Loading...
1987 10 19129 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETI~ OCTOBER 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Larry Brown, and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve ~ agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Geving wanted an update on downtown, Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the motor oil situation and the December goose hunt. Mayor Hamilton wanted to move item 5 to follow visitor presentations. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's · reco~m~%dations: a. Final Plat Approval, CHAfDA Addition, Brad Johnson. b. Final Plat ApDrov~], Peaceful Hills Addition, Art Owens. c. Creek Run, Robert Engstrom: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Approval of Development Contract 3. Approval of Plans and Specifications Se Resolution 987-112: Lost Bond Coupons, Norwest Bank Minneapolis, Resolution. f. Resolution 987-113: Lake Virginia Forcemain/Lake Ann Interceptor, Approval of Plans and Specifications. g. Approval of 1987 Audit Contract, Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Co, Ltd. he Resolution 987-114: Approval of Resolution Authorizing a Spccd Study on Lake Lucy Boad. j. City Oouncil Minutes dated October 5, 1987 Ail voted in favor and motion carried. d. Sun Ridge Addition, RsdneyGrams: 1. Final Plat A~proval 2. Approval of Development Contract 3. Approval o][ Plans and S~ecifications City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Johnson: We need the details of the erosion control added to the drawings. ~nat has been a site where we have some real problems with erosion control over the last couple of weeks. I don't want to see it go without the detail on there showing what the erosion control is proposed. The original erosion control was black pastic laid out on the ground and put up against surveyor stakes. Totally inadequate so I want to close that door and see a drawing of the exact, make it a condition that the erosion control, type of erosion control be a standard detail, I guess you call it, be added to the drawings like every other one we get passed. It's the first one without it. Gary Warren: He's got erosion control on the plan. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but not the detail of how he's going to build it. Are we going to have more plastic lying on the ground. I'm just asking for the detail. Councilman Horn: Should we say that he should provide erosion control will be approved by the City Staff? Mayor Hamilton: Is that acceptable Jay?. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Sun Ridge Addition, Rodney Grams: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Approval of Develol=nent Contract 3. Approval of Plans and Specifications with the 9 conditions outlined in the staff report with the addition that the erosion control design be approved by the City ~gineer. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DATED OCTOBER 19, 1987. Councilman Geving had questions regarding check #29099 for $180.00 for the Minnesota Society for CPA's. The City Manager stated he would check into what the amount was for before the end of the meeting. Councilman Geving then had a question about check on page 2 to Richard Eckroad regarding the inspection of material at the Lake Ann Park. He also had a question regarding the billing from the City Attorney's office and the City being charged when private citizens call the Attorney. Gary Warren stated that he had authorized the people to negotiate directly with the City Attorney to work out details. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated October 19, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Don Patton: I wanted to address the Council, really a carry over from our presentation last time and of course coming up on the next agenda. The issue City Council ~ting - October 19~ 1987 is credits on parks am] cooperation with us in developing Lake Susaru Just some numbers that we didn't speod time with last time. I wanted to give these to you. Based on a park fee of $415.00, a 10% increase in that is $41.50. Based on the size of the FJD 10% decrease,-if you will, in that is $41,500.00. Based on the numbers that we talked about before you at your last meeting, increase in trailways was in the vicinity of about $75,000.00. ~nere had been some other things that had ~ involved in this and I guess I would like to have you appreciate some of the empathy of the develop~ne~t gauntlet, and I'm going to call it that ar~ Chanhassen's involvement in that development gauntlet. One is getting the TH 212 corridor improvements out here. In that role I see you as being part of a development team of trying to create construction to try to create improvements for Chanhassen through that constructioru I know some of you expressed frustration with that process, getting fur~s for it. We have gone through the gauntlet also in some respects. We have I guess really resolved it down to several issues. One is parks and one is the pathways. Based on the resolution that was acted on at the last meeting we did get and I think it will cover part of the pathways the trails that we'll be putting in. We got 100% of that. We asked for 75% of the park fee based on the determination ar~ commitment that we were donating lands and I realize that the City is only acknowledging 35% of the land area that we're giving but if you look at it ar~ what will er~ up being used by the City, you're going to get about 20% of the lar~. About 60 acres. It's wetlands and I realize you're not accepting it for parklands but if anyone on the Council will tell me that you're not going to build pathways through it, if it will not become passive nature areas for the city, I won't believe you. The things regarding the parks, we're giving the lands. We've made a commitment to develop the parks which then leaves the City with the responsibility of equipping it. I can't believe that that's going to take in the vicinity of half a million dollars to do. I~ sorry, $250,000.00. I guess that would be the half. I would ask the Council at the next meeting to have it's staff come UP with what it is going to be with that and I guess as a part of this gauntlet, we've seen interest rates when we started this project at 9% which homeowners could buy. We're now seeing it aG 12% and who knows what's going to happen with interest rates with this thing today. Basically what we're doing is you folks have ~ tacking on costs to it~ We just got a letter from the County today that is tacking on additional costs in turn lanes and in talking about improving CR 17. I don't think people do understate] and I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop to see who else is going to add cost to it_ Our responsibility is to hold cost dowm. I~ reaching a real shaky position right now in trying to hold this project together. I'll be very honest about it with costs. I would like for the 'council to amend it's resolution to assist us in making housing more affordable which I know is one of your objectives in giving a greater percentage decrease in park fee. We are under the gun to hold costs dowru I think you should mandate your parks department that they may not get everything that they want either and help us in, I guess I'm suggesting somewhere between 60% a~d 70% as a' help in making this a workable project for us ar~ for the City. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REIMBURSe, KATHY ~Z, 790 PLEASANT Vim ROAD. Don Ashworth: City Council is aware of the fact that Mrs. Schwartz was in at the last meeting asking for reimbursement of the assessment for her property. 176 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 I asked the City Attorney for an opinion on this item and his opinion basically states that he is unable to tell who owns the fourth assessment. The original parcel was approximately 4 acres. It was subdivided basically in half. Schwartz' purchasing half of the property and the Soderberg's purchasing the other 2 acres. Mrs. Schwartz then subdivided her 2 acre parcel into the existing 2 lots. There is a fourth assessment that has been assigned to the original 4 acres and again, according to Roger, he is unable to say who actually benefits from that. My position, in looking at the record, show that the fourth assessment was clearly put against the property now owned by Soderberg and staff is recommending that the request by Mrs. Schwartz be. denied. Kathy Schwartz: Could we go through this from my side? When this all started was because in the splitting of the 2 acres, well we were contemplating splitting it into 3 lots and at that time Barb and I were over here working on it and we were just talking about the lot next door, the 2 acres, and I asked if that would ever be split. She said not it couldn't be because they didn't have enough street frontage. Then that got us into the ordinance about 90 feet per lot on street frontage. If you look at it that way, then our parcels would have the three sewers and the remaining would be one for the Soderbergs because they don't have 180 feet on the front street. ~nen we went back and as you know the story went we decided not to go for the three lots but I had been sent a letter by Jean saying that the 3 sewers were ours. When I was thinking in terms of having 3 lots, it was then that we determined that the 3 sewers were assigned to the Schwartz' and I said great. Tnen when we pulled back and decided not to go to the 3 lots, I just posed the question, does that mean there's a refund then on the third sewer and I got initial yes's and I went to Gary Warren who suggested that I should go to Don and that got us all to this spot. Tnen when I talked to Don he said at least we would have to have some kind of proof that at the purchase of your house that these sewers were for you. As a matter of fact I just found it tonight, it's in our Contract for ~. The Purchase Agreement was signed in July ar~ you remember that's what you and I were talking about on the lmhone where I said it was boiler plate and it was part of the agreement but it wasn't specific but I did not look at the Contract for ~---cd. Then as you know, Mr. Parker paid off three sewers in August. Now he of course owned that remaining parcel for years after that so the Soderbergs were not in the picture and certainly he would not have paid off his own sewers since it was our purchase.- In fact, the one remaining sewer, the fourth one, had been previously paid off so it seemed like very definitely that the three sewers were in response to our Purchase Agreement and then in the Contract for ~c~ it shows that the special assessments did need to be paid off by the Parkers. That was additionally typed in in the contract which I brought. End of story. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. Councilmembers have any questions they would like to ask Kathy? Councilman Johnson: Can we see the Contract? This just says special assessments will be paid off? Kathy Schwartz: That's correct. It doesn't say three. It's just that he went and paid off three. I just blocked off the money transaction. 133 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can ask staff a question while Jay's looking at that. This certainly seems to make logical sense as you describe it. Mrs. Schwartz made mention that there would be no reason to pay off a third assessment except to clear the property so it could change hands. Is that true? Don Ashworth: The Parkers had paid off their assessments as quickly as they had been put against their property so in making the original assessment, they came in and paid it off. We assessed them three additional units, they came in and paid those off. Any interconnection between that and the sale to Mrs. Schwartz, I don't ~--c that it's necessarily tied together. Councilman Boyt: If we look at total street frontage here, does anybody have an idea of h ow much that is? It looks like about Barbara Dacy: If you added 165 and 284 it c~mes up with 450. Councilman Boyt: So 284 is about t~D-thirds of that? What's the percentage? Gary Warren: 63%. Councilman Boyt: So about two-thirds. So much for the attempt at logic. So you're saying Don that there is a history that Mr. Parked paid off assessments as made? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: So we can't necessarily draw from this July-August connection that there was a parallel there? That he paid off the three assessments because he ~mnted to clear that particular piece of property? Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Kathy Schwartz: But DOn, when did he pay off the one assessment? ~ne three assessments were not made on that property in August, 198~? DOn Ashworth: I don't know the specific dates but I did ask Jean that questioru Those were the responses that she gave me. Mrs. Parker had come in, paid off the original assessment following the City Council's placing of that as a part of the original assessment ar~ then we went through reassessment and put on an additional three and Mrs. Parker came in and paid those off. Councilman Boyt: Do you have the date of that? Approximately. Did we go through the second assessment period sometime after July? Don Ashworth: I think I can get those records for you. Councilman Johnson: In here in one of the columns it says it looks like interest NIT. to 7/25/80 as the trunk availability charge. Something until 7/25/80. 134 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Don Ashworth: Paid 8/20/80. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's the date that they paid. The person below, it was deleted 6/16/80 by the Council so the Council was taking action on this sheet which is about the third page of your packet, the back half of it, in June of 1980. So something was going on here about that time period. Mayor Hamilton: It seems as though it should be easier to figure out than what we're trying to accomplish here. There are four assessments against that property that if Soderberg came in to split his lot and wanted to build another house on here, can he do it? Don Ashworth: He would have to get a variance from you to either allow him to build on Ridge Road as a private road or he would have to petition to have Ridge Road brought up to a public street standard. Either of which I contend would be easier to accomplish than to potentially get a third lot on the Schwartz' property. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a hard time thinking that the Council back then would have put an assessment against the property that they had to have an easement to build on. Councilman Boyt: I have a possible out here I would like to suggest. Since we have one property holder who has one-third of the road frontage, another that has two-thirds of a the road frontage and we have a sewer access that we're not going to use, why don't we take the money and split it two-thirds, one-thirds. They've got it by street frontage which is the typical way we assess these things and it's resolves. And we've also cleared up, since there's no longer a sewer water access there, we've limited the number of lots that can be put there so we've cleared up a potential future probl~n. Mayor Hamilton: Then if Soderberg were to come in and ask for a split it would be a reassessment process. He would need a variance anyway so they would have a whole other sewer and water charge. Councilman Boyt: Whoever did it would be reassessed. Councilman Horn: Can we do that or do we have to treat this under law like a vacation? DOn Ashworth: No, the City Council can make any form of decision it would like. If you establish the asses~nent, you have the power to eliminate it. Councilman Horn: Or split it? DOn Ashworth: Well in this case you're talking about a refund. I guess the o.nly question becomes one of does the original owner potentially have any recourse to say since they in fact had paid up all four, if the only property is only benefitting by three and they paid four, should they not then receive that fourth sewer assessment? 135 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Then it goes hack to that was part of the Purchase Agrc~---ment that the Schwartz' had, they were in effect paying that as a part of the purchase price if that can be substantiated. Councilman Johnson: The Purchase Agr~-------nent merely says that all special assessments would be paid off. Fairly standard thing in a Contract for ~. Did not specify, if there's a special assessment you will pay it off before we get it. Mayor Hamilton: But generally speaking, the cost of those are included in your sale price. I'd like to ask Dale if he recalls anything to do with this. Councilman Geving: Just from my perspective. When we put in the north service area, we stubbed in every 100 feet for sewer ar~ water and we put that in so when we did develop the area there would be availability in that area. It worked out real fine because as we went down any of these areas in the north and especially along this particular road, every 90 to 100 feet, I don't know exactly, I think it's 100, there's a stub plate. We didn't know how this would ever develop but the stubs are in the ground waiting for development. Of course, somebody had to pay for it so since there was only one lot there it would be natural for this City to assess one lot for the trunk and the water ar~ that's exactly what happened. Even though the total acreage had forest service connections potentially, only one was used. In 1980 when we went through the reassessment process and we attached another 3 assessment units against this property, the Parkers came in dutifully and paid it off just like Don said. So we're talking here roughly $5,000.00 per unit. It's not a measley amount. We're talking about a fairly substantial piece of change. Since that money has already been assessed, we've accounted for it, we never really wanted to give it hack. Once a piece of proprty is assessed for a piece of work that's been done, that money just goes to pay off the construction project. Mrs. Schwartz will never get three buildable lots out of that piece of property that she's trying to subdivide. It's just not going to happen. You might get two. It's my understanding that hased on the way the lots were then split and sold off by Mr. Parker, it would be logical that the two sewer assessments should have gone against the Soderberg property and two against the Schwartz property. I see that as really how it all developed. Now if Mr. Soderberg comes in and wants to build on the other part of his property, we've given lots of variances in this city. He could easily build on a non-public street on Ridge Boad or we could upgrade Ridge Road at some time in the future and it would be a legitimate service connection because he has the frontage. My opinion is that I agree with the Attorney's opinion on this that we should deny the request by Mrs. Schwartz. The property has split almost evenly. At least in my view in terms of the sewer connections ar~ there should be two placed on the Soderberg property and two placed against the Schwartz property and we should deny the request that is being placed before us tonight. That to me would cover all the previous sins. One of the problems that was done here, Jean Meuwissen probably made an off the har~, without a great deal of research, memorandum and sent it to Mrs. Schwartz. That has to be corrected. So whatever action is tonight, we should either rescind that memorandum officially from the City standpoint and say that there was really only two sewer assessments that should have ever been placed against that property and I~n not faulting Jean. I think that she did 136 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 send that letter without a great deal of research until she looked into it and she realized that she had made an error. At least that's my opinion. Then I see a note in here from the Mayor, apparently you had a conversation too with Kathy in terms of a refund but again, I think that was just an off-hand remark that Kathy is referring to in her letter that is not official. It is a statement and I believe that is in no way a commitment that a refund is in the offering. So my opinion is that there is not a third sewer service hook-up on Mrs. Schwartz' property. There are two. There has always bc~n two and I think contractually that's what she received from the Parkers so I would like to go on record as having stated that we should deny this in conformance with the Attorney's opinion and let it stand at that. If Mr. Soderberg comes in at some future time, he has already one paid assessment and if he gets a variance frem the City he could build another house there. Councilman Horn: I have a question on the statement that Don has made that three lateral sewer and water services were presented on Pleasantview and one was provided from Ridge Road. To me that's very key to the whole thing because that would imply that if there is one along Ridge Road, that leaves three along Pleasantview Road which is roughly our one-third/two-third split. Which if that's the case, if that's the way the stubs were divided, it's very clear how this could break out. Don Ashworth: The stub records would show that the engineers had anticipated that there would be one home coming off of Ridge Road and three off of Pleasantview. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, but Ridge Road isn't a city street. Don Ashworth: I recognize that but it appears as though that's the basis under which it was assessed. Councilman Geving: Tom, have you seen how many people have lived on Ridge Road? Mayor Hamilton: I know. Councilman Johnson: In 1973 there may not have ~n a requirement to be a city street for a lateral stub. I don't know. It seems like a lot of things were done, places developed as private streets throughout the town. Kathy Schwartz: I think one thing you're overlooking is that you guys already at another council meeting approved this. The question that was raised then was, and as Don pointed out to me was that I had to prove that this was a condition of the purchase which I thought tonight was the Contract for ~ would certainly prove. Also, we're overlooking the fact that we're talking about an ordinance. About the 90 foot street frontage under which conditions, as Barb was mentioning. Maybe you're going to say that what the ordinance says doesn't apply then maybe that's what we should say but based on 90 foot frontage per sewer. It's got to be legal. It can't just be wishy-washy or human opinions and based on our present ordinances, we're talking about street frontage. City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Without knowing, I think a lot of people have got a claim to this stub according to themselves. I don't know if the Soderberg's are arour~ or in attendance tonight or made any kind of statements. Mr. Parker paid it originally. I have no idea who this really belongs to. Everybody probably thinks, I'm sure Mr. Parker would love to have $5,MM0.M0 back. The Soderberg's if they're in that situation. I have trouble giving somebody some money that I really don't know who it belongs to. Councilman Boyt: I think a decision here is possible depending upon which facts you want to listen to. If we follow along Don's logic that ene of these was in fact intended for Ridge Road, right or wrong, if that's where it was intended, then there is sufficient street frontage to provide three on Pleasantview and I would agree with Clark that it seems pretty straight forward where those go. I have a question, I guess I would like to clarify have we in fact already made this decision that we're going to reimburse this amount and it's simply a matter of who w~ give it to? Don Ashworth: It was at a Council meeting. I do not interpret the council's action to be one that you had authorized the reimbursement. I pointed out the question and asked that the item ~ed to be researched and tt~ Council acknowledged that it needed to be researched. Mayor Hamilton: Isn't that right Kathy? That's how I recall too. We just said that if there's a refund to be made, it would be made but we needed to find out more information about it. Kathy Schwartz: Actually Don's letter last time recommended that the amount should be refunded to me and that was in his staff letter to you. That night, it was about 11:00. You guys all okayed it and then Don added, just after you passed the motion, that's if it was paid and I said well of course. We're not asking for money that wasn't paid. It just seemed an incredible comment but of course I agree with that. So then we went back and that's when I talked with DOn on the phone ar~ he said well we would have to know that it was earmarked for you. It would be have to be in a Purchase Agreement and that's when I said it wasn't in the Purchase Agreement ar~ then this being the Contract for Dccd, I thought the issue was complete ar~ now ISn hearing another interpretation. I'm sorry, I'm upset. Councilman Geving: I think you're getting the official interpretation Kathy. Kathy Schwartz: Another Council meeting... Councilman Geving: No, no. This is the Council meeting where it was brought before us as a legitimate agenda .item. Kathy Schwartz: It was on the agenda last time. Councilman Geving: No decision ~s made. Mayor Hamilton: We'd have to look at those Minutes but I think it was. .City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Boyt: To follow up on this. We apparently don't have, I don't have sufficient information to feel comfortable voting on this one way or the other. I think we have some conflicting information. I think we want to check our own minutes and see where we left that. I think we need to contact Mr. Soderberg and find out what his particular position is on this thing. If we decide to reimburse this money to anyone, and I hear Dale quiet clearly saying that's a poor decision. I think we're going to have to get more information before we can decide who to do that. Maybe we just need to decide if we're going to do it all. Mayor Hamilton: Is Mr. Parker still in the area? Kathy Schwartz: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Would he he any help in that whole process? Do you think he'd remember? Kathy Schwartz: It's fine. Certainly it's your choice. I just thought it was an ordinance issue and it's either a yes or a no based on ordinance. It's not personal opinion. Whether it's mine, Soderberg's or Parker's. Mayor Hamilton: That's not what Ih saying. We're not making a personal opinion. We're trying to find the facts so we can make a decision based on the facts. Kathy Schwartz: Well Soderberg wasn't in the picture at that point. He wasn't in the picture for years after that so I don't know what question you could ask him but of course Parker would be around and willing to answer questions, of course. Councilman Horn: I recall too that we acted on this but apparently it's very obvious to me that we had different facts presented when we looked at this the first time than what we have now. As I recall, the discussion going it was clear that there were three assessments against this particular parcel and then the question came up would we refund one since it was only going to be split into two. The facts that we have before us tonight are totally different than that. Councilman Boyt: Let' s table this. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to get back and get additional information? Don Ashworth: I '11 check with Soderbergs, previous minutes and Parkers. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table special assessment reimbursement for Kathy Schwartz on 790 Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF MOVING PERMIT FROM 600 CARVER BEACH ROAD TO 6911 YUMA DRIVE, MARGE ROSSING, APPLICANT. 10 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Th~ house to be moved is located on the Shadowmere property which is owned by Jim Fenning ar~ urger construction at this time. The h~me to be moved is approximately 1,100 square feet. There is also a detached garage on the property that is also proposed to be moved and the house is to be broken up into three sections to be moved and the detached garage will be moved also. The proposed route will follow the current road that is under construction in the Shadowmere subdivision, along Big Horn Drive in the Chanhassen Vista subdivision, along Kerber Blvd. and then north o~ Redwing Lane and then turning right onto Carver Beach Boad down to Yuma Drive and almost down to the end of Yuma Drive at the base of the hill and the intersection of Woodhill Road. The building dates back to approximately the early 1960's. You also have a letter in your packet from a contractor that rebuilt the interior of the home in 1975. According to his opinion, the home was in compliance with the State Building Code at that time. Article VI, Section 19 of our current code provides some standards for the Council on which to evaluate the moving permit request. The four standards are you have to determine if the houses are in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. If the current structure is well maintained and in a good state of repair. If the site to which it is going to be moved on is in compliance with the zoning code. Finally, if there will be any significant or materially depreciate surrounding property values in the area of which it's going to be moved. We have the Public Safety Director and Building Inspector evaluate this request. I have to point out some additional information then what was presented in the staff report. There could be, if you'll notice in the Public Safety Director's comments about that the applicant should conduct a sw~ of the route to determine if there are conflicts with utility lines. ~bere potentially could be one with a connection on the south side of Carver Beach Road from the phone lines over to a residence, I believe it's 840 Carver Beach Road. There is also at the Carver Beach Road ar~ Nez Perce intersection, there is also some utility lines crossing there. They are fairly low. It depends on the height of the building and how high the moving vehicle is going to be. Also, Yuma Drive becomes a one-way street going north south of Ponderosa and the Yuma Drive section in that area is slightly narrower than Yuma to the north of Ponderosa or Carver Beach Road. I notice a lot of vehicles being parked along the~, e. Most likely from the people that live along YUma Drive. We would have to know the exact times and dates so we can notify those people to move their vehicles so that the moving vehicle could travel safely down the road and make a safe drop onto that lot. The building inspector inspected the structure. There does need to be a lot of repair to it. He's recommending that detailed plans be sutanitted. He indicated a roofing section to show how the building's going to be re-attached. Foundation plan has to meet the energy codes and essentially has to be brought up to the current UBC standards. The house movers is Stubbs House Movers from Long Lake. State law requires that houes movers obtain a certificate of insurance. Mr. Stuhbs does have one in the amount of $500,000.00. This is a viable tool if there is any damage to the roads along the route, the City has this vehicle to claim repair to street damage. We were concerned about Carver Beach Road and Yuma Drive. They were constructed 15 to 20 years ago and the base of those roads are not as well built as Kerber Blvd. or Big Horn Drive or some of the subdivision streets in Chaparral. Therefore, we have made it a condition that the mover utilize 6 axles with a total of 24 tires to reduce the tonage weight per axle as much as possible. The style of home is a 11 i4/) City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 rambler design. A walk-out on the current property. Tne house will be placed on a foundation according to the plans on the Yuma Drive location. Yuma Drive lot is approximately 20,000 square feet. Tne plan that they have indicated, the site plan that is shown, they do appear to meet all required building setbacks. 30 feet in the front and 10 feet on the side and 30 feet in the rear so if the Council is to approve the moving permit, the staff is recommending implementation with 7 conditions. Number 1 of which is four conditions from the Public Safety Director's memorandum which include notifying the city of the dates and times of the proposed move. Resolving the conflicts with the utility lines and arranging for appropriate escort services in the front and rear of the house moving vehicle. Secondly, submission of two sets of complete building plans as detailed with an inspector's report. Third, a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the building official deems that all UBC requirements have been met. Four, that all the required improvements be completed by June 1, 1988. Fifth, a tree removal plan on the Shadowmere property shall be submitted if tree removal is proposed beyond that which was originally approved. No other debris from removing the home is permitted to be buried on site and must be hauled away from the site. Finally, the mover shall utilize a 6 axle trailer bed with 24 tires. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this item? It's a public hearing, now's the time to do it. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Some of the comments you made Barb, aren't a lot of those things up to the mover to make sure that the wires are out of the way and the vehicles that they might be going down are out of the way? Isn't it up to them to notify in a moving situation like this and not the City? I would think that would be a condition of the pexmit. Barbara Dacy: ~nat was a recommendation from the Public Safety Director in the sense that the city should be notified of when and how the move is taking place that may damage or a safety situation would occur. The lines fall down or an electrical outage. Obviously we're going to be contacted first. I think we should be fully aware of the implications of the entire move. Mayor Hamilton: I guess what I~n saying is, I would not be in favor of allowing the home to be moved if we were not 100% assured that those things won't happen and if the mover can't be sure that those things aren't going to happen, then I would think that the home shouldn't be moved or precautions should be taken ahead of time so corrections are made and wires are raised or whatever needs to be done so those things won't happen. They just aren't going to happen. It's got to be a condition. Barbara Dacy: You may want to incorporate that into your approval such that if any problems arise that staff can not resolve that maybe the item should cane back for Council consideration. Councilman Boyt: My major concern here is the time of the move. You're moving through residential areas and I don't think it's a good idea to start a 12 141 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 diesel up to move a house at 1:00 in the mornir~ so I'd like to see us restrict the time of this move to normal business hours. I think we probably want to avoid rush hour. Maybe we go somewhere alor~ the lines of 10:00 until 3:00. I understand the typical moving times are 1:00 to 5:00 in the morning and given the residential nature of this, I don't think that's goir~j to work. I think everybody in there has some backdoor if they want to get around that house. There's an opportunity to do that. Mayor Hamilton: I think the biggest problem is traffic and the]~re going to have the street blocked for a while and it's probably more important that people get to their homes and let emerger~.--y vehicles have access to the streets. Councilman Boyt: But they can' t. Mayor Hamilton: Moving more quickly in the 1:00 to 5:00 timeframe is going to be a better time for them to move. Councilman Boyt: I think from a traffic standpoint 1:00 to 5:00 would probably be better since I would hope there is no traffic out there but the areas it's going to move on, wl~_n it moves en Kerber, it's not going to tie up of Kerber Blvd.. When it moves on a residential street it probably will but those residential streets all have more than o~e way to get to any given point on it. I don't think we're being fair to the people who are living here to say that you can start up a very noisy machine at 1:00 in the morning and run it for the next hour within earshot of your house_ If that's t/~ way it's got to be, I'd really like to see this house moved but I don't want to see it moved in that time. Councilman Horn: I'm just curious if the mover who is proposing this with tt~ applicant is aware of what it would take to get it up to current code. Mr. Rossing: I went through the house and as far as insulation, the wiring in the base of it is all old... It's got 3 1/2 inchesin the wall. Councilman Horn: Is that's what is current code? Councilman (~eving: Normally when we do this we have pictures of the house. I'd like to see the pictures of this particular home to see if it fits with what I consider a standard for that area. ~nat's one of our regulations. Do we have any idea yet from the mover how long this move is going to take in terms of hours if everything went well? Who is the mover? Is he here? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Geving: Have you got an estimate. Can it be done in one day? Marge Rossing: I would guess the main part of the house would take one day, one night for sure. I think ~aller structures would be much quicker. Councilman (~_:ving: I~ talking about the house now. One day. I guess I'm responding to what Bill was talking about. One thing that I'd like to s~e in 13 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 our conditions is that the City be informed at least one week before the actual date of moving and that all of the highline wires, whatever obstructions are going to be in place, that have to be removed, are well aware of what has to be done and that we assign an inspector to monitor this project from the time that it moves that site until it's placed on Yuma. That's one of the conditions that I'd like to place on the City Staff. I have a question about what we're going to do with the foundation ar~ the basement area. What are you going to do with that area? It's going to have to be filled. Are you planning on doing that Mrs. Rossing? Mr. RDssing: We'll have to work that out between us and the developer. Councilman Geving: But that's not good enough. I want it to be a condition as part of the approval process t_hat you're going to haul away all the debris, the foundation material and you fill the hole. Okay? That's what you intesd to do isn't that correct? Okay. I notice that we did have a question and comments from Mr. Woitalla on the suitability of the building. He remodeled the building apparently. Do we have the correspondening letter or something from our building people? Is this Ron Julkowski, he is saying basically the same thing? ~nat the house is in substantially good repair and that it meets code so we're getting this both from a builder ar~ from our own building inspector? Barbara Dacy: Right. The specific comments that he had was that the roof section will have to be rebuilt and he wanted to see. a reattachment plan for the three sections of the houses so we're looking at four trips here. ALmost four moving activities. Three sections of the house and one for the detached garage. Councilman Geving: So it really can't be done all in one day. Marge Rossing: No, I said major parts of the big house. Councilman Geving: So it's over several days, all hopefully within one week. Would that be proper? I have on other questions. Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on his comments on the time especially when you're talking several days in a row of a diesel going by your house at 1:00 in the morning. Tnat would give me a problem. The other one is on condition 7, you say you would have to utilize a 6 axle trailer bed with 24 tires. Tnat sounds like a minimum to me that you're trying to get at. If they want to go with an 8, that would work too. Barbara Dacy: Tne mover indicated to me over the phone that that would be the closest that he could get to a 5 ton per axle weight. That's what we were discussing. Councilman Johnson: But if you wanted to use more you could use more. Gary Warren: Isn't thatmaximu~ per axle. 14 143 City Council --~cting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Is that for each house section or just for the largest section? Barbara Dacy: It was my interpretation that this should be for each section because the main concern is Carver Beach Road ar~ l~_w,~ Drive and the sub-base. Councilman Johnson: I think the main concern here is really the noise issues. Also, if you've got a car in the way at 1:00 in the morning, you got to go wake the guy up and get it out of there if he just got home and parked it there and forgot about it from the day before. It may be easier durir~ the day. It may be harder during the day because people will be at work. Marge Bossing: Can we also do somethir~ like put up no parking signs during the time? Councilman Johnson: I think that's something you have to work out with the Public Safety Department is how you're going to go down a one-way street. You're going to reverse that street temporarily and a few things like that. There are a few details to be worked out that I think staff should work with you on. My personal one is what Bill has there. My personal opinion is that the noise issue of the early morning for several days in a row will be a major issue going down a lot of residential streets. This isn't like going down a highway. Marge Bossing: I would think they would only take the big house in the late night hours ar~ the ~naller ones would probably go during the day. Mayor Hamilton: I think what we ~ to see is a plan of how this thing is going to be moved. If it's going to be done the~ we need to have a plan telling us when each portion is going to be moved and what the proposed time of moving that is and I think that needs to be brought back to the Council. I don't think we can make a decision based on what we're seeing. I think what you're hearing is, moving it is fine but we need, with all the conditions listed, there are some others that they have to move. All of the wires at a time so there are no conflicts in the moving process. I would also want to see a moving plan that would ~ell us what portion of the house is going to be moved wheru What time they intend to start and whe~ they intend to finish and if they can't get it from Point A to Point B in one particular moving period of time, where are they going to stop? They're not going to stop in the middle of a residential street for a days period of time so we ~ to know that informatioru I think Mr. Stuhbs should be able to probably help give you his moving plan. Marge Bossing: ~ do we come back? Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting. Councilman (~eving: Noveuber 2nd. Marge Bossing: That is going to cause a problem because Shadowmere is going to wreck that house. 15 Ci.ty Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Then you should perhaps get a plan together as quickly as as you can and bring it to staff and perhaps we can have a telephone meeting or something once we've all had a chance to review it. Councilman Johnson: Tom, can we make those conditions of approval? ~hat staff reviews that'. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure we can do that if that's acceptable to everybody. Susan Albee: I was just going to add Mr. Mayor that the house that you're reviewing, ...that has been designated that if the house isn't moved by the 15th of November it will be destroyed and removed from the premises. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so you have until the 15th. Just make that a condition of approval then that there would be a plan submitted to staff for their approval outlining what portions of the home would be moved when. If they do not complete the move in days period of time, where they intend to have that portion of the home sit until it can be moved during the next day. Councilman Horn: I have two other concerns that I don't think you've talked about. Mayor Hamilton: And the time of the moving. Councilman Geving: Don't you think though that Tom, in regards to moving, that it should at all costs be moved one entire section in one day. We don't want half of that structure sitting somewhere on one of our side streets in the Chaparral area. We just don't want that. We want it to be completely moved from the site. If it's the garage or the main house and at least be in the area where it's going to be placed on Yuma. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm saying. Marge Rossing: I think the garage is going to cc~e first. Councilman Boyt: I've heard us say that point 6 as it stands now, no debris from removing the home is permitted to be buried on the site. It should be interpretted to read that no debris from the home should be left on site so that everything is going to be removed. Councilman Horn: Including the foundation? Councilman Boyt: Including the foundation. Point 7, reflecting on what Jay said, that we want a minimum of a 6 axle trailer bed with 24 tires for each section I think is what Jay indicated if that's at all practical. I don't remember who made this point but someone said that another point should be that we have an inspector monitoring the move. I would like to suggest that for hours, whenever possible, the move be scheduled between 10:00 aJn. and 3:00 pzn. and staff may say that's absolutely impossible. I'll accept that but I would like for them to shoot for some time. 16 145 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Another condition was that all wires are moved ahead of time and that there will be no power outages ar~ there will be no telephone lines down. Then the last condition is that we will receive a plan for the move, what part of the house is being moved wheru What time schedule so we're aware of that ahead of time. That's to be sulxnitted to the staff for their approval prior to the move taking place. Councilman Johnson: On the utilities down, from what I was hearing from Barb, there's one phone line going to one house. If that person says I don't care if I-don't have my phone that afternoon, I'm at work anyway. Mayor Hamilton: That's between the mover and that resident to work that out. Councilman Johnson: Right but your condition is it has to maintain service. Mayor Hamilton: I'm saying that all those things have to be worked out ahead of time. I don't care if they disconnect their lines as long as they approve it ar~ have it in writing that t~ can do that so we don't get complaints here saying that our telephone Ms out of service for 6 hours. Councilman Johnson: Everybody that's going to be out of service is going to know it and have approved it. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that one of the considerations we make in these are the conformance of the structure to the neighborhood it's iD. If I look at these pictures it looks to be like there's going to have to be a considerable amount of work done to make this conform to the neighborhood that it's going into and I'm wondering if there's a clear understanding between the developer and the City as to what it's going to take to get this structure up to code and to fit within the existing neighborhood. What I'd hate to see happen here is that the mover goes in with one set of expectations and the city has a different set of expectations and as we go along, pretty soon it ends up costing much more than putting a new structure in. Barbara Dacy: An option available to the Council is, and it's in the ordinance, the Council can require a letter of credit in the amount of the proposed improvements to the home. That if something happens along the way that the improvements are not made, that the City can draw on that letter of credit to bring it up to standards. Councilman Horn: Who sets that anount? Barbara Dacy: What we'd have to do is receive an estimate of the amount of repairs or the amount of work to be done on the building. I would imagine that the inspector would have to verify those estimates then we use that as a basis for a letter of credit. Councilman Horn: Is there any notification here to any of the existing people in the neighborhood that this is going to'be moved in? Barbara Dacy: Yes, the people around the 6911 Y~ua Drive area w~re notified. 17 Ci.ty Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Horn: Are any of them here? Apparently they don't care then. Councilman Boyt: I think that letter of credit is a reasonable guarantee for the City. Councilman Johnson: Barb, I just got looking at the drawing and how they're going to improve and place the house back on the lot. How does this fit with our requirement that we have an attached garage. Tney're installing a detached garage here. Barbara Dacy: The attached garage was required if you have a two story house. I don't think it was required for a rambler. Councilman Johnson: I just thought it was all new construction. Mayor Hamilton: This isn't new construction. Barbara Dacy: If you have a split foyer or two story design, then a two car garage must be attached but for a one story rambler design, it's just a minimum of 960 square feet. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the moving permit of the residence from 600 Carver Beach Road to 6911 Yuma Drive with the following cond i ti ons: . Compliance with the recommendation of the Public Safety Director's n~amorandum dated October 15, 1987. 2~ Submission of two sets of complete building plans indicating how the reconnection of the building parts is to occur, providing for a new roof section, providing for a the required egress windows, compliance with the Energy Code as well as the Uniform Building Code and any other items as required by the Building Official. . A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the Building Official deems that all Uniform Building Code requirements have been met. e All required improvements to the building shall be completed by June 1, 1988. A letter of credit shall be submitted in the amount of the improvements and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official and City Planner. . A tree removal plan on the Shadowmere property shall be submitted if tree removal is proposed beyond that which was approved in the original subdivision approval. Tne developer wil remain responsible for assuring that the final street grades and plans and specifications are in ommpliance with orginal approval. 6. No debris from the home is permitted to be buried on the site. 18 147 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 7. The mover shall utilize a minimum of a 6 axle trailer bed with 24 tires. 8. A time schedule shall be su]mnitted detailing what sections of the house will be moved at what times and where the sections will be located after the move. ..' 9. An Inspector shall be assigned to monitor the move. 10. The move shall occur bet~ the house of 10:00 a.m. ar~ 3:00 p zn.. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor and Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to make a comment as to why you voted against the motion? Councilman Geving: I'm not really impressed with the pictures that I see here. I haven't looked at the home myself. We've ~_n trying to upgrade the whole area of Carver Beach a lot and lb not impressed with what I see here as being moved. It will take another season before it's finally reconstructed on the site. At least until next summer. I don't think it's a major improvement to Carver Beach to move this house. For that reason I~ not in favor. I think financially it's going to cost a lot of money to move this house and it just makes a lot of sense to me to build a new house on that lot so I would be in favor of denying this and building a newer structure and something that fits on Yuma Drive. Councilman Horn: That's exactly my reason. TIMB~ ESTATES, ~/~r.rACE OTIS: CONSIDERATION TO ~AIVE APPLICATION FEES. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicants had requested the Council to consider waiving fees of the soil consultant. The City depending on the number of lots for a rural subdivision receives money at the time of application. ~he City holds a fund and that is paid out to Roger Mac/~meier and Jim Anders(x~ as the bills come in. To the size of this subdivision and the number of on site visits required and investigation, the bill came out to $1,800.00 over ar~ above the $1,250.00 that they had paid at the start. Staff feels that the fees, although it's a lot of money but that it was necessary for us to get the final report from Roger Machmeier ar~ Jim Anderson. ~he applicant feels they were excessive. Wally Otto: I don't think our comments are necessarily on whether it's excessive or not. Our feelings are that a lot of those costs were generated by not having a plan. We feel we were part of an experiment. We realize that this is a new thing for the City and it wour~ up where a lot of these visits could have been resolved had he come out ar~ done what he suggested later in his letters after the fact. In meeting out on the site ar~ establishing 19 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 methods ar~ procedures and this was never done. We made a request, a formal request that w~ do meet on the site but it w~s honored. Councilman ~eving: Our city consultant expended an additional $1,800.00 Wally to do soil borings. To do testing on your site and the reason that he didn't come out to your site, as I read it here, is that he wasn't sufficiently satisfied with the information that he had to work with. Whenever we have a consultant working with us who does the work supposedly for the developer because it's in your benefit that he's doing this. Not for the City's. He's doing it to protect the City's interest but the fact that he had to go back there several times to review the property and it cost him an additional $1,800.00 doesn't mean that the citizens of Chanhassen should pay the $1,800.00 that is rightfully part of your billing. Although we paid it, I think it was paid in error. I think this should be assessed back to you Wally and Mr. Hartung because the work was done for your benefit. Now surely there was an experimental phase here. We did put in some new criteria but at the same time, they felt that the work that they had to do in the office wasn't sufficient. They had to go on the site. Look at the property and they didn't have the detail knowledge available to them and that's why they didn't meet with you and as a result I think someone's going to have to pay the bill and I can tell you, it's not going to be the city of Chanhassen. I'm a taxpayer. All the people in this room are probably taxpayers of the City and we're not going to fund the soil borings and the work that was done by our associate out there for your benefit. Wally Otto: I'll agree with your statement on there. Our intention is not for the City to pay one penny of it. Ours is that he does not get paid for these things because he did not make available to our consultant prior to starting on what it was he wanted. This is what we wanted to have a meeting for. Ours is not an implication that the City or the taxpayers pay one penny of it. We didn't authorize that pala~ent. Councilman Geving: Here's the other situation I find here. When we established this contract with Mr. Machmeier, we probably made a low estimate of what it was really going to take so we established $1,250.00. Tnat probably was very low and not realistic based on what he later found out when he came back to us and really said based on my findings in Chanhassen with the soil conditions that you've got, we're going to have to look at every piece of property on the spot. We can't do it in the shop and that's why part of our approval tonight will probably be the raising of that lower limit from $1,250.00 to something greater than that because the estimate in the first place was bad. Whether or not you authorized him is not the important thing. He's in contract with us to protect the interest of the City and if you want this development to proceed, someone's going to have to pay that $1,800.00 I can tell you that right now. Wally Otto: Tne thing of it is, the price came fr~m himself. Councilman Geving: It wasn't an agreed upon price. Wally Otto: Didn't he make that suggestion though? 20 I49 City Council _F~cting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Geving: But we also found out that it was not sufficient. It was an estimate. Wally Otto: Also many of these soil borings were in the wrong places to begin with o Councilman Geving: I'm done with my comments but I can tell you right now we're not going to give you credit. Richard Hartung: We don't expect the City, just like Wally mentioned, we don't expect the city or the taxpayers, we're taxpayers too. What we feel is that many of the, that he could have saved a lot of these trips out here if he had gone out earlier and told where to put these borings. We had made many extra borings, w~ paid for extra borings too. Councilman Boyt: I think we have to go back and look at what we're after here and that is we don't want sewage out on the ground. If that costs $1,80~.00 to keep sewage where it belongs, it's well worth it. So there's not a question of whether or not we should take how many borings. We should take enough borings so that anybody could look at it and say you're covered. You're not going to have a problem. In this particular instance, we have your comments in our packet that indicate that you don't feel that it was done appropriately. We have our consultant's engineer saying that he doesn't feel the information that you provided was appropriate. I think that the spot we're at right now is everybody agrees that you have suitable sites to locate your sewage system. To me, as I said to begin with, I think that's worth the money that was spent and in order to have us or you take action against the consultanting engineer, I guess somebody's going to have to show me that he acted in bad faith. I don't see any evidence that supports that at this point. Wally Otto: I have to apologize for the fact that Mr. Waldron, our consulting soils analyst isn't able to be with us this evening. He had another meeting. To give you a little bit more backgrour~, Mr. Waldron was a student of Mr. Machmeier so what he learned he learned fr~ him and he was given a degree in this part of it. They had discussions out there. First .of all we had all these perc tests and soil borings made and paid for. Then there was a change. We went along with this. He said he didn't want any perc tests. He wanted only soil borings~ So we ordered the soil borings and we paid for that. This is quite a bit higher priced than what we're talking here. And the first borings he took, he came out there and said well you can't drill in a straight line. He didn't know that before so he had to redrill those. After he redrilled those he came out there and said well, they're going the wrong direction. He didn't know that they had to go in a different direction so they redrilled in a different directioru Then he came out after that and he says but you can't bore them with a machine, you have to do it by hand so we redrilled those by hand. Those are the things Ikn objecting to. Some of the things in there on a genuine consulting basis he made an extra trip that's fine but some of those trips I feel are not justified. He could have told us those things ahead of time. And we were consulting with planners here and we asked for names of people who would be acceptable and t~ gave us three of them and we took Mr. Waldron and they had no problem with that. 21 1'50 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I would suggest to you that you, just what you've described to me, that you go back to Mr. Waldron and you ask Mr. Waldron for some of your money. Apparently he didn't know how to conduct these tests and it's not our consultant's role to come out and teach your consultant how to do the job. Councilman Horn: I guess I'd like to get our staff's perspective, maybe Gary or Barb, as to the appropriateness of the method that Mr. Machmeier used in conducting this. Do you think his actions were appropriate or did he have creeping elegance as we say in asking for that information? Barbara Dacy: Originally as we eluded to in the memorandum, the fee schedule that was set up was a two phase fee schedule. The $1,250.00 was an initial deposit. Then in that memorandum the contract with Mr. Machmeier he explained that if there needed to be additional site visits, verification of the soil borings, looking at the relationship of that with drainage easements or creeks or whatever, that that would be an additional cost beyond that initial escrow deposit and that would be billed directly to the applicant. Councilman Horn: I understand that part of it but my question was, did Mr. Machmeier use the proper procedure? I'm not talking about the billing. If we had this proposal come in to us today, would we still take the same process and would it cost the same amount as it did this time or was there some improper procedure that was followed here that created an excess cost? Barbara Dacy: I know of no improper procedure at this point. I guess maybe we're missing the key actors. W~'re missing Mr. Waldron and Mr. Machneier. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't think there was improper action. I do believe that if it came through today that it would be done differently. I know that when the Gagne property and the one on the north on Lake Riley, the same thing happened where the reports sents were submitted and the data was not correct or acceptable to Mr. Machmeier and they did have to perform more tests and they did have to go to the site several times. As for Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson, it was good that they did it because there were a lot of problems with that site and there were sites that wouldn't be acceptable for the systems but ~eorge Nelson, the owner of that property, is developing a subdivision on the south of Pioneer Trail and this time they are going out to the site with Mr. Machmeier and look at the site but it wasn't thought that would be necessary. I guess it was felt that the people who were going to be performing the soil borings would know enough to drill and take them in various ways. Councilman Horn: So those are generally accepted in the industry as methods for doing these things? Jo Ann Olsen: I think so. Councilman Horn: Do you agree with that Gary?. Gary Warren: In the way of our specialities I guess. Tnat's one of the reason the City obviously has turned to Mr. Machmeier or Mrs. Rockwell as far as our wetland areas are concerned and I haven't gotten into the details 22 151 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 primarily because we rely on Mr. Machmeier's expertise and his reputation for coming up with it. I think there's'no question from the little bit I've ~ involved with it that like any transition process where you're coming up with a new procedure here that you do end up having some confusion ar~ maybe some duplication on some work at no intent of anybody I think when they issue. Likewise, just knowing soils ar~ the difficulties with dealing with soils, I can very well see where we can get some materials in here that can be reviewed by the soil consultant ar~ say this doesn't make any sense or I've got some of these questions here I'd like to go back and take some more here or a different method here. I think especially as is relates to the septic systems, you can't be too cautious when you're getting the proper amount of input on soil borings. Councilman Horn: I guess I can be somewhat sympathetic to a learning process on the city's part. I would be more inclined to go along with what we think a new fee structure should be as an appropriate amount. I don't remember what the recommendation was for a new fee :structure her~ However, if there is something unique to this site that would make an exception then I would have no problem going along with Dale's recommendation. Councilman Johnson: I noticed several times they were trying to get some lots staked out so they could figure out where the borings were actually taken and when they finally did get ~ staked after several trips out there for the same two lots, they found out they weren't on the lot they were supposed to be. They were looking for Lot 14 and they were on Lot 21 and when you're trying to get a soil boring at the site of the septic system, that -_._~ed to be one of the big problems here is they had to keep coming back until they finally did get a surveyor out there or something ar~ put up some stakes and found out yes, the soil borings were taken in the wrong lot and there were no soil borings for Lot 14 or 21, whichever the case may be. I see a lot of frustration in Roger coming back and forth on that one issue. To randomly poke holes in the ground is one thing but we need to plan where your septic systems are going to be, then look and see what the soils are at that site and the types of soils we have out here. If you're in western Nebraska it's all the same. It's pretty much uniform soil within 10~ yards of each other and random sites are okay. Out here where the glaciers came through, you can be 10 feet away and have totally different soils. You ~ those sites right where the septic systems are going to be and that's what Roger kept trying to find out. Were the holes in the same places that the septic systems are going to be and as it turned out, he was right. They were in the wrong places. I see a lot of this was maybe poor communication. Poor cooperation. I'm not sure what but in the end I think Roger was justified when they finally did say yes, we did them in the wrong place. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with Bill. I think it's not up to us to train somebody in the field and if your consultant that you had hired had a question, he should have asked somewhere along the line so he knew where he was supposed to be drilling. Do you have a final ccmm~.nt? Wally Otto: Yes, I've got a co_mm_ ent and I'm reading from Mr. Machmeier's letter of advice to the planning staff here. Expertise in site evaluation should be used before any lot lines are drawn. So I can ~ where you 23 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 couldn't have. This is his own suggestion and there weren't any lot lines drawn. We reviewed that. I didn't get a chance to talk with the engineers and lot lines, the one he made the requests of... I guess our part of it in here is somewhere along the line, and this is for the benefit of the city in the future, we're talking about a new process and you're going back and I think there should have probably been a little bit of time ahead to lay out on what Mr. Machmeier. I guess I made the suggestion here a long time that a person should use somebody like that and now I'm beginning to wonder if I did the right thing but I think the big mistakes were made in not having the groundwork done before. We went out and spent thousands of dollars getting the first ones to satisfy your ordinance. We did that. We made the decision and we spent twice as much as we feel we should have and then we get this time. A lot of requests, we feel it wasn't laid out ahead of time. We feel we were part of the experiment. We're not indicating that the City should pay for it. He probably should have laid out at the start the requirements he makes as a specialist in this field and we would convey it to our engineers and they in turn the soil consultants that we hired and a lot of these things would have been eliminated. Mayor Hamilton: Well I think it goes both ways. The engineers and your consultant should have asked also what he's requiring. Wally Otto: They did. They asked him many times but they always got the answers after the fact. They went out and they made samples. He came back and I said I want two. Our consultant on his own them hired a 9 states soil specialist to come out here. He's a certified soil scientist. He came out and he disputed the readings on it and this you can confirm with Mr. Waldron. There were differences. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we should get away from this. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a motion that the City has found the city consultant Mr. Roger Machmeier acted in good faith and the charges are not excessive and therefore deny the request to waive the application fees. The $1,800.00 should be paid by the applicant prior to the signing of the final plat. All voted in favor and motion carried. TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, ~I~LLACE OTTO: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Councilman Geving: I think I'd like to discuss this for a moment. As you know I've been an advocate of attempting to find space for a city cemetary for a long time. As our city grows and continues to move ahead into the next century, I find that the 1 acre lot that we have known as the city cemetary is just inadequate. There is probably only a few lots left there. It has always been my hope and the hope of the Council that we could expand that area and pick up another 5 acres and the most logical acreage that we could add to the city cemetary would be the lots that we're looking at tonight on this plat. Either Lots 1 or 2. Just north and to the east of the existing cemetary. The problem that I have from a personal standpoint is that if we let the plat stand and we don't make an attempt to negotiate with Mr. Otto and Mr. Hartung regarding the cemetary, we'll lose this opportunity once and for all. I just 24 153 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 feel that we've ~ trying in good faith to negotiate. We just haven't been able to get together and that's my position. It still remains that if we are going to have a city cemetary, that this is the most logical place for expansion to take place. I had c~me prepared tonight to table this issue until we had an opportunity to negotiate with you t~ fellows. Richard Hartung: Did you try to negotiate with us once before? Councilman Geving: Yes. Remember the time we met in Mr. Klingelhutz' office. It was s~me time ago. Richard Hartung: I was there. ~at happened? Why didn't you buy it? Councilman Geving: Well, it just never materialized. We just didn't get our act together. It wasn't your fault. It wasn't our fault. We just didn't get together and recently the city has more or less appointed Don Ashworth and myself, the Council has designated the two of us to work together with you in hopes that we can possibly pick up an additional one lot or whatever we can pick up to add on to the city cemetary so that's sort of where IR coming from. I wanted to air that out with the Council before we move ahead with the plat approval. Richard Hartung: I called them up myself and made it available and Wally called them up. Mayor Hamilton: At what price? I understand the prices are a little... Richard Hartung: The same as all the lot prices. That's the cheapest per square .foot price of any lot we have out there by the way. We have $17,000.~0 offered so far on lots. Councilman Horn: Improved or unimproved? Richard Hartung: They're all the same lots. Councilman Horn: So you're cc~paring an ]__~ml~roved lot price to raw land. Richard Hartung: We don't have any raw lar~. Councilman Horn: But we w~uld buy raw land for a c~r~=tary. Mayor Hamilton: Everything is raw land out there. Nothing's ~n improved. Cour~ilman Horn: He's talking lot prices. I assume that's, with roads and that type of thir~ so I don't think they're comparable. Councilman Geving: Let me ask Wally and Richard, can we negotiate? Is there an opportunity for us to see if we can't expand the cemetary before we get too far into the process? Wally Otto: We've never disputed this. 25 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Richard Hartung: As I understar~ what you're trying to say is can you buy this real cheap or you ~n't approve our project? Councilman Geving: No. We're not holding you up. I wanted to ask. Mayor Hamilton: What you're saying then is you're not willing to negotiate, is that right? Wally Otto: Let's put it this way. Yes, we will talk to you on the lots that you're interested in. Councilman Geving: Can w~ do it yet this week? Wally Otto: We can do it tonight if you like. Councilman Geving: Okay, after the meeting. Councilman Boyt: I have several important items. One of them is, I would like included in any covenants that you have, and I'm sure that you'll have them, that Timberwood Drive will be extended someday. I want everybody that moves into this development to recognize that they do not live on a 2,000 foot cul-de-sac from day one and everytime the property changes I want them to acknowledge so I guess I want it in the deed. ~nat this is not a cul-de-sac. It is temporarily but it is not going to be permanently and I think that that may save us a little bit in the future when we need to put that through. Mayor Hamilton: It will only be t~m~orary for about 20 years. Councilman Boyt: But 20 years down the road we have another Frontier Trail looking at us and I'm not eager to see it. I would like item 10, I believe I'm looking at the right conditions, where it says provision for a 20 foot trail easement. Is that what others read as I understand it? When I read through this I remember there being some discussion by the Park and ~a3c about the trails and I noticed that we had a letter from the County indicating that they weren't so sure, it said in the third paragraph of their letter dated October 14th, allowance of a trail within the right-of-way would depend upon location of the roadway on the right-of-way and the final roadway cross section. To me that means that we are at some risk on CR 117 of losing our trail. Jo Ann Olsen: Tne way I have it stated we still get it if it is necessary. What the applicant's engineer's are doing is providing enough land to show us or show the County whether or not a trail could be provided within that 150 foot right-of-way. And if our City Engineer and the Carver County Engineer agree to approve it, then we would not have to obtain... Otherwise, we'll still get it. Councilman Boyt: Okay, now I see here where they mention a 6 foot bituminous trail. It was my understanding that on a road like Galpin Blvd. we would probably have like an 8 foot trail so we need to adjust this to indicate a 8 foot trail there and it was also my understanding that we were looking at something in the neighborhood of 5 feet on interior sorts of trails like 26 155 City Co~mcil Meeting - October 19, 1987 Timberwood Drive w~uld be. Is that more current? Jo Ann Olsen: I think it applies if it was concrete. Councilman Boyt: So if we're talkirg bituminous we're talking 6 feet. If we're talking concrete we're talking 5 feet. Gary Warren: Ar~ if you're talking, like she said, o~ Gall>in or maybe your bike areas then we're talking 8. Councilman Boyt: So the develolmment contract would read appropriate to those standards. Okay, thank you. Councilman Geving: The question is, if we approve the l>lat, whether or not we could still negotiate with Mr. Hartung and Mr. Otto. Mayor Hanilton: That's one of the conditions. Councilman G~ving: As long as that's in there, I don't have any problem. Is it covered Jo Ann? I have it as rm~nber 7 here on the July 6th notes. Jo Ann Olsen: I didn't put it on the conditions. Mayor Hamilton: It should be put in there. Make it number 13 so that there can be some negotiations tonight or whenever is necessary. Barbara Dacy: Number 14 would be emending the deed restrictions to indicate that Timberwood Drive is a temporary cul-de-sac. Councilman Boyt: A question of Dale. Dale, are you talking Lot 2 or Lot 1 when you're talking about expansion of the c~et~y? Councilman Geving: I don't really care. Whatever works out best. Personally I would prefer to go with Lot 1 which is along the road. That's the only really good place to expand. I think these fellows would agree with that. If you're going to do a ce~etary it would be better along the road. Councilman Boyt: Then the option you have Dale is, as I gathered, is the City can go out and condemn that land which is basically what we're saying. We'll negotiate. If negotiations don't ~ to be working out, then the land gets Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's what we're saying. Councilman Geving: We're not going to deal that way. We're going to work with them. Councilman Boyt: I'm just asking you. When people do negotiate sometimes you can' t get it resolved. 27 156 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Geving: We're going to work with Wally and Richard and see if we can't work something out. As long as it's in as a condition we've got an area to work with. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat stamped "Received October 13, 1987~' consistent with what was approved as a preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: . Submittal of required financial sureties and execution of the development contract. . All lots must have the two approved soil treatment sites staked and roped off and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Suk~ission of a driveway easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. . A final on-site approval of Lots 21, Block 2 and Lot 14, Block 3 by the City's soil consultants, Roger Machmeier and Jim ANderson prior to signature of the plat or plat the subdivision in phaes with Lot 21, Block 2 and Lot 14, Block 3 as part of an outlot for a future phase. . Submittal of a roadway easement document providing a 150 foot right- of-way on County Road 117 which has been accepted by Carver County. Se Submittal of a roadway easement document providing a 60 foot easement frc~ Timberwood Drive to the east property line. . The development contract shall state that 0utlots A and B are deemed unbuildable. 8. Provision of a 200 foot easement over the creek centerline. . Provision of a 20 foot trail easements on County Road 117 and Timberwood Drive if cl__--~ed necessary by the City f~gineer. 10. Provide a drainage easement over the Class B wetland in the northeast corner. 11. Provision of a drainage easement over LOts 3, 4 and 9, Block 3 if determined necessary the City Engineer. 12. Negotiate with the applicant for land to expand the city cemetary. 13. Amend deed restriction stating Timberwood Drive is a temporary cul-de-sac. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. 28 157 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, ~r.r~2E OTIS: APPRfIv~ PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Boyt: I just have one quick questio~ Are we doing enough Type II erosion controls out there? Larry Brown: Versus Type I? Council-mn Boyt: That's right. Versus Type I. Larry Brown: I guess the City doesn't have a standard criteria. If we're near a body of water and we feel 'it's a major drainageway, we would like to see Type II because that stands up better. Councilman Boyt: I would gather that we have quite a few steep grades here. Just about everywhere I see erosion controls there's a steep grade. I'd like Type II throughout. Mayor Hamilton: T~ere isn't any lake around there. It's got a long ways to go to get downstream. Councilman Boyt: Anywhere' you hit a steep ridge you've got cut-off problems. Larry Brown: I think we've see~ through the previous storms of July that the Type II erosion control did hold up better during the storms. They are less likely to buckle with a big wave of water. I think it should be stated that it depends on not both but one or the other. Steep grade or near a body of Mayor Hamilton: I guess it is up to your discretion. Gary Warren: I would suggest that we add a condition that also, consistent with the conve~nnt restrictions, have a sign put up at the end of this cul-de- sac indicating that it is temporary so that it is in public view for those that don't have the opportunity of Covenants and Restrictions. Councilman Geving: I don't know about that, It's going to be there a long time. I don't think it's necessary. I'm not going ts suggest that we take your recc~m~tion. I just don't believe it's going to be worthwhile. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure how we can make it clear to residents that it's temporary. I don't know what vehicle we use to assure that everybody realizes that the road is going to go through at some point. Unless you put it in whatever the Covenants ar~ Restrictions in the subdivision. It could be included in that and if people read it thel~ll know about it and if they don' t, I guess that' s their o~n problen. Councilman Horn: I have a question on the plaru Is that a cul-de-sac or does the road just stub at that point? Gary Warren: It's a t~porary cul-de-sac. 29 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: What if you made it a "~' turnaround instead. Wouldn't that indicate a more t~r~orary type of ending rather than a cul-de-sac? Gary Warren: But from a maintenance standpoint, the plowing and such, I think we prefer to deal with tempoary, just like TH 101 since 1933 is temporary. Here I think we're looking at this as more permanent temporary and in most cases that's why we go with cul-de-sacs. Councilman Johnson: The same one I had earlier as far as they seem to have forgotten to put the detail showing what the erosion control is going to be and the same condition as it was earlier that the type of erosion control, the detail showing how it's going to be constructed be added to the plans and specifications and approved by our City Engineer. Richard Hartung: It had been added to the specifications. Councilman Johnson: It' s in the specs? Richard Hartung: Right, it's a standard detail that the city uses. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the plans and specifications for Timberwood Estates with the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading. Once in place, they shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs prior to the onset of spring runoff. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. . All detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and operational, which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have the ponds functional prior to any other construction of the project. . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions with the Watershed District permit. . The applicant shall obtain an access permit for County Road 117 from the office of the Carver County Engineer and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. . All proposed septic system sites shall be staked and roped off prior to commencement of any grading. The developer shall agree to have any septic system sites re-evaluated in the event that sites as shown on the preliminary plat dated July 6, 1987 are altered. 30 1.59 City Oouncil Meeting - October 19, 1987 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all · disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. e Erosion check dams shall be placed in all constructed drainage swales at 100 foot intervales. m All streets shall be consistent with the Cites star~ards for rural construction. Wear course shall not be placed until the base course has ~ through a freeze/thaw cycle at which time approval must be received by the City E~gineer prior to placement. 11. Working hours shall be between the hours of 7:~ a~. and 6:~0 p~n. with no work allo~d on Sundays and holidays. 12. Type II erosion controls shall be used wherever staff feels t~ are appropriate. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. ~I~I~ PERMIT RES~I~I~S ~RCURRYFARMS. Mayor Hamilton: C~ry, this is an item that's ~ before us a few times before. Can you tell us if anything's ~ resolved? Gary Warren: Both parties are here tonight ar~ I've got a brief summary I can give you o~ it if you want. As noted in the staff report, the Curry Farms Phase I grading and improvements, the map that I've got here. This represents the area that abuts the Larry and Decky Kerber property which I've shown here. Centex Homes has ~ through the planning process and the plans and specs and grading approval process with the city and it has all it's watershed approval ar~ such ar~ has gone about constructing the project. As a part o the process there were provisions that Centex work with the F~_rbers to establish a screening plan ar~ address the common bour~]ary betw~ them. In fact at the time that this came to Council I think they were more concerned that the screening plan be here to shield contractor's yards 'and development and vice versa. We sort of switched horses here and both parties needing proper screening but also as a result the Kerbers have ~ in contact with me on several occasions. We've met in the field on several occasions with the developer and the developer has had his own meetings with the Kerbers to address their concerns as far as the elevations of basically Lot 1 which is right here. This is Powers Blvd. on the right. The concern being that the elevation of the house pad on Lot 1 are very extreme and the sight obstruction question from the Kerber property and also the developability of their own property was in question. T~e Centex Homes people, they have made some modifications to their plan which we received after our second meeting in the field on October 5th which basically addressed a lowering of the road to meet with the City process. We're fixed over here at Powers Blvd. Obviously there is an existing road and we have to match into that. There is a transition zone of a 1/2% grade and then the original proposal was a 5.7% 31 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 grade and that's what arrived at the elevations for the building pads and the roadway. After going back, after our earlier meetings, they relooked at the road grades and steepen up the slope down to a 6 1/2% grade which is very close to our maximum and as a result they have b~n~ able to lower the road at these various locations by 1 1/2 to 2 feet in certain areas. Tne Lot 1 property is roughly in here so we're talking maybe 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 of street that they've actually lowered the road grade to address that concern. ~ney've also worked with lowering the building pad on that low so the net result and this maybe difficult to see but I've traced out the building pad on the revised submittal that we received from Centex to show that originally the building pad in this location was 976.5 in the brackets and now it's 973 in this location and the back is approximately a 3 1/2 foot drop so Centex has I think been responsive in trying to deal with the issue here and improve the area. The other point of concern has been the issue, and this is looking on the west side again. ~nis being the Kerber property here. Tnis is a berm which was required as a part of the Watershed approval and our approval for ponding on site water limiting the amount of rate runoff. ~nis berm here is proposed at approximately 5 and 6 foot elevations above the existing and there has been some concern again about the impact of the developability of the Kerber property. I've just been talking with Tom Boyce from Centex who is here tonight. They apparently have gotten some further concessions from the Watershed District and believe they can lower this berm a foot and a half to try and reduce the visual impact. Obviously we need to have a berm so we can have a pond and control rate runoff so in a nutshell I guess the Kerbers are here and Centex is here and they can speak well for their case but to summarize, there have been several meetings here. I think Larry I saw you meeting with the Carver County Engineer this morning on the site. ~nere's been a lot of concern about the impact on the Kerber property and the site plans and such that are happening out there and I guess from staff's perspective, what I see out there is that the impact, if anything, is this Lot 1 as it borders there and I believe at least from what I've seen here that the improvements have been done to city standards for one. There have bc~n some adjustments here that are being made by Centex to try minimize the impact on the property there. The developability of the Kerber property which we haven't had the opportunity to see any plans at this point but they will be held to the same standards as Centex property. With the stccpness of the slope, existing contours here, the Kerber property which are obviously similar to what Centex had to deal with, you just can't build a home here without doing filling and addressing some of these building pad issues that Centex had to deal with. I think from standpoint, Centex has been responsive to the concerns here. Not to say that w~ shouldn't hear anything further. Larry Kerber: First of all addressing that berm on the back. The Watershed did not dictate the berm to be there. They did not dictate that height or size. They dictated how much water be retained. It was up to Centex or their engineer, whoever decided to put it there so Watershed did not say put that benin there and make it this high. Gary Warren: I don't think anybody is saying that. The attempt is they are building them to requirements of the rate of discharge and this being a natural low area it's a very likely candidate for a pond site. 32 161 City Council M~eting - October 19~ 1987 Larry Kerber: Exactly and that's my original point. If this was the candidate for the ponding site, why wasn't I informed? Why didn't somebody tell me about this? We're back to where we started up a month ago when they started moving dirt. A project like this to come in and not inform me or work with me at all until I see a berm being built and then told it's going to be this high, 7 feet high, ar~ how to take a foot off the berm is just, it's not going to do anything for my property. I~ not looking at developability. I'm just looking at the appearance of my property. My property, the whole west lot line and south 20B feet is setting virtually in a hole. It's from 11.8 to 11 feet down from Oentex's grade and that's the problem I've got. Along with the appearance I5~ going to get drainage from them. It just changes the whole view of my property. Mayor Hamilton: Why didn't you want your area filled in back there? Larry Kerber: Nobody b_a~ ever offered to do it. Mayor Hamilton: It ~---~cms incredible. Wasn't Larry worked with in this whole process? This has been going on... C~ry Warren: ~he Kerbers were notified as a part of the public hearing process which is a requirement. Mayor Hamilton: Have you asked Om~tex if they would fill in back there? I think that would be the first think I'd ask if that was my property. Will you put fill in there. Larry Kerber: It's real tough to ask them anything because it's real tough to get them to come out. I tried twice and then after the Council meeting when you mentioned to come out, only after I called after 2 or 3 weeks did we get out again. Ihn not going to suggest what they're suppo~ to do. I think at this point some suggestions are up to them. Mayor Hamilton: What makes you think they're supposed to do that? There's nothing that says they're supposed to fill your land. If you want it filled Larry g~r~: Say to somebody since you're developing fill mine too? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Why not? What's wrong with that? Larry Kerber: Nothing I guess. That would be real nice but that's going to be an expensive project. I've got fence. I've got trees. I've got buildings back there. Mrs. Kerber: I'd like to say that if Larry and I had the opportunity to develop the back of our property with the existing grade as it was, we never would have built it up 15 to 20 feet. We would have gone ahead and done it without spelling it out to the neighbors and telling them what it is we're doing. We wouldn't just c~me in there and do it. 33 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Tom Boyce: We've tried to keep all the neighbors out there as informed as we could all the way through the project. We've asked Larry and his wife a couple of times exactly what they want. To be honest with you, we've tried to adjust the grades and live within the constraints we have to develop the property. If we were developing Kerbers property, we would have to live within the same constraints and the same grades. I don't know what else we can do. Councilman Boyt: ~his corner down here, as I recall there was concern about drainage accumulating here that had previously run off into the marsh. Has that been cleared up? From an engineering standpoint, is this now going to ~ a marsh or is there going to be a drain through there? Gary Warren: The revised grade plan puts swales essentially on Centex's property to take care of runoff from Lot 1 from the backsides of the Centex Curry Farm property. Councilman Boyt: I'm not too concerned about the Centex property here. I'm concerned about the blockage of a natural flow way down. Gary Warren: To continue, from that point then up to the north, which is the normal outlet, also is a swale that is to be graded as a part of the berming process to see that the natural outlet is always there. Councilman Boyt: I went out and looked at the property about a week ago. Has it changed in the last week in terms of the grade? Is it pretty much the way it was a week ago? Tom Boyce: Not substantially. The streets are lower right now. Councilman Boyt: Larry it looked to me, not living next to it I know it's not as sensitive to me as it is to you, but it looked to me that it was an improvement last week from what I saw a month ago. Larry Kerber: Yes, but what did you see a month ago? We're talking a grade elevation difference of some 11 feet from their property to mine 25 feet back or so. It's a drastic change from what it was. My property does not blend any longer. My property sticks out. I had somebody out there from the soil conservation. He looked at it and expressed the same opinion. He says you will develop a swamp down in that corner. His concern also was for the creek. He said now you're going to be putting water in there in a different pattern. It will be coming in there like almost under pressure. He says the creekbed is going to deteriorate on my side within a few years, in his opinion. This is another issue. Two days ago I came home and they've got right turn lanes staked across the front of my driveway. There's another issue coming up. I guess I'd like to know what the total impact on my place is going to be. I find these things out a week or a month at a time. Mayor Hamilton: I think I'm going to interrupt you for just a second Bill because I think the last time this issue came up we said to bring it back when it's resolved and it sounds like what Larry is saying there are more issues that are coming up now that are dealing with his property and we keep going 34 163 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 along here piecemeal and looking at little things and sittirg here trying to figure out what the impact is and I don't think we're seeing, if what Larry is saying is right, we're not seeing the whole pictii~i 'There-'lia~n't.: ~': .anY'-' resolution and I'm not sure that we can resolve it nor is it up to us. We've asked Centex and Larry and you to work together to try to resolve it and it ..... ¢ .~ -.'.~.:~ .~.-~" sounds like that's not happening; '~ '' ~ ..... :;:~ ........ '- ...... , .- ': -'-' ~' -,::.l ,-'.:;' -;-"' : '£"~'. !-, . ~- . '; Gary Warren: The petition that was raised at the visitors presentation last meeting was that staff go hack ar~ obviously it wasn't going to be dealt with at that meeting, that we review the various aspects and concerns and bring them back at this meeting specifically. The .input that we received, I guess if you're asking directly what I'm seeing is, call it an impass or what you will. Centex is meeting all the requirements as far as the City is concerned. As far as the Watershed is concerned. Specifically Larry had asked at that meeting that the Council review possibly holding building permits until some of these things can be resolved and quite frankly, I'm at the standpoint of saying what do we do now. We're staying consistent with the city ordinances in requirements. I have no further thing to say then okay, we have no further action here. Councilman Boyt: If I can return to this. I think what we're trying to do here is minimize the physical impact on Mr. Kerber's property. I would like to __~-c it have a zero physical impact. I think a visual impact unfortunately somebody can put a radio antenna up in the next lot and there's nothing we can do to block that. People have certain abilities to use their property that the City doesn't govern as long as it's within a general ordinance. I think the developers have come in and they have moved some dirt to allow them to develop this. I agree with you that it doesn't look like it used to look right on the other side of your property line and that clearly has an impact. I remember talking to you a month or so 'ago ar~ at- 'f hat poiifc-~ y~i di'dn'~--'want' it filled. You didn't want any impact on your back area and you were not interested in seeing them put fill in there. I think as things develop everybod~s position changes some but I think the City is fairly limited in what we'can do to tell this developer .~ha~- tt~-'dan't--~level0p-that piec~ of-- property. I think we can tell them they have to he reasonable Larry but I don't think w~ can tell then t~ can't develop it. Larry Kerber: I certainly can't Bill but are they meeting my lines? Is this' really the way it should be done? Is this something that you can look at as a model and say this is the way it should be done. I don't think so. I think there is still manethirg t~ can do to minimize that grade difference. Mayor Hamilton: What? Larry Kerber: Lower the first lot. Lower the berm. The~ve got the opportunity. Their lots are dropping 1-and 2 feet. How come when it gets to my lot it's supposed to drop down 9 feet to my land? There has to be some way they can meet mine at a reasonable grade so my property does not look as though somebody developed UP to it and left it and now I'm sitting down. The physical appear~ of mine. My concerns for the drainage. Those are real concerns. 35 164 City Council Meeting - October 19~ 1987 Mrsl Kerber: I'd like to say that this property along with ours always looked like it had a creek rather than a drainageway~ Now they've come in here and put a ponding area, put a berm around that whole pond and we are left with nothing else other than a sad looking creek that is filled up with silt~ Along with that~ the water level is raising on the berm~ I was Out there yesterday and it's 4 feet up from the inside of the berm and On our side Of the berm it's about 2 feet up. Tnere's water standing in that trail that's seeping through right now. Councilman Horn: Isn't that swale supposed to run down toward the creek? How can that collect water in that swale? Or have standing water? Gary Warren: The berm there is actually serving right now erosion off the site as far as the grading is concerned. A temporary rock dike that was built as a part of the construction at this time. Councilman Horn: I understand that but how can the swale hold standing water? Isn't that swale designed so that it will drain toward the creek? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Horn: How can there be several feel of water in there? Larry Kerber: There isn't several feet. There is standing water on our line. That's our concern. As soon as the water raises in the berm, the deterioration and general condition of my land turning wet how ever many feet back it will from their berm. Tom Boyce: Another thing to keep in mind here, the berm is not 100% complete yet for two reasons. One was to keep the water runoff off the road. When we went in and broke the ponds loose, before we did the grading and building the rest of the site up. We haven't finished the berm... Keith Nelson: ...the design of the baffled wear that we put in there to mitigate silt and debris from going down the creek has not bc~n implemented yet. There's a rock bed allowing the berm to fill up more than it will. What the design of the pond is to keep the water well below the existing grade and in rough figures it's going to be approximately half of what it is modeled at without building that berm. So we've reduced the impact from the water at Christmas Lake so we wouldn't have any damage or impact... Councilman Geving: From what I've heard from Larry, his concern is that the water will seep through the berm onto his property. Is that possible? Keith Nelson: When the baffle wears in, the water level will be kept at a level below his property. Councilman Johnson: As far as the drainage, during a big storm the water level will go up? It will be above the level of his property but it will return down to the lower level. Keith Nelson: Within a 24 hour period. 36 1'65 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Gary Warren: And there is an overflow swale directed not toward the property but to the creek. Councilman Johnson: And you will be completing the rest of this. We're really limited here. The developer has done a lot of things. It's unfortunate I should say that everybody didn't-get t~gether.'.last spring when' this first came up and the public hearings were being held ar~ tt~ plans were put forward at that time ar~ negotiate to get dirt moved o~to your property. It seems like you're caught between a rock and a hard spot in that this would be the ideal time to raise your low pxDperl~y .and make, your low. property, even with the top of this swale where it's a good developable property but then you don't seem to want to develop your property at this time. You want to live there ar~ have a backyard. Larry Kerber: It's ultimately what the~re leaving me with. If I go out tomorrow I can't say, that's fine leave it the way it is. I~n looking ahead 1M years from now. I would like to see some type of elevation change that would make my lar~ useable as is. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's not possible is what we're saying. They have met all requirements that tl~ need to meet and I think that you're not willing to give. You want to leave your land the way it is and so then it's going to have to be that way. I think if you just said you wanted it filled, then they probably would have worked with you to do that but there is nothing else we can do. If you want to leave it ~ way it is then it's going to stay like it is and there really isn't anything we can do because the~re meeting all our ordinance requirements. They're doing everything we've asked them to do. There really isn't anything else w~ can require the~ to do. Mrs. Kerber: Why can't they eliminate that pond and put it into a storm drain all the way through our property and eliminate it completely all the way along our hack line? Do whatever is necessary. Councilman Johnson: The impact on Christmas Lake. Gary .Warren:- That would increase'~ the.' rate of.:runoff beyo~ the pre~' -~ -- development rate which is not acceptable,'.to Watershed-District. star~ards and is very sensitive right next to Christmas Lake. Mayor Hamilton: I think we r~ to move o~ There's no action required on this. I think Larry I just suggest that you keep working with Centex and if there's something else specifically that you can ask them to do, continue to work with t~. Larry Kerber: I guess at this point, if you say there's nothing to do and things are going to stay as they are, who's going to be responsible, we haven't had a major rain since they started the project. If my backyard turns swampy in two years after we have a couple of wet years and I can't use that land, who's going to be responsible at that time to do something to it? Mayor Hamilton: It's your property ar~ I suppose it's going to be your r espons ibi 1 ity. 37 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Larry Kerber: And it's a condition I did not cause. I've had two opinions already that that's what is going to happen to that property if left that low. Councilman Horn: By whom? Larry Kerber: Soil Conservation. Councilman Horn: They approve these plans. Larry Kerber: This is Carver County Soil Conservation. Councilman Horn: It really upsets me when we submit all these plans to them and then they come back and tell somebody that this isn't going to work. They approve these plans. Larry Kerber: I think we're talking about two different people here. Not Watershed. I'm talking Carver County Soil Conservation. He said they never say a plan. Mayor Hamilton: SCS is always on our list. Gary Warren: In the planning process, aren't they typically on your list? Mayor Hamilton: SCS is always on our list. ~ney're on our list to get plans all the time. It's au~tic. Councilman Johnson: That particular person may not have seen them but somebody in his office has gone through these plans. Whether he visited the site or not I don't know. You always have your legal ramnifications that your private attorney will have to speak with you on. We are not a court of law here to find damages or anything like that. That's not our function. We are here to enforce our ordinances and we have enforced our ordinances to the letter of our ordinances and beyond as a matter of fact. The developer has gone beyond several items. It's very tough when the developer has gone beyond the letter of our ordinance and given us several things that he wasn't required to by our ordinance. He's already done several things beyond your property but elsewhere' within this project. It's tough to ask him for anythirg more. Councilman Horn: The other thing we're required to do is to make sure the proper agencies review these plans which we do. Councilman Boyt: I think given, you kind of know the lay of the land literally here and my guess would be, you said tonight several times that you're concerned about transition. I think that one of the things that's been probably a difficulty for Centex to work around is that they can only transition to your lot line. Maybe you could pursue with them, rather than filling in your whole back area, can they make the transition smoother if you give them the authority to push some dirt over onto your side of the lot line. Maybe it's something to pursue. They act like that might work with them. It gets the transition for you. It doesn't fill in your whole backyard and it makes it look more natural. Sc~ething to consider. 38 167 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: In our administrative packet there's about 20 pag.es on motor oil. Thanks Jo Ann for pullir~3 this together. I want to point out a couple things to Council and then ask for a little further direction I guess. There are only two places in Chanhasse~ that ir~icate they'll take used motor oil. We generate more motor oil than they can take. Jo Ann mentioned in the pack that sometime within the next year we're goir~ to have to come up with a plan for picking up things like motor oil. t would'encourage us to begin thinking about requiring stations that sell oil to provide some means of taking used oil. I think that should be a cost of doing business. If you look through the list of places that do take used oil and I appreciate Jo Ann's providing a rather lengthy list for us, Rapid Oil. Change is just one example and it seems like every Rapid Oil Charge takes used motor oil from people. I think they're being very responsible as citizens in those communities in doing that and I think we should ask the people who do oil char~es in our community to take the same level of responsibility. Thanks for the good work. Mayor Hamilton: Then you wanted to talk about geese. Councilman Boyt: I would eventually like to see this, or I'd actually like to get some reaction from the council about the possibility of seeing us require places to take oil. Anybody have a comment about that so I can get a sense for where we might go with it in the future? Councilman Johnson: I'd like the City Attorney to look into it. I think it's a good idea. I've heard other states have that requirement. In my walks arour~ I've ~cn many oil stains out at the end of cul-de-sacs and anyplace front tires can get boosted up a little bit to drain it. It's sad to see. Mayor Hamilton: I think either what you're saying or have the City get involved somehow with a collection depot or s(mething. Councilman Geving: I was just surprised that there were as few stations. I expected more than just Jim Cleary to pick up oil. Very surprised by that. Jo Ann Olsen: (1~ that sheet that I also added from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency it says that people who sell motor oil must supply collection tanks so I'll contact then. Councilman Boyt: It says they must provide a collection tank or provide a listing of where there is a collection tank and what I~ saying is that's just not workable. Councilman Geving: Maybe the problem is really bigger than just Omnhassen. It might be a county wide thing. The whole waste issue and I don't know what the County is doing because all of that stuff that is being collected now is being put in the landfill. If the landfills go out in 1990. Councilman Boyt: That stuff goes into the landfills. It goes into our water systen. 39 168 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Geving: If you put your little bucket of oil out there for the garbageman to pick up, he's going to put it in the garbage and it's going to be hauled to the landfill. That's what happening today. Councilman Boyt: Yes, exactly and that's why we need an alternative because that's going to end up costing us a fortune someday. Mayor Hamilton: It's an educational process. We rm~d to make people aware somehow through information throughout the community that they shouldn't do those-kinds, of things and then along with that tell there is going to be a drop off place for those people who change their own oil. Councilman Horn: I would like to know from staff what they think the liability question is if the City would do it? Jo Ann Olsen: You're talking about the possibility of it being contaminated with PCB's and what do you do then. The same liability as any other person has. Mayor Hamilton: I think the City has to deal with that issue and if you have to talk to the County, then you should do that. If it's a problem that there's PCB's, I'd rather have some agency handling it in the proper way rather than having people just dumping it someplace. It's a serious problem and I think we should just continue on. CO to the county and then to the state and maybe there are some funds available to start the process of getting rid of it. Councilman Boyt: Thank you for your input. The other item is the December goose hunt. I'd like us to be out in front of this instead of behind it. I'd like to see the City run a notice in the local papers, whichever ones are appropriate, that we would like all people who are interested in filing an application to do so within the next, what's a reasonable time period? Mayor Hamilton: This is another special hunt? Councilman Geving: You're getting ahead of yourself. Mayor Hamilton: We should get the requirements of what the goose hunt are so we know what we're getting into. Councilman Boyt: ~nose w~re just published in the paper I think. Councilman Horn: This was in the Carver County Herald. Councilman Geving: Bill, we've got to get ahead of ourselves here and find out whether or not we even are going to allow it in December. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what Bill is saying. Let's get ahead of the situation and have staff make some recommendations about what we should or shouldn't do. Chaffee should take a good look at it. He's had an opportunity and been through this once. 40 City Oouncil Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I just don't want to find us in the situation we were in where the night before it goes into effect we have to make a decision. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. Councilman Johnson: Without an ordinance we have no choice. Councilman Horn: Could this be a future agenda item? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. SOUTHWEST ~ITIES COALTION. Councilman Geving: The meeting thai I attended was my first meeting for the southwest communities coalition and we had a very good turnout at Eden Prairie City Hall. If you haven't been over to that facility, it's very nice. Real nice facility and John Bolling gave a good report, Kind of casual report on some of the things he's been doing. We had a major discussion on the transportaton area and the fear that not only the state funds are gone but the possibility that we may lose our federal funding for State Highway 5. Clark can pick up on that, I guess we were more concerned about some of the things that we talked about, the MUSA line and water quality and the fact that this area is really getting very, very little respect from Met Council and we've all recognized this for some time but I think that the coalition itself is a really good idea. I think banding together as a group from the southwest, wren Prairie, Chaska, Shakopee, Chanhassen and cities on west is a real good way to start getting our act together ar~ start looking at the southwest as one voice rather than just a bunch of little communities that are fragmented. The meeting was cordial and lasted about a half hour and I don't know if there's another meeting scheduled. I was very impressed with the representatio~ Every city was there and we all had a part to say in what they'd like to see come out of this. Of course, our big concern is the MUSA line. Everybody is strangled by the MUSA line and the fear is that the Metro Planners, in their wisdom, have got a noose around our whole area here with the MUSA line and they will restrict the size of our communities by using that technique. By not allowing us to grow and expand because of the MUSA line. We're constricted by that so once you look at what we've got ahead of us in our community and what's available in the sewered area, we really don't have a whole lot, Really if you look around. Most of our developable area is certainly south of TH 5 and it's going to be lots like we looked at tonight, 2 1/2 acres. So the real impact is going to be for people like the coalition to keep pounding away on all the issues. Wafer quality. The MUSA line and sewer systems and of course transportation ar~ that kind of leads us into where Clark is coming from on their plan. Councilman Horn: The meeting of the Southwest Corridor Coalition is an analagous body to Dale's only they deal with quality issues such as sewer, transportation and demographics. We're dealing strictly with TH 212 and TH 5 but we're using the same concept. As Dale said, fur~ing for highways isn't very prosperous right now but I think highways are a fact of life and people are going to find ways to fund them. T~e ia~rpose of our coalition is to make sure that when funding is available we're going to be on the list to get our 41 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 roads put in. It's very obvious from all of the data that's been taken that this is a very highway deficient area. We're dealing with some of the same problems with Met Council in highways as we are with the sewer and the MUSA line and that is the Met Council looks at highways in terms of an intrastructure type of thing and what serves the downtown area and actually I believe that they look at in terms of allowing growth. ~ney keep their highways down to keep their growth from expanding whereas MnDot on the other hand is looking at transportation on a state issue. Each of them plan their own sections and what we found out in the coalition meeting is that they don't really talk to each other and they don't have the same priorities so the suggestion that we made to them is that they set one set of priorities otherwise nobody is going to give them any funding. We do have several important meetings coming up. One is this Wednesday at Shakopee High School. ~nis meeting is really part of the Scott County coalition that they have gratiously invited us to take part in and as a matter of fact there will be a tour by this finance committee through the Shakopee area and also through TH 5 and then Chanhassen area, Victoria, ~den Prairie. What we're trying to do is get a large group of people from this area to go down to the public hearing and comment. One of the comments that was made by one of the officials is that gee we don't hear any complaints from that area. All they hear from are City Councils, the coalitions and so forth but they don't hear any of their constituents hollaring at them about the situation. So the plan is that we'll have high school students, grade school people, people who travel TH 5, people who travel any of the other highways go down and give their feelings about TH 5. One of the things that the Victoria Chamber is doing is they are passing out things that say I Hate Highway 5 to all the businesses in Victoria and they're going to dump them on the Chamber and then the Chambers are going to put these things together and take them down to the State Capital and dump them on Rudy's desk or something. There's another important date that's even more important for our area and that is November 9th. Becky Kelso has arranged to have the House Transportation Committee meet here in Chanhassen. That will he at the Dinner Theater at 7:30 in the morning for a breakfast meeting. At that meeting it's just for the Chanhassen area and will be sponsored by the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and co-sponsored by the coalition group but the emphasis on the Chamber of Commerce to meet with them and talk to them specifically about our transportation issues for this area. That's an important meeting that hopefully we'll get several hundred people to turn out for to make an impact on this group. Mayor Hamilton: The meeting in Shakopee is at 5:00? Councilman Horn: Tnat's when the public hearing starts. It will be 5:00 to 7: 00 I believe. Barbara Dacy: I thought there was a dinner. Councilman Horn: That's at 7:00. That's after the public hearing. Councilman Johnson: What are we doing to get the non-political folks, the truck drivers and school people out? 42 171 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Councilman Horn: We're taking a lot of leads from Scott County. They are working with the Good Roads of Minnesota. There are trucker groups that participate in their group and really this transportation thing is really starting to get organized and coordinated and everybody is coming together to say, hey we need something dor~ about transportatioru I think for the first time that I've been involved in this process, I see some coordinated effort happening here and I think if you look at the amount of people that are starting to get involved in this thing, it just tells you that we're going to have to come up with some kind of a funding source_ We just can't ignore highways anymore. Even the greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce has conducted surveys of businesses in the area, The top concern the businesses have, besides taxes, is transportation. Out of the responses they got, a large percentage of them refer directly to TH ~ This is not a local chamber group. This is the greater Minneapolis Chamber group so we are getting a lot of people who are getting on this bandwagoru The problems that I see with transportation is that it's not an emotional issue. It's b~rd to get people excited about doing something. People just seem to tolerate waiting in line for traffic. It's not one of those sensitive God and Motherh~ issue that creates a lot of emotion. That's the problem we have. We have to get that kind of attention. Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully through the r~wspapers also they will'be making comments about this. Mike has in the past and hopefully Mary will here in the future make comments about the highways ..and. encourage people to write to their congressmeru Don you wanted to bring 'us up.'t6 date on the downtown and When TH 101 is going to open. Don Ashworth: Gary and I had a meeting with BRW at the end of this past week. We had recognized that we only have a few weeks, remaining on this project. Winter will be with us and we won't be able to work any longer. ~he priority on getting the existing TH 101 complete by the end of this week, we should have this section here complete with curb and gutter and asphalt. Gary, do you think we're still meeting that schedule by the end of this week, first part of r~xt w~ek? Gary Warren: We have one day of bitminous to place and curb and gutter and Minnegasco I think we have the~ out of the way now. Don Ashworth: We will put gravel back into this section. We're not going to totally lose that because this parking lot will require gravel so we'll lose a little bit of money but what that will do is allow us to get TH 101 back open again at that point in time. We're looking at changing detours and actually bringing people back out to TH 5 to relieve the condition on Chan View. We want to get this section of Chan View off of the detour as quickly as possible. Again, getting TH 101 functional will allow us to do that. It will allow businesses to operate. It will allow people to take this little service road over to the perking area. We will allow a back entry in from the Dinner Theater but they're telling all their people to cc~e in from the-other way. We have a two week period of work so starting with next Monday we'll concentrate this section of the roadway will continue to be closed off from here up to here. This will be closed off from here back over to this section so in other words, this entire area will be a work priority starting next 43 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Monday trying to get all of the curb and gutter, asphalt work, street, totally back in into this segment right here. We do have sanitary sewer and water lines that are right adjacent to the south curb line in through this section. We're allowing the contractor to go in swaths down the street. In that process he is back casting onto 78th Street so it would be closed but it would be done with the recognition that at any point in time we could pull that dirt back into the hole and we will have saved a major portion of existing main street. So that means during the entire winter months you will be able to drive on the existing 78th Street. There will be a gravel section on the very southerly section of the curb line. Within the boulevard area and part of the street itself. There is a large storm sewer which comes down the middle of 78th Street. Our decision this past week was to say that if we allow them to come in here with that 42 inch sewer at a depth of 20 to 25 foot, we will have lost this street. We can't afford to run the risk of losing this section of street during the winter months. So again, by making sure that we complete this entire section so all street sections will be done in here. Curb and gutter, blacktop. By controlling him to just the south side of the right-of- way and then allowing for a transition would mean as we get in the turn we will be able to come in off of TH 5, this entire section will be complete. This will be complete all the way up to here. You'll hit a small transition similar to what you have by the bank. You'll drive on existing 78th Street. You'll hit the transition again which will take you back into the completed sections in through here. This section of roadway is complete. This is complete. They are working on parking areas. Those are probably pretty close to complete. We have three crews that are working in Chanhassen. I think they are moving as quick as they can. The rains this past week really hurt us. We had scheduled to have these parking lots, to be digging them out and to be putting in a new gravel base and we get the rain. We had to bring in temporary gravel. So we'll lose some money in here again for making sure that we could get a halfway driveable area. We will lose some minor dollars for gravel. But overall I think it's a plan that is achieveable. It recognizes in hopes that we can take the work up somewhere between November 1st and the 15th. Anytime after November 1st we may get cut down. By the 15th we will have completed the sewer and water in this section. If we don't, we've got an alternate plan. Mayor Hamilton: I thought we decided that TH 101 from 78th to the tracks w~uld be open, that was going to be opened during the winter. Gary Warren: It will. Councilman Geving: It's going to be gravel though isn't it? Don Ashworth: Yes, it will be the same gravel that we're putting down right now. Mayor Hamilton: SO that stretch will actually open then from 78th Street to TH 5 this week? Don Ashworth: Within two w~eks ~ will have this entire section done. 44 City Council Meeting - October 19, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but I just want to be able to let the people get south to TH 5 ar~ allow those businesses to try to recover what they've ~ losing. If we can open that section we can do it as quickly as possible. Don Ashworth: Right a~ that's ~ our numbe~ one goal because it also effects our detours. It also effects the ability to come back into the project area this way. It effects being able to c~e this way. This is a very critical stretch for us. By the end of the week, that should be functioning. We will concentrate then for a tw~ week period to get everything done in here which is after the completion of that two week timeframe and these barricades all c~me back down. That whole section is opened up. Mayor Hamilton: Any more questions? Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to .adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meetin~ was adjourned at 1~:1~ p~.. Submitted by Don Ashw~rth City Manager Prepared by Nann O~im 45