The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 06 15151 ' CHANHASSEN CITY OOUNClL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. Tg~ meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd (~_rhardt, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Ols~n and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Johns(~ to delete i~em 12(c). All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent Ager~a its~s pursuant to the City Manager's reco~m~ations: ae Set Special City Council Meeting Date. 3-'?...~-'...')~,.*,~ ~ ] ~. Conditional Use Permit Request for a Tennis Court Fence, 1~36~ Heidi Lane, Patrick Prendergast. Ce Request to subdivide L06 Acres into two single family lots, Lot 1, Block 2, Cedar Crest, Roberta Buchheit. d. Review Facia Plans ar~ Signs for Retail West, CHADOA. he Resolution %87-52: Approval of Plans and Specificatior~ and Authorize Advertising for Bids, Ground Storage Reservoir. i. Resolution %87-53: Award of Bids, 1987 Street Sealcoating Program. j. Approval of Development Contract for Pheasant Hill 4th Addition. 1. City Council Minutes dated May 28, 1987. City Council Minutes dated June 1, 1987. Planning Oannissio~ Minutes dated May 27, 1987. Public Safety Ommnission Minutes dated June 4, 1987. mo Resolutions Ordering Resolution %87-54 for the North Lotus Lake Improvement Project and Resolution %87-55 West Village Heights n. Approval of Trail Easement in Piper Ridge. All voted in favor am] motio~ carried. VISITORS PRES~ATI~: Frank Patterson: I would like to bring up the issue of parking down at Carver Beach. This came up back about 1982 and it was a real problem and I have a letter to substantiate this. I would like to present that to you. City Council Meeting- June 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: So you would just like to see us rediscuss the parking issue at Carver Beach? Frank Patterson: Yes, we definitely would. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. We won't review it tonight Frank but we will have it on a future agenda so you can come and give us your views. Mrs. Elizabeth LeTendre asked if the residents would be contacted about the meeting. Don Ashworth stated that the residents would be notified. AP~ARD OF BIDS DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP~ PROJECT: A. 1987 BONDS. Andy Merry: Before we jump into the bids I would like to take just a minute and kind of show you where the market has been in the last couple months. It's bc~n_ about a month or so since I was here last and we set the bond sale date for tonight. If you look over towards the far right side with the 1987 bond buyer's index rate and the prime rate, you can see that from the beginning of the year rates have pretty much escalated up until about 3 or 4 weeks ago at which time the yield curve began to flatten out and rates have begun to creep back down. You notice they go up fairly quickly and they are a little bit slower to come back down but rates have begun to turn a little bit to the advantage of the borrowers again. In other words, the yields aren't quite as great for issuers and investors. The bonds were again submitted for credit rating with Moody's Investors Service in New York. We were very fortunate that the Senior Analyst that rates Minnesota units of local government was available for an on-site visit to the city of Chanhassen here. One of my associates and Don and Todd spent the better part of six hours or seven hours visiting, and Tom, visiting with the analyst going through numerous cash flows, documents, etc.. The analyst then went for a helicopter ride and kind of got a birds eye view of Chanhassen. It's various developments and subdivisions and the growth and the commercial and industrial tax base and your tax increment districts and frankly, he left here with a fairly different picture of Chanhassen than with what he came with. Chanhassen presents a different story when you can see it. You can visit with Don and Tom and have a hands on experience with the City as opposed to looking at the numbers on a very analytical way in the offical statement. Moody's came back and reconfirmed the rating of BAA which is an investment grade rating and they did indicate and they offered it, we didn't ask for it, but they did say that there are signs of vast improvement. The financial position of this city has improved materially over the last 3 to 5 years and he said he doesn't think it inconceivable that Chanhass~ is poised for an upgrade in rating at some future day. An upgrade could be BAA1 from BAA or it could into the A category. In any event, I thought we were well received by the people from Mood, s and Don did just a great job with the interview. I also applied once again to MBIA Insurance to have the bonds qualified for their insurance program, their assurety program. What MBIA is, it provides a credit enhancement to the bonds such that in tt~ event of a default the surety company will continue to make payments on a timely basis of principal and interest to the bond holders. We did a refunding deal in 1983 using MBIA 153 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 coverage. The bonds Iast summer were qualified for MBIA as they were again this year. I also contacted another insurance company called FGIC which is Financial Guarantee Insurance Company and they too qualify the citlfs bonds for AAA insurance coverage. The premiums payable for their coverage would not be an expense born by the City but rather an expense born by the underwriters. If the underwriters biddirg on your bonds decided that they wanted to take advantage of the credit enhancement opportunity. ~he market this week, in Minnesota at least, is heavy with small issues selling. It's fairly light however, with the larger issues selling. Fergus Falls, Hastings, Wadena County sold bonds today. The largest issues which were approximately 2 million dollars and the bonds were rated A in each case and had bids, the Wadena bor~ was a 5 year bond at 5 1/2%.' There were also long bonds going out to about the year 2006 that went out to about 6 3/4% so the market was light. Chanhass~n was ~ spotlight issue for not only the Minnesota market but the regional market this week. We were fortunate to be able to generate interest, not only in the local investment community. Again, we have just about all, there are only about three firms missing from the bids locallly on all three of your bond issues. There are two significant accounts in the Twin Cities all of whom merged into, the two historical accounts merged into a large single account for purposes of underwriting 8 1/2 million dollars of the city's municipal bonds. As you can see, just about everybody here under the account managed by Norwest Investment Services is indeed represented. The underwriters had the option of taking advantage of either MBIA or FGIC insurance. It's at their expense. Ar~y Merry then opened the bids and presented them as follows: General Obligation Im~rovement~: Norwest Investment Services' purchase price is $4,593,679.50 producing a net interest cost of $2,288,521.33 for net effective interest rate of 6.7373% with FGIC for insurance. Sheerson-Leaman Bros' purchase price is $4,593,642.50 producing a net interest cost of $2,316,012.50 for a net effective interest rate of 6.8182% with FGIC for insurance. Clayton-Brown Associates' purchase price is $4,594,031.34 producing a net interest cost of $2,256,495.80 for a net effective interest rate of 6.6430% with FGIC for insurance. TAX INCR]D4]~DIS~~, CASH FIXT~ANALYSIS. Andy Merry: We've got three bids in the improvement bonds all of which had the FGIC insurance. Norwest Investment Services as lead manager, will pay $3,407,250.50 with a net interest cost of $2,304,053.67 producing a net effective rate of 6.8441% with FGIC insurance. SP~erson-Leaman Bros. will pay $3,407,237.50 with a net interest cost of $2,315,163.54 producing a net effective rate of 6.8771% with FGIC insurance. 154 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Clayton-Brown Associates will pay $3,407,531.99 with a net interest cost of $2,265,475.78 producing a net effective rate of 6.7295% with FGIC insurance. $200,000.00 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE. Norwest Investment Services will pay $197,000.00 with a net interest cost of $37,416.67 producing a net effective interest rate of 6.0675% without insurance. This is stand alone credit, BAA. Andy Merry: Only one bid there. You can compare those rates to the rates that we had in our forecast. Of course, the market is improved almost 40 basis points sin~e we put the forecast together but we've saved far more than that even. Mayor Hamilton: While Andy leaves to tabulate these to make sure they are correct, I'm going to ask Bob Voto to speak to us about the 1986 audit management report and the tax increment district, the cash flow analysis. Bob Voto: ...This basically has all your numbers. This is what Moody's in New York looks at when they rated your bonds. What I just handed out to you are three pages that synopsis that book fr(x~ the standpoint of the City Council. What you have on the first page is strictly the financial resources that we projected. If you look down below in the graph, the black tells you the total picture. The real assets, the real future revenues of this district and future tax collection from tax increment districts. Th~ rest of the future resources are pretty nominal in relation to the total. What the city has dor~ is they have taken an existing tax base, added into it all known increases that will occur over the next 4 or 5 years. As building permits were issued, we know what's going to come on and when it's going to come on and that has been put right into the figures. After a few years, I believe he's taken just a 3% inflationary increase. Then we have put a 5% delinquency factor which is kind of standard with the State. We have taken a realistic approach in terms of future revenues versus a pestimistic/optomistic approach. We know what we have to date. We know what's coming on line based on past building permits and we're projecting what's going to happ~ through the year 2000. The next page is the other end of this district and that's looking at what we've already committed to do. With the special assessment reduction program, we added the existing commitments of the City plus we have directed additional commitments as the projects that we would be approving or financing tonight will develop. ~dditionally, we've got the critical ones, the '81 and '83 bonds and then the '87 bonds so we projected the known existing plus the known future commitments. ~dditionally, down below on the graph, the shaded bar is such that this is the commitment that you will be approving tonight when you approve the sale of these '87 bonds which will be paid out of future tax increments. The final page, the total overview synopsis, if you look first of all up on top under our accounts by year, we've got an ending balance that ties into the City's report. Part of that ending balance is not a cash asset, it's a long receivable from the city. Not liquid assets or assets we can actually commit and dispose of. You notice that at the er~ of 1986 we're down to $18,000.00. O~er the next 2 years we'll build up to about $250,000.00 based upon the projections we have. We're very close. If you look down below, the bars give us our commitments. The jagged one, our financial 155.' City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 resources. You notice going up to about 1993, we're very close to our financial resources and financial balar~e are very close. The fund balance is building gradually ar~ we're commiting to 1997 to retire this debt early. That's why our commitments go up so fast. Subsequent thereto, we don't have that much in terms of commitments and the fun~ balance line go o~ site basically, we have not committed it going out of sight. Any questions on that report? Councilman Johnson: What was the percent rate that we were calculating our bonds for this report? Don Ashworth: 7 3/4%. Bob Voto: For this report, when we read off the total interest cost versus the interest cost that is in this report, we are very close. Th~ total numbers I've given you tonight are approximately the numbers that we have in this report. There are sure variances by year deper~]ing upo~ whe~ boods mature and when specific interest rates on specific bonds. Councilman 6L=ving: A quick analysis on the status of the financial health of the City for the TV camera ar~ for our residents? Bob Voto: The financial health of the City is good. Although 15 minutes is not a long time to go through a management report, all indicators are positive. Cash balances are u~ Reserve balances are u~ The direction of all the financial indicators is positive for the City. In terms of the financial health, it is solicL You've gotte~ your continued rating even though you are selling substantial bonds and in a city of this size sells bonds of that magnitude, it just makes the New York people nervous. The fact that you've retained your rating is indicative that they do have confidence in this City and I think Andy Merry said you were rated as if you were an A city. That happens. I think it was a real mark of genius to have them come out here so they can look at you and actually know what you're like versus just numbers and even know where your city exists and what it looks like. I would say even the fact that they can see gree~ grass impresses them. Mayor Hamilton: Are you going to go through the audit report? Did you have anything additio~] you wanted to say? Bob Voto: T~e Audit B~port, the city's numbers we calculated in that. I'm not going to go through that. We have our opinion on tha~ It is a positive opinion. ~he cash balances right across the board are up. ~he utility fur~s are maintained at profit levels. The balances in those utility funds are up. Special assessments funds are in good shape for financing things. Special assesment collections are looking real gooch Your tax collection rate looks good. B~serve balances of the general fur~, another nominal increase during 1986. Everything is in a positive directly. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to follow up on a comment that Don bas made and I think is appropriate at this point ar~ probably quite valid. I know it's proper for accounting fires in their recommendations to outline those things that need correcting. I think you should consider having another section 156 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 there where you put in those things that you have seen a change in and perhaps do a comparison from the recommer~ations that were made at the last one and have they been accomplished for this year. We know that the recommendation was made last year but we don't always take time to go back and compare but then perhaps point out some of the good things that have happened and highlight significant positive things. It's always nice to see that. Bob Voto: Tnat's an excellent suggestion. I'm sure you will find that in next years manag~nent report under a separate section. ENTRY MONUMENTS/S IGNAGE. Mayor Hamilton: Councilmembers, we had reviewed this a short time ago and it caught us all by surprise. Some of the suggestions that were being brought forward, so we asked BRW to come back to us with a little more detail and give us scme better ideas as to what precisely t~ were looking at. Jim Lasher: Tne first element is the clock tower. Basically a wood construction. There is an exposed rock face, block face with wood top with wood siding only on the edge. Tnere is a double clock face similar to what is shown here in the drawing and on the model. Basically, a simple clock face run by a single neon tube and then a neon tube proposed to go down inside a metal channel down into the base here would another neon element and then just kind of drop. Tnese red elements on the side would just be some kind of red cable to accent the height. Construction is basically a complete wood system. I'll try to keep the cost as possible. Tne roof would be a plywood roof with a cedar shake shingle, typical to what's bc~n_ approved for some of the retail establishments. I guess that basically describes that element. Mayor Hamilton: How does this thing function when it's 20 below zero and 95 below windchill? Jim Lasher: It's just a pure electrical system. The neon works regardless of the temperature. It's not related to temperature at all. The clock face is electrical with a control panel that's inside in the base just like an irrigation box. When you want to change the time, you just go in and turn the dial. You don't actually turn the clock. As far as the cold weather goes, I don't see very many problems.' One of the issues that was brought up before was having a neon tube that actually went down through. At this point in time, I would like to propose that if we do get into construction documents and deal with a neon company and find that is probably not feasible or maybe not feasible, we would eradicate at that point but I would like to propose it for this run through. Councilman Geving: Where is the placement of this? Approximately where we see this? Jim Lasher: Entering into Great Plains Blvd.. The Dinner Theater is here. The clock tower would happen right in the intersection point of Great Plains and existing 78th and existing TH 101. The clock tower, the double sided clocks would be situated on a diagonal. One face down Great Plains and one would face down this way so in order to read the clock coming from this 157 City Council M~eting - June 15, 1987 direction, you would have to be in about this position right here. The clock could be altered to a 3 or evem a 4 face clock deper~ir~3 om if you wanted to incorporate design of the structure is basically detailed so the clocks can be put inside these elements just by simple retrofit of the clock. Councilman Coving: Is there an opportunity here for the people who might want to walk up to this to look at it? Maybe have some bemches near it. Mayor Hamilton: Are those benches o~ there? Jim Lasher: Yes. It's like the castin~ of the cap there is a concrete cap. Originally it was proposed to go all the way across. Before I came out here I cut it out because I didn't know if I liked it or not. This is generally where we were thinking of putting some ~ along the inside but they can be scattered as well around t?~ back. There is a sidewalk now that runs east/west of 78th that comes right behind this that could ea-ily be extended around it. Councilman Geving: Ar~ that will be protected with some kind of barrier on the street side there? Jim Lasher: Yes, we would have a shrub barrier and I've proposed a wooden bollard sysban that runs all the way alor~ the side of the road. Councilman Horn: Is there anything to prevemt people from falling in and around this thing? Jim Lasher: Well, not particularly, no. I supposed if you wanted to, we could put a flat panel right over the top of the model so you can never get inside of it. Put up a small scrc~n or something but it's basically kind of an open airy syst~n and it's not the kind of thing where you can stop someone from going inside unless you put say a plexiglass panel arour~ the base. Councilman Horn: Will you have the necm tubes in sc~e type of protection? Jim Lasher: Yes, there's a steel channel that's a 3 inch steel channel that's in the back and the neon is put inside the channel so light just shoots straight out and the steel is covered with a lexan sheet that goes all up and down the face. So you have lexan over the top of 3 inch steel. This is what I'm proposing. We have not had any conversations with any neon companies because we haven't gottsm that far in the process yet. Mayor Hamilton: Were you going to ask ~ing about fiber optics? 'Councilman Horn: Yes, can this be domm with fiber optics? They don't wear out like neon. Jim Lasher: It certainly could. I'm not sure about the cost ramifications. Whether that's a more expensive or less expensive systemu I'm not real familiar with it but it certainly could be looked into. A neon system for s~ething like this would run about 25 to 35. 158 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Johnson: What do you think the cost with just having the clock face at the top w~uld be without the dangly part? Jim Lasher: Like I said, you would save probably $30.00 or $40.00 per foot in the neon tube and just have some say cables, sc~e red cables c~ming down. Councilman Johnson: I was saying without anything coming down because that's where I see the hazard for kids. They are playing with this, swinging on these tubes and whatever. I think it looks nice just with the round clock face at the top without the per~ulum. Jim Lasher: I think the word is key to what you just said. It is a pendulum. It's kind of like the grandfather clock approach and I understand your point and maybe if we do get through this and we decide we want to look at something like this, we can pursue some options as far as how to handle this area but that' s a good point. Councilman Geving: How would this look if you were to remove these sides here so people could actually walk underneath this? What I'm thinking of is it's enclosed now and there are a lot of leaves that fly around and debris, I can see kids throwing pop cans in there and so forth, is there anyway of cleaning it out? If we were to leave the two sides that aren't shown, this side and the back side open where people could actually walk through, we would have s~me way of maintaining it. Jim Lasher: Tnis is a much simplier of that. That's possible. ~conomically it wouldn't effect the overall integrity of the design very much unless you wanted to put clock faces on the back at some point in time and maybe that would effect it but at this point in time. Councilman Geving: I'm just thinking of maintenance. This design that Mr. Bloomberg has is a lot airier and it's a lot better. It's going to be a lot simpler to do maintenance on. There will be no maintenance with that. Pat Swenson: In all the conversations we've had about this, I don't know that I've ever found out the dimensions. Jim Lasher: The dimension of the height is from the base to peak of roof is 22 feet and straight across as you are looking at it is 8 foot 8. That model is to scale. Okay, the next item, unless there are any more questions on the clock tower. The next item is tb~ entry monument which is proposed to be located upon coming up off of TH 5, it would be located right at this point across the railroad tracks on a small knoll that exists there presently. It's a very simple system. A simple post and roof system, similar to the clock tower with just a very simple 6 by 6 hardwood post going out of the ground. The sign face acts as a retaining wall. As we mentioned there is a knoll and needs to have s~me earth retained. The back portion is kind of what we would call a window and it's going to accent all the plant material that occurs behind it and lighting would happen behind this window so it would appear as if these were actually glass panels of lighting. Kind of taken the concept of the window to the City and that's basically what we've done with the model is tried to show two basic vertical elements similar in scale, certainly not in 159 City Council ~ting - June 15, 19B7 height, to the clock tower. A retaining wall sign and then heavily planted behind this wall with some lighting in the back. The dimensions on this are 13 feet. Councilman Boyt: ~ did you decide to make that in a different roof style? Jim Lasher: Originally the first form we came up with is this form and it generated into that. This is a more elegant statement and this we tried to get a little bit more simple. A little bit less refined to just maintain the woodsy character that it's going to have down here where this statement is going to be right in the middle of the. city. You can have a little bit more detailing on the bases and be a little more flashy than that. ~his is basically the same kind of constructi~ Wood cedar shake, no wood edging on the side and a simple enclosed lighted neon sign on the edge. Councilman Boyt: Can you show me again where you are going to put this on the larger surface? Jim Lasher: Presently it's designed to fit right on the knoll in this area here c~ning up the road. This is right now a reasonably nice site, this system could be applied closer to TH ~ It could be on West 78th, even down at the intersection of CR 17. Don Ashworth: I was going to say I think you should go with three sides on your clock tower. Catch both sides of 78th as well as cc~ing in on Great Plains Blvd.. F~ve the clock on three sides. Councilman Boyt: I supposed it's going to be a cost factor but if you removed the pendumlum and put four clock faces in there, would you be talking roughly the same costs? Jim Lasher: At this point in time it's hard to say. I would probably guess real close because of this structural steel element and this structural steel element would bring in a different trade and if we remove that, possibly the trade would be eliminated. That would be something we would do in the construction documents: Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me that the neon part of that is what really makes it stand out though. Jim Lasher: I think that's the thing that's going to have the visual impact in the evening hours is this kind of neoclassical element c~ning straight up through this very simple form and with a red outline, it's going to look very much like a grandfather clock sitting out in the middle of the street. That's one of the things I tried to do in the design. Councilman Johnson: What about cleaning? Would the neo~ have a lot of cleaning and maintenance? Jim Lasher: Neon is certainly not a maintenance free application by any means. Fiber options is probably a lot more maintenance free. There is a bug screen to guard for bird nesting and what have you on the top. All the neon 160 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 is generally enclosed inside a steel lexan or inside on the outside of the clock, a lexan surrounding. There would be a certain amount of maintenance but I wouldn't guess it to be anything exorbinate. There are very successful outside applications for neons. Don Ashworth: Staff was concerned with the maintenance so we did ask Jim that when they put specifications out, to insure that tl~ neon system around the clock was different than the neon system going up and down. That way, if at a future date we simple left the bar elements and you have the grandfather image but maybe it was not replaced, it wouldn't hurt anything. You would still have the functional clock portion on the top. Mayor Hamilton: Any other questions? I really like it. I think it makes a nice statement and I like Don's idea. I think there are two things I would like to see incorporated and that would be to open up so we have three clocks, which I think is a good idea and just leave the fourth side open so maintenance would be much easier. Jim Lasher: Just take this back panel out? Mayor Hamilton: Or even not take it out. Just have it go straight down so you don't have the loop part and it would still tie in better with the rest of it. It would go straight down instead of looping. Jim Lasher: I think the interior could be a little small. It's an 8 by 8 so you're looking at about 60 square feet. Tnat's kind of a small room.. I think on the outside you would probably get in the outside and the back, you would probably get a little nicer. Mayor Hamilton: ScreWy may want to use it for a rain shelter anyways. Councilman Geving: Are there going to be any chimes? Jim Lasher: If you would like to have me go ahead and look at that. That was always something that I was going to look at. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the downtown monuments. The clock tower with three clock and fourth side could be open at the bottom and approve the entry monument on the east side of TH 101 as presented. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn abstained and motion carried. ~o I~'~o~ ~-~5'~%' Mayor Hamilton stated that Andy Merry had returned to the meeting and had verified the bids. Andy Merry: The bids did tie out. Tne winning bid for the improvement bonds would be the proposal suhnitted by Clayton Brown Associates producing a net interest rate of 6.6430%. The winning bid suhnitted on the tax increment bonds again was the proposal suhnitted by Clayton Brown Associates with a net effective rate of 6.7295% both of which check. And the only bid submitted on the equipment certificates, the account headed up by Norwest, again checks at 10 161 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 6.0675%. I might add, this isn't very scientific, certainly it can be fine tuned, but these bids appeared to have saved the city something in excess of $525,0~0.~0 of interest costs fr~m what we had forecasted 5 or 6 weeks ago. Mayor Hamilton: So it would be your recommendation that we accept the bids from the Clayton Brown Associates for two of them and then the Norwest Group on tbe third one? Andy Merry: It would be. ibere is reason to believe that were we to reject the bid here in the equipment certificates from Norwest, my guess is we would get competitive bids within the' next couple of days from half if not all of those in the account here. Frankly, I don't think we're going to do a great deal better than 6.06%. That's more than a half a point below where I thought we would be 5 weeks ago. Mayor Hamilton: They can not say that they are not interested in this bid sin~e they didn't get the other t~o can they? Ar~y Merry: No. Each bid stands on it's owm We had the option of setting this up as an all or none sale in which case, even ttDugh we've got two much better bids from Clayton Brown and ~rson on the two bigger issues, if we had an all or none award, we would have to award to Norwest. This is exactly why we didn' t structure it that way. Resolution %87-56(a): Councilman Geving moved, Cour~ilman Johnson seconded to to award the General Obligation Improvement Bond to Clayton Brown and Associates in the amount of $4,594,031.34. All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution %87-56(b): Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the Tax Increment Bond to Clayton Brown and Associates in th~ amount of $3,407,531.99. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. Resolution #87-56(c): Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the Equipment Certificate to Norwest Investment Services in the amount of $197,000.0~. All voted in favor and motion carried. Andy Merry: I don't know if this is the time but we also sent out for bids for Registrar and Paying Agent on both issues in contemplation of the sale. We got Norwest and First Trust bid the fees on a recurrin~ basis' where you pay annually based on activity from now until the last bond is redeemed or called in, whichever comes first. We also had them bid on a one time fee basis and that's the way the City chose to award the deal a year ago. I just got one last Friday and one this morning. I haven't had a lot of time to examine ~. They are very, very close. Alt3Dugh it appea~ that First Trust has a slight edge on the one time fee. What I would like to recommend to the Council however is rather than sperm]lng a lot of time going through them tonight and also knowing that we do ~ to appoint the registrar and paying agent in order to get the bor~ credit and numbers assigned in the very near future, that between Don and myself we derive which one we feel would best suit the needs of the City ar~ provide the biggest bank for the buck. 11 162 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Presently I'm leaning towards First Trust and they won the bid a year ago just based on cost. I just want some time to examine it a little bit further. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've done in the past. Does the Council concur with that? Okay, we might as well do it. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize Don Ashworth and Andy Merry to determine the Registrar and Paying Agent. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION BIDS. Gary ~hret: Last Friday, June 5th, we received bids here in the Council chambers from contractors interested in the downtown improvements. We received five bids. All of the bidders are major contractors. Do work throughout the Twin Cities area. A lot of work on State Improvement projects, etc.. All of the five I consider to be more than capable of doing the improvements in the downtown area. We had estimated for the May 4th Council meeting that the improvement costs would be about 2,725,000.00 and that is based on a list of bid tabulations for work that we have done in other communities. Bid tabs that we have received so we're pretty confident that 2.7 million roughly was a good competitive bid. The low bidder in fact was Schafer Contracting. They are from a community north of the Twin Cities which is nothing more than their home office. They move around the state doing work. Their bid was $2,434,571.30 which is just about 300,000.00 in savings from what we had estimated. The high bid as comparison was $2,699,000.00 so roughly $25,000.00 less than what we had estimated as the total improvement. The difference between low and high bid was about 10% which we think with five big contractors looking at the plans, bidding it and resulting in bids within 10% is similar to the bond that you just received. As far as I'm concerned it's an excellent indication that they were all bidding the same scope of work. They basically understood the job the same. I thought they were very good results. We, in our letter to Staff forwarded to the Council, recommended that we felt the low bid of Schafer Contracting of $2,434,571.30 was a good bid. They are a bonafide contractor and we reccmx~ended award. Resolution 987-57: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the City Council award the construction contract for the Downtown Redevelopment Project to Schafer Contracting Co., Inc. in the amount of $2,434,571.30 contingent upon the receipt of permits as noted in the attachment letter from BRW dated June 10, 1987, and receipt of final agreements on land acquisition, construction easements, and final agreement for utility crossing of the Soo Line Railroad. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I guess that shows you want good timing can do here with the good interest rates on the bonds and good timing. We've saved the City nearly a million dollars tonight by our actions. Gary Ehret: I would like to add a footnote. Kind of similar to the bonds. There were two major state letting dates that we straddled and in talking with 12 City Cbuncil Meeting - June 15, 1987 all five of the contractors; a couple of them had gotten some of th~ major state work but 2 or 3 of them had missed out and they were very aggressive on these bids and you' re right, timing is everything. Councilman Gevirg: I might also add Tom that in 1980 when we could not go ahead with this project, the bids came in in excess of 12% for the same type of project, down~ redevelofment so w~ got a ~endous bid. Resolution ~87-58: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Familto~ seconded to adopt the Indemnification and Hold Harmless Resolution as noted in the letter from Carver County dated June 5, 1987. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. Barbara Dacy stated that the developer for the Lake Riley Woods final plat application ar~ plans and spec application was here and asked if the Council would consider that item at this point in the meeting. Councilman Johns~ moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amer~ the age,la to move items l(e) and l(f) to this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: LAKE RILEY WOODS, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Councilman Johnson: I would like to make two amendments to the Staff recommendation. In going through the packet, the drainfield site on Lot 7, Block 1 is within the 100 year flood plain of the ponding created by the 5 foot crest that he's putting in. Staff mentioned that they would like this to be relocated so I've added a provision under condition 2. At the end of that to add, location of the drainfield sites, Lot 7, Block 1 so we don't have a drainfield within that flood plairu And added to cor~ition 7, because of the dryness of the season and everything now going on here, we talk about restoration but condition 7 I would like to have added on here would be, all disturbed areas must be restored within two weeks of completion of grading which is similar to what we did with Chan Vista 3rd ar~ 4th Addition. Mayor Hamilton: It's not a part of the developer's develolm~nt contract? Gary Warren: It's star~ard with the Watershed review. Mayor Hamilton: That's included in the development contract. Do you want it also? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Just making sure that it gets incorporated in the development contract, Someplace we have not done seeding at all after 3 or 4 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the final plat dated June 10, 1987 for Lake Riley Woods with the following conditions: 1. Sukmittal of develoIm~nt contract a~d financial securities. 13 166 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 2~ Su~ittal of final plat with appropriate drainage easement over Lots 1 & 2, 12 & 13, Block 3 and Lots 1-3 and 7, Block 1 and location of drainfield site on Lot 7, Block 1. e Suk~ittal of written agreement from Williams Pipeline permitting installation of pressure sewer line under gas pipeline on Lots 2-11, Block 3. 4. Approval of Outlot C and County Road 14 easement by Carver County. . Ail approved treatment systems shall be staked and preserved prior 'to street construction. 6. Submittal of trail easement. e All disturbed areas must be restored within two weeks of completion of grading. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: LAKE RILEY WOODS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Johnson: When Gary's recommendations 1 through 9, 1 through 8 affects item 9 and Ih just trying to reword condition number 9. Condition 9 as it reads right now, the developer shall incorporate this grading and erosion control plan as part of the construction documents. Here is how I would like it to read. Tne developer shall incorporate a revised grading and erosion control plan incorporating conditions 1 through 8 above and approved by the City Engineer as a part of the construction documents. Tnat way he's sure that you get a good strong shot at that 1 through 8 is to your satisfaction. That's all I have now. Councilman Bolt: I have a question since it's up. Tne catch basin at the storm sewer run-off, it seems to me, looking at that, the storm sewer is coming down a significant grade, is that catch basin sufficient to hold back any sediment in that run-off? Gary Warren: Tne catch basin or the manhole? Councilman Boyt: No, we're talking about a catch basin at the bottom of the storm sewer. Does that go down quite a hill? Gary Warren: Over to the manhole then it transitions out to the lake. Councilman Boyt: So we get the rains like wehad last year, is that system going to prevent sediment from running into the lake? Gary Warren: All that that system provides is an anticipation, that manhole basically is to allow the flow to come down and gather, reduce some of it's energy on the way out to Lake Riley. It slows the flow but not the sediment. 14 1'67 City (~ouncil M~eting - Jur~ 15, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Is that needed? Gary Warren: I think that the sediment situation in general, we're not lookirg at the surfaoe site except for all the initial grading ar~ that's what w~'re trying to cover as part of the erosion control plan. Councilman Boyt: I want to know that y~u are comfortable with this system's ability to har~le a heavy rain's run-out into Lake Riley. Gary Warren: This system is designed for the stozm water run-off ar~ is to our standards. Councilman Johnson: The prevention of sediment entering the system, there shouldn't be a lot of sediment within the pipe system except f~r what's coming into it is what I think you're trying to get at. During construction we should have a lot of sediment going to that are~ That should be filtered ar~ haybaled and the whole bit to prevent that. Is that what you're trying to ~ry Warren: You're talking about sediment that gets... Councilman Boyt: If you go over and look at the boat launch, what we have set up there is when a storm hits that mass of asphalt there, it runs out into a catch basin instead of right into Lotus Lake. Gary Warren: You mean a retention pond. Councilman Boyt: Alright, retention pond that then absorbs the impact of that run-off. I would assume there's not going to be a great deal of sediment in there I hope but if we protected Lotus Lake with that set-up and I~ just wondering if this is a comparable problem and does this provide a comparable solution? It's a different solution and I want to know if it's worthy. Gary Warren: Alright, catch basin is what threw me off but this is what I expect a c~mparable solution. The sediment ponds ar~ the set-up at South Lotus Lake are designed because of the collection area that they are gathering fr~ and I think this system is appropriate for the installation that t~ are proposing also. Councilman Johnson: My last comment would be the Class B wetland that actually was B1 but it's applicable also to the plans and specifications. Did it imply that we were really going to improve that wetlar~ and I want to be assured that that wetlar~ is not going to bec~e an amenity to the site. What I gather from talking to Jo Ann, we are talking and I want to make sure that the developer is talking the same thing, is basically a ponding or wildlife habitat at that small Class B wetland that we now decide is relocated and we won' t be cutting across. Mayor Hamilton: That can be an amenity can't it? Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's what I~ saying. At first I didn't read it in there. I want to make sure that what Jo Ann is telling me, it is going to 15 168" City Counci 1 Meeting - June 15, 1987 be a nice amenity. That we're not just looking at making a dry spot. Joel Cooper: Can I address your question about the wetland? My name is Joel Cooper from Pioneer Engineering. The intent is we're going to open up, the surface area is going to be exactly the same to what's there now. Presently that wetland is not full of water. What we're going to do is we're going to go in and open it up so there can be some open water in there which will be super for wildlife nests or something similar to that. Barring dry weather like this it should be wet. Pat Swenson: Would there be any advantage Gary in putting a collar around the lake area during construction? Mayor Hamilton: That's already in there. Councilman Johnson: That's number 4, floating siltation fence. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Lake Riley Woods plans and specifications with conditions 1 through 8 from the City Engineer's memo with the following amendment to condition number 9: . The developer shall incorporate a revised Grading and Erosion Control Plan incorporating conditions 1 through 8 above and approved by the City Engineer as a part of the construction docunents. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: In our Minutes from the last meeting the ordinance as it was typed was different from what we stated in our Minutes and I would simply like to make the two compatible and I think the difference was roughly along the lines that when a rural beachlot came under a urban designation that it would be considered under those standards. Clark worded it a little better than that but that' s- the intent. That ' s my only comment. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to correct the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Conditions for Recreational Beachlots in Agricultural Districts to accurately follow as stated in the Minutes of the City Council meeting June 1, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Conditions for Recreational Beachlots in Agricultural Districts, Final Reading. All voted in favor and motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONTRACTOR'S YARDS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE. Barbara Dacy: Tne Council directed Staff to notify surroudning property owners. That was done. Sc~e property owners may be here tonight. 16 169 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Is there anyone here from the public wishing to speak on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request to allow a contractor's yard as a Conditional Use in the ~F, Business Fringe District and specifically a request by Patrick and Nancy Blood? Anyone wishing to speak on this? No one. Okay, they were duly notified ar~ there is no one here. Councilman Johnson: The only modification I was speaking about last time was on water and waste water. Trying to assure that we don't have within this district is only rural without sewer so we want to make sure we don't have large truck washing with washing the interior of the trucks or any other type of contractor usage that has a large water flow that is not appropriate for septic syst~m~. I'm trying to figure out how we would say that. Mayor Hamilton: In watching another operation in the BF, that one that's down on Merrill's property, they wash their trucks but they are actually more concerned with washing the motor and just the outside. I r~ever saw them wash the inside. They just want to get the dirt off. Councilman Horn: They don't go into any septic system with that anyway do Mayor Hamilton: No, it just runs in the ground. Barbara Dacy: If I can respond to what you want to control. Under Article III, Section 2(5), one of the conditions under the review powers of the Council is that t/~ use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including streets, police, fire, etc. or will be served adequately by such facilities ar~ services provided by the person or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. So it specifically says water and sewer systems so that also could be incorporated into the conditional use. Councilman Johnson: (1kay, so we've got it covered by other sections. Mayor Hamilton: What's our normal review period? A year? Barbara Dacy: The Council can require an annual review period for a Conditional Use P~_rmit. Mayor Hamilton: I would make in this case, unless it's something that's new, make it one condition on my motion that it be reviewed in a years time. Barbara Dacy: Okay, so you're saying anytime you have a contractor's yard in the BF District, you want it reviewed on an at, ual basis? Mayor Hamilton: I'm sorry, I guess I was thinking more of a specific use. I'm junpirg ahead of myself. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amer~ment to allow Contractor's yards as a Conditional Use in tbe Business Fringe District. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. 17 I70 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5 ACRES INTO TWO 2.5 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 750 WEST 96TH STREET, GEORGIA JEURISSEN. Mayor Hamilton: This we looked at a couple weeks ago and the primary concern of the applicant was that he wanted to hook into the 201 system that had installed in the area. We received a memo from Virginia Harris and Carver County stating that the applicant can not connect to the 201 system and must provide an individual sewage treatment system on Lot 2. Do you have anything to add to that Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: Actually no. We set out the hardship for it in which to approve the variance for the lot width. We recommend approval. Mayor Hamilton: Tnere is adequate room to put in a separate system? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Cour~ilman Geving: I just want to go back over this lot split possibility. With 330 feet to be split betwc~n_ two lots, there are several ways of doing that and I just wanted to clarify one more time with Staff, is it Staff's recommendation not to change the lot split from 210 and 1207 Jo Ann Olsen: We looked at it and again, that was our decision. Another option that would work would be the 180 and 150. What you're doing with that is you still have that jog in the line. You're cutting into the area of the yard of the applicant. We possibly would have to change the location of the soil borings. You would have to put four more soil borings but the soil consultant said that there is plenty of room there. Councilman Geving: So even though it would be more preferable to split it 180 and 150, you would still have the jog in the property? I guess if I was a property owner and mowing my yard and knowing where my proprty line is, it's a little more difficult when you've got a piece of property there that juts into the homeowner's lot and over time, I'm talking 10-15-20 years from now when that property may change several times, that becomes very confusing and I prefer to have the lots split evenly with a single line regardless of where it is. Jo Ann Olsen: They would have the setback possibly 8 feet from the house. Councilman Geving: In a rural area 8 feet isn't very much when you look at how those 5 acre lots look now on 96th Street and I guess it would really create more problems and look very unusual so I guess for my discussion at least I wanted to air that a little bit and get out some of the pros and cons but in the end I thin it would be better off if we just left the lots as they now exist and a proposal of 210 feet and 120. I have no other comments. Councilman Boyt: I think we have a problem with this being acceptable for a variance in the first place. My concern with that is what we're really saying is this is a lot that as it stands is not dividable in being consistent with our ordinance. I think if we approve a variance on this, we're saying that anyone who comes in with a lot that's not dividable, take a shot. That we 18 171 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 have really nothing we can turn them down on and I'm concerned about that because I see them saying that this is well justified by economics. That doesn't happen to be one of the reasons that we approve variances so in general, I don't think this is appropriate for a variance. Now, if it looks like we're going to approve it anyway, I would suggest that we have a lot less variances to approve if we go with the 150 ar~ I believe it's 180. We give them a 25 foot setback from the existing house which is more than our ordinance requires, We come with the 150 lot would be consistent with tt~ other lots in the neighborhood so if challer~ed on a variance we could at least ir~icated we created a lot that was similar to existing lots in the neighborhood. With the 180 lot we have a lot that is consistent with the ordinance when this particular issue csme before us so I have two options. If there is sufficient support, I would support not approving this and leaving it as it is and if there isn't support for that, I would recommend that we consider a motion with 150 foot lot and 180 foot lot. Councilman Johnson: I tend to agree with Bill on that. I do believe that it's a shaky hardship. It's not really a cut and dry hardship that we can look at ar~ totally justify. I do think Staff did a pretty good job in going through the ordinance and pointing out how they believe this could be justified as a hardship in going through the four cor~itions of a hardship. Ibn in agrccment with Bill· I would like to see the 150 and 180 rather than creating 120 foot lot frontage. It would be the only 120 that I know of in that neighborhood. The rest would be 150 or so from what I'm gathering in looking at it. After reviewing the site, going out to the site a couple times in the last couple weeks as I drove by, I would drive over and look at it and think about it, that leaves enough sideyard room there for both people involved ar~ she still has considerable sideyard on the east side and I think it would make a better lot for both people. The other person, the future person would have a better sideyard also. I think I agree with you Bill· I would like to see it as 150 and 180. Mayor Hamilton: Is the applicant here and have any comments? Mr. Jeurissen: I would like to speak on behalf of my mother. Whe~ we first started to break up this 5 acre parcel, we were of the understanding that we could split that 5 acre parcel whichever way we wanted. That's what Staff told us at that time and that's the way we had it surve~ out. Now we did stick the house in the back.. We have the frontage right now. We had it survey~ · Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any preferences on how the split w~uld occur? Mr. Jeurissen: We would like it split the way we had it in the beginning with 120. Mayor Hamilton: That's what you had suggested too Dale right? Councilman Seving: I just hate to see that line in there. Jo Ann Olsen: As far as k_.~ing it 150, again, Staff can go either way. But either way they still have the jog in the lot lir~. Perhaps if you want to go 19 172 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 with the 150, that's more consistent with what exists now on West 96th Street. Councilman Geving: If that proposal goes through then we've got 25 feet between the west house line and the proposed lot line. 25 feet rather than some additional feet. Jo Ann Olsen: 8 was if you split it right down the middle of the property. Councilman Geving: I wouldn't go for that but 25 feet is reasonable. In any event we're still going to get the jog. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request %87-4 with 150 and 180 feet of street frontage with the following conditions: . A driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. 2. The applicant shall provide an on-site individual sewer system. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. RB~EST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.5 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7423-7425 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS COURT SUBDIVISION, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Mayor Hamilton: It think it's important to point out on this, if you don't already know it, that it seems unusual for me to say that we're subdividing into five single family lots when three of them already exist. I think basically there is one lot that is being requested to be divided so that two homes can be built on it. It's not five families there. There are three families there that agreed on doing this but it's not really a subdivision of five new lots. Councilman Johnson: It's taking four existing lots and changing the lot lines on three of those lots in order to make five lots. Three of the lots are going to change. Councilman Geving: It seems to me Mr. Mayor that the reason this was tabled the last time is we asked the City Engineer to go back and look at the sewer and water situation. Where those hook-ups were and come back to us with a recommendation. Also, there was a question on the possible Lot 12 drainage potential there. The run-off from the proposed lot onto Lot 12 and some other factors. As I understand it now you've had a chance to meet Gary with the developers and the neighborhood and have come up with some new information, is that correct? In terms of where those stubs are into Frontier Trail? Gary Warren: I think to summarize the current memo, we're getting various opinions and that's really what it is. The best guess right now as to where they are and the other aspect that we were addressing is even if we knew where they were, the best information would still show that we have a need to upsize the sewer to probably service the number of lots and also the watermain. Especially when we're taking two homes off of one service, that's what he 20 173 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 proposed so that really is the heart of the issue as far as upgrading those utilities access. Councilman Geving: (lkay, that's the one aspect but how about the second The impact on Lot 127 Potential Lmpact if w~ do any grading? Gary Warren: As far as erosion? Councilman Geving: Erosion control. Gary Warre~: There is very little drainage from what I could observe that really is going off in that directi~ There is a minor drainage swale to the northeast but it's not a large run-off area by any means. Councilman Geving: I would like to make this statement o~ this particular subject. I did have a chance, as I'm sure most of you did during the last week to go down there and take a look at that present drivway. I don't think the driveway is going to change. Either if we put it in as a City standard street or the developers rework it and use it as a private drive. There is quite an incline there, ghe more I looked at it the more I think I realize that there really isn't any r~ for curb and gutter. I just can't see that in an area where there isn't anything else down there. We're talking about a street that's not very well improved in it's present state and yet to require these people to put in city standard curb and gutter, I've changed my opinion on that after really looking at that ar~ studying it. I personally would like to back off from that. Secondly, looking at the incline and what may happen in the future, these people have not come to us as a Council and petitioned for any of these improvements and for that reason I would like to think of it in terms of a private drive ar~ let ttma~ maintain it. I believe that if we were to run our city plows up there for snowplowing and whatever, it would be more of a hassle and a problem t/man it would be worth ar~ in that regard I think those two issues, as far as I'm concerned are the way I see it. ~hat should be made as a private drive and let them maintain it and let's let ~ forget about the curbing amd gutter and city standards on the driveway. That's all I have to say about it. Councilman Johnson: Some of our comments last time were on hardship and showing a hardshi~ I believe Staff here has done a good job in our packet. Thel~ve gone through items 1 through 4 again showing and explaining each point of hardship in here. I think the hardship points are justified in that we are making a very nice improvement to the area. An area with it's topogral~hy and the woods and everything being preserved in there, that a hardship is justified for this to allow the vari~ that are being requested. I wanted to get that into the Minutes to help us in future times as we go for other variances. We've got to make sure that we always cover this hardship very well. Staff did an excellent job here. Additionally, I~ still concerned during construction of the street, construction of the sewer lines, etc. about erosion going downhill ar~ the~ basically taking a left ar~ heading over to Lotus Lake. I would like to make it a condition of approval, number 7 added on here that Grading and erosion control plans for street ar~ utility construction be sulx~it~ and reviewed by the City f~3ineer prior-to award of the development contract so that we make sure that even though this is a small 21 174 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 operation, there is going to be a lot of grading for that street in the circle and a lot of digging for the sewer. I want to protect that drainage through Lot 12 as much as I can. Mayor Hamilton: I understand your concern about the street and putting in the street and the sewer and water. If there is any run-off from there, before it gets to Lotus Lake, it's going to have to go about a quarter of a mile almost down around a couple of bends with every opportunity to go into the alrea__~_y filter basin in there, the rip-rap or down the road. I'm not sure that any run-off frcm that street could ever reach the lake for one thing. Councilman Johnson: If their erosion control plans show that, then that's their Grading and Erosion Control plan. If our engineer believes, I'm leaving it up to the Engineer's discretion actually. If he believes that some haybales are required to be tossed in someplace. We're not talking major expense to toss a couple of haybales outside the develolm~ent. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I just wanted to be sure that you were aware of how far it had to go. It's a long piece. Did you have any other conditions? Councilman Johnson: No, I just wanted to emphasis that there is a hardship in my opinion and continue to try and protect Lotus Lake the best we can. Councilman Horn: I had specifically asked for Staff to review to see if there was a greater intensification of the existing Conditional Use Permit on Lot 12. They hinted that there would be additional usage on that but they didn't come right out and tell me that there would have to be a re-evaluation of that conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: The original one issued was a grandfathered beachlot so the homeowners association rules basically apply. Councilman Horn: That's correct but at that time that that stipulation was made and those were grand fathered in, the uses that were in place at the time they were grandfathered in were to be recorded and any further intensification of those uses would be put under a conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: To be honest we would have to go back and check the survey that was done in 1981. There was a survey done of all the beachlots at that time and recorded docks and boats and so on. We can go back and verify. We completely forgot about that. Councilman Johnson: So we would like to put that as condition 8? Councilman Horn: I believe we need an evaluation of whether the use has intensified and see if a conditional use permit is required. Barbara Dacy: We can bring that back on the next agenda. Councilman Boyt: First, I think the neighbors who pulled this together are to be congratulated on coming together to try and clear up a mess. I'm not convinced it's possible. The reason I'm not is when I look at Staff's 22 175 City Oour~il Meeting - June 15, 1987 r~ to is this a hardship, unlike Jay, I don't think they did a very good job. I think that anythirg could be a hardship under this. They are saying, ar~ I guess I ~ more detail than what I read. If I'm to believe that it is a hardship, you're tellirg me that the thirgs, and parts of it I can see better than other parts. I ca_n see where maybe the way the lot lines are drawn is one fairly minor matter because at the buildirg site, which I think we clarified is the intent of the ordinance, there is 90 feet. So that particular one I can live with. But I think the major stumblir~ block here is not the size of the lots but it's whether or not we're going to give a variance to put a private drive in when our ordinances says that there are going to be lots back there accessing a private drive. Barbara Dacy: So your concern is a hardship for the variance to install the private street? Oouncilman Boyt: A private street rather than a public street and do you feel that these responses address that variance? Barbara Dacy: Our responses only address the lot width issues and not the private street issue. The private street issue is addressed by th~ City Manager ' s m~morand~. Councilman Boyt: Don, do you remember how you addressed that private street issue? Don Ashworth: Yes, what I did was reference the number of projects that we have had around the community where there has ~ a desire to insure that municipal sewer and water services were provided to a group of homes while in each of those instances there was not either adequate right-of-way or a strong desire to have those as a municipal street. Pleasantview Cove, Pleasantview Court, Teton, Ridge Road are all examples of private streets that serve anywhere from 3 to 6 homes and .in each of those instances, the City Council, when faced with the question of whether or not it was desirous of havir,~ the uti lties improved to service those homes, did in fact allow those to remain as private streets. Councilman Boyt: What you're telling me is that we have in fact given variances to the private drive, public street ordinance in the past in each of these instances? Don Ashworth: The question of variance did not arise on those other instances. In each of those, the hc~es or lots were in place. The question was solely one of whether or not the road would be required to be brought up to a public road standar~L Most cases they could not but the City Council did approve allowing them to remain as a private street. We obtained the easements necessary to put in sewer ar~ water. There were no additional lots created in that process as I can recall on any of those streets. Councilman Boyt: Now Gary, are you aware of private drives in the urban area that service 3, 4, 5 houses? Gary Warren: Teton is in the urban area. 23 176 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Boyt: And that services how many houses? Don Ashworth: All of the examples I gave were in the urban area. They were all completed as an initial position of t~ying to insure that sewer and water was adequately brought to those parcels. Councilman Boyt: It would seem tome that possibly we need to change the private drive part of the ordinance. That if we don't need to change that, then we need to demonstrate that there is in fact a hardship here and that hasn't been addressed by Staff. Councilman Johnson: I talked this over with Staff earlier and there are shared driveways we have an ordinance on. When you share a driveway with 3 other people accessing a street. This is a private street which is separate than a shared driveway. Councilman Boyt: I believe the ordinance says there are no private streets allowed. Barbara Dacy: Tnat's the issue that the Council is dealing with. Whether or not to grant that. Another example is the Bluff Creek subdivision. That proposed street entering that subdivision is a private street and Council authorized a private street to be installed in that case. You are in essence looking for a variance to install a private street rather than a public street. Councilman Johnson: I have to agree with Bill in that case if there is a variance involved. I was of the understanding that there wasn't a variance involved here and that private streets were authorized but if they are not authorized by our ordinance than we would have to provide hardship again on the private street issue and the hardship only addresses the lot width I believe. Barbara Dacy: I guess if you wanted to consider the Manager's comments as reasons or basis. If you don't agree there is a need for a private street, then it has to be installed to public standards. Don Ashworth: I don't think I stated my point very well. In each of the previous cases the City Council's decision to allow a private street only occurred because the homes already existed in those instances. An exception there would be Bluff Creek and that was during a period of time where the City Council made a conscious decision to allow that to be a private street but in each of the other instances, the streets were put in because there was not adequate right-of-way or other factors which did not allow for the public street so Pleasantview Cove and Pleasantview Court, etc. were each of the homes were there. We allowed those to be private streets because the homes were already there. Mayor Hamilton: Tnis is the same situation. The homes are already there. Councilman Bolt: But we're creating another lot which will have a home on it that is not there now. We're creating a situation. If they were not creating 24 177 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 a lot than this could be a private drive accessed by three houses ar~ it is currently. In creating a lot, what they are asking for is either the ability to have a private street, which requires a variance, or the ability to have four houses on a private drive and that requires a variance. I would like to get them out of here and on their way. My concern is that I really feel we need to be consistent and we ~ to demonstrate a hardship if we're going to grant a variance. That' s my point. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have absolutely no problem with having a private drive there. Those houses have ~ there for quite some time and I don't have a problem granting a variance to them. It's cleaning up the situation in a small neighborhood that is of a great benefit to the City in my opinion. I guess I just don't get so terribly hung up on showing an absolutely, specific hardship. Variances are part of an overall ordinance and it's a process that is there to be used and I think t~re is a grand opportunity to use that to accomplish a good for the community. Roger, do you have any comments on this? The legalities of it? Roger Knutson: I apologize. ~he packet did not reach me until I arrived here this evening so I have not read this report, To grant a variance you have to find a hardship. I don't know enough or anything about the facts to know whether there is or is not a hardship. Den referred to something about not having e~ough right-of-way for a public street. If that is the case, then that' s sufficient. Mayor Hamilton: Has there been a legal definition of what a hardship is? I think everybody may have their own definition of that. Certainly somewhere along the line some court must have decided what in fact it is. Roger ~utson: State Statutes define it, the courts have defined it from time to time. It's easy to tell you it's already been decided. It's harder to apply the law to individual sets of facts. Economics alone are not a hardship. You have to show that something is unique about the property that allows you that. If you do not grant the variance.. Barbara Dacy: _~_n I clarify one thing for the Council? I ran up and got the survey that was done on June 4, 1981. It cites that the number of dwelling units to be served by this beachlot is 35. At the time ara/or the date this survey was taken, it didn't record any docks or boats moored at that location so I think we just have to assume that any number of lots beyond the 35 would be an intensification. Councilman Horn: Or if there w~re docks or boats moored? Barbara Dacy: Depending on what kind of a year it was in 1981, they may not have installed the dock yet at that point. They could have gone out a month after ar~ there could be 5~ boats there. Councilman Horn: There's one other thing I would like clarified too. I would like to get a map of what Auditor's Subdivision 92 consists of because I think of what we do with beachlots. We confine it to a particular neighborhood cluster. If you look at the addresses that are represented on 25 178 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 this, they are scattered across three or four different streets which to me is not what I feel is the intent of the beachlot and I would like clarification on what Auditor's Subdivision #2 represents. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Gary a question. We commented last week about replacing the sewer because it's a 4 inch sewer and you thought 8 inch would be more adequate or something. Gary Warren: 8 inches is the accepted minimum standard for maintenance. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so I'm still curious when you have six h~nes using a 4 inch service does that mean that there is not going to be anybody else on there? Assuming there are six h~nes using it. It seems like an 8 ir~h might be rather excessive. Gary Warren: ~z3ain, it's from the ability to access the sewer line with full guage cleaning equipment. 8 inches is the minimum standard that we put in for connecting. The cost difference in the pipe since it's a plastic pipe is minimal. Councilman Geving: Tne developer has agreed to do that. Mayor Hamilton: Right, I just wanted to ask that questioru It seems kind of ludicrous to have an 8 inch pipe to serve 6 homes. Councilman Geving: It's bringing it up to city star~ards though. Councilman Gevingmoved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request 987-22 of 3.15 acres into five single family lots on 7423-7425 Frontier Trail with the following conditions: 1. All utility improvements shall conform to city standards and shall be constructed along Lotus Court. 2. The applicant will be required to construct the cul-de-sac connection to Frontier Trail, including the portion on City property. 3. Outlot A shall accommodate a driveway easement for access to the existing home to the north of the outlot. 4. Lotus Court shall be a private street and the City Engineer shall approve of the proposed street standards. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements as noted. 6. Location of the home on Lot 3 shall be done in such a manner to direct storm water runoff in a non-erosive manner and proper erosion control measures shall be taken during construction. 26 179 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 o Grading and erosion control plans for street and utility construction shall be ~3~,,itted to City Engir.~_r prior to sukmittal of development contract. Councilman Geving; Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Horn voted in favor and Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in oppositio~ The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Councilman Boyt: I just want to make the point one more time that a hardship has not ~ shown and I think we're in jeopardy when we don't take the time to show a hardship. Councilman Johnson: Again, I'm making my opposition only on hardship for the street. I think with a little work we can show the hardship on t/~ street. Hopefully, we'll go ahead and do that so we don't set a future precedent. Councilm~n Boyt: Would you be able to put together some sort of hardship on the street? Barbara Dacy: As part of the findings for approval, is it possible that the basis for the approval of the private street could be incorporated into the Minutes specifying the reasons why they approved the private street? Roger Knutson: We can look at it and bring it back if you would like. Mayor Hamilton: That wasn't part of the motion but you can do it as something on the side if you want to. Councilman Horn: I think it's important in situations like this that the Council doesn't get an opportunity to review these before we have to make a decision. It's very uncomfortable to be in that situation. SADDr.w~ROOK FIRST ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Jo Ann Olsen: We are recommending approval of the final plat. It meets with what was approved in the preliminary plat_ The only problem that we pointed out was that Lot 11, Block 7, the structure would be within that 75 foot wetland setback and they would have to go through the variance process. Rick Murray: I think Jo Ann ha_- done very well in the Staff Report. S~e does say in here Lot 11 would only ~ a variance if we decided to build a 5B foot home on it. There are a lot of other style homes that can possibly be built on a lot situatio~u When and if you want to discuss the wetlands, I got a real problem with that being called a wetland but I guess we've been over with Staff several times to make sure that all the numbers of lots in that area. Although we feel the true wetland is actually down around the fence lir~_ Councilman Geving: Does it show on our wetlar~ map? Rick Murray: Yes, it does. It's a Type I. It's urm~)ntrolled by the DNR but it does show. To be honest with you, I sat on the wetlands committee. When 27 180 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 we looked at pictures of wetlands, we looked at stuff that you have on the east side of Kerber Blvd.. The lake with the adjoining marsh and swamp. We saw a presentation after presentation from different planning commission members and Corps of Engineer people concerning what a wetlands looks like and what it does. We didn't see any wetlands that looked like the wetlands that's designated right here on this map which is a meadow. It's a meadow because this part where the upper pond is is 6 feet over that part. All this is is where this neck of land and this neck of land came together sometime in the past. They created a bridge there and for whatever reason it retained the types of soils that are typical to the Type I wetlands which of course the DNR says, those are the kind you probably should put a pond in because they are not going to last anyway. Aside from that, the shaded area is where your wetlands map designates A wetland per se. The ponding area that we are creating, the quaint impression comes off of this corner of this house would simply build a 55 foot E house. If you take a look at the Fox Hollow pond which is adjacent to a wetland, if you look around that pond and see what people have done in their own backyards. C~e lot there, which is the way I would like my backyard to look if I lived in that house, there are like 8 lots there that are natural, let go to be like they are envisioning this pond like. I think if you have the opportunity to look at that you may change your mind as to what this conservation easement actually allows the easement to do. One is manicured rock that goes to the water's edge. There is no fertilizer that goes out of that manicured rock. It provides about a 15 or 20 foot buffer between where the grass gets fertilized to where the wetlands is. The other is weeds and marshes goes right down to the pond and it's a significant difference in what visual impact is in the backyard. If you've got an opportunity, you might look at that. Councilman Boyt: I think he addressed a key issue but that's not the issue in front of us tonight. I have no problems with what's in front of us tonight. Councilman Johnson: I believe Staff and Mr. Murray have gotten together in the two weeks and I would like to commend Staff on getting ~ to the Watershed District and helping them out there. I'm glad we were able to do that. I think we have solved a lot of the problems that we were going to look at at midnight two weeks ago. Is the pond issue, the wetland issue, not the present wetland to the setback but the new wetland that he's going to recreate or is it the present wetland? Jo Ann Olsen: Present wetland. Councilman Johnson: Existing wetlands because the new wetland extend beyond where the existing does so I would think the setback should be from the new wetland. Jo Ann Olsen: That actually is going to be a ponding area and hasn't actually ~ designated as a wetland. Councilman Johnson: It will in the very near future once it starts holding water. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. 28 181 City Council ~ting - June 15, 1987 Roger Knutson: An item that's related to this that is coming up is Kerber Blvd. and I don't know how you're goirg to resolve it and I~ not going to tell you to resolve it but however you resolve it, if you require payment or anything for Kerber Blvd. by this plat, I suggest the appropriate place for that requirement would be in the development contract for the plat. I'm recommer~ing that your approval be subject to working out the development contract and that appropriate provisions conceming payment of improvementS for Kerber Blvd.. Rick Murray: I don't k~ow what the resolution is going to be on Kerber Blvd.. If it's going to be improved. If it's not going to be improvecL If there is going to be a sharing of the improvements as outlined by Mr. En~elhardt and Staff or not. I guess if I agree I would like the Council's agreement that if there's an honest disagreement between us that we can resolve it without having to sign the rights away on a development agreement. If it's an honest disagr~----~e~t. Mayor Hamilton: All I said was that we should have a development agreement contract. Rick Murray: Aside from all of this, the law is setup to handlehonest disagreements is it not? Mayor Hamilton: I hope so. Councilman Boyt: It seems to me what you're suggesting here might be handled by just tabling this until after we de~l with Kerber Blvd. and the~ you will know where you stand. Rick Murray: Are you trying to say if I do disagree that I won't get a plat? Councilman Boyt: No, I'm just sayir~ you'll know what it costs. Rick Murray: If I disagree then we agree that it will be allowed to be disputed in court. Councilman Boyt: I think it's always possible to dispute something in court. Rick Murray: You can't take my rights to develop my property away because I have an honest disagr~,.-------~ent. Mayor Hamilton: I think you felt that's what Boger was saying. Rick Murray: I think that's what I felt Roger was saying. Mayor Hamilton: T~at's what I thought be was saying too that we put in the development contract that you will pay scmething period. Roger Knutson: Can I explain. Don, did they get a copy of my letter? Don Ashworth: Yes. 29 City Counci 1 Meeting - June 15, 1987 Rick Murray: I did not get a copy of your letter. Roger Knutson: No, it was a confidential memorandum to the City Council. What I noted in there is, as part of plat approval you have certain rights that you do not otherwise have. If you choose to exercise those rights, the place to exercise the~ is in a development contract. If you don't exercise them in the development contract, if you let it go to regular special assessments as if someone was not developing, the Rules of Review are substantially changed. That's my point. If you want to use your authority under 462, the place to exercise that is in the development contract. If you don't put it there, your position is different. I explained that in the letter. That's why I made that comment. Mayor Hamilton: I guess it's still not clear to me. If we do that are we saying that Rick can not contest this in Court? Is he agreeing the~ that he is going to pay? Roger Knutson: What I'm suggesting is anyone who can come up with the money to file a lawsuit can file a lawsuit. I can't take that right away from him. I don't have the ability and I don't have the desire to. If you are asking me if I desire to end the problem right here ar~ not go to District Court, and make sure it's settled right here once and for all, absolutely. Rick Murray: M~ too. However, if that's not possible. Roger Knutson: If you're saying, would I like to jeopardize your right to sue this City successfully? Absolutely. Rick Murray: Alright, as long as you're not infringing on my constitutional rights Roger, I don't have a problem. As long as I do get the ability to disagree with this Council if things come out differently than what we're hoping for. I guess that doesn't bother me. Roger Knutson: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that Rick. You have the right to disagree but if you want to put it, I'm trying to put it together in such a way that the City's position is protected and that what the City Council decides here tonight sticks. I hope I've giving that advice in such a way that that happens. Councilman Johnson: ~n the final plat we're not approving the development contract at this time. Is that necessary for the final plat approval or is this a condition that we can put in at some other point because we're going to approve the development contract as of yet too? Roger Knutson: I think the Mayor has done that because the final plat the way it is in the motion is to approve it subject to these three items. One is the development contract and one item that can be addressed in that development contract is the payment for Kerber Blvd. so by passing a motion that is presented, you have not prejudiced that but I think I wanted to make editorial comments so everyone knows the rules. 30 188 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me what Rick is saying, depending upon how item 7 comes out, he would like to have the ability, if he feels that he hasn't ~_n treated fairly, to sit down with Staff or Council and discuss the item further and reach an agreement ar~ not to necessarily have to take it to District Court. I guess if I understand what you're saying, you are saying he's not goirg to have that right anymore. If we put that in the develola~ent contract, he will not have that right. Roger Knutson: Ch no. There's no one who believes in sitting down arouc,] the table and solving the problem more than I do. I think that's great. That's the way I like it done. Mayor Hamilton: Does that adequately answer your question Rick? Rick Murray: I think so Ton~ The State law is set up so if you are beirg assessed and you feel you are being treated unfairly to what some of your neighbors are being treated, you have an appeal process to go through the State of Minnesota. I just want to make sure I'm not giving away that right as a property owner. Roger Knutson: Not to beat a dead horse but to say it just one more time. We're not just dealirg with 429 here, the special assessment law. We're dealing with the platting laws. Because you're in the situation of platting, the City has rights it would not otherwise have. If the City wants the exact costs, that it be done under the platting laws so we can get it done and it will stick but I think it's appropriate that we sit down ar~ further discuss it. That' s no problem whatsoever. Mayor Hamilton: And then the development contract could be amended after that time? Roger Knutson: You don't have the development contract in front of you tonight. Mayor Hamilton: No we don't but I'm saying if it were passed and say what is agreed to and that can he amended at a future date should we agree o~ some number that doesn't add up right tonight. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask a question to see if we can't move on. Is the motion that Tom has made a motion that keeps all the Citl~s options available to it ar~ fully protects our position? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton moved, Cour~ilman Geving ~econded to approve the final plat dated June 11, 1987 for the Saddlebrook First Addition with the following conditions: . ~ter into the development contract with sukmission of financial sureties. 2. Sukmission of trail easement. 31 184 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 3. Submission of conservation easement. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Mr. Steilen: Mr. Mayor, I want to make sure that I understood that right because Rick asked a question at the very end there which was, would the motion allow him to have an assessment appeal and I believe I heard you say yes. Roger Knutson: That's not correct. I said we're not dealing under just 429 we're also dealing under 466. We're not just dealing with the special assessment situation, we're dealing with a situation with plat. Mr. Steilen: Rick asked a question just before the vote. Roger Knutson: Tnat was my explanation. Mr. Murray's Attorney: I heard the Mayor say yes. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't hear him say that directly. Councilman Boyt: Plus he doesn't speak for the whole Council. Councilman Johnson: I don't think the vote had anything to do with the assessment. We approved the final plat. We did not approve the development contract. Our legal counsel is asking us to negotiate, to come up with a solution that is mutually agreeable and place that as a condition of the development contract in the future if I understand what you're saying right Roger. Roger Knutson: That's right. Councilman Johnson: And we did not vote at all on that. We only appoved his final plat with the conditions that are in here that don't have anything to do with the develol~ent contract except that one will be made. SADDLEBROOK FIRST ADDITION: APPROVAL OF GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Councilman Johnson: Dust. We're going to be grading. We're going to be doing a lot of work. I know it's in the Environmental Assessment and I know that we've had dust problems elsewhere. We had an extremely dusty season this year. I want to have total assurances that we're going to have dust control as stated and as implied within the development contract that he will keep the dust down to a minimum and that we will apply water or whatever we said we would do to protect the people living next door or across the street from this development. We're going to create a lot of dust with this grading. If reseeding is done to stabilize quickly so we not only keep down erosion but grass helps keep down dust. I don't know if you need to put that in here as a condition or not but that's a concern of mine. I think the Chanhassen Vista people had a real problem for about two weeks. 32 185 City Council F~eting - JUne 15, 1987 Councilman Geving: I would like to have the developer t~ll us a little bit about mass grading of this project in five phases. Generally when we do a grading, we do a phase, we stop, we do the building and then we move on into the second phase. Explain to us exactly what you are attempting to do with these five phases. Rick Y~rray: You do have a copy of our phasing proposal? Councilman Geving: Yes. Rick Murray: The proposal there is to open up areas of the site and get them restored as quickly as possibl~ Each phase, I think the biggest phase we have .is about 17 acres. If you add that together, what's going to be open at one time, you would have around 25 to 30 acre parcel which is not improper for Chanhassen and it's relatively easily controlled. ~ere will be times when we have for instance Phase 1 when we're finishing restoration on Phase L We're spending a lot of money for that equipment every day and it takes us about 3 to 4 days to get that finished graded with the bulldozers, backdug, ar~ disced ar~ mulched and seeded. ~hose 3 or 4 days or a week is what the lag is. We would like to be moving into Phase 2 with our scraper. It's just efficiency. That's what the project phasing is intended to do. Councilman Geving: So you're saying this will be highly controlled? The phases will move in an orderly fashion. You're not going to get out there ar~ bulldoze the whole 84 acres? Rick Murray: No. I've never done that before. Councilman Geving: And you have a handle on that C~ry? On what he's attempting to do? Gary Warren: Yes, his phasing plan, be basically would be working in two phases for the third for example wouldn't start until the first one is finished and that's the intent. Councilman Geving: ~nat's the only point I really want to make. ~at we complete a phase before we move on and Gary will control the c~mpletien of that phase and give you the okay to start the second phase, the third phase and so forth? Gary Warren: We will write that into the development contract consistent with this o Councilman Boyt: I would agree with Jay. I lived on the edge of the dust bowl for the last 3 to 4 weeks. If you could do s~mething to control that. I know it's a real difficult thing to control but I would like to see you agree to do the best you can. I think it's a good plan. Rick Murray: one further comment. ~hat dust bowl you're referring to is much larger in any tw~ phases than anything I'm proposing to do. 33 186 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I just thought Gary that Rick had gone to the Watershed District so he could get this project underway and I thought that should have been a part of this report that he had been to the Watershed District and they had approved it contingent upon our approving it. I thought you stopped short on your comment here saying that the Watershed District to consider this Grading and Erosion Control Plan at their JUne 3rd meeting. Well, it was passed. Gary Warren: I don't have any report fr~m th~n specifically. Councilman Geving: I thought we had a letter from Gary. Mayor Hamilton: I don't want to beat it to death but I'm just saying I think you knew it as well as I did that they had gone and it was approved ar~ you could have included that. Gary Warren: I wasn't trying to keep that a secret. Their approval is contingent 100% upon the city's approval. Rick Murray: I would like to thank City Staff for the cooperation with the Watershed District because it is somewhat unprecedented. We spent more time dealing with precedence and percedence setting at the Watershed District meeting than with the grading and I want to thank the City Staff and City Council for allowing that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for the Saddlebrook Subdivision as prepared by Sathre- Bergquist printed JUne 11, 1987 with the following conditions: lo Erosion control measures proposed for the site should include cutoff dikes in the drainageway around the perimeter of the site. m The construction of the northern pond between Coyote Court and Saddlebrook Trail shall be included as a part of the Phase I construction. 0 Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all side slopes greater than 3:1 or greater including, but not limited to, the side slope proposed for Lots 10-15, Block 7, just north of the ponds. 0 All erosion control measures shall be in place prior ~o the initiation of any grading and once in place, they shall be maintained in place throughout the duration of construction. They shall not he removed until an established vegetative cover has been produced and the r~noval shall be the responsibility of the developer. 5, Grading shall not commence on subsequent phases until seeding, discing and mulching are comple~ on the previous phases i.e. Phase III shall not begin until Phase I is completed, Phase IV until Phase II is ccmpleted and Phase V until Phase III is cc~leted. 34 187 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 o The developer shall sutmit specifications for site grading to the City Engineer for his review ar~ approval prior to the initiatio~ of site grading. e The developer agrees to modify his grading plan consistent with the final plan for curb and gutter imrpovements, if required, on Kerber Blvd.. m The developer agrees to comply with the recomm~tion of approval as issued by the Watershed District. e This grading approval does not include the drainage improvements. A separate drainage plan shall be su~,itted for review ar~ approval by the City and the Watershed District. The developer shall present to the City his plan for demolition ard disposal of the Kerber farm on the northeast corner of the property for approval by the City E~gineer. 11. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City ard abide by the conditions of this develo~nent contract. 12. The developer shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 11~% of the cost of site grading, site restoration, and erosion control prior to initiation of construction. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. KERBER BLVD. ~ AND GUTTER IMPROVISiNgS, OONTINI~TION. Don Ashworth: Bill Engelhardt is going to give the update which will basically parallel the Staff Report. Bill Engelhardt: I'll speak to Don's memorandum dated June 15th. What we did is we went back and we broke the project down into three sections to look at what kind of development and what kind of section would be most appropriate. The first section we looked at, Section 1, was from CR 16 up to Santa Vera Drive. In looking at what we colored in orange on this particular map, shows what would happen if we would take Ooulter Blvd. and again, these are just examples, and extending Coulter Blvd. all the way through looking at West Village Heights and Santa Vera Drive. What would happen if we would install right turn lanes and by-pass lanes on the rural section we have out there right now. As you can see, when you get down to CR 16 area, granted these intersections may be a little close to CR 16 but when it comes down to developing this site, there is going to have to be another access be it this way, be it off of CR 16. The same with the James property. Any potential developirg we can look again for a drive through be it an extension of Coulter or another driveway off in this area. In any event, what happens is that with the 40 mph design spccd through here, is that your right turn lanes and your by-pass lanes in effect create a four lane roadway through this whole area. When you do that, you are essentially creatirg a berm ir~3 area or an urban 35 188 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 section which is concrete curb and gutter, controlled drainage. Controlling the drainage becomes an issue because as you extend these roadways out in order to build these turn lanes, you are eliminating the ditch section that you now have so your pipe section has to go in the ditch area and then your storm sewer could be carried by the pipe with catch basins in the roadway. So in Section 1, you're looking at, by constructing turn lanes and by-pass lanes, all except for a minor area up in here that would be basically a four lane road and granted you made some assumptions down in this area that this is what could happen. Section 2 is from Santa Vera up to what I call Chan Vista. It's Chan Vista 3rd and 4th Addition up in here. This is the Saddlebrook property. This is the triangular piece along Kerber Blvd. on the east side and there is some question on what can be done. Can it be developed. In this particular section you can see that really the widening of the roadway or putting the turn lane, does not dictate th~ whole construction of a four lane roadway in this area. It does dictate that in this area and this area that you would need extension of the blacktop. The third section that is from the Chan Vista 4th all the way up to the existing curb and gutter, in that location we have Sierra Trail and Santa Fe Pass and those areas again, it looks like a substantial amount of roadway would have to be created as a four lane road by the time you got your tapers and lane widths. Going back to Section 1, the next issue that we addressed is basically the street lighting and hydrant location. As you can see, the street lighting location is placed behind the proposed curb and gutter but next to the walkway. What this does is provide for safe pedestrian walkway and it provides some protection to your light poles and your light stands. The section through number 2 shows the lighting, the walkway and tb~ hydrants again on the west side and in this case we are proposing that we would continue the curb and gutter on the west side but addressing the council concern on the east side, we felt the curb could be deleted from this section for approximately 1,400 feet. That would not jeopardize our section. This roadway, the drains could be handled two ways. One, it could be super elevated which means it would be set up so that the drainage would cross to this side. We have to be a little careful on design criteria to be sure that it isn't tipped too steep or too flat in order to put in some icing that could happen there or we could construct this roadway wide enough to get four lanes but on this section, because it drops off so fast, just continue our grading in the area the way it is right now. It seems to be reasonable that that could work. Section 3, again going north, we proposed that curb and gutter be placed on both sides of the roadway and there, we're basically trying to carry the drainage on the Sierra Trail side to try and match the existing entrance. We're trying to match drainage patterns and pick up the drainage and carry it into the roadway into the existing outlot. So, all and all, we're looking at three sections. These three maps indicate what would happen if these three areas are developed to the full extent. It even could get worse than this but it does show that four lane section would basically be built after you've constructed your turn lane. Another item that we addressed was the walkway and I know there was a great desire on the Council's part to establish a walkway on the east side of the roadway. We looked at that. Again, walked up and down both sides of the roadway several times to try and figure out what could be done in s6me of these areas. Basically the conclusion that I came up with is that the walkway on the west side, where we're establishing an urban section seems to fit the terrain the best. Seems to be least costly and provides the most safety for 36 189 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 the general public from a walkway standpoint. ~his section would be lit with the street lights as propose=L The walkway would be up at grade with the roadway. Tmere may be some areas where it would dip down slightly but in general the walkway would be up at grade. Those are the advantages. The disadvantages are that you do have to make crossings but whatever side you do put the walkway on, be it east or west, there are goir~3 to have to be s~e crossings. As Don mentioned in his memo, there's a cattle pass that we wanted to use to make a crossing fr~n the Chart Vista area and continue that on to the Lake Ann Park. ~ne existing cattle pass that's urger the roadway is not adequate to handle that kind of traffi~ So the three issues basically are the turn lanes dictate that the curb ar~ gutter be installed which in effect dictates that the storm sewer be install_~__- Advise for locaton of the lighting and in doing so, you then have a good location for the walkway and safe walkway for the general public. The issue of the first part of the memo addresses the legality of the assessments on it. Mr. Knutson has addressed that. The assessments could be sustained on it. We are reducing the assessments to Mr. Murray for the portion of curb and gutter through this area, through the 1,40~ feet where curb and gutter would not be installecL It's a minor amount when you look at the total picture of the project. It's $15,000.00 but it is a reduction for curb and gutter not being installed there. We still have to widen the roadway to four lanes. As far as the street lighting goes, I think there was some comments and questions on what could be deleted from the project ar~ we looked at deleting the street lighting from the project ar~ making that in Section 1, an assessment to the development who is developing West Village Heights area. Constructing typical residential lighting via NSP and the standard street lighting through this area and again picking up assessments to the north with the addition of assessments against the property owners, The savings that you would look at, minimum would be $4~,~0~.0~. The initial report had $110,~.0~ so it would be $110,~.~ that we would be looking at ar~ by assessing this portion of the lighting to the James Gompany property and the Jacobson property, we could probably get that down to about $7~,~0. ~0. Councilman Geving: So just Section I, is that what you're saying? Bill Engelhardt: Right. That's basically what we've cc~e up with through the three hearings trying to put all the different pieces together ar~ make some compromises through the issues. We do feel that the road should be constructed as a 44 foot urban section with the deletion of the curb through the easterly portion of, I'll call it tl~ Murray property. ISa not certain what the name of it is but I'll call it the Murray property. Delete that curb ar~ gutter and still construct the roadway so we have a consistent roadway and it's a safe traveled surface area. . Councilman Johnson: I disagree personally with the deletion of the curb in that area. The large dropoff to the right, I think a curb adds a little bit of a safety factor to the vehicles. Most of ths~ are driving too fast in there anyway but without the curb and a wider street for them to drive faster on yet and that huge drop on that side, for $15,00~.0~ the safety involved and also the icing problems potential, the engi~ring problems of putting that on your super elevation and all that good stuff, I personally am in favor of keeping that curb in that section and doing your $11~,0~0.~0 worth of lighting 37 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 reduction. Taking that $110,000.00 which we had designated to come out of the General Obligation and taking that against the assessed cost of the project that was going to be assessed. I think with my rough calculations shows a 35% reduction in the assessment which I think is a substantial reduction in assessment. I didn't realize the lighting was going to have to be that substantial in the area. I missed that in my review. $110,000.00 is a lot of lighting and talking to our Public Safety Director, the lighting for sidewalk for safety reasons and I'm not totally convinced that we would be able to do an adequate job in other ways with some other funds. I think that may be a good alternative that will provide us substantial reduction to the Saddlebrook property. In fact as reduction of around $15,000.00 if I look at this right. Bill Engelhardt: I rattled those numbers out. I don't have them on a piece of paper to present you with. If we take the $110,000.00 we would be reducing the curb per foot cost from $37.10 down to about $24.00 to $25.00. In doing that, the Saddlebrook assessment would go from $104.00 down to about $67.00 so there's a substantial savings and that would be carried throughout all the property owners then we would assess or we would see if these property owners would pick up their portion of the lighting here. We want to maintain some continuity coming off of West 78th Street and CR 16 with your downtown lighting. Pull that up into this commercial area and fit that in ar~ they seem to be willing to work with us. Councilman Johnson: My only other comment, my suggestion is if we do that, take out the widening and work the widening through over avenues in the future if widening is seen, after we find out if it is necessary or not, if we can. We're trying to protect the people from being run over by having lighting on this detached sidewalk. Once somebody is driving down that sidewalk, I don't think the street lamps are going to help them much. The other one is the issue of the Chan Vista lots which I think there are several methods that we're going to work with that. I think that can be worked out in the assessment hearings. Other than that, I'm still against assessing which I've maintained every time, I voted against it. Those three priva%e homeowners should not be assessed $13,000.00 or whatever it is and we have to be reasonable. Councilman Boyt: I have a question of either Clark or Dale and I guess I would say that given where I think this is headed, I don't see the point in carrying the discussion on further. Councilman Horn: Were the owners of Chan Vista notified of the public improvement hearing? Don Ashworth: At the time the notices were prepared, Saul Segal owned all of that property. Since that point in time two of the three lots have indeed changed ownership and the property owners involved did come in to the last meeting noting that they did not want to pay for those assessments. Councilman Johnson: They are here tonight also. Councilman Boyt: That takes care of one concern so I'll follow that with a couple others. As I stated last time, and I think Don stated in his letter, 38 191 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 this is really a one time window that we've got to do something right on this piece of property. There are going to be many more affected property owners if we come back and attempt to upgrade this at some future point. I'm not optimistic that we're going to find lighting under another fund alt~h I haven't talked to anybody to indicate that one way or the other. I find on the one hand Bill is saying we can get along without lighting ar~ on the other hand, o~e of the major reasons that they didn't want the trailway system to go on the east side of the road is because of the difficulty of lighting. Bill Engelhardt: Yes, there's a difference in the type section on the east side dipping down and going down below the hill where we have virtually no lighting at all and a very difficult path to maneuver going up and down the hill. On the west side we're essentially building a sidewalk at grade with the grade of the street and it's a much easier path to manipulate to maneuver on so that's the reas¢~ for it. Don Ashworth: Staff has not given up on the lighting or the importance of lighting. Since this will back onto the rear yards, we have changed the position of the higher intensity lighting through the middle section. On the lower section we continue to believe that by working with Jacobson ami Charlie James that we in fact can get the lighting through and that they will agree to an assessment on that. I~ more than willing to drop it out of this project if it helps get this one ahead but we're not giving up on the lighting. Councilman Boyt: What you're saying is that this lighting will come it will come through those southerly property owners. Don Ashworth: That's right. And through the central section then is a different type of NSP lighting where there would not be the heavy develo~nent charges associated with that. In that section you would ~ residential lighting very similar to any one of our neighborhoods. That would be the type of lighting that would dot that entire section. It would still pr(wide lighting to the sidewalks. Councilman Boyt: I would encourage something other t/man a light fixture hanging off a telep~%or~- pol~ We can do better than that. As far as cuzb and gutter, I agree with Jay. The savings are minimal and I think it makes the road look s(~nething less than professional to have curb ar~ gutter run down three-fourths of it ar~ then disappear. I think if the development on the north e~t of Kerber could afford this, the developments that are looking at this now should be able to afford the same sort of situation. I'll accept the lighting going out given that we have other funding sources but I would very strongly support keeping the curbing in. Councilman Horn: Rick, with the exception of the lighting going out, is this acceptable to you at this point or do you still have a concern? Rick Murray: Clark, I still have a concerru My concern is I look at this as being an off-site improvement period. If you start with the premise that we've got adequate service for 14~ lots from Powers BlvcL which is a 9 ton commercial highway, Kerber becomes auxilliary to us. It's nice to have but it's by no means the only access I have to my project. Tk~ Attorney mentioned 39 192 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 the subdivision exaction which is quite appropriate for on-site property improvements. If we wanted to change the plans and I don't, I sincerely don't, I want to work something out but we've got two cul-de-sacs on the edge towards Kerber. We don't need Kerber. In fact I've got 30 lots that don't even access Kerber. Have no way of getting there. So I do have a problem per se with the payment method or proposed payment method for this project. I don't have a problem with the project but I think that Jay and Bill are absolutely right. It's a one time window that the City has without dealing with a whole bunch of neighbors. Even with three neighbors you know what that problem causes. We're going to have 15 or 20 more that will back up to that site. Per lineal foot is not the way to propose the assessment. I guess that's my major concern. Just south of us, for instance, you look at Table 3 of the May 22nd memo from the Staff. Table 3 says Saddlebrook is getting a great deal. $440.00 per lot. Sounds good. Chan Vista right across the street is $442.00. Tae other one, is $441.00 or $446.00 or something like that so you're getting a good deal. ~o south of me one property to the James Property. When you come up with my $440.00 per foot, you've thrown in my proposed 96 townhouse units on the south end of the site. If you go to the property to the south of me, the West Village Townhouses, they have 250 proposed townhouses. If you're going to treat us the same, those guys are less than $90.00. They are all going to use the same property and same road and have the same impact_ Yes, I do have a problem. Philosphically and practically with my use of Kerber Blvd. and my participation in Kerber Blvd. at least to this extent. There are some good reasons to have it done. Staff is giving you all the good reasons to have it done. I just don't agree with the method of paying for it. Staff hasn't given you any good reason why this 9 ton rural section ~s to be upgraded. It's only 7 or 8 years old. Why it needs to be upgraded. There has been reference from Carver County of any incidence along this road. Pedestrian or vehicular. In our EAW, MnDot has a standard that says once you get to 10,000 vehicle trips per day, you need to find a way to get to four lanes. You are there on TH 5 and it's only two lanes guys. Here, after all of this development, you'll be at 3,000 or 3,500 trips per day. If you're looking for a place to spend money, spend it on TH 5. There's no health, welfare and safety question of doing this. It's a great idea and it's a good time to do it. I don't particularly like the method of which you are proposing to assess us for it because I don't think it's really fair. Half of my property could be serviced from Powers Blvd. if you're going to be fair about it. Councilman Horn: Let me ask Roger then, is this sufficient relation between development of Kerber and the development? Roger Knutson: You mean under 462? Yes. Councilman Horn: Being adjacent to the development. Is that sufficient relation in your opinion? Roger Knutson: As I pointed out to you, the standard the courts use is whether this development and other similar developments in the area and tendering the r~_~c~ now and in the future for having the improvement. That's really a fact question you'll have to wrestle with but in my opinion there obviously is a relationship between Kerber Blvd. and this development. F~=_rber 40 193 City fbuncil Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 Blvd. is not a major arterial. It is a collector. It's not TH 5. It's not an interstate. Councilman Horn: So what I think we are seeing is that this is an appropriate assessirg method for a collector. I believe I also heard that tt~ property owners in Chan Vista 1st Addition were notified of the improvement. Is that true also? Don Ashworth: No. ~he owner at the time the project was initiated was Saul Segal who was notifie~L Since that point in time two of the three lots have been sold. Councilman Horn: ~at does that mean legally B~er? Roger ~nutson: At the time the notice went out, County records were such that Mr. Segal was listed as the owner and he was given mailed notice required by 429. On subsequent sales, you don't have to keep checkirg every 30 days, every 60 days to find out if there are sales. You have to give the notice to the person who ownsd it when the notice went out. Councilman Geving: And that did happen? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Geving: I think the last point that Clark made was the most important point that I was trying to get at. Everything really hirges on that notification for the people who are here and own those lots. I think that our Staff and Manager have c~me a lorg way in the last two weeks si~e we met on June 1st in attempting to resolve a lot of discussion and coming up with some alternatives for us. I kind of like the way t~ broke the project down into three sections. I too believe right now that we should attempt to keep the assessmerfc amount as low as possible. Whatever is practical. I believe that this is a well traveled or will certainly be a well traveled route throughout the city and a lot of people will benefit fr~m havirg that road brought up to standard. I believe that we should put the lighting in to the extent practical for Section 1 which leads through the West Village Heights ar~ the James Property. I was very surprised about the amount of money that's involved in lightirg but I certainly want to save the $11~,000.00 ox whatever you've come up with now. I guess it's $70,000.00. Is that right Don? DOn Ashworth: The $110,000.00 would ccme out of General Obligation and whether or not we included the southern portion and assessed it now or Staff simply worked with Jacobson/James to insure that it got in as a part of their phase, either way, it's taken out of the GO portion and made availalbe to reduce overall assessments yet lightirg is still accomplished. Councilman Geving: I think it's important on the southern section. As much as I would like to see the sidewalks ar~ bike paths on the east side, there really is much more room on the west side to accomomdate that and it ~ms reasonable. Let's move on down to s~me of the comments that were talked about in the earlier discussions about curb and gutter on both sides of this road to the extent of Sections 1, 2 ar~ ~ The Manager has suggested to us that we 41 194 City Council ~cting - JUne 15, 1987 delete the curbing on the east side. I need to know one other fact before I comment on this. How many acres do you have Rick on the east side? Rick M~rray: 7 or 8. Councilman Geving: If the decision was made to curb and gutter the entire extent of those 1,400 feet that we're talking about here, this would have a great impact upon you obviously of those 7 or 8 acres probably as the Mayor indicated at the last meeting, to be far in excess of the cost. Rick ~rray: To the extent that there is no market value. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, I'm negotiating. I'm in a position now of negotiation because I really believe, and I'm speaking just for myself, I really believe that the City has a grand opportunity here to acquire that 6 or 7 acres as a part of our Park and Bec total acreage for the pond in Chanhassen. If the City were to approach you for the sale of that 6 or 7 acres, and I don't know if they have yet, what would be your c(mm~=nt on that? Rick Murray: I would be willing to discuss it. I'm not the owner. I sold the contract to the two gentlemen who own our company so speaking for them, I would say yes, they would entertain discussion. Councilman Geving: Tne reason I throw that out for discussion, I know we've all ~ this particular area. I've walked it nearly every night for several weeks and every time we get to that point I kind of stop and look and wonder how 4, 5 or 6 homes might look on that site and the more I look at it the more I think it's not really a very nice homesite or something I would like to see homes built on ar~ if at all possible I would like to see the City pursue the opportunity of acquiring that for a park. That's just my comment. I'm not speaking for the rest of the Council. I had some other comments regarding the curbing and guttering. I think really it makes very little sense to me to curb the east side of Kerber Blvd.. Even if it's only a $15,000.00 item, it's definitely a savings to the developer and I'm questioning whether it's really worthwhile. I would have to think about that a little bit before we were to vote on it but again it gets down to these discussions where it's your only opportunity to do something and do it right. For $15,000.00 I might say, let's do it. On the other hand, it's $15,000.00 that the developer might get stuck with too. Finally, that is the discussion. That's the end of the Manager's letter and I thought this whole letter, this 3 or 4 pages was well thought out. My main thoughts tonight in looking at this, I haven't char~ed my thinking any, I want to see this project proceed. It's going to happen. The development is going to take place. I think whatever we can do to get it going this season, we would be better off. I was more interested in the legal issue on the notification to current hc~~ers. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not going to get into everything other than to say that I still don't agree with doing the project. I realize that there may be an opportunity to do something but the traffic on the road in my opinion doesn't warrant spending the funds that are needed to be spent to accommodate this project. I think by not doing the curb on the east side and eliminating some of the lighting is certainly the first glimmer of hope I've seen for 42 City (~ouncil _F~cting - June 15, 1987 accomplishment of the project. What I would like to do, in light of the discussion this evening and I think hearing that the (~ouncil is basically in favor of some of the comments that have been made and moving ahead with the project, there's ~ an awful lot of time ar~ energy spent on this project to this point and we ~ to have Staff again m~_t with Rick Murray and the Chan Vista people and with the Jacobsons ar~ James to work out exactly how the assessment is going to work out on this project and I think Don feels confident that all of those issues can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Mayor Hamilton moved, Oouncilman Horn seconded to table the Kerber Blvd. curb and gutter improvements until the City Manager has had an opporbanity to meet with Rick Murray, the Chan Vista people, (~%arile James and William Jacobson to resolve the assessment issue and bring it back to be settled onoe and for all. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson ~ho opposed and motion carried. Joe Pertoo: As far as the comment of Dale Geving as far as ~ current homeowners being formally notified of this project, I moved into my property of Lot 14, Block 4 on May 15th. I called the City Manager's office around the 10th of May and I asked them if there were any taxes being assessed or pending against my property or taxes or any assessments that would be assessed in the future and I was given an affirmative no. I had heard about this project by ru~r so to speak so I was never formally notified. Mayor Hamilton: I think what was said was that you weren't suppo~ to be since the owner of the property at the time this project began was Saul Segal and he was notified and according to the City Attorney, that's all the notification we were required to make. We still want to work with you ar~ we're happy that you've come and we'll keep in touch with you. Joe Pertoo: For the record I would formally like to say that I would like to see the assessments of the three lots be absorbed into the General Obligation Fur~ since this would be only 7/10th's of a percent increase in the cost of the project. I feel that's unfair for three properties to pay for 30 others that w~uld equally benefit. Gary Warren: For the record, I had talked with David Segal in trying to cite the timing of the transition of the property sales and David Segal related to me that ownership of his lot was transferred on April 29th. That's when the closirg was conducte~L Our feasibility that we called a public hearing, we held that meeting on April 20th and notices were mailed out so the timing coincides almost identically with the transfer of sale so our notices did go out to Segal who was on record at the time. REQUEST TO SUBDMDE 4.7 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, CREEK ~ ON YOS~ITE AVENUE, R~B~ ENGS~. Mayor Hamilton: This item was tabled two weeks ago and we asked the developer to go back and redo his plans and su]m~it a new plan which appears as though we have received. 43 196 City fbuncil Meeting - June 15, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: They su]m~itted a new plan which does not require any variances. Lot 3 still will be by an easement over Lots 2 and 4. Lot 6 is no longer a flag lot and Lot 9 had the 90 feet at the 30 foot setback. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions established in the Report. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate your work in pulling this around. I hope it's something you can live with almost as well as the first plaru One question I had was, where's your island? After all the discussion about an island in a cul-de-sac, it looks like it disappeared. Robert Engstrom: No, it's still there it's just with a plat you don't show it because it's all public right-of-way. Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I have a question for Staff. Are we better off granting an easement over two lots or making 3 a flag lot? Jo Ann Olsen: Tne difference there is if 3 was a flag lot if would have it's own property and sometimes there are problsms with easements. Councilman Boyt: So it would be an advantage. Can you tell me why 3 isn't a flag lot? Barbara Dacy: Creation of a flag lot, we may still have a lot width problem 30 feet back again. Councilman Boyt: I don't know how wide that would be but it looks to me like it would enter on LOt 3 before it got into either one of those 30 foot setbacks. Barbara Dacy: Either way, as Jo Ann point out, with an easement recorded that does become a little more cumbersome other than dedicating public frontage. Jo Ann Olsen: We want to make sure though that LOt 2 and 4 still have the 90 feet and that would not be taken away. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Engstrom, I'm sure you are familiar with your map. Could 3 be a flag lot without encroaching upon the 90 foot setback? Robert Engstrom: Yes. I would prefer that if you would. Councilman Boyt: I don't hear Staff saying that they are opposed to that so I would also prefer that. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: I called ar~ talked to Jo Ann about this this morning. think we ~d to make 3 a flag lot and I've talked to Barb also on this. I think it's very important for all lots to have their own access onto the streets that they are going to have their driveways on. Somehow we have to get that into our Ordinance. I think we will create a deeper required setback on Lot 3 to obtain the 90 foot setback on Lot 3. That would be to make LOt 3 a flag lot with 20 foot wide flag for the driveway and to modify the required housing setback from the cul-de-sac at such a point at the 90 foot width. 44 197 City Oouncil ~ting - JUne 15, 1987 Otherwise, I think the developer has worked real well and done a good job on this. I guess I wasn't totally happy previously with the grading plans ar~ the lack of trees being shown. Where the tree line and whether any clear cutting was going to be done or anything like that. A lot of those issues Staff dealt with me on those as far as their site vists on a small subdivisio~ I still would like to make sure that we always get everything that we .require on those plans. I like it. I can live with 10 lots now with this arrangement and I like the center islan~ I think the center islar~ will be real nice in here and with the trees on it it's going to make a real nice little subdivisi~ But I agree with Bill totally on the flag lot part of it. Councilman Boyt: I think Clark may have just four&] a problem. Does this require a variance if we make this a flag lot? Jo Ann Olsen: It's got the required public street frontage on Yosemite. Councilman Horn: What is the building setback line? Does that come from the street? Councilman Boyt: Are you saying it's coming from Yosemite or the cul-de-sac? Is the building setback line fr~n the street or the cul-de-sac? Jo Ann Olsen: It would be from the street. We could do building setback lines from both but we would consider the frontyard setback from the cul-de- Councilman Boyt: Even though that's not an entrance point you would consider that an acceptable frontyard setback? Jo Ann Olsen: No, we would look at it from the street. Councilman Boyt: From the cul-de-sac? So from the cul-de-sac it doesn't have 90 feet at the 30 foot setback? I agree, as I said before we ~ to change that part of the ordinance. Until we get a change maybe we're stuck with an easement o Councilman Johnson: I think we can solve this one quite clearly. I have no problem with a variance for this flag lot in that the topogra~ of the area, the existing things, everything we ~ for a hardship is here. I think we can state the hardship on this flag lot. Because of the topograp~ ar~ the full utilization of the property ar~ the value and everything required in our Zoning Ordinance, he's got the hardship. Plus technically I think he can say his frontyard setback is off Yosemite and this is a rearyard setback, We can made an additio_D~_l condition upon to have a wider setback at this point. I don't know if that's legal of not but he's got the frontage on Yosemite. F~ just won't happen to have his driveway to come off, his house is going to be backwards but I think it's going to be a nice subdivision. I think we can very easily show a hardship here to the standards of our hardship. Councilman Horn: Jay, do you consider if it's acceptable to have a nine lot subdivision but you can't have a ten, is that a hardship? 45 198 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I think the hardship here is if this was a cornfield and he could come in, because of the topography of the area, because of the trees in the area, in order to maintain the trees and topography of the area, to get the same 10 lots that he would get if this was a cornfield, that he could just come walking in here and do anything he wanted. If the topography was not here, he would have 10 lots in here without any variances required. Because of the topography being here, he requires this one small variance. Councilman Horn: Or 9 lots. And because we've eliminate the 9 lots as a hardship he can not get a variance. Councilman Johnson: Tnat's the alternate at this point. I fight variances as hard as anybody. Councilman Geving: I don't think we need a variance. Councilman Horn: My only point is, we've kicked around this hardship issue here all night and I would to be consistent on it. Councilman Johnson: If the developer wants a flag lot, what would he have to come back in the future to do before final plat? Councilman Boyt: Ask for a variance. Jo Ann Olsen: Get an amendment to the preliminary plat. Councilman Johnson: I think in this case we are making the strict enforcement of our ordinance is creating a worse subdivision than a flag lot would. Tne flag lot yes, would technically require a variance but would make a better subdivision and would serve this subdivision better and serve the City better. I believe to me that the hardship of our ordinance is imposing upon him to make a subdivision with this easement across other people's land for his driveway. I personally believe that he would be better served with a flag lot. The City would be better served and the hardship is there. Tn. hardship is created bot~ by the topography ar~ by the Ordinance itself. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Su]~ivision Request 987-21 as shown on the plat dated June 10 with the following conditions: 1. No individual lot shall be permitted access onto Yosemite. . A satisfactory Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be suk~itted for review and concurrence by the City. . Provide a drainage easement across Lots 8, 1, 2 and 3 to preserve the existing drainageway. 4. Provide a driveway easement across Lots 2 and 4 for access to LOt 3. . Ail utility and street improvements shall conform to City standards for urban construction. 46 199 City Osuncil ~ting - June 15, 1987 . The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties for completien of the improvements. . SufE ittal of an acceptable final drainage plan including calculations for review by the City, Watershed District, ar~ DNR ar~ csmpliance with all applicable conditions. A homeowners association shall be established to maintain the cul-de- sac island. . A culvert shall be installed within the ravine to allow drainage and stabilization of the area. 10. The City Engineer must approve the design of the .cul-de-sac islamS. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. PIANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONS~ A 6g UNIT APA~TM]~T BUILDING ON 2.5 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE GF CHAN VIEW, CHADDA AND FIRST AMERICAN DEVELO~ ASSOCIATION. Barbara Dacy: ~he Planning Oommission recommended approval of the request subject to six conditions as noted in the Staff updat~ Staff is requesting that an additional condition, a detail item that we overlooked, that all parking areas be lined with concrete curbirg. Under the City Council section of the Staff Bagort, the proposed motion is left out and you just have the conditions there but that should read that should the Council wish to approve the subdivision that they approve it subject to the 7 conditions that are on page 7. Councilman Johnson: (In number 7 should we say all outdoor parking areas since they have an indoor parking area and you don't need to put concrete curb in the basement? I like this. I like the looks of this ams everMthing else. I wish all of our apartment complexes were as nice as this. Councilman Boyt: 7here was a comment raised at the Planning Oommission about the fire protection ar~ you indicat_~_ you are working with the Fire Marshall on that. Following what we just heard about the Eagan community, assure me that we're not going to go throu~ that. Tom Zumwalde: I wish I could. I'm not sure what bap~ down at Eagan. It was a large complex and apparently something went ary out there. This building, our intent is not to install sprinklers and that is fairly typical in most apartment buildings. Typically the high rises are but not the 3 story. It is however, has fire walls, fire partitions, it has all the elements required to make it a very safe building. Again, ISn not sure what hap~ out in Eagan. I hope nothing like that lmmppens here. What I've 47 200 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: It was a barbeque that tipped over on a balcony on the third floor ar~ our ordinance already prohibits barbeques c~ apartment balconies. Councilman Boyt: I don't know that we're real well prepared to fight a fire that's very high and I'm concerned. We're building this with a wood frame and I watched one burn down when it was in construction and they go up real fast. Mayor Hamilton: Jim Chaffee who is our Fire Marshall could probably respond to your concern. Jim Chaffee: We have discussed this issue, or at least I've discussed this issue with the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector and we are considering and I don't know if we brought this up but requiring sand piping which would really help us out in any kind of fire. It would prevent any situation like happened in Eagan and probably would not allow barbeques and charcoal grills on the balcony in this case. We are very concerned about that issue to make it as safe as possible. Councilman Boyt: My other question is the 60 foot space loss for retail. Brad, since you're involved with both ends of this, maybe you can tell me a little about the consideration of that lost retail space. Brad Johnson: You guys remember what the overall downtown plan was and we were going to extend the retail in a long line up and down the city. In the process we discovered one, that there may not be an immediate market for that type of space in that one location and in addition to that, we also r~ed to increase the amount of increments that we could generate. In other words, build bigger buildings. So we put the apartment building in. The apartment building was originally supposed to be 40 units so the site plan we're working on currently and brought to the HRA on Thursday is to change the plan and make use of now the beautiful clock you just approved will be located right here as an entrance into the whole town. The apartment itself looks like the clock. So as you come into the community you'll have that and actually have a little courtyard located right in here. What they were concerned about is we would not be able to set this retail strip all the way down the street. We will not be doing that because that's not in the plan currently. Instead we're going to put a two story, what we'll call a medical arts building in there which we were contacted by Dr. McCullum who is at Chanhassen Clinic and they are going to move their facility there if we can get the whole transactions put together. Then we have a daycare center going in here that we will be showing before you here in the next two weeks that will go in this location and we're excited about all of this because it's a start doing the downtown and maybe hopefully getting out of that side of the street. That's the current plan. Councilman Boyt: What are we going to do with this variance problem? I know I talked to Barbara earlier today. I'm not sure that I got the answer down quite right as to the difficulty with rezoning this central business district but that's the third issue and I guess I would like to hear a quick synopsis Barb on how we're going to handle this. Barbara Dacy: Your question is, whether or not the entire site can be rezoned to the central busines district up to Chan View. We did not recommend that to 48 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 201 the applicant because rezoning the property to central business district also includes other commercial uses. If, for some reason, tl~ multiple family project were to fall through, you would have commercial uses located directly onto Chan View, directly across fr~m the residential development. ~ avenues that were discussed with the applicant were a zoning ordinance amendment to allow high density district around 23 units per acre ~ the final option was the PUD application allowing the Council a little more leverage in negotiating with the applicant as to establishing things like pedestrian connections, allowing the project with the tax increment district and requiring additiomm] lm.-zlscaping. That was why the rezoning issue was not... Councilman Geving: I'm ready to approve, this but I have to put this in because the neighbors have called me in this area. I live within two blocks of this area and there has been some discussion and most of them have appeared here before the Planning Comm issio~ I think the various comments were that it's just too much density for our area and they would have liked to have seen a 48 or 50 unit apartment building here. I want to throw that in as a plug for the people but I personally approve of it. I think we r~ the 1 and 2 bedroom units in the city and lb all in favor. I do have to ask one question. Whether or not this unit was projected in our downtown redevelotanent district for 60 units? Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: I just would say that I live in the apartments across the street fr~ this on Chan View and those people there are anxious to see it built because they would like to move into it so I think it's a really nice project and I would like to see it move ahead. Councilman Horn moved, councilman Geving seconded to approve the PUD application for the 60 unit apartment complex located on the south side of Chan View with the following conditions: le A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer ar~ storm sewer connections, as well as fire h~ant locations shall be suk~itted prior to building permit issuance. A revised landscaping plan shall be ~itted detailing additional screening along the south, west ar~ east property lines prior to building permit issuance. o A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of this parcel. e Detailed facia and signage plans shall be sukmit~ for Planning Commission and City council final review prior to building permit Se Removal of existing single family residence including the proper demolition procedures. 49 202 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 . Detailed lighting plans shall be su~itted prior to building permit issuance. 7. All outside parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who abstained and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STABLE, 3530 HI~Y 7, DAVID OBEE. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a private stable in the RSF district. It is going to be limited to two horses. Staff is recommending approval. We feel that the site is screened from all surrounding properties. Is large enough for two horses and it is reviewed annually for the horse permit so any problems with it can be taken care of. Staff is recomnending approval with the conditions set forth. Councilman Horn: What's the size of the stable? Jo Ann Olsen: There are two proposed sizes but the applicant has stated that he decided he isn't going to build any building right now if it's going to be a problem. Councilman Geving: I read all the comments from the Planning Commission like the rest of you but I really wonder what the intent of Mr. Obee is. He's talking about a very large building then we find out he owns a lot of equipment and so forth. Whether or not the stabling of these two horses is really the issue. I don't mind him having two horses in that area. It's a stable permit request. I have seen the letters and comments from the neighbors but I'm most concerned about what's going to go in that building that he's proposing. I wonder what his motive is and question that. Other than that, I don't know how we can issue a stable permit just to put horses in. I don't know how that works with Mr. Headla. Jo Ann Olsen: There is an existing building that he would be using for the stable instead of constructing a new one. Councilman Geving: So in fact, if he had the horses he could move them in and use them if he had the permit? I have no other comments. councilman Johnson: I went out and looked at the site and noticed there are existing stables to the west and pretty well treed area. For two horse and limited use of the building in there for just horse stables and stuff associated with that, I don't have a problem with this. Bill Schmid: I own property directly west of Mr. 0bee's proposed site. A few years ago a few of the present Council members were here at that time and there was a permit granted to a Mr. James Frizzell on the west side of me for two horses. Jim keeps the place very neat. Very clean. Very tidy. Regardless of all that, when it rains, it smells. You can't get around it. It's a pasture. Now there are horses on the east side and I'm very much opposed to it 100%. There are 73 lots and I believe you have a letter from 50 2.03 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 the gentleman who is putting those i~ He sent me o~ also. He's very concerned about it. We've got southerly winds in the summer time. He's concerned with those 73 lots. I'm concerned with two more horses. Ihn also concerned with the building that was proposed before. The evergreens that were there, Mr. G~ee gave a pretty good talk about the ni~e screen that they make, which they do. ~nen a little bit later in his presentation he mentioned he had contracted the Swenson Nursery at St. Boni to move some of those evergreens to fill in some spots over on the east side. Well, if they're such a go~d scr~----n and are going to scree~ out all these smells and you start moving them, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. ~nere's a building right now that can be fixed up for horses wit/~ut any problem but Ibm still against the horses period. I don't feel I ~ them on both sides of me. There are more people moving into the area and that's just my feeling period. Mayor Hamilton: How long have you lived there Mr. Sct~idt? Bill Scbmid: 38 years. We used to own the property. Mr. Wanous: I guess my objection is the same thing as Bill's. We live out in the same area and now we have horses on the west of us. We have horses on the south of us and now we'll have horses on the east of us. ~here isn't going to be any clean air unless it's c~ming from the north. Another thing, Billy was saying this is going to be an absentee owner bit. ~he horses will be taken care of by someone else. Being in the farming business for some years I find that unless you are there the whole time taking care of it, that you tend to neglect seme of these duties. That's about the only ccement I had. Harry Campbell: I live out in that same area. I'm opposed to having horses peri~L I think a place horses belong is ~n a rar~h ox a farm. I think when Jim Frizzell got his horses there and I'm still against the horses. As far as Ih~ concerned, I don't want one horse more in our area because it smells out there. David (~c: My only comments are, I've been out to look at the property and I proceeded as far as I have I guess with buying tt~ property. The closing date is next week. I've stayed within the Ordinance and stayed with the variances as far as getting the horses and proceeding as far as I have. I didn't know I would run into this much friction I guess but two horses is well within the Ordinance. I've contracted to have the manure taken out of that property. The trees that we would have lined on the north side ar~ the east side come fro~ within the boundaries and not frc~ the exterior wall. Very mature cedars that are there. Some of the photographs from that area, if you haven't been out to the property, this is within the property line. This is the outline of the property. The are located right in the middle here and then we go along this side and up along this way as well. There are plenty of mature pines, cedars, evergreens within the property here to outline that outside area. These are 2M to 3M feet high. There's no way I could even move those short of chopping them down. ~his is the property that Jim Frizzell owns. It's a smaller piece of property. He's got as many horses as Ih~ requesting and he's in open view. I've been on his property and direct rebuttal, I didn't' smell a thing and I was out there on a moist day. Word against word but if you want 51 204 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 to see, go out and look at it. Mayor Hamilton: Are you planning on living on the property Mr. 0bee? David Obee: No, I'm not. Mayor Hamilton: You are renting t_he property then? David Obee: Yes. The property I plan to develop in 5 to 10 years. It's really a money investment right now, an economic investment. Mayor Hamilton: Are the horses that will be on the property belong to you or belong to the renters? David Obee: Yes. I have not purchased the horses at this point. I wanted to get through with this before I did. Mayor Hamilton: If you have the horses there, will you be caring for them or will the people who are renting? David Obee: Tne person who would be taking care of them would be a fellow by the name of Gus Monsit who has owned horses in the past. The horses probably, I'm looking at not getting the horses sometime between fall and spring next year so it's probably going to be a full year before I upgrade and improve the property enough in order to have horses on there. The land's got to be cleared. There is nothing that I have planned for the property that would not be an aesthetic and economic improvement to that plot so at some future date when I do decide to subdivide it it would be ready to go. Bill Schmid: I would like to add that Mr. Frizzell, when he came in to get his horse permit, when he bought the property, there were already horses had been on that property for about 8 years previous to that. He was coming into a situation where they were there and it was grand fathered in so to speak or whatever you want to call it. In this case, there haven't been any horses on it. Councilman Boyt: First, by way of background, I lived across the street from a guy who owned two horses for three years and personally I never noticed it. I have one comment about the Planning Commission said that they didn't want you to use barbwire fence. The only alternative I know of, assuming you're not going to build a wooden fence is an electric fence. David Obee: What I didn't want to do is get into the cost is going to be very expensive but what I was going to do is put slats all the way around it and then wire an electric fence all the way around the board. Councilman Boyt: You are going to have to have electric or barbwire because the horse will push anything else down. I consider an electric fence a greater hazard to any children in the neighborhood than barbwire myself. Electric looks harmless until you grab a hold of it so I would suggest that we either allow barbwire fencing in there or we eliminate both possibilities. 52 2O5 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 David Obee: How about a wooden fence? That's what I'm proposing. The only reason I 'm putting an electric fence arour~ is for double security. Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying, I don't know what the children population is out there but my concern would be it's a little hard to keep a child from looking around a horse pen. The other question I have is, if we don't grant this comditiom] use permit, are we prepared then to go back and say to the other stables in the residential areas we don't approve of you either and I gather, and maybe I'm wrong, but I gather there are several instances of private stables in the residential areas of Chanhassen. My biggest concern with this whole thing because I haven't noticed the odor being a problem when I've lived in that environment, I think you're handling the fencing, is you're not living on the property. I take it the caretaker isn't going to live on the property either? David O~: Yes he wuuld. Councilman Boyt: How often are you arranging to have the manure removed from the property? David (bee: As often as necessary. It could be probably twice a month. Councilman Boyt: That seems reaso~hle to me. I guess my dilemma is I don't know what the fellow across TH 7 has to complain about. I would complain about TH 7 before I would cc~plain about two horses but I think the people who are living on all sides of you seem to think that this is not an appropriate use. I would gather that's what a cor,~itional use permit is all about is to find out what the neighbors have to say. I would look for some guidance from some more experience hands on the Council. The last comment I have is I really suggest that whoever the appropriate group is, review Ordinance No. 56. It was 1975 or something when it was written. It's conceivable that Mr. Obee here could put 1M horses on that piece of property and that's completely out of line ar~ so I suggest that we look at this ordinance just as an ordinance at some point. Mayor Hamilton: I just have one comment. (1~ the barbwire or the electric fence amd I guess if there are children there, I would prefer thinking of my kids or eve~ myself, I would prefer to have them get a slight electric shot to warn them there is something there that they should not be messing with rather than have their arm torn up by getting a hold of a piece of barbwire or a leg if they are trying to go pet the horses or have a horse step on ~ or something. I've been around those fences and they give you a little jolt but it doesn't do anything serious to you like a bazbwire fence does so I guess that would be my reaction to prefer to see an electric fence there. Horses also respect it mor~ Barbwire, it doesn't really affect them~ They just plow right through that too. Also, I like the proposal. We have other stables within the community and I think they've always gotte~ along well together and I would think one of the conditions of the permit would be to review it in a years time and Mr. Obee's has already said he's r~t going to have horses there until he has the property completely done the way he wants ar~ that may be a year fr~m now. Was it a year from now? 53 206 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 David Obee: Between fall and spring. I'm going to be working on the property after purchasing it next week. After the closing date so it won't be until, the earliest would be July 1st that I can start working on it and it's going to take me 3 months and the reason I backed out on the building because the funds are going to be a lot more depleted than I anticipated. ~ne building was just a proposal. Jo Ann asked me put everything in that you propose to do and that's what I did and that's why I put two difference sized buildings. Neither building is really n~ed. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see us make it a condition that it be reviewed in a years period of time. Councilman Geving: It says six months. Mayor Hamilton: You wouldn't issue a permit until after Mr. Obee had horses there? ~nat seems a rather short period of time but I guess when you have renters there, perhaps that' s adequate. Councilman Johnson: Tne discussion here has generated two new questions for me. What's the type of horses we're talking about here? Are we talking racing thoroughbreds or are we talking recreational horses? David Obee: Recreational horses. This is not a business venture. I'm merely holding onto the property for recreational purposes until I can develop it in 5 to 10 years. Depending on how the rest of this community and Bill decides to subdivide that will be more enticing to my property as well. I'm welcoming the fellow in back of me. That will increase the property value on mine as well so I'm welcoming that. The more developing that goes on it that area, the quicker I will develop. Councilman Johnson: You said you wanted to start working on that property in a couple weeks. What do you mean by that? David (]bee: That means clearing it. The property is pretty much rural. It needs to be thinned out. There must be 20 to 25 cedars in that area right there and then they are scattered all the way around. It's going to take a lot of thinning out of these box elders and elms and everything else in there. Councilman Johnson: You're not planning on doing any grading? David Obee: Yes, once I get all of the good trees out of there and relocated or replanted and the rest of everthing mowed down, then I'll go in there with a tractor, D-9, whatever it takes to clear the land so it will be all flat. Councilman Geving: We're only talking about a stable permit now not redevelopment. David Obee: I know, it's carried on. Councilman Johnson: Do we need a grading permit to do that? The Cityhas an excavation permit also. 54 207 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 David Ok=c: To make it a pasture, I don't know whatmeans I have to go to. · Councilman Johnson: I think our Staff can explain those othe~ permits that are involved there. David (bee: If I were to convert this just to farmland what would this mean? Mayor Hamilton: Nothing. David C~ee: ~hat's essentially what it is. Roger ~nutson: De~ how much earth you're moving. Certain small amounts of earth you can move no problem. We ought to check their requirements over a certain number you have to get an excavation permit. David thee: I'm just leveling the land off. Councilman Johnson: That's what I~ trying to establish. Are you going to go out and throw some ~ out or are you going to remove a hill? That's another thing o David C~ee: There are no hills on the property. Councilman Johnson: Or fill a ditch. David Obee: All I'm doing is leveling it out. Councilman Horn: I don't think anyone did respond to Bill's question about what a conditional use permit was. As I recall, we allowed them to happen and if we don't get a lot of c(m~plaints about them we let them continue to happe~u We had others when this came up before where we may have had a new resident complain because he's not used to it, This is a little different in that I see long established residents who are objecting to it and I guess I'm asking for guidance from Staff as to what kind of precendent w~ have alorg this line. Roger Knutson: It's one of the few times the Supreme Court has spoken clearly. Definitively. Certainly. The Supreme Court said you can not deny a conditional use permit based upon neighborhood sentiment. If you do it you're going to get reversed. Period. Er~ of discussi~ You can consider the content of their statements. In other words, if they come up with good, solid reasons for turning it down, you can take those good, solid reasons ar~ use them for turning it down but the fact that everyone in the town, 5,~ people come out here ar~ say we're against, it and that's all they say, you can't turn it down for that reason. You probaby would but you can't legally. It's not a voting. You're acting in a quasi-judicial capacity so you just can't go with the sentiment of the community eve~ though you might like to. If you do, you're going to get reversed. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Coving seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit %87-9 for a private stable with the following conditions: 55 208 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 1. Tne applicant shall receive a stable permit and meet the requirements of the Horse Ordinance No. 56. 2. Tne stabling of more than two horses shall require another conditional use permit. 3. The westerly access onto Hwy. 7 can not be used. 4. Barbed wire fence will not be pennitted. 5. The site is not to be used as a contractor's yard. 6. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the conditional use permit six months after issuance of the stable permit to determine the impact to the neighborhood. 7. The manure shall be r~moved from the site every two weeks. 8. The caretaker for the horses shall live on the pr~mises. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE SEWER ALTERNATE, C~ ROAD SEWER IMP~ PROJECT. Gary Warren: Church Road, we're all familiar with that I'm sure by now. This is the May 18th version that was approved originally by the Council after some discussion. Tne sewer basically being installed to service the Wanous- Campbell property and the Shorewood area to flow up to the existing interceptor up on West 62nd Street. We could not service further south because of ~ grade. This is the Carlson property. Mr. Carlson has continued to work with Staff because he is interested in being able to develop his property. He sees this as a key time. There is a unique alternative I guess to the way I'm looking at it here. ~nere are some risks that we're trying to cover but basically, again service the Wanous-Campbell property and the Shorewood property with this sewer reversing the flow, we're able to install the sewer at a depth that will allow us in the future, if need be, service the remaining properties here and likewise bring a potential water main looping into Church Road and service the properties for Carlson. The concern is primarily that the Carlson property is not platted and the timing of his platting, I guess as we all know, you never know what you're going to run into with a plat so we don't have that as such. Roger drafted up an agreement for the easements to provide this connection and also to bind him to a letter of credit for the improvements. Since that time I have talked with the MWOC as far as their timing on Church Road construction for the forcemain. That probably, to nobody's surprise, is continuing to slip as they are having challenges to easements and other things. They are looking to do that now in August I think would be the best guess. It may in fact not even be built until the spring. So we do have perhaps some time to work with and let Mr. Carlson go ahead and plat his property. I think the key issues are that there is an alternative which could serve all concerned and he a further reduction in the assessments to the Wanous-Campbell properties. What I would like I 56 209 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 guess the Oouncil to consider is to approve this as an accep~le alternate. If we have any problems at all in dealirg with Mr. Carlma~ or if the timing doesn't cooincide with the improvements that the Commission is planning to do here, that we would proceed with our originally approved alternate to make sure we are not jeopardizing the sewer for the Campbell-Wanous properties to make that connection. But there are I think s~me good benefits here that will completely service the area in the future and also take care of the immediate needs. Mr. Wanous: First of all I see what is happening there with my first lot. I'm not going to have a stub. The new option, do th~ prices, are the prices that you are quoting here, do they include the stubs or is this just for the digging? I noticed the other prices were considerably higher so we're just wondering if there is an inclusion of the stubs? Gary Warren: This is consistent with the original feasibility analysis which provides basically stubs off to the property line and the owners, as usual, obligated to bring that into their own property. This does continue to recognize that the dormant property of Mr. Wanous here and the northern 150 feet of th~ park property would go directly out to the sewer o~ West 62nd Street. Mr. Wanous: Now, I'm being assessed $1,107.00 for this here, for Lot ~. What am I going to get for that besides the bill? Gary Warren: Your property was looked at and split based on units. Depending on how it is subdivided, it would be requir~L We would look at that as part of the assessment. Mr. Wanous: So I'm going to pay an assessment even though I have no use or ability to hook onto the sewer? Gary Warren: That particular property we would have to look at. You would get service to the north but we're saying we would draw a line and I think we're trying to show that the park really gets serviced by it. Mr. Wanous: Now, this development of Mr. Carlson, this is going to be an organized, an official plat? It's not going to be a hodgepodge development whereby he might put two houses on tb~ end ar~ let the rest of it go? So the roads will be put in? Everything else that is necessary for a develolm~m~t? Mayor Hamilton: It will be consistent with any other plat that we deal with in the City but we can't answer your question until we see a plat before us. Mr. Wanous: What if he should say, proceeds with it ar~ defaults on it, the~ we wu~' t have to pick up the cost? Mayor Hamilton: He has to put up a letter of credit equal to 110% of the project cost so if he defaults. Mr. Wanous: It's going to be a guaranteed option? It's not going to be an option that's in the air and then all of a sudden it falls flat. 57 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: That's always a condition whenever we do a project like this. They put up a bond of 110% of the project costs so should the person involved in the project not be able to complete it, the City can at that person's expense. Harry Campbell just wanted to state he was present at the meeting. Resolution #87-59: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the revised alternative for the sewer service to the Church Road Sewer Improvement Project contingent upon Mr. Carlson entering into the attached agreement with the City and guaranteeing that the assessments to the City of Shorewood, Wanous and Campbell properties will not be any greater than that originally approved in the previous scenario, i.e. Exhibit G, attached. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF ~S: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated June 15, 1987 for check numbers 030791 through 030828 in the amount of $1,144,492.79; check numbers 028351 through 028480 in the amount of $897,684.39 for a total of 167 checks in the total amount of $2,042,177.18. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (G) ZONING ORDINAhXIE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO PERMIT TELEPHONE SWITCH BUILDINGS AS EITHER PERMITTED OR CONDITIONSL USES AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF UTILITY SERVICES TO I~CLUDE UTILITY BUILDINGS, FINAL READING. Councilman Geving: My comment had to do with item 2 under Standards. Previous discussion on these telephone equipment buildings has led me to believe that these would be buildings for the most part placed in areas throughout the community. We talked about putting one in the south of TH 5 and I have a problem with the addition of concrete curb. That's my only discussion on this item. I would like to delete concrete curb as a requirement for this telephone equipment building. I don't know what other discussion there can be on this. It just doesn't make sense to me. Mayor Hamilton: No, it doesn't. We want it to meet every other residential standard and nobody else has to put concrete curb in their yard. Councilman Boyt: One quick question, we're allowing somebody to come into what could very well be an urban development and put a lot in there that amounts to a postage stamp. Councilman Geving: No, standard lot. Councilman Boyt: It doesn't say that anywhere does it? Councilman Geving: We have to determine how big the lot is. Councilman Boyt: Somewhere in the packet, if you read it the first time through, they talked about the size lot they require for this building is quite small. 58 211 City Council Meeting h June 15 ~ 1987 Roger Knutson: It's in a zoning district wherever it is. Whether it's R-1 or whatever it is. In your zonir~ district you will have what the minimum lot size is. Nothing in here exempts them from minimum lot size in the zoning district. They have to comply with it. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the final reading for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Article VI, Supplementary Begulations, of the Chanhas~ Zoning Ordinance No. 80, Adopted February 19, 1987 with the following amendment: 6-26-1 Standards. 5 Tree driveway surface shall be surfaced with a hard all-weather, dust free ar~ durable surfacing material. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: K. APP~ OF I~C~EASING BUILDING PERMIT FEES. Councilman Geving: I bring this up to your attention. One of the things we complain bitterly to the County Assessor is raising fees all at one time, all in one year to the 10~% standard or 9~%, etc. and here we have an oppor~ity to increase them substantially and the recommendation is to pull them all up over one year. I think fk]en Prairie's idea was really a good one that we would meet the 1985 schedule but they did it at the rate of 33 1/2% increase over three years. That would make more sense to me. I guess looking at the building department, what they're saying is we're already bringing in more revenue than we're spending in that whole department and all we're really doing here is bringing up our building permit fees to the State of Minnesota standard. I would propose that we do so but over a 3 year period. Dun Ashworth: Staff doesn't have a problem with that. Mayor Hamilton: Except, I agreed with the philosophy in doing this in that we need additional help in that department a~] by increasing the fees what we were going to use that for was to off-set the cost of people doing the work. We're at a period of time in develo~nent that we really ~ the additional Staff and if increasing the fees will give us the funds by which to put more staff or, e, I'm in favor of doing that. Councilman Geving: That's why I brought it up for discussion Tom because I think we ~ to determine if we are going to bring in more revenues in that department and we do ~ help, I think we ought to get the help to do the job. I wouldn't have any problem with that if that was our intent. Mayor Hamilton: I think Jim Chaffee is here and it's Jim's recommendation that we increase these and I think if I read your memo correctly, that's the reason because you ~ additional help and additional fees will improve that situation. Is that correct? Jim Chaffee: 7hat's correct. ~hat was one of our suggestions. 59 212 City Counci 1 Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Geving: Okay, if that's written into our intent to use those revenues to beef up your force that's okay. Councilman Johnson: Does Staff r~ a full one year in order to increase Staff or could we go 50% and do it over two years? Don Ashworth: The ability to devote the additional money to inspection would definitely make it easier to insure. There are two parts to the question. An analysis of how much money have we been taking in in comparison to expenditures? I think that's a reasonable question but if you're using those additional monies as a part of the overall operations, then you're going to have to find, in some other way, to fund some of those operations. So what I'm saying is by putting this full amount on, you are assured that that is a totally new revenue and therefore it's totally available for dedication for the additional help in that area. Councilman Johnson: And you need that much? Don Ashworth: I have not made a projection as to how much money this new schedule would potentially bring in. Do you have any idea Jim? Jim Chaffee: No, I don't. Residential fees will increase and commercial fees will decrease somewhat. Don Ashworth: Generally, how much of an increase would there be over the current schedule? Jim Chaffee: I think we were looking at 15% over the current schedule overall. DOn Ashworth: Okay, that would generate about $30,000.00. Resolution 987-60: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the increase of Building Permit Fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL PACKETS AND DELIVERY. Councilman Boyt: Clark has very conveniently stacked them up here and grant you there are a good many maps in there, fortunately, but this is, in my opinion, not a professional way to make a decision. When we are faced on Friday afternoon with received a couple hundred pages or more of background information and then expected to come in here on Monday and make the same decision about the various forces involved in reaching that, I think that's unreasonable. I would like to see Staff, number one, let me start by saying I strongly approve of the size of the Consent Agenda. Even if we pull off, I guess it was 4 or 5 items tonight, I would like to see the Staff to continue to build the Consent Agenda as large as you think you can make it. I think at some point the Staff needs to seriously look at getting these things out on Thursday. If that means we have to cut back on the number of items on the agenda, then I would be in favor of that. 6~ 213 City Council Meeting - JUne 15, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I agree. I think we've all had that concern for a number of years ar~ we've kicked this idea around about how we can improve the system. It certainly is not perfect and we're always looking for ways to try and improve it. The consent was certainly one way to help alleviate some of the problem. We had talked about several times perhaps even allowing us a week to look at them but then we're going to end up in that process movir~3 everythir~3 back a week and we may want to do that at some time but I would suggest that we not do that during the busiest part of the year. Maybe into this fall when things die out a little bit we could try that. Experiment with that and see if it works. Councilman Geving: I think the key here Tom is two weeks ago we had about five subdivisions back to back. I think that just broke our back that night. It was too muc/~ The laying out of the packets in a manner that we can handle in one evening. I would either take four or five of those really tough ones and that would be the whole evenings rather than 16 items. I know it's hard for you guys to gauge how much we can handle on a night but I would rather meet an extra day from time to time. Mayor Hamilton: I think Staff ~s to tell us too when we ~ to do that because I know they're swamped. The~ve got developers ccmir~ in who want to get action on their project as fast as they can and they're being put off by a couple of weeks and that doesn't help them either. We've got an awful lot to do and I think the 29th agenda is full. We may ~ to consider looking at every Monday or some alternative just to get caught up ar~ get to a point where our agendas are at a more reasonable level or until this fall w~an probably a lot of this will slack off. Councilman Boyt: Can we begin that process by getting our packets on Thursday instead of Friday? Mayor Hamilton: It's really again a problem with staffing and I know they just go like beck, sometimes they are here until 7:~ Friday night trying to get the packets out. Councilman Boyt: I think no matter what the date is, they have a cut-off. At some point you say that's all we can get on the agenda. What I~ saying is let's back that off a day. Mayor Hamilton: It's a week. They have to have everything on the agenda a week in advance. Don Ashworth: It goes into the newspapers on Monday on the week in advance of the Council meeting. You are really crunching to try ar~ get it out Friday. We do on weeks where we have a holiday inbetween there, we push everybody to get it out literally on Thursday or to recognize that we've lost that day. I'll kick it around at the Staff meeting tomorrow morning amd see what I can come up with. Councilman Geving: I think we have to make another statement though Don. We have to tell Staff that if you're not ready to present an item, be honest about it. Don't be pressured by a developer or one of us or whatever. Be- 61 214 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 honest with the Staff and be honest with Don when you put these items up, you're not ready. I think that's what happened on June 1st. I think we had a lot of items that needed to be tabled that night because we weren't ready and I think that's the message I would like to leave with everybody. Let's be honest with ourselves. If we're not ready to present it and discuss it and approve it, don't do it. It's just too damm frustrating for us to try and handle it. Mayor Hamilton: Within that process look at an additional meeting to handle those if necessary. Councilman Boyt: Let me make another suggestion is Thursday doesn't seem to work. That is, when they prepare the packet for the Planning Commission, they give us the Staff Report that goes with each of those. They just give us Staff Reports. I don't need necessarily 15 maps and the whole package but we have this development of 300 acres coming up. I don't think anybody, unless you've gone and asked for it, has seen any of the Staff Report information on that. I think that's too serious to get that 2 to 3 days before we need to make a decision. Councilman Johnson: I would like to get that one early just we got the financial stuff. Don Ashworth: Is there a way that the Council then, if we're going to do that I would like to send you the entire packet. Have it ready to go, kind of like I did with the financial stuff. We sent that out one week in advance. Ooming into tonight I was hopirg you would have kept hold of that. I didn't repeat it, I just did a summary of the current position. Now we could work that out. We're running 17 copies of the Planning Commission right now. Barbara Dacy: That was my next comment. It would put it over our capacity to get one item out for 20 copies. Councilman Johnson: I like that and when it comes to that Friday night before we get an addendum to whatever has happened in the interim between when you gave us the initial packet. Even the day after the Planning Commission, a sheet of what happened at the Planning Commission should be fairly simple to get out. It really, really would help us. Don Ashworth: The updates would be easier. In fact, Tc~ and I were talking this afternoon and some of the updates on even items here were not that easy to see. That process would make it easier for the updates. I don't know if all Council members like to have it that way. It does put a burden on you to keep track of, you've got these 3 or 4 items. Councilman Johnson: We're all professionals, I think we can handle that. Don Ashworth: Some items go to Planning Commission but they may not go to City Council that next time but the time after that. Some may go the time ater that. You may hold a report... 62 215 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I'm not saying we get the whole Planning Commission packet but right after Planning Commission meetings is what I~ thinking. What's going to come to us on the next agenda or supposedly going to come on the next agenda. If you know it's not going to come on the next age~da, maybe don't send it to us right away. Maybe wait until the next w~ek or something. Mayor F~milton: I think you've got ~ ideas. Councilman Johnson: I would really like to support what Dale was saying there as far as Staff beirg able to tell the developer I'm not ready. I%n going to recommend to Council that I'm going to table this. I would like to ~ that recomme_ndati~ We've had om~ I would like to support Staff wholeheartedly on doing that because I'm not ready if they're not ready. SPRINKLING BAN. Councilman Geving: The last official word that I understand any of us have received was the ban on sprinkling. That was the bar~ I know there has probably been something in the newspaper but what I would like to see is s~mething coming out to everybody like it did before frc~ Gary that says we now have a sprinkling ban on odd/even basis and you can sprinkle on an odd day or even day. C_~n_ w~ get something out like that? Gary Warren: It's already into the printer for Chanhas~ Post which is coming out next weak. We pumped 2.2 million gallons on Sur~ay which is similar to the 2.3 million on May 18th but we're down. With Jerry Bo~,heaux we're staying on top of monitoring ar~ switching our wells more conscientiously. We are having some challenges, the developers, the sod is coming ar~ they're not as conscienious so we're going to have to step up the warning aspect. The water tables are holding for now. Councilman Horn: They can get a special permit for sod right? ~ry Warren: When we had a complete ban we were issuing permits. In talking to the nurseries, by going to the even and odd situation where a person can water every other day, even with new sod they said that should be ao~le. SOtFffS~ST ~ITIES COALITION STATUS, CITY PIANNER. Barbara Dacy: There are a couple of things I wanted to make the Council aware of. You will be receiving invitations to an organization meeting on July 1st for this umbrella group for the southwest area. The second item is the communities are getting together to determine respective allowance to help defray cost for Mr. Boland's second contract. $8,10~.~ remain and we're going to meet on Thursday to see how many communities are going to continue to help this effort so specific amounts will be brought back to the Council on a future agenda. If you want to meet with Mr. Boland in person, he is more than willing to do so to talk about ~me of the issues that we're going to be facing with the Met Council in ~ upcoming year. 63 216 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 pan. o Sut~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 64