The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 10 05CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~be meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Oouncilman (~eving ar~ Counci~ Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Sietsena, Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt ar~ Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Oouncilman Boyt wanted to discuss oil pollution and the Community ]~ucation Program, Barbara Dacy r=_~ed the Council to make a motion regarding the Community Development Block Grant program. All voted in favor of the agerda as anended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: CoUncilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve ti~ following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recc~nendations: be Sign Variance Requets to Construct an Entrance Ga'teway to the C~metary on West 78th STreet, St. Hubert's Church. c. Approval of Eas~mmnt Agr~----~ents for NSP Transmission Lines. d. Final Plat Approval, Lake Riley Highlands. Se l%esolution %87-104: Resolution Authorizing Assessment for Failing Septic System, 6510 Yosemite Avenue, Mark Erlansoru f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Reduce the Septic and Soil Absorption System Setback from a Wetland from 200 feet to 150 feet, Final Reading. g. Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addition, M~_ritor Develolznent: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Approval of Develolmnent Contract 3. Approval of Plans and Specifications h. Resolution %87-105: Accept Utilities in Chanhassen Vista First Addition. i. Approval of Modification to the CR 17/Kerber Blvd. Trunk Watermain Asses~nent Roll. k. Dangerous Animal Ordinance, Approval of Final Reading. . Adoption of Appendix E to the Uniform Building Code I~_=quiring Sprinklers in all New Ccmnercial Construction, Final Reading. City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 m. Accounts Payable dated October 5, 1987. n. Final Plat Approval, Sorenson Addition. q. City Council Minutes dated September 14, 1987 Planning Cc~mission Minutes dated September 9, 1987 Planning Cc~mission Minutes dated September 23, 1987 Park and Recreation Conm~ission Minutes dated September 22, 1987 r. Resolution ~87-106: Final Approval, Industrial Revenue Bonds, Building Block Day Care. Si Approval of Permanent and Temporary Easement Agreements, Downtown Redevelolm~ent Project, Roger Pauly Property. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. a. Conditional Use Permit .Reguets to Install a 180 foot radio tower south of pio~-~r Trail and East of the C~.i~o---~or--~western Railroad Tracks near the Chanhassen~/r~ Prairie Border, D & L S~=cialties. Councilman Johnson: The one thing I would like to do on this item is that we're building a 199 foot tower which is one foot below the minimum where you start having to do things with the FAA and it's on the approach to the airport, I'd like to add a condition that a notice be posted at the various flight services at the Flying Cloud Airport notifying pilots that this 199 foot tower is being constructed at that position. It merely is a service to the pilots so they can know a new obstruction is there. They shouldn't be that low from what I gather but it's nice to know especially since there are no lights or colors or anything be added to it. Councilman Horn: Tnat goes on all sectionals that come out so the pilots will be informed of that through buying a current sectional. Councilman Johnson: How often do you update your sectionals? Councilman Horn: Every 6 months. Councilman Johnson: Every 6 months you go out and buy a new sectional? Would this one being under 200 foot still be on there? It seems to be pretty exempt from a lot of things from the FAA? You see, I'm not sure. If it's going to go on the sectionals, than I have no problem there but I just want to make sure that the pilots flying in there know that this is coming up. Mayor Hamilton: I would think that if the FAA gives them approval to put these things up, they must also make... Councilman Johnson: That's why it's 199 feet a~ not 200 feet. Jo Ann Olsen: He got a FAA permit. City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn: Typically the local pilots would be aware of anything in the area anyway. A majority of the people coming in are not local pilots and it would do anything of them. That's why they do it on the sectionals. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor ~milton seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit R~quest to install a 180 foot radio tower South of Pioneer Trail and East of the Chicago/Northwestern Railroad Tracks near the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie border, D & L Specialties pursuant to the City Manager's reccumendations. All voted in favor and motion carried. o. Crimson Bay, Pemtcm Ommpany (Formerly South Bay Addition): 1. Final Plat Approval. 2. A~prova--l-~f Development Contract. 3. A~proval o--f Plans and S~ecifications. Councilman Geving: The item that I'm bringing to the Council is item 1(o)(3). It's the Crimson Bay plans and specs. My only comment on this page has to do with the grade. The maximum street grade of 8% which ex~s the Citlfs recommended grade of 7%. I know we've always had problems and when I see this I usually notate it on my notes as a wallop because it's a pretty steep grade and I want to know from the Engineer how this can affect the project. Is there any other way of alleviating that or what we can do so the 8% grade is acceptable to us? Would you comment on that C~ry? Gary Warren: Sure. In this case, and as you're, I'm sure familiar, we always run a trade-off between st~ grades versus the amount of easement area that we deal with on tree removal in particular. In this case, we had modified ~ moved the amount of road to try and protect the trees and other stuff in that regards to take a little bit more steep slope. The 8%, we've got some slopes that go up to 10% for example in the city ureter other topography constraints. In here it's the issue of protecting the trees. It's not a very long road that has that grade and it's not a very heavily traveled area so we felt that there was a good trade-off in keeping the easement area confined and minimizing the impact to the enviromuent in that area. Councilman Geving: So as far as you're concerned, you're not concerned and you would r~nd to us that it's not a problem? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Geving: That's all I had. I just wanted to bring it to the Council's attentioru lb sure you all saw it but whenever I see a grade in excess of 7%... Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on the road. The turn off into the subdivision appears to be almost directly across the street from the entrance to the Arboretum and there is a passing lane or something on the north side of that road, Ikn just wondering if that's a safe entrance to be turning in there. Tnat looks like it's going to be a real problem. There should be a right into there or something. You're going to have cars zinging around these City Counci 1 Meeting - October 5, 1987 cars that are turning left into the Arboretum and somebody's going to be taking a right into that subdivision and they're going to end up in the lake. Gary Warren: Again, especially on the State Highway such as TH 5 here, the applicant would be responsible for obtaining an access permit from the State for that. Like the County is in favor of turn lanes as a part of their access permits and I guess we've been relying on t_he State to evaluate their roadway because they have a road... Councilman (~eving: I think the Mayor has a good point though because I turned into the Arboretum on Tuesday of this week. I had the situation happen to me. I was turning left and a car was behind me and they pulled out into that overflow lane to get around me and that would have been the access to this develo~x~ent as it will be in the future, it's a problem. Councilman Horn: You've got that all the way along TH 5. CR 13 is that way. They' re all like that. Mayor Hamilton: But you don't have a left turn into the Arboretum there where you've got a lot of cars. Councilman Horn: Yes, but there's not as much traffic going into the Arboretum as there is on CR 13 and all the other highways out there. It's the same type of situation. Mayor Hamilton: Here you've got the emergency access stops right where there road is going to be. Suddenly they're going around here and the guy's already backed up on the main part of the highway taking a right in, we've got cars zooming around the cars trying to take a left hand turn. It appears to me to be a rather dangerous situation. Councilman Horn: Those are problems but it's typical of TH 5 and how they've done it. Look at CR 13. You've got a left turn lane there that goes past where the apple place is. ~ne same thing. Some people use it as a right hand turn lane and sc~e people use it as a passing lane. Mayor Hamilton: But you don't have people taking a right turn going into a subdivision. Gary Warren: An example where you have the same situation where cars are able to turn right, the same lane that serves as a by-pass. That is very common along TH 5. The access into here with five homes, I guess there will be obviously some kind of problem but I don't see that as being a major interchange situation. Councilman Horn: You're right, it isn't good but it's not a lot of different than what w~ have along here. CounciLman Boyt: Have you got a suggestion? Mayor Hamilton: A right in and right out or something to make that turn easier to take place. City Oouncil Mseting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What would happ~ to the folks who come from the west to get in there? Gary Warren: I don't think you'd want a right out. You'd have to allow free access in and out. Mayor Hamilton: That's still free access but you can have a right iD. In this situation where they have the overflow right in next to it. Unless the Highway Department has another solution to it, I would think that a right-in turn lane would certainly alleviate the problom. Gary Warren: We can work with the State on that. I really think they have safety~s on the roadway here ar~ there are some shoulder improvements that are being done all the way from TH 41 in this year and next year also for slope widening. Councilman Geving: Is it possible to move that access to the east? To base of that little hill that exists there? Gary Warren: And separate the tw~? Councilman Gaving: So that wouldn't have an intersection right across from the Arboretun. Is that good or is that poor planning? Gary Warren: Actually you try to match them up so you have the congested area_~ all where everybody is used to it. Councilman Boyt: Kind of bear with me a little bit on some of this. On o(2), page 4, number 11, I don't think it should be any problem but as long as we're talking about clean-up, and that's what it talks about in 11, I'd like to add daily clean-up of building sites. We've got daily clean-up of the road which is certainly a very good idea. Councilman Horn: Do we ever require that? Gary Warren: We do communicate to the developers when they have messy, cluttered sites where we've got debris blowing off of a construction area into residential areas on an exception basis. Councilman Boyt: I don't anticipate a problem but I would'think it would be a good thing to have in there. Mayor Hamilton: Didn't we just recently say they have to have a dumpster on their site to put debris in? We talked about it. Councilman Boyt: That was our discussion with the builders. That's one point I'd like to make and it's the only thing I have on 2. Then the other one is on o(1). In our discussion, I sort of gather from talking to Gary that this is going to be handled but just to make sure that there's no difficulty ur~erstanding it, on the first page, point 1 it talks about the I]NR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approving chemical kill or dredging but I think in other places in here we also added, and the City Council to that so I would City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 propose that we amend 1 to include that. I don't know what sort of impact we can have on the Covenants the builder puts in but number 12, in his Covenant list which is a couple pages up from the end of that same section, 12(a) talks about chemical kill and dredging and says the Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I'd like to see City Council added there. And in part (f) where it says, and I think staff made reference to this too, no alteration of wetlands are allowed, change with to without City of Chanhassen approval. All real minor sorts of points. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, on the development contract did you want to specifically on there that a dumpster would be kept on-site for daily clean up? Councilman Boyt: Makes sense to me. Gary also indicated earlier today that erosion controls are going to be required at the high water line all along the Lake Minnewashta area, is t_hat right? Gary Warren: That's part of the recommendations for approval of plans. Mayor Hamilton: So the development contract you can include in ll(a) dumpster on site for daily clean-up? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Horn: Per lot? Mayor Hamilton: Per construction site. I don't know if we need one every lot. Scmetimes they're not easy to get as we found out. Councilman Horn: That's what I would think. We're going to run out of dumpsters if we put this in. Councilman Geving: Just put it on for the site. Are these all going to be built at the same time Dan? Over a period of time. Councilman Boyt: I think the request for daily clean up may determine whether he needs to have one every site or whether he needs to have one in the whole develo~x~ent. Gary Warren: ~nat's been our approach is to specify the performance that we want and let then take care of the means to accomplish it. Councilman Horn: Did we specify daily clean-up in other development contracts? Gary Warren: The other one in the packet here tonight, that's based on Council's discussion of the last time. Mayor Hamilton: Dan, any comments or questions? Dan Herbst: On the clean-up? City Council Meeting - October 5~ 19B7 Mayor Hamilton: On any of it that we've discussed] Councilman Geving: How about on the conditions like concrete curbing. The other conditions as far as the docks. Dan Herbst: I've never been opposed to concrete curbing. ~ne docks are fine. The daily clean-up of houses... Mayor Hamilton: I don't care if they clean up the house. We're concerned about debris blowing around outside which happens more frequently than not. Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the daily clean-up. I'm not sure that's reasonable. I understar~ that you can't have things blowing all over but there are a lot of construction materials that don't blow around that it's a lot more econmical for ths~ to come on a weekly basis or whatever to come and clean-up. I think daily clean-up of anything outside a construction lot is a little bit extr~ne. Mayor Hamilton: I think all we're asking them to do is pick up paper. 2 x 4's aren't going to blow away so what you're doing is asking him to pick up the loose paper, insulation, any debris that can blow away. Pieces of wood, to me doesn't make a difference if they clean that up on a daily basis because that's all going to be cleaned up as you go along and it gets in their way anyway so they always clean it up. Councilman Johnson: We should specify as such. Somebody else can come in and say, daily clean-up. I have to take all the 2 x 4's out. Gary Warren: The discussions of last meeting was that the daily really was added to address the roadway clean-ul~ That was an important impact if it wasn't handled on a daily basis. Mayor _Ha~milton: Now we're saying we'd like to have a dumpster on site so they can pick up the items, paper, insulation, anything that may be blowing around. That would blow around if it wasn't fastened down. Pieces of wood, it isn't necessary to pick th~m up every day. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ~ a generally clean building site but that doesn't mean that we have to push this to the extent that it's unreasonable. I think Tc~ is saying, we don't ~nt anything to blow around. Councilman Johnson: I picked up a lot of stuff out in my yard this spring. Never a 2 x 4 but everything else. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't we specify in that ll(a) that clean-up is to mean it~ns that could blow out of the building site. Councilman Horn: Leave it at that and not require a dumpster. Just say, daily clean-up of materials that can be blown around. Mayor Hamilton: Such as to throw them in the basement of the building being built and clean it up later. City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Crimson Bay, P~nton Cxxnpany with the noted additions to the Develol~ment Contract: 1. Final Plat Approval. 2. Approval of Develol=nent Contract. 3. Approval of Plans and Specifications. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Larry Kerber: I live at 6420 Powers Blvd.. I would like to address the issues of elevation drainage and screening problems caused by the Centex Development at my south and west property line. I think you're aware of these. We touched briefly on them on September 14th Council meeting and at that time you advised Gary Warren, Centex and myself to get together and try and work out some solution. This resulted in a meeting on September 30th with Centex, Gary and myself and after much discussion, it was decided that to try and work the grade on Lot 1, which directly abuts my south property line. In a revised plan Centex did lower the building pad of Lot 1 by 3 1/2 feet. However, this still leaves the grade far above my line where prior to the development, or at the start of the development, it had had equal to or lower than my line. The issues of screening and drainage were not resolved or hardly talked about and at this time with the rough grading nearing completion on that end of the project and the possibility of starting houses very near, I would like to ask the Council that the City not issue building permits to the developer until these issues are resolved. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Is that s~mething that can be on a future agenda Gary? Okay. AWkRD OF BIDS: FOUNDATION WORK, PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE EXPANSION. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the foundation work for the Public Works Garage Expansion be awarded to the Olson Company of Minneapolis in the amount of $12,334.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. BITUMINOUS SIDEWkLK, NORTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION. Resolution ~87-107: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving that the North Lotus Lake walkway improvements be awarded to Widmer, Inc. in the amount of $12,101.00. All voted in favor and motion cart ied. Councilman Geving: I would like to comment on this process that we're going through. This will be the first time we've really done something in the area of a construction of a trail. We're going to use a asphalt base here. I'm going to ask that the engineering department review this material in about a year after construction and give us a good analysis of whether or not this is holding up and we should continue this kind of construction for some of the other trail areas in terms of repair and maintenance and so forth. I think -77 .City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 since this is basically th~ first leg that we started now, we want to get a good statistical backgrour~ of how it might be done in the future. Councilman Horn: I think that's a good comment because I heard some bicyclists talking about the bicycle trails in Eden Prairie and the fact that they don't use them. They ride on the road because the trails are boo rough. So unless we have good quality trails, people aren't going to use t~. They'll be driving o~ the roads like they do in Eden Prairie. Councilman Johnson: Do we have a one year warranty on' these like we do on City streets, etc.? Gary Warren: Yes. 1987 SANITARY SEWER TRr.RVISING. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the bid for the 1987 Sanitary Sewer Televising to Visu-Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. at 2L5 cents per lineal foot for a total bid of $6,278.00. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving: Don, you must have felt that this was a pretty good bid. I notice that you've got $24,000.00. Have you spent some of this money before? Gary Warren: The $24,000.00 is for inspection and repairs. Councilman Geving: So we've done s(m~e of the other. Gary Warren: We've done some selective sealing of manholes. Basically no, this is our first televising. Councilman Geving: As far as a budget item, how much of the $24,000.00 was spent with this addition here? Of the $24,000.00 that we had planned on budgeting and spending on this item, how much with this bid here, will that be for 19877 How much will we have spent in both inspection ar~ the repair and visual televising? Gary Warren: We have o~ly spent this amount plus maybe another $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 more to replace the forcemain up on Naegele's property ar~ a few isolated areas but this is really the first concerned effort that w~'ve had. Councilman Gaving: I guess that's why I ask because I don't remember any other major work we've done. ~ry Warren: We sealed two manholes over on TH 101 near Kerber's property that were leaking. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARL%NCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE, 6680 DR~RWOOD DRIVE, MICHARr. City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 This item was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting. SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, 3725 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, THOMAS HEIBERG. This item was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting. CONSIDER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE TH 5 CORRIDOR, MARK KOEGLER. Barbara Dacy: There is no action required on Mark's presentation but we would like him to go through the report so the Council can discuss some of the issues that the Planning Commission discussed and then get into the second it~n. Mark Koegler: This item obviously is very much related to the next item which is on the agenda however, it is to a certain degree a separate topic. The reason I guess I'm involved in this, I think you're aware we're in the process now of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and as a part of that there were certain land use related discussions that may have some bearing on not only this decision but possibly future decisions you would make. What we have done is gone through essentially a land use scenario or a couple scenarios basically for discussion purposes and some of this material will look familiar to you. ~nis is an exhibit that was out in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan which showed the proposed extension of sanitary sewer and to a certain degree, a part of this discussion will focus on sewer and sewer availability. Parcel A over in this location was called out originally in the 1980 plan for sewer service from 1980 to 1985. That subsequently has been done and there is sewer available now in that parcel. Parcel E, which is the balance of the piece over to the northwest of Lake Ann and runs up past Lake Lucy, was called out on the previous plan for sanitary sewer service between 1990 and 1995. As a result of some of the agreements that I know the Council has been a party to over the last year or so and Metropolitan Council's general rethinking of the MUSA line in terms of planning issue, that date is certainly more like the year 2000. That particular parcel with service to that piece is keyed in as construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor which is occurring at the present time and as you can see on this particular exhibit, the service area that would be expanded as a result of the construction of that line coincides with essentially parcel D that was on that previous exhibit. I guess one note, and I think you're aware of but just as a reminder, the availability of pipe in the ground and the ability of the City to tap into that and use the capacity that provides are not synonymous. I think that's important to bear in mind. That under the agreement this City has entered into with Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, there are certain restrictions on the ability to tap into that and actually develop some of those parcels. Any development of that parcel ultimately would be contingent upon that agreement either running it's coarse or some modification thereto. The ar~a west of Parcel E that was shown on the previous exhibits, which gets us more over into that TH 41/Galpin Blvd. area, is shown on the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan and again was a part of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, really will 10 City ~ouncil Mseting - October 5, 1987 involve the construction of a new, what was called a local trunk, essentially an interceptor sized sewer that ultimately would be constructed down alon~ essentially the southwestern part of the City and ultimately over into ~den Prairie so the parcel that's out along TH 41 interchange, the Galpin Blvd. interchange and so forth, to say that sewer service is going to be available there by the year 2000 is probably a very optimistic statement at best. It may be substantially beyor~ that. I don't think there is anyone who could actually predict that at this particular point in time. The reason I guess we're keying on some of the sewer service and sewer availability points of view is that in looking at not only the proposal that's next on your agenda but any proposals that you would encounter along TH 5, typically the way the 1980 plan was put together ar~ the way the update is being put together, it's focused on essentially the thoughts that either urban services should be available for urban developments. Now there is an alternative to that and that is certainly to provide on-site systems for treatment of developments you might allow outside of the sewer service area. That may be a valid approach. That's an approach though that we think raises a couple of issues that the Planning Commission and the Council will ultimately have to deal with. The first one is defining at what level or what threshhold, you can allow that development to occur. At the present time you've got an ordinance that allows residential development in a very low density scale that again is in keeping with what the Metropolitan Council requires which is to a certain degree vastly different than a large commercial development or industrial development that might want an on-site system. There are some environmene~l issues there. There are some growth management issues there that you may want to address as a part of overall discussions in that regard. The growth management issue specifically being, are those developments going in the right places at this point in time or essentially the City that will not fully develop for another 10 years or 20 years or whatever that might be. The answer in some cases may be yes. In some cases it may be uncertain ar~ other cases it might not. The other concern that is ~e of really setting precedent. Once you allow that to occur in one case, is it more difficult for you throughout the vast growth service areas of the south in denying the next one that comes iD. . Those kir~ of issues certainly r._~ to be faced with. We then took a look at some land use scenarios and on this particular exhibit it's simply a portrayal of the existing and planned lar~ uses. The planned land uses being from the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. The existing being primarily the large lot, low density residential developments that were approved after the first of this year. There isn't, I don't think anything on there that's new information. As I say, this is lifted right out of the 1980 plan. Just as a point of reference, the lightly shaded area over on this side is the existing sewer service area. The cross hatched area again is the area that can be served with the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor. Before going into some detail on what we looked at from here, a couple of words of background on the land use categories themselves. At this point in time I'm not going to stand here tonight ar~ tell you that we've done projections. That you probably need x number of acres of commercial property, industrial property, and so forth between now ar~ the year 2020 or 2030. That really is unrealistic. What we've done in putting some scenarios together for the Planning Oommission to review, is to really take more of a kind of common sense type of approach, if you will. In just looking at previous plans and some deficiencies that may or may not have had. I guess I point to an example in the commercial portion of 11 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. It advocated, for instance focusing all the City's efforts essentially on the downtown area which I don't think anyone would argue that's a valid philosophy particularly in light of the improvements that you've got going in right now. ~nere probably though is reasonable argument that says that that's fine but given the existing sewer situation of the City, if a large land use, heavily land intensive retailer comes to this body and says I want to build in Chanhassen, where can I go? A lumber yard, whatever, a large retailer. That's a pretty tough question because there are not that many alternatives and that type of land use is not necessarily consistent with what you would want in the downtown area. So therefore we think it is reasonable in looking at the TH 5 corridor, to look at some commercial expansion sites. Whether we look at either the ones that are servicable now or ones that will be servicable perhaps in the future. In that regard, we had looked at a couple of scenarios and we had labeled these as pre and post 2000. There is really nothing magic about that cut off point except merely it relates more back to the availability of sanitary sewer. That again, sometime at or about the year 2000 the Lake Ann Interceptor may be servicably from a development standpoint. If that happens, what kind of developments might we have? The land uses we're talking about for the pre- 2000 scenario essentially, first of all, in addressing the questions that was brought before about the large retailer and where would they go. At the present time, quite candidly, there's one site that stands out and that's what is known as the Eckankar site which had been tabbed as high density residential. That parcel has sewer service availability. It's located at the intersection of two major arterials which we generally like to use and one of the critieria, the location criteria because it affords better access so under the scenario that says perhaps that site is better designated as a commercial property and to essentially look at relocating the high density of the future on the other side of Lake Ann Park. We think it's also advisable, again in kind of our common sense kind of thinking, that there be some high density residential contiguous to the park. Whether it be on the west side or east side. That certainly is an excellent recreational facility and is one that can service we think very well higher density housing. Afford people a good convenient walking access to that facility. ~nen the scenario calls for the balance of the pre-2000, which is really within the Lake Ann sewer service area, to develop into various densities in the residential. Lower to the northern portion, medium to TH 5 which may be something along the lines of townhouses or whatever that might be. Then coupling on the other side of that, looking at how that can continue then post 2000, that's where the pattern begins to take off and expand further to the west. As I referenced before, we think there's a need for some sites for larger commercial lar~ use type of activities. There's also undoubtedly there will be a need for increased office/industrial types of use. The two sites that have bccn identified for commercial locations, the first out at TH 41 and TH 5. I think it's a good strong potential and then the other one is down at Galpin and TH 5. You'll note that as you progress along TH 5, there is a variety of different designations that you encounter. Again, for discussion purposes, that's being coined as something that we think is generally advantageous not to simply have row after row of retail commercial strip type centers all along TH 5 creating essentially just a long corridor but to look at a variety of land uses that would include various densities of residential that are appropriate for close proximity to the highway. Look at commercial. Look at 12 City Oouncil ~ting - October 5, 1987 open space. Look at the Arboretum. Some of those kind of things. To break that pattern for two reasons. One certain for aesthetics ar~ the second one we think from a traffic standpoint. To be able to mix various types of uses and be able to mix uses that have different characteristics as far as traffic flow. What that calls for then as well is the expansion then of potential office/industrial down south of YH 5 and east of TH 4L That's contiguous in an area right now that the City of Chaska is presently developing for industrial. Thel~ve got some activity that is occurring just below what shows up as this small pond on the site right now. That is looked at as being kind of a second node of office/industrial type of uses. Beirg a planned environment much like the Chan Lakes Business Park is right now. As I indicated in my opening comments, this really is not a definitive lar~ use plan in any way, shape or form. It's not meant to be that. It's simply meant to be a discussion vehicle and hopefully assist you in the decisions that you have to make later this evening as well as potentially some of them coming down the roacL We think there are some issues that are raised by any land use outside of the sewer service and that's one of the things that seemingly would have to be addressed. What level of service is appropriate? What do you foresee in the future within those areas? With that, I'd certainly be happy to entertain any questions you might have. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd make a comment here. I think we're kind of fooling ourselves if we think that from Lake Ann Park all the way out to TH 41 is going to develop into residential all along TH 5. ~nere certainly is going to be a corridor of some kind there that's going to be commercial or industrial or something other than residential. It doesn't take any genuis to see that along any major road that it's generally more commercial develolmment the closer you get to the road and you don't have residential on the highway. Same thing where you have the residential high density next to where McGlynnis just bought 75 acres to put up a bakery. I don't think we're going to have residential there. You're going to have some more commercial development on that site. The piece out in, actually it's in Chaska on this map, where you show residential high density by West 82nd Street, that's already developed into commercial/industrial uses. There isn't going to be any residential there. Another point, I realize this is just for discussion and something to think about but I know that there is and the Council is aware that there has ~ a proposal or at least the question asked of the City of what to do with the intersection on the northeast corner of TH 41 and TH 5 and that happens to be the spot that Fleet Farm is looking at to build a centex there. That seems a little more realistic to have them go in there almost immediately. ~Tey have the type of uses that take advantage of that type of environment right now. They appeal to the agricultural oommunity and to the residential community. They have combination of things that they do. Maybe in your circles you just didn't want to make them small enough to show that there could be scme c(ma~ercial along the highway? Mark Koegler: May I respond to certain questions y~u raise? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Mark Koegler: ~nat's partially accurate. We're dealing with blobs if you will however I think the philosophy is potentially counter to thinking in 13 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 terms of strictly all commercial along TH 5. Tnat is not at all what this is beginning to speak to. You made a reference Mr. Mayor that residential didn't fit along TH 5 and I guess I would counter the frontage basis. If you look at an exhibit like this, we've got commercial, office/industrial, commercial, yes we do have some residential. I don't know if we've got an even split or we've got it split tipped a little bit more towards the commercial base. It is not certainly by any means all residential. It's not certainly by any means all commercial either. I think if we look at the City of ~den Prairie, there are a number of housing developments, even single family that are backing up and to some degree almost at TH 5's front door. I'm not saying that that will happen. We're not calling for low density along those stretches but we do have some higher density housin~ along there. I think that would be advantageous for the mixed uses if you accept that ~hilosophy. That's not to say that this certainly would bend the medium density residential here for example. It might have a little neighborhood commercial that's associated with that that's tucked down in this corner. That certainly is a part and consistent with the planned type of land use that may ultimately come in there but I think yes, there will be minor deviations from this or any other general scheme that you would draw up along these lines but it's important to note the philosophy not to have commercial strictly lining TH 5. Mayor Hamilton: But in fact I think that's what will happen and you'll probably have some residential but you'll certainly have commercial along a good share of that. You won't find any builders putting residential right on the highway. Not if that thing expands to four lanes and it keeps growing out here the way w~ are, who's going to want to live there. Councilman Horn: We just saw one tonight on Minnewashta. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, but they're back a ways. You've got one house that will be close to the road but the other four are back. Councilman Horn: People are living there right now. Kerber's live there. There's a fazm right next door to Lake Ann Park. Councilman Geving: We're kind of shooting here in the dark about a lot of answers to questions that we have about how the City's going to develop. I tend to agree with the Mayor in that I see an awful lot of commercial development all the way from Lake Ann Park to TH 41. Particularly on the north side. I'm a little bit confused yet on what we're going to do with the piece of the Eckankar property on the south end that we've designated for residential high density. Yes you've shown that as potential commercial and there is a potential for commercial there. There's no doubt about that. I don't know how that's going to all come out but currently that's the way it's zoned, residential high density. I guess I'm more concerned about where we are going to go with our industrial and office areas once we fill up the existing park area and we're getting close to that now. I don't know how many lots are left down there. Do you know Barb? Less than 10 in the Industrial Park? Barbara Dacy: The first phase is almost complete and you have less than 10. With the area south of the railroad there are still large chunks in that area. 14 8-3 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman (~eving: That's a major concern that I have is to where we're going to go with that next. We need all of this. Of course, we need the ir~ustrial and it brings to commercial ar~ eve~. tually brings the residential but we're getting plenty of residential without the commercial ar~ industrial and I guess I would like to see us concentrate more on the industrial at this stage in the game. We're going to get the co_mm__ ercial. That will happe~u I think that will happen when we start developing the downtown but I'm really more interested in some of the large industrial builers that might come in ar~ put a plant here ar~ bring a number of jobs for our people. As far as the development, I could throw a dart at any one of these ar~ call it whatever you called it Mark and probably would be just as wrong as you're going to be in the year 2000. Mark Koegler: Or as right. Councilman (~eving: Or as right but at least we have to start with a plan and I think that's the important thing. We have to start thinking about ar~ talking about what we want and how we might want the community to develop but I really realistically think that commercial is going to go all the way to TH 41 and it might work backwards. It might start at TH 41 and come back because that seems to be such a hot spot out there for development. I don't really have any questions or comments Mr. Mayor. I think we're on the right track. We're starting to think about how the City is going to look in the next 15 years. Councilman Johnson: I think we've missed one point though. What's going to happen during the next 15 years? What is appropriate for this lar~, these areas along the TH 5 corridor before we get the Lake Ann Interceptor and availability to it? Is it going just stay as it is? Are there some uses for this that are appropriate? I personally believe that something similar to the BF, the Business Fringe zone along TH 5 may be appropriate zoning for the short term. We ~ to think of the short term as well as the long term and how we can blend something like this. I realize the B~ was originally made especially for that small little area down by Shakopee .on TH 169/TH 212 area but it does le~d itself to things like Jay's proposal for the garden center and low intensity things that do not require much for sewer at all. Things that in the future will be cheap to eliminate ar~ commercially available. I see a lot about what we're going to do in 13 years and after 13 years but I really don't see much about what's going to happen the next 13 years. All we've got is the Eckankar property. That we've got, we can do something with now. That's one of the reasons I want TH 5 to be looked at, I was more concerned about the next 13 years than the year 2~. I don't think we've gotten anyplace with this. Mayor Hamilton: I think you bring up a really good point. We probably haven't looked at that spread betw~ now ar~ the year 2~0~ very carefully and where we're going to go between now and then because certainly there are ar~ can be a lot of uses that could go on any of these parcels of land and remain there for 15 years and be removed after that period of time when something more permanent comes along. When you know you've got sewer and water ar~ that type of thing so I think it's a good point. 15 84 City ~ouncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn: Tnat's my concern too is what do we do in the meantime. My general feeling on that is that we should allow the types of things such as Jay's proposing and business fringe type of things that are retail type of things and do not require traffic. I think at the time where we get into commercial ventures along there, we should have plans for frontage roads and things that will handle that traffic. TH 5 is not going to go away in the near future. It's not going to have it's problems solved in the near future and we have to be very sensitive to the traffic issues. I would be very willing to look at interim types of uses on here as long as they are not traffic generators such as retail. I think mini-storage is a fine example. It can go away in 15 years. Councilman Johnson: I don't think RR is the proper zoning for this right now either and I wouldn't want to see these types of things being placed as conditional use in RR which then spreads it throughout the entire district. With this corridor and so many feet, whatever, on either side of TH 5 I think is appropriate for that. I'm king of sliding into issue B here too showing my prejudice here is that I think appropriate use but not within the RR district. I think we need to do something other than RR in the A-2 out there. Barbara Dacy: Just a couple of thoughts on the BF District. Yes, you're right. We created that district specifically for the existing uses on TH 169 and TH 212 but I guess I would like to caution the Council on considering that because the issue that you're going to be faced with is where do you draw the line on something that's really not commercial and then it is commercial. That BF district is really limited to outdoor display merchandise for sale, cold storage warehousing and automotive service stations without carwashes and trailer rental. We really have to take a hard look at if you want those types of uses along TH 5 as you're entering into Chanhassen. One other issue that we're going to be dealing with Met Council with the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement is that the City has to trend very carefully as to allowing uses which could he more intense than originally considered as far as sewage usage and so on. I realize these uses are low as far as demand on sewage systems and septic systems but once, and this is our concern in the retail garden center, once you allow one type of use to occur along the corridor than it could generate future zoning ordinance amendments. If you compare this use against what we've got there already, it can snowball and I think we were just trying to address that the big corridor picture here and to avoid a situation that would get us trapped with some "interim uses" that more or less become a dictate of what's going to happen in the future. That area is zoned A-2 and RR out there. Agricultural, single family and contractor yards, golf driving ranges are a conditional use. It does allow some type of use of the land but again, the Council has to make a decision as to when are you going to allow urban intensity developments? When and/or if? When urban services are available. You're going to have to make that decision and that's part of the discussion tonight. Mayor Hamilton: I think our zoning ordinances now, probably when they were done they were already out of date. If we had really sat down and thought about them, there might be, and I'm sure that there are some categories that we didn't think of at the time we did this and that should be brought into play. I'm not going to suggest any tonight but I think Jay's suggestion that 16 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 there are some businesses, some activities that could occur within a corridor that would be there for 10 or 15 years ar~ at that time they're going to go away. Now what you call that, I don't know. How you zone it for that I'm not sure but whether it's retail or whether it's wholesale or whether it's something else, it seems to me that there should be a mechanism to handle that and that's just a part of improving as we go along ~ new things come up, we have to be able to adjust to them ar~] adapt our thinking to those types of things. Barbara Dacy: That was just my concern because when you allow o~e "retail us~' the~ that just steps right into another retail use ar~ where do you draw the line? Councilman Horn: Maybe we're trying to categorize these things the wrong way. Betwee~ wholesale, retail, commercial, industrial. What we're really looking for here is something that doesn't g~nerate traffic and doesn't generate sewage use. Maybe that's how we define this rather than in terms of trying to categorize it in the t%T~ of business. Say it meets these criteria. Councilman Johnson: Trips per day and gallons per day. That's what I was going to c~me up with. Councilman Horn: Maybe we r,,~ a new kind of district. Councilman Johnson: That's right. That's what I was saying. I was comparing it to the BF but I said it's not going to be the BF. Councilman Horn: It would be a different criteria than what we're used to. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm saying. As we continue to develop, we ~ to keep growing with develo[ament that is taking place. If that's developing a new district that we haven't ever had before, than I think we r._~ to look at that. Councilman Horn: Is that in the plannin~ book, that type of definition? Barbara Dacy: You're trying to tell us that you really want additional commercial area available on the TH 5 corridor right now. Between now and the Mayor Hamilton: I think what we're saying is we're not going to rule an~ing out and if it's a use that could be compatible, what the Council is saying where you do not generate a lot of trips. I don't know what a lot of trips would be. If you don't generate a lot of sewage and I~ not sure that sewage even r~-~s to be a question because you can put in the types of tanks that you can just pump so what difference does it make if you do one gallo~ a day or 50 gallons a day? You don't, in many cases, you don't even have to have a drainfield. You can just pump it so those are all things I that I think need to be considered. Councilman Horn: My point there was, going along with Barb's point is even if we have an alternative sewage method, Met Council may interpret this as 17 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 putting pressure on t~ to let us hook into the sewer. Mark Koegler: I know you're just speaking in very general terms tonight but a note of caution. I guess I had the advantage of starting with the Comp Plan back 8 or 9 years ago and remember very vividly the number of sessions we had on charts ar~ goals for what this city wanted to be in the year 1990 to 2000. We're getting pretty close to 1990 and I think the City has made good progress in achieving that and that was not only a functional land use pattern but I think one that has a certain attractiveness or aesthetic appeal to it. I think you reinforce that in a lot of decisions that you've made. Whether it be a residential development or commercial. My caution and my concern is, that a lot of these "interim" kind of land uses, I'm not sure you want those in all cases with your front door on TH 5 and the City of Cha~ssen. Some may be appropriate. The nursery, Natural Green that's there right now, is attractive. It's planting materials, it's green, it's nice. I don't know if we get a proposal for a major mini-storage facilities on either side of the road, I don't know that that has the same aesthetic sense that a nursery would so I think if you get to that and you start drawing lines on what you will consider in 10 years, keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that I have yet to see a use that's cheap to relocate regardless of what that use is in the future. ~et involved in a tax increment project, as Chanhassen does and many communities do, when you go to take a piece of property and you take a piece of property for a road improvement or whatever, they are really valuable pieces so the decisions you make now do have consequences both economically and aesthetically. If you're cognizant of that as you look at that interim kind of thinking. Councilman Geving: I think the problem that we have is that it's difficult for all of us to look out for the next 12 years to the year 2000. I think that is just too long a period to try to plan and focus in on. I know in our own businesses we try to look at what's going to happen next year and maybe five years from now at the outset. At the very outset and things change so dramatically that in 5 years all the plans that you thought were going to happen, changed anyway. I think there has to be some way that in this planning process we could break this next 12 years into several pieces. Maybe a 5 year plan and then another 7 year plan or something but break it into something a little bit more realistic and say this is a good interim use that we could plan on for say 1992 with the idea that maybe by that time we would have four lanes on TH 5 and we could plan with that as a base and then go from there but I think that's the problem that I have. I can't even conceive what this village is going to look like in 12 years. I have no idea. We've changed our minds several times just on the Eckankar property and we'll probably charge it again. We have to be flexible enough to see how the city is growing and what the ~s are and if we need more industrial or more commercial, we, as a Council have responded so I think that's the way I would like to interject here another plan or planning cycle and that would be kind of an interim cycle between now and the year 2000. Mayor Hamilton: I think we're all kind of saying the same thing. Did you have something new Clark? 18 City Oouncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn: Just to expand on what M~rk is saying. If we carry that to the extreme then, what we need to do is leave this as agriculture. Agricultural and the protection is green acres. ~he problem we have is' there is pressure on the people who own this property in terms of taxes and so forth. That's what we're dealing with. If we use his example to keep this open to what we can do later, we have to zone it all as agricultural to give it green acres protection and then when the time comes move it over. What he's telling us is an interim ste~ won't work because you're locked in and then you're stuck. At least that's what I'm hearing. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. I don't think you're locked in. Councilman Horn: We're going to create valuable pieces of property by opening the door to these interin uses. Mayor Hamilton: But when they come in if they know only at maximum, a 12 year use for that piece of land, how can you be locked in any more than that? Maybe that's not legal. I would like to ask Roger that but if somebody came in here and said I want to use that piece of lar~ on TH 41 ar~ TH 5 ar~ we said fine, we'll give you a conditional use to use that for whatever they might be asking and then in 12 years you have to know that use may go away. Roger Knutson: State Statutes provide that once you issue a conditional use, it sticks. You can't put a time limit on it so once you issue a conditional use permit they have the right to stay there as long as they comply with the conditions and standards and what not. Not duration. councilman Johnson: One thing, when we do look at this, there will be people, I think when we look at any individual develoianent going in here, we have to look at it as that might be the ultimate use of that land too because I wouldn't mind seeing that area for a very 'long time as a nursery. Like Mark says, that's a very good use but while t/~ intent may be that it's a temporary use, I do believe that we have to look at it being a long term use and if it does, if commercial or some plant wants to come in and they've got the money to buy him out, then that's up to then. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V__, S~CTION 4(4) TO Ar.r~)W GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RR, RURAL RESID~~ DISTRICT, JAY KRONICK, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: This is the first reading. Jay has ~_--n before us previously and is back here this evening. As you all know Jay owns a business in Washington DA~. and would locate a business here in Chanhassen. ~hat being a retail garden center so Barbara did you want to add s~me? Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission action was to recommend denial of the request based on tl~ findings in the staff report with a note to the council that if you are to amend the zoning ordinance for the first reading requires a four-fifths vote of the entire Council. Mayor Hamilton: Jay, do you ~nt to present anything to the council? 19 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Jay Kronick: Yes, thank you. I think you touched upon a lot of the issues here and I'm really not going to make the decision for you. I also have given many of you in the past of the ideas of the type of development I'm proposing out there. That's what I would just maybe reiterate and amplify a little bit in conjunction with some of the points you touched on here tonight. As far as the waste from the site, it's a five acre site with a house on it. A garden center, I really can't see a problem with the impact there. It depends on where you put that gallons per day limit. The traffic issue, I agree there. I've had a tough time. I've sat there for the Natural Green property trying to left back into town on TH 5. There's a lot of cars and sometimes you've got to wait. Something has got to be done about that, I would agree. I'm not a traffic ngineer but I would be willing to work on that to the extent possible. I've looked at some data on traffic generated by retail garden centers. They base it on factors like size of the property, square feet, number of employees, parking spots, take all these parameters and I come up with estimates of between 75 and 100 trips per day. That's one trip in and one trip out. Two trips per person. I look at that and compare it to the number of vehicles on that road at present traveling back and forth each day and the impact seems pretty minimal to me. Nonetheless, every car that comes either in or out has to cross the highway. There's something to think about there. I have a question that was raised in your discussion about talking about putting a limit on the number of trips per day. How is the estimate made initially and what happens when the business grows? I think that's something that that is, do I have to shut my business down at 1:00 in the afternoon because I had my 100 trips a day and that's it. Tnat growth is going to happen. As the City grows, my business is going to grow hopefully regardless of where it's located so I just had a question about that. Some points raised in staff report that I wasn't clear. Looking at some other jurisdictions and how they've handled this sort of thing. Staff mentioned that Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park don't allow retail garden centers in rural residential districts. Whether this district remains as such or not in Chanhassen, I don't know but I look at Eden Prairie and the one garden center of similar scale that I see is just relocated out of the shopping center out to Eden Prairie Center. It's on a busy road but it's a similar type of thing. Probably not the same traffic philosophy. Minnetonka has one right smack in the middle of a residential district off of Woodland Road. It's the only business around. It's surrounded by residents in 1/4 acre of 1/2 acre parcels. St. Louis Park is another jurisdiction that was mentioned. I don't believe a garden center exists in St. Louis Park because of a combination of high commercial values as opposed to availability of suitably sized parcels for a garden center. I guess that's really it. I would be happy to respond to any questions. Councilman Johnson: I just have mostly general comments on item l(d). I don't have a specific question for anybody. As you can probably tell from my earlier comments, I'm in favor of this particular use at this particular spot but as I read through the Planning Commission and I believe Commissioner Emmings was the one that probably swayed me the most of anybody there. Several things he said I have to agree with. I really don't like to see it in t_he RR district. I don't really think the area should be RR but that's what we discussed a minute ago. I think for what he's selling and what he's doing is best suited in this area. Some people were talking about moving it 20 City Council ~ting - October 5, 1987 downtown. I personally, with the price of property and the profit on margin probably wouldn't be affordable in downtown. I think it would be a very good addition to Chanhassen. I think we would draw people in here at various times of the year and help our other businesses out considerably with this use. The Planning Commission, they did say they do not have to be practical because they are a body considering the broad view. I think the Council has to be practical but at the same time we have to avoid what Commissioner Emmings referred to as the tyranny of small decisions. I loved that one. That's a good one because that's what we look at all the time. I like the way he put that iD. Exactly what Barb was saying a little while ago. We let this in, the next one, the next one, the next one continuing until we say we are no longer wide open. There is no restriction. I do plan on voting against this unless somebody can convince me that we have adequate safeguards added to the conditions of use. That w~ won't find garde~ centers all over our RR area. Councilman Geving: I thought about this a long time because I've ~ involved with the David Luse situation for about 7 or 8 years. I really would like to have Jay come to our community and build a facility here and build a business in Chanhassen and I think that the business that's there now is certainly good use for that land at this time. As long as it remains a nursery, it certainly could stay there as a wholesale activity. That property is changing hands obviously and with that comes a new owner ar~ some new thoughts. My feeling is that we're infringing on the residential area and I believe that the rural residential area should be kept clean of retail activity. Retail activity should be focused in the downtown area. If Jay wanted to grow his plants, his potted plans, his trees and bring them onto the site out there and grow them on the 5 acres that he has, I see nothing wrong with that as a good interim use and then transport those to a downtown location for retail sales I think would work but as far as the traffic on TH 5, it's not going to get any better. There is absolutely no signs that we're going to get TH 5 to four lanes certainly within the next 3 years. The traffic is going to be compounding and that is one issue. ~he primary issue I think here is that we would be opening ourselves up to developing a lot of other areas in Omankmssen with potential for retail in the rural residential areas. Ih just afraid that once that avalanche started, it would be a snowball that we wouldn't be able to stop. It would really start to roll and once we make the first decision, the second ones become easier because you've set the precedent. I'm very much in favor of what you're trying to do Jay and I wish that that facility was in the MUSA lin~ You could develop it and the highway wasn't as congested as it is but I just can't see putting another 35 cars, 1~0 trips per day, whatever the estimate might be, turning in and out of that facility. We probably have it now more than likely with David Luse's operation we have at least as much as what you're proposing. There's no- question about it but I look at this way. Now we have an opportunity to reduce the congestion by moving Luse out of there on his own volition ar~ maybe that will reduce some of the traffic that we have. I guess at this time I would have to vote to keep tb~ amendment we're passing and I .would vote against your proposal to put retail in the rural residential area. Councilman Horn: I understand the issue of charging the complexion of rural residential and I'm sympathetic to that issue but that's not the overriding factor for me in this case. The overriding factor for me is traffic. I would 21 City ~ouncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 be much more open to this type of thing, even if it weren't in a downtown commercial area, if it were not on TH 5. If it was on one of the off highways. I think there we would have an opportunity to have a real tough decision but as long as it is on TH 5, I think the traffic is just totally unreasonable. Even if we don't make it worse than what it is now with the Luse operation there, I drive past his operation every morning and watch him try to merge his trucks into the traffic and it's scary to watch let me tell you. And it's one thing I think if you have a wholesale operation where you're subjecting your employees to that. What we'd be doing in retail is say, this is okay for the general public and I have a real problem with that. Councilman Boyt: It sounds as though it's a forgone conclusion how this is going to go since it takes a four-fifths vote. I think that one question I have and I think I may have gathered the answer out of the Minutes but I want to clarify, is there anyplace in Chanhassen currently as it is zoned where a retail garden center can be located? Barbara Dacy: Tne BG, Business General district does allow garden centers as a permitted use. I believe the applicant is also looking at a site along TH 5 that would require a zoning ordinance amendment to the Business Highway District... The only lands that are zoned BG are the Burdick property and the James property. Councilman Boyt: Alright. I don't know how your development fits as far as consistency with what Mr. James or Mr. Burdick has planned for their property. I would suggest that a garden center can stand the toll of paying a rather substantial amount of money since we see them surviving in Minnetonka on TH 7 which is certainly a very valuable piece of property. I think there clearly is a need in Chanhassen. I heard the other council members saying that. We're approving new developments very quickly. Tney all want to plant something ar~ right now that money is leaving town so I think you have a good possibility. I would support what I saw Mayor Hamilton suggesting as a possibility when he was speaking to the Planning Commission. I think a number of us were saying, please grow your trees there if you like. That seems to fit very nicely with what we'd like to see happening on that piece of property but I don't think we're going to support running a retail business out of that particular location. I'm impressed by your desire to be here and your willingness to fly in to talk to us. Mayor Hamilton: I think I've made many comments to the Planning Commission mostly because Jay was unable to be here and I've worked with Jay a little bit trying to get him into town and I guess I'm not convinced yet that we shouldn't have a retail operation on TH 5. I just don't think that the traffic to be generated would be of sufficient amount to cause a real hazard there. Like Clark says, there's an awful lot of traffic there right now with Natural Green and I don't think Jay's operation would generate a whole lot more but in talking to Jay I think it's been suggested that his retail operation would probably be more profitable in the short term and hopefully in the long term if he located downtown in the central business district. It's certainly one of the things we want to have you accomplish, if you come here, is to be successful. That's the number one thing. That you want to he here and stay here a long time. We'd like you to stay here a long time. I know 22 City Council Meeting - October 5, 19B7 it's disappointing to not, because you had your heart set on living and growing and selling all in the same area but it looks like that's not going to Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Zoning Ordinance Am~ent to amend Article V, Section 4(4) to allow Garden Centers as a retail business as a conditional use in the RR, l~ural Residential District. All voted in favor excpet Mayor Hamilton who opposed the motion ar~ the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to clarify that so that Jay would know and I think we've all said that we would allow you to live ar~ grow on this site if I'm hearing all the rest of the council members correctly. ~hat would be an allowable use but have your retail sc~eplace else. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO INSTAT.T. A 33 FOOT AMATEUR RADIO TOWER AND A 26 FOOT VERTICAL ANTENNA, 7071 SHAWNEE LANE, ROY S. BARKE. Mayor Hamilton: We have no control over this so I don't know why it's even on the agenda. Is there anybody from the neighborhood who wanted to speak on this item? No. Councilman Boyt: As I unders~ the FCC regulation it says that a person has a right to put an antenna u~ Mr. Barke has an antenna up so I think from there, in terms of the number of antennas an individual has the right to put up, I don't see that the FCC addresses that. Now maybe Mr. Barke can enlighten me about that. Roy Barke: I don't know if there are any restrictions based on the number. I do think there is a desire on their part to conform monitor to conform with the community while at the same time topography so I guess I can't disagree with that at all. ..~efore the Planning Cbmmission is that a lot of times you can't do everything to the point where... It does take a little bit of variety to do one thing or another. Like the people who buy boats. They may buy a spccd boat and fishing boat. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Barke as I understood your comments in the Planning Commission, they were along the lines that this is primarily a means of convenience. Your new tower could be adjusted to handle what your existing towers are doing. Is that correct? Roy Barke: NO. My existing tower is...I really can't add this same device to it. Councilman Boyt: You indicated in the Planning Oommission that you would be willing to provide a, I think it was a $3.00 filter to your neighbors who had problem, s with interference. Roy Barke: I have no problem with that. Just like I stated in the meeting, it's s~netimes very difficult to be sitting outside ar~ working with my neighbors if you have a problem, work out that thing. ~lat type of 23 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 conflicting interference. I'm not sure if you've had problems in your home. I've seen situations in my home, you have an electric razor it causes interference. A microwave will cause interference so there are a lot of different things causing interference .... I'll gladly work with my neighbors to try and work out the problems. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate t_hat attitude and I think that when we approved one of these a little earlier in the year we asked staff to notify neighbors of the appropriate means to handle interference so one, they would call Mr. Barke and let him know that they think he may be the source of their interference. Two, that they would be provided with the address and phone number of the FOg so they would know how to file the appropriate complaint if necessary ar~ I'd like to see that added to this. I'm a little surprised that given the petition that was presented to the Planning Commission, there's no one from the neighborhood here representing their point of view. ~-cing no one from the neighborhood, I'm not opposed to this thing and Mr. Barke you have my support. Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask the Attorney, Mr. Knutson if there is a possibility of us restricting in the future ordinance the number of such antennas and towers? Roger Knutson: The FCC regulations are not 100% clear but it may be possible but it probably is not possible. I don't think you can do it but I'll take a look at it. Councilman Geving: I think it's important because Mr. Barke has two now and who knows he might come in with another one ar~ we just sit here and approve them as they come so I'd like to have that resolves if we could. At least give us the advice, if we can restrict the number, I'd say two is a very reasonable nunber. Roger Knutson: Jo Ann has asked me to give her a report on the subject in general. I've given reports to the City before on satellite dishes and on this subject you'll be getting my report in the next w~ek or two. Councilman Horn: Just a comment to the Council. You don't always solve problems by installing filters. There are many ways that radiation can get into a TV set and there are many TV sets that are built in a substandard manner. Typically the radio operators is the one who hears the brunt of curing these problems and in many cases it can not be cured if people are dealing with cheap television receivers so he may not be able to cure all of the neighbors complaints and the F(]C will not require him to. They will require him to make a reasonable attempt to clean up his signal and that's all they will do so these are not going to go away. These kind of problems as long as we have cheap receivers and oanponents. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit %87-15 as shown on the site plan dated September 2, 1987 for a 26 foot antenna and a 33 foot tower subject to the following conditions: 24 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 le The tower and antenna shall be located at least equal distance of their height away from the property line ar~ their height shall not exceed 45 feet. Each antenna and tower shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code. 3e The antenna and tower shall be designed and installed in adl~rence to the National Electrical Code. A building permit shall be required for the installation of the antennas. Applications shall include the sutauission of a site plan and structural components and the Building Official must approve the building plans before installation. So No part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or wires or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway, sidewak or property line. e Towers with antennas shall be desigr~d to withstand a uniform wind loading as prescribed in Section 23.08 of the Uniform Building Code. e Antennas and metal towers shall be grour~ed for protection against a direct strike by lightning ar~ shall comply as to electrical wiring and connections with all applicable local statutes, regulations and standards. e Every tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. e The applicant provide an inexpensive filter to those neighbors who receive interference from this tower. The City staff provide appropriate information to surrour~ing neighbors. All voted in favor and motion carried. TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOOK STORE IN HER H(IME, 8190 GALPIN BLVD., MARIAN SCHMITZ. Marian Schmitz: After listening to your viewpoints on bringing businesses and retail in areas of homes, it's obvious to me that this committee is not in favor of that type of use. I've talked to Barb. They turned me down at the Planning Ommuission and so I guess I'm withdrawing my request. Mayor Hamilton: Well, we hadn't discussed it so I'm not sure how everybody was going to vote. 25 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Barbara were you able to find out anything on another location? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I talked briefly with the building inspector regarding the possibility of using a portion of the old White Building where we are anticipating a community center to be located at. Unfortunately, we're running into the same type of problems with the building code in that building as in other places. The building inspector department also said, the Park and Rec department wanted to run some temporary aerobic classes out of that area also and would not work with that use so that would be the only available site that I could think of that would be able to house that particular use. But again, they are always running into the building code situations similar to that which he pointed out in his comnents from the Fire Department. Councilman Boyt: So it was possible for this lady to occupy the former city hall and meet all of the codes but should she move to some other older building in town, it's not so? Barbara Dacy: All I can say is that we're fighting...on that particular issue. That's all the information I gathered after you called me. Councilman Horn: What did we just look at now because of the use in the residential area or did we just suddenly look at this now in light of using it in a residential area? It's hard to believe that we would have met all of these kinds of codes where we were before. Mayor Hamilton: The old city hall. Councilman Boyt: Maybe what we can suggest is that you might continue to pursue with the City the possibilities that may exist, although Barbara says they very well may not exist, in using the former Instant Webb Building in town. It is a rather large covered space that's currently not being used and it's in the right kind of zoning district for what you want to do. Councilman Johnson: I understand the UBC problems. The difference between the old city hall and the Instant Webb building. The square footage types of buildings and stuff. The old city hall didn't need a whole heck of a lot of because it was so darn small it got exempted from a lot of the requirements. The Instant Webb building, actually taken as a whole building doesn't get exempted. Hopefully there is someplace. I realize that old city hall probably rented very inexpensively. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move onto the next item. Barbara Dacy: Maybe to follow up, staff would be happy to follow up on that idea... Councilman Horn: We've got to figure out sc~eplace. Councilman Geving: I think it's a valuable service and we should put it somewhere in the downtown area. 26 95' October 5~ 1987 - Page 27 Barbara Dacy: I agree. Councilman Johnson: I was kind of curious what the AA merchandise was. Marian Schmitz: There are a lot of groups in this area ar~ we were the only providers of materials that these groups used. They had medalians that they received on a 6 month, 9 month, yearly basis for beirg sober. Also, there are a number of books they r~--~ to use. ~he (1%e Day at a Time, there are a few items that I provided for these people and this was the only retail store between here and St. Louis Park so now the groups will all have to go to St. Louis Park. There will be suppliers of these materials in this area. Mayor Hamilton: Mrs. Schmitz, I don't know if you had ~ked with the owners of the building where the Classic Cars is. Marian Schmitz: Yes, I did at one time. When I first started I did talk to ~ They were so vague on the cost of heat and electricity and air conditioning, I was a little skeptical. Mayor Hamilton: There are new owners there now and I would suggest that you contact them because I do know they would be willing to give up some of the space that they use for the cars because they just don't need it all. Marian Schmitz: They were very, like I said I'm talking about the original people that I talked to, at that time too I chose not to go in there because they were talking about specific hours. This is a hobby for me and my husband. We provide this book excharge service for the community ar~ the AA merchandise. More of a hobby. We both have jobs in the day and this was kind of just of, we enjoyed doing this kind of thing so it's just kir~ of hobby for us to do that. If you get into a situation where you have lots of companies or businesses, you have specific store hours you have to be open or you're penalized and those kinds of things and I didn't ~nt to get into that. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPRGVAL, REPLAT OF IX)T 15, PORTIONS OF LOTS 14 AND 16, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 2 AND LOT 7, -BIX)CK 4, SO~TH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION TO CREATE 3 LOTS, ANDRf~--HISC(]X AND--LOUISE ~. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table this item until torrens proceedings can be cc~ple~. All voted in favor and motion carried. Barbara Dacy stated the torrens proceedings would take approximately 6 months. REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A BOW AND ARROW SIGHT-IN RANGE AREA, CHANHASSEN BAIT AND TACK~.~., 580 WEST 78TH STREET, PHIL GOSSARD. Mayor Hamilton: Isn't this kind of a moot question now since tl~re going to be moving to the old Saddlery? ~hey're be out of there in the next week or so. Councilman Horn: None of the recommendations will apply. I guess 3, 4 and 5 27 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 would apply but 1 and 2 are void. Councilman Geving: I dropped in there tonight and he is definitely going to move to 79th Street. The only condition that he wanted to change, that the range distance be changed from 30 to 45 feet and it be totally enclosed. You' ve talked to him Jim. Jim Chaffee: I did talk to him. Mayor Hamilton: He apparently wanted to change the range from 30 to 45 feet. Councilman Horn: I think if we eliminate items 1 and 2 out of the recc~mendations we'll be okay. Councilman Johnson: I didn't even think this applied to the new location. Councilman Boyt: Fully enclosed is definitely a requirement. To me fully enclosed means that there is a roof over it. It doesn't meant here are four walls. Councilman Geving: I would say combine 1 and 2, range be fully enclosed at no greater than 45 feet on the West 79th Street location. Councilman Horn: Why do we put a range on at all as long as he meets these other criteria? Councilman Geving: Yes, really I don't care. I think 45 is the length of his building or something but the length is right, we don't care if it's 100 feet. I think item 2, access be restricted to the back of the range and only blunt tips be used and that item 5. The range be restricted to business use relating to test shooting and sale of the equipment. In other words, what I wanted to get away from is this is not a public shooting range. That's the term that I want because it is specifically excluded from our ordinance. I believe ranges are not allowed in this downtown business district. So the range be restricted to business use relating to test shooting and sale of archery shooting equipment. Councilman Horn: Your motion is with recc~m~_ndations 2 through 5. Councilman Boyt: This is specifically relevant to the new location? Councilman Geving: West 79th Street location in the old Saddlery building. Councilman (~eving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the request to establish a Bow and Arrow Sight-In Range area for Phil Gossard to be located in the old Saddlery Shop on West 79th Street with the following conditions: e Range be fully enclosed. Access to range area be restricted to back of range only. 3. Only blunt tips be used. 28 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 4. Range be restricted to business use relating to the sale of bows. All voted in favor and motion carried. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PIANNfD UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD., APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT: A. APPROVAL OF ~ PLAN~ AGRa. Barbara Dacy: If I could just speak to item a. The City Council, as you recall, had a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to consider this item and what the intent of the Planned Unit Develolxnent Agreement was was to include in that agreement all of the items of concern that were brought out fro~ the Planning Commission ar~ the City Council that would guide the future phases of this development. For example, there would be the recommendation fr~n the Park ar~ Rec Cxanmission, larz3uage as to what outlots should be used for multiple family density and at what density, how much acreage should be given to parks, etc. Unfortunatley we were unable to meet with the applicant in time to discuss and really have a good discussion as to the terms of the agreement so the recommendation is that the other items of approval here be subject to execution of that agreement and that will be brought back on a future agenda. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything we ~ to go over? We've done all this so many times and maybe we should just get into discussion ar~ express our questions. On (a) I know Bill had questions on (a) apparently. Why don't we just do that. Bill you can start seeing as how you probably have more questions than the rest of us. Councilman Boyt: I may well be able to satisfy everybody's concerns. I guess I'd like to ask, first Barbara, is what you just said, that item a is going to come back to us again? Barbara Dacy: Correct. Councilman Boyt: When item a comes back to us again, it needs to have the following. One of the things is that you'll notice on the map that there are several loops. All of those loops ~ to have a trail system on one side of the road. That means the Park and Rec has already asked for a trail on half of that. My discussions with Park and Bec and Ix)ri, they do support my request for trails throughout the loops. The other it~n is that I feel t3~ Park and Rec fee of 50% is going to be required to provide the necessary equipment for those parks. I certainly think the developer deserves a 5~% reduction. He may deserve more but I think we have to protect enough money in the Park and Rec fund to be able to fully equip these parks that we'll be building. The other point I want to see included in that is, I want to see some definite figures about the maximum amount of surface that will be covered with hard surface in the high and medium density outlots ar~ the activities that the developer is proposing to take to blend those high density lots into the high and medium density lots into the single family residential. 29 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Those are basically the concerns I have. I think there are several there but I tried to be concise. Mayor Hamilton: Clark, do you have any you would like to add there? Councilman Horn: No, my only concern was, from this body trying to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. Mayor Hamilton: Trying to eliminate cul-de-sacs? Councilman Horn: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: We tried that. Dale, did you have any? Councilman Geving: No, I'm very pleased with the development. I do want to ask Lori, since she's here, if the 50% park dedication reduction fee was passed on by the Park and Rec Cc~mission. Lori Sietsema: Yes that was. Councilman Geving: That was your recommendation? Lori Sietsema: That was my recommendation to them and that was their r~ndation to you. Councilman Geving: Okay. I have no other com~en~. Councilman Johnson: I~ going to go wholly in favor of everything just said there. Trails throughout the loops make absolute sense. To put trails halfway down the street and then the other half of the people don't get them is ridiculous. Because in order to create parkland we've done density transfers to make some of the high density more dense, I don't think there's any need for any more than a 50% reduction. It would take a lot of talking to get me above a 50% park reduction fee. Your hard surface on the outlot, are you concerned that we don't have enough water retention? Is that what your hard surface question is about? I need to understand that one a little bit. Councilman Boyt: In discussions with Mr. Patton, he has agreed that they would provide underground parking and I think in the discussions he's had has demonstrated a definite willingness to make a good transition zone and to provide a good bed of non hard surface in those high density areas and to me that's one of the best parts of the plan. I think he's probably going to say something about those in a few minutes and I want the PUD approval to hinge upon those being appropriate. Councilman Johnson: I guess this probably gets into wetlands that is later on with this but are they calculations for our sedimentation basins and everything? Do they take into consideration the impermeable surfaces to be built in the high density or only the surfaces in the single families? I guess Larry's not here. Barbara Dacy: Just the single family. 30 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Is there room within the outlots for the .high density to put settling ponds ar~ etc. or should w~ be looking at those at this point? Barbara Dacy: Yes, there is acreage available within the multiple family outlots. As a comparison, the sites that are zoned R-12, for example the northern half of the James piece, the zoning district lists a maximum lot covering 35%. Building and parking area can not exceed the 35% of the lot area. That dictates really 65% of the open area. In Mr. Jacobson's development on the James property, he did include a small retention facility along Kerber Blvd. Some of the outlot areas in the PUD development will be on a larger scale as far as density, 15 to 16 units per acre but again, staff can . easily work with the developer to establish a ratio of 4g% to 5g% of the lot so there will be, if needed... Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you want to respond to some of those ~oints on the concept plan? Don Patton: In response to the coverage, what we've done is taken each of the outlots you =~_ this. We've combined C with D ar~ shown a layout. As you can see on Outlot C, it's zoned R-8. With the density we're looking at, the design would be 32 units. The acreage would be 35. We're not quite achieving that with this plan. A~ain, it's kind of an odd shaped piece. The coverage including building and parking is 31%. In Outlot D below, again the same zoning and again this did have the density transfer as you mentioned. parking is down south of here. Is the medium density R-8, 96 with what was planned for the area and the density transfers from the park, we're getting 96 ar~ we're zoned for 95 so we can achieve that fairly well with ur~ergro~ parking. One per unit. The coverage on that is 27%. I guess the way approaching these is probably the way we see it be developed also. This is the outlot B, This is a little more difficult site to deal with. It's zoned R-8. 48 units is what we can see going in to it at this point with this design. By the acreage, we're looking at 91 units. A little over half on that. The coverage is 30%. This is the multiple site. Outlot A, high density R-12, we're looking at 378 units on there. ~he design of the PUD based on acres is 37~ The coverage on this is 31.5% so I think all of the density coverages. Mayor Hamilton: Are your questions being answered Bill? Councilman Boyt: They are being answered. 'I have a question about the greenery on those. Can you tell me if those represent trees? Don Patton: Yes they do. The thing that we would anticipate, and I think a normal standard that I've seen in development that you would see with each of these would normally be $4gg. gg to $5gg. gg per unit landscaping for greenery in all of these. Councilman Boyt: Are you able to provide that sort of tree coverage with that amount? $4g~. ~0 to $5~g. ~0 per unit? Don Patton: I guess we hav~'t cost it out. ~hat's some of the job I'm doing right now. One of the things that this doesn't show here, as you see here, 31 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 there is some natural greenery that goes through some of the areas. I know that's a concern on this. We talked about on single family that would be 150 per unit with the single family PUD. Again, I think $500.00 is a reasonable figure. Again, your concern was coverage, transition, I think the landscaping, berming and design will really help in transition. Again, each of these outlots will come before the Council again. We understand the Council and as a part of our negotiations with this, when density will open this, that will be achieved with this so I think that that would answer those questions. With regard to blending transition... Councilman Boyt: May I ask a question? You indicated berming. Could you tell me a little bit about that or show what you mean? Don Patton: The thing, as you look like this, this is a pond here. This will be collecting water from streets over here and also from this area coming down here into the settling pond. I think you're looking at probably some berming in through here. With the park being here you might want to do some berming separation on that at the top of the road. This is a very steep slope going down. It's impractical to do that. We've gotten into some of the designs with the engineer. We're looking at another ponding area right down this way so that slope here, I would see some possible berming here. Again, I don't want to profess to you that this is what will be built on the site. These are strictly possibilities of what could be built. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Patton, I don't want to confuse you about this but if it's not this good or better than I'm not going to vote for it so that's what I want a commitment to is that we're building this or better. By better I mean that you're going to have this or less hard surface. That you're going to have this or more greenery. I think that's what we've bc~--~n talking about right along. Don Patton: I realize that. My point is the buildings may not be exactly this design. They may have more bend. That's exactly my point. I don't want to try to decide that. I don't think you want to at this point. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any other issues? Don Patton: I guess the other issue I wanted to address was the looping of the walkways and park credits. We've bc-~n~ through the Parks Commission. Their recommendation was one side. Sidewalks on the major streets. Access to the parks. This is really what has been settled on. That recommendation was that the 100% trail fee be credited to the developer as a part of that. Again, as a part of developing the parks in through here, it had been recommended as 50%. I guess the thing that we would like to see, there's really three things that I see the park people. One is to buy land. One is to grade parks and the other is to buy equipment with. We already talked in our discussions and made a commitment to you that we're donating land. We've already said we will grade the parks down. Again, the demand here is to provide economical housing. The more burden you put on that is going to push that thing out of sight and if anybody has been trying to buy a house recently with interest rates going up, the market is going down dramatically. I would like to see the Council give us a greater percentage of the park fee 32 101 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 50% I~ suggesting. 30% to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need to talk about ar,] C~_ry Warren and I have had several discussions o~, as a part of the original design it had ~ ir~icated to us that there was strictly a gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request that's coming out now ar~ in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. ~he thing I guess I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will be changes as this, we're talking about a FdD and we're talking about a development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, deper&~ing on what the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm sewer. If it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also ~ some flexibility because as we get into things, we had shown you a phasing diagram. If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live in Chanhasser~ I think you~e given a wide enough income rar~e from densities here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here, one of the questions that I asked Ix)ri to research for me was do we need $200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the neces~y equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops. Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not because the Park and Recreation Commission ar~ the Council haven't decided what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want to k~-~ap it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that...with what we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was 33 102 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 conversation about, at least some of the commissioners about getting trails along the loops as well. Especially going down to the 18 acre park. Councilman Johnson: On the loops and park reduction. My feeling, after listening to all of this and saying we don't trails to the parks, that's essential to me. I wouldn't be willing to look at it, the cost for the trails along there and look at another 20% off of the, additional 20% up to 70% if that is dedicated to the trail cost. If that trail cost doesn't cost that much, $100,000.00 or whatever it is, if the trail cost is going to be $50,000.00, I'd say we could pull that off of it. I don't have a feel for what the trail cost is going to be. What we're talking there. That's the way I would like to approach that is yes, the park has said we've got that... Don Patton: One thing I think we need to deal with on this thing is not the numbers but percentages because construction costs today is going to be different from some of these things develop in 1995 and that's the reason that I guess I'm suggesting. The same thing for whatever the parks are. You're still going to have a tennis court or ball diamond. Those are fixed costs today but as you all know, the sidewalk cost is $225.00 right now and that will proably be $250.00 or $300.00 or $500.00 by the year 2000. All those could go up and I would like to see percentages rather than actual costs. Councilman Johnson: You're telling us you're not going to develop this until the year 2000? As far as the single family residential? I disagree. I would like to see what the numbers are in today's dollars and if today's dollars comes out at $25,000.00 and you're wanting another $100,000.00 above and beyond the 50% that we've got right now, I'm against that. I would like to look at today's dollars and what today's dollars buys for trails along those loops including the loops into the park and havethat apply out. Mayor Hamilton: I think that was already done wasn't it Don? Don Ashworth: Staff did do a calculation based on a previous recommendation. Our finding was that, as recommended, it did break even in comparison to total charges for trails but again, that's a different number to estimate. We could have 20% to 25% error. Councilman Johnson: Well, I would like to at least see the numbers before I make a decision is what I%n saying. If the numbers come out, I may feel like adding 25% to the numbers but I haven't seen the numbers. I have nothing to go upon. They're asking for $100,000.00 to complete these trails. I want to know if it's going to cost the developer $100,000.00, t_hat may be reasonable. If it's not going to cost him $100,000.00, I don't think it's reasonable to deduct $100,000.00. I think there is some room for compromise here. I think it's definitely no good having a park if you don't have trails to get to the park. We can put all the equipment we want into it but if t_he kids get hit in the street going to it, it doesn't do us much good. Councilman Geving: Let me ask Lori, in the original concept plan you asked for a 50% reduction and no trail. You had asked for no trail dedication be paid for by the developer. Was there some reasoning for us to change in the middle of the stream here and now ask for the trail loop? Did you ask for it 34 103 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 or was that something that the developer brought back tonight and you haven't ~ before? Lori Sietsema: The trail fees were recommer~ed at 100% credit be given. That was reomnmended by the (kmmissic~ alor~ with 50% in park dedication. Councilman Geving: So now if we take $100,000.00 away from the original $20~,0~.~0, we're down to $120,000.00 roughly. Can you still develop the parks the way you had envisioned? Lori Sietsema: Again, not knowing what exactly we're talking about going in there. I know that two tennis courts ~n one location cost right now roughly $25, ~. ~0. Councilman Geving: Let me ask la)u again, if we were to go back to your original position and we put in the trails ourselves, the loops ourselves and w~a~t for the original 50%, wouldn't that be a better situation for you? Lori Sietsema: If we put in the trails and ask that 1~0% trail fees be paid? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilman Johnson: The additional trails. Councilman Geving: Any additional. I guess the question I'm asking is, are we absolutely cc~vi~ that we need the trails that are being asked for from the Park and Recreation standpoint? Is your answer yes or no? Lori Sietsema: The understanding that I had gotte~ from the (k~nmission that those trails are very important. Gary Warren: I think the point that k~_~ coming up in these developments also, is whether we're talking bituminous or concrete am] you're talking twice as much roughly for concrete versus bituminous so when you start talking credits, I get the feelin~ that we're leanir~3 more towards concrete as you recognize the expense for maintenance on that down the road. Councilman Johnson: Are we talking 5 foot concrete? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Because you're not talking 8 foot concrete? Councilman Johnson: Because this is through somebody's front yard here. Some will be bit~inous. Councilman (~eving: And that was the original recommendation from the Park and Recreation, is that correct? 35 City Oouncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: We have a Park and Rec Commissioner here, perhaps he can clarify that. Ed Hasek: I think originally when we looked at this particular project, we were going on the basis of the things that we had looked at in the past and I felt being a new commissioner, it had been suggested that perhaps all we needed in this project was the main road be taken care of. On closer examination, in realizing that we've got a fairly intense development as compared to other areas of the city, we felt it absolutely necessary that we get a more intensive trail system to serve the people that will be living there. That's why we have... Not only that, I think probably that decision came after the results of that survey was sent out as well. The City as a whole is interested, the people are interested in trails so there's no point in not taking care of that problem... I didn't see the topography on this particular study but just in looking at the topography, just the way it's proposed, I heard comments about the number of cul-de-sacs. Did the developer come back with a plan? Councilman Geving: You're looking at it. Ed Hasek: This is the revised plan? Councilman Geving: I don't think it's been revised a great deal. I think this is pretty much the same in terms of the number of cul-de-sacs. Don Patton: We've taken some out. One of the things that you've got here is, it's really basic what we did here. We did save the current loop for one street up in through here. ibis could possibly be done if we would eliminate this drainage down through here but again, the topography is very tough. We had a contour or if we want to study this, you can see the very steep contours. Again, this hash mark is 15% slopes which is really dictating. Again, we've got a ridge that runs like this with a flat area in through here. Again, your slopes, you're just going to eliminate or necessitate the cul-de- sacs. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think we've reviewed that pretty extensively in the past. Thanks for your comments Ed. Councilman Horn: If I heard right, what we're hearing is that the recommendations we're getting now for additional trails and the fee are not the original recommendations that we received when we reviewed this from the Park and Rec. New things have come up in the meantime. Lori Sietsema: The fee is the same. ibe fee recommendations are exactly the same. The only thing that is in addition is to build trails along those loops. Those are the only additional things coming from the Park and Recreation Cc~nission. Councilman Horn: You said 100% for the trails without the loops initially. Now you're asking for the loops and then 100% for the trails and 50% for parks? 36 105 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Lori Sietsena: Yes. Councilman Horn: I guess I have a concern with changing the rules in the middle of the approval process. We went along with the original rec(mmendation and I don't think that came to us via Park and Rec. Lori Sietsema: No, I wanted to emphasize that Park ar~ Rec did not make a formal motion with this addition. ~hey just merely mentioned it. ~hat they had ~_c-~n_ an oversight on their part. That t~ didn't ask for that at the beginning but there was no motion made and maybe it should have come to a motion and ~ would have ~ brought to your attention earlier. Councilman Horn: I guess that's the only concern I have. I don't like to se the rules charge as the progress happens on the develoI~ment. Councilman Johnson: I believe that to say something in defense I guess of our Park ar~ Bec Commission, we have many new members on the Commissior~ This is their first PUD and I don't think they really understood the PUD concepts of what a PUD was ar~ the negotiation processes of the PBD and I think that as the group has matured now. ~ey're fairly new. Mayor Hamilton: Can we talk about the issues rather than the Park and Rec Cc~nission. Councilman Johnson: I think thelWve come to grasps with the issues because they now have much more experience in their job and they are now giving us a reccm~a%dation that I think is very appropriate. Councilman Horn: What was the dollar amount due to the change in the recommendation? Lori Sietse~a: I don't know that the Park (k~mission. Don Patton: $75,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: ~ youhavesomething ~itio~l~ ~twe haven't didst? ~d Hasek: I guess my question is, the body that makes the decision on this thing, the governing body is you folks, We send you these recommendations. If we are recommending that we created an oversight, certainly it's within your power to charge anything that you~e done in the past. Councils do it all the time. Mayor Hamilton: You're right. I think ~'re well aware of that. Councilman Geving: We try not to though. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make one summary point her~ I think we're being reasonable in saying the trail fees cover trail development and I think the Park and Rec Department has said they would have asked for all of those trails ar~ wish they had. The most they would have given, had t~ asked for 37 106 · City Oouncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 all those trails, is a 100% reduction in the trail fee. I don't think we should be taking money out of the park fee to build trails. They are two separate fees. We set them up with a trail fee sufficient to build trails so now what I'm suggesting is that this is a good development. I'd like to see it go forward but to get my vote I'd certainly like to see a 50% reduction in park fees, 100% reduction in trail fees. Tnank you. Roger Knutson: May I suggest, since as Mr. Johnson pointed out, this has not been written up. I would suggest that your approval would be appropriate, if that's what you want to do, subject to us writing it up, meeting with the developer and going over the specific wording and bringing it back to you. Perhaps putting it on a consent agenda. Councilman Horn: I still have a concern with requiring additional trails. Mayor Hamilton: That seems like a good idea. If we're going to do it, we might as well do it right the first time and get it finished rather than wishing we had. Councilman Johnson: Are there any trails we could trade off? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, subject to Staff review, the Concept Plan/PUD Agreement for Lake Susan Hills West with the coverages mentioned by Mr. Patton in terms of impermeable surface in the medium and high density areas not to be exceeded. With underground parking to be provided as stated in his remarks with $400.00 to $500.00 per unit being provided in landscaping and berming efforts to make a transition in those areas. That the park fee be reduced by 50% and the trail fee be reduced by 100% with trails completed through the loops and subject to the execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. LAND__USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 15 ACRES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDESIGNATE 40 ACRES AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 37 ACRES AS PARK AND OPEN SPACE, AND 75 )%CRES AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to have discussion of this? Resolution #87-108: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment #87-3 to amend the MUSA boundary to include 15 acres for low density residential development and to redesignate 44 acres of high density residential, 33 acres of parks and open space and 31 acres of low density residential to land uses shown in Attachment #13 subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. REZONING OF 29.9 ACRES FROM R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R-8, MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL. 38 107- City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the first reading of the Rezonirg Request 987-3 to rezone 299 acres of RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 to PUD-R subject to approval of the final plat and execution of the develol~ent contract. Also, subject to the execution of the of the PUD agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. PRRLIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGr.w. FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R. Mayor Hamilton moved, Cour~ilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary plat 987-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 16, 1987 with the following conditions: lo The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an access permit from Carver County. . The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for City approval prior to final plat approval. . e . Tn, applicant shall provide a tree removal plan and shall reforest lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as recomm~ed by the DNR forester ar~ approved by the City Engineer. The linear strip of lar~ along the west side of Lake Susan be obtained as shown on the concept plan 93 and that an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed on such at .the time of construction of phase 1. A 5 foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk be constructed along the main street that crosses Powers Blvd. and that the trail be placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to match at the Powers Blvd. intersection. . A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main street on the west side of Powers Boulevard. o Approval of Wetlam~ Alteration Permit and compliance of all conditions. . o The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City ar~ provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improv~nents. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County Engineer. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water pessure/flow cor~itions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs of Blocks 1 and 4. 39 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 11. An additional gate valve shall be added to the 8" watermain in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1. 12. An intersection landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a distance of 50 feet shall be used at all intersections with CSAH 17. 13. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all slopes greater than 3:1. 14. Type II erosion control (staked haybales and snow fence) shall be added along with the proposed silt fence adjacent to wetland areas 14-06, 14-07 and along the east ends of the development which are adjacent to Lake Susan. A floating siltation basrrier shall be considered as part of the final erosion control plan to protect Lake Susan. 15. Ail utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 16. Clearcutting of trees will not be allowed. 17. Completion of the Enviror~ental Asses~ent Worksheet. 18. Subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETIAND. Councilman Johnson: I'm looking primarily at the wetlands next to Lake Susan. The discharge into Lake Susan from the ravine that is in Block 1 running between Lots 23 through 28 and 20 through 15 of Block 1. As I reviewed this, and I went over looking at what the existing wetland basin is discharging through that ravine and the changes that are being made. The number of houses going in and without doing a whole lot of sophisticated math on this, I believe that the rate of water going up that ravine is going to be increased as far as a cubic feet per secor~ type of rate which is what causes erosion and sedimentation to Lake Susan. I have some real concern on that ravine. While the total flow of water into that ravine may be somewhat reduced because there is a slightly smaller watershed area now. Because there is much more impermeable surface, the water will get to that ravine much quicker causing an increase in erosion to that ravine and a detrimental effect to Lake Susan. I think that issue must be looked at very carefully. We may have to put some sedimentation or some kind of float control in there to protect Lake Susan from that ravine. So far I haven't seen much about that. Gary Warren: I guess we're looking at a number of areas. Specifically in that area I'd have to look, again I don't have my plan with me on just what we're providing. Maybe Mr. Hill could address that. I see he's here but as far as the plans and specifications reviewed for that area, I guess we'll be 40 109 City (buncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 giv~m the details on the final design. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so approval can be conditioned. Councilman Johnson: (kay, the next one is that pond that you were pointing to. Currently at the Class B wetland, an area of dubious uses and benefit, where we're going to fill part of it in and extend another part a different direction. I personally believe there's a lot of uses for a Class B wetlands primarily in nutrient uptake. Re~oval of nutrients. Ground water infiltration and things like this. I haven't seen a lot of information addressing whether when you redo this wetlar~t and tl~ primary design as I see so far is to make sure that the water outflow out of this wetland is the same as what it is presently or I believe it sould be less than what it is presently. I don't know what happens to the infiltration that's going on now ar~ if you now create a pond instead of a Class B wetland, do we decrease the amount of phosphate uptake? We're going into a very phosphate sensitive system. Now we're going to have more gallons of water per pound of vegetation. Right now we have a lot of vegetation for what little water goes into this Class B wetland. A lot of grass and a little water. Now we're going to have a lot of water ~ a little grass. We're going into a system that the Osgood Report. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a specific thing that you would like to see done with that particular wetland that you can point to with some co~viction ar~ say they should do this or that? Councilman Johnson: I'm foreseeing a problem and I'm not the engineer to create the problem. I don't think we as a Council should be doing engineering and not create the problen but fix the problem. Mayor Hamilton: Then you must have a problem with the wetlands in general if Gary is going to review these and work with the developer, that will be satisfactory for you I presuue because t~ will come back to us anyway. Councilman Johnson: Right so the w~tland alteration permit, I want this one reviewed in more detail on phosphate uptake and the overall .wetlar~ issue. Mayor Hamilton: Is that to review these with the developer and have it back on the consent is something. Gary Warren: We can do that. In fact it's important for Councilman Johnson to recall, I guess the Osgood discussions is that the impacts to Rice Marsh Lake, the phosfmherous impacts and such, he's saying even distilled water is an impact because of the excessive amounts of phosphates that already exist in the area there so it's pretty difficult to rely on a Class B wetland such as this to have any benefit as far as phospherous uptake. Plus it would take a research study in itself to probably identify what is happenin in the wetland. I guess we certainly will review it and we'll apply our standards that we have in other developments to ~ that they're not aggravating the situation anla~ore. Mayor Hamilton: We could have Dr. Rockwell go out and look at it. That's why 41 110 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 we have her on the staff as a consultant to review these things and if there appears to be a problen, to point those out to us. Councilman Johnson: I must disagree with what you just said on your quotation of the Osgood Report because I spent a lot of time this weekend reading it again. Or reading it for the first time I should say and he does say, consideration of the entire basin for eliminating phosphates before it gets to Rice Marsh Lake should be a consideration in this entire watershed district and that just because distilled water will cause harm is no reason to put distilled water plus phospherous down into the system because that will cause more harm. Gary Warren: I'm not saying that we want to add anymore than we have to but likewise he doesn't give us any solutions to how to eliminate the phosphates. Councilman Johnson: I agree. His report is very short on solution and very high on problems. Councilman Boyt: On page 2 of the report on the conservation district, he indicates concern about building sites being evaluated to make sure that there is not going to be flooding. I hadn't thought of this area as a potential flood area but he makes that comment. I know in our building code, or at least I think in our building code we indicate that you can't build a basement unless it's 2 feet above the water. Is that clear there? It has to be 2 feet above the water table. Gary Warren: Above the 100 year high water mark. Councilman Boyt: So really they can't build there anyway? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #87-13 for the alteration of Wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 as shown in Attac~nent #16 subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage easement shall be provided over the wetland area and all structures shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland boundary. . Tne holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service: a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds. be The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of smergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. 42 111 City Council ~ting - October 5, 1987 The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom oontours for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (~5' to' 3.~:feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. de The basin will have a layer of topsoil (much from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitnhle substrate for aquatic vegetation, e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. .... ; '~':.23 '. -. ~ ~'.l '-- ' " f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on uplar~ surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. ..... ~;- , , . ~- :.~.. ~:J ~','.%~ . . :... . £ - . ,-. 3. -" .Subject:.to'.approval of 'the. 'PiP ~ent. ' :. .... .; - All voted in favor and motion carrie~.;n3 Don Patton: If I could address one other thing and Barbara if you can help me with dates on this. The PUD will be published as of today, is that right? There is a 30 day period for that to be advertised for the EAW which will come back November 3rd I think. As I recall, the time to the Oouncil will move out to the 19th which means that grading of the site couldn't start until next year which is going to be awfully bard to get through. The thing I'd like to ask the Council to authorize the City Engineer, is if there are no negative comments, if you would authorize a grading permit to be issued as soon as possible with your authority to him based on approvals of the EAW. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that previously. Are we in a position to do that now? C~_ry Warren: We've done it in the p~st with the contingency that a development contract be executed and a letter of credit as security be on file with the City. Councilman Johnson: I think we can put that on our October 19th ag.enda to consider that. Kind of call it a preliminary review of the EAW. Mayor Hamilton: What the developer is saying is he'd like to start as soon as possible and if ~ can meet the ."C~ty-.req~i~~. ar~ satisfy .the City Engineer and City Mabager, he Sho'~ld be a]~l~ to begin grading.. ~. ..,.: ",ii '- ~:-'. '-.-," ............ ~-.'£ . .~ CouneiI~an Johnson:: .That's November '-3rd.-;.im~f0re .he :el'ears ~hat periad so 0cto~e~-' 19th- is 'plenty of time. --' .~.~ ;, ;..-.,- · -;;:: v' ': -'. -- - :-, Barbara Dacy: October 19th may be a little premature on some of the EAW 43 112 City Council Meeting ' October 5, 1987 Councilman Johnson: We're not doing a final EAW approval.. Barbara Dacy: Even if the Council wanted to do kind of a preliminary review of the EAW, it's been our experience that a lot of the agencies wait until the last minute to submit their comments. There is a meeting on November 2nd that we could look to the development contract evaluation but to get those other steps in line prior to the grading authorization, we have to wait for that 30 day time. Councilman Geving: Let me ask, how soon, what is the soonest we could allow them to do the grading? When is the first date we can go ahead ar~ tell to go? Barbara Dacy: Technically the City Council has to make a finding of negative declaration meaning that an EIS is not .necessary. What Mr.. Patton is saying is that the soonest-that 'that would occur-is-November 16th, the second Council meeting and what he is requesting is the ability for staff to allow the grading permit after the 30 day cycl. e is-up but prior to your official action. Councilman Horn: I think you've got that. Councilman Geving: I would say we should authorize that. Mayor Hamilton: I don' t see any problem with that. Gary Warren: Prejudging the r~ for the EIS. Mayor Hamilton: Well, based on the site I can't see that would be a problem there. ~ Councilman Geving: I think we should just poll the council and let him go ahead. Councilman Horn: Wasn't what Jay was saying is we can do. that at our next meeting. Put it on our consent agenda with your recommendation as to how that should be worded and that would still give us time. That's what I heard. Barbara Dacy: Maybe by the November 2nd meeting we'll have a better idea of what the comments will be. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Mayor Hamilton: -This is one of those things that we see every year unfortunately. Some of the same ones but 'yoU see some new ones on here that kind of raise your eyebrow~. People like Jack Barnes and the Richliff's and Jim Congdon so it's a little discouraging that .we have to do this. I'm all in favor of shutting their blasted water off and letting them come up here and pay their bill but apparently we can't do that. Some towns do that I know. Why can' t we do that. 44 113 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Roger Knutson: If you go through the right process, that's an option available to you. Mayor Hamilton: I know saw one here, John Pryzmus, his barber shop has $1,700.00. Donnie Hanus, the same thing, $1,400.0~. We know that Hanus has financial problems. Why should we subsidize the guy for his water bill. Shut him off. If he wants to have water to run his business, let him pay his bill like everybody else ba_~ to do. Don Ashworth: Hanus could be shut off. He has a separate service. Pryzmus' water runs through the Pony Express. We can pick and choose those that we can shut off. A number of the shut offs are of such an age that I~m not even sure that they will actually shut off. I have talked to Boucher in this area. Again, on a number of the new ones, Hanus for example, they could be shut off. I'm leary of starting a policy or program that we can not evenly enforce for all of the customers. Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about $22,752.0~ that we're carrying ~n our books ar~ everybody else in town is paying for their water bill ar~ they have to pay-~t on their taxes over a long period of time. I just think it's wrong. 2 , Councilman Boyt: I happen to agree with 'you ar~ I think that the City can go in and cut the pipe and seal it. We have to do something to get people's attentioru No matter,-when their water bill goes over $1,~0~.~ we shouldn't ignore this problen. Councilman Horn: I think we've asked this question every year but maybe I need an answer again, do we need to publish all of these or only those over a certain dollar amount? Don Ashworth: We ~ to publish all of them. Publication did not occur so you will see this back on October 19t/~ Again, we could look to a stronger enforcement of cutting some of these off. I disagree in terms that we're losing money because these customers are being charged 10% of the outstanding balance each quarter compounded which comes out to an annual interest rate of somewhere between close to 5~%. In addition, we add an additional 28% to that at time of certification. They're paying 70% more than they... Mayor Hamilton: But the~ if we sit down and figure what it costs us to do that whole process, I wonder if we make anything. Councilman Horn: As long as these people don't contact, it's added onto their regular water bill? Don Ashworth: Each one of these received a letter similar to the one you saw in the packet that was signed by Gary Warren. Counci.lman Horn: Saying they're going to be published if they don't pay up? Don Ashworth: I don't know if it said publication. 45 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn: It seems to me we should give them an opportunity to not be embarrassed by this. Councilman Geving: ~ney get an opportunity. %hat ' s what the letter is for. Councilman Horn: That's what I had asked. Don said he didn't know if they did or not. Don Ashworth: Tne form letter does not say that it will be published. Councilman Horn: I would like to recommend next year that we do that so people know what' s going to happen. Councilman Boyt: I would also like to add to that when we send these out, I gathered from the response from Mr. Carlson that we don't send these certified. Is that true? We send these out without having them certified? Don Ashworth: -The letters that go out to then are not certified, no. Councilman B6yt.~ I would recommend that you certify them. If he hadn't admitted that he received that letter, I wonder what our position would have been. Don Ashworth: The only requirement is the published notice in the newspaper. You do not need to send them a personal letter saying that he has the right to attend this. Councilman Boyt: We sent them apparently a letter that indicated that he had a seriously large water bill. Was he aware of that? I would think something of that nature, we should know whether a person received it or not rather than just saying I didn't get it back so I assume they got it. That's pretty chancy. Roger Knutson: Tnat's the response normally. If you don't get it back, you assume they got it. The State Statutes don't require you to certify mail for any notices whether it's on zoning cases or subdivision cases or special assessment hearings. You could if you wanted to. One of the problems trying to contact people for various ordinance violations, if I really want to get a hold of someone, I don't want to go certify mail because if they know I'm looking for them, they'll just reject it. Councilman Boyt: What do you use? R~ger Knutson: Just regular mail. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a motion to certify the delinquent utility accounts. Resolution' ~87-109: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to certify the delinquent utility accounts for 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. 46 115 City fbuncil Meeting - october 5, 1987 PRESENTATION OF THE 1988 BUDGET. Don Ashworth: The City Oouncil has copies of the proposed 1988 budget. From a general operation star, point, general fund, it is a rather austere document. Given the attention that we have paid to being .able to find funds to carry out the construction of City Hall, Public Works, locking at our other capital facilities, the operational budget b~_~ consumed far less time this year than it really should have. Normally we have the budget to you much earlier than this and it has gone through each of the various commissions so they're aware of what it is that's being recommended as it comes to City Oouncil. In this instance, Public Safety for example is unaware of the recomm~ations that are being made in this document. I did meet with them 3 to 4 weeks ago. I had anticipated that the budget would be completed within the next 2 weeks and that I would be able to meet with them at their meeting about 2 weeks ago to go through the recommendations. ~hey would like to meet sometime yet this week so hopefully we can meet again to consider their recommendations. It's the Public Safety area which has requested more than I was able to include within the operating budget. Generally the-requgsts received .~.or the most part have been funded as a part of the 1988 budget: 'The only excep i6h' t0 that is in the public works area where Gary Warren did recommer~ that we look to some topographic survey informatioru Oontours, so they would be able to do a greater numbe~., of projects in-ho~u~e. 0ost' of: that was approximately $6~,~0.~ and I was unable to find monies necessa..ry, to balance that deficit. After I had received the departmental requests, we were approximately $240,000.00 out of balance. Some of the areas that I. had felt. were important were, according to the crime prevention office and more in particular the fire marshall, which the City Oouncil hind already approved. As. I continued to work on the 1988 budget I simply was unable to find the funds necessary for those positions. I did present to you a balanced budget but again, it does not include the crime prevention officer that had ~___,~n requested. Remember the Public Safety Commission has not acted on some of these requests as well so there was discussion by them regarding additional police services but I did not believe that they ended up with specific a recommendation as to we want one additional person here, one additional person, there, ect.. Generally, again the operating budget is rather austere. It does demonstrate the effects of mid-year salary increases for new positions. In 1987 we did create a number of new positions as a part of the 1987 budget. Most of those positions were not put on until towards the end of the year recognizing that we would have a significant increase in valuation for 1988. All of those predictions that we made in 1986 are really coming true but you can see the effects of those 1987 decisions once you convert those salaries to a full year salary versus solely a partial salary so the approximately five positions in 1987 did create a significant salary increase as a part of the 1988 budget. I'll finish with the overview than I'll maybe open it up for questions. The one very positive portion of the budget that I am ~very happy with .is in the area of our special funds. Those areas were we have received monies for a dedicated purpose or special purpose. For example our water availability fu..r..~s, sewer av. ailability, park acquisition a~. deve!o~ent, .c.able TV, administrative trust. In all of those...areas the' funding' .that We had looked to for many years'is literally here , .a~d. the .funds that ..we have ~ak~ in in 1987 will allow, us. tol for .example in the sew~...agai~abil'it¥', a~.'.e~, '.to put in the monitoring .equip~en~ to allow us .to. h.ogki'Up' al!: 'of o.ur l'iioc .stations to a 47 116 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 central monitoring area so that we will be able to know if we're having a problem with the particular lift station such as down by Pat Swe~son. When she's having problems on two occasions where the lift station has gone out and no one has known about it and she's ended up with sewage in her basement. Similarly where you have large lift stations such as the Carver Beach area will be early alerted to that potential problem and can get' out there and correct it before it potentially overflows into Lotus Lake. In a similar fashion, the water availability fund has included in it monies for the repair of both of our existing water towers so that is in there. Cost factors on that Gary I think were what approximately? Gary Warren: $70,000.00 per tank. Don Ashworth: That is being fully funded. Park acquisition and develo~nent, the recommendation being made by the Park Commission is being included as a part of the 1988 budget. It will allow for expenditures for slighting over $100,000.00 for various projects within the community for 1988. In almost every capital and special revenue fund we are able to carry out a level of improvement that we previously had to put onto a back burner. With that I guess I open it Up for questions. Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that building inspectors are paid for on a fee for service basis. Don Ashworth: That, s correct. Councilman Boyt: With the kind of dramatic building we're anticipating and are currentlyhaving, why would we delete a building inspector? We're not losing one we already have but we certainly have a need for building inspectors and I see here that the proposal one was deleted. DOn Ashworth: The request from Mr. Chaffee is to have a total compliment of three building inspectors. We are funding two. One year ago we had a chief building inspector and we had a building inspector. Those positions were modified so that we looked to a chief code enforcement officer, building official and a building inspector. All three of those positions are being carried forward into the 1988 budget. A third building inspector is not being proposed or has been eliminated. Councilman Boyt: I understand what you're proposing. What I am asking is, why aren't the funds there for that if building inspection is more or less a self financing area? Are we not charging enough building inspection fees? Don Ashworth: You can see the permit fees are approximately $180,000.00 under buildings. If you add up the additional fees over and above what we had started or anticipated in 1987 with the building permits shows $174,000.00 to $320,000.00 so we've brought in an additional $150,000.00. That has been used to fund the code enforcement officer position, modifying the previous part- time fire marshall position or fire inspector to a full time position and the upgrading of the animal control officer to fire inspector. I did not deal with the heating issue and anticipating that Jim returns to us with a proposed permit schedule that would show that that would be a break even function. I 48 City Cbuncil Meeting - October 5, 1987 had anticipated that we would be able to put that on as a full time position or at least one in which we could do it on a fees for service basis very similar to the Huber Foreseers position. Potentially paying that person 70% to 80% of the fees ~lves. Councilman Boyt: I don't mean to put you on the spot. I guess I'm basically suggestirg and I think we probably follow a philosophy that there are some areas of the city where the fee covers the cost and if it doesn't we either increase the fee. I guess that's what we do if it doesn't cover the cost and it's my understanding that we certainly have a ~ in this area. We clearly, I think have a need for a heatirg inspector and I would like to be confident that monies that we're taking in in this area are being spent in this area. So you tell me we've got $150,000.00 that we didn't anticipate ar~ that we may have added 3 people. That means we're paying them somewhere in the $40,000.00 a year rarge is we're covering $150,000.00 for three people. Mayor Hamilton: There's also money spent in other areas. We use secretarial services for one thing ~ a lot of those dollars we get off into other areas. Councilman Geving: Capital develol~ment funds, They're charged for vehicles. Mayor Hamilton: So it's just clearly $150,000.00 to be used for personnel purposes. It has to cover the total expense of running a .department. Councilman Boyt: I guess the question comes down to, assumirg that we are spending the money in the area that we're.raising it for, are we raising enough? We're .going to live for the .rest'of our lives with the effects of the inspection on these buildings amd personally I can't ur~ers~ not having a fire marshall. Given the overall impact of not havirg somebody in that position that has the qualifications that I think we need, we're either going to have to contract that service out or not do it ~ we can not afford to not do it. So I guess we're saying it's cheaper to contract the service' out than it is to have our person at this time. Don Ashworth: Again, we have converted what last year was a part-time position paying $7,000.00 a year to a full-time positi0m of fire inspector and animal control officer to a salary of I think $26,000.00. So' additional factors 20% to 25% overhead. If Ibm hearing you correctly, which is really what the Public Safety Director's recommending, is that we look to both a full-time fire marshall position in addition to the half-time fire inspector. Councilman Boyt: I think that Steve has indicated that he really doesn't feel qualified to make some of these fire inspections he's beirg asked to make so we ~ an alternative and I don't pretend to be able to tell you what the best alternative is. Ibm simply sayirg that from my perspective, this is a base we have to cover and likewise with building inspection. Somehow we have to cover that base with quality buildirg inspectioru It gets out there a number of times that we're indicating, our building inspectors are talking about they would like to go and I think we're sayirg we would like them to go. If we can't do that with our existing fee' structure, than I gt%ess we're going to have to bite the bullet on the fee structure. S~mehowothat's got to work out. - - . - 49 118 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Don Ashworth: Or potentially modify the overall budget. You had made an initial statement that the fee structure should be dedicated solely to insure the payment of the fees for service which I agree. One of the factors that we must face is that for 10, 15, 20 years a portion of the fees collected have been in fact used to carry out of the operations of general city government and to the extent that we have obtained additional fees and have dedicated those for additional services, I think I can show that in fact has occurred to the extent that I corrected some of the previous problems. So if we in the past, which we have, collected potentially $100,000.00 more than what we spent, those in equities still exist. Councilman Boyt: Well, Tom I guess I've made my point. I'll pass onto others. Councilman Horn: I think this whole process would be a little clearer to me if we had some lists of what we're really adding. I know we have a memo here from each of the departments saying we're adding this but it would be nice to get a list of here are the people we're adding to the budget for 1988. Then it would be a surprise to us when it happens throughout the year that new faces show up. The other thing I'd like to see is a specific breakout of the vehicles that are being added. ~ Exhibit 3, page 2 we say the budget was $98,000.00 last year, it's $124,000:00 this year. I can go over and find the areas that they're going to be used in but I don't really know what that means in terms of actual vehicles that are being added and I would like to see a breakout of .that. I think to me the biggest areas of the capital equipment and the people who are not self supporting in terms of what we collect on other fees, that's what I'm really concerned about which to me is the delta cost of goverr~nent. Don Ashworth: I'm sorry I missed that last one. Councilman Horn: If we're going to add a building inspector and we compensate it for in terms of increased building permits and that covers that, that's one category of a person that we're adding. I'm talking about really looking at any other additions to staff that we may make that aren't directly compensated through some program. Police. Firemen.. Those types of things and I'd like to know what that is for the year specifically rather than trying to shift through. DOn Ashworth: If I'm understanding your question, there's one new position that's proposed for 1988 and that is in the area of secretarial support. I have put it in as a full time position at a cost factor of $23,000.00. When I was unable to balance the budget I cut it back to a part-time position very similar to Norma or Nicki's and the total cost factor of about $18,000.00. Councilman Horn: So that's the only position that's not covered .' through one of the other revenues? Don Ashworth: You recognize though that decisions as a part of 1987, I am including as a part of the 1988 budget for the assistant park and recreation coordinator position, Todd Hoffman, to be continued in 1988. Tnere again is a position that is literally only partially funded in 1987. In all other areas, 50 1'19 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 any additional personnel are beirg funded by the special rev~ues that are being generated. In terms of the vehicle question, there is proposed that a ergineering vehicle be purchased. That would be shared betwc~n_ Larry ar~ Gary. It would be a Ford type of vehicle. ~he other one would be one inspection vehicle. The remainirg amount that you're referring to, that $124,000.00 is when we refer to vehicles we also include two ton dump truck, sander box $36,000.00. Councilman Geving: See that's the information we don't have. Don Ashworth: I can easily provide that to you. One of the questions especially in terms of the capital area, as the Council has stated, you wanted to maintain kind of an overview position that maybe getting in, looking at the number of garbage bins we are purchasing wasn't really the type of thing that the Council should be looking at but in terms of the major capital expenditures, when you're talking about the capital budget areas, the areas that I mentioned that I see us being able to carry out a lot of new programs, those are covered within the detail budget. If per, kind of our policy from before that the Oouncil received the summary budget, I did not restrict you a detail budget but the detail, especially in the capital areas, when you start looking into water availability, sewer availability, park ams recreation equipment replacement does itemize each of the vehicles that you were referring to. In terms of park ar~ recreation, it does itemize each of the park areas that we' re proposing to carry out an improvenent to. Councilman Johnson: I wouldn't mind having to look at the details. Don Ashworth: Would you like me to run upstairs right now and get five copies. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you wait until we finish. If anybody wants one they can get it after. Councilman Geving: I'll start with just some general comments. I kind of like the more detailed budget myself. I like to know what kinds of vehicles we're going to buy throughout the year so I~ not surprised when we pick up a loader or a dump truck or s~mething ar~ that it is budgeted and it's not a surprise when we see it on the agenda. Just some rather general commits. I think we need to do something about this building. The maintenance on this building is very bad as far as I'm concerned. I don't think we're doing an adequate job of keeping a very sanitary, good looking bu/lding and this goes not only for the inside of the building. I think we could do a lot with the outsid~ The exterior. We should spend some money and fix this place up. The outdoor parking lot area and the area as you come into the building is not really attractive. The steps are still split ar~ there's brok~ concrete there. I don't think Gene does a very good job arour~d here is what I~ saying. Secondly, I think we could spend s~ne more money on clerical ar~ support people in this building. I see street lighting in the City of Chanhassen that needs a great deal of improvement. All over the city. I walk a lot in the evenings and there's lots of areas that aren't covered with street lights. I'd like to see us have Jim Chaffee do a little study and pick out those areas and let's get them illuminated. I'd like to -_-~c a mil rate 51 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 reduction. I think we've been riding very high in this City for quite some time. I believe we're up around 29 mils. Am I correct on that? Don Ashworth: 26. Councilman Geving: I saw 26 in here but I know there are other items that are added. I think I remember a League of Minnesota's magazine article about a year ago which listed Chanhassen as around 7 in their ranking of the number of mils for communities. We stood out. Let's just say I thought we stood out and I'm not so sure that we r_~ to have 2 mils for example for street repair. Street repair I know we've allocated 2 mils. We've never spent 2 mils. Our contracts are coming in under $100,000.00 as I recall. Somehow or another I'd like to see the mil rate reduced. At least on a long term goal should reduce that mil rate by 1 or 2 mils. It may be impossible but I look at other cities and I think they have done that. I don't need to give you any for instances but I know of them. Now getting into some of the details, I'd like to see us expar~ our Chanhassen cemetary. It's a long standing issue with me. Let's face it, as our community grows and gets up to 10,000 to 15,000 to 20,000 in the near future, we're going to have to have people, not only that are born here, married here but they also die here and I'd like to see us pick up 5 acres in new cemetary land in this next year if that's possible. In terms of some of the things that I see in here, I think we've added about $300,000.00 in personnel cost not all of which I am totally thrilled about. I think we've added some positions that I personally would not have added. We're getting more heavily involved in code enforcement and what I almost call police protection area than what I saw us developing with the CSO's and animal protection, fire marshalls and I see us kind of making a swing almost over tot he police activity in .this code enforcement area. I listened to this young fellow we hired a week ago and listen to his s~h at the Arboretum and I almost got the impression that he was a police officer rather than being a code enforcement person so I'm kind of concerned about the direction that that might be taking us to especially when I think we were fairly adquately covered with the Carver County policing. I see us spending a lot of money on captial improvements for vehicles and expansion of our fleet. I know that we have more people. We have to have more vehicles. I'm not so sure I really agree with the way we're purchasing vehicles at the present time. I know it was the concept that started 3 or 4 years ago but it's kind of like buying on credit card. I'm convinced that we should probably be buying our equipment as we have the money to pay for it rather than on a 5 year basis. Now that's my personal opinion. I know it's a technique, buy our vehicles, get them up and bond them and pay for them over a longer period of time but it see~s like we were constantly going to have a debt in excess of $150,000.00 at that rate. Always. Maybe there's not a better way of doing it but this year we increased the cost for our vehicles and equipment by one full mil. We went from 134.8 to 221 and that's a lot of money, $221,000.00. $300,000.00 in personal services I think is getting up there. I mentioned the City Hall. Personal services Park and Rec. I was kind of surprised when I looked at the labor costs for last month and I totaled up nearly 44 employees that were on the payroll. It surprised the hell out of me. I didn't know at 15 of those people. I never knew they existed. Tnat there were 44 people, I think over 40, I don't know the exact number, on the August labor cost report. We're somehow picking up, I don't know how many of those are permanent and how many 52 121 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 were temporary. Maybe some of them worked as summer employees. Is that true Don? Don Ashworth: You have 28 full time e~ployees. Councilman Geving: 28? We're already startin9 to reach a point now of 28 full time employees. I like to think in terms of, I remember when we were 14 ar~ we were doing pretty well. We picked up a few ar~ we were 18. We were 20 for many, many years and now all of a sudden within two years we're up to 28 so we've expanded our staff by about roughly 20% in a couple of years. That concerns me a little bit. I don't know where that's all heading becamse you add permanent personnel ar~ it costs you all the way around. Is there anyway we can add part time personnel? Less than 40 hours? Don Ashworth: The difference betwee~ the 28 and 40 are tt~ part-time. Councilman Geving: I understand that but I was even concerned with the 40. I didn't know that nearly every department in the building had an assistant. I didn't know that this person was working for Lori for example and now I see we're going to convert him into full time in 1988. That was a surprise to me so I guess I'm a little bit concerned when I see a lot of the things happening in the personnel services ar~ I know we're growing and I know we need staff. I don't know if there's a better way. I do appreciate the effort that has gone into this document ar~ s~me of the ground rules that were laid out maybe by Tom and yourself and that is that there would be no tax increase in 1988. I think that is a major objective and you have achieved that and the people of Chanhassen are going to appreciate it. I know it's difficult at a time when it would be easy to add taxes but at the same time you've held the line and I appreciate that Don and I think you've done a good job. Again, in the Planning Administration area, I see an increase in personnel services. What did we add there in planning? There's an additional $12,000.00 to $14,000.00. Is there some part time person or a body that you're picking up there in planning? Is somebody getting a $9,000.00 increase? DOn Ashworth: There are increases in that area. This does get back to some of the comparable worth standards. ' If we had an opportunity I'd like to go through those with the Council to really reflect, one of tt~ problem areas that the City does have is in terms of the whole middle management area. ~nis can best be seen When we attempted to hire Gary Warren where literally all of the applicants that we had looked at salary were in excess of what it was that the City was offering. We looked at the Assistant Engineer, we did not have a category to put that position into. We have discussed the code enforcement officer, the public safety director who would have under him code enforcement officer who would have under him fire marshall. Hypothetically inspectors who right now we do not hav~ I'll call it middle management types of slots. One of the things that the 1988 budget does address is to insure that our city does reach purity with the mar~a~ required of that whole c~mparable worth study area. And yes, Barbara Dacy is one of them who does see a good increase in 1988. Councilman Geving: {kay. I mentioned the cemetary issue. Is there anything going on there right now? 53 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Don Ashworth: Yes. Tney have contacted me. I was hoping that potentially the Council would select you and Councilman ~eving and myself as a committee to meet with Mr. Otto. Tney would like to, they have shown on their plat 2 1/2 acres, almost 3 acres but they have established a value for that of $46,000.00. Councilman Geving: Forget it. Mayor Hamilton: You can tell him that. Don Ashworth: As I understand it, Mr. Volk talked with Mr. Otto some period ago and said it appeared as though a more reasonable number had been achieved at that point in time and I think it would be in the city's best interest if we would set up some type of special committee. Councilman Geving: Okay, I'd be very happy to serve with you on that. Tne only other comment I have is, are we going to see a different position classification plan than the one that's in here? Is this the 19887 Are we going to see it again later? We normally do this a couple of months from now. Don Ashworth: Yes, you will see that as a part of the position classification update process. That would occur typically at the end of the year. Councilman Geving: I'm not ready to handle this yet tonight but we're going to talk about that. Contractual services, you had an item in here, I just have to ask this because it's kind of glaring. Tnere's an item in here on statement 1, under expenditures, other. Could you explain what other is to the tune of $245,000.00 or so? The difference between $604,000.00 and $845,000.00. Don Ashworth: Oh I see. Tne increase there from the 1987 to 1988 of $241,000.00. Councilman Geving: It just ~_~---ms, contractual service, what could that be? DOn Ashworth: I know one of the big ones in there is... Councilman Geving: Could it be this item under exhibit 3, page 2 that you hve account 4550, repair and maintenance and utilities which is roughly $220,000.007 Is that what that is? Don Ashworth: What we do in fact recognizing that is a relatively major item, I should ...and instead of having it as just other, labeled that as a water tower. Councilman (~eving: Those are the kind of things that Clark was trying to bring out. Where you have major items, list those because $245,000.00, we should at least know what they are. Councilman Horn: I think when we see the details we'll be able to see them. 54 123 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Geving: I know, that's why I always like the detail personally and some people didn't. I have no other coements. Councilman Horn: I think we can pick out these that we want to look into. We don't have to read the whole detail but portions of it. Mayor Hamilton: What I'm hearing just about everybody saying is there are some areas that you would like to see more clearly delineated ar~ I think a couple of them would be personnel for one thing. If we had a clear listing, which should be very easy to do. To list everybody ar~ their position ar~ then we r~ to do some planning with each position and try to determine where we're going to go in the next two years with each position. That's something I've been asking for but probably have not ~ asking for clearly enough for that information so I haven't received it. I want to know what staff we have. What staff's needs are. I guess that would be the second part of that and how we can project that into the future. I'd rather be sitting here this year looking at 1989. Look at 1988's budget ar~ say in 1989 we know we're going to have to add another person or two and where can we potentially add them? 1990, we could even go out that far and say we're going to r~ to have a couple more people. We've just got to do a little more long range planning and I think not only with the personnel but we need to do it with our equilanent also. We must be able to easily get a listing of all equipment that we have and note on there what year it was purchased or what year the equipment is. When we see that equipment expiring ar~ what the potential cost to replace it is going to be. That's going to tell us a lot about the dollars we're looking at in the future. Those are a couple of major areas that I thought we ~ed to pull out of our system. I was really happy to hear Dale's comments about the City Hall because so far I've talked to I think Jim Chaffee, to Todd and to Karen Engelhardt and to Don and so far I haven't seen anything happen. I don't know who I should talk to next. Maybe I'll talk to Barb but I know that Karen has been talking to people who can put plants in the building someplace to dress it up a little bit. Eibher on a rental basis or on a la~rchase basis and then have them come and water them or whatever you need to do to keep them growing. But beautification of City Hall I guess is what I'm trying to say. Inside and outside. I completely agree. I think the place looks like hell to be honest with you ar~ there's no reason why our building here should look any less nice than the bank does. If the bank can keep up their building looking nice, inside and outside, than why can't ours? We come down here and this Cable top is absolutely filthy and you say, what the hell goes on down here? I agree. Gene doesn't do a good job. He does a good job vacuming and things like that but maybe we need somebody else to do some of these other cleaning things and to dress the place up a little bit. I wouldn't eve~ mind seeing a little greenery in here to make it look like it's kind of room that's lived in or used or part of earth anyway. Those are my comments. I think Don did a great job with the budget. Keeping it within limits ar~ keeping us from increasing taxes. It would have ~ easy this year to set off and say we're going to make use of all of our growth and push the taxes up because we really need the money, we're growing. We have so many needs in so many different areas but I think our posture has always been to maintain the mil rate where it is and not show an increase. The County ar~ the school district see~ to increase enough so if we can hold the line. 55 124 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Horn: One other thing to go along with what you're talking about in personnel. I look at this and say for our size of staff up here, do we really ~ this many levels? I don't know what the trend is in government but I know what the trend is in business and it's to cut out middle management not increase it. I'm wondering if we really need this many levels for the number of people we have. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good point and we need to, if we're going to have middle management person, I think that person also has to be someone willing to work in the trenches. No different than Scott Harr. I guess I had hoped that when Scott was hired or the person for that position, that he would not only be a management type person but he would also be out doing inspections and we need to have people, good people like Scott. I think Scott's really a good person and I'm glad that we hired him but we need people that are versatile and can take on more responsibility and I'm sure he'll be able to do that. The same type of thing as Jim. I think Jim's done an excellent job. We've assigned him things to do that he never did before and that's great to be able see that he can adjust to that. I think all our staff is that way. Councilman Johnson: What are we going to do tonight? Mayor Hamilton: Nothing. Don Ashworth: You should set a next date. If the County will allow us to go to next Tuesday, would the Council wish to meet next Monday night? Councilman Geving said that would be bad for him. Otherwise, there were a number of comments. I do not think we can do it Wednesday night. Thursday night would be open. Councilman Horn: Did we move this joint meeting to Wednesday? Councilman Boyt: It's Wednesday, October 7th. In fact the memo came out Wednesday October 6th. Roger Knutson: If it's a legal holiday you can't legally conduct public business. Is City Hall closed Monday? Don Ashworth: No. Saturday morning I would be available for that. Councilman Horn: We're going to be here Wednesday night, why not meet at 6:30? Councilman Boyt: Okay, book it. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: I gather that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,700 households. That gives us about 6,000 cars. That's about 24,000 quarts of oil every 6 months or more and I would venture to guess that a great amount of that oil gets dumped. It either gets put in our city dump. If somebody is 56 125 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 particularly conscientious they may put it in a milk bottle which might hold it for 6 months but that oil is creatirg a pollution probl~n 'for us that we're going to have to live with someday. A year ago just about, 6 months ago, asked staff to do six~ethin~ about this. I went out ar~ contacted a couple of service stations one of which said they would take it and the other one said they wouldn't here locally. I think that this is a problem that, we can ignore it but it's not going to go a.way. At 48,008 quarts roughly a year, I would like to see us put on our ager~a for future discussion a manner of disposing or collecting this oil. I don't know what the best' method is. don't know if the best method is to require eve_ryb~ wbo sells it to collect it. I don't know if the best method is to have the city collect it. All I know is we can't ignore it so I'd like to propose that we put it on a future agenda. Councilman Horn: What percentage of the people do'you figure change their own? Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I change my own. At 48,888 quarts, I'm figuring that's everybody's car. Councilman Horn: We don't have any type of licensing for our gas stations in town do we? Don Ashworth: No we don't. I believe you could license them but the City does not. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that they ought to have a disposal site. I know that Standard used one. I don't know if they still do or not. Mayor Hamilton: There are some cities that have collection. A tank where you can bring, your used oil. The cities used to use it to put oil on the roads but you can' t do that anlamore. Gary Warren: Minneapolis used to collect it as a part of their program but they don' t collect oil anlanore. Councilman Horn: Speaking of that, what does the city do with their oil? Gary Warren: We recycle it. We store it in 55 gallon drums ar~ then the firm that supplies us with our bulk oil, they give us a credit on it. Councilman Horn: Would they take more? Could we set this up as a public works project? Gary Warren: I know some counties have. I think Edina has a recycling facility where you can bring it to and I think that works a little more successfully than actually a collection process. Make a facility available where you can drop it off. Councilman Horn: But it would be handier for them to go out here to the Public Works Building than it w~uld be to drive miles to sane site. 57 ].26 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Don Ashworth: I talked to Jerry about that. We do have some people in town that do drop it off. As far as they are concerned, they don't really have a problem with it. They have a thing hooked up there where you can just pour it right down because it's an underground facility that we use for the storage of that. One of the problems that Jerry did note is the number of people who have brought it in and th~n they just leave it. They leave it by the fence in the front. They leave it by the front door. If we could get an individual or a station that would be open, it would be better. You'd have at least expanded timeframe for when people could bring it in. I will put it on the agenda for the 19th. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps if we did that we can ask whoever we recycle our oil with, if we did it in conjunction with the station where people drop it off and then city would pump it into their 55 gallon drums and would this outfit take it and give us credit for it? Councilman Johnson: Most gas stations, I know Brown's Standard, most of them that change oil themselves have their own underground tank. The guy comes out and pumps out their tank routinely. What I'm hearing is we've got an underground tank. One thing you have to look at when you get into oil recycling is the guy who goes and empties the oil out of his hydraulic system that's 30 or 40 years old and contains polychlorinated biphenol and gets that into the oil. That gets mixed into the tank and now we've got 2,000 gallons of PCB contaminated oil that the city's going to own if we're sponsoring recycling. It's going to cost us a bundle to get rid of. It's something to be aware of. Oil recycling has some problems with it because you can't control what's coming in. While there's got to be something done, I'd much rather the city got it personally than some farmfield. Councilman Boyt: I think we all received a letter from the Community ~d, District 112 and that looks like a program that we, as a City Council could really benefit from and contribute to. It's going to be held at Chan Elementary on October 13th and I'd like to think that the City Council would have a table there or something that says talk to your City Council. It's called Community Connections. It's what available to residents of Chanhassen in their community. I know Park and Rec is going to be there. I think several community groups are going to be there. October 13th from 7:00 to 9:00. We have an opportunity to say something, a 5 to 10 minute message at the opening. Maybe Tom would like to do that and then we could man a booth or something and just listen to what folks have to say. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, good idea. Just a reminder that this is Fire Prevention Week. The stations will be open tomorrow and Thursday from 6:00 until 9:00. Then Barbara wants to tell us about the amendment to the CDBG Joint Cooperation Agreement. Barbara Dacy: I apologize, this should have been on the Consent Agenda. About a month ago the Council approved this Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County with Chanhassen to continue participate with the CDBG and apparently the HUD office from Washington has requested that the agreement be amended as defined. So the third page of the packet there is a resolution 58 127 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 authorizing an ame~zlment to Joint Cooperation Agreement which you had about a month ago. Resolution #87-11~: Mayor Hamilton moved, ~ouncilman Geving seconded to approve an amendment to the Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the Community Development Block Grant Program. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:2~ p.m.. Suhnitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 59