warren: That depends on their frontage. You're looking at about $500.00 to maybe a $1,000.00 for a rural section. Councilman Johnson: It is used by a lot of folks other than the people who live there for one thing, this year Little League is still playing there. South Tonka Little League which includes the City of Chanhassen. People all the way down to the south side of TH 5 go up there during the summer to that road. Is there a way that we can improve, I know there's not much money left, but widening the road the $5.00 per foot for 4 foot wide, we build a 24 foot wide? 12 City Council ~ting - May 18, 1987 Gary Warren: That's for a standard rural section. Councilman Johnson: Is there another source for the money besides assessing the people that are living on there. Gary Warren: (]eneral obligations I guess is always a part of it. In dealing with the Commission and trying to get them to indeed put back a 24 foot wide road. That would be our preference is to just have them put in that additional four feet but I guess I~n anticipating that they're going to say, fine we'll do it if you pay for the extra 4 feet. Mayor Hamilton: I guess maybe I simplified this more in my mind than some of the others. I think there was a request to take advantage of putting sewer in here by the residents who lived there and at that t/me we decided to look at all our options to see what the cost would be and the neighborhood agr~ with that. We looked at the costs to see what it would be to accomplish maximum and everything in between. Tme costs came out to be rather significant. Based on that, I would say that the request was for sanitary sewer and that's what we ought to put in. I didn't think it was a difficult decision. Councilman Boyt: What's your thought on the road? Mayor Hamilton: I think the road is functional at 20 feet. If we can get 24 from Metropolitan Council, if they will go 24 ar~ put it back at 24, I think we should do that. (~ than that, I don't have a problem with 20. It's not a heavy traffic area ar~ it's going to be a long t/me before it is. Merle Wanous: Shorewood was very adamant about not paying an assessment. Now what happens if they won't pay their assessment for that park? Mayor Hamilton: ~he~ll end up in court. It's not going to be assessed to you. Merle Wanous: I know the City Manager was very adamant about saying that they were not going to accept any assessments for any sewer. Councilman Horn: We have waived the concrete curb and gutter for rural roads. I don't anticipate or it's not the image I get when I picture this road as being a rural section of road. It appears to me that it goes right through a residential area and serves one of our parks. If we didn't put concrete curb ar~ gutter in, would the alternative be asphalt? Gary Warren: From City standards standpoint, we shy away from the asphalt curbing because it really doesn't hold up. Councilman Horn: So there would be no gutter? Gary Warren: With the existing drainage would be allowed to continue basically it just slopes off into th~ ditches. Mayor Hamilton: ~here's not a drainage problem there anyway. 13 84 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Gary Warren: Yes, it' s not a big problem. Councilman Horn: What about the end of that park. ~at field stays pretty wet. It's ~---n a number of years since my son has ~n in Little League. I know people park along the road up there. They don't all park in that church parking lot. They park along the road and the end of that field is wet because it doesn't drain properly. It seems to me that our approach with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is that we tell them the 20 feet doesn't meet our standard and as long as they are upgrading the road they ~ to bring it up to our city standards which to me is a 24 foot street with concrete curb and gutter. Gary Warren: My approach I guess is to just tell them that's what we want replaced and let them take the initiative if that's what they will to say we replace what we take out and what you have is a 20 foot section. I'm certainly not going to offer that we volunteer that extra cost. We may be able to negotiate that with them as far as easements and additional things that relate to the whole project so I'm guessing we'll have some opportunity to get them to be flexible. Councilman Horn: I think we talked about this before but if water were to go in later, w~uld that go beside the road or through it? Gary Warren: It could go beside the road especially if it was left the rural section. Councilman Horn: So that would make a difference? Gary Warren: If we go to a full section then we would cut into more of the right-of-way. We've got a very narrow right-of-way right now as it stands but I guess if you have it given where you have a recently redone paved surface, that would depend on the condition of that roadway. Whether we would go under the roadway or go on the side. Councilman Horn: Are you talking about a 20 foot rural section road? Councilman Geving: That's correct. That's all that's there now. Councilman Johnson: Would you like any comment on that as far as encouraging finding other funding or encouraging Met Council or somehow or another to improve the roadway if we can talk them into it? Councilman Geving: I think we should encourage the City Engineer and Staff to look to the Metropolitan Council for the potential for increasing the width of the road and hopefully finding the funding to do that. Mayor Hamilton: I hope that's a given that Gary is going to get as much as he can out of Met Council. If he can get curb and gutter and an extra 4 feet of paved, then go ahead. Councilman Geving: I think you're right. Tnat's a given item. That is Gary' s job. 14 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Horn: I would just like to point out one other thing. I think we had a mixed opinion frs the neighborhood. I didn't hear one particular view from all of the people. In fact I heard one of the neighbors say that he would like to have the thing completely improved. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. That's what you heard. Councilman Johnson: It was 1 to 3. Councilman Boyt: I would like to comment on the motion and that is that it seems to me if a road is being torn up and if that piece of property is pretty much developed and I see the park in there, lots on what I guess would be the east side of it ar~ look to see how much more development is going to occur in there in the reasonable future and I don't know that we're ever going to he in a better spot to put that road in than we are right now. I recognize that that's a considerable cost. I just raise the question of do we want to take what looks to be pretty much a developed residential neighborhood and put a rural road in it? Councilman Johnson: I would say that this is a less developed neighborhood than West 65th or Crestview was and last year it was decided to put a rural section back in there. Councilman Horn: ThOse are cul-de-sacs ~hich does't have the traffic impact. Councilman Johnson: Agreed but as far as being rural or not, this is very much on the edge. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like an overriding factor might be that if a lot of them or it seems that we're not going to put water in at this time, that if we left the road without curb and gutter and if the properties do subdivide in t/~ future and more development takes place and water is needed to go into that area, that it's going to be less expensive to put water in in the future and then to redo the road then it is going to be to put the curb and gutter in now, tear the curb and gutter up again and redo it in the future. I just suspect it's going to be a while before this area does have any further development and I think the road at 20 feet personally can handle the traffic that it's bearing now ar~ it's probably not going to increase much. Councilman Horn: One of the things I would liked to have ~ in this exhibit was all we got, obviously this thing will be funded for 1~ or 20 years, all we got on here was the yearly payments for the total assessment. I would have liked to have s~_ that broken down on a yearly payment for the options because it may have looked a little different. Resolution 987-45: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize preparation of the plans and specifications for Church Road for the Sanie~y Sewer Option $2 (Exhibit G~ as a public improvement project and that Westwood Planning Engineering Company be designated as the design engineer. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. 15 City Council Meeting ' May 18, 1987 REQUEST FOR NO PARKING SIGNS ON PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. Barbara Dacy: Tnis item the Council has two requested items for action. One is the no parkirg signs. It is also requested that the Council direct Staff to prepare a Not a Public Beach sign so we can install it along the lakeshore. I guess this points up the problems that we've ~n having at this area, this morning I had a call from an adjacent property owner stating that again that area was being used as a launch site this past weekend. Also that some people were parking along that area. Tney read the packet and have requested that instead of just installing signs alorg th~ south side that the City install no parking signs at that location on both the north and south side. Mayor Hamilton: That's such a narrow road, I don't know, if you have one car parked on one side, you almost can't get through anyway. Barbara Dacy: The homeowners in the area have suk~itted pictures and I have talked to some of the officers who have gone out there responding to calls. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying, both sides is fine with me because there shouldn't be any parking on that whole length of street. All of Pleasant View should be no parking. Th~ whole road. Doesn't that piece of property go down? I was surprised to see that they were using that for a launch. My gosh, you must have a 4-wheel drive vehicle to get your boat in there. Councilman Geving: It's straight down. We have no need for that property anymore do we? Barbara Dacy: No. We are going to need a sewer easement but to retain ownership is not needed. Councilman Horn: I think rather than us screwing around with it, we should just deed it back to the property owners. Councilman Geving: I fought that for a long time and we actually turned that down as a vacation request at one time. We did have a need to maintain that area as an easement but I think to resolve the problem like this, it's an attractive nuisance because it's there and no one seems to own it people are going to abuse it and if it fell into the hands of a private person where they could patrol it and keep people out of there, I think it might resolve our problems forever on that piece of property. I've changed my mine a lot on this particular peice because I'm familiar with it and I wouldn't be opposed to vacating this. Councilman Boyt: Are we saying that, granted this is not a very nice piece of property but we're saying that the City really can construct no use for this piece of property? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: That we aren't interested in putting a picnic table out there or anything of that sort? 16 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Boyt: When we vacate this property, do we then create the possibility for Lot 58 to subdivide into two lots? Barbara Dacy: Each lot would have to have 2~,~0 square feet and I don't think that they would meet that. Councilman Geving: I don't think 58 could ever be built on. Barbara Dacy: It's too short so we would not approve a subdivision of that lot. Councilman Boyt: I can accept it if it's not going to be built. Councilman Geving: Another factor too is that whoever did own it would pay taxes on it. Barbara Dacy: I could analyze that further as part of the vacation process. A1 Klingelhutz: The only comment I have is if you dedicate it back to the property owners, across the street they are all going to have riparian rights to be able to put a dock out to the lake. Councilman Horn: They do now don't they? Councilman Geving: Why do you say that Al? Are you saying Al that the property line runs across the road to the lake? Is that true in that case? Al Klingelhutz: I'm not sure if it's true in this case or not. Councilman Geving: I think lots further down have rights on the lake but not this one. Al Klingelbutz: I thought the lots across the road all went right down to the lake. Councilman Geving: Beicker's lots always did but I don't know about this particular one. The original petition to vacate this was based upon the owner of Lot 23. ~hey wanted to vacate it and we would split it between the owners of Lot 58 and 23. That was what tt~ original petition was. All Klingelhutz: I just assume that all the lots across the road would benefit from that vacation. Councilman Geving: I think you've got a good idea and we should check that out. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps all of that should be given to Lot 23. Counilman Horn: I think they have riparian rights. They put a dock down there now. 17 4O City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Barbara Dacy: 23 is riprian and there is a dock on 58 but it's a platted right-of-way. I know the people up the street use it but it's not... Councilman Geving: I don't think it's private property though and I think that's part of the conservation easement. Mayor Hamilton: Why not give it all to 23? Barbara Dacy: I would have to check with the plats and so on. If the right- of-way was all platted within one plat than it can only go back to the abutting to that plat. I can't recall if it was split. It looks like it's all part of the Pleasant View ;k~dition so I think 58 would get half and 23 would get the other half. Don Ashworth: Tnat would be part of the hearing that would be coming up in June. I would hold off on that portion of the motion. What we're looking for is some temporary measures that can occur in advance of this public hearing. So we're looking for the authorization... Barbara Dacy: To be honest with the Council, deeding it over to private ownership will help the situation as far as the trespassing but I think the parking situation is going to continue no matter what. I really think action on the no parking signs is going to be a definite help in this. Councilman Horn: We try to solve some of these problems with no parking signs. Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to agree that Pleasant View, certainly if there is anyplace where there should be no parking it should be on Pleasant View on both sides of the street. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded authorize holding of a public hearing on lot vacation. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: Have the property owners along there been notified or contacted about this? I see that the request came not from thm~ but from the Lotus Lake Homeowners Associations. Barbara Dacy: Tne Lotus Lake Homeowners Association did submit that letter. I have been talking to the owners of Lot 23 and Lot 22 and other owners in the area have wanted to remain anonymous because of neighborhood incidents. So yes, it is a request of those specific people around there. councilman Horn: All of them? Barbara Dacy: The ones that we mentioned yes. Councilman Horn: Just 22 and 23? Barbara Dacy: Tnose are the ones who have spoken to me directly and they have 18 41 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 stated that they are representing other people in the neighborhood. That they did not want to sign a petition. Mayor Hamilton: If it's a temporary measure amd once we deed the property back to the landowners we will be able to remove the signs ar~ k~-----p things on a normal pace so you won't have to worry about signs and the neighbors won't have to complain about them. Councilman Johnson: I have trouble if people on Lots 19 and 20 haven't been talked t~ I believe I know the people at 19 have a little rock area off of the side of the road right in front of their house that you can pull onto. and it's basically comple~y off the road ar~ you would be puttirg a rD parking sign right there. Mayor Hamilton: You wouldn't put a sign in their place where they park off the road. They can park there. Barbara Dacy: I think what Schlenk does is they tend to locate the signs at the property line and are fairly good at locating these things so they wouldn't run in with the property owners. I can specifically call Lots 19 and 20 but it's easily worked out. Councilman Geving: I think that's really important. Either we send them an official letter telling them why we're doing this or we call them and tell them and I think maybe a letter is more important. Then they have something in writirg that they can hang on to. Mayor Hamilton: Send a letter about tonight's action saying the signs to be put up in front of their property ar~ if t~ have concerns about it they should call city hall. If you get a lot of calls, then maybe we better re- think what we're doing here if t~ have a good reason. Councilman Boyt: In that letter I think you should mention that the signage is inter~ed to be ts~porary. Councilman Johnson: Is this part of your motion then Tom that this is temporary no parking signage? Is there a specific lergth that we're going to put on this? Mayor Hamilton: It's temporary until we deed the property back to some property owners and they can then take care of the problem ~selves by putting up a barrier of some sort or put land minds in there or something Councilman Johnson: I think you'll still have a parking problem in there. Councilman Geving: No you won't. There would be no reason for those people ever to go down there and park on that street. Mayor Hamilton: There's never ~ no parking signs on Pleasant View and we never had a parking problem there because it's so narrow. This is just to alleviate this problen right now. 19 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to authorize the placement of no parking signs on both sides of Pleasant View Road in the vicinity of Lots 19 continue along Pleasant View Road to Lot 22, Lot 23 and Lot 6. Also, to install a Not a Public Beach sign and a warning that violators will be prosecuted. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF W~IVER, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS. Gary Warren: West Village Heights is located here just north of us here on Kerber Blvd.. Basically it's part of the preliminary platted process. We restricted the subdivision from receiving building permits because we're in the process of running trunk sewer along West 78th Street and we also have plans and specifications for picking up the sewer and water from there and running it north up to this property so to protect our interest here, that we didn't have a subdivision ready to be occupied and not have services available to it we restricted that from happening until we had actually physically awarded the contract for construction. Tne applicant, Mr. Jacobson who. was here tonight expressed a concern in his planning that he needed three months from construction start to occupancy. Basically we're off by a month and he requested if there wasn't some alternative to allow him to sign a waiver per se to allow him at least that we award the buiding permit. I talked with the attorney. A waiver is attached and basically we feel comfortable that upon execution that we would be able to award a building permit to Mr. Jacobson and still have ourselves protected in the event that a contract wasn't awarded or if we had some difficulty in getting some utilities there so that's the waiver that you have for consideration. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded for approval of the waiver for West Village Heights Building Permit Conditions. All voted in favor and motion carried. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, T-BAR-K ESTATES. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval from the City Council that the three lots share one driveway, that be expanded to two driveway accesses onto Lyman Blvd. and also Staff is recommending to the Park and Recreation Commission that a park trail be dedicated along Lyman Blvd. and also a 12 foot easement be dedicated along the 886 contour. Mayor Hamilton: Weren't there three lots there? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: So they are requesting two driveways for three lots basically? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Tne City Council conditioned it on one driveway and that they were all shared by a frontage road. The applicant is requesting that Lot 1 have it's own driveway and Lots 2 and 3 share a driveway. 20 City Council ~ting - May 18, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: ~hat would the distance be between the two driveways? Jo Ann Olsen: If you put them where Carver County wants them it would be approximately 300 feet separation. Mayor Hamilton: What's the distance then from the easterly driveway to the intersection of TH 101 and Lyman? Jo Ann Olsen: About 180. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's pretty close. ~hat's almost in the stopping area for the stop sign. A1 Klingelhutz: Ted Slater is down in Thief River Falls and asked me to represent him here tonight, One of the reasons that the County felt it would be much of a concern that we have the driveway between Lots 2 and 3 is the fact that all the plans tt~y've ~ from the City of Chanhassen of moving TH 101 over about 1,200 feet where Ted's house toward Shakopee again and that intersection would be eliminated at that tim~ I guess that's the main reason Carver County did allow that driveway to go in there and they felt it would probably be better there than having more traffic over closer to the proposed TH 212 intersection. The original proposal on the west end of Lot 1 and the County suggested that they move it over approximately 200 feet so it wouldn't interfere with the other intersection of the proposed TH 212 and the fact that TH 101 is proposed to be moved over and straighte~ out, there would be a long span between the intersections then. Between the second driveway, between Lots 2 ar~] 3. Councilman Boyt: One of the things I see in here that's slightly a different issue. I know we've considered it a couple of times this spring is this business about lots being more than twice as long as they are wide. Are we making any progress to charge that Ordinance if we're not going to enforce it? Mayor Hamilton: I believe it's already changed. The new Ordinance does not include that. Councilman Boyt: I thought we had talked about that. ~he question is a drive and from what I've understood in earlier meetings of tt~ Council, liklihood of TH 101 being straighten out is slim and nil. Is that still the reading or is this likely to happen? Mayor Hamilton: I think there is a reasonably good chance that it will be straighten out. Councilman Johnson: It just depends upon whose lifetime. Councilman Geving: It's going to take time. I think it will happen. Councilman Boyt: ~hat's your guess Dale? About how long will it be? Councilman Geving: 10 years. 21 44 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Gould ask Al. F~ could probably give you a little better idea. Deper~s on when he sells his property. A1 Klingelhutz: It isn't that. It's if TH 212 comes in and if we're ever going to change TH 10L The intersection proposed for TH 101 and TH 212, I guess it's going to have to be done at least by that time otherwise you're going to have the intersection in the wrong place. Mayor Hamilton: Also, I think if a developer came in and offered to buy Al's property and wanted to develop it right now, then you would move it because then he would take the existing TH 101 and move it over and it would straighten it out so it does depend on whether or not Al wants to sell his property. Al Klingelhutz: Give me the right price. Councilman Boyt: Are you saying, at this point there is really only one reason why the Council would approve this and that's because they think TH 101 is going to get moved? Al Klingelhutz: Another reason I know they gave because they explained it to me is the fact that there are only two h~nes coming out of that driveway and they don't think it's going to generate that much of a hazard or that much traffic. Councilman Boyt: I assume we're looking into variances. Is this the kind of variance that's going to come back to create problems for us in the future if we take and allow them to be as close together as they are, 300 feet instead of 500 feet? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it's a variance is it Jo Ann and Barb? Barbara Dacy: No. This subdivision came in prior to our new ordinance. Under the new ordinance we do have specific driveway separation requirements. Technically, this does not require a variance. Councilman Boyt: So we're still under the old ordinance? Okay, that's all I've got. Councilman Horn: I don't like driveways close to major highways and I think we're going to have a dangerous situation until TH 101 gets moved and I'm not as optimistic as everybody else that we're going to see that in the near future. I would say the next 20 years rather than 10 especially if it's depending on TH 212 which unless the State changes the way it does things in the next few years, won't happen in the near future either. I have a real problem with a driveway 180 feet away from that intersection because I know that the sighting distance as you head east on TH 101 before you turn south is bad. If people want to continue on Lyman, they scoot across there before cars come up from the south so they move right along those front lots. I guess I'm concerned about the safety issue there. Speeding off of TH 101 onto Lyman and hit an immediate driveway. I don't like excess cuts into highways anyway. I think it really Lmpedes traffic and this one I think is especially close. 22 45 City ~il Meeting -May 18, 1987 Councilman Geving: I was a witness to a very bad accident that my daughter was in right about at that very locatio~u 2~ feet from the west edge of that intersection about 5 years ago ar~ it is a dangerous location, let me tell you The road has ~ charged somewhat. There used to be a fairly good size fill right in there. I don't have any problem with the proposal to allow two driveways. This does of course include the other If conditions from the original Council decision is that correct Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilman Geving: I have no other questions. Councilman Johnson: A technicality. One of the conditions of the last Council action was that applicant and Staff determine the drivewaytobe shared byall three lots. How much effortwent into coe~plying with that condition by the applicant or did be comeback? Jo Ann Olsen: There was a lot of discussion about it betw~ Staff and also between the applicant and Carver County and the applicant took the initiative and met with Carver County several times to get their input which resulted in that letter. As far as the exact locations, we just left it when the building permits come in it would be determined then where it would be. Councilman Johnson: What I'm trying to do is, as a condition of preliminary plat that goes to try to determine this, was there an effort made to determine the single driveway point? We couldn't determine a single driveway point therefore we came back asking for two or was there a lot of discussion trying to get back to two driveway points and is this therefore a reconsideration of that point? Barbara Dacy: As Jo Ann said, I think the applicant was and we were working with Carver County to determine that one point and I believe it was upon the applicant's request that Carver County looked at evaluating a second access. A1 Klirgelhutz: As far as I know, I haven't ~ too involved. Ted gave me a call a couple days ago and asked me to handle it for him. He didn't want to come up. I saw the letter from Carver Oounty stating t~ would allow two driveways on it. I really didn't think it would be too much of a problem. Councilman Johnson: Would this be a reconsideration as far as a technicality as this is a condition of preliminary plat approval? Jo Ann Olsen: We discussed that and determined that it would not be a reconsideration. Councilman Johnson: (lkay, I'll get off the road subject there. One of the conditions is that there is a pipeline easement. I see no pipeline easement on the drawings. Mayor Hamilton: It was left off the drawings initially but there is a pipeline. Williams Pipeline goes through tt~ property. 23 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Tn. pipeline is there but the final plat before us tonight is missing that easement. Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't show up on the final plat itself. Barbara Dacy: The pipeline company, they have a blanket easement on the entire route. ~nrough every piece of property that the pipeline traverses, it's my understanding that they have a blanket easement. We can check. Ted Kemna is the Carver County surveyor that is dealing with the applicant. We'll double check that but that was our understanding. Councilman Johnson: But as a future buyer walking in there, I have no idea until I look at the plat whether there's a William's Pipeline running underneath my property. Barbara Dacy: It should be part of the Abstract too. Councilman Johnson: Okay, if it's part of the Abstract. Barbara Dacy: We can easily double check that. Councilman Johnson: My question is, should it be on this drawing? Barbara Dacy: Tne Carver County surveyor can answer that. Gary Warren: Not all easements show on plats. Councilman Johnson: Not all easementshavetobeshown on plats? Okay, I wasn't sure of that. Gary Warren: Trail easements for example don't. Councilman Johnson: Trail easements don't show on plats. Well, that eliminates my next question. I think Dale eliminated my last question which was do all the preliminary conditions apply. Mayor Hamilton: They do. Councilman Johnson: It looks like in the recommended we only had three conditions but then in addition to those three there are the other ten. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded for approval of T-Bar-K Estates for final plat #87-21 with the following conditions along with the conditions that were passed previously on preliminary plat approval: l. Lot 1 shall be permitted a driveway located 200 feet east of the west property line. . Lots 2 and 3 shall share a driveway on the property line between Lots 2 and 3. 24 47 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 m A 2~ foot trail easement along the northern boundary and a 12 foot easement alorg the 886 contour for a nature trail shall be dedicated to the City. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Horn and motion carried. STATE AID DESIGNATION, LYMAN BOGLEVARD~ RILEY BOULEVARD. Gary Warren: To give you a little overview. What I'm showing here on the overhead is the total State Aid system that the City has designated to date. The dark and the dash lines are the roads that we currently have on our State Aid mileage and they total to a little over 11 miles. Based on State Aid quotas, etc. we are allotted to 13.06 miles that we can designate for State Aid. Back in September Bill Monk sent Chuck Weichselbaum, the State Aid Engineer, a request to include Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley on the State Aid system and after catching up myself and talking with State Aid, they were waiting for the City of ~den Prairie to designate their abutting or adjoining roadways that would provide as they call it continuity to let that happen. Since that time, the City of f~en Prairie has done that so that has paved the way for us to formally request that that road be placed on the system. Likewise, West 78th Street, shown here, currently has County State Aid designation but our downtown redevelopment project with some developments in the area, the James property, we've been working with the County to get them to remove their County State Aid designation so we could have more flexibility in our design for the downtown area. But to protect the continuity of F~_rber Blvd. which is State Aid road, we needed to replace that distance with our own mileage so that we wouldn't have a problem with the State. Otherwise, we basically lose the southern half of Kerber Blvd. So actually we're talking three roads because Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. are separate here but basically those three roads have received preliminary approval from the State Aid engir, c--~r for adding to our mileage and the resolutions tonight if authorized, we would su]mnit a formal petition to have them added to the system which basically would fill out our compliment of State Aid roadways. Long range down the road, Pleasant View Road probably will he taken off of the State Aid systen~ ~he State hasn't caught up with us basically in that regarcL With the development in the Near Mountain area it's r~ longer looked at as a major connection so it will .probably come off. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt resolutions for designation of municipal state aid highways for the following roadways and also directing Staff to submit these resolutions to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration: Resoultion %87-46(a): Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 to Lake Riley Boulevard. Resolution %87-46(b): Lake Riley Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard north ar~ ~ ~ the city limits. Resolution 987-46(c): West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. 25 48 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, APPOINTMENT. Mayor Hamilton stated the commission of Charlie Robbins expires May 31st and he recommended that he be reappointed. There was discussio~ about whether or not the Council ought to be in the HRA also. There have been two members on the HRA in the past and one currently, Clark Horn. Mayor Hamilton stated he was comfortable with the current status. Councilman Horn stated that Charlie Robbins was an asset to the HRA. Councilman Boyt stated that he thought the City Council should be consistent and talk to anybody before they are appointed to any Commission or Council and failing to do that, even though he supports Charlie, he would not vote for him or anybody else that the Council hasn't talked to. Councilman Johnson stated that for this position, it wasn't advertised in the newspaper. Resolution #87-47: Councilman ~eving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Charlie Robbins to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for another 5 year term to expire on May 31, 1992. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who abstained and motion carried. APPROVAL OF EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT, JEREMY JOHNSON. Jeremy Jenson presented his Eagle Scout project which consisted of constructing a bridge over the stream in Chanhassen Pond Park adjoining the path and steps which is being constructed by Steven White as part of another Eagle Scout project. Tne Park and Recreation Commission approved the project' as proposed by Jeremy Jenson and recommended that the budget be amended to include $1,000.00 for this project. Councilman Johnson: How far apart are the floor boards on the decking? Jeremy Jenson: I was talking with my scout master and he said probably the best thing to do is, do you know a construction pencil, is to stick that in there inbetween. It's only about 1/4 to 1/2 inch betwee~ there. Councilman Johnson: I'm concerned and some other folks who live in the neighbrhood on handicapped accessibility on being able to get across this. Too big of a spacing and it becomes a problem. Jeremy Jenson: The spacing will be really close together and the bridge is 4 feet wide so there shouldn't be any problem. Councilman Johnson: Anybody talk to you about erosion control? This is DNR wetlands right? Jeremy Jenson: Yes, Steven White, his Eagle project he is going to have some railroad ties left and I plan to put a couple and dig them in so going up to the bridge and going away will not erode or anything. As far as underneath the bridge, it's basically to the contour of the land right now so the erosion will be very minimal. Councilman Geving: Is all the lumber that you're going to put into this 26 49 City Council Meeting -May 18, 1987 project treated lumber? Jeremy Jenson: Yes, it's treated green. Councilman Geving: When you decided upon this project, did you see a ~7 Are people going across that area now and walking on top of the present... Jeremy Jenson: There are rocks and it's really... Councilman Geving: So you can ~ people actually using this? Jeremy Jenson: Yes, and especially whe~ the total walking path is completed arour~ the pond. Councilman Geving: Where do you live? Jere~y Jenson: I live out here in Chan Estates. Councilman Horn: It looks like a good project. Councilman Boyt: Thanks for your presentation-- You're talking about building this right outside my back door so I'm real interested. A couple of things. One, at least when I walk through that area, the City put quite a load of rock in there about a year ago and I'm curious about your ability to put footing in through that rock. Has anybody looked at that with ~ 'thought of having to go through those boulders? Maybe you remember when they dumped those in there, they are there to stay. The other thing is since the railroad ties are kind of a black/brown stain, I think it might make sense to stain the bridge a comparable color. I'm real happy to see you do this. I consider it a great benefit to me and I'm glad to see your labor go into it. Mayor Hamilton: I think it appears to be a really good project Jeremy ar~ I commend you for taking it on. My only comment was I just wasn't sure there was a particular r~ for this in the park there. I'm not sure how many people attempt to walk across that particular spot. To spend $1,~00.~ to have a bridge sit there for a number of years and probably not get used much I thought there may be some other projects perhaps at Lake Ann that would have ~n more appropriate but it looks like a good project for what you're trying to accomplish, to get your Eagle badge so seeing as we have the funds, I guess I see no reason why you shouldn't go ahead with it. Councilman Boyt: Tom, there is quite a bit of traffic back over there. It's sort of surprising bow much traffic goes over that and it is fairly dangerous r ight now. Councilman Johnson: ~here is a well established path there. I walked it last night. Mayor Hamilton: Is there going to be any problem in the winter time with snowmobiles ever going back there or bicycles? My concern is that people will wreck the bridge going across with those types of things. Is there a ~ to put a barrier up to eliminate that? 27 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Jeremy Jenson: It will be built strong enough for bicycle traffic to go across. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not concerned about them going across. I don't want them going across. They should be deterred from going across there I would think. Bicycles shouldn't be allowed on that path. Mike Lynch: You've got a steep hill which is the only south access to that bridge where Steve is putting in his steps in now and that will be an extremely difficult access for a bicycle. A real determined bicycler could get through there but not normal. Mayor Hamilton: How about in the wintertime? Do you see any problem in the wintertime with any type of all terrain vehicle or snomnobile or something? Mike Lynch: Not that we wouldn't have otherwise. In the winter there was a snowmobile and all terrain that could use the bridge, or use the lake or they could drive through the stream bed but it certainly improve access for them though. Councilman Johnson: As far as the steps, it also makes it harder on the handicapped access. Unless we put down a path next to the steps for the handicapped access. One of the biggest group that goes through there is kids on bicycles. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Eagle Scout Project at the Chanhassen Park Pond and to amend the budget to include the $1,000.00 for this project. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: FINAL PlAT APPROVAL, WHITETAIL RIDGE. Councilman Johnson: My problem was we have a final plat for approval. However, part of our approval is to suhnit a new final plat. It's kind of a circular approval. Item number 3 is to suhnit a revised final plat. If it's not ready to be approved, I don't want to approve it. Why can't the changes be made. If the applicant knows he has to move a lot line, let's go ahead and move the lot line. Barbara Dacy: It was at the request of the applicant. He came in the office late on Thursday afternoon and said I have ~_~n working on building plans and I want to shift over the lot line by 3 or 4 feet. Jo Ann had already finished that report and it was such a minor change that we listed a condition that we get the right line. Councilman Johnson: He didn't put the drainage easement in also so he has to suhnit the drainage easement or is that another issue that doesn't show? Gary Warren: Tnat shows. Councilman Johnson: I think it's pretty standard to have to submit financial securities. Basically, I see we have an incomplete, if he wants to change the 28 51 City Oouncil Meeting - May 18, 1987 plat at the llth hour, then he can wait two weeks a~d ~,~it us the proper paperwork and w~ can consider this o~ June 1st. Barbara Dacy: I assume the res~ibilities. If you want to table it that's fine. He came and spoke with me and I said yes, we can process the application with the change so I should accept responsibility. Mayor Hamilto~ moved, Councilman Horn secor~]ed approval of the fiDa3 plat for Whitetail Ridge dated May 7, 1987 with the understanding that the revised final plat, the lot line be shifted no more than 4 feet and with the following conditions: 1. Suk~ittal of a drainage easement over Lot 6. 2. Sukmittal of financial securities and approved develolzmant contract. 3. Submittal of a revised final plat. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed ar~ motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1987 STPRRT SEAI//)ATING P~. Councilman Geving: Just a quick comment. I think we're into about the third or fourth year of the sealcoating project am] as I look at what we are attempting to do this particular year, I refer you to page 1 of 2 in the very back of the sealcoating spec and bid proposal. I see now we're working on the north end of Chanhassen and I would like to make a proposed change to the specs to add the area of Lyndon just to the north. The whole area there where we have Lyndon Circle, Kirkwood Circle, Joslin Circle and the reason I'm asking that we add it, it would complete that one whole area of the north end of Chanhassen all in one shot. That's quite a large area but I think rather than cc~e back ar~ pick it up next year or the year after, we can add it to our specs a~d I wanted to ask Gary if we were either to add it to the specs or to trade off that Pipewood Curve area across TH 7, what are your thoughts on that Gary? Gary Warren: I asked the street superintendent to give me a list of streets here and I'm not personally familiar with the condition of the streets in the Lyndon Circle area. Mayor Hamilton: They're good. Councilman Geving: The~re about the same age as all the rest of them. Probably newer. In fact they are very new. They're within five years. Gary Warren: I would think that we're not adding that much footage to it. I can look at that. Councilman Geving: Would you look at it as a potential and come back to us. I know they're new. I know that's a whole new housing area but that was one 29 City Council Meeting ' May 18 ~ 1987 of the intents of the sealcoating project. To preserve those streets that are new ar~ keep them in good shape. If we could add that to the specs and it wouldn't add substantially to the cost of the project, I would like to see that. Mayor Hamilton: Tnen look at the possibility of trading off if you have to with Pipewood. I don't know what the status of those streets are either. Gary Warren: I'll specifically look at those. In the interest of time, could that be a condition of approval that I look at those. Councilman Geving: You bet. Taat's the basis on which I would suggest the Council consider it. That w~ would use your judgment in approving this. Councilman Horn: When we do this we pour down this tar and put like gravel over it, do we ever seal cracks first before that? Gary Warren: We seal cracks and we do some leveling also to try to get rid of some of the dips as best we can. Councilman Horn: It seems to me like crack sealing is something that has to happen much more often than sealcoating. I would like to see a program where we would do more crack sealing on a more regular basis. Gary Warren: Crack sealing itself, they call it reflective cracking. You can seal a crack and put a sealcoat on it and those cracks will inevitably work their way through. You will see that again in a short period of time. It is a real challenge with existing cracks. Resolution #87-48: Councilman (~3ving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded approval of plans and specifications for 1987 Street Sealcoating Project with the requested changes and leave it up to ~ discretion of the City Engineer if the additional streets as noted should be added to the bid specs. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded moved to amend the agenda to move item 2 in front of 11 on the agenda. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: KERBER BOULEVARD CURB, GUTTER AND DRAINAGE IMP~OV]:~T. Bill Engelhardt: This schematic shows the extent of the improvement. It's constructing the curb and gutter ar~ widening the roadway to the 44 foot section. Kerber Blvd. from West 78th Street to roughly the north property line of the Saddlebrook development and Triple Crown Estates and the Chan Vista development. The section of the Kerber Blvd. from this point going north where it intersects with Powers Blvd. and CR 17 is already an urban section with concrete curb and gutter and 44 foot wide. This is a schematic of the original proposal dated 1974 for the Kerber Blvd. improvement. As you can see the ultimate section for that area was to have concrete curb and gutter, 44 foot wide roadway from base to curb and that should be back of curb 30 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 to back of curb is the way the existin9 section is, with 6 inches of bituminous and the gravel base. What was constructed was a rural section which includes ditch sections, carried tb~ drainage, roughly a 2~ foot roadway and of that 2~ feet, there is about 8 feet of shoulder and about 12 feet of bituminous. We went out to check the bituminous thickness because originally when we started looking at this we were thinking that it would have to, in order to bring this up to the 9 ton design of tt~ ultimate section, that we would have to add an additional thickness of blacktop on it. In other words, overlay t2~ entire roadway. As it turns out, in the travel area of the 12 foot lanes of the roadway, there is 6 inches of bituminous and it appears to have adequate base underneath it. The existing shoulders are 4 foot paved shoulders and the paving of that area is roughly 2 to 2 1/2 i~. This is a schematic of what the roadway would look like when it was completsd. The upgrading is completed. ~he curb ar~ gutter, the section of the roadway which is now shoulder would be upgraded to a 9 tc~ design which would require the rock base and then the thickness of the bituminous would be increased to 6 inches. In this case, we can not just simply overlay those shoulders in order to get the curb and gutter to match and get the appropriate base ur~erneath on both sides, the 2 inch bituminous that's in the shoulder area now have to be removed. The curb and gutter as follows a~ then the thickness of blacktop in the rock base would have to be completed. This shows the walkway in ultimate development and is part of this project too, would be constructed along Kerber Blvd. in the ditch area that now exists so the ditches would be filled, storm sewer installed in the ditch areas and conveyed down to a discharge point which would be down by West 78th Street and Kerber Bl~d. to tP~ south. The project involves three or four operations. One is taking the existing shoulder off, improving the base, put in a curb and gutter in the thickness of blacktop on which then gives you an ultimate 44 foot roadway, filling of the ditches ar~ provides for drainage onto the roadway surfaoe or into catch basins that would be located in the ditch section and constructing a walkway. In addition to that would be included in the feasibility study as a portion of the general obligation, street lighting for that street. During the process we looked at and at a number of past Council meeting discussions it has come up about options for the financing. This is basically how you break down the properties on this ma[~ For the James Company who owns this property, the Village West Townhouses, Saddlebrook Development, this is C~an Vista 2nd and 3rd Additio~ These three lots in here are Chan Vista 1st Addition. Independent School District, the City of C2mnhassen have these two parcels and then Schneider Park on the corner lot. In calculating the costs, we ~ went through and came up with the total project cost of $502,939.00. Of the parcels that I just pointed out and the various property ownesr to determine their front footage and divide it through and we came up with a cost per front foot for the curb and gutter of $45.8L That takes care of what we call the assessable cost. We have a general obligation cost of $135,~0.~0 of the $502,939.0~ for the walkway and the street lighting. Subsequent to those nulmuers we've come up with some alternates and some options for the City Council to consider keeping in mind that in 1980 when Kerber BlwL was improved, a rural section was constructed. The properties adjacent to the rural section were charged $21.~2 per foot as an assessment against those properties. State Aid funds paid for the grading and the land acquisition which is $435,767.85. If, at that time in 1980 the urban section would have been constructed, the estimated cost for the urban section was $42.35 per 31 City Counci 1 Meeting - May 18, 1987 foot. We then went through and looked at what the present day cost of that urban section would be and it ranges from $56.00 to $89.00. The way the $56.00 was arrived at by looking at just updated costs with simple interest on it. The $89.00 is what the cost would be if the property was assessed. At that time and deferred. Several of the properties, I believe it was the Kerber farm that was deferred in this area. Those assessments were deferred until such time as the property was developed. The basis for the deferment was that the first two years he would be charged an interest of 8% and the next years would be charged an interest rate of 13% so the 8% and 13% combined end up with about $89.00 assessment if this roadway would have bc~n~ constructed as an urban street and deferred as an urban street. (~oing back to this chart, this shows what the cost per parcel would be based on the $45.81. We used a figure for the total lineal footage of 8,032 feet. That did not take into account an assessment against the individual lots in Chan Vista 1st Addition. Those particular lots, when it was platted, the assessment was never even discussed. It wasn't put on against those properties. At this time there is no opportunity to spread it across the entire subdivision. It would go directly to those lots. Each one of those lots range from 109 or 110 lineal feet to 143 lineal feet which ends up to be a substantial assessment against the individual lot on that basis. So looking at the options, Option #1 is if we would keep those lots out and not assess those, what the assessment per property would be. Putting that into the general obligation but then also reducing all of the other property owners by that amount because we have taken that cost ar~ spread it through the whole project. So we took it out of the whole project and put it in the general obligation and reduced everybody elses assessment by $2.24 per foot. Option 92 that we looked at was to consider those three lots as part of the project and assess them as we would any of the other properties along the way on a per front footage basis, not put it into the general obligation but reduce the storm sewer cost by 50% where the city would pick up 50% of the cost and that's my understanding the current policy of the City to do such. In doing that, we would reduce the estimated cost per foot by $4.85 which would c(x~e out to be $40.96. These assessments, this total assessment reflects that $40.96 times the front footage. Option 93 that considers again leaving the three lots in and not splitting the storm sewer out, not having the City pay 50% but reducing the cost of the fill material required for the section. We're estimating that approximately 20,000 yards of material is going to be needed to fill ditches, build shoulders and the like and at the time the feasibility study was done, we knew of some existing fill in the area that the City owned but we did not apply it to this project. We let this project stand on it's own merit. As an option we could use that existing fill and consider just the cost of trucking it from the location that it's at now to the project and placement of it. In doing so, I estimated that the cost of buying and trucking the fill in would be $4.00 per cubic yard. I'm estimating that the placement of the fill and the trucking of the fill would be $2.75 per cubic yard. This again reduces the assessment per foot or the cost per foot from $45.81 down to $39.81 for approximately $6,000.00 extra. Again, that's reflected in the total assessment per property. Option 94 considers assessing only the improvement costs for 36 foot collector street versus a 44 foot minor arterial. We feel that if a subdivision would be created on both sides of the road, the nature that now exists, at some point you would need a collector street to funnel all those cars down to your main road so we considered the cost to asess only of 32 City Council ~eting - May 18, 1987 the 36 foot collector versus a 44. ~he cost per lineal foot is reduced by $11.60 per foot. It goes down to $34.14 per foot. Again, these are tt~ total assessments per property. Option %5 is a catch-all. All of the above options 1 through 4 where the costs for the individual lots in Chan Vista 1st Addition would be part of general obligation, storm sewer is reduced by 50%, the fill material would be trucked from the city owned material. We would also consider the assessment be based on a 36 foot collector versus a 44 foot minor arterial. This is basically a summary of what the cost per foot then today would be including the assessment for 1980. My original assessment proposed in our initial study was $45.81 plus the 1980 assessment of $2L~2 for a total cost per foot of $66.83. Option %1, with three lots put in the general obligation, reduces the other properties to $43.57 plus what was previously assessed at $21.02 for a total cost for that roadway would be $64.50. Option %2 the storm sewer would be coming out. Option %3 the fill material would be adjusted to reflect the city owned fill and Option %4 would be the 36 foot collector. As you can see, the original options 1, 2 and 3 all fall within that $56.00 to $89.00 range. ~he option %4 comes very close at $55.16 and when we put all the combinations together, you reduce the assessment total cost of 1980 and today to $47.69 and we felt that was kind of a good indicator that we were in the ballpark of wbere these costs should ~ Obviously these costs can all be adjusted. A combination of the alternates. It's just a matter of punching the numbers out. Selecting a method of how we want to do it ar~ then coming up with costs per foot. Mayor Hamilto~ opened up the meetir~3 to the public at this time. Rick Murray: First of all, I want to apologize. On May 4th I didn't realize the feasibility study was being heard. I don't know if that's my error or the Staff's error if it was communicated clearly so I apologize for that, I appreciat~ your forebearance prior to that and at that meeting as well. In Option %2, do you consider the curb as a part in each one. Bill Ergelhardt: No. The storm sewer... Rick Murray: You're taking it off of here? Bill Engelhardt: Yes. Rick Murray: So the catch basins are belax~] the curb and the curb is on separately. If ISn doing my arithmatic and I basically just take it off the general obligation, $135,000.00 that was previously proposed versus the options I can tell how much each of these increments are affecting? Bill Engelhardt: I guess I don't quite understand your question. Rick Murray: Option %2, the general obligation is $157,000.00. Prior on the original feasibility study was $135,000.00. The difference of $22,000.00 is 50% of the cost for storm sewer cost? Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Rick Murray: ~he storm sewer is costing $42,000.00? Carry that into the cost 33 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 of your fill, it's option 93, you're filling in and grading is roughly $ 32,000.00? Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Rick Murray: (~ 36 for the collector street, does the city normally allow driveways on 36 foot collector streets? Do they allow a builder or developer to put driveways on a 36 foot collector street... Don Ashworth: Before we get too far. Collector roadways and I'm thinking about Kerber Blvd. on the top end, there really are no lots in that whole segment that have frontage directly onto Kerber. Laredo Drive, the older section in there, before we really looked at it... Rick Murray: Let me rephrase my question. Are there collector streets in the City with driveways? DOn Ashworth: Yes, there are. Rick Murray: Tnank you. As a matter of fact, there could be a collector street in Saddlebrook that has 160 foot right-of-way through there. You show it on your State Aid, it was at one time designated. Gary Warren: That is not designated. That's ~n on there for collecting benefits, it's not a road that's shown per se. Rick Murray: Since I'm building it... I guess the project is pretty. There is no question about it. It's going to look very nice. My concern is what it does pricewise to our property. Just this past week we lost a customer of ours which does business here based on the range that I give them depending on the outcome of these hearings, he's decided that the difference in price between when he can purchase lots for in other communities versus what we were offering him for this was too great. It wasn't too great by a little bit. I can't control what my competitors sell lots for. People give their lots away all the time. We try to provide a fair product at a fair price. We've ~_n successful for a number of years. In order to do that we have to have a reasonable assessment policy in communities that we're working in. Reasonable assessment policy is based both on the benefit that is derived from our property. Hopefully it will pass on and our purchasers recognizing that there is enough value there that can be passed on and also effort. I think that way, Bill's gone through a great scenario here of five different options and the original feasibility study showing how equitable the split is. My basic question is still, where is the benefit? Originally, how did our property benefit $1,500.00 a lot by you guys widening a street, putting in boulevards and some street lights in. I didn't see that. Now, the best option is $805.00 per lot. I still don't recognize it. I can't see the value of one our lots in our Saddlebrook subdivision is increased by $805.00. If you take what I offered in the letter, Bill says that filling in the grading, roughly $30,000.00, I figured it about $35,000.00 but... Bill Engelhardt: I want to clarify that with you too so there is no midunderstanding. The $32,000.00 is the difference in cost betw~n~ the 34 57' City (k)uncil ~ting - May 18, 1987 original feasibility study estimate of $4.g0 per cubic yard for going out and purchasing the material and hauling it in ar~ using the existing fill that the city owns and bring that in. So the difference in cost is what you see as the $32,000.00. The difference betw~ $4.00 and $2.75 just so you're clear. Rick Murray: Be that as it may, we were offering to provide the fill and do the grading, prepare the right up to the curt~ We were also, I was thinking that the curb was an integral part of the storm sewer, there's got to be a reasonable number that addresses both questions, equity and benefit for a project like this. It's a very desirable project from your standpoint. I think it's going to collect a lot of the traffic is going to er~d up in your downtown business district but you've got to find a way that all the people that are coming to your downtown business district share in the cost of that project. Right now, I don't think that is being addressed or looked at. From my perspective, my garbage trucks that go to Saddlebrook can just as easily travel that rural section 9 ton design street very safely and very adequately as t~ can if there is curb ar~ gutter there to serve my project or to serve Chan Vista or Triple Crown Estates or to serve the entire west side of Lotus Lake. There's a big area in here that's not even being addressed. T~e people that use this road when it's done to get to the downtown business district. I think that area ncc~s to be looked at when you're talking about a project of this magnitude. Half a million dollars is a big project. ~hat's all I've got. Councilman G~ving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All void in favor and motiou carried. Mayor Hamilton: I've got just a couple of questions for you-Bill. I liked Option #5 the best but it didn't really include all the other four options because you left out C~an Vista Addition which could have been put in there which would reduce s~ne of the costs further. Then I was curious about, all the way through this whole project Saddlebrook Development has 4,230 linear feet that t~ are being assessed for. I would like you to show me what constitutes that 4,230 feet. Bill Engelbardt: The Saddlebrook property actually runs from, ar~ Rick you correct me if I'm wrong, is the west side of Kerber Blvd. down in' here. In the feasibility study we included this piece of property which is adjoined to the Saddlebrook but it's not necessarily a part of the development. Our understanding was that it was owned by the same owners of the Saddlebrook develola~ent. Rick Murray: Actually, it's un,er contract for deed with other owr~rship. Bill Engelhardt: ~ that portiou of the roadway right there, there's 1,400 feet, would come out of the Saddlebrook assessment and be assessed to the persc~ who now owns this piece of property. So Saddlebrook itself along Kerber Blvd. has 2,830 linear feet ar~ there is 1,400 feet on the east side of Kerber Blvd. on this piece of property right here. Mayor Hamilton: (kay, then if you look at any of the options, if you look at option #4 ar~ option %~ Option m~ u~ Ch~ vis~ 1~ Addition, there's 35 City Counci 1 Meeting - May 18, 1987 110 lineal feet, 143 and 140, that comes up to 393 lineal feet. If you include that, where does that come off of? I didn't see a change in any other numbers is what I'm saying. You added 393 feet, I didn't see another change. Gary Warren: It c(x~es out of the general obligation part. Bill Engelhardt: We put that number back into the general obligation fund. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I had thought that that part was being assessed to Saddlebrook also. Gary Warren: No. What we did was pull it out so that we could address that concern that the rest of the property owners were not carrying the burden for the Chanhassen Vista 1st Addition so we pulled it out in the first alternative to reflect just a straight issue as far as Chanhassen Vista 1st was concerned but then on each of the subsequent alternatives, they were put back in as if they would be assessed. Mayor Hamilton: On May 4th we looked at this and discussed some of these issues also and one of the things we asked about was the possibility of having an area assessment. Total community assessment. Something to help defer some of the costs of this thing to those abutting properties that really don't appear to benefit significantly but are going to paying the burden of the cost. I think probably everybody in the community drives that road and derives some benefit from it. That's an issue we've kicked around many times before but I at least asked the question last time and I didn't see anybody responding to that question. Bill Englehardt: We didn't specifically respond to that and I guess the reaso~ why is that in say Option #5 we're putting a substantial amount into the general obligation which would be a city wide expense spread to the Triple Crown or to the, I believe it's New Horizons up in here. My understanding was that those subdivisions paid to have that roadway increased to that width so it would not make any sense to spread it against these people again. It makes more sense to take it as an overall city wide obligation than spread it over the entire city. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I think my question was. Councilman Horn: They've all got that included. Don Ashworth: What we tried to do, use of State Aid monies there is a recognition that there is a general benefit to the entire community. Similarly, the general obligation portion. When we looked at those options we tried to compare those back to other streets such as Laredo. Again, that serves a much larger functional area. Mr. Murray's point that they do not benefit. The City can sustain th~ position that they do benefit. The assessment of collector streets back to adjacent property owners or to developers is not unusual. I think Mr. Murray has ~n involved with projects such as Eden Prairie for Duck Lake Trail and Dell Road where those streets were assessed back to the developers including the sidewalk. Again, I don't know if you want to, there was some other portion of that Rick. We have 36 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 looked at the reduction in the assessments here to the greatest extent possible but in doing that realize that it becomes a cost back to all of us. Rick Murray: That particular development Don you're well aware of as a project in this city as well. The project's about the same status, it's called Fox Chase. We run a building company slightly different than they do. We try to provide fair product for fair pri~- There are a lot of things that my competitors do, I don't try. We've ~ in business for 12 to 13 years. Mayor Hamilton: I have one other question and that was your comment on the fill. Oould you clarify what you said on the fill? If we used the existing fill that the City b~m available down at South Lotus Lake, if there is er~ugh there to use for this entire project would reduce the cost by $2.~0 and something per linear yard and the $2.00 or something that was remaining, what made up that cost? Bill Engelhardt: It has to be trucked from that site to this site. It has to be placed, packed ar~ built into the roadway section so the only cost reduction you would see would be in going out and purchasing the material from a supplier or gravel pit or something like that. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, isn't it possible that the city crew could carry on the distribution of that material and have it not be a part of the project? A cost that's absorbed by the City. Gary Warren: To do it effectively, I think you really ~ some good tandem trucks to truck it there. We don't have the capacity vehicles to do it efficiently. I think it would be a little bit over extension of our capabi 1 i ties. Councilman Boyt: Looking at the map and what's up by New Horizo~ ar~ Triple Crown, I gather the road is finished through there, that road was assessed back against those adjoining properties? Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: And it includes a sidewalk on one side of the road? Don Ashworth: That was not part of the assessment back at that point in time but you're correct, the project included a sidewalk similar to this project is proposed to include the sidewalk. Councilman Boyt: Make it a little easier for me to sort through these options. Which option exter~%s that same ki~ of road on down to West 78th Street? Bill Engelhardt: All of the options. Councilman Boyt: Has the school received ~otice that they are going to be billed $21,000.00? Gary Warren: They were part of the process. 37 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Street lighting. When I drive Kerber Blvd. currently, I'm not real aware of the street lighting. Is that in place up there on the upper stretch? Bill Engelhardt: No. Councilman Boyt: So we would be putting street lighting along all of Kerber Blvd. or just the southern part? Bill Engelhardt: We would go all the way up to bring continuity into it. There are a substantial number of entrances on that it may be that the street lighting is at the entrances. Toat type of thing. As you get down into the commercial district, you may have to light those at a little higher rate but I would anticipate lighting the whole stretch. Councilman Boyt: How is that going to be assessed back? Bill Englehardt: Toe street lighting is presented as a general obligation cost in all options. Councilman Boyt: I would argue that that stretch of road that hasn't ~cn made 44 feet wide is a hazard to pedestrian traffic right now and something needs to be done with it. I guess I would ask, when will there be a better time than now? Councilman Horn: How many lots are in Saddlebrook? Mayor Hamilton: 140. I think that's right isn't it Rick? Councilman Horn: I guess I'm trying to weigh the difference between the options and I think there are some people in the city that aren't going to get nearly the benefit out of this road and I would like to attempt to keep the general obligation portion of it somewhat under control. However, I do recognize that we could have developed along a regular city street and the cost would have ~.~n considerably less but I think we need some type of a compromise here so people aren't picking up the whole tab. If my calculations are right, it looks to me like the difference per lot between Options #3 and 95 is about $385.00. My support would be for option 93. Gary Warren: You have to acknowledge the property on the east side of the road. What we have lumped in here as Saddlebrook, if you take out 1,400 feet as Mr. Murray has indicated is under Contract for ~, the net of option 95 per lot using the 140 lots is about $539.00 per lot just for his 140. councilman Horn: Say that again. Gary Warren: Out of the 4,230 lineal feet that we showed on Option 95 for Saddlebrook, 1,400 of that is on ~ east side of Kerber which is under contract for ~c-~. Councilman Horn: So he loses a third of his assessment? 38 61 City Oouncil Meeting - May 18, 1987 ~ry Warren: So you pull that out a~d his net assessment will be about $54g. gg per lot. Cour~ilman Geving: But how many feet? That' s what he' s after. Councilman Horn: I was looking at the difference betw~----n 3 and 5 on a per lot basis which I came up with approximately $4gg. g0. Councilman Boyt: It would stay the same. Councilman Horn: That should stay the same on a per lot basis, the difference. Mayor Hamilton: On 3 it' s $804.73 per lot. Councilman Horn: The difference betw__---n 3 ar~ 5, probably most of these lots that are being assessed, is approximately $4ffff.ffff per lot. The difference in the general obligation is $121,~0.~0 so my vote would go for option #3. Councilman Geving: I have some comments on this. ~his is a very difficult question because if the history books were written it would show that I was one who put through this road back in the 8~'s, late 70's and it was a very difficult decision then. We should have probably done it right to begin with but we couldn't. We had some constraints. We used the maximum amount of State Aid fur~s. We wanted the least amount of burden possible on the Kerber family at the time and that's why we did not complete the road the way it could have ~_n done. We I think should keep the general obligation portion of this project to the minimum and to look at some of the later options showing a general obligation of $288,~0.~ is way out of line with what I'm thinking because I think even though many people do benefit from that road, there are a lot of other people throughout the whole community that will r~ver use it to a great extent and they should not be obligated to pay for it. ~hen too, we have a matter of consistency. I believe that we always stay out of court and stay out of problems when we are consistent and we have tried to be very consistent with our assessment policy based upon benefit. I think in this project we can show benefit to the developer and to the property owners along Kerber Drive. ISa convinced of that. That there is a benefit. I also believe that we should assess the three property owners that weren't included in the Chan Vista project, I don't know how that was missecL I don't know why it was missed. I know that those people who bought those three lots are going to be very unhappy if they are assesse~L Moved into that new house within the last couple months. That's going to be a tough one to explain to them but I think to be consistent I would certainly recommend that. I do believe that we should use the fill materials wherever they are available to us to reduce the overall cost of this project. Whether we use our own force which I don't think we can. I don't think we're capable of doing that but if we can reduce the overall cost by using fill material, I believe we shoulcL I think that if we put the sidewalk in at all, it should be on the east side. On the north end of the project, the sidewalk was put in on the east side. Now we're switching and going across the road ar~ putting in the sidewalk all the way back down to West 78th Street. That doesn't make a lot of sense and I 39 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 don't know where that proposal came frown. Does anybody know? Bill Engelhardt: The reason we looked at putting it on the west side, because of the terrain on the east side. Tbs terrain is very, very difficult and very steep in certain areas. Councilman Geving: For a sidewalk, what's the difference? Bill Engelhardt: I think what is going to happen is that in order to build that sidewalk and that walkway in that area, it's going to go way down below the hill and you're probably going to tend to have your kids not take that dip down the hill. ~hey are going to stay on the road and jump the curb and stay on tbe road. Councilman Geving: Now they're going to have to go across the road. Bill Engelhardt: We considered that and to minimize the number of crossings and to people, the movement that we looked at was getting to the school. That was our main priority and we felt that if we put it on the west side, having them cross at one point down to the west side, put it all along the west side but than in addition to that, at the Chan Vista 1st Addition entrance, bring that along the east side and bring that up into the school and then as a part of this, the school would be building some interior paths themselves and they would be running through this property to the north to pick up some of their kids and we would have good continuity and good pedestrian flow for the area and not have them going down the ravine and have a very difficult situation for the pedestrian traffic in certain areas. Councilman Geving: There probaby is good logic for your explanation. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. I walk that every night. Gary Warren: Part of it too has to do with the internal trail system within Saddlebrook also. There are additional trails that cut through Saddlebrook and then trails provided on the west side. The Park and Rec, that was their recomnendations. Councilman Geving: The other thing on this project is that the policy mentioned in Option 92, I think we have to stay with that policy. If that's our current city policy of reducing the storm sewer by 50%, I think we need to throw that option in there just to be consistent with our overall policies and how we assess this project. So those are seven of my thoughts on this. That is, let's be consistent. Keep the general obligation portion to the minimum. We can sustain the benefit to the developer I believe in the a court of law. I can now see some of the logic in the sidewalk issue. I believe we should assess the three lots of Chan Vista. We should use the fill materials and we should use the policy of 50% on storm sewers. I thought I had one more comment. I guess it bothers me a lot as a citizen and as a taxpayer and as councilman protecting the rights of all other people in the City as constituents, is to keep that general obligation figure around $150,000.00 amount. I see that in option 92 we're up to $157,000.00. $167,000.00 I can live with that but then we go all the way to $215,000.00 in Option 94 and $288,000.00 in option 95 and I can't live with either option 94 or #5 on that 40 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 basis. That's the extent of my comments Mr. Mayor. Councilman Johnson: If there was anyway to continue that sidewalk on the east side, that's the way to go. To make the kids cross Kerber Bl~d. twice to get to school is the most ridiculous thing. Is there anyway to shift the road slightly to the west without going down in the valley? Bill E~gelhardt: What we could look at is not having any separation at all between say the back of the curb and the walkway. Put it right on top and maybe narrowing it down and getting some type of walkway and see if we can't get in there. I can't promise you that we can but it's something we can look at. Councilman Johnson: To be truthful with you, when I go to walk that area or last year jog it, I run on the east side. It's a prettier side in the first place. It's a prettier walk because you're walking over the top of the pond ar~ the park. It makes sense to have a park trail through the east side and down to the pass through that they are going to have underneath there. I've never seen any logic to having the park path on the west side of the street. It starts nowhere and goes nowhere. I think we have to look at that. I personally am against going after the three homeowners in Chan Vist~u If we had spread this against all of the 1st Addition, it would have gone after the 32 lots that are in the 1st Addition and being spread across th~ 32 lots would be $500.00 or something a lot. But to nail these people for $5,0~0.00 to have their lot back up to a street, I can't see the benefit. I don't see how we could show any benefit to these three homeowners that their lots back up. TO a full subdivision I can see the benefit but to these three homeowners, that's awful tough I think. (bviously these three homeowners since they've only moved in the last few weeks probably have not ~ involved at all ar~ would be in for one shock. Is what Dale was saying here, the storm sewer reduction, is that done uniformally throughout the city to reduce this by 5~% as shown in Option %2? Don Ashworth: E~ery case that I'm aware of that is true. Councilman Johnson: The~ in Option %3, I believe is moving the dirt. What's the increase in general obligation in O~tion %3? Why do we have an increase there in general obligation if we're moving the dirt? C~ry Warren: ~hat's the increment of the cost of the fill basically. ~he retail increment of us using our fill versus us having to buy it retail. Councilman Johnson: Why did the general obligation go up? Bill Er~3elhardt: I think I see what you're saying. If we don't have to go out and purchase it, that nobody is going to spend any dollars on it so that should cc~e out of the general obligation. You're right. Councilman Johnson: The general obligation did increase. ~hat's why I'm wonder lng why? Gary Warren: We're saying we can get it cheaper so there wouldn't be that 41 64. City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 added expense to the project. Basically the total project cost would come down. Bill Engelhardt: So the general obligation will come down from that amount. Councilman Johnson: I see where the total project cost stayed the same. I see so the total project cost should have been reduced. Option ~3 adds nothing to general obligatior~ Option #2 adds some and I think Option #2 is fair since that's done everyplace else and I'm for Option %1 also so what I would like to see is a combination of Options 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Geving: What changes would you make? Councilman Horn: I think they all build from Option #1. Councilman Johnson: No they don't. Each one of them is separate. They do not add on each other. Don Ashworth: Except 5. Councilman Johnson: Option 5 includes options 1, 2, 3 and 4 but Option 4 does not include Option 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Horn: Option 3 includes 2 plus the fill doesn't it? Councilman Johnson: No it doesn't. Bill Engelhardt: They all stand on their own. Councilman Johnson: Option 3 does not have anything to do with Option 2 or Option 1. Councilman Boyt: What are the possibilities of doing a little number guesstimation here and saying if we took the Chan Vista Addition which I gather is number 1 and took the three lots out and added that to Lots 2 and 3 so we have Chan Vista lots, those three specific lots out of there with 50% sewer reduction and if we used the fill. Any guesses on what the general obligation total is going to look like there? Bill Engelhardt: It would bring your general obligation up to about $176,000.00. Councilman Boyt: What happens if we take Rick's possible using his fill and his spreaders and put that in? Does that effect our general obligation at all? Bill Engelhardt: That's very difficult to do because to get continuity of the project when you've got one contractor building a road and another contractor bringing the fill, to try to coordinate those two contractors on who compacted what and who did what and when and where is very difficult. You would almost have to keep those separate. 42 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 CDuncilman Boyt: But we're talking about the City being able to do that. Bill Engelhardt: No we're talkir~ about the City furnishing the fill material. We have about 30,000 yards of material over o~ the South Lotus Lake Park. We would instruct the contractor that that fill is available to him at no cost and it would be his responsibility to bid in his bid to truck it, place it and compact it. Councilman Boyt: Jay, we were talking here so one other point I would like to add that Clark worked out I think, It might be reaso~hle to assess ~ Chan Vista 1st Addition lots that are directly on the road. Was it $800.00 a lot? Chan Vista, Lot 1, 4 and 14. $800.00 per lot which would be about the same rate that the Saddlebrook would be assessed at. As much as I hate to see it, they should probably bear some of the brunt of this. Mayor Hamilton: Would you go through again what your scemario is for the assessment? You came up with a ~. Councilman Boyt: I think we came up with a number of $176,000.00 roughly on the general obligation ar~ that was takin~ the three Chan Vista lots out of it, doing the 50% sewer reduction and we make the dirt available so I think it's the best par~s of the first three options. I was suggesting as an afterthough something in the neighborhood of $800.00 a lot be assessed to those three Chan Vista lots because that's on a par with what's happened to comparable lots. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a question on the general obligationur~er 1 is $153,000.00. On 2 we are going to assess the three lots in Chart Vist~u The amount of that is $13,417.00 but yet the general obligation only we~t up $4,000.00. It should go down. Councilman Boyt: No, because you added the storm sewer. Councilman Johnson: You took $22,000.00 added to general obligation for storm Mayor Hamilton: We're all kind of pulling figures out of the air here as to where we think the general obligation ought to be a~d I guess I don't have a problem with going up as high as $200,000.00 and I would like to see us stick with Option ~2 where we off-set 50% of the storm sewer cost. As much as I think the three lots in Chan Vista ought to be assessed, I just have a hard time doing that. That's a big assessment against them and I guess I wouldn't have a problem putting those into the geoeral obligation if we had to. That's a pretty big blow to some new residents that we screwed up o~. So whatever option we end up at should be included in the general obligation I think. Bill had a good idea too, whatever number we finally e~d up at, we assess the lineal feet. Determine what Saddlebrook's going to pay and assess them on the same per lot basis that would probably be a fair assessment, We would recover some of costs anyway but I'm in favor of moving the ger~_ral obligation amount up as high as we can possibly go and making this as fair as possible to everybody. 43 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Geving: I think we've kind of come around to my assessment of where we're at. I think we shouldn't try to zero in on dollars at this point. It's just too confusing because the dollars keep shifting and look at just major policies. Let's go with th~ major policy on 50% reduction for the storm sewer cost and pick that up as a general obligation cost. Let's go with the idea of using the city fill as another policy type thing major item and reduce the overall cost of the project by that amount. Tairdly, I believe that we should not and I've changed my thinking on this because I believe it would not be fair, I think we should not assess the three property owners in Chan Vista for the total amount of the assessed project cost here shown on all the options here but do it as several councilmembers have suggested. Take the approximate amount that we're going to charge to each of the lots in Saddlebrook and charge that back against these three lots. With that in mind, I would say then this falls into what I see as option #3 as being the one that most generally fits what I have heard at the table here tonight in the general categories of keeping the total amount of the general obligation amount reasonable and at the same time doing this project fairly and consistently. I think we can sustain any amount of assessments against any of the developers or owners of the lots with t_he policies under Option ~3. Councilman Johnson: On Chan Vista, those three houses, if we had done this previously, then all 32 houses within there would have ~-~cn assessed because the developer would have ~ assessed and it would have ~n spread amoung the 32. What I suggest is that we take the assessment that would go to the three, divide it by the 32 and charge those three houses their share of it. That would be less than Saddlebrook. It's a different type development. We're talking your minimal PUD development here. I think this is what they would have been assessed. Otherwise, we are penalizing these three homeowners for a mistake. Don Ashworth: We'll bring back the numbers as they would apply to Chan Vista 2nd, Saddlebrook and this one. I think the $800.00 will come in about the same for all of them. Councilman Johnson: Dale, you're not going to look at it both ways? Councilman Geving: No, I'm not going to amend my motion? Councilman Johnson: So you don't want to look at it both ways? Councilman Geving: I think what we're trying to do here, this could be consistent and fair the way it's being proposed and not look at what could happen with Chan Vista. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to choose Option 93 as modified with the policy to offset 50% of storm sewer costs, the total reduction of the Chan Vista 1st Addition, remove the three lots out, and include those amounts back into the general obligation, and also, the substitution of city owned dirt to use as fill material to reduce the overall cost of the project cost. The amount charged back to those three Chan Vista 44 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 1st Additio~ lots would be the same amount that each of the lots in Saddlebrook would be assessed. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamiltc~ stated that be would like to vote o~ the concept of the motion amd to ask Staff to bring back the r~mbers based on the motion on the next agenda for Thursday, May 28th. APPROVAL OF AO2OUNTS: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated May 18, 1987 for check numbers g28220 through 028225 in the amount of $624.49; check mmabers 030744 through 030790 in the amount of $818,566.90; check numbers 028226 through 028343 in the amount of $616,433.86 for a total of 171 checks for a total amount of $1,435,625.25. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~IL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Geving wanted to discuss conflicts and relationships. He stated it was regarding Westside Baptist Church and be wanted to discuss it if the issue wasn't resolved during the visitor's Presentation. Councilman ~eving stated that Mayor Hamilto~ hit it right on the heacL The Council doesn't ever want to see a letter addressed to a citizen, a group or a business that doesn't come before the manager's eyes and be has a chance to see it or if really bad, come before the Council for consideration. Mayor Hamilton wanted to publicly thank the Chanhassen Fire Department for their quick response and very good job the other night when be had a chance to call then~ He wanted to thank them for the prompt ar~ professional service that he received. UPDATE ON SPRINKLIN(; BAN, CITY E~GI~. Gary Warron: As you're aware, last Monday Council approved going into a sprinkling ban recoginizing the problems we were having in keeping up with demar~ and particularly o~ our Well $2 in the downtown are~ Since the ban I guess first of all I would like to recognize that the citizens have been cooperating with us to a large extent ar~ we are seeing the results of that. We have been able to basically rest Well $2 since a week ago and we have been pumping very little out of it and we have ~ the ground water table has recovered to what would be reasonable level for this time of year. We mailed note cards out to everybody last Thursday so everybody s/~ould be up to' spccd and I think we have almost 30 hardship permits for people who have already purchased sod and this and that so I don't think we're in a luxury position by any means where we can go completely to no ban at all but I think that we're at the point here where there are some alternatives available to us that I would be willing to recommend. If you would like to e~tertain that. What I'm thinking is a lot of communities have ~ using the odd and even sprinkling system. It's pretty reasonably to enforce. People basically can keep track of the date and if their address is odd and the day is odd they c~n sprinkle. 45 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 It basically cuts down our demand in half because you have half the system roughly that's allowed to sprinkle. In addition to that, one contingency would be to restrict that useage from say 8:00 in the morning to maybe 2:00 in the afternoon. On the day you can sprinkle, you can only sprinkle during that six hour period. That keeps them away from the real peak demand periods which typically are evening hours from say 4:00 in the afternoon until 11:00. With that, I think our system would be able to keep up with the demand and We would be okay. Mayor Hamilton: How much did the well come up? Gary Warren: We were below 180 feet ar~ now we're up as of yesterday when I checked it about 130 feet which is where it should be so it's come back. It's just a matter of when we keep pumping it as we did that Saturday, it just doesn't have enough time to recycle and recharge. We can rely on the most part now c~ the Lake Susan Well ~4 as the primary well so it's given Well 92 a chance to come back. Councilman Horn: Was there any permanent damage to the pumping system? You said it was running hot ar~ capitating. Gary Warren: It's hard to say. Jerry wasn't sure how long it has been operating that way. When I compared the well pumpage average rates for that day, it looked pretty comparable to what the wells rated at so it didn't look like it had ~ happening for a very long time. It could have happened that the well just broke suction and had been a very temporary situation so there is no discernable damage that we've been able to identify. We'll know more when we put it back on line as a primary well where it's pumping more through the day, we'll be able to tell better then. Councilman Boyt: Gary, let's suppose that we're going to continue to have a continued dry spell, what sort of ability does this odd/even give us to keep up with demand? Gary Warren: Basicallay it cuts that peak in half. A week ago Saturday when we had our peak situation, we pumped 2.3 million gallons of water that day versus maybe 500,000 or 600,000 gallons so you would have some increased usage because in general when a person gets a chance to water they may terzt to put more on but I think it would really knock the peak off almost in half of what you would normally see. Councilman Boyt: So our problem really is peak demand? It's not that the water isn't there, it's that the volume isn't there? Gary Warren: With any water system that is designed, our system here for example, when we had the comprehensive water system study done, your pumping capacity, you try to have your pumping capacity to meet your 90% of your maximum day within a 16 hour period ar~t that's a one day so when you get a series of days like we've been having where you're drawing on your storage capabilities, even if you had a 1.5 million gallon tank on line, if you're not able to keep up with the rate, you're eventually going to use it up. Here, where we have compounded problems without that extra storage, the wells 46 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 themselves and what we saw on %2, it can only provide so much water at such a rate so we saw that it was just excessive because it was such an extended period of time. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us consider going to an odd/ever without a time barrier, lb concerned that people are going to be awfully t~mpted to turn the sprinkler on when they go to work and catch it when they come home or is it more a volume matter that we would be adding lawn sprinkling on to~ of all the others? Gary Warren: Our peak demand historically is in the evening hours when everybody is home from work eating and lawn sprinkling and those things so we would really like to stay away from the 6:0~ to midnight or 4:~0 to midnight hours whs~ w~ would be allowing it. Councilman Horn: I would rather use the odd/eve~ because I think the time method is really a detriment to the people that both work. Gary Warren: We' re talking about both. Councilman Horn: So odd/even betwee~ certain hours. C~ry Warren: Typically, all of your lawn people will tell you that that's the best time to water anyway. Councilman Horn: Does that go for car washing too? Gary Warren: The ban was strictly for lawn sprinkling. Councilman Horn: I thought our ordinance included car washing. Gary Warren: Our ordinance provides that a ban can be put in place for uses such as lawn sprinkling, gardening, car washing but-the resolution we prepared for approval was strictly to address lawn sprinkling which is the biggest. Councilman Johnson: I agree that the two family members working won't have a chance to water at all ar~ a lot of people have a lot of pride in their lawns and would like to maintain their lawns. I see a problem restricting it until only 2:~ in the afternoon. I would like to figure out a better way there. The other problem I saw was the note we sent out. I equate the note that was sent out to the same note that was sent to the churcl~ I did not like it. I think we would have gotten the exact same response with a very nice note going out. Not threatening people that we're going to shut off their water in the second time they violate it. I thought that was exactly the same as the note to the church. In fact I got several comments from people saying, what is this? The unsigned note too. If somebody is going to write me a note like that, I want a signature on here to know who to call and talk to. Councilman Horn: I know people who were watering their lawns at night until they heard about the note. Councilman Geving: It seems to me when we see thoes Jay, I would always like 47 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 to see the Mayor sign those. I do feel an official signing is pretty important. Gary Warren: Tnings came together in quite a hurry, not that that's an excuse. Councilman Boyt: Would it be appropriate to make a motion that we continue the ban on an every other day basis and not put the hours in there? What's the feeling on that? Councilman Geving: I think that's fine. It's up to Gary though. He's the guy that's advising us here. Gary Warren: I think maybe a middle ground might be to allow sprinkling from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night. That way people going to work can turn it on and come home and shut it off on the odd/even days but to stay away from our evening hours. That's the only period that the system has a chance to re-supply the reservoirs and to really get a buffer that you r~ to get into the next days d~nand. Councilman Johnson: So eliminating one day in the week and saying 6 days of the week we can water and one day we can't, that won't give you any advantage? Councilman Horn: Besides that, nobody leaves their sprinkler sitting for many hours in one spot. Would you let your water run all day in one spot? Councilman Bolt: We're talking about recharging the system, what about the possibility of saying s~mething like from noon until 8:00 or 9:00? Noon until dark. Gary Warren: That's acceptable to me as long as, noon until dark gets until 9:00 right now. 6:00 until 9:00 is a tough time. Councilman Bolt: But then you have until noon the next day. I'm just bouncing it off you. I'm willing to let you call the shots. If the spit runs dry your phone is going to ring too. Mayor Hamilton: What's your recommendation Gary? Gary Warren: My recommendation would be that we go odd/even and that we restrict the hours of usage from 6: 00 a.m. until 6: 00 p.m.. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a possibility that we would want to eliminate sprinkling on weekends? That's when the worse time is or have them sprinkling only on Saturday or only on Sunday? Would that help the systom? Gary Warren: I think with the even/odd we'll be cutting the peak in half basically so I think we would be alright. I think we also want to see some consistency that we can give to our enforcement people so they don't have to keep track of too many alternatives so I would try to keep it as simple as possible and keep it at even and odd from 6:00 to 6:00. 48 ?! City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Resolution 987-49: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize a sprinkling ban restricting lawn sprinkling to odd/even days from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.. All voted in favor and motion carried. PARK NR~DS SURVEY RESULTS, PAT PFAHL. Pat Pfahl: Thanks for inviting me here tonight. Did everybody get a c~py of the survey? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, w~ all got a copy. Pat Pfahl: Were there any questions on it specifically? Why don't I just run through it first theD. The purpose of the study obviously was to determine the specific ~s of the local community and their expectations of the City's park ar~ recreation syste~u The method we used was a telephone survey. It took approximatey 7 minutes to do each survey. Maybe more deper~ing on who did it. There were a variety of people cor~ucting this survey. About 14 people took part in phoning so depending on who was calling, the number varied fr~m about, I could do one in 5 minutes if I didn't answer any questions that they had. Do we have any fishing docks? I would say, I~ not sure and if they answered the question it would go maybe to 2~ minutes even. We interviewed 219 households of the 1,49~ listed in the 1986 Directory. ~he survey was specifically designed to touch on sc~e certain topics including household and personal information. ~hat was for validity and reliability testing. Then specifically on the facilities program, on indoor recreational community center, funding and a trail network. Some of the conclusions. Household and personal infoxmatioD. I was real satisfied with the information that we got on the household and personal information. Like I said just a minute ago it was for validity reasons. It was to go back and check and make sure we were touching on a representative sample of the population. Councilman Horn: The one thing that threw me off was the comment on what city do you work in and 28% of them work in Chanhasse~. I found that quite difficult to believe that that was representative of the people who live here. Pat Pfahl: The question dealt with the person we were talking to specifically. Councilman Horn: So a housewife w~uld say she w~rks in Chanhassen. Pat Pfahl: Or wouldn't answer. The ones in o~ were just a Variety of different places or just a no reslx;nse. I think I just threw out a lot of thsm that were one respon~ Someone works in Brooklyn Center or whatu=ver, just a single response, it would have gone down the page. I think there was a total of like 23 different areas represented so we just for space sake, threw out a bunch of them. We were talking about personal information on the individual interviewees. 85% of the people lived in single family dwellings. I think that's pretty represenative of the city. There aren't too many multi- unit housirg facilities. We got a slightly different figure than a 1985 estimate which were the ones that I could find available on Chanhassen for the amount of people per householcL That was 2.86~ We've got 3.12 in the survey. 49 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 The amount of people per household. Males per females, people surveyed was very close. I believe it was 47% men and 53% women. Very close. Basically we were very satisfied that household and personal information. Moving into kind of the meat of the survey was the facilities. If you flip to the actual analysis in the back of the report when we talk about facilities, on the far right side, the question was asked on facilities. Do you think there are too many, just enough or too few. They are organized in the too few colume in the far right going dowru That's not necessarily the order it was asked in so if you have a question on maybe some bias on the order that the question was asked in, you can refer to the actual survey in the back. That was the results that we came up with. You'll notice the top seven over 50% dealt a lot with the trail network system which was kind of an interesting result. The survey was designed that way that we would through this question touch on a variety of areas. One, the trail system. Two, primarily the facilities thent he trail system within and also the community center within. You'll notice some of the facilities could be included within the recreational facility. Are there any questions dealing with the facilities? Councilman Horn: I thought it was kind of interesting that so many people thought that we had too few fishing docks but too many boat launches. Councilman Geving: What was meant by open air shelters. What kind of facility are you thinking of there? Pat Pfahl: How I explained and how I tried to get across to the people doing the survey was an open air shelter is like, in a park it's a shelter where you can picnic urger. Something like a pavillion. A sheltered picnic area. Councilman Geving: So you feel that anything from 1 through 7 is fairly relevant in terms of this facility survey? All of the other items, 8 and beyond kind of fall out as less important? Pat Pfahl: No, definitely not less important. Tnose are the ones that I felt were, over 50% of the people responded that there were definitely too few. When you are talking about planning for a facility, not to disregard something like racquetball courts were 47% of the people felt there should be more. Mayor Hamilton: I thought it was interesting on ice arena for instance. You've got 40% felt there were too few and if you go to the next question down, indoor skating, 50% would participate if there was one and there is currently 54% participating. That didn't sea~ to jive. Councilman Geving: I thought youth hockey would rank a lot higher. Councilman Horn: What I'm wondering is if people didn't equate ice arena as a term more to hockey whereas down here, the indoor skating they referred to as something else like open skating. Pat Pfahl: Referring to your questions now, 54% of the people said they currently use an indoor skating facility and referring up to the top, ice arena that we were talking about, 58% said there was just enough so those are the two numbers we're probably considering there. How many are using 50 73 City Council Meeting -may 18, 1987 currently and how many think there is just e~ough because they are currently using one. Mayor Hamilton: Your indoor skaing and ice arena didn't specifically mean hockey I pres~e? Is that correct? Pat Pfahl: No. ~hey were asked independently. Indoor skating, ice arena or how ever they perceived it. Councilman Geving: So figure skaters and people like that were probably looking at the indoor skating, that w~uld be the interest. Pat Pfahl: When the question was asked, if you refer to the back dealing with facilities, we asked ~ whe~ there was too many, just enough or too few adequate facilities of that kind convenient to you and please answer for your household. Consider everyone in your household. Whether you have young children or whoever. Not just hockey players or whatever. Councilman Horn: Interesting anomalies on this too and I guess my question, this is in the programs and participatioru Do you feel that what people do participate in currently has more validity t/m~n what they would like to participate in or isn't there one more valid than the other? The reason I mention that, I looked at some interesting anomalies thez~ For instanoe, the people who do participate in soccer were 45% and those who would like to were 78% but if you go one above it, people that do participate in indoor tennis were 28% but would like to are 92%. Councilman Johnson: ~his center column on this one chart here where you've got the center percent and programs, I got looking at that ar~ I got confused amd finally figured out what you did and as far as I'm concerned, you can throw the column away because the percents don't make any sense. To o0me up with the percents you've got, what you did was take the number of people that were not currently using it or no, the differenoe between the yes's who are currently using it, so on the top open swimming, 85 people are currently using it amd 144 would in the future which leaves 59 then you divided it by 144 plus 85 which is more people than answered the survey and you said that was the percent increase. It should have bc~n divided by 219 if you wanted the percent increase. Because you are actually dividing it by a number that was larger than the total number in the survey so mathematically you~e got an error there. The one thing I did, I ranked it by the number of people who would increase their usage and indoor skating was number one. You had increase of 71 people so that's the number one increase. That should be the highest percentage in that row. That's why I was confused. Councilman Horn: Followed closely by indoor tennis. Councilman Johnson: No, number two was aerobics. 65 people increased and number 3 was indoor tennis at 64. Beal close. Not much difference, l~ur was tennis leagues and I forgot what LSN was. Pat Pfahl: Lessons. 51 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Five was open swimming. Six was indoor running and track. I think this shows what people want in the town. Mike Lynch: There's a question that she penciled in there Jay about baseball should be basketball. councilman Johnson: Okay, that' s tied for llth, 12th and 13th. Councilman Horn: I guess my question had to do with what you found true in surveys is more of a survey technique question. Which is more indicative of what people really want. What they say t~ want or what they actually do? Pat Pfahl: The logic behind asking them what they would say they would want and are they actually doing it today was trying to kind of validify what they were saying. Whether they were just saying they would because as we were going through and entering the data, a lot of people said they would do a lot of stuff and if you look at if they are currently doing it a lot of them weren't so by looking at the two figures, we kind of get an idea of what's happening there. Probably the most important one there that we want to look at is, would your household participate in, would they if it was available? Are you currently? And the logic behind that middle section was that you could see the percentage of increase of people. councilman Johnson: Another thing, I got looking at this and youth athletics don't score very high but then 22% of the people didn't have any chilren in the house and a lot of the youth athletics are in a very narrow margin. Tne Little League is an example of 4th through 7th grade or something so it's a very narrow margin of people who would even qualify for it so it doesn't really show the importance of Little League to the people that want it. Would you use it? Some people down the block have four girls and none of the girls play baseball and they said no. Mayor Hamilton: I think it' s helpful. Pat Pfahl: It's designed to be a tool for the planning of the Park's Department. Some of the things are offered ~ some of them aren't even offered in this City. It was designed to maybe uncover some of those. Also, they weren't asked on the programs or the facilities whether it was in the city specifically. Are you using that type of facility or program anywhere? councilman Johnson: I thought it was a very good survey. Mike Lynch: I would like to take a minute to point out a few things that the Commission wanted to pass along. Pat mentioned a couple of them. Of the facilities under II Facilities, numbers 1, 2, 6 and 7 all had to do with trails. All or over 50% so it's the first and second priority and the sixth and seventh. If you will note on the next page, under IV Funding, the top item represented by 65% of the people asking for more funding is improvement of enlargement of trail network so funding for trails amd interest in trails scored far above what really existed. We had seen some interest. The V Community Center, the interest was overwhelming. In fact from the one survey I did, I don't know where the 47 came from that didn't want it. I didn't have 52 City Council M~e_~ting - May 18, 1987 one person I called, they said oh yes, that's great. ~he popularity of Lake Ant6 Frequency of park used was interesting. It would appear that that gets used a great deal more than the r~ighborhood parks. Councilman Geving: What does that tell you though as the Chairman of the Park and Bec? Mike Lynch: The one thing that we've suspected for a long time is that the neighborhood parks have a limited effectiveness based o~ their availability to the entire neighborhood. People will not go more than 2 or 3 blocks generally without getting into a car and going there ar~ if they are going to get in the car to go there, go to Lake Ann. Councilman Johnson: One thing I think may have happened here, when people thought of parks they probably didn't think of the City Hall Park. I know there are a lot more people out there that utilize that park. We're thinking big. When I thought about it and I said Lake Ann when I got called. Mike Lynch: Some people who do have access to a neighborhood park might still say Lake Ann if they fell into that youth category. They are going to be up there all sumuer. Councilman Johnson: I didn't even think of the City Hall Park is what I'm saying. What I thought of was the Regional Park. In fact that was my first answer but they wouldn't let me answer it. The County Begional Park out there so I said, okay, Lake Ann but the truth is, we use City Hall Park mor~ I think there might have people who just w~re thinking big. Mike Lyre. h: It might be a question perspective but that's good to know too. Where they focus in on. The last thing we were surprised about and wanted to point out was the degree of car~idness that we ran into when we discussed funding. I looked at that last question that Pat put in there, would you like to have user fees, increased taxes, reduced services and I thought oh boy. Either that's going to put ear plugs in for that but it was amazing the number of people who said, yes increase taxes. That's the kir~ of thing the whole community ~s and yes, we can have users fees. A lot of them might be started pigeon holing things when you got to how are you going to pay for it? They would say, oh yes, parks and stuff, great, increase taxes. Now, a community center, that's more of a user fee kind of deal because we use that park and parks cost more money to run than to run than other parks but there was some interest ther~ There wasn't, are you kidding. No way. There wasn't any of that. At least I didn't get any. ~hat was interesting. There was one thing that Pat point out that we looked at, there was a report done by Grant Scholen recently that number 2, list of sources used in the back, fees ar~ charges in Regional Recreational Open Space System, Metropolitan Council put a lot of stuff together that we've been talking about trying to collect. We wanted to go through that too ar~ that would have a bearing on some of these future projects. I think how we would want to try and finance them but a worthwhile survey. We got a lot of direction out of it. I think it will do a lot of good for some time to o0me. 53 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1987 Pat Pfahl: I think one of the big things that I came across when I was individually doing s~ne of the calling was that the people that we talked to responded real well. In fact, most of the people I personally surveyed thanked me for calling them. Were real pleased to do the survey. I think it brought the people we talked to and made them aware of what was going on and it gave them a voice in what was going on and they really appreciated it. I had a real good feeling after sitting there and calling. Councilman Johnson: Several people mentioned it to me that they liked it and they had been called. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.. Sukmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Olmheim 54