Loading...
1987 09 14295 CHANHASS~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ~IL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Bolt, Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson COUD~IL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Geving .. -. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Larry Brown and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve tl~ agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman Horn wanted to make a comment about Curry Farms under Council Presentations, Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the Kerber Barn and the goals for the upcoming Budget Meeting, Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss wording on the published agendas ar~ present deleting published agenda items under Visitor's Presentation, Mayor Hamilton wanted to discuss Frontier Trail, West 78th Street update and Paisley Place. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to tt~ City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Final Plans, N~P ~ Lines. b. Reconsideration of Variance for Lot 1, Piper Ridge, Delray Olberg. d. Preliminary Plat Approval, King Addition, Karen King. e. Accounts Payable dated Sep~ 14, 1987 ie Resolution #87-100: Accept Streets in Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 7th and Bth Additions ar~ Trapper's Pass 2nd Addition j. Approval of Soo Line Railroad Pipeline Crossing Permit. m. 1. Budget Worksession, September 21, 1987 ne Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 3, 1987 Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 17, 1987 Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 24, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes dated August 26, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated 'August 25, 1987 Public Safety Cxa~mission Minutes dated August 20, 1987 pe Resolution #87-101: Award of Bids, Tennis Courts at Meadow Green Park and North Lotus Lake Park All voted in favor and motion carried. City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the agenda to discuss Consent Agenda items l(f), l(h) and 1(1) at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. i(F) SHADOWMERE DEVELOPMENT: 1. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. 2. APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, did you want to discuss their plans and specifications also or w~re your questions primarily with the develol~nent contract? Councilman Boyt: My comments are with the develol~nent contract. Mayor Hamilton: hbuld you like to begin? Councilman Boyt: Alright. What I would like to see added to development contracts, Shadowmere is probably the outstanding example of this, as far as what's going on right now, is I would like to see us include in the permissible working hours that they be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. I think those are hours in which a good many people are away from their home and are acceptable hours to run heavy equipment and outside construction. Weekends, every mornings and late evenings are to be only resorted to in the case of an emergency so I would like to this and the other develol~nent contracts modified to include that. Councilman Johnson: Bill, are you proposing any hours on Saturday at all? 9: 00 to 4: 00 or anything? Councilman Boyt: Jay, I'm not. I know we currently have that option available but I would say unless it's an emergency that they should stay away from weekends. Chan Vista has demonstrated that they can put up a development without working on weekends. We have Shadowmere right now going within 200 feet of established homes. Labor Day they ran chainsaws most of the day. This past Saturday they ran a commercial wood chipper all morning and I don't think people should be subjected to that sort of thing. Mayor Hamilton: Would you be willing to allow inside work or types of work in construction that would not be offensive noise wise. For instance, plumbing, heating, probably the pouring of concrete and things like that. Councilman Boyt: Definitely. Sure. Councilman Horn: What about outside work? Siding, shingling? Councilman Boyt: I'm against ~ w~rk. Mayor Hamilton: Generally shingling is done with power guns today. They are rather noisy. Councilman Horn: I've had pounding next to me all weekend too but it seems to me like these people have to get their work done when they can. 297 City Oouncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Well, I would agree with that Clark if it comes to a private individual who wants to shingle their roof and the only time they can get there is tt~ weekend, I think that's reasonable. That's going to be a once in a long time occurrence. What we're talking about is a developer who could very conceivably work every Saturday. Councilman Horn: That's what I'm talking about too. South Lotus Lake Estates o Councilman Boyt: Well, that would be another one where I would like to see it Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill? Mayor Hamilton: Would your comments apply to all three develol~uent contracts? Councilman Boyt: Yes, I would like to make those universal. Mayor Hamilton: Clark, you have any questions? Councilman Horn: No, I would just be opposed to a,y type of constructioru I think it's one thing when you're talking heavy equipment but I think it's a little different when you're talking about housing construction. Councilman Johnson: I agree on the heavy equipment. When they first were doing Chan Vista on my side, they did work Saturdays. Roofing and the whole works. Tney were getting those houses up as quickly as they could this last spring. Fortunately it wasn't summer like it is now with people with their windows open. It was still chilly enough where we had all the windows closed so it really didn't bother us that much. I believe the builders generally do work Saturdays and I can't really see stopping them. I think we may be able to make it start a little later in the morning rather than 7:00 a.m. because Saturdays is a sleep in day for a lot of people. I think I would be opposed to a complete moratorium on Saturdays but I agree 7:00 is too early on the Mayor Hamilton: What would your opinion Roger be of that? Is that something that we're not going to get ourselves in trouble on if we try to limit the hours a builder can build on weekends ar~] holidays? Roger Knutson: Sume communities do it and I suppose if you took a poll, there would be a distinct minority that actually puts hours on people. As a condition as far as ~ development contract, you probably could impose it to your discretion. Councilman Boyt: I think it's reasonable to say that they can do inside constructioru With the development going ~n to the west of me and my neighbors, one about to go on to the north of me and my neighbors, with 8~ homes goirg in across Kerber Blvd. ar~ all of those are within easy hearing distance of a big chunk of our population so I would-like to see us. 298 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Boyt moved to limit outside construction and develolament work to the hours of 7:00 to 6:00, Monday through Friday barring emergency situations. There was no second and motion failed for lack of second. Mayor Hamilton: I had a couple of comments on the development contract that I wanted to bring out. If you look on page 3, item 10, Clean up. Developer shall promptly clean streets on and off site of all dirt and debris that has resulted from construction work by the developer, it's agents or assigns. I'm wondering if we shouldn't tighten that up a little bit. Generally speaking when a developer is working we find a lot of mud and junk, debris in the street and I think I would like to see us somehow say if we're going to have this in there at all, to say how it's going to be cleaned up. Whether they're going to do it or if the City is going to do it and then charge them for it. I think in the many cases I've seen, it seems to me there's a safety hazard when you get a lot of mud on the streets, it's raining out and it's just like driving on ice. The developer couldn't give a rip if you went in the ditch or not and they don't ever clean the streets up so I would like to see someway to attempt to control that. Councilman Johnson: I think that you could also add that not only resulting, this talks resulting from construction work. Because there's no grass, erosion control at this point, you get a storm, you get a lot of stuff out there so also resulting from storms. Case in point would be Pheasant Hills and several other developments that I talked to the City Engineers about earlier this year after some of our storms. Triple Crown, Chan vista, they all after the storm were a lot worse off than just the normal construction work. Mayor Hamilton: I think in most cases some of the better developers do clean up but like Fox Chase has always been a problem. There's bccn mud up there ever since the first day they started and we've never had the teeth to get then to clean it up. They have on a few occasions but not often enough. Councilman Johnson: And that washes into the storm sewers and into our storm sewer systen and into our lakes eventually. Councilman Horn: I think this really covers it. As a result of construction work. If a storm comes along, if there hadn't been construction work, it wouldn' t have washed into the street. Councilman Johnson: That's true too. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see how we can get them to do it. I think the wording is here I don't think we're not telling them how it's going to get done. Roger Knutson: This says the developer has got to do it and he's got to do it promptly. Councilman Horn: After he gets it dirty or after he's finished? Roger Knutson: After be gets it dirty. 299 City Council Meeting - Se~ 14, 1987 Gary Warren: I would suggest, with the amount of development that is going on, it would be very difficult for the City Staff to have to do it ourselves but I prefer to keep the responsibility of the developer but I would suggest that. we put a timing, say daily he has to be responsible for cleaning the site. We have had a lot of cooperation from most developers. We say that we have a problem out there in the street but it does come down to the individual developer. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good idea. Put daily instead of pTomptly. Good idea. Councilman Horn: I question whether we shouldn't have something more general than that because it isn't only just the developers that do that. If you look out at the nurseries, Dale Green out here tracks mud all over the highway. It seems like this is more of a general type of thing than even just construction. Mayor Hamilton: Except we're talking about a development contract and that's where w~ have to put it. Councilman Horn: Is that where we put it? Is that all we need to control this? Mayor Hamilton: Unless they build in other areas, I think that would he another time. Roger Knutson: It wouldn't be here. We could look at it as a problem. I wasn't aware of other problems. Councilman Horn: My point is, is that part of the development contract and another ordinance or are we havirg another mechanism to accomplish the same thing? Roger Knutson: We have no other mechani'~ right now that I 'm aware of. Councilman Johnson: Unless you call it litter. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good point Clark. Perhaps you could bring that back as another item. So on 10, chan~e "promptll~' to 'k]aily". Page 4, item 12, Cost of Improvements. I realize that in a private developer installed construction facility such as these where the city is not putting in, we do ~ to have some type of an estimate so we can come up with the security so they can give us 110% of the cost of the construction but this is a new category, I think just recently and I'm not so sure that we should try to pin the developer down to give us the exact or ever reasonably close cost estimates as outlined here in the development contract. I'm not aware that we've had a problem in the past where a developer has given figures to us that were not accurate or not within a range where the 100% would cover any problems that they may have had. I just feel that this is a private development and I would suspect that in some cases the developer may not want to share that information and I don't think it's for historical reference. It's for factual reference so we know how much the bond is going to have to 300 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 be. Roger, maybe you can clarify that. I~ not sure why this is in here in the format that it's in and what would happen to cause this to be in there in the first place. We haven't had any problems. Roger Knutson: Tnis is not, to my way of thinking, a big item. You do have this information from the developer. The developer has got to give it to you otherwise you could never cover 14. ~nat's to give you that breakdown so you have it. Basically what it is, is for historical information so you know number 13 is accurate and where that number came from. ~nat's all it is. Not a big deal of it. If you look back some day, I've done this in the past, where someone said where did that number come from and you say, well here's where it came from. Mayor Hamilton: I know that they've supplied the information to us otherwise we wouldn't have a way of obtaining number 13 but to have th~m break it down. Roger Knutson: Tney always do break it down. Gary Warren: It also comes in play when we are requested to reduce the letter of credit for work that hasn't been completed. It provides a reference to us to say well, sanitary sewer and watermain are worth so much to the letter of credit so there's no question about how much we can reduce the letter of credit. Roger Knutson: I guess basically it's very easy to do. ~ney already give us the information so we just plug it in. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I still don't know why it's in the development contract. It just didn't seem to fit to me. Maybe it needs to be there. I don' t know. Councilman Johnson: I don't have any problem with it being there. It seems to be a good idea. Mayor Hamilton: In item 13, I would like to see deleted the first sentence, "The cost breakdown is for historical reference". I don't know of any reason why that needs to be in there. Whether it is or isn't doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot of difference. Roger Knutson: The reason that was put in there was' so I wouldn't get into an argument later with the developer because we know that these are not fixed final costs. They can vary a little bit. For example, a developer goes away or we have a problem with them and we have to go and let's say he hasn't installed any watermain and the watermain number is $100,000.00. Then I have to go in, or the City has to go in and get bids and install all the watermain. Let's say the cost to actually to put in the watermain is $110,000.00. I want to be sure that the developer can't make the argument that all we can pull down is $100,000.00 because that's what we have the figure there for. We want to be able to pull down that entire security if necessary to pay for the water. That's why it was put in there. We can't say we can only use $100,000.00 for water, $100,000.00 for sewer and what not. We can use all three if w~ need under the development contract. City Council Meeting - ~epts~0er 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: But since these are estimated costs in tl~ first place, they're going to flucuate. Roger Knutson: Actually the reason I added that is, I got into an argument with a developer once. He said no, you can't pull down $110,000.00 because right here it says it's only $100,000.00 for sewer. I thought it was a silly argument so no one could ever make that argument against me again, I said alright, I'll write it in there and now you can't argue that anymore. Mayor Hamilton: How do you har~le the fact that it's an estimate and not actual? Roger Knutson: That's all it is. We don't know in many cases until after the project is done what the final costs are. Councilman Johnson: That argument supports Tom's first argument. If you didn't have the nunbers in up above, you couldn' t argue with it. Roger Knutson: That's correct. That's right but then going back to our reasons, when I add that one sentence, I don't think you can argue with me successfully anymore so that's goes back to why I wanted it in in the first place. No big deal. Mayor Hamilton: Further down after the historical reference, there was a sentence that says the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. I talked to Don about this this afternoon and I felt that that might have him sticking his neck out and perhaps there should be more than one person that makes that final determinatio~ If in some case Roger may not agree with the type of security that's being proposed and Don does, you're kind of at odds and the Manager can approve that, I thought perhaps there should be, in the case where there is a disagreement as to who is providing the security and perhaps how much, that there should be a committee established. Whether it's Roger and Don and Gary or however that would be configured so that it's not one person making the decision because it could be, if it came down to Don, one person, and I~n not saying Don, if it came down to the City Manager, whoever that person happens to be, they may have their preference of how that security is supposed to be obtained also and it may not be to the benefit of the developer to go that directior~ In cases where there is a disagreement as to where the financing is coming fr~n, I felt it might be best to have more tlman one person making that decision. Councilman Horn: Have the City Attorney in there? Mayor Hamilton: I think three would, because I know if they were at odds on one, that's why this came up so if you had three people. Roger Knutson: Let me just tell you where I come from on those things. It's no secret. I don't take risks The City takes risks so unless something is iron clad and in the bag and guaranteed, I'm going to send it to you and say there's a risk here and you can judge it. City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Another thing would be to leave the City Manager's approval with appeal to the Council as the Council to make that decision because I think that's the logical next step. If a developer can not agree with the City Manager, that he bring that to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: I think that is the next step. They have the right to do that at any rate. To expedite things, if you have that decision made without having to go back on a Council agenda would be beneficial to the developer and to the City Council. Councilman Johnson: But if you only have two people disagreeing, you'll never get it. Mayor Hamilton: That's why I'm saying three you should, of course maybe all three of th~m will have different answers. councilman Horn: Maybe what we should have is consensus of the City Manager and the City Attorney and barring that, then the Council if they can't agree. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. I have no problsm with that. Gary Warren: Excuse me, the wording then? councilman Horn: It would be City Manager and City Attorney and if a discrepancy evolves, it will go on to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: So City Manager/City Attorney and if a mutual agreement can not be found, it goes to the council. Gary Warren: I'm confused a little bit on that. This document is what we are telling the developer as far as the requirements for his letter of credit. The fact that we may have an internal disagreement as the quality or letter of credit, shouldn't that be something that we have in terms of our own systems of the City. The development contract state that he has to provide it acceptable to the City. Mayor Hamilton: Isn ' t that what we' re saying? Gary Warren: Well we're saying, we're almost laying out here our internal procedures. Councilman Johnson: That's true. If you just got rid of Manager and said the City period and then we, on the outside said, made up a rule. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. Towards the bottom of the last paragraph in that section on page 4. If the required public improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down without notice. Not that just didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. The guy has a time limit on completing his project and you're saying if he's not done 30 days ahead of time you're going to draw down or have the opportunity to draw down his letter of security. I guess that wouldn't make me too happy if I was a developer. I've 30 days to do it. City Council Meeting - Se~r 14, 1987 Roger I(nutson: What this says, if you're supposed to put in sewer ar~ water and all that good stuff ar~ you're security is about to expire, the required public improvements are not completed at least 30 days so if you're not done and your security is about to expire, we don't want to take any chances. We can go and pull down that security. For example, someone could come in here today and say, I'm going to have the work done by October 1st. My security expires on October 1st. Don't pull down my security because I'll have the workd one by October 1st so leave me alon~ We want some leeway. We want to say, okay it is now September 14th ar~ you're supposed to have the work done and your security is expiring in two weeks. Since the work isn't done and there's just a little bit of time before your security expires, we're going to go and pull down that security right now. And the reason that is, is because when you go to pull down that security it takes a while. You can't cut it to the eleventh hour. It takes several days and sometimes up to two weeks to pull down that letter of credit so you can't leave it until the last minute otherwise the city can get nicked. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, well 30 days just sccmed excessive to me. You have 30 days to complete a project and we're already going to start to get into his letter of credit but if you say that it takes that time. Roger Knutson: It takes quite a while because sometimes when you go to the bank ar~ you want to pull down a letter of credit, then they say well, you didn't cross this "t" and didn't dot that "i" and you've got to start the process over again or something. You want to leave yourself some fr~em to do that. Mayor Hamilton: The next item is number 14, the Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor or materialmen that work required by this Contract has ~ performed and sums are due, it seemed to me the rest of this paragraph gets us in the middle of a lien situation where we're goirg to have to satisfy the lien for work done ar~ I couldn't for the life of me figure out why we would want to get in the middle of that whe~ if a worker has some money due him and the contracter hasn't paid him, that's a lien between the worker and tt~ developer and why should we get in the middle of this? · Roger Knutson: It's the last place in the world the City wants to be. We don't want to be there. However, there is a statute that says whenever the City enters into a contract with anyone doing a public work, you have to get a contractor's bond which this is ar~ if you don'.t, the city can get stuck. I've argued this at length with one developer who has a real problem with this. No other developer I've ever dealt with has ~ a problem. What happens frequently is I will get a letter. The City will get a letter from a materialmen saying I've not ~ paid or a subcontracter says I've not ~ paid. We respond that's your problem between you and the developer. We do not get involved until the security is about to expire the~ we get involved because the City could be in jeopardy if we let it expire. What typically happens is a developer will say I still have not worked out that problem with that contracter, could I just extend the security and don't pull it down? Fine, no problem. As lorg as the city is not in Jeopardy, we stay out of it and we never but never resolve that problem between the subcontracter and the developer. The most that we do is take that money and pay it into court and City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 say court, you figure it out. Mayor Hamilton: So that's what this is saying here also? We're not going to get in the middle of that lien process. We're going to just transfer the money to the court and let them do with it as they wish? Roger Knutson: Yes and only because we have to do it to protect the City. We have no interest in resolving, I'm not going to tell a contracter the job was done right or wrong. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's what I was concerned about. R~ading this I felt like we were getting in the middle of a lien process and I didn't want to be there. Roger Knutson: No, neither do I. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. As long as you're assuring me that we're not there, I'll believe you. Item 15(B), any size hardwood trees must be excluded from any typical grubbing activity unless approved by the City Engineer prior to removal. Should the Forester be in here someplace or is that something that you want to handle? Just a question I guess. Gary Warren: In item A we referenced the Private Forest Management Plan as an attachment to the development contract as input to the process here. I, of course, would draw on his expertise. Mayor Hamilton: In page 6, item 19, Lot Plans. The last sentence, the grading and drainage plans shall assure that drainage is maintained away from the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision. Now I thought it should say, and that drainage is maintained consistent with the natural drainage of the property. If that's away from Sunrise Ridge Subdivision I guess that's fine but the way this is worded, you could be creating a hill just to create it going a different direction from a subdivision. I didn't understand that. Why we're not just doing a normal drainage control planning. It sounds like we're doing something different here. Gary Warren: I think we're just trying to address some of the discussion from the platting process where we recognize that the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision, there are some lots that abut to this development and if the lots are properly graded, there could be drainage that would go across to Sunrise Ridge. We just wanted to point out that that's a particular area we're concerned about. The north side of this property with Carver Beach. creek is not a problem. Mayor Hamilton: We have a trail easement in here and there's nothing said about park dedication fees. Councilman Boyt: Yes there is. It's on 18, parkland and trail fees. Gary Warren: There wasn't anything in this on issuing any credits. Mayor Hamilton: Okay then that's another question. I would think the developer would have that question. If he's not going to construct the, no, he's giving an easement. Okay, item 23, Existing Assessments and Connection 10 City Osuncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 Charges. I felt that after where it says existirg assessments throughout the subdivision, it's about in the middle, that we could strike everything after that except up to, throughout the subdivision charges will be made as a part of each individual building permit. Just a matter of w~rdage I guess. Councilman Johnson: I don't understate] what you just said T~n. Mayor Hamilton: Existing assessments exist for the plat ar~ the develop agreed that the City shall respread these existing assessments throughout the subdivision and charges will be made as part of each individual building permit. Councilman Johnson: The way that I read this, it's two different things. The assessments are goirg to be respread but are the assessments going to be charged as part of the building permit or is the connection charges going to be part of the building pemits? I read it as two different things. The assessments are going to be spread. That's one thing and when they pull the building pemit, the charge he's talking about is the cites connection charges. Mayor Hamilton: (kay, that's fine. Page 9, item fL I don't quite ur~erstar~ why we're getting into the Postal Services business. Roger, maybe you can respond to that. I see no reason why we have in a development contract something to do with the postal service. Roger Knutson: I don' t know. Gary Warren: I actually saw it in the language from some of our earlier versions where we actually set up postal stations ar~ all that we're addressing here is if there is a particular request, the Post Master has, I guess I can envision a ca~- Maybe Chan Vista is closer where th2 homes that are built within a subdivision with construction still going on and the Post Master has difficulty getting to those h(~es, ~ it should be the developer's responsibility to provide some interim postal statioru We're just saying he should cc~ply with whatever the Post Master wants out there. Councilman Johnson: This was not complied with at other subdivisions. Previously they didn't have this Post Mastez part on it. They said just provide community postal services. (/man Vista is one which they have not. The Post Master's request, when the residents talk to him, was that you won't put any mailboxes on a cul-de-sac so that's the one place where he would require is that a community mail facility. He didn't care if the people on a straight street but he doesn't want to have to be trying to get to a mailbox on a turn in the winter. Mayor Hamilton: Is this a normal thing to have in a development contract? Isn't it up to the person who owns the house to put their mailbox in? Gary Warren:. This would be just to protect us during the construction period when this contract is in force. It's not to preclude or take any responsibility as far as what individual's having his proper box out there but it's just in the event that because of the development construction that Post 11 k City Council Meeting - Sept~m~ber 14, 1987 Master can't get to the residences that may already exist, the responsibility lies with the developer to get it to th~n. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I sure didn't read that in there. Councilman Horn: Tae last part makes sense but the one that Jay brought up was totally unreasonable. The Post Master's said he can't drive around a cul- de-sac and you can't put a mailbox in front of your house. Mayor Hamilton: What Gary's saying, I understand that. That seems to make a lot of sense. Councilman Johnson: I think the community postal makes a lot of sense for our rural post office as is. They can deliver mail much more efficiently to a group of mail boxes. Mayor Hamilton: But that doesn't mean they can't be on a cul-de-sac. Gary Warren: Maybe the word community should be striken there and just say postal service in accordance with the local Post Master. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. Seeing this is Mr. Fenning's development contract, perhaps you have a cc~ment. Jim Fenning: I live at 2440 Byrnes Road. I first received a copy of the development contract at the end of May, first part of June and in my discussions with the city staff, they asked me what my thoughts were regarding the development contract and I said I have no problems with one or two minor items and then I was told that the items from the plat would be inserted in the development contract. Well, I was very shocked when I received this development contract because it was totally different than the one I was given by the City and I received this on Saturday so I really don't feel it was negotiated at this point and I was proceeding on the assumption that I would be able to start moving dirt and things within a week or 10 days. So my specific questions are, in this contract, as opposed to the previous one, there's a 3% charge for administrative, engineering, inspections. I guess I have no problem with that except that there are other things in here that say that the City can inspect and can have an engineer on site at all times and can bill me for that. I guess I would like that to say that those monies are goirg to come out of that 3% because that's what I'm payirg it for. If the 3% is something new, which it appears to be, I guess I would like it clear within this agreement that the inspection and the administrative costs will be deducted from the 3%. Mayor Hamilton: I think in the past we've always said, as you had stated, that you would need to pay for whatever inspections and administrative costs were incurred and this 3% is new and I'm curious why it's there. Don Ashworth: 3% simply became easier to administer. There really have been no charges that have been sent off to developers. Gary and I had discussed this. It's been in the last 3 or 4 contracts that I'm aware of. You feel reasonably assured that there will not be any other type of charges. However, 12 City Council Mseting - Septs~9~_r 14, 1987 if you do s~mething on your plat that requires a significant amount of additional ~ngineering, we do have that right under that other section to charge you. We have never done it to date and I don't know why we would start with yours. Mayor Hamilton: So what you're saying then is those charges will be taken out of the 3%. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Gary Warren: This is similar to public improvement projects where a percentage is taken out of tt~ bond proceeds to cover it. We're just catching up with private installations now to have ~ get... Councilman Horn: Is this somethirg that staff generated and we just started putting into development contracts? I don't recall we had council discussion on this. Jim Fenning: Anew source of revenue for the City. Don Ashworth: You've always had the section in there that allowed for the reimbursement of those costs. The only question has been one of how to reasonably tabulate those recognizing that you have e~gineering personnel, finance people, different inspectors out, we've gone through different systems of monitoring time and calculating each of the costs and generally have not come out with an acceptable method of doing that. By contrast we have exactly the same type of a fee schedule which is tied into every public improvement project and for every year for the past 10 years, that has ~ loaded in as a cost against that project. So for example, this past year Lake Drive East we put an administrative charge against that. It represented time out in the field in looking at that project. By contrast there was nothing in on Chan Vista 1st Addition and I can assure you that we spent far more time out on Chan Vista 1st Addition than we did out on Lake Drive East. It was after those experiences that we said hey, we should have a method to make sure that both types of projects are being handled the ~ way. Mayor Hauilton: Did you have more to your question? Councilman Horn: Well yes. I don't disagree with the logic. My only question was, is it something that staff unilaterally put in or is it something that the Council agreed to as a reasonable method? Don Ashworth: Staff. C~ry Warren: Yes, I think we looked at our charge history so to speak and estimating the amount of time on anaverage thatwe spent on projects ar~ came up with some dollar estimates based on the construction dollars. That's how I arrived at percentages. councilman Horn: I think it's a reasonable allocation, I Just think it's something that should have ~ past us. 13 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Jim Fenning: I have a problem regarding the access because the contract says the-only access I will have is by Big Horn Drive and I have to get permission from the property owner to get my access and I guess I would like to have the right, if I think he's being unreasonable and if I'm abiding with the load restrictions on Carver Beach Road that I can use Carver Beach Road. I have no problem and it will be within my contract with my contracters that we will repair any roads that we damage. I5~ going to video ~ before and after. We use them just to make sure we're not nailed for something we didn't do. Councilman Johnson: Don't you own right up to Big Horn? Jim Fenning: To me it's a public road and I thought okay, I have no problem using Big Horn because it's a public road but he says they haven't accepted it. You haven' t accepted it. Gary Warren: Jim ar~ I have talked earlier today about several of these issues. This particular item, the City has not accepted a roadway surface for Big Horn Drive. Until we do accept it, which will be sometime next year when the wear course goes down, it really is the responsibility of Enterprise Properties to put that road into an acceptable fashion for us so if there is damage during construction at Shadowmere, there needs to be a tie I guess that Mr. Fenning will be responsibility for any damage that he causes. It is a public roadway in that we do own the right-of-way there but we have not accepted it so like envision a case where Enterprise would come and if I would say I'm not going to accept the road because of the damage out there and they said we didn't do it. So, Jim and I had talked earlier and the phrasing could be modified just to make him accountable for any damage to that roadway. think based on earlier discussions as far as access to the site, we definitely want the construction activity to Big Horn and not have it winding through the roads of Carver Beach because of the difficult access and the residential in the area. When Jim and I talked earlier he seemed to be in agreement as long as we modified it to say he ~ould be accountable for any damage he causes. Jim Fenning: As long as I don't have to go through the process of getting his approval and being held up by it. I definitely have a problem regarding recording of this document against the title of the property. I think that is just more information that goes on the title. If I were building on the property myself and selling them after all this develo~x~ent were done I wouldn't have a problem with that but I can see a buyer's attorney having problems with some of the things in here. The main one being that you can come in and stop the development and if they're building a house, they can be stopped and so, I definitely object to that. Mayor Hamilton: RDger, would you cc~ent on that. Roger ~utson: Interesting lesson. The City of Eagan didn't record development contracts for a number of years and they put some conditions in there that didn't get recorded. Two weeks ago Eagan got slapped down by the Minnesota Supreme Court because they didn't record them and someone went in and tried to enforce a provision like you have in this contract. For example you could pick out any of them. You have to have erosion control for example. This gives us permission to go on the lot even if it's sold, to go in there 14 City Council Mseting - Se~ 14, 1987 ard control erosioru Without that, if that lot sold ard this isn't recorded and there's erosion control problem on that ir~ividual lot or a group of lots, we can't go on those lots. They are privately owned. This gives us license to go on those lots. Without this recording forget it. Mayor Hamilton: When did we begin doir~ this? Roger Knutson: Recording? It's been in the development contracts as long as I know. Whetlner you've actually recorded them in fact I don't know. We recently had a problem with one that a number of years ago was not recorded and a developer came in ard said this is well ar~ good but I never signed this darn thing and it wasn't recorded so it's worthless. Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall seeing these as a part of our normal process up until just recently. Gary Warren: Carver Beach Estates I think is what you're talking about on that. Roger KNutson: Yes, that one was never recorded. Some cities don't but if you want protection to know that you can go in-and do everything that it says you can do here on the land, it's got to be recorded. Otherwise, for example the developer can go out and sell all th~ property tomorrow. Let's say he went out ar~ sold it all tomorrow. Every last square foot of it. We'd have no right to go on that property to do a thing. '- Councilman Horn: What's the down side to the developer by doing that? Roger Knutson: The down side to the developer is that he's concerned that wt~n he sells lots a buyer might say, hey you can come on my property and do these things and I don't want you to be able to come on my property. That does happen from time to time and how it's ~ handled other places is, if there's no r~_~ to have it recorded against that lot anymore you simply release it. Just no big deal, you cut a release. Councilman Horn: This is really similar to a temporary eas~nent? Roger Knutson: Yes. Jim Feruning: Tnis mentions a charge of $2,500.00 for a feasibility study. As a part of the preliminary and final plat approval it was mentioned in the conditions that that was going to be a city expense and so I don't think I should pay for that feasibility study. Gary Warren: I guess, and Jim and I talked about my review of the documents and I guess typical with our Teton Lane experience, Centex ard that, when tbs City doesn't have a specific budget for doing feasibilities and when feasibilities are generated as a result of a developer's plat, typically we need to get reimbursed from some source. Jim is correct. I went back and checked the final out and we did say that we would do it within budget ~ there was no comment that we would pass it onto him so... 15 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: So that should be deleted. Jim Fenning: I do have a question regarding the hours of operation. If you have an ordinance that says Monday through Friday and Saturday, doesn't that ordinance apply to everyone? Mayor Hamilton: It sure does. Jim Fenning: Tnen why would you be cutting me back then? Mayor Hamilton: We're not. If you listened you heard that we did not pass that. Jim Fenning: Okay. I will be holding back work on weekends if at all possible or limiting the hours or whatever we can do because I don't want to make enemies of the neighborhood and I don't want you people to get grief either o Councilman Johnson: I believe there is a restriction on Saturday. I'm not sure but there are different hours on Saturday than there was on weekends if I r~smber the ordinance right but I don't have that in front of me. Jim Fenning: I would like the insurance to terminate at the time this development contract terminates at the time you accept the road and I don't see why it would run six months after you accept the road. Mayor Hamilton: Good question. I had that too to ask. Roger or Gary? It seemed unreasonable. R~ger Knutson: It depends upon the type of insurance a person has. If he presents us with a claims made policy for example, you have to make a claim. during the policy period so you want to make sure that you give yourself some time and keep that insurance in effect after acceptance because someone might not file a claim for s~me time. Mayor Hamilton: But the City wouldn't have any liability in that instance anyway I wouldn't suspect or would we? Roger Knutson: It depends upon. When there's a lawsuit filed often times everyone on the site gets named and if your building on a dedicated roadway and there's some city supervision involved and there's some city approved . plans and specifications or whatever, if somebody is going to get sued over it, it's not unlikely that the City will also get named and this just gives us the protection for that insurance. ~ Councilman Horn: Could we state that in there then that it lasts for six months unless the developerprovides insurance that it will provide a claim for a six month period after construction? Roger Knutson: Sure, tail insurance. 16 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Or a hold harmless clause. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? Roger Knutson: Not necessarily because, and not talking t~ this developer in particular but often times developers operate under shells so ABC Development Inc. in all liklihood or oftentimes has zero assets. So having someone with zero assets agree to hold you harmless is worthless. Jim Fe~ning: What Councilman Horn mentioned is that, if I plan to wait you're protected on claims up to the point of acceptance. Roger Knutson: I would interpret this to mean if you go up ar~ get a claims made policy and he brings in what's called tail insurance to cover him after his expiration, that would satisfy this requirement. Mayor Hamilton: Is that something you've done in the past? Jim Fenning: No. Normally when I develop I get my preliminary approval a~ I go and I get it done. I don't put up money. I don't get into these things. I do it and everybodlfs happy so I've never gotten into this development contract and letters of credit stuff before. I would like to have the right to assign this to either me or my wife and I which is a partnership. It's just a technical thing. We bought this property personally. We're at my accountant now wondering whether my corporation should do it and my corporatio~ has a net worth in excess of a million dollars. It would not be going into a shell corporation. Right not it is with Hilloway so I would just like to have the right to assign it either to me as an ir~ividual or partnership including me and my wife. Roger Knutson: The only reason that's in there is again problems they've had in other places where someone has come in ar~ taken all the property from the person who platted it. A new developer comes in ar~ says, hey I'm not the developer. I didn't sign this darn contract. ISm not bound by it's terms. I think that's not because we record them again but all this says is wP~n you come in with your whoever ar~ want to assign it and we'll say fine, whoever it's going to be assigned to is going to have to sign off and say thel~re hound by the tezms of this contract. T~at's the only reason it's in here. · Councilman Johnson: We just did that a few months when a new developer redid a develo~x~ent contract as a new developer on the subdivision. Roger Knutson: We just want to meet the new developer and have them make sure that be knows about these terms ar~ he's bound by them ar~ he can't say, I didn ' t know about that. Jim Fenning: It would be owned 100% by me either way. Either individually or it's a corporation which I own 100% of. Regarding the recording, you indicated that lots could be released. If I put up the erosion control and we take C~ry out and Gary says okay, this satisfies everything and we can pull this from the lot. 17 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Johnson: If that erosion control breaks down while construction is still going on, we're not going to release it until after the erosion control is no longer needed~ Mayor Hamilton: I think that's understood. We're not going to release it unless... Councilman Johnson: Just because it' s there we' re not going to release. Jim Fenning: Right. And there is a specific termination date which is the date of the acceptance of the road, correct? I mean you're talking if this thing gets wiped out and this thing is only for me and it's not really regarding the property owners. Gary Warren: I believe it reads that t_he contract terminates when the terms and conditions of the agre~nent have been met. Jim Fenning: And then the other thing we're going to put in is we're going to rearrange this just a little bit because there are items that relate to building permits and having houses coming to the city to have their drainage reviewed and things like that, we're going to take that paragraph and encompass several of these items which will relate to that going into our Covenants and until the Covenants are in place, we'll have this or we'll have the Covenants in at the same time because I'm not doing any planting along the creek and things like that because we're just going to destroy things if we go into the creek area. That will be done with the homeowners which I think we talked about at the various meetings. Councilman Johnson: Jim are you saying that you have some things within this contract that you want to change? Combining some paragraphs that we haven't seen as of yet? Jim Fenning: I mean there are things Gary and I talked about regarding the creek plantings. I guess what I'm saying is, if this terminates at the time you accept the road, erosion control for houses and lot review for houses really get wiped out so what we're saying is... Mayor Hamilton: Tney don't get wiped out because we're recording this with the title. Jim Fenning: Right but that will be wiped out after you accept the street? Gary Warren: No. What I said is when the terms of this contract are met. All the terms of this contract are met¥ then the development contract is complete and the roadway is one element. The lot plantings, the lot drainage and erosion control, those measures still have to be met. Mayor Hamilton: This will run with the land until such time as each lot is acceptable. Jim Fenning: Then I would like to change that then. Tnose items that we're not being able to cover, that will be done with the individual houses, that 18 City Council Meeting - Septe~k~r 14, 1987 they be made a part of the Cmvenants so this thirg does expire when you accept the road. Mayor Hamilton: It sounds like we've got a lot of rework to do on here and perhaps you need to get together with c~ry. It's hard for us to respor~ to all that right here. Councilman Johnson: You only saw this this Saturday? Jim Fenning: Yes. That's what I meaD. I have the one contract, this one and I really don't have any problems with it and in the conditions of the plat and your financial security and I~ flying. Then we got several of these other things. So what happens when I want to grade in a w~ek? Mayor Hamilton: You won't be grading in a week if you want to go back and redo all these things. Jim Fenning: Weren't things misrepresented to me? I don't think things were fairly represented to me then when I was going through this process. ~ry Warren: We gave Jim a copy, I guess in the interest of trying to move things for him while we were dealing with the other projects here, gave him a copy of our generic version at the time that he asked for it and we've been working, Roger and I, in trying to get the develoIanent contract up to s~. Several of the issues that we talked about already tonight are a part of trying to update this development contract and the context of this new version, really things that I think Jim is referring to which he has concerns about in no way reflect the items that are in the generic contract. It's not those items that he's having some problems witl~ It's the lot plans and some of these individual things that he's addressing and that's a problem that the generic wouldn't have tipped him off no matter if it was generic .or the old ones o Councilman Johnson: Were those items brought up during the preliminary plat that are being included which is what w~ said we were going to do? Gary Warren: The discussions for example, I sat down and typically I'll take the Minutes from the planning process and from the Council approval of the plats and I will sit down and wallow through them and pull out the items that need to be inserted in here as specific provisions as I call them. Ar~ planting of extensive root system was Councilman Boyt's comment during one Of- the approval during the Council and those are all specific conditions the way I interpretted them. Jim Fenning: ~at was not a specific condition. I already have specific conditions enumerated in the Council approval and that was not a specific condition. Gary Warren: As I explained to you on the phone, the discussion part of the Minutes which leads to the conditions, the e~umeration conditions, is also, to my understanding and Roger can correct me if I'm wrong, is a part of understanding and interpretting the conditions. If that was an exception, 19 City Oouncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 then I guess it will have to come back to this quorum for sayirz3 no, that shouldn't be in there. Councilman Boyt: I would like to comment. Mr. Fenning when we talked about it and we had the neighbors in here discussing the fragile nature of that creek, you agreed to have plantings in your curl along that creek that woUld stabilize the bank. We can go back and verify that in the Minutes. Jim Fenning: I think ~ should. Councilman Boyt: That's certainly my understarz~ing. Jim Fenning: I believe that was limited to houses. To the property owners when they built their houses. Councilman Boyt: You think this is unrealistic now? Jim Fenning: I don't plan on doing that, no, because that was part of the approval process for houses. Councilman Boyt: I think what I've interpretted out of what's been said this evening is that this agreement continues through that period. What I see you trying to do is you want to be cut free and clear of this at the earliest opportunity. I think that's a basic conflict in how long this develo~nent agreement extends. Whether we're talking about extensive root systems or any other part of it. My belief and support would be that the agreement extends as long as the City ~s that protection. Councilman Johnson: I think we've really reached an inpass here without staff getting back together with you and reviewing the notes and everything. We have a special meeting coming up next week. Mayor Hamilton: Let's not be promising anything for that. That's a budget ~n~cting and I want to keep it to that. Jim Fenning: Here's what I would like to do then if we're going to renegotiate is I would like to put up 125% of the money that Ihn going to have for grading and let me proceed to grade. I see that I'll be able to shut down anytime after grading. I can shut down and walk away and wait a number of years but if we can't start grading then I think we've got problems because I don't think it can be blacktopped this year. Councilman Horn: I see really two issues in the whole thing. The one issue we're talking about has to do with giving the city assurances of certain things being done. ~bat's one issue and I totally agree that we need to have those assurances in place. The other issue though is, are the conditions that we're talking about here, were they made as conditions in the motion of approval or were they merely discussion items in the discussion of the overall project. I guess I firmly believe they have to be part of the conditions of approval. They can't be just items that were discussed during it. Each one has to be clearly spelled out in the motion. 20 15 City Council Meeting - Sept~v~er 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any comment, either Gary or Roger, on Jim's proposal to put up 125% and allow him to start grading and work out the development contract? Is that a proble~ legally Roger first of all? Roger Knutson: To put together a grading permit we ~ to cover erosion and a lot of other things. It would be a new procedure. I don't know whether the city staff is comfortable with that or not. The other alternative is to t~hle this matter for two weeks until the next meeting. Obviously the developer is not comfortable with the develoIznent contract. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it's fair to the developer this late in the season to do that so I would like to see if there isn't some way we can work out allowing him to get in there ar~ start grading ar~ then continue to work on the development contract and have that come back to us. I can't see that he can't grade and we can resolve all of the other issues in here in the meantime. Roger Knutson: That' s done other places. Councilman Boyt: I would like to comment. I think when we go into grading, we've already given Mr. Fenning, appropriately, permission to go in and do a major tree cut so you can stay on schedule. We're now com~ in and we're saying and if you recall the grading plan, there are some significant cuts going to happen on this property. Well when he makes those cuts, he is basically going to have to do everything we're talking here to give us the kind of protection we ~ so what are we talking about here? The City can't allow heavy equipment to go in there and make some 10 foot and deeper cuts without the kind of protection this agreement is all about. How can we do that? Mayor Hamilton: We can deal with just the grading issues and I don't think everything in here relates just to grading or am I wrong? You're the expert, tell me. Gary Warren: The development contract obviously deals with a lot more than just grading. I guess the City has Chan Vista as an example, West Village townhouses, Bill Jacobson's, has had authorization to do grading as long as the City had financial security in hand ar~ had an understanding that the developer was going to be entering into the development contract. I think that would be my only comment is that Mr. Fenning could give us 125% of the cost of the grading or whatever but then we still don't have the final piece of paper that assures the City that the improvements are going to be done. Now if that's an acceptable risk, then fine. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like Mr. Fenning has an awful lot to lose financially if he doesn't move ahead and get the development contract complete. Gary Warren: I want to react to what Jim said, if he's got to sit 2, 3, 4 years, then that's the way it is. 21 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Well that was just it. Mr. Fenning b~s just said to us that he is determined that after grading he can make a go/no go decision which is basically he can decide not to sign this and what we've got is a woods that's cut up with some serious grading. Jim Fenning: I mean if we have to go to court I would stop. That's what I meant. I'm not going to stop. Mayor Hamilton: He's not saying he going to have to wait for the project. He's saying if he has to stop and fight this out in court, he can stop at the end of the grading. Jim Fenning: Now it is not my intention, my intention is to get away from this agreement as fast as possible. I agree but it is my intention to make sure that all these lots conform to the standards that you want them to conform to and that we agree to because this is going to be a very nice subdivision in the city of Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: I think basically what Jim's saying is he wants to go further than what we're saying in the develo~ent contract so these don't have to run with the land. He'll do all the grading and all of the pads on each lot so this will not have to be go with the title of each lot that you sell, right? Jim Fenning: Right. Mayor Hamilton: Everything will be done with each lot. Councilman Johnson: No, that's not what he's saying. Gary~arren: You're not doing lots are you? Jim Fenning: No, I will not be. My wires are out there. I'm within 10 feet of 90% of the right-of-way. I'm not going on the lots. Mayor Hamilton: I misunderstood. Jim Fenning: ~nce I've done the grading, my impact on the lots is 90% done and that will all be done within 10 feet of the right-of-way. Councilman Horn: Could Roger and Gary tell us what our risk is with going ahead with the grading plan? Roger Knutson: I suppose the risk would be when he's finished grading and he ' walks away ar~ he never comes back. I've had that happen. Whether that's a risk or not I don't know. I don't know what it's going to look like. If the grades are going to be acceptable and it's not going to look weird to you and it's going to be fine, then there isn't much of a risk assuming'you have enough security to make sure you can have erosion control so you can throw down seed and stabilize the soils and that sort of thing. Councilman Horn: If he doesn't do it, scmebody's got to do it. 22 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Roger Knutson: As long as you got the money to do it. Mayor Hamilton: 125% of the cost. I can't imagine we're not going to be able to a~lish scmethin~ out of that. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but once he's through grading and we don't have that 125% anymore, should there be a bor~ beyor~ the grading that would cover additional erosion control until the develo~m~nt-contract is signed? Jim Fenning: You can have that 25%. Councilman Johnson: That should cover it. Councilman Boyt: Let me propose that we consider, I think we've done this in the past, that if we're determined that we want to _.~c Mr. Fenning make due progress, that we turn this over to Mr. Fenning and Mr. Warren and that it come back on our consent agenda but that we turn it over with the feeling that they are going to go ahead. But that you can not go ahead and grade until you and Mr. Warren have reached agreement. In other words, we make Mr. Warren basically our agent. I think that's a safer position for the City to be in because we'll have the whole thing signed before he begins than trying to do this a little bit at a time. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good idea. If (~ary and Roger are satisfied that he can go ahead and grade ar~ that they will reach agreement on the development contract and it should be satisfaction that it's going to come back to us in final form so we don't have to sit here and argue with everything. · Jim Fenning: Ckay, I have a problem with that. It's a very legitimate problem. My er~i~ called and left a message for him ar~ be didn't get it. He called several times and ha didn't call back for a week. What if I run into that problem. I knew I could cut down trees without your approval. I know I can't grade without a grading permit. I will guarantee that I will do all the erosioru I recognize what I~ saying and I recognize I~ saying it on tape. I will guarantee to do all the erosion control. I will guarantee to stay strictly within what you've approved regarding the grading plan and I will respond immediately to any of yours or any of your engineer's requirements or suggestions regarding or erosion control. Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest that you and Gary and perhaps Roger get together right now then and make a time that you can meet. Whether it's tomorrow morning or whenever at your first convenience so these things can be resolved and you won't have to worry about reaching him on the telephone ar~ you'll have something all set up. Helen Loebel: ...there's nothing in there saying they're not to use Frontier Trail. Mayor Hamilton: Frontier Trail is currently blocked off. It would be a little difficult for them to use that. 23 City Oouncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 Helen Loebel: But it won't be blocked off permanently. Mayor Hamilton: No and we would not allow th~m to use Frontier Trail. Helen Loebel: Can you get that into the development contract? Mayor Hamilton: It says specifically that they're to use Big Horn Drive. Helen Loebel: Well Frontier Trail runs into Big Horn Drive. Mayor Hamilton: Frontier Trail is not Big Horn Drive however. Taey are to use Big Horn Drive and it's not the same street. If they were to be caught using it, they would be told not to and they would be tagged. Helen Loebel: Now on the restriction on hours, I understand that...can something be done about holidays? Mayor Hamilton: Thay can not work on holidays. I think that's in the ordinance isn't it Gary? Helen Loebel: It did happen on Labor Day. Jim Fenning: I apologize for that. I didn't realize they were out there. Helen Loebel: I appreciate that. Apology accepted. But there will be none on holidays? Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. They're not to work on holidays or Sundays. Councilman Boyt: I have two other concerns in regard to this ar~ one of them is, I got a call this evening that said, Saturday with the tree cutting work that there were I gather it was in the neighborhood of 4 or 5 trees, s~e of them 15 inches in diameter that were cut part way through and left. Do you realize the risk? Do you realize that you downed power lines, put part of our city out of power for 3 hours on Saturday? Mayor Hamilton: Didn't you have professionals doing the cutting? Jim Fenning: ~h yes. They're bonded and insured and all of that and that is not an excuse. They had climbed up into that tree they were cutting down, they roped it, it twisted on them. I apologize for that too but these wires run across my property and NSP doesn't even have an easement so maybe I should just call NSP and tell 'th~ to move the wires. Councilman Boyt: Well, I do have and I think you would as well, have a concern about the quality of the work being done by your contracter to date and I hope that you are more careful in the future. Jim Fenning: Taere is a lot more risk on those wires. Councilman Boyt: I'm concerned about the standing trees that are partially cut. Tnere are plenty of kids in that neighborhood and plenty of adults and 24 19 ~ityCouncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 none of them want a tree down on them and there's no way we can keep the~ out of your property. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat else on the wires? Jim Fennirg: No, that's enough. The rest are details ar~ I'll get with Gary. Helen Loebel: Mr. Mayor, are those trees still half standing? Jim Fenning: They' re all stand ing. Helen Loebel: Ar~ how long is that going to take? Jim Fenning: They stopped when the power lines when down. Mayor Hamilton: When is that going to be completed Jim so the neighbors won't be concerned about it? Jim Fenning: That will be completed this Friday, they will have those trees down t~norrow. Councilman Johnson: So it will be starting up again tomorrow? Helen Loebel: They were cuttirg today. Councilman Johnson: They may be down now. Jim Fenning: Those trees that we mentioned will be cc~in~ down t(xnorrow. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to include that it's up to the City Engineer to give him the permit when be feels all conditions have ~ satisfactorly met and he's paid 125%? Councilman Horn: I think that will be revi~ with the city staff. Gary Warren: Are we talking just the grading permit ar~ the development contract after... Mayor Hamilton: We have a separate grading permit and then continue with the develoIxnent contract. Roger Knutson: 7be grading permit not to be issued until after he's signed the development contract. Cour~ilman Boyt: I've got one point of discussion if I get a chance. This feasibility study money, I remember that conversation fairly well about the feasibility of connecting Carver Beach Boad with Big Horn Drive and I think we wouldn't be considering that and I think the council is on record of saying that they had no intention of considering that connection and this development created that need. Created that opportunity and I think we should be consistent and since we ask developers to pay for feasibility studies when it 25 City Council Meeting - Sept~mg~r 14, 1987 involves their development, that Mr. Fennirg should be paying that $2,500.00. I would like to move an amendment to Clark's motion to that effect. Councilman Johnson: I'll second it so we can discuss it. Did you say that in our plat approval that the council had said that we would do this with staff and within city budget and we did not specifically say that we would be charging that to the developer? You said you reviewed it earlier tonight. Gary Warren: The discussion was that staff didn't have time to be able to do it and that we would do it within the budget, I don't know if that's the phrasing. Councilman Horn: I think there's a difference between the two words that Bill used. One was necessity and the other was opportunity. Necessity I would totally agree with should be billed to the developer but when it's an opportunity, which I feel this is, I don't think it should go to the developer. Councilman Johnson: I don't really think it should be either because it's going to very much benefit the Carver Beach people more than this developer. The developer does not r._~ it to build this property. He's got Big Horn. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I' 11 withdraw my motion. COuncilman Johnson: I ' 11 withdraw my second. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the development contract with the noted changes on the condition that the developer and the City negotiate the remaining items with regard to the specifics that were discussed in the approval process which will allow the developer to begin grading after it's signed. All voted in favor and motion carried. S~RE DEVELOPMENT: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Johnson: Since it was pulled, I talked to the City Attorney on item 8. It's an incomplete sentence on the condition number 8 where they talk about the polyvinyl flouride pipe. I would like to add to the end of that sentence, shall be used in sanitary sewer construction. Because that's what they had discussed earlier in the memo that we have to use PVC pipe in sanitary sewer construction and this I found out was a typographical error made in bringing this document forward. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Shadowmere Development plans and specifications contingent on the 18 conditions and modifying condition 8 by adding to the e~d, "shall be used in sanitary sewer construction." All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I have a question on item 16. Isn't 16 a new condition? Gary I don't ever recall having required that previously. 26 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Gary Warren: ... I~ recommendirg that we adopt this as good practice o~ all of ours to insure good quality plus it helps to give us an accurate documentation of the location of the service laterals stubs for future reference. POINT ADDITION: APPRUVAL ~F DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Hamilton: Many of the questions I have here have already ~ discussed as a part of Shadowmere's. F~wever, the developers may have additional questions and I have some additional ones also. Page 5, item 15. We have a timber management plan. I guess with this particular develolanent I had a little problem with that because there aren't enough trees on there to manage plus it ~s to be difficult to get it through to everybody that developers don't like to cut down trees on their lots because it adds value to the lots when they go to sell it so to require the developer to have a plan done by a professional I presume, for the few number of trees that they have on that develol~ent, doesn' t se~m to me to make a whole lot of sense. Councilman Johnson: Doesn't cost any money for the developer. Gary Warren: I pulled that out of the discussion as it related to Mr. Olsen from the DNR forester doing...for riparian lots within 75 feet of shoreline. There was discussion of having that done. Barbara Dacy: It was also a specific condition of plat approval. Mayor Hamilton: Everybody is quick to say it doesn't cost the developer anything, the City pays for it right? Barbara Dsc-y: No, it's provided by the DNR. Mayor Hamilton: It still doesn't make any sense. I don't care who pays for it. Item 16, trails. ~he developer shall grade and install a 5 foot sidewalk along Kurvers Point Road right-of-way to it's connection to TH i~L Don wants to substantiate that with me because I don't recall that that was something that we said was goirg to be done. Did you have a chance to check that? Don Ashworth: No I did not. My point was, I was sure that that was straight right out of the Minutes. Barbara Dsc-y: Condition 15 was complying to the action taken by the Park and Recreation Commission. In my memorandum regarding final plat approval, there was discussion about the trail along TH 1~1 ar~ clarification of that. In the Council Minutes there was discussion about a trail alorg TH 1~1. However, what I'm trying to say though is there was no final, or the Council didn't have as much discussion about the internal trail as they did about the trail on TH 101 and it ended up being that condition 15 said compliance with the action taken by the Park and Recreation C~mmission which was recommending an internal trail. 27 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: An internal trail perhaps but that doesn't say the same thing to me as a 5 foot sidewalk. A sidewalk, to me, says a concrete walkway. Gary Warren: If I could interject. It is shown on the construction plans as a 5 foot bituminous trail I guess is what's noted in there. Tne Commission reacted to, actually I think in their report it requested a 6 foot trail. Barbara Dacy: Right. I think the Park and Bec Commission may have started out at 8. Mayor Hamilton: If it was down to zero would be even better. My comment way back then was that it's a trailway that starts nowhere and goes nowhere. It doesn't connect with anything on either end so it isn't going to benefit anyone. I think that's something that perhaps an easement could be given by the developer so that if the people who purchase homes there wanted to have a trail put in or a sidewalk put in there, they could do that. Barbara Dacy: Maybe in the future then we should maybe call out the specific conditions of the Park and Rec Commission's action just as the Planning Ccmxnission action so we're all clear on it. Councilman Johnson: I personally think that we did discuss that and I was under the impression that you lost on that point Tom previously and that we went with the trail. I think we're the ones that took it down from 8 foot to 5 foot if I remember right. It's hard to r~m~mber all of these things. Mayor Hamilton: I remember the discussion but I didn't remember that we had agreed that there would be one there. Councilman Boyt: I think we spent a great deal of time discussing that issue and ended up turning it over to the Park and Rec Commission to resolve. I don't think we resolved it that night. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't think so either. Councilman Boyt: Tae best we could do was to say we'll go with their reccaxnendation. I ass~ne that's what we have here. Mayor Hamilton: I don't agree with it tonight. Just calling it to everyone's attention. The next item there, 18, they went from 16 to 18. Parkland and trail fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction within the plat, the developer is...pay the parkland trail fee then in force would seem to me there is no mention here of any credit and if the developer is going to in fact have to install a 5 foot sidewalk, whatever that is, and give an additional 20 foot trail easement, then there should be some credit to the park fee. That apparently wasn't discussed and I don't know what happened and you were going to check on that too Don. Did you have a chance to do that? Don Ashworth: Only to the extent that where the City has required the installation of trails, we have given credit back to the developer for the cost of those trails. We discussed that as a part of Lake Susan South. We 28 City Council Meeting - Sep~ 14, 1987 just finished it with the Curry proposal ar~ spent significant time talking about that same issue. It does seem reasonable that he would receive a credit for the cost of the trails that he incurs for the internal streets. Councilman Horn: I agree. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's consistent with what we've done in the past. It just doesn't say that here that there ~Duld be any credit at all. Don Ashworth: I don't know what that would be as a percent but we would take his actual costs minus what he would generate and that's the amount it would be. He could not go over 100% credit. Councilman Boyt: On trail fees alone, not park? Don Ashworth: ~hat' s correct. Mayor Hamilton: The next item is 19, the landscaping. ~his is another new item to me. We have by ordinance stated that there will be one tree planted on every lot but never before have we spelled out what trees anyone is required to put iD. It just seems to me we're getting into an area that we don't belong and that's telling people what they have to plant on their land. We can suggest these things. After all someone may want to plant a fir tree too. I don't see any of those in there. ~he trees shall be selected from among the following species I think is a little strong ar~ it should say, you can select from these if you would like. They are ones that the city would prefer however, if you want to put in, if somebody happer~ to like having those little bugs, box elder trees. Councilman Johnson: I agree with you on we not totally not specifying as a suggestion but one thing Barb ar~ I have talked about this, I may have ~ partially the cause of this, is that one subdivision lately has planted exactly the same type of tree in every lot so if we have a disease to that species of tree, they are all wiped out. I think there ~s to be a variety of species of trees planted so you don't plant Marshall Seedless Ashes. So every lot has one Marshall Seedless Ash, dress right straight down in a row, 10.5 feet away from the driveway. ~mllton. ~ben I suppose we ~ to go back to the ordinance because it Mayor ' · is an ordinance requirement that one tree be planted and if you want to be more specific about it, spell it up there I would guess. Just to say that one tree and there needs to be a variety within the subdivision probably would solve the problem that you might have. Say a variety of trees within the subdivision, not all the same type species. I guess my problem was we're telling them they have to select from this list ar~ I don't think we're in the tree business. Councilman Horn: Treat's a fairly common requirement because as you say, there are a lot of different trees that aren't really considered permanent, substantial trees. I know in White Bear Lake we had a similar type of thing ar~ it was just to prevent somebody from putting up a Box Elder or Basswood or Poplar or some soft type of tree that wouldn't be substantial in a few years. 29 k City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 I think what Jay's talking about is a totally different issue. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, he was trying to avoid having all of the same kind of trees put in one subdivision. Councilman Horn: ~nat' s not what this says. Mayor Hamilton: If you want to say that, then we can say that. You can make that adjustment. Item 21 on page 3, TH 101 Phase 2 connection. I believe this is a development contract for Phase 1 and I'm not convinced that we need to discuss TH 101 corrections as it would be a part of Phase 2. It doesn't have anything to do with Phase L When they get into Phase 2, that is when TH 101 alterations will ~ to be completed. Don didn't agree with that. Felt that it needed to be spelled out here but I still don't agree with him. Councilman Horn: What's the down side of doing that? Don Ashworth: That it may not be passed. Gary Warren: One of the discussions, councilmembers may recall on the plat was the southern connection to TH 101 as it related to the southerly property owner and also the fact of the big hill on TH 101 and the sight distance problems which dictated moving the connection further south and the developer to his credit and to everyone's relief I think, said he was going to remove the hill. I think it was with that that things really moved forward out of the preliminary platting process. I look at it, in reviewing the conditions as a key point that while this is just Phase 1 that I think the approval of Phase 1 was with the understanding that Phase 2 was going to be done in a certain manner and that's the only reason I included it here. Councilman Horn: They agreed to that as I recall. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that was one of the conditions. Councilman Johnson: But this puts it in writing. If they argue about it we'll just say we won't do Phase 2. You've got Phase 1 without doing what was a condition of the overall approval. Tnis locks thsm into doing both. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. They have to do a Phase 2 before they're going to do that anyway so it refers to Phase 1 in here and perhaps that's adequate enough for the developers. I don't know. We'll let them comment on that. Then on item 23, just a matter of wording there. Item A, cross off the first existing and then say easements exist along the western portion of the plat. I had the same problem with Item H again. I guess that will be corrected the same as we did in Mr. Fenning's. And the insurance question again of going for six months, I think that issue can be resolved with these developers. Councilman Boyt: Clark, did your motion take item H out of Mr. Fenning's development contract? I didn't understand it to do that. Councilman Horn: No. What it is to clarify it and we need to clarify this one the same way. 30 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: All I said was the same as Mr. Fenning's, it nccds to be clarified in this one. Then just quickly back to page 3, item 9. Erosion control. About the middle we say, except for otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seeds shall be certified oat seed. I think what we're attemptirg to do is to have something grow quickly and I know that rye grows faster than anything else and unless someone is in the certified oat business, I see no reaso~ why we r~ to specify anything here. It should be up to the developer to plant whatever they would like so long as it's something that's fast growing. I think rye grass is planted most oftmm because it grows most quickly. Gary Warren: It does. We usually like to have a mix out there because deper~ing cn weather conditions, you've got one that might survive ar~ one that won't. Mayor Hamilton: I just had never seen us specify a particular type of =-~ and Igu not sure that we should have to do that. I would like to ask the developers if they have any further comments or questions that they would like to make on the develoIm~-nt contract. Bob Sellers: Bob Sellers with VanDoren, Hazard and Stallings. The only additional it~u in here would be the item 16, the additional 20 foot trail easement along TH 101. I believe in the Council's previous discussion that it was decided that the trail along TH 101 would be within the additional 17 feet of right-of-way that's being provided. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. That's my recollection also. I'm not sure, I missed that. I meant to bring that up. I~ not sure where that 22 came from. Gary Warren: It came out of conditions as filtered through the process I guess but I had a discussion with Mel earlier today and that shouldn't be there. Mayor Hamilton: I know we talked about 17 feet, is that your recollection? Councilman Boyt: I know we spent a lot of time talking about TH 101 and that particular issue of how much property should they give and I think it came down to tt~ idea that this is an easement. That what we wanted Was the flexibility to put the trail where it ~ed to go but we were not trying to acquire more lar~ here and that we would certainly make every effort to put it in the main roadway. Barbara Dacy: In conversation with Mr. Koegler, as you noted on the plat, they are dedicating 17 feet for the additioD~_l TH 101 right-of-way and conferring with Mr. Koegler, it is possible for a four lane improved section to include a trail within that right-of-way and in reviewing the Minutes together with the applicants, that was the basis for the recommendation of the final plat. Councilman Johnson: Park and Rec agreed to that I believe. 31 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mel Kurvers: I would like to ask for the same thing that Mr. Fenning did, to be allowed to get a grading plan and work on the contract with Gary..~ut I w~uld like to have that choice. Councilman Johnson: I think we're going to pass this one. You can sign it in a day or two. Frank Kurvers: We didn't mention anything about park fees, is that part of the discussion when earlier we were talking about trails because what I'm really wondering is if this were a PUD plan and actually we're setting aside about 2 or 3 more acres of land, whether it's open space, whether it's half private as far as the beachlot, semi-private, semi-public, whatever you want to say. We also have two additional ponds which I'm saying is open space so in reference we're tying up that land which is part of the development and the city is going to benefit, there should be some kind of credit for park. Councilman Horn: On a beachlot? Frank Kurvers: Not just a beachlot. I said that could be just semi-private. The other two ponds are actually open space. If we had this plan under a PUD we would get credit for open space. Gary Warren: The ponds that are there are from our retention and sedimentation which is a necessity for the plat itself. It's not like you've got open space here that we'll be able to use for park or anything else. It's a requirement in order for them to meet the erosion control and storm water runoff requirements of the city they have to have those ponds. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, how about the outlot? I know we discussed that at our previous meeting. I think the same question came up and I don't believe we've ever given park dedication fees or credit for that for a private housing development. That' s my n~a~ory. Is that correct Don? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Johnson: I don't think water is considered open space either. We haven't given any credit for water in other subdivisions. Mayor Hamilton: But as I pointed out, and Gary will go back and determine what the cost of installing the trail is and the credit will be given for the trail fees. Frank Kurvers: Trails are what we're talking about, that's actually park too. If it's a trail or whatever you call it, it's still park so I just wanted to make sure all these things~.. Councilman Boyt: On the erosion controls, on the City Council Minutes of the night we discussed this, on our points, item 10 said that we endorse the use of Type II erosion controls which was included in our development contract tonight but also floating sediment traps wherever appropriate. Now I'm not automatically jumping to the conclusion that they are appropriate but I would 32 City fbuncil Meeting - Se~ 14, 1987 like the floating sediment traps included in the erosion control conditions as we initially passed it. Mayor Hamilton: If appropriate. Councilman Boyt: If appropriate. Mayor Hamilton: And that would be determined by the Engineer and perhaps Dr. Rockwell. Gary Warren: Bill and I talked about it and I agree. I think it played a very good role on our South Lotus Lake project ar~ subsequent South Lotus 2nd Addition. Mayor Hamilton: There may be one lot that you ~ to consider that. Councilman Johnson: Actually we've got a sentence in hare saying the city may impose additional reasonable erosion control requirements during the course of the construction if they would be-beneficial which would cover you there. Gary Warren: That would. It's always good to point out specifics. Mayor Hamilton: Put an i.e. floating sedimentation or whatever you call it. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the development contract for Kurver Point Addition Phase 1 with the corrections noted this evening that would be consistent with the Shadowmere subdivision and .those specific to this subdivision. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to just be sure on the trails that we have agreed that the only change we're making to 18 is the trail fee ar~ we're not changing 16. Councilman Horn: It's my understanding that 19 stay as is. Mayor Hamilton: We are changing 16 to 17 feet. Not 20 feet. Councilman Johnson: And that's not additional. That's included. Mayor Hamilton: 17 feet was what's existing. It's not additional. Mel ~urvers: I've got one comment on 19, they're asking for 5~0 yards of sod. That that should be up to us. Councilman Horn: Okay, that will be part of my motion. KURVERS POINT ADDITION: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the plans and specifications for Phase 1, Pro. ject ~87-14. All voted in favor and motion carried. 33 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 KURVERS POINT ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Kurvers Point Subdivision Final Plat approval. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, CHANHASSEN VISTA 4TH ADDITION. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill you had the same comments there. It's a little different develolanent contract but you wanted to address this one. Councilman Boyt: Om this one, there are two items that we haven't discussed tonight. One of them Don was going to check on for me on park trails. A park trail around Chan Pond. Don Ashworth: Yes, I did talk with Mr. Koegler and he is in the process of revisir~ that plat in accordance with the statement that were made by Mr. Segal here approximately 2 weeks ago. Councilman Boyt: Which means that when we approve this, we are approving it given that condition. That the developer has agreed to give us property where we need it for the trail. Don Ashworth: That seems reasonable. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would like that included in this contract. Just to be absolutely clear. And the other thing is, Gary I have a question for you on. ~%~ere was, I would guess, about a 12 to 14 inch diameter tree cut last week. Did you give approval for that tree to be cut? C~ry Warren: There were not requests given to me for tree cutting, no. Councilman Boyt: Well, would you follow up on it? Mayor Hamilton: Was it within a pad or just sitting out in the open? Councilman Boyt: Really I couldn't tell you where it came from until I saw it uprooted and it was sitting right off the end of Frontier Trail. Councilman Horn: Hardwood? Councilman Boyt: 0ak. Gary Warren: Do you know approximately where it came out? Councilman Boyt: I don't know where it came out of. I know they pulled it up by the house that, I could point it out to you. It's probably 50 yards from where Frontier currently ends to the west and that's in direct violation of their existing develol~nent contract. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was going to pull this one myself in that I have a real problem approving this development contract when the developer hasn't 34 City Council Meeting - Se~ 14, 1987 complied with Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 and here we are giving him Phase 4. We ~ to put our foot down someplace. We have erosion control fences that have ~ removed and have never ~_n replaced. We've got after our superstorm, his erosion control was wiped out. He's never seeded in certain areas he was supposed to seed immediately in or he was supposed to seed in at some time and it's been 6 months he hash' t seeded. Mayor Hamilton: Have you discussed these things with Gary? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat you think are violations and they can be checked? Councilman Johnson: Yes. In the final plat approval I was going to pull that one too and Gary talked me out of it. I was out there yesterday. He says he's got enough to where we can still hold the developer and get these things done and we're not getting them done so now I'm going after it. I went out yesterday and walked there. There's one place where a hill fill, we had a landslide that went under the erosion control and now we've got a 3 foot hole and a ditch running underneath t_be erosion control fence. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to stop you for just a minute because we're dealing with the 4th Addition and if you have problems with other portions of his other phases, then those should be brought up to Gary so that they can, ISn not saying we shouldn't be aware of them. They should come back to us in a different forum and I think we should deal with the 4th Addition right now. Ar~ seeing how it's getting late already. Councilman Johnson: What I was saying is, why should we give more develoIx~ant contracts if we' re not c(x~plying with the rest of them? Mayor Hamilton: If you would like to make a motion to deny the development contract based on the assumption on your part that they have not performed in the past, you can attempt a motion to that effect. Otherwise, I think you ~ to work with Gary to see if all of these things can be resolved. Ar~ if in his mind he feels they haven't performed, on their other development contracts, then they should be stopped. Councilman J(lhnson: We've got a drainage swale that's outside of the drainge easement. Things like this. Councilman Horn: As determined by who? Councilman Johnson: As determined by me. Councilman Boyt: You're saying until you're satisfied that he's lived up to the agreements of ~he other three? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Based on his determination that they have not. 35 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if you change that to our Engin~ you would probably get some agreement. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I would say that. I would do that. At the time that our engineer agrees that he is in compliance with his previous. Well, let me just ask him. Is he in compliance with all his previous development contracts? Mayor Hamilton: You're making a motion saying he's not and now you're asking the engineer if he is. Is there a second to the motion first of all so we can discuss it? Councilman Boyt: How have you made it? To the engineer? Councilman Johnson: To where the engineer will determine if compliance is happening. We deny this one until the engineer certifies to us that be is in compliance with 1 through 3. Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest that probably the best way to handle this is that we approve the 4th Addition development contract contingent upon you meeting with the City Engineer and if in fact there are items that they have not completed and are in violation of, which means they are in violation of their previous development contracts, then this one would not be allowed to move forward until such time as they have complied with all of those things that the engineer feels they have not cc~plied with. Councilman Johnson: I think that's a very good ccampromise T~m. Councilman Horn: I don't think that's a compromise. In fact I got that out of your motion. Councilman Johnson: Let's say better put. I was saying denied and he says approved contingent upon. I'm saying denied contingent upon. Councilman Horn: Then I like yours better. Councilman Johnson: I can live with that. I would amend my motion to where we're approving contingent upon we won't sign this agreement until the City Engineer is satisfied that he is in compliance with his contracts for Phase 1, 2and 3. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the development contract for Chanhassen Vista 4th Addition contingent upon this contract not being signed until the City Engineer is satisifed that the developer is in compliance with the development contracts for Phase 1, 2 and 3. Also, that the city get the parkland needed for the trail arour~ Chan Pond straighten out with the developer. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the agenda to discuss Consent Agenda item l(g) at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. 36 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CURRY FARMS, PHASE I. Councilman Boyt: My concern here was basically, I've got the grading situation here. I know that several of us have talked to one of the neighbors ar~ that there appears to be a potential grading problem. I know I talked to Gary a little bit earlier but maybe Gary can share some of that with the rest of the Council. Gary Warren: Sure. Staff has ~ involved here on two or three phases now to review the r~ry Kerber property which abuts on the east side of Curry Farms amd there was some concern from Mr. Kerber about the elevation of the berms that are up there right now. My observation, I was up there last Thursday and reviewed them with Larry and also with Kevin Clark of Centex and basically the berm that is out there at this point is a stockpile of black dirt which is common to the excavation that they are doing at this time so it's difficult to say because it's not a final grade whether Larry, having tbe low part of his property back there and yet someday, the way he explains it to me, intending to develop and build a house down in this low area and having to look up at this berm and at the house that will be higher up on a hill there that is not acceptable. I tried to explain to him and I asked Centex to work with their engineer to give us the stake reference point out there so we can see what the actual elevation should be of the berm ar~ that we could address that when he's got that established and take a better look at it. It is difficult to conceive looking at his property exactly what the impact will be. Centex is confined in regards to our maximum street grades that we allow, 7%, amd in order to have a street grade that matches in with the county road ar~ he at the maximum percentage, that requires him to bring the elevation of his property up to be able to get building pads ar~ fit everything in properly. Likewise, Mr. Kerber when he comes to develop his property would probably have the same challenges in that he has a low area and be probably will do some filling maybe diminish some of this sight concern that he has. I~ not to say that there isn't a sight impact. Obviously whenever you start construction of this nature there's going to be something but that coupled with the drainage issue out here, concern that the corner of this property, the southwest corner is not restricting runoff. We have looked at that and we will be working with the construction company to see that it does continue to swale to the north to the natural outlet. Those were the key parts of discussion so I put it back to Centex. The berm won't go away. The berm is there. Especially on the west side of the property for the pond that is required to retain the year storms so there's about a 4 foot berm that's pretty much at grade on the west end of the property and that won't go. But this actual slope that he's looking at, this mour~ of dirt so to speak, is not at finished grade arz] we want to get that established so they can take a look at it. I've asked them to modify their site grades to diminish that grade as much as possible ams to get back to me on that but the more they cut down that berm, the steeper the backlots are on the property on the road so it's give ar~ take on both sides. Councilman Boyt: I wanted to get that issue aired. Councilman Horn: My concern is that let's say Mr. Kerber does c~ne in to develop his property and he has to build his up too. What he's going to be facing is an adjacent lot that has a 3:1 slope up to the ber~ Is he going to 37 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 develop a 3:1 slope up to t3~ same level? Are we going to have a crevice in the middle or how is that going to be filled in? Or does he have to take the responsibility to cover the slope to even it all up to bler~ in with the Curry Farm develo~ent? Gary Warren: As commonly happens, the common property line is often times the meeting point for the grades and Centex is, their berm is solely on their property and is tapering off to match existing contours at the property line and likewise Mr. Kerber will have to address that same issue. Now if he wanted to raise that and get rid of some of the crevice, that would be his choice but I think our controls on the development are to require the Centex, in this case, to match the existing topo along the common property line. Councilman Horn: So theoretically Mr. Kerber can come in and do the same thing and we've got this 6 foot deep crevice down there between the two developments? Gary Warren: ~neoretically. Councilman Johnson: Is there a way to prevent that? At thispoint is there some way we could say, this is in the extreme far back of somebody's property. They got a pond between them and this 3:1 slope before it gets to their backyards actually. Is there something we can put in here with, I don't know what Centex could do, to say that if the property behind you is developed that they can fill across his property line to eliminate this ditch and make it more reasonable of a facility or to expand the pond because he's going to need some drainage and he's going to need some sediment control from his development that he develops so it maybe a matter of actually moving theberm onto his property and expand the size of the pond. Is there someway we can work with the developer to achieve a future solution that we perceive a future problem. Can we help to try to prevent that because when the landowners are in there in 10 years? Councilman Horn: I would like to suggest, if it would mitigate the problem to the Kerber property that we would relax our 7% requirement because that seems to be the biggest hassle. Councilman Johnson: It's only at 5% right now if we grade it on the road according to the plans. Councilman Horn: Typically what we've done is we've put a little landing area. We did this up in Fox Chase where we allowed a steeper grade and then put a landing area. Gary Warren: ~nis one does call for a 1/2% grade in the landing area because that's county road also. We can look at, when I addressed Centex in the field I asked them to talk to their engineer and take a look at what we can do to bring that down. The approval of plans and the status of grading I'm sure is an impact. Councilman Horn: I think they're going to run out of dirt anyway. 38 City Council Meeting - Sept~ 14, 19B7 Kevin Clark: I'm not sure what you want me to comuent on. Mayor Hamilton: Whatever direction you think is right. We seem to have a problen ar~ w~'re not sure how to resolve it with the Kerber property. Kevin Clark: I guess we bring up a couple that we're looking ar~ maybe I'll answer Jay and o~ questions that were brought u~ My _Dame is Kevin Clark and I work for Centex Homes. What we are working with is a couple issues. The embankment or berm or dike or ditch, whatever in the back, was a requirement and actually was a motivation from the Fishery and Wildlife in the first place when we first started to get together to build some kir~ of a wildlife habitat. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should get back to the issue that we're talking about where the properties moct and we're going to have a probl~ there. Kevin clark: I'm working towards that. What we've done through the Watershed District ar~ through the engineering G~meyer ar~ trying to meet those criteria and design the property to be self draining and also to retain all the water from the wetland on the east side of CR 17, the area up near Lost Lake and also the wetland to the south so we desi~ that whole area to accomodate the surrounding properties but with our grade coming off of CR 17, we do have a level platform of a 1/2% of probably about 100 to 200 feet and then tapering off not to exceed the maximom grade to allow people to get off the county road in weather but really what that elevation between Ke~ber's proprty ar~ our development is really dictated by that crown or the elevation of the road. I've gone back to Westwood E~gineering and asked them if we can mitigate that. Right now what we have is, as ~ry mentioned, is quite a bit of dirt and it reflects the fact that we're putting off any of the utility improvements and what is involved there also is the realignment of the sanitary so right now there is a volume of dirt there and we've ~ out three times to talk this over with Kerbers and I don't think, he's not c~nvi~ ar~ I can appreciate that but it's also difficult for him to look from his house over to our property now where we're filling quite a bit ar~ of course there's an emotional impact because he no longer has that view and he's looking at a hill that potentially is going to have a house on it ar~ that's probably upsetting but the fact is, we're trying to mitigate that impact but also trying to get it so we have a proper and safe access to the road. In talking to Gary, and I hope I'm not double talking here, but I said we'll look at that and we are putting in walkout or daylight flat stairs so we are going to try to keep that mound away from his property line as far as possibly by doing any of our oversizing at a 50/50. Tie it out and then drop it off so we don't have later on as much dirt to move so we're trying to move that hack and I told the Kerbers, after Larry when we met last week, Thursday I think it was,. there was a stake there and I invited him to come out and look at it and I could show him where the elevation was so I think even with tb~ moun~ there we could show him how it's going to come over and we can work with that. I think we also want to provide for the neighbors who we are developing for a lot that's going to be mobile so they can go out of their driveway they're not going out on a 10% grade or exceeding that ar~ slipping right dowr~ I guess we definitely want to resolve it. I think his impact is a little bit more amplified than it is because we've gone through now ar~ put tt~ swale, ar~ we 39 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 don't want to build a 5 acre, some kir~ of an erosion attracting problems with. We want this person's yard here that we're building to be attractive and if it isn't on a fence line, it can be a rounded swale. Currently now all his property has been draining off of his property which we aren't allowed to do and what we're trying to do, what he's going to experience now, is what we're doing is directly any drainage off the property down towards that county utility to Christmas Lake and that's really why we have that embankment there is to purify or take out any of the silt or impurities in the water going into Christmas Lake. Councilman Horn: Do we have any type of elevation data to say that that will drain? I know when I walked that property I looked at it from one side and it looked like it was going to drain down into the ravine. I got down to the ravine and it looked like the low spot was back at the other corner. Without elevations it's difficult to tell. Kevin Clark: Whether Kerber's will drain or ours? Councilman Horn: Kerbers. Kevin Clark: As I said before, again is that we work for I would say approximately between 2 and 3 months with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to get this plan approved and as I mentioned earlier, their study not only took into account our parcel but also, I don't know it could been anywhere near 100 acres surrounding us. Lost Lake there to the south and west and I'm very sure they also took into concern the area impact on our adjoining neighbor Mr. Kerber. Gary Warren: I think Clark's question specifically is, we do have an existing topo that comes from Centex's plat that shows when the final grading is done that it will be swaled to drain to the northwest corner there of the Kerber's property which is the natural outlet of the property. That it won't stay and pond in that pocket down there. Councilman Horn: What about his? Gary Warren: That's what I'm saying. It's the Kerber property that will run down. Kevin Clark: We're going to share an adjoining, we're going to utilize an easement on our side but any of his water that comes across the fence line would follow the same shoot. Councilman Horn: Okay I see. So his property can drain just as it did before and your side will take care of carrying it out. Kevin Clark: And I think any future improvement, he's going to have to move some dirt as we are because he's low and even if we weren't there he'd have to move some dirt. I would think at that time, providing things don't change, the Watershed District would look at his project and say, is his capacity built to withstand any of your improvement or do we ~ to make an enlargement to the pond? And in all honesty, I don't think the neighbors to 40 City Council Meeting - September 14~ 19B7 the back are going to give a hoot because the area behind _there in the fence would be something that I imagine could be just. worked out. If they overfilled and made the swale a little smaller or raised the grade 3 feet~ i don't think that would be an impact on those neighbors on a 300 foot depth lot. Larry Kerber: Like he said, I am low now. My property was not the lowest in the area. It will be after thelWre done grading by some 12 feet in the back so I see a real potential problem there. Especially with what Clark brought ul~ How am I ever supposed to do anything with that now? ~ne only solution is to raise mine. All we're going to do is create a ravine around the west and south of my property 3B to 4B feet wide at the top and 12 feet deel~ I'm going to raise my property up now so that's going to drairu I just don't think that this is'the answer. There has to be a way they can taper their last lot gradually to mine so it isn't necessary for me to bring mine all the way up. I guess can't something be worked out with that last lot. If t~ get a transition from the last lot. The back with the dike they put up, I don't know what the solution is there. Mayor Hamilton: Well, you've met three times. Larry Kerber: No we didn't, If he met three times, one time wasn't with me because we met twice. Mayor Hamilton: He said you met three times and Gary... Larry Kerber: I've had a meeting with C~ry twice in the past two weeks. Gary Warren: Tom, the solution I guess that I saw from my last meeting out there was to have Kevin, and I think he did mention that he b__m~ talked to their engineer, Westwood, to have them take a look at the situation and I guess I think it would be best is Larry could also voice concerns to their engineer and let them try to work out some solution here and come back ar~ I can serve as the intermediary whenever is necessary. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I would think it's hard to resolve an issue when you don't talk to everybody involved. Larry Kerber: Just so it gets done is my concern. I want somebody to do it because there are other things that were supposed to be, Centex, the City and me. The first phase was passed and that was never even addressed. Point 14 on the preliminary plat we never addressed. The final was passed. Will it be or when will it be? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know what you're referring to. Larry Kerber: Work out some landscape screening bet~ ~ ar~ me. Gary Warren: That still can be done. The developer intends to do it. We've got a letter of credit to see that he does meet the requirements of those conditions and Kevin may want to address it but my understanding is that after the berming and grading is established, then they can negotiate. 41 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: If it was a condition, it's got to be done and that's all there is to it. Larry Kerber: I just thought it should have been addressed before the first phase was finalized. I thought that was going to be addressed. Mayor Hamilton: Well, if it's a condition it will be done and it has to be done. Larry Kerber: It would have been nice is somebody would have come out and discussed something with me before. Councilman Johnson: One of the conditions of approval of the final plat was 'that he comply with the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat which doesn't mean that in order to approve the final plat you have to have completed all the conditions of the preliminary plat but condition 14 is brought forward to the final plat. Larry Kerber: So it means it will be addressed, it just doesn't have to be before it's finalized? Councilman Johnson: Right. Before the plat's finalized which is where the lot lines are. Gary Warren: I think also Larry, you recognize this, until you see what the final grading accomplishes there, I think you would want to reserve your right to settle on in looking at a planting. I think it's appropriate to get first things first. Get the grading done and settled and then work out whatever is appropriate for screening and plantings. Larry Kerber: Another comment I have is on the level of their pond. As the water is rising in your pond, the water table, the water level in that area is going to come up and now, being my open land is the lowest of that whole, whatever that was, 20 acre low spot, anytime that water level and their permanent level is going to be, from what I understand, 3 feet above my low spot and that pond is 20 feet from my parking land. What's going to happen once they reach that level of 3 feet above my land 20 feet away? Is my land ' going to stay dry? Not soggy? That water is going to stabilize. If the water is 3 feet high 20 feet away, it's going to start gooshing out of my ground. Mayor Hamilton: Depends on how they build it. If it's built with clay and they've got a good bottom, it's not going to I wouldn't think. Larry Kerber: Well, I don't know how they're going to keep it there because it's the same organic soil that was there. There's no special ground brought in. If it's 3 feet high on that side, it's not automatically going to come 3 feet high on mine but it's going to push water up on my ground. My ground, I am afraid is going to get too wet and turn into a bog in that low spot. Just so sc~ebody is aware of this and if it's a problem that it will be resolved. 42 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: If you build a pond, I would think if you have clay in there it wouldn' t be a problem. Larry Kerber: There's no clay in that pond wall. Gary Warren: I think part of the issue and without having a develol~nent from Larry's property at this time it's hard to say 10~% but that low area there, when it goes through the develola~ent phase is goirg to need s~ne fill to be able to be buildable so you're not going to be able to Just build on exactly what you've got there from a property standpoint. The mud itself, the outlet of that pond Kevin, and I don't remember all the details, is that a 3 foot elevation there or is that a dry pond? Kevin Clark: No, I don't think it's going to hold 3 feet. I think the desigg was such and the height was that it wouldn't take such a volume of water to Christmas Lake and the reason it's going to hold water at certain times is because it is at the tail of the store water management so it is going to get all the water from the rest of the pond will be the last one to empty out but I don't think it will hold water. I would hope that it will keep water only to keep it from becoming a mosquito bog. Larry Kerber: You brought up an interesting point. My ground down there always was dry. It will ~ fill now I guarantee it with their pond that close to mine. Gary Warren: My point is that just to be able to meet city requirements as far as getting a road and access into the property down there, you can't just put in a road straight down so you're going to have to bring things up in general. Larry Kerber: I think we both know that can't be done now with the elevations they' ve left me with. Kevin Clark: I'd be glad to show you our borings right behind your fence. You're going to want to know before you decide to a house on that property. Councilman Horn: Is that your concern or is your concern that the property as it exists now the way you're going to use is still going to be useable in that state? Larry Kerber: That's my major concern. The wetness in the hack that I'm going to receive. A secondary concern is the situation they're leaving me with and I'm just wondering if that's good planning. If that's the best we can do. I just can't believe my property should be left in a worst state than it was before they came in. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like there hasn't ~ a good communication process here betwc~n-- Larry and tb~ developer and how long have we harped ~n that for years that if a developer's going to come in, the first thing they ought to do is get together with the neighbors and make sore that things are worked out and I don't think the developer has done that in this case and I think it ought to happen prior to this thing going on any further because I agree with 43 City Council Meeting - Septsmber 14, 1987 Larry that his property should not be left in a worse cor~ition than it was prior to the develo~m~ent beginning. Councilman Johnson: I just happen to have both the topo's of your property and the things we're discussing here is the plans and specs. Your back property is at about 955. The 956 is slightly above the back property line so you're somewhere between 956 and 954. Their outlet is designed at 955 so the pond level when it will stop draining out the outlet will be at the level of your back property line. Now, between your back property line there's going to be an additional ditch that's going to take out water so if we've got a hydraulic gradient going through that dike, before it would get to your property line it has to cross that ditch so the ditch will act as a natural outlet at that point. The long and short of it is, the water problem may not be there. But it may be. Larry Kerber: I just want somebody to say, if it is there, somebody's going to take care of it and my property should not be left worse afterwards. Mayor Hamilton: I think we agree with that and Gary's suggestion was a good one. That he can act as moderator if necessary. Larry Kerber: If we could work out something on that grading on that lot abutting mind. If it could just be brought down to some reasonable level somehow. Gary Warren: We'll get you together with Centex and with their engineers and sit down and look. We want to find out what's reasonable. Larry Kerber: Alright. Kevin Clark: I guess I'm just wondering, what we're here for on this item tonight is for the utility plans. The grading and such had already been approved and we are more than willing to work that out but I think if... I don't know, which issue are we talking about now? Mayor Hamilton: We're dealing with the issue before us. You still ~ to get together with Larry and Gary to work this out. Councilman Johnson: Cn sheet 9, at manhole 62, there's a disagreement. There's also a disagreement at manhole 63. It's a very minor thing. At one point you say the inverts at 956.8 on the drawing as you can see up above a ways and then on the other drawing, which is the same manhole, it says that the west invert is 957.0 so what's the guy going to build it at, 956.8 or 957.0? It's not much difference but when the guy's trying to put the two pieces together it should match. I've got these circled with arrows drawn on them, I'll just give it to you. Then right up at manhole 63, in the drawing it shows that the water has got to come down the storm sewer, jump up a little ways and then head back down. It's just drawn backwards. What's stated below, they made a slight mistake there in the drawing. Beyond that, those are just minor problems. 44 ..City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Cu.rry Farms, Phase I, plans and specifications for Project ~87-19, O~ntex Homes with the conditions stated in the staff report and with the conditions as noted by Councilman Johnson dealing with manholes. Also, that Centex Homes, Gary Warren and Larry Kerber meet to satisfy Larry Kerber's concerns about how his property will be left after the Centex development is completed. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Councilman Johnson: I wanted to say a word for senior citizens here in town. I've been asked to kind of shepard this through a little bit. S~me of the folks that wanted to see it weren't feeling well tonight and left about an hour ago. In the next to last item in the Administrative packet is a letter I received discussing a senior center here in Chanhasseru There's ~ some~ it's not like they're trying to propose to replace the South Shore Senior Center or anything like this. Some people believe that there is a r~ for a place for seniors to be able to gather. What they call basically a walk in center. It would fit real well as a part of the community center. Something that they've given some specs and stuff in there. I believe this has been passed on to the Community (]enter Task Force and Park and Rec and various other commissions for review on this and th~ wanted it brought to the Council's attention that something is going on. Mostly the South Shore Senior Center people, that we can assure them that we are not trying to take away all their members, which a lot of them are Chanhassen residents but there is a need for folks that don't drive so well and have a lot of cabin fever and can't make the South Shore. There's a lot of need here in this town and hopefully we can, during this winter move forward and look at something like this. I'll be glad to w~rk along with this group that are proposing this. Mayor Hamilton: There is a senior center in Chanhassen that meets at the Elementary School in the gymnasium every Thursday at about 11:00 and they have lurch together. They play cards together. They have bus service available to them if they can't drive or get out their house, they will be assisted on and off the bus and to the center. They also have South Shore which the City of Chanhassen does support and a senior center would be a part of any community center project so a facility could be made available to seniors in that facility. There is something available to them in town ar~ has ~ for a long time. Councilman Johnson: Yes, this is an extenion of that which would be open 7 days a week to when you're feeling lonely and alone, your spouse has died, etc., you can't wait for ~rsday afternoon to go talk to somebody of your own age and listen to some music of your own age, etc.. I think it's a r_--~ed necessity. PUBLIC HEARING: PARTIAL STREET VACATION, WEST 78TH STI~RRT. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anyone here who would wish to speak on this item? The partial street vacation on West 78th Street. 45 k 4O City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: The only thing was the change adding the 30 extra feet, was that in the posted notice? Are we still legal because I did not go read the posted notice? Jo Ann O1 sen: Yes. Resolution ~87-102: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the partial vacation as shown on the site plan dated September 11, 1987 with the following conditions: . Utility easement shall be reserved within the West 78th Street right- of-way. 2. The remaining right-of-way of West 78th Street shall not be vacated until the realigr~ent of West 78th Street to the north is completed. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: UTILITY EAS~dENT VACATION, CURRY FARMS. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anybody here who has a comment to make on the utility easement vacation on Curry Farms? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #87-103: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the vacation of the sanitary sewer easement as described and illustrated in the Attachuent #1 subject to the following condition: . No structures shall be permitted over the existing sanitary sewer easement until the new sanitary sewer is installed and functioning. All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST FOR SHOOTING PERMIT NORTH OF TH 5, MICHAEL GORRA, 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD. Mayor Hamilton: We have had this item before us previously also and I think Jim Chaffee may want to give us a brief update although your report is quite complete. Let me ask councilmembers if they have any questions dealing with this? Councilman Johnson: The only one was when you discussed the animosity, feud, whatever you want to call it, between some folks in here. Are we still talking north of TH 5 or was this discussion of the problem, I think you called it a feud. 46 41 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Jim Chaffee: That's south. Councilman Johnson: That's south of TH 5, okay. That's the o~ly thing I wanted to know. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Gorra is here, Mike maybe you have a covalent. Michael Gorra: Before I make my comments, in lookir~3 at ~ packet here that the Public Safety Commission unanimously recommended to deny my request and I guess I would like to here his reasons why before I make my comnents. Jim Chaffee: The Council may recall this request from Mr. (~orra was asked to be brought before the Public Safety Oommission to get their feelings o~ the matter of shooting north of TH 5. They did address Mr. corra's request for in a more all encompassing discussioru They decided that there should be no shooting at all north of TH 5 just for public safety concerns. That the density, the population density, the parks, that sort of thing ar~ I guess some of the controversy surrounding shooting north of TH 5 had something to do with their decisions too. Believe me there has ~ a tremendous amount of - controversy not only with Mr. Gorra's request which is just a minor part of it but with Mr. Dimler's request to shoot north of TH 5. They're co~ was just public safety oriented and they thought it's best to stick within the limits that the special group of people, committee back in 1980 and 1981 decided on the parameters of shooting in the city of Chanhassen. Michael Gorra: To answer my question, I wanted to ask the City what it means by safety. Who might be in danger or past incidents that might have happened or future incidents that might happen. I would like to be specific on why my request is recommended to be denied. Mayor Hamilton: I think I can probably answer that. For many years the city has had a no shooting ordinance for all property north of TH 5 simply because that's the growth area of the community and being such there is more traffic there. You've got a highway going along adjacent to and north on several of the properties and this is something that after a lot of discussion, oh gosh I don't know, I supposed 5 or 6 years ago, an ordinance was passed limiting to hunting only to specific areas south of TH 5 which were not populated which are very specifically farm areas and there were no houses or people within a reasonable distance. That has been the position that we have continued to maintain and that was also the position of the Public Safety Commission felt should be continued to be maintained. Michael Gorra: I guess I'd like to take issue with that because I had lived for 10 years and I have no neighbors. I jog around that lake 3 or 4 times a week. I see very few people. A couple other facts I would like to make is that I've always been reasonable for letting other people that want to use my proprty even though it is private property. Last fall surveyors for the City of Chanhassen asked permission to survey the property for the sewer line which nobody wants me to hook up to. I didn't ask for a special permit from them or restrict their hours, I just let them go on my property and take their survey. Three weeks later, soil testers came and requested the same thing. Could they go on ar~ bore some holes and check out the soil. There again, I didn't jack 47 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 them around. I didn't stall them. I didn't ask for a special permit or restrict their hours. I let them go on there and dig their holes. I did ask them to c~me back and fill in their holes ar~ they were real nice about it and they did that. On the north end of my property is a snowmobile trail. Every year there's hundreds of snowmobiles on that trail. I detest snowmobiles. I don't like them. I don't like anything about them but I'm not going to deny somebody their fun of having their trail there so it's still on the north end of my property and I'm probably sticking my neck out by having a bunch of snowmobilers cross my property because if somebody hit the fence or hit a tree or does anything, you know as well as I do that that I could be held liable for that. Mayor Hamilton: So your point being? Michael Gorra: My point being is that I've been reasonable with other people and even people that walk their dogs or ask permission to fish or do other things, I never turn down anybody even though if something does happen to these people I could be in the position of being responsible and now here I come up to the City Council and I don't think I'm asking a favor to be able to hunt on this property. I'm just asking for my constitutional rights as a property owner and all I hear is negative. In fact, when I ask for specifics I'm not even getting that. I planted some trees there a little over a year ago and there's a lot of deer around because there's no hunting on the north side of TH 5 anymore. There's too many deer. I think the DNR can tell you that. Mayor Hamilton: There must be over 100 deer that graze in that area now isn't there? Michael Gorra: About that and I imagine they've killed $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 worth of trees. They're eating trees and the young bucks, everybody knows about how young bucks are, they'll rub the velvet off on the young trees and even though I don't hunt there anymore, I would like to give my friends permission that do hunt with a bow to go out there and enjoy hunting the deer. I've talked to a Conservation Officer last year and he agrees that there are just too many deer out there. But the good part of it is, after the Council's action last year on the sewer line, we've gone through this before and I won't repeat myself but it's pretty tough to develop land when you can only plot one house for every 10 acres so the land is virtually undevelopable for me but it costs me $60,000.00 a year to sit on that land. Now I'm not trying to say that I'm losing $60,000.00 a year by not developing it. That has nothing to do with it. It costs me $60,000.00 just to sit and hold that land. Mayor Hamilton: I hope you don't feel that the City is to blame for that. If there was any way that we could have your land within the MUSA, I would do it tomorrow. To move the MUSA so we could have more land to develop ar~ that's all dictated by Metropolitan Council. If you know of some way to convince them that they ought to change the line to include your property and some other properties along TH 5, I would be more than happy to have it done. Michael Gorra: Well, that's not my job of negotiating with Met Council for stuff for the City of Chanhassen. From what I understand you're in 48 City Oouncil Meeting - September 14,. 1987 partnership with them on this deal. I~ just making a statement of fact that it's costing me a lot of money to sit there and do nothing with that property ar~ all I~n asking is a right that I think I should have to hunt on it. Now I know it's come up in the past because we're near the park but I feel like, I'm king of being punished or penalized for being next to that park. Kind of like my property next to the park has been taken from me without due process of the law and actually I'm not that close to the park. I've offered to hunt west of my driveway which is quite a ways from the park and even though the park comes to the east line of my property, the park isn't developed out there. It's all real heavy woods. The baseball diamonds and the grass area is a long ways to the east of that woods so we're not getting anywhere .near the park. Councilman Horn: I think I can tell you in my mind what was different about your request from the other request and I don't know if it was your intention for it to be or not but I think what you're asking for is to extend the hunting area to include your property. What I heard from the other request was permission for a special hunt that came about because of some ill conceived thing by the DNR that they didn't give anybody enough notice to give proper application for. What we got that evening were two different applications as I interpretted them. Yours being moving the hunting line itself which to me was one issue and the other one being the request for a special hunt that was put on by the DNR just for a specific period of time. I think your issue is valid. It should be addressed when we look at where we allow hunting in Chanhassen. This other thing, it seems to me we need a whole lot more information that we didn't get from the I]NR when it came up. The other thing I heard was that some of the issues that the Public Safety Committee had when they treated your request were not even .issues that weren't covered under the DNR special hunt so they didn't have the information from the DNR when they looked at your request and I don't know how all the other agencies looked at it but I saw yours as a slightly different request because you were looking for a general extension of the hunting area north of TH 5 to include your land as I interpretted your request. Michael Gorra: Right. I guess I just asked permission for myself and my family to hunt there. I know this other group had maybe 10 to 12 guys but I hear they had a lot of fun. Shot a lot of geese and I didn't hear of any incidents at all. Isn't that what life is all about? I live back there and I've lived there for a long time and I have a little activity in the fields there. Like I said, I jog. There's no one back there but myself. There's no one going to be bothered by the little bit of hunting we're going to do back there. I think this goes beyond asking for a hunting permit. I guess I just kind of resent being able not to come up with a simple request to use my property for something and getting nothing but a negative response from everybody. Councilman Horn: I just think one of the things we should look at is why we did limit to south of TH ~ I think we need to look at the whole general potential for huntable land and take a close look at that the next time we come up with this ordinance but I do think that his request got totally masked in this special bunt that the DNR came up with which I~n not sure I still understand all the ramifications behind that but I think somebody should find 49 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 those out for us because I suspect this issue is going to come up again and it should be one of the issues that we have addressed. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Gorra I see you on the one hand saying you've been very reasonable with people and given your examples I would have to agree with you. I think Clark is right. I agree with him and I think Jim mentioned it in his memo that this issue of hunting in Chanhassen is worthy of re-examination. I've spent most of my life hunting and around firearms and am real comfortable with that and I think that to give you a little guidance, at least from my perspective. If you could come in and address a specific problem such as too many deer on my property. I r_~cd some way of controlling them and here is how I would conduct a safe hunt, I'd be sympathetic to that. My biggest problem was just generally, as Clark said, extending the hunting zone in Chanhassen and I think that's a bigger issue. I wasn't ready to make a decision about that that evening. I would encourage you to develop what you think is a reasonable hunt for a specific reason and I think that our ordinance allows that. It sa~ if we have an animal situation that's creating a problem, we can allow a hunt so that would balance that out. Maybe you should begin looking in that direction. Michael Gorra: That was only part of it. The deer over population. I guess I like to see pheasants around. Maybe the last few years I've been thinking of restocking that area with pheasants and look at possibly a hunt. I like to hunt pheasants and I don't see any reason I shouldn't be able to do that. Right now you couldn't do that because thelfre a million foxes around and a million racoons. You couldn't do that. Nobody hunts them anymore and there's just a lot of them around so it's not just the deer problem. I want to do a lot of things out there within the boundaries of the law. That's why I'm here. I didn't just apply for that goose permit because I don't care if I shoot a goose. It's everything else. It's something that I might not want to do but again, my son might want to hunt ducks or geese and I want him to have the right to do that. That's all I'm asking for. Councilman Johnson: I agree with Clark. Unfortunately at this time of year in a zone designated as no hunting unless you have a special DNR hunt, and you can get a special DNR hunt, maybe. I'm not totally sure if you can, for your deer problem. I know that they do at Carver Park and various other wildlife refuges every few years they allow bow hunters to come out on a special designated hunt and shoot in designated places. If you have an established problem you can do that but a carte blanche hunt within the no hunting area with the present law, I attended the Public Safety meeting and they could not see a carte blanche change. To change that ordinance and c/mange those lines we're going to have to have public hearings and the whole bit. I do believe that we need to look at it because there are several areas south of TH 5 now which should be no hunting that are not so designated other than through that you can't hunt within 300 feet or whatever it is of a residence. But as areas south of TH 5 are developing, I think we do need to move forward and relook at what areas are designated as no hunting in this area and if at that time it becomes prudent to move the line northward, we should move the line north. If it becomes prudent we should move the line south, we should move the line soutb~ As we said, it's ~---n quite a few years since this issue's ~---n looked at and when we look at it, we'll look at it both ways. I know there will be 50 City Council Meeting - Se~ 14, 1987 areas on the south side of TH 5 that we will want to designate as no hunting now. I would like to see this put on a future agenda and hold some public hearirgs on this this winter. Michael Gorra: All I'm asking for, I'm not asking for you to change the law or change the lines, all I~ asking for is to make some provisi~ that exists in the ordinance that on a special permit application basis, if the landowner c~nes in and can prove that he's not endangering his neighbors, traffic or anybody else, that he can get a permit. councilman Johnson: That's going to take public hearings to do that. We're going to have to go in and revise our ordinance to do that. That's going to be a process ar~ it's not going to be done overnight. Michael Gorra: That's part of the problem. I can see a lot of change coming to Chanhassen. I've ~ it for the last lq years. There hasn't ~ much in the last few years but I can see it coming now and about 3 or 4 years from now I might not be able to come in here ar~ ask for that request. That's why I'm here now. I want to be able to use this property. I've like to hunt all my life. I want to be able to use it in the next few years because I know when they start building arour~ me I won't be able to do that so it's important that I get a yes or a no this fall. I don't want to wait another year ar~ come back next year. If you're going to d~y it, I would appreciate a specific reason. If you're going to approve it, I would appreciate that but I would like scme action before the hunting season starts October 1st. Councilman Johnson: We have denied this have we not or is it still pending and w~ have to decide upon it now? Mayor Hamilton: We sent it back to the Public Safety Gommission last time we reviewed it. The Public Safety Commission recommended denial so it's up to us to decide. Councilman Horn: I was going to get clarification from Roger on Jay's point that we really do need to go through a public hearing on an ordinance amendment or does a special permit allow an extension of your normal hunting area or is this only for a special hunt? Roger Knutson: You wouldn't have to have a public hearing to change the ordinance. That's one item. T~e second item is do you need to change the ordinance at all to give him a permit, is that the second question? Councilman Horn: That's the second question. Mayor Hamilton: hunt. I think we have the provision that we could have a special Don Ashw~rth: But it had to be endorsed by s~meone. Roger Knutson: Section 8. DNR monitored hunts. 51 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Michael Gorra: There's also Section 207, special permits that would apply. A two month permit may be issued by the City Manager for the hunting of specified wild animals per City Council, etc., etc. Councilman Johnson: I don't believe that applies to the no hunting area though. Councilman Boyt: Determined to be a definite problem in a specific area. Definite problem in specific area. That might apply to your deer. I would suspect that would be, and it might apply to the geese but it isn't open to general hunting and that's section 207.1. Michael Gorra: It says later on in your ordinance that would apply to no hunting area. Councilman Boyt: In Section 207 which applies to no hunting areas, it says a two month permit may be issued ar~ it says determined by the City Council by resolution to be a definite problem in a specific area. And general hunting doesn't currently fall into that so we're back to needing to amend the ordinance to not blanket everything north of TH 5. I think you have some reasonable arguments that you've made. I don't know that our current ordinance allows us to open that up to general hunting and my interpretation would be that our current ordinance doesn't. I think Roger's better qualified to answer that one way or the other. I've heard you make arguments that you can safely conduct a hunt. To me that's the overriding concern. If you can safely conduct a hunt then I tend to agree with you that we should make some arrangements so I would like to see us work in that direction. Right now, you show us a Problem, the City Oouncil agrees that yes, that's a specific probl~n. Roger Knutson: lhat's what it said. Otherwise change the ordinance. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to deny the request for a shooting permit north of TH 5 for Michael Gorra. All voted in favor of motion and motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS, 8408 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., AL KLINGELHUTZ. The Board of Adjustments and Review passed this item unanimously at a meeting held just prior to the City Council meeting. The DNR people said it was alright as long as they didn't clearcut in front of the lake and they agreed that that would be done. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE .97 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 22,100 AND 20,000 SQ. FT., IX)TS 1-3, SHORE ACRES, ROBERT ROGERS. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lake Riley and previously they came in for a three lot split which was denied by the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant is now proposing to subdivide the property into two 52 47' City Council Meeting - Sep~ 14, 1987 single family lots each with 19,4BB square feet_ The shoreland ordinance requires riparian lots to have 20,000 square feet and therefore these would be two non-conforming lots. The existing lot has enough square footage to meet all the requirements and the proposed subdivision would be creating two non- conforming lots. It would also be a self created hardship. Therefore, the staff recommended denial. The Planning Ommnission recommended approval. ~hey thought this was an improvement over the three lot subdivision and they felt that these lots were comparable to the adjoining properties. Some of the other properties along Lake Riley Blvd. are and t~ all. range arour~ 13,000 to 15,000 so the two lots of 19,400 actually would be larger than most of the existing lots along Lake Riley. The property does have two sewer assessments but again it's a self created hardship creating two non-conforming lots so staff has to recon~ denial. Councilman Johnson: I'm going to stick with what I've done everyplace else even though this is one case where I really don't want to but for me to continue being consistent on my hardship that I've argued against a lot of variances on, I~ going to really stick with this. I wish we could fir~ a way. On this one, the one thing that really bugs me is not knowing the high water mark and they are so darn close. 600 lousy square feet out of 20,000. 4% or something like that. It's a tough call. Is there anyway they can get 1,200 square feet from their next door neighbor? How big is he? Councilman Boyt: 13,000. Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to remember one thing that this area has been difficult to develop over the years and there were many small lots in there years ago and we've worked hard over the years to try to clean up this whole area to take lots that were rather unsightly and homes that were in very difficult and deteriorating condition and to improve the property. Fortunately we have had some property owners in there now who have done that. They've taken lots and improved it tremendously. Even though the lots were smaller in many cases than what we would like to have seen, it certainly was an improvement to the neighborhood and there seemed no other way and Ign sure there was no other way that those properties were going to develop without going ahead with the smaller lot and putting a home on them that would improve the neighborhood. I think this is certainly one of those cases ar~ you can't always read the book, you have to use a little common sense and you have to say this is an improvement to the City. It's an improvement to the neighborhood and even though it may not meet the standards that we have recently established for develo~ent, it certainly does improve our community and it cleans up the neighborhood. Councilman Johnson: Tom, is this acombination of a series of lots? Are any of these lots currently buildable? Are they replatted? It seems like on your drawing there's three lots and then a fourth single lot that's being combined to fom tw~ lots. Jo Ann Olsen: ~ney're all urger single ownership. Councilman Johnson: So previous plattirg of this as four separate lots, somebody could have come in and built four houses on there at this time, is 53 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 that correct? Councilman Horn: Unti 1 the ordinance change. Councilman Johnson: Our ordinance has changed. They were legal previously to build four houses on there at s~me point? Barbara Dacy: No, that's not correct. Councilman Johnson: They've never been able to build four houses on those four lots? I wish somebody can talk me into. I'm so darn close o~ this. To say that the hardship is created by the lake and the lots amd the moving. Mayor Hamilton: My comment was it's a benefit to the City and not always look at what the book says. Councilman Horn: I objected to three lots on this parcel but I have no problem with two. Councilman Boyt: I would have liked to have seen them come back in with the lots at what was the high water line. I think they knew that. I'm disturbed that item 7 says .97 acres when they're talking about the same piece of ground that the last time it was considered and I thought that was 1984, was .9 acres of ground. I think if it passes it passes because it's .9 acres in 1984. I saw just a matter of a month ago accept a lot on Lake Riley that was something in the neighborhood of 12,000 square feet. I don't know how in the world we can turn around in good faith and now say to somebody who's combining lots, you can't have it because it's 19,400 and it's not 20,000. I agree with you on this kind of thing Jay generally but this is one where I guess I've swung to the other side. In principal I support what you're saying. In practicality, it's 3%. We've got the Planning Commission unanimously supporting the passage of this. We've got Roger against it for the same reason that Jay is against it. I think it makes sense and I'll vote for it. Councilman Johnson: Bill, before Tom gets to try to talk me into this again, I really do in my heart feel that there is a hardship here created by the land and the lake. I am actually prepared to say that I believe this is unique in comparison to other places in the town. I feel there is a hardship created by the land and it's not the landowner trying to stuff too many houses into too small of an area like we see has happened in others that we've denied where they wanted to be 5 feet from the property line and everything like this. I think when we do make this ordinance, we better show that we believe that there is a hardship here and be able to say this is the hardship. Tne hardship is caused because of the lake and the unknown lake levels. The property owner has always thought he had 40,000 until the resurvey and everything else. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the subdivision of 38,800 square feet into two single family lots of Case No. 84-17 with the following conditions: 54 49 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 lo Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1 ar~ erosion control shall be installed prior to construction of the site o e A clearcutting plan shall be provided prior to any removal of trees or shurbs. e All utilities shall be constructed consistent with the Citl~s urban standards. All voted in favor and motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SEPTIC AND SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM SETBACK FRGM A WETLAND FROM 200 FEET TO 150 FEET, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council ~ to have any further infomation from staff? It seemed as though the report was quite clear and the reasons for it were quite clear arxt the application was clear. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amer~ment ~87-5 to amend Article V, Section 24(13)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: o Septic and soil absorption systems setbacks 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark. All voted in favor and motion carried. RiD GRAMS PROPERTY, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER (IF AUDtlBON ROAD AND LYMAND BLVD.: 1. SUBDIVISION OF 73 ACRES INTO 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTL(~. 2. WETIAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. Mayor Hamilton: Do w~ ~ Barbara's report on this? Councilman Boyt: I don't think so. Councilman Johnson: That 200 feet doesn't change in here? That's the w~tl~ ordinance, 200 feet? Barbara Dacy: Given the Council's action on the previous ite~, condition 16. Councilman Johnson: Of the subdivision request? That changes. But what I'm saying is item 2, the w~tlands, that's still 200. Barbara Dacy: That's correct. 55 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Horn: I only had one question on this one and that is, I didn't see a report from the Public Safety Commission requesting the spccd limit change. Until I see that, I can't endorse that. Councilman Johnson: I think that's a separate issue too. That's my one comnent on there. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat is a separate issue. It was suggested as a separate issue. What's the s~ limit there now, 50? Barbara Dacy: It's 55 just north of Lyman Blvd. and as you get to TH 5 it's 50. That's a good point. If you want to refer that second issue to the Public Safety Commission, that's more than appropriate. We just wanted to suggest that as a condition because we're anticipating further develo~nent along Audubon. Mayor Hamilton: I just have one comment on the wetland alteration permit. Several times it was noted in here that they are requesting a wetland alteration permit and at the same time there is always a sentence in amongst all the information we have there that says, no alteration is proposed as part of this plat request. Why do you need a wetland alteration permit if no change is proposed in the wetland? Tell me why. I don't understand that. Barbara Dacy: The way the ordinance is phrased, it says any development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland requires a permit and it's a general phrase to include just about anything so the Council can take a good look at what's being proposed. In this situation, these are 5 acre lots which is really completely different than an urban sized development which has smaller lots and more grading probably so it's just an extra thing for the city to make sure that there are no impacts on the wetlands. Mayor Hamilton: Along that line I was also interested to note Dr. Rockwell's comments or recommendation that the wetlands were actually suitable for alteration as it would improve the wildlife habitat. It would seem to me, if that's the case, we perhaps should encourage the developer to make some improvements. I don't know what kind of improvements they are or what the developer might be willing to do but if in fact that would improve, we have an opportunity here to improve a wetland as part of a development, why don't we take advantage of it? Barbara Dacy: Her suggestion was to create a small ponding area for wildlife habitat. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I throw t.hat out as a brief discussion item. We're usually going the other way trying to keep everybody away from it. Here, as Jay tried to point out one night, we're ruining them and now we have a chance to improve one. Councilman Johnson: There's two things. I do believe we do need a wetlands alteration. There is a change. There's no alteration of the land going to be made but the change is the use of the land. It's currently not used for anything. Now it's going to be part of somebody's residence. It will be par~t 56 City Council Meeting - Segtember 14, 1987 of their backyard so there is a change in use of the wetland because it will be within their lot. They're not going to be farming it anymore. Mayor Hamilton: It doesn't matter but you're not touching the wetland. It's a matter of s~nantics and I understand ~4~at you're saying. Councilman Johnson: I do believe that when you have a chance to change a wetland to improve the function of that wetland, it can be done. ~hat would be a separate wetland alterati(~ permit than this one. This one permits the development. If the developer at some point in the future decides he wants to make that pond in there, he should bring in another wetland alteratio~ permit or the person who owns it in the future. Barbara Dacy: We could have this o~ file ar~ if that application came up again, we would look at it then. Councilman Boyt: I have a questior~ Trail dedication fees. It's referenced in here that I think we're currently giving them back. I feel strongly about trail dedication fees and I'd be happy to give them back if theI~ll build a trail but if all they are giving us is an easement, I don't think we should be giving them trail dedication fees back. And we're talking, to give you some idea of the size of this issue, we're talking about $14~.00 and he's about $160,000.00 house. I think the City can put that trail dedication fee to some good use. He's not building the trails ar~ we should not grant him trail fee reduction. Mayor Hamilton: He's giving up the land. I certainly think that's worth something. Councilman Boyt: It's only an easement that he's giving up. Mayor H~nilton: It's there so we can use it.' Councilman Boyt: But we're not charging enough for the trail dedication fee to buy land and build a trail. We're charging enough to build a trail. Mayor Hamilton: But this being in a rural area where it's probably going to be 100 years before we ever get a trail through that place and probably before it's ever within the ~_3SA, I don't see how we're going to benefit. Councilman Boyt: Tom, it would be very easy for us to establish a standard, whether it's trail fees or p~rk fees, that we'll grant you some reduction when you give us something that's worth dollars and cents. Ar~ we should be able to go in there and build a trail. Now we can't build a trail across a 2 1/2 acre lot for $148.00 but I think the intention of it is to say to anybody, you build the trails, you get reduced like we did tonight. You don't build the trails than you don't get the reduction. I think it's a logical connection. Mayor Hamilton: Except I think in the rural. ~here's always been a differeniation betwe~ the rural and urban areas has there not? 57 City Council Meeting - Sep~r 14, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, all I can say is that was the Park and Recreation action and they had been looking at the issue on other rural subdivisions also. At this point, without Lori being here to explain it, if this is the Council's desire to look at this issue in more detail, it can be a condition of approval that we work with the applicant and the Park and Rec look at it and bring it back. Mayor Hamilton: I don't disagree with what you're saying but I guess I'd like some clarification on the rural and urban. Don Ashworth: It was items like this that the Park Commission had asked for the joint meeting so I'm sure this will be addressed at that meeting. How to resolve it this evening, I feel confident that the reason they put that in there was in recognition of the 20 foot distance for the entire length. Councilman Boyt's point is well taken in that it is an easement. It is not a dedication. If this were a dedication you would look to a different situation than solely an easement where you still have more usage. We did something very similar to this, what's the plat right off of Chaska Road. It just came through a month ago and there was a similar recommendation. Could had approved in that fashion. Gary Warren: Eight Acre W~ods. Councilman Johnson: Tom, there is a movement to put a trail through this property as they talk about along Bluff Creek. One of our planning commissioners has walked Bluff Creek and Park and Rec is looking very seriously at putting a nice walking trail the length of Bluff Creek as an overall long term plan and this w~uld be part of getting that started. Mayor Hamilton: This is a long ways away from Bluff Creek. Councilman Johnson: No, Bluff Creek runs through this property. Mayor Hamilton: The creek itself. You're talking Bluff Creek Road. Councilman Johnson: No, I'm talking along the creek called Bluff Creek. He's walked the entire area and it's suitable for paths. Councilman Boyt: I'll certainly accept your idea of turning this back to Park and Rec and I think if it followed our meeting and there was some sort of consensus about how we wanted to handle these in the future. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Subdivision Request #87-25 subject to the preliminary plat stamped "Received July 23, 1987", directing the trail fee question back to the Park and Recreation Cc~mnission and subject to the following conditions: le The cul-de-sac on the west end of the road shall be constructed and maintained as a permanent facility. . The right-of-way width at the cul-de-sac shall be a 60 ft. radius extending outward from the centerline of the cul-de-sac. 58 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 . The proposed profile shall include a lar~irg area at the proposed intersection with a grade of g.5% or less. . A sign indicatin~ the proposed intersection is to be posted north of the intersection. 5. ~he access for Lot 6 is to be located 30~ feet north of L~a~an Blvd.. 6. The access of Lot 5 should be located 7~ feet north of L~an Bl%x].. 7. No access will be allo~sd directly on to L~uan Boulevard. . Tbs applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer and individual erosion control and grading plans shall be sulxnit~ on Lots 3, 4 ar~ 5 at the time of building permit application. . All utilities amd roadways shall be cons~ consistent with the City's rural standards. A culvert shall be placed east of the '~u]~ble" of the cul-de-sac with a sufficient volume of rip-rap to prevent erosion on the down stream end of the culvert. 11. Berms are to be constructed north of the proposed house pad and septic systems on Lot 5 in such a manner to direct drainage away from the sites. 12. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1. 13. The applicant shall apply for ard obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and colmnly with their conditions of approval. 14. Tn, applicant shall enter into a development contract ar~ provide the City with the financial sureties required by this contract for proper installation of these improvenents. 15. Approval of setback variances for Lots 4 and 5 by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If the variances are denied, the plat shall be resut~itted to the Planning (km~ission. 16. C~liance with Park and Recreation Cc~mission action. 17. Design of septic systems shall be reviewed at time of building permit application in light of the report by resource engineers. 18. Not allow disposal of any waste materials in the wetland. All voted in favor and motion carried. 59 54 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit $87-11 subject to the preliminary plat stamped "Received July 23, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wetland area remain undisturbed. e The applicant must meet all conditions imposed by the City for Subdivision Request $87-25. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct the Public Safety Commission to look at reducing the s~ limit to 45 mph along Audubon Road from 400 feet north of the proposed intersection to Lyman Boulevard. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I think there are a lot of areas within town that the Public Safety Commission should look at speed limits. In front of the grade schools. Mayor Hamilton: They're at 30 mph and that's as low as they can go. Councilman Johnson: School zones you can go lower. Mayor Hamilton: No you can not. You can post signs but it doesn't make any difference. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO INSTALL A DOCK OVER A CLASS A WETLAND, 109 SANDY HOOK ROAD, THC~AS DOCZY. Councilman Boyt: We can get along without a staff report on this one can't we? Mayor Hamilton: I think so. It seems as though a walk is certainly the way to go and that's not going to harm the wetland and chips should be just left to rot away I suppose. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit $87-10 for the installation of the boardwalk through a Class A Wetland with the following conditions: l. The boardwalk must be installed to the edge of the wetland vegetation ar~ shall replace the existing woodchip trail. 1 There shall be no use of chemicals or dredging, filling or additional alteration to ~ wetland without City, DNR and Corps of Engineers approval. e The applicant shall submit a plan that shows the existing boundary of the wetlands with the proposed ar~ existing boardwalk. All voted in favor and motion carried. 60 City Council Meeting - Sept~n~r 14, 1987 ADOPTION OF APPENDIX E TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, R~QUIRING SPRINFr.RRS IN Ar.r. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to say we reviewed this at tl~ Public Safety Commission and everybody felt that it was probably a good idea except me and there is a section in there that deals with residential, I believe, sprinkling. I understood that you can not adopt Appendix E unless you adopt the whole thing as it is writter~ You can't make changes ar~ there is a section there dealing with sprinkling in residential. Jim Chaffee: That's only for residences over 3,000 square feet. Councilman Horn: We're going to have scxne of those. Mayor Hamilton: See, I don't think we should sprinkle any residences. Councilman Johnson: A 3,000 square foot residence is much more difficult to fight a fire. Mayor Hamilton: I still wouldn't want a sprinkler in my house. I thought Jim that the whole Commission said they did not want to adopt the residential portion. Jim Chaffee: They were referring to the residential sprinkler ordinance that I passed out last montl~ They were whole heartedly in favor of Apper~ix E but they didn't want to touch the requiring all new consturction of residential fam/ly homes. · Mayor Hamilton: I see it says 8,500 residential. That's apartments. Councilman Boyt: That's offices ar~ secondary school. Jim Chaffee: On the handout it's on page 4, under item 10. Group H-4, occupancy of 3,000 or more require it. Mayor Hamilton: I c~_n't agree with that. Councilman Horn: I can't either. Councilman Johnson: Group H-4 is repair garages. Jim Chaffee: On page 19 Jay, it's the fourth page of your handout. The fourth actual page, not the backside. It's the Department of ~%4minsitration Building, Standards Division. That is the actual Appendix. Councilman Boyt: H-4 occupancy. ~hat's an H-4 occupancy? Councilman Johnson: I believe that's a repair garage. Councilman Horn: That's a repair garage with a maximum square footage of 3,000 square feet. Welding and cutting operations as well as... 61 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Councilman Johnson: It would be an R-4. Jim Chaffee: This doesn't include any residences at all. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I was saying. If you look further back where it says the standards, it says residential, apartments, hotels and dwellings. Dwelling means of 8,500. I don't have a problem adopting the commercial part of it but I sure have a problem with the residential. Councilman Horn: Is R-3 a house? Jim Chaffee: Yes, it's a house of 8,500 square feet or three stories. Councilman Horn: Does that include the bas~nent? Jim Chaffee: No, I don' t think that includes the basement. Councilman Boyt: No it wouldn't. Councilman Johnson: By the way, if you look closely on this chart, R-3 dwellings, you go straight over, there is no requirement under Appendix E. If you go to the Appendix E, they only have it for R-1. 8,500 is for R-l, not for R-3. Councilman Horn: That' s right. Councilman Johnson: Apartments and Hotels. If you look in the actual Appendix which is right here, there is no R-3 at all mentioned within the Appendix so we're not requiring any sprinkling in any residences as I can see reading this. Councilman Horn: Is that true Jim? Jim Chaffee: When I wrote this up and I did the research I was under the impression that there were two separate issues. One was the residential sprinkler system and this had only to do with only commercial new construction. Councilman Horn: That would make me feel a lot better. Councilman Boyt: Well, I pass it with that understanding. If that's not true, we' 11 reconsider it. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the first reading of Appendix E to the Uniform Building Code requiring sprinklers in all new commercial construction with the understanding that single family residential is not included in the R-3 and that staff will verify that before final reading that that's the case. All voted in favor and motion carried. TH 212 TASK FORCE, CITIZEN APPOINTMENT. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint Mike Mulligan to the TH 212 Task Force. All voted in favor and motion carried. 62 57 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 SOUTHWEST. COALITION OF C(IMMUNITIES. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Councilman Geving to attend the meeting of the Southwest Coalition of Communities.' All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: JOINT CITY OgUS~IL/PARK AND R~CREATION ~SSION MRRTING. Councilman Boyt stated he had a conflict with the date of September 29, 1987 for the joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission meeting. ~he Council decided to reschedule the joint meeting on October 7, 1987. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to schedule the date of October 7, 1987 as the date for the joint meeting of the City Council ar~ Park and Recreation Cc~mission. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: I assume that under this number one, Comprehensive Trail Plan, somebody's going to finally answer my question about bow we're going to maintain all these trails. I've asked many times we 'not approve another trail until somebody shows me how we can... Councilman Johnson: I think that's a serious issue we ~ to take up. Councilman Horn: We better not go approving all these things unless we know how we're going to maintain the~. ~en Prairie isn't doing it. CONSENT AGENDA: DANGm%0US DOG ODIn, FIRST READING. Councilman Boyt: I thought Tom that we gave pretty clear direction at the beginning of this that it was not limited to dogs. That we were interested in dangerous animals really so the one recommendation that I would make is, that everywhere you see dog in there, it's changed to animal. ~he other one,. I think we're all in agreement that we're going to strike (d) as not being necessary urn]er definition. Councilman Johnson: I would like someone to look at the feasibility on this $50,000.0~ worth of insurance. Once you declare an animal dangerous, is it possible to get insurance? Roger Knutson: I checked with about 10 to 15 insurance companies. Some yes, Cour~ilman Johnson: So it is possible? Roger Knutson: Some would say yes. Most would say no. The way this came down, at least I ur~erstood my instructions were to be to come up with scmething that was typed. Mayor Hamilton: I think we have a better chance of winning any potential lawsuit by having it dangerous animal. I guess that insurance thing, I kind 63 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 of agree with Jay. I don't know how we can enforce it. Roger Knutson: One thing you can change. Some cities do have this right now. This ordinance is modeled after an ordinance that was upheld after a court challenge it in Kansas. To make it easier on insurance, you could take out the requirement that the City, that clause that they have to give you 10 days advance notice of being cancelled. Virtually every single homeowners policy right now would cover that dog. It's part of your normal coverage. If they find out that you have a dangerous dog, some of them might cancel you out so if you just have a requirement that they bring in the insurance, a copy of their insurance policy, anyone who has insurance will have no problem. The only people that it will probably effect are people who live in apartments who have no insurance right now and typical renters policy has some liability but very, very modest. Under $100.00 a year. Very modest. Councilman Johnson: If we're changing this to dangerous animal, when they talk about leased and muzzled, pens and kennels and stuff, maybe we should look at generisizing the language in here to where muzzles don't apply to all animals. There may be some way to make it look slightly more generic. I have some friends in Alabama that had rattlesnakes in their house. My last question is on Section 578, it says registered with the Chanhassen Police Department. Is that the Chanhassen Department of Public Safety? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Johnson: I think we should change that. Is there anyway at this time that our Fire Department knows when they're going into a home, whether they're going into a home that's guarded by a Doberman or anything like this? While it may not be part of this ordinance, I think we need to look at, if we can just review our own dog registrations now because I think that's a serious problem to be addressed here is the firemen responding to a fire to open the door to meet a doberman or some other. But that's a sideline. Jim Chaffee: With all that equip~nent the firemen have on, I don't think it would worry them in the least. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of the Dangerous Animal Ordinance as amended. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a question of Roger. When you say muzzled. I think it's Great Britain has a muzzling ordinance and people walk their dogs down the street with the muzzle hanging around their neck. Do we need to say that the muzzle needs to be over the snout or s~nething? Roger Knutson: In the appropriate place. CONSIDER ASSESSMENT REIMBURSEMENT: KATHY SCHWARTZ, 790 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. Don Ashworth: I should make one note. That is, following the memorandum that I wrote, I had Jean retrace the assessment history on this property and there is a real question as to whether or not that she has paid that additional 64 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 assessment so if that affects your vote. What I would have Roger do is to verify that chain of sales to determine whether or not she truly has that additional assessment forthcc~irg. As we sit here right now, it appears as though she does not. Councilman Horn: So then there's no issue. So our motion would be to reimburse is appropriate? Don Ashworth: ~t~at's correct. Unless you want her to pursue the flag lot option. Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with the flag lot option? I kind of like that option. I think three lots fit in there quite well. Councilman Johnson: She has the option to pursue that if she wants to. Don Ashworth: It does cost her $150.g0 to $290.~0. Staff more or less encouraged her not to make the application feeling that it would no be received by the Planning C~mmission or City Council with the necessary votes for passage. Mayor Hamilton: I know she's trying to sell her property. F~r husband died suddenly last fall and she's, I~ sure having s(m~e financial difficulties so I know she has the property for sale.. Councilman Horn: Looking at the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Hamilton: We kind of discussed this Kathy as to whether or not the assessment had ~ paid. Apparently that's being researched to find out whet3~r or not it has. Kathy Schwartz: Yes it did. Mayor Hamilton: I guess Don was not sure. Kathy Schwartz: She looked it up ar~ she sent me a letter showing. Don Ashworth: But there is a correction to that. I r~_~ to have Roger verify through the whole chain of assessments on the property. The record that ~ referred to does not correspond with the original assessment rolls and so, my statement to the City Council was that if t~ are going to, how did you state that, it was approved conditioned upon me verifying that in fact that assessment had ~_n paid. Mayor Hamilton: If it has, then you'll be paid. I made a comment about your proposed three lot subdivision and I know you've had your property for sale and I don't know if you're serious about att~ing to go through with this. Kathy Schwartz: With the three lots? Because of the c~mments that were made here by Barb and me and comments she had from Roger,'that was pulled back. That's why ~ cancelled c~ming before the Council. 65 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I know staff didn't encourage you to do that and I know that some of the council members have a problem with flag lot type of situations but I didn't know if you had wanted to discuss that. Kathy Schwartz: No. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to reimburse the assessment to Kathy Schwartz on the condition that the City Attorney verifies that in fact the assessment was paid. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: We discussed the possibilities of saving Kerber Barn and I think it's an example of how communication can become foiled in the city when everybody has good intentions but the barn is flat. To my knowledge it was flattened without the knowledge of anybody in the city. Part of that is, I suspect that we took a month to 6 weeks to try to get anywhere on it. I'm disappointed that we didn't have a chance to pursue it further and I guess I just bring it up with the thought of I don't know what problems this identifies that we're having. Whether it's the staff not having sufficient time, although I think the building inspector did get out and look at it or whether it's the inability to communicate with developers or whether it's just one of those things that fell through the cracks but we won't get another chance at that one. Mayor Hamilton: The other problem is, the developer can't wait forever and it was right in the way of his construction. He waited a reasonable length of time for something to happen, either to have it moved as you had suggested or for the Fire Department to burn it down which is a slight source of irritation for me too. It's the same barn but a different proposal and that was to burn it down along with some of the other buildings and the developer offered our Fire Department $800.00, as I understand it, to burn those buildings down and they told him it wasn't enough. When I heard that I was just really upset. I thought they are coming back here looking for money all the time to do their things that they like to do but $800.00 to burn down a building that they could practice on wasn't enough for them to do that. I know that that's true. It came from a very reliable source. That just disturbed me. I thought dog gone it, if that's the way they want to be, then I guess we'll need to tighten up our belts a little bit and taker a harder look at what they're trying to do. Don Ashworth: Could you comment on that Jim? I wanted to get over this afternoon and alert you that this question would be posed and I didn' t. Jim Chaffee: How can I comment on that. I was aware that the Fire Department was looking into burning one of the two barns. I'm not sure which one they were looking into. I know they did discuss the cost associated with the burning of the barn and if I remember my discussion right, they offered a sum of money, that wasn't right either. Tney didn't offer a sum of money when I was approached with the question. They wanted to burn it down without any apparatus from the Fire Department standing by and the Fire Department would 66 Ci%yCouncil Meeting - Sep~ 14, 1987 not do that ar~ I would have to agree with that. If they're going to burn a structure of that size they should have at least one pumper standing by. I don't recall tbs issue of money coming up. Don Ashworth: What about the other question? You were going to have the building inspector go out and take a look at it. There were questions as to whether or not we should save that type of a building, primarily the structural portions associated with it. Jim Chaffee: Roger, I believe did go out and look at both hams ar~ as far as structure goes, he was not sure whether, t~ were structurally sour~ but whether or not it was affordable to make them aesthetically pleasing, he wasn't sure about that but as far as structure, I believe that he thought they were structurally sound. Is that contrary to what? Don Ashworth: No, but I think I do owe the Council an apology in that we did not get that information back to them so that we could have then made a decision one way or the other to tell the developer to leave ~, meaning we had to start renegotiating the ~nount of park and open space, etc. or not. Jim Chaffee: Weren't there two barns w~ were looking at? Don Ashworth: Yes, there are two barns on the property. Jim Chaffee: We may be getting our barns mixed up here. Councilman Boyt: That's all I had on that item. Goals for budget meeting. As I think we picked up in Don's memo about the upcoming budget meeting, I would suggest that each of us think about, besides from what our alternatives are. The only way I can see getting through that is if we have a pretty clear agrc~-n~ ent about what our goals are. Clearly I don't think we have the money to do all the things that are on that list and some of those decisions are going to be pretty hard so I would be open to some ideas on how we might be able to develop some goals before we get into looking at the alternatives for our meeting. Any ideas on developing these goals? Councilman Horn: It -__~cms like to me that we should set up some kind of financial goals in terms of mil rate. Mayor Hamilton: I think what we've normally done in the past, which doesn't mean it's right, but you back into your budget really. You know how many dollars you have to sper~ and then you allocate it to different areas that you feel you need to sperm] it in. Councilman Horn: That's not the way industry does it. Mayor Hamilton: I know it's not the way industry does it but they don't live' urger the same type of situations that the government does. We only have a certain number of dollars to sperm] and the tax dollars that c~ne in from property taxes and that's what we ~ to allocate somehow to keep the city running but there are priority areas where we ~ to s~ money. Don and I have talked quite a bit about that already and hopefully we'll be in agreement 67 City Council Meeting - Sept~ber 14, 1987 by the time we get around to budget time as to where we think the dollars ought to go. Don Ashworth: I misunderstood your comments earlier today. I thought you were saying we should have a way for the councilmembers to share some of the things they would like to see in the 1988 budget so I suggested if there are certain things you would like to see, potentially if you got those to me by Friday, I could make sure that everyone had a copy of those so everyone could share those areas that you felt were important and Clark, etc.. If the question is really looking at the bigger items, meaning the expanion onto City Hall, community center, trail system, I can develop goals and have those ready for Monday night for you to take a look at as a part of how you're going to look at those bigger items. Suggested items that you have to kick around. Mayor Hamilton: This is just the first past. Don Ashworth: I would like to see Don's suggestions as to how he believes we should go at it. Councilman Boyt: I would certainly like to see what you're proposing Don. My feeling is, it's awfully hard to make a decision if we don't know where we're trying to go. Councilman Johnson: I think that's what Monday night's meeting is really for is to set those goals and get a real feel for what we're looking at. It would be hard to set the goals prior to getting all the data. Mayor Hamilton: It depends if you're talking about the general fund or everything else, like Don is saying, there are several different aspects. If you want to look at the general fund and how you're going to spend the dollars there, that's pretty well cut and dry. If you want to look at all the other funds and where they're going and what our goals and objectives are going to be further down the road, than that's a whole different picture. Councilman Boyt: My understanding of the meeting on Monday is to look at the general fund, isn't that correct? And we do have to make, at least give some preliminary sort of signals about where we'd like to see that money distributed. It would be helpful to me to have, and I think to us as a group, to have a clear agreement on goals and kind of where we're headed here. Are we headed to encouraging growth? Are we headed to encouraging whatever the other alternatives are before we get neck deep in our alternatives because once we're in there, then everybody's got their favorite alternative and it becomes very hard to step back and look at the strengths of each one of them when we're trying to defend our own favorite. Councilman Johnson: The first thing on the agenda for Monday night should be looking at the concept. Don Ashworth: As I proposed that agenda, getting into an operating budget you do have to consider the capital portion. We have these major requests from groups out there who are inundating this in terms of potentially community center, potentially trails. I set that agenda up so you could start getting a 68 City (~ouncil Meeting - September 14, 1987 perspective for what was being requested from these various groups, what the total monetary impact of those would be, and this is really where I thought that the goal section would come ir~ How do we deal with these issues ar~ can we do it? That's really what it comes down to. Can we accomplish some of these things that are being propsoed? Once those questions are answered, then answering the operational budget, that you brought out earlier Tom, beoanes a much easier task. Councilman Horn: I think the thing we always miss, we always get caught off guard on is, we look at the capital items but we never measure the impact of what they're going to have on our operational items. Trail system is a prime example of that. W~ can say, oh well, that's a capital item but what we have to look at is, years down the road that thing's going to be costing us money to maintain ~ that should all come up at the same time. Typically we don't see that. Don Ashworth: In the same way, the addition on the public works does change your operational budget for public works. You have to light it ar~ sewer and water. I've had some impacts, or slowing down on the operational budget because I need to clarify s~ae of these capital issues as well. · Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you had scamething about the agenda. Councilman Johnson: Yes, wording on the agenda, both the one that's published in the South Shore and this one. I'm not sure if there's something in the South Shore or not that says this is a preliminary agenda. I think there's something about that. Tentative age~da. A lot of people think that's pretty firn~ They show u~ Is there some place, do we post the age~la? Could we say the actual agenda will be posted on such and such a bullentin board at such and such a location on Friday afternoon so somebody coming in to look at i~em 15 says I'll come in about 10:00 and look at that and they get here at 10:00 and the it~n isn't even on the agenda. Don Ashworth: What if we put something like please call after noon on Fridays to verify the items. Councilman Johnson: Okay, then the other item was, when we discussed the consent agenda I think a simple little, we've got this little paragraph that talks about visitor presentation, council procedures allows such and suclL I think on the consent agenda, because what we're passing on the consent agenda is staff recommendations for these items on the consent agenda, I think that should be right down underneath that line that says consent ager~a should be an explanation of that to get around what B~, Burdick was harping on. I don't believe he was correct but this would close that door. In effect, we approved item l(a) with a whole bunch of conditions and so we need some kind of statement saying that these are approval of the staff's recommendations on these items with their conditions. That should be. looked at and made clear to the public what a consent agenda is. It's clear to us because we work with it but the public may be very well confused on it and think something got passed. Like the rec(mxmendation on (o) today, if we'd left it on the ager~]a was to take it off the agenda. 69 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Can you look at that Barb or Don? Don Ashworth: I' 11 call Jay tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: I had Frontier Trail, I've had a request from some of Bill's neighbors to open up Frontier Trail, 'to remove the mound of dirt that's there to allow traffic to flow freely through there and to allow people to walk through there. This weekend is St. Hubert's Fall Festival and they're having some kind of run and apparently that's on their route and they would like to be able to run down that street. Councilman Boyt: Todd said they changed it. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a call today so if they changed it, it had to be between 4: 00 and 7: 00. Todd Gerhardt: She called and I think she was getting with Lori tomorrow morning to talk maybe about an alternative route because of the traffic on Frontier Trail and with that mound there. Gary Warren: We moved the mound further down the road so they can't by pass it anymore without taking out a bunch of bushes so it is much more obstructive situation. Mayor Hamilton: When are we planning on opening it? There are people living in there now that I think would probably like to use it. Gary Warren: I was planning, the conditions of approval required Frontier Trail not to be used for construction traffic and the erosion controls for the 4th Addition will be building in there through the rest of the season... councilman Horn: Are you talking about housing construction or road construction? Gary Warren: It's not specific. Quite honestly the housing construction with the framing trucks and block trucks are as destructive as the other. Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason why you can't post that and say it's a road not to be used by construction traffic and if you use it you'll be tagged. Then the residents who are living there while the construction is going on will be free to use that street and feel like they're part of the con~nity. Councilman Boyt: There is, not living on Frontier, all I can tell you is you saw this road full of people who didn't want that road to go through at all and the council responded by saying in part, we'll block that road during construction. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we said we'd block it during home construction. I was concerned about the road construction. councilman Boyt: What we said was even in the very early stages of that development we had people going down Frontier Trail who were in pick-ups who 70 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 were working for that group who were completely unreasonable with their spcc~. I asked Jim a month ago, give me a plan? He's got a lot of things on his desk, about how we can control the spcc~ on Frontier Trail. I don't think we can do it. Eventually it is going to be opened and this was a means of sort of placating the neighborhood. Now I~ sure that there are maybe 5 or 10 people who would like to see that thing go through. I would like to see it go through but I'll guarantee you that this room will fill up with people who do not want to see that go through before it has to. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think you'll see it fill up. I guess I disagree with that. I mean you can go out and recruit them to come in but I don't think people would come here ar~ sit here and say they don't want that road to go through and they don't want people who are supposedly going to be their neighbors to be able to be a part of the community ar~ that's exactly what we're doing. We're saying we don't want you to drive through our neighborhood. We're going to put a mound of dirt up here so you can't enter our neighborhood. You're not good enough for us. Councilman Boyt: That's not the issue at all. Councilman Horn: I don't ever recall that we said we were going to block the road. I know we said we were going to do what we could to keep construction traffic out of there but I don't recall putting berms and things across the street. Gary Warren: If I remember the item correctly, it was phrased to say that the construction traffic will be restricted to access the site from Kerber Blvd. and because of the difficulty that we have had in enforcing that, not so much the utility construction that we had out there. Jedlecki cooperated pretty well in that regard but the building construction, we've taken this matter... Councilman Horn: Do what Excelsior did, put a stop sign every block. You don't have to put a mound of dirt out there. Barbara Dacy: The Council should be aware that I had a couple of calls this morning and we continue to have these on a regular basis, but we started out with a simply sawhorse ar~ they were beginning to drive on lawns and so on. Councilman Johnson: I know on the south side of ~ Vista it was blocked and Council, last year's Council, did specify that Chan Vista would be blocked ar~ they blocked it with haybales. The watershed district permit said that they would have a pile of dirt there for the runoff to silt through. The haybales resulted in people driving through John Pryzmus' yard until they took the haybales dow~ ar~ they just drove around. Mayor Hamilton: I'm just passing that comm~ ent. ~he next item is West 78th Street update. We've ~ wrestling with this item mightedly the last three weeks. It was three days it was going to be closed. Not it's over three weeks. They are open but when they're open they're not operu They're ope~ if you want to lose your car in a hole. Perhaps you can tell us what's happening o 71 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987 Gary Warren: They're starting to rock on it and basically the road is open. The contractor, his intent and our intent is to try to get curbing up there and get a paved surface here this week so we can get a finished product so to speak. We will be, in fact tomorrow, starting with...putting the utilities underneath the road near TH 101 and bringing them up to... Basically he has opened up West 78th Street for now. Mayor Hamilton: Todd told me tonight that he's kind of been stopped now because he does't have the right kind of forms to do the curb and it's going to take him two weeks to find them or something. Well, not stopped but he can't proceed as fast as he would normally because he can't put the curb in and it's things like that I think ought to be brought to our attention. Tne Council deserves to know those kind of things are happening so that when people ask us, why is it taking 3 weeks instead of 3 days to do the project and it will probably last another 6 weeks, we'll have some idea of something to say to the people who are questioning this. So if it's a legitimate reason, that's fine but if you don't inform us than it's a little hard for us to respond. Gary Warren: The intent all along has been to get West 78th Street rocked and open. Not paved and open and that's what we've done. The mold that he needs for the curb, because it's special curb, that is coming here in a week but that in no way is really holding up the project. I guess if I thought it was of a magnitude I would have certainly informed the Council but that's minor. Mayor Hamilton: It's just another one of those things that people are now saying, well it's open and you're driving on it so when are they going to pave it. The questions just come in progression. Now the street's open, now when is it going to get paved and when is the rest of it going to be done. When's the entrance to the bank going to be open? Those people have ~n very patient without their normal entrance to the bank and now they're getting a little impatient. Gary Warren: The contractor is willing and intends to do piecemeal paving and curbing as the area is ready and we intend to put the pressure on to do that but the emphasize at this point has been to get it rocked and opened so we can get, the real key to the public utilities has ~-~_n to do the dags on TH 101 and that's really... Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if the Council has seen what some of the alternatives are to West 78th Street when it's closed but, I guess if I had known this whole project was going to be this frustrating as it has been and it's just getting started, I would never have voted for it. Mayor Hamilton stated that Friday evening he attended the opening of Paisley Park Studios. He met the three people who run the studio and they presented a plaque to the City. Mayor Hamilton: The last item is we were given a suggested generic proclamation for the Nations Governor's and Mayor's. I don't know if you had a chance to read through it but you perhaps if it looks pretty good you might 72 City Council Meeting - Sep~ 14~ 1987 want to pass that so we can all say the Pledge of Allegiance on september 16th. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the proclamation for the Nations Governors and Mayors for september 16, 1987. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.. Sukmit~ by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 73