Loading...
1987 11 162'/5 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Geving STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger ~utson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Ix)ri Sietse~a, Todd Gerhardt, and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton secor~ed to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss construction of the Town Square and use of Army National Guard Engineers for park construction, Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Shado~mere. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGRNDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the followirg consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: d. Resolution ~87-118: Accept Utilities, Chanhassen vista 3rd Addition. e. Final Plat Approval, Rogers Addition. fe Approval of 1988 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract, Carver County o g. Approval of Accounts dated November 16, 1987. h. Planning Commission Minutes dated Now~ex 4, 1987 Park and Recreation Cc~mission Minutes dated October 7, 1987 Park and Recreation fkmm~ission Minutes dated October 27, 1987 All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: C. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR TIMBER$~XI) ESTATES. Councilman Boyt: This is where we're looking at the cemetary situation and I know when we approved that potential purchase last meeting we did so indicating that it rested upon whether or not we had a buildable lot in that outlot- Before we approve the develo[~ent contract I wanted sc~e clarification on about the buildability of the outlot ar~ whether we had two acceptable septic sites on th~ lots by the cemetary sinoe we discovered a potential wetland on those lots. Jo Ann Olsen: We were out on the site on Friday with the applicant's engineer and Dr. Rockwell for the wetlands ar~ Jim Anderson for the septic sites. It looks like the outlot will have a buildable site on it. ghey are going to stake it out ar~ perform some soil borings on it and Mr. Anderson will review City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 those. The only way for it to be a buildable lot though is for it to receive a setback variance from the wetland of 75 feet rather than 150 feet. Councilman Boyt: For the septic system? So you're saying it's not? There isn't a buildable site there for the septic system without a variance? Jo Ann Olsen: Right but both Elizabeth Rockwell and Jim Anderson were not concerned with a septic system being located 75 feet from the w~tland. Councilman Boyt: Are they suggesting that we can provide a variance for this particular location and not weaken our ability to prevent future variances? Jo Ann Olsen: As far as Jim Anderson is concerned, 70 feet is more than adequate from almost any existing wetland. Councilman Boyt: Well Jo Ann, what you're telling me is our ordinance which we just changed from 200 feet to 150 feet should have really been changed to 70 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I'm not exactly saying that. It could be possible that it could work but what I'm saying is that the only way for that outlot to be buildable is for them to receive a setback variance. Tne only other alternative is to alter the wetland. Councilman Boyt: To make a major alteration of the wetland. Mayor Hamilton: How many acres cc~prise the wetland? Jo Ann Olsen: I 'm not sure. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's the one that would have to be filled to make that lot buildable? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, what they are talking about is filling a portion of it and that's what Dr. Rockwell has said not at all. It should not be tampered .with at all. Councilman Boyt: It looks to be in a fairly critical spot with a lot of drainage heading down to it. What I'm really asking, and maybe Don you have a sense for this, is what do we lose when we agree to this development contract realizing that in all liklihood we have a plat that's not going to be buildable in that Outlot? Don Ashworth: We will increase the costs associated with the cemtary lot. I guess the developer has stated what he would be willing to sell that additional land for and at some point the Council has to make a decision as to whether or not we should continue to pursue the acreage associated with the existing c~metary or potentially move down the road to a new site. Councilman Boyt: Then the other question is, did you do any investigation on the wetland? 22'9 City Council M~eting - Now~ber 16, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, there is a wetland there now with the vegetation as shown. There are cattails ar~ wetland vegetation. When Elizabeth and I visited the site last winter, there was no vegetation at that time. It was not on the map so we did not recognize it as a wetland. It is a low class Class B wetland and Elizabeth had no problem with it being altered or being used as a building site ar~ the septic sites were not located within the wetland because they did recognize it as a low wet area. So the fact that we just now recognize it as a wetland, as far as the site vegetation and the final plat has already ~ approved, we determined that it's too late to turn arour~ and say, you would have to go through the wetland alteratio~ permit. It's up to the Council to make that decision but that's the choice that you have. If you do decide to make them go through the wetland alteration permit, again staff ar~ from Elizabeth's counselling, we would probably recommend approval of it and they would have to mitigate some land on the site as a pondirg area... We are having Paul Waldron perform soil borings on this site. First of all we have to find a second septic site on Lot 1 if we do take some of that land for the cemetary, that also includes the second site. The results of the soil borings within the wetland to see if it's suitable for a ce~etary site. Councilman Boyt: It sounds like there are a lot of questions surrounding this piece of property. I~ not sure what we lose in agreeing to the develoi~nent contract. We're basically saying that the developer can go out and begin building is my understanding. Is that appropriate? Ar~ if you're saying that, are we really ready to say that~given all the questions around some of these lots? Gary Warren: In drafting the develol~ent contract, I drafted it as it is, the way I interpretted the Council's approval was that Timberwood Partnership would negotiate in good faith with the City for the cemetary but there weren't any specifics to react to or incorporate into the development contract. The City will give this or they won't and such. That I guess is why I put it the way it was so basically the cemetary issue would be a separate dealing that the Council would have with Wally Otto and Mr. Hartung. Also related to, I guess we couldn't write into the development contract that we would guarantee variances or anything or I couldn't at this point without the Council taking action on it so maybe Don wants to relate the dealings with Hartung ar~ such. Councilman Boyt: It would be my understanding that we're basically taking the cemetary issue and setting that to one side ar~ saying regardless of how that works out, are we going to approve this development contract. Is that consistent with the other council members understanding? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. ite~? Did you have any other questions Jay on this Councilman Johnson: As long as paragraph 22 still says 0ulot B is rendered unbuildable and that's the outlot we're talking about with the wetlands, I have no problem with this. Gary Warren: It's Outlot C. City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Okay, Outlot B is a different outlot? Do we address 0utlot C at all in here? Gary Warren: There is no need to address Outlot C as the way it's set up, no. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Development Contract for Timberwood Estates as presented in the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRSENTATION: PRESENTATION OF AWARD, CHANHASSEN BOY SCOUT TROOP %346. Mayor Hamilton presented a plaque for community service award to Chanhassen Boy Scout Troop %346 for recognition of their outstanding community service performed during the MRPA 1987 Regional Mens Softball Tournament. FRONTIER TRAIL REQUEST TO DEFINE "CONSTRUCTION PERIOD", COUNCILMAN BOYT. Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to talk about is the City's interest in removing the barricade to allow for snowplowing. I know it's been a while since the City Council made the decision to put the road through and to put a temporary barricade up to block construction traffic. Now the issue is what is construction traffic? As I understand the last time we met the definition was given that construction traffic means constructing roads. The concern that brought construction traffic up and the need for the blockade in the first place was the difficulty in controlling traffic on Frontier Trail and the knowledge at that time that there were several complaints of pick-up trucks and heavy equipment going down Frontier Trail in a rather reckless manner as well as creating a great deal of wear on the road surface with the heavy equipment. Some of those needs have subsided, so I decided the other evening to go out and talk to the people on Frontier Trail between Laredo and what is now the blockaded end to the west to see how they still felt. There are 35 homes in that stretch. Of those, 3 families felt that the road should be opened. 2 families felt they were neutral one way or the other. 5 homes had no one home at the time which leaves about 23 families that were all opposed to removing the temporary blockade. All these people realize that the road is eventually going to be open. My question to them was, how do we do this in a reasonable fashion? If the road must be open, they would like to have it delayed until after the city is paved and somewhat easier to get through. This delay minimizes Frontier Trail's use as a shortcut around current city construction. I can tell you that all the safety considerations are still there but you've heard those. The absence of .sidewalks being one of them and the poor quality of the road another but I would like, if you're going to take this out this winter, to wait another couple of weeks before you do it. Councilman Johnson: I agree. Gary Warren: I think the direction that Jerry Schlenk is operating under is we're not in a hurry. We're trying to delay it as long as we can but even 231 City Council ~tfng - November 16~ 1987 like today's forecast, if you believe it or not is for 5 inches of snow tonight. I think that is our main concer~ That we get it out of there before it freezes up and w~ can't get it out. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I thought that two weeks ago when we had a council meeting when this item was before us at that time and council direction was to open the street. I guess maybe I ~ to refresh my memory as to whether or not there was any specific action taken or if it was Just discussion. I know we did talk about it. Don Ashworth: The Minutes show there was no action taken. I think the Council at that point in time was generally support for openirg it but there was n~ vote. You did not bring it to a motion. Councilman Horn: The discussion went that the vote had already ~_--n taken that the street would be opened. That this was merely a staff issue to address. A letter had ~ sent out to staff to address that issue ar~ there was no action required by the Council. We agreed that it would be carried out as recommended by the City Engineer. Mayor Hamilton: I guess that was my recollection too. I don't know it requires a definition of construction traffic or construction period. It's going to be a construction period as long as they are building homes and personally I never thought construction traffic was just road construction traffic. It was traffic that's bringing the materials to build the homes and those people that are going to work there or dropping materials off would enter the project off of Kerber Blvd. and that they would not use Frontier. That's always been my understar~ing and as soo~ as it was set to open it should be open. I think that was always, at least to my recollection, that's what w~ always planned on doing. Councilman Johnson: I do have another comment. On Near Mountain we have some nice signs up there saying that construction traffic basically go use these other roads. If we do open that up, I would like 'to see a sign up there prohibiting construction traffic frc~ leaving Chan Vista. It would be a termporary thing. There's lots and lots of lots left to be built on and I know this spring they built 33 h~mes behir~ my house ar~ there was a lot of traffic. When they opened Santa Vera we got a lot of traffic. The people living on Santa Vera had a lot of construction, a lot of pick-up trucks back and forth into the Deli and various places for lunch ever~ay. I'd like to make sure that we don't see that running up Frontier. So I'd like to put a sign in. What effect would delaying, we should be finished downtown it looks like in another week or so, have the first, coarse dowru It's gettirg pretty close there it looks like. Councilman Horn: I have trouble relating the downtown situation to Frontier. Councilman Johnson: Instead of drivirg through the downtown traffic trying to get over to CR 17 to head into Excelsior, cut down Frontier and cut all the way through past all those homes and Chan Vista rather than fight the bulldozers and everything out here. City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Horn: That would happen anyway whether this is torn up or not. Councilman Johnson: It will happen anyway yes but it will happen worse because this is torn up. There will be other people who will be looking for alternate routes and we've all been looking for alternate routes for the last month ar~ this would be another available alternate route that is not a good alternate route. Mayor Hamilton: If we're going to protect our streets than I think Chan View should be blocked off. I've had more than my share of traffic going by my house now for the past 6 months and I think we should block it off at both ends so people can't go through there. Councilman Horn: I've had all kinds of pick-ups because we have new houses being built on our street. They're working on Saturdays and Sundays too. Mayor Hamilton: Streets are there to be used I think and it's unreasonable to keep th~m closed to local traffic. Councilman Johnson: We're only talking another wsek, whatever. Mayor Hamilton: It should have been opened 2 weeks ago and should be open now. Councilman Boyt: I think the fact that we clearly have streets in Chanhassen that have traffic problems right nowdbecause of downtown, is not a reason to encourage even more streets with similar sorts of traffic problems. I think that the neighborhood realizes that the battle to keep Frontier Trail closed is over and they are simply asking for a few more weeks. As you mentioned, you defined construction traffic to indicate housing construction as well Tom and the decision was made when Frontier Trail was initially blocked to block it during construction. Now we're coming back and redefining construction to be the road construction and all we're asking for is a couple more w~eks. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure it's even something that a motion needs to be made on. My agenda tells me it's Frontier Trail requested to define construction period. Is that something we need to have a motion to define construction period? Maybe that's what you're saying I guess. I guess it could be construed as being that what you are saying on the agenda. Councilman Boyt: That's how it r~-----~s to read is defining construction period to mean 2 more ~-ccks or until the downtown is paved. Mayor Hamilton: I would just reiterate what Clark has said that I don't think, in my opinion you're just attempting to stall this for no particular reason. It has nothing to do with the downtown. It didn't have anything to do with it before and I don't think it does now. You just continue coming back trying to stall for another week or two or 10 days and in 2 weeks you'll probably be back wanting another month. 233 City Oouncil Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think it has a lot to do with traffic patterns Tc~ ar~ I would sure like people to establish a normal traffic .patten rather than one that's brought on the~ by the current construction. Councilman Boyt moved, councilman Johnson seconded that the blockade on Frontier Trail remain for 2 more weeks or until the downtown has a paved road, whichever is first, councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor, Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton opposed the motion ar~ the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Councilman Horn: Can I ask Gary when this will he removed? Gary Warren: I talked with Jerry Schlenk today on it. We were finishirg up Bluff Creek Driv~ That was the priority that we are dealing with at this point so I w~uld say that by the end of this week it w~uld be gone. DISCUSS JOHN SAYER SUBDMSON REQUEST, KOEHNENCIRCLE. Mayor Hamilton: We had this item on the agerz]a two weeks ago ar~ apparently the applicant was not duly informed of what was happening or didn't get his mail or s~mething. Barbara Dacy: Right. Staff advised the appli~t that this matter should be considered by the Council agair~ One of the factors was that the applicant did not receive the packet for the November 2nd meeting. Secondly, he b~ submitted a letter that's included in your packet which staff believes meets the intent at least of Council's action on November 2nd. The applicant is proposing to agree to enter into a develol~ent contract betwee~ himself, the City of Shorewood ar~ Chanhassen that would limit subdivision of the property to no more than 3 lots. That the street serving the lots would be a private drive ar~ would not require maintenance from Chanhassen. That public safety services and emergency services would be provided by the City of Shorewood. Finally, as to utility service to this site, because the sewer along that area fro~ the northern part of Chanhassen does flow into the Shorewood area, adding three units to that utility line would not adversely affect Chanha~en's capacity ar~ the applicant would he responsible however for trunk charges and installation of the utility lines. So based on those factors, staff told Mr. Sayer that Council should look at this matter again ar~ our recommer~ation is that the Council clarify it's action of November 2nd to permit the negotiation and execution of the develolm~nt contract to provide for those four items. Mayor Hamilton: As I read through this I thought that's exactly what we had done. I didn't see anything here than what our action was two weeks ago. Is that wrong? Councilman Boyt: That's the way I saw it. Mayor Hamilton: I thought it was exactly what we had talked about and approved. City Council Meeting - Nov~nber 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: It's kind of what staff was saying too is that it just meets the intent of what you all said last time. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't see anything new or different. Do we need to move on this again? Is everybody happy?. John Sayer: I made the request. You just stated that you made this last Council meeting already. Barbara Dacy: Maybe I was in error then. In my letter to the applicant, I interpretted the Council's action to limit development on that one piece as to one home so that's what I represented to the applicant and going to the Shorewood Planning Ccm~nission but if the Council agrees... Councilman Boyt: We approved item 3 last time. Option 3 which would basically read as Barbara has interpretted. No further resubdivision of the property which would necessitate utilities, street or public safety service. Mayor Hamilton: I guess that's right. Councilman Johnson: This won't. Councilman Boyt: I think what you're proposing creates a problem with this. Does it? Barbara Dacy: The problem was that you didn't have.the assurance from the applicant at that time. I had not spoken to him before the last meeting. Councilman Boyt: Is that how it stands now? Is what you're proposing compatible with Option 937 John Sayer: If, when you say no further redivision, the first addition that I have, I had 10 acres and I drew a line between them and so that's the division of the one so if you took that and then interpretted this that there was no redivision, resubdivision of that one parcel, then I think that's what Barb is interpretting. What we're suggesting is that we be allowed to have the three homes on a private drive. There's about 5 acres back there. What we're saying is yes, there w~uld be no resubdivision of those three lots. Mayor Hamilton: Ail three of them would be hooked to Chanhassen sewer? Barbara Dacy: That would be the only Chanhassen service that would be provided and what staff is saying, that clearly that is the only way to service that as far as sewer is concerned. It would not be an impact. Mayor Hamilton: You're creating about 12 to 15 trips per day down the Koehnen Circle or whatever it is now?. Barbara Dacy: Yes. Did you have something else John? John Sayer: No, just is that how it was understood then? 235 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill is correct. I think we said one owner, was Barb's interpretation was and it was one home. Anybody else here from that neighborhood who has c(mments? Councilman Johnson: Did you approve Option 3 as stated? Councilman Johnson: Which doesn't say one home. It says further subdivision which necessitates additional utility, street or public safety service. He's getting public safety from Shorewood. Streets are already there. We don't have to put any additional streets in. Do we have to put any additional utilities in other than utilities that are existing? I don't think so. Barbara Dacy: So far sewer has bccn discussed. I believe Shorewood would permit installation of three ~lls on the property. Councilman Johnson: Ar~ the sewer's already there. It's not like we have to build sewer for him. He just has to hook up to the existing sewer. I don't see any restrictions. Mayor }~milton: I suspect that just wasn't made clear. John wasn't here last time. I guess we tho~ht that's what your request was to have one home and the rest was just going to stay in the ground. John Sayer: I have no plans in the immediate future to do anythimg but I do think it's wise to keep my options open. As I mentioned in my letter, it would he ideal to find one person interested in buying tl~ property. On the other hand, I think it would be wise to have the option of selling three-1 1/2 acre lots as they are woody in nature, street improvements wouldn't be required. That' s all I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: If somebody wanted to further clarify it, we could say additional utilities other than sewer. If you're saying sewer is the only contention on here then he's free to do ~hatever he wants. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not even conter~ing that. I~ saying he can hook up as long as he pays the sewer bill to Chanhassen. Councilman Boyt: I think that the question here - is the three homes on a private drive. I'm not sure that I saw anything in the information packet that directly addressed three homes on a private drive other than just to say that it was going to be done. Can you give me a little more background? Barbara Dacy: The Shorewood subdivision ordinance does permit the creation of three lots on a private drive. ~he applicant is not Proposing that at this time but is just saying, he wants it as an option if the new buyer for that 5 acre lot could come in and resubdivide it to three lots. The maximum that it could be subdivided to get three lots. Councilman Boyt: What we ~ to Propose then is Option 92 of the options that you gave us last time which leaves the decisi~ as to how City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 the future resubdivision is to be serviced open for the further discussion. Is that right? Barbara Dacy: Yes. I think you could interpret that the cover memo for tonight's meeting is really recommending Option 2 that was presented at the last meeting. Councilman Boyt: So w~ would need a motion to reconsider. Mayor Hamilton: Th/s is actually a separate proposal than what we had approved. Do we need a motion to reconsider? Roger Knutson: I don't think it makes too much difference. You could do it that way. ~nat would be fine. A motion to reconsider. Taat takes a two- thirds vote to pass then you vote on the motion if the motion to reconsider passes. That would be appropriate. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to reconsider the John Sayer subdivision request on Koehnen Circle. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who abstained and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would think it might be appropriate to put this off for two w~eks. Is that going to really delay you if w~ hold this for two weeks? John Sayer: Ikn looking at him. He purchased by previous home and we're trying to close and to do that I have to get a clear title. To do that I've got to show the lot division. To do that I-have to make sure that it's approved by both councils, Chanhassen and Shorewood so if we could agree tonight... Councilman Boyt: Okay, I understand. Councilman Horn: Why would we want to delay? Councilman Boyt: I'm trying to understand the issue a little more clearly Clark. When I initially read the packet I thought that what had been asked for was really what we had approved previously and we were simply bringing it up again because Mr. Sayer had not received notice. As I look at it and as it's been explained now, this is quite a different situation and it's one that we talked about two weeks ago and decided that we would choose option 3 instead. Now we're going back and saying well, given what we know now maybe 2 makes sense. I'm saying it may make more sense to give this some thought rather than just to bounce from pillar to post. Councilman Horn: As I recall, the only reason that we picked number 3 over numnber 2 was that we felt it was even more restrictive and if the applicant didn't care, which we thought at that point, that's the only thing that's really changed, we would stay with the more restrictive but we have no other criteria to decide on 3 over 2 other than that. Now we find out that was a false assumption so I don't know that our discussion needs to be totally made all over again. 10 2-37 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: So I would gather then that you're speaking in favor of accepting Option 2? Councilman~: Yes. John Sayer: I understood that one reason Option 3, it wasn't clear if the City of Chanhasse~ in fact would be responsible for public safety, emergency vehicles and so forth so at this meeting we brought in that information that in fact the City of Shorewood would be responsible for those things and two, it would be a private drive requiring no city maintenance and I~ not sure that was defined at your last council meeting. Councilman Boyt: Gary, do you know the standards to which this private drive will be built? Gary Warren: Not at this point. Barbara Dacy: Again, that would be an issue that would be addressed in the development contract and also, the applicant is just seeking the Council's concurrence that this would be agreeable to the City of Omanhassen. Right now he's just trying to get split approval of the 1~ acre piece into two 5 acre parcels. The development agreement would have to come back to Chanhassen for approval and review to make sure that utility costs and utility plans would be provided. Councilman Boyt: ThiS is in Shorewood but we would be deciding on what the develoIx~ent contract would look like? Barbara Dacy: Right, because it would be a three party agre~asnt. Councilman Johnson: Barb, do we allow three houses on a private drive in this part of town? Barbara Dacy: 0nly in the rural area. Councilman Johnson: Is this the~ral ar~? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Johnson: So this would require a variance from us in order to install a private drive in the City of Chanhassen servicing three houses through a third lot? Barbara Dacy: I think the City of Shorewood has that. ~he parcel is physically located within the City of Shorewood. You have to go through a Shorewood subdivision regulations. What they are proposing to do is exit through that easement across the lot line ar~ along Koehnen Circle. Councilman Johnson: In effect Shorewood is not seeing a private drive, Chanhassen is. 11 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Right but executing an easement across a piece of property in Chanhassen is not in effect causing a necessity to go through our subdivision process unless the City Attorney disagrees. Roger Knutson: No, they are not subdividing land in Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: NO, I'd agree but under what circumstances do we allow a private drive servicing three hc~es in the city of Chanhassen? Mayor Hamilton: The three hemes aren't in the city of Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: No, I say servicing three homes where the private drive is in Chanhassen. Barbara Dacy: Part of it is. Mayor Hamilton: It's not even a question w~ need to consider. Councilman Boyt: Does the question boil down to whether or not we are willing to allow three hook-ups to our sewer syst~? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Maybe that's all we have any jurisdiction over. I guess I'm alright with it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the John Sayer subdivision request, Koehnen Circle with the conditions established by the staff in Option 92. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who abstained and motion carried. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. Jo Ann Olsen: The action tonight is for the Council to determine whether a negative declaration on the EAW should be made or whether or not an EIS should be pursued. We received all the comments with the EAW. The two major comments was one from the Met Council and the other one was from Carver County. Met Council is concerned with the water quality. The applicant met with Met Council's staff and they provided an agenda for the EAW. Still staff feels that they should provide some additional mitigative measures to lessen the impact of the water quality to Lake Riley. As far as Carver County, we have discussed with Carver County for them to provide us with a grading plan that staff can use as each phase comes in to determine where excess fill should be located and what areas should be graded with each phase. As far as the other comments, the applicant is having a historical survey performed at this time. Those are pretty much the major concerns of the EAW. Everything else met staff's approval so we are recommending a negative declaration of the EAW with the conditions that we recommend that additional mitigative measures be provided. If these measures are not found necessary, we are asking that the applicant show us the equations, provide us with equations that would determine that mitigative measures would not provide the necessary impacts to 12 239 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 lessen the water quality of water degregatio~ to Lake Riley. Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you have any couments? Don Patton: Mr. Mayor I have Peter Bishop from Jim Hill's who did meet with this staff and with Met Council and understands more of the runoff than I do so I will give it to him. Mayor Hamilton: I just wondered if you wanted to clarify your position on that. Don Patton: On the mitigation? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Or Peter can, I don't care who speaks to it. Peter Bishop: I'm with Jim Hill and Associates. As staff eluded to we did meet with Don Osgood with Metropolitan Council regarding the issue of phospherous content into Lake Riley. As you are all aware we have about 2,~0 acres that drains into that currently. We are only proposing on this particular development, of the 300, approximately 200 acres drain into that. Therefore, when we went through all these calculations and agreed with Don Osgood which is all more or less..~as far as phospherous content.' Obviously, with the increase of runoff due to development, there is going to be an increase in phospherous content to the lake as was in any development in the city. Based upon that, what we have on our site is we have 6 acres of ponding currently. We're proposing also surrounding that we have 55 acres of existing wetland areas that the water has to go through to get to Lake Riley of which approximately 20 acres is probably on our site which is not being touched. Therefore, would help in the mitigative measures also in our opinion. Also, the ponding would retain some of the water for a certain period of time ar~ let it out at a slower rate. It is however my understanding that the increase in runoff going to Lake Riley has no correlation betwe~ actual rates of runoff, more or less just volumes and therefore, even though we are reducing the rate, it may do some bell~ It won't completely eliminate the increase. Our increase as initially proposed was approximately 5%. It was our understanding from the guideli~es that were given to us was between_ 1 and 10. Anything over 10 was very critical. When I was working with Don on that, we just worked on our basic, if you will, our preliminary plan as far the runoffs and so forth. I think what could be done at the time of actual development and when it comes back to you is a careful consideration'as far as that, as an example, runoff goes and we use point 4. It may be more accurate because of the amount of open spaces ara/or types of development. It could be something like .35. To give you just a change in that much, the volume of runoff would almost lower your percentage from 5 to 3 so you can see it's a big change' ~ doing that. Therefore, it's getting closer to that 1% that they really don't, they meaning the Metropolitan Council, don't have a concern with. So based on that issue we feel that providing the 6 acres of pOnding, the existing wetlands does provide some mitigative measures. It doesn't provide a total amount and we can't propose to do that but we are doing the best we can given the site. Are there any questions? 13 240 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I don't think you had said anything we haven't heard before or anything new here. I think what staff has asked for, this is an excellent job done here on this staff report. I want to see the calculations. I believe that some of these por~s can be made incrementally larger so we have more evaporation, more infiltration and actually have a reduction in the water flow into the watershed district. If we have a longer retention time, there are quite a few things that can be done fairly economically with some minor changes that would increase this and we need to see those calculations. I think staff is asking for those calculations and we should support staff and go for it this way. If we want to go on, on the mitiigation I see a lot of development going on that eventually gets into Lake Riley. We don't have good mitigative a plan to help Lake Riley right now. There's one thing missing from the plan which is money and you can't have a plan without some money to back the plan and we know we have the plan but we don't have the money. What I had the thought this evening on the way here was well beyond this subdivision but also to divisions within the 2,000 acres of the watershed district that goes into here, that all building permits have a fee going into a fund which then is used in support of a study of the phospherous problems, mitigation of the phospherous problems and that type of work. I think that's beyond this particular thing and I probably should have put it on council presentation. I think that is one point that $10.00 per fee per dwelling unit we can raise from the various subdivisions going on a considerable amount of money that can support some research into phospherous removal from Rice Marsh Lake or help fund... Mayor Hamilton: I guess that's something we can discuss later but let's stick to the issue right now. Councilman Johnson: That's part of mitigation of this. Tnis may be part of it. I think there should be further mitigation. I think that even a 5% increase, we have 5% here, 5% there, we're over the 10%. Saddlebrook had some increase. We're going to have some increase here. Saddlebrook has provided a lot of ponding there. I don't know what percentage wise, acreage wise is but I'd like to stick right with the staff's recommendation and not water that down. See the calculations and have the approval based upon hard concrete numbers shown to us. That's all. Councilman Horn: I had a technical question for either ~ary or Mr. Bishop. Part of the assumption here is that any volume of water that we throw into Rice Marsh Lake is going to 'flush phosphates out of the lake and into Lake Riley. I understand that on a short term basis but my question is, how do those phosphates get there in the first place? I suspect they were from all the runoff and the farm runoff and things that happened. It appears to me that what will happen here, by the Metropolitan Council's own admission, a housing development has less runoff than farmland does. It would appear to me that eventually those phosphates will be flushed out of Rice Marsh ar~ the problem that you're talking about is an immediate thing. As less phosphates are put into this, you will have less effect of running that extra volume through. In effect, in the short term you might flush more of it out but in the long term you will actually start improving it. 10 years or 5 years or how ever many years down the road. Is that a proper analysis of what's happening? 14 241' City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Gary Warren: I don't have a grasp of the details as far as th~ sediment condition of Rice Marsh Lake but my understanding in dealing with Dick Osgood fr~m our Saddlebrook issue and such, the sediments and such were so rich with phosphates that it will be quite an extended period of time before you really see any reduction through the pollution process if you want to look at it that way. It's just that rich in sediment with phospherous. Councilman Horn: Ar~ not contributin~ any more or cutting back on the contribution will have very marginal effect? Gary Warren: That's the impression I got fr~n talking to Mr. Osgood. Councilman Horn: See I've not heard them address that issue. ~he only issue I've heard them address is the fact that you will have an immediate and greater flushing effect. Gary Warren: I think even the Met Council and Dick Osgood would admit that the data base that they're working from is pretty short term right now and they've made a strong commitment that this is a priority lake area to monitor now. Every year I think he's getting a little better understar~ing of the magnitude of the problem and like you say, maybe there is a certain period where after continual flushirg here you will see some lor~ term benefits. Councilman Horn: My concern with just expanding the areas are that may work assuming you get your rains over extended periods of tim~ If your rains c~me as they did this summer, that wouldn't buy you anything at all because you'd have the minor evaporation difference of one rain storm ar~ that's it because in effect, you'd be overflowing each one that comes througfu I don't really know what we're going to gain unless everything works just right in nature which it usually doesn't, by expandin~ these areas so I~ really asking staff what are they talking about with further mitigation. Gary Warren: That's been the box I think that we've been in all along ar~ why we impressed Dick Osgood to admit in his own letter, alright what do we do for mitigative measure? If you had someone willing to spend the time and money to do the shore up clirg and a phospherous removal system. Even Mr. Osgood admits that there isn't any quick or easy tricks to this. I think his mission here is to make us aware that there is an apparent impact to the lake as far as phospherous loading. Not to say that it's inordinant or that it go beyond what should be acceptable but just be aware that we are impacting an additional phospherous load. Councilman Horn: My impression of what I read here was yes, it does make us aware of it. He's also really trying to tell us, there's nothing more you. can really do about it therefore it's your ball. We're not going to give you any recommendations because there really aren't any to be made. It's just one of those situations where you can't do much about it. If you increase the volume it' s going to happen. Don Patton: One of the things in our discussion with Dick, a lot of the data that was obtained is from the monitoring we've don~ Whe~ there was a farm on the south side of Lake Susan, the farmers were farming, Al' had his dairy farm 15 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 down there. A lot of the cattle were going into the water and there's a lot of runoff from what I understand. Apparently that monitoring has done about the last 5 years so I think we don't really know what that change could be from the impact of develol:ment and the removal of these agricultural uses. Councilman Boyt: I agree with staff recommendations. I find that I also agree with Clark that there is a quandary here that we've dealt with before, Saddlebrook beirg the example. It's pretty similar to this. I think that the Met Council is encouraging a study of the Lake Riley watershed and I believe the city is taking some action to participate in that. So I'd like to see us be reasonable. I think the best way to be reasonable is to follow the staff recommendation and have them look at this. We basically approved it as it is now and I think we did that in good faith realizing that there was going to be some increase in runoff but that the developer was making a substantial effort to control that. I would like to give staff an opportunity to take what they know now and work with the developer but I really think it should be sort of a mutual agreement situation rather than one party saying this is absolutely the wa/it must be. Mayor Hamilton: I really agree with Clark too and with Bill. I think their 5% increase if the guidelines were 1 to 10 and they're at 5 and with the potential, depending upon how the numbers come out, would be less than that. Perhaps as low as 3. I guess I feel that's something the staff ought to check and if Jay wants to run the numbers himself I guess that's up to you but I'm confident that the staff can take a look at the numbers and determine if it's where it's at and if it's a reasonable level. I'd like to see us move ahead with this. I feel the developer has done as much as he can, has ~---n very cooperative in trying to reduce the amount of runoff but it's difficult when you've had ag on that land for as long as you have and especially with that turkey farm there, there's probably still runoff coming from there which is extremely high in phospherous. It would probably be good for us to take a good hard look at that building and ~ if we can't eliminate that somehow. That may eliminate more phospherous runoff than not making the developer change anything. Councilman Johnson: You mentioned that there used to be a Chanhassen sewage treatment plant that went into Rice Marsh Lake and that was one of the primary sources of the phospherous in Rice Marsh Lake from the detergents, etc.? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. The motion was made and discussion followed. Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to question the mitigative measures being in there because if figures are checked and staff finds that we are less than 5%, they already are within the range that the Metropolitan Council said they need to be and if that's the case, why do we continue a person to be lower than what the guidelines say have already followed. That's the problem I have. Councilman Johnson: We're asking for documentation, not mitigation. We want the calculations is-all staff is asking for. 16 243 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Alright, if that's all your asking for then I h~ve ~o problem with it. Jo Ann Olsen: If I could just clarify Met Council's standards was 1% as the low was good. 10% was thought to be a concerru Anything over 1~% was critical.. Mayor Hamilton: 1% to 10% was probably acceptable? Jo Ann Olsen: They're still concerned ar~ 5% was higher than... Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure we should all be concerned is there's half of 1% increase but you have to be, as Bill says reasoDahle someplace in there and if 1% to 10% is acceptable, that seems like those were the guidelines given to the developer and that's what we should look at. Jo Ann Olsen: I was Just clarifying what the guidelines actually ware. Councilman Boyt:_ . ~ I suggested that staff work with the developer, there may be some things the developer can do at a fairly reasonable cost, maybe even for no additional cost, that would increase the capacity of some of those ponds and I think there indicating they are willing to do that. I'd like to have staff work with the~. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the City of Chanhassen as the responsible goven~ment unit (RG~ establishes a negative declaration for the Lake Susan Hills West PUD EAW subject to ~,~.ission of additional documentation regarding water quality mitigative, completion of the archeological survey and compliance with all other recommendations of the reviewing agencies. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: There was another question there that Don had wanted to bring ~ It was not on the agenda but you have a note in the packet about the clarification of the trails being on both sides of CR 17. I may be mistaken but it was my recollection that as we discussed this, whenever it was the last time we discussed it, that we had talked about it some and I felt that we had said one side was adequate. We haven't ever done two sides ar~ that was the question I asked of Lori and after I asked that question I thought we had all kind of agreed. Maybe I was asking for nods but I know Bill would want to have a trail down the middle of the street if he could but I felt at that time requesting both sides is excessive, We've ~ever done it previously and I don't think it's something that ought to be done now. I guess that was my feeling. We had not said that you had to do both sides. Now I may have ~n mistaken. Councilman Horn: That's what is reflected in the JUne 16th Park and Recreation ~ission Minutes also. Councilman Boyt: When I read the June 16th Park and Becreation Commission Minutes, I read part of the statement that says, until a need is defined by staff at some point in the future, indicating that they wanted to reserve the 17 244 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 right to have that second side of the road put into a trail. I talked to Lori about this as well and I agree Tom that this isn't something we've made a practice of doing in the past. It concerns me that we're asking this developer to do something in this particular case that we've not done in the past. Lori could probably make this argument better than I. As I understand her comment was that this is going to be a rather densely populated area. This is one way to get them to downtown. It's going to be a fairly busy road and it made sense to the Park and Rec people to hold that option open. I'm quite confident that last week we passed it with a trail on both sides of the road. I'd like to hear more discussion I guess. It's a quandry. I see your point. Councilman Johnson: I think as CR 17 develops it will be probably necessary to have a trail on both sides. You're not going to want people crossing a highway to get to the trail. Also, the southwest corridor, as far as the snowmobile corridor runs in that area, it would be good to be able to have the snowmobiles on one side and cross country on the other. It's just the two are not very compatible. Mayor Hamilton: Where are we going to put the horses. Maybe we should have another one for the~. Councilman Johnson: Okay. That's the one that will go down the center. Don Patton: The reason I made the request. We did agree to put in a lot of additional walkways in. I don't see why anyone would have to cross this... It seems to me that it should be accessed from any site to get to walkways that are in subdivisions...Our consultant said that only one is necessary... I think I would like to take..~ecause as I have seen in the past if there is ever a chance that something will be added, someone will find a reason to add it and we don't need the burden to these people who are buying these houses with any other cost than has already been put upon us. Mayor Hamilton: I think if I were to listen to everyone who was pro trails in this community, you'd think that everybody who lived here didn't own a car and everybody walks everyplace they go or rides their bicycle when in fact you see very little walking and very few people other than chilren riding their bicycles on our streets. When we just passed the Saddlebrook subdivision and talked about trails up there, we discussed which side of the street the trails would be one and there was some concern about the people crossing Kerber Blvd. which is going to be a very busy street also and if I remember correct we had a trail on one side where people are going to be crossing from one side to the other just to go to school so I fail to see the ~-~ to put a trail on both sides of the street. Pretty soon we're going to have such a wide street a developer isn't going to have a place to build his homes. I still say and I feel very strongly that a trail on both sides of the streets is excessive and is not needed. Councilman Boyt: I guess where I live I see a lot of people out walking. Unfortunately we don't have trails. It does create a dangerous situatior~ I would like to see some sort of compromise struck here. I understand the developer's position and I appreciate his building the trails he has. I would 18 283 City Council Meeting - November 16~ 1987 be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it protects the ability of the City to c~me back and build a trail later. Councilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Nsc was asking for anyway. Councilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would build the trail on both sides of CR 17 ar~ I think Park and Rec said that if he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees waiver. I think since then we have increased the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an easement. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide a paved trail on one side and an easement on the other side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail, to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW SWINGS RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT: a. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRMNG RANGES AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIA~3RE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND AND FINAL READING. B. APPROVAL(/)NDITIONAL USE PERMIT Barbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of tb~ proposed conditions of the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading on the zoning ordinance amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the condi~l use permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff bas prepared in Attachment #2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions. On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the lar~]scaping plan and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire perimeter of the site as well as a fence around tt~ maxi-putt and mini-putt 19 City Council Meeting - Novezber 16, 1987 area. So the conditional use permit has bccn designed to follow up on the elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and landscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control and indicating the revised location of the perking lot and clubhouse. As you recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce the size Of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall, Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR 117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along. I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building. Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot so what the first condition is saying is that the plan should show the revised location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb. The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas and Galpin Blvd.. Tne proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6 feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together. As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area. The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area. If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending that if the septic system sites are not to be used, the~ we recommend installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife and DNR. Because the applicant will be sutanitting a revised grading 20 247 City Oouncil Meeting- November 16, 1987 plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland alteration permit, ~ouncil action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The applicant is proposing to plant grass seed in this area on a regular basis in order to pick up the balls fr~n the tee area. Because this area has ~ farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetlar,] areas. We prepared a permit to allow seeding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that ~s to be corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter of credit in the amount of 110%. Tae Council discussed at the last meeting and made a cor~lition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there would be no lighting unless that was a specific cor~lition of approval. Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid .by tl~ applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of our subdivision or any type of applicant in ~ rural area. Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we required curb and gutter in that area. Barbara Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives, ingress and egress points to the develolm~nt. Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the whole, what you would consider the parking area. Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Ckay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance says, I guess that surprises me. Barbara Dacy: Staff has ~ consistent in recommending that that be installed. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas? Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past? 21 24 - City Council Meeting - November 16~ 1987 Mayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and gutter. Barbara Dacy: Tne ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. It says if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete curb. Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that? Barbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this area. ~ne other reference that we used was the official Chanhassen wetlands map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour that's located on the wetlands map. Mayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that? Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B. Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get? Barbara Dacy: ~nere's Type I which is the lowest. Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had ~ farmed for years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek. I would prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care if it's Mrs. Bockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland. I don't think there's any evidence out there. Do council members have any questions of the staff? Councilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a guideline on this issue. Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred. 22 249 City Osuncil Meeting - November 16, 1987 So that item has not ~ brought back to the Planning Commission for review given Council' s action. Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we should go back ar~ get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had c~me up and that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to address and brought back to us for us to act oru Now we come back to this issue again a~d we don't have any further recommendations or any further guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive, we're retroactive. Barbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because the five conditions that the Council eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area. But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commi~ion did say that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural area. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission rec~m~ndation. Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance ar~ I don' t believe it has. Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't understar~ how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct use than a golf course. Cour~ilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to the ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue fr~m our ordinance. Barbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Oommission recommendation for the golf driving rarges and miniature golf courses. They did not address a golf course issue at all. Councilman Horn: I understand that. Based on th~ current ordinance? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper ~ing, will 23 256 City Council Meeting - November 16 ~ 1987 function as a nutrient drain the wetlar~ area. This is another example of how the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive plan. John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the 11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling in the wet area at all. One thing that I would like to propose is the batting cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my financing and that project was...to make it financially feasible. I needed the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it. As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to make it financially feasible... Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's an entirely separate issue. I guess if you want that to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Do you have any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you? John Pryzmus: ~ne curbing and? Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review th~m? John Pryzmus: I didn't. Councilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland? John Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it. Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that? John Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland. Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you filled it in. Mayor Hamilton: That' s correct. 24 285 City Council ~=eting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What you're basically askirg to do with the wetlands and what the City proposes is a wetland, is to ~ it, mow it, treat it like any other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede it's ability to do what it's doing now? Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the ~.~ing would not affect that function at all. Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should take you up on that. Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would have to reapply for that. Councilman Boyt: How would you like to alter that wetland? John Pry~z~: You means as far as building a pond? Councilman Boyt: No, as far as th~ particular wetland. Is that where you are proposing to build your pond? John Pryzmus: Yes it w~uld be down at the end of the road area. Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing to make in the w~tland? John Pry~us: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer. Councilman Boyt: Do we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland? We ~ to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. ~ the other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any of those so it does state that a person needs to have s~me sort of dust free, all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in the city ~ can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district? Mayor Hamilton: It' s A-2. Councilman Boyt: I think give~ the surface area, it probaby makes sense to put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface 25 28C City Council Meeting - Nover~er 16, 1987 on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that. So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I think we see an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we done a traffic study? Barbara Dacy: No w~ have not for this. Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic without conducting a traffic study. Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. ~neir recommendation was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection. Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular intersection than I an can give us more information. Barbara Dacy: We do have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to through the process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. ~ne miniature golf course traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and Sunday and evenings. Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter on TH 5, this... Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial recreational use. Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be cc~parable with a retail use? Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have no other co~nents on the two proposed items before us. Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf driving range? 26 r 253 City fbuncil Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use. Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use request when there is s~me overriding concer~ We can't do it because the neighbors don't want it there? Mayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always give~ us a great deal of latitude. Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it, You can't turn it down because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to exercise your own judgment. Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. t~fortunately that"s the case. Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on here is that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access. Councilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street access. Councilman Horn: ~hich will limit it to some degree. Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We specified TH 5 and TH 212. We're not opening this up to the ~tire A-2 district. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bequest 982-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses: l. The location of the driving rar~3e is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212.' 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. . Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of lar~scap~ plan in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 No site shall be located within 5M0 feet of a single family residence. . The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800 square feet ar~ shall be painted in earth tones. All voted in favor a~d motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional .Use Permit document. The applicant has said that be b~-n't reviewed the 10 items. Is there a motion to handle item 6(b)? 27 City Council Meeting - Nov~nber 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: DJ.d the applicant get this? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't. Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not received it? John Pryzmus: I've been out w~rking at the site so I haven't gotten my mail. Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address. Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion. Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to it appears to be a infiltration area. unfortunately there's about a foot of dirt in many areas on top of what used to he the wetlands but I think if we dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up. Councilman Horn: It's already broken. Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there and it could be improved to be something. Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito breeding area. Councilman Boyt: ~ne holding pond isn't a condition as it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve . Mr. Pryzmus seems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the wetland alteration permit? Councilman Johnson: We denied it. Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised 28 255 .City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 grading plan by December 1st ir~icating location of a holding por~. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to see John be encouraged to come back ar~ request a wetland alteration permit again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to have a permit. John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there ~ have him and the DNR decide how big and whetter they think it should be there. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, ar~ then that could be a part of your request for a wetland alteration permit c(~ning back to us at another time. John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me have my batting building. Mayor Hamilton: ~here's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do, that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one or either or both, that's up to you to make that request. Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond? John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going to hurt m~. Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic syste~. Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. COnditions 4 and 5 re~ain the same. Councilman }{om: We could include an asphalt curb. Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get ~ flow off of the parking area. Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but it would ~ that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're always trying to do. Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity and that would seem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs. 29 k City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Gary Warren: We'll look at that with the plans that come in. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first cond ition: . Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT. Mayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same problems we did last time. T~at was a mess. Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in this city. As much as I like to see them fly, I understand that a good many people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would think sc~ething in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home. Mayor Hamilton: Feet or yards? Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you 30 289 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 point a shotgun at 45 degrees and pull the trigger, that you're going to get shot a long ~ay out. Councilman Johnson: Not 1,000 yards. Councilman Boyt: I know. That's why I say 1,000 yards you have no problem. Councilman Horn: 5 miles is even safer. Councilman Boyt: Well, it may offer some people an opportunity to arrange a hunt where t~ would not be able to if w~ simply said you can't hunt north of TH 5. I happen to think that shooting a few geese north of TH 5 is an awfully good idea. I think we need to do it with a great deal of safety and concern for the people who are living there. I'm looking for some way to do both. From what I understand, Mr. Dimler ran a very reasonable hunt on his property and I hate to say to him or anyone else that you can't do that. Mayor Hamilton: Wasn't his the only property where the federal game wardens arrested people? Councilman Boyt: They didn't arrest anyone with his party. If they arrested anyone, it was people who were hunting out there with no permission from him or the City and that can happen whether we ban hunting north of TH 5 or not. Mayor Hamilton: That's true. I never did hear who was arrested, I just heard that somebody was arrested out there. I didn't know if it was ~uck. Do you know Jim? Jim's here, P~ can clarify. Jim Chaffee: Yes I do. It was part of Mr. Dimler's party. It was Brian Klingelhutz. He was not arrested, he was cited for party shooting geese. Councilman Boyt: While they were on the ground, is that the thought? Jim Chaffee: While they were on the ground, they shot over their limit. You can't party shoot geese according to the federal game warden. Councilman Boyt: Party shooting is when there are 4 people in your party and you shoot everybody's limit? Jim Chaffee: That's right. Councilman Horn: I think too that we do have some opportunities for hunting in Chanhassen. I'd hate to close the town down prematurily for things that have ~ going on here for years. I think that the ~ though has set up appropriate guidelines for distance ar~ I think we should follow those because it makes things much easier to enforce if you're consistent with the agency that's suppo~ly knows the proper rules for this type of thing. I think that · would open up areas both north of TH 5 and south of TH 5 so my recommendation would be to include areas north of TH 5 that comply with the DNR's rec(mmendations for shooting and I believe they give adequate safe distances. City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 31 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Oouncilman Johnson: I'm in favor of leaving the ordinance as is. The only time we hunt north of TH 5 is when there is a DNR sponsored wildlife reduction shoot such as the goose shoot or it could be an overpopulation of deer or anything. I think this is still a necessary wildlife management technique that we must preserve. We can't just automatically say we don't want to manage our wildlife north of TH 5 anymore because there is still wildlife there. I know several areas where the hunting is not allowed and they have wildlife problems. I work with military reservations where hunting is not allowed and they end up having on the middle of their artillery ranges and stuff a lot of deer. The deer don't really care if they have artillery firing over their heads or anything. They just stay there. As far as south of TH 5, we to include the areas that are now residential areas. The new subdivisions and ,I want to double check on the 500 feet. Whether that's within the DNR standard, this 500 feet for shotgun. I would also like to know what type of weapons do we allow south of TH 5? Is shotgun the only weapon? Jim Chaffee: For hunting yes. Councilman Johnson: Are there other purposes for which a weapon will be used south of TH 5? Jim Chaffee: Yes, for target practice or what have you. Mayor Hamilton: I think we're just trying to deal with hunting right now. You can use a shotgun to shoot upland game and you can use a shotgun with slugs to shoot deer south of TH 5. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I could I've got a map I can throw on the overhead that would show some of the areas a little better highlighted than what is on your map to give you an idea of what we're talking about. Councilman Johnson: As we're developing down here, the areas able to be hunted are getting ~naller and smaller veryquickly. Councilman Horn: They take care of th~nselves by the rules. Jim Chaffee: You had this in your packets but again it's black and white. I thought this would highlight it a little better. Jo Ann provided the map to me. You see the areas in the blue is the shaded area that is covered by ordinance right at the moment. The area in red area projected areas of development in the City of Chanhassen and including some areas of development just outside our borders in Chaska. With this road that's going on south of TH 5, my recommendation was to form a committee or get something started to look at these areas now. Right now all this area is open that is in red for hunting. AS development occurs south of TH 5, we're going to have to take a better look at this and maybe include that in the shaded area. Again, my recommendation was to look at hunting in the city of Chanhassen to include these areas and including maybe prohibiting hunting in the entire city. It's not a well liked proposal but it's an atlernative that we did have. 'Again, you have a lot of area down at the river bottoms that certainly wouldn't propose any safety problems at all for someone who was hunting down there. Tonight I see three alternatives. One is shooting north of TH 5. If the 32 2'59 City Council Heeting - Nove~_r 16, 1987 Council decides to go ahead and allow shootirg north of TH 5, we can .handle it. We can handle it on an individual basis. As it comes in, we would look at it and pursue the issues. The second idea we're lookirg at tonight is again, setting up a committee to look at expanding the no shooting areas that are occurirg in tl~ development that is occurring south of TH 5. The third area I think we should look at is increasing the permit fees from the present $3.00 to at least a $10.0~ fee. This will cover staff's time of going out ar~ researching all these areas. It includes my time as well as' safety Officer's time and the secretary's time- We actually go out and look at the areas. We have to go back and we have to research who owns the property. Whether the property owner has assigned it and that includes mailing too so I think the three things we're looking at is, the first and primary issue is whether we should allow shooting north of TH ~ We don't want to get caught in the same blanket we were caught in late August when we were caught right between a rock ar~ a hard place. Whsn a request came in, we had absolutely no idea what was going on. We didn't have any DNR guidelines. Now the special permit or the special goose hunt sponsored by the DNR is going to be fr~m December 18th to Devember 27th. It's over a month away, we have plenty of time. We have to get public notices out ar~ get reaction from the public if we allow any shooting north of TH 5. We have gotten a few requests in. Again, we can handle them on an individual basis. It's got to be up to the Council to decide whether or not we allow shooting north of TH 5. The second issue is looking at some of the are~_- outlined in red. Whether or not we should include that in the shaded areas at some future date. Thirdly, that the permit fees be increased from the present $3.0~ to $1~.~0. That's the way we stand right now. Councilman Johnson: I didn't agree with moving the red areas as they define new development, I%m not sure if they exactly define the development that's going on right now but I believe most of that area, you've got Chan Hills, Lake Susan West, various properties down there that are now being subdivided so it's almost reasonable. I think by city ordinance right now we're between a rock and a hard spot if we want to deny anybody that brings in an application in a timely manner to us, where we don't have to make a decision on a split second minute without any data, which is goirg to happen for December, but our ordinance states that DNR sponsored, that it really doesn't give us a lot of outs to saying no. I'd like to see staff review that ordinance and see that if the DNR goes and says we ~ a metropolitan skunk hunt and we don't have a skunk problem, I don't want to have a skunk-hunt. Just because DNR says the whole metropolitan area does not necessarily mean Chanhassen. Now Chanhassen does have some geese. Jim Chaffee: I think one of the questions we're going to have to look at, as each request comes in to shoot north of TH 5, each ar~ every request as I read it has to go before the Council and then we have the 1~ day public notice. We're going to get requests that are not going to come in in time and you'll probably be facing the same issue. Councilman Johnson: We should advertise right now that if you don't have your request in by December 1st, it's not going to be considered. It can't be public noticed. 33 City Council Meeting - NoveT~er 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we need to advertise it. I think it's up to the individuals who want to hunt. If they don't have the desire to inquire of the city about getting a permit prior to publication time, why then they're not giving us enough time to put everything in the paper, then that's their problem I guess. If they come in a day before the hunt is supposed to take place wanting to get a permit, they've just waited too long. Councilman Boyt: I think what we're saying is that we're willing to work with this issue. It's certainly not going to be an easy one. It's important to some people who happen to have the opportunity to hunt and we certainly need to do it safely and I think the Council has indicated that we don't want any hunting over the park, Lake Ann. Other than that, certainly not in residential areas. I think if I was living out on a 2 1/2 acre lot, it would be easy to be confused about whether there can be hunting in my neighborhood or not and I think it's up to the Council to make it quite clear that when an area is developed as a residential, even on 2 1/2 acre lots, that there's not to be hunting. A shotgun slug carries a long ways and you never know what sc~body is going to try to do. Mayor Hamilton: How are we going to handle Mike Gorra when he comes in this time? I think that's an issue we need to at least think about right now because he's been here previously. We turned him down and he'll be back again for this one, especially if w~ say yes w~ will allow hunting north of TH 5. Councilman Boyt: I didn't sense that we turned him down. We simply said he couldn't hunt everything any time he wanted to hunt. Councilman Horn: He didn't ask for this specific permit. Mayor Hamilton: Did we give him a goose permit last time? Councilman Boyt: He didn't ask for one. We offered him one, he didn't want it. Councilman Horn: I see no problem with his application, if that's what he wants. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Resolution 987-119 increasing the permit fee to $10.00, to continue to follow' the ordinance as stated and to encourage Mr. Chaffee to follow through with a committee to investigate restrictions on hunting south of TH 5. All voted in favor and motion carried. DISCUSS ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM ORDINANCE: A. ~ATER METER REQUI~ B. PROTECTION OF SEPTIC SITES DURING CONSTRUCTION. Jo Ann Olsen: ~nis is just for the Council, for their own information. The section on the protection of septic sites during construction is just for your own information and the water meter requirement, there has been some 34 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 discussio~ whether or not this is necessary by homeowners ar~ we brought Roger Machmeier in to go over that again with you. P~ can confirm whether or not you still feel it's necessary to have it in the ordinance or not and will answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Boyt: Does anybody have any questions? Councilman Johnson: How much does a water meter cost? Councilman Boyt: $25.~0 isn't that it? Roger Machmeier: I believe you're seeing he's charging $75.0~ and that's for an old feeding water meter. The same water meter that you're seeing for municipal water is my understanding. Councilman Johnson: Are we measuring' well water with this meter? Roger Machmeier: The intent would be to measure that water which is discharging in the on-site ~e system. Councilman Johnson: Taat's not the question. Are we measuring the water going into the h~me or measuring the water coming out of the home? Roger Mac~m~ier: Into the home. Councilman Johnson: (1kay, because not every water coming into a home goes into the sewer syst~. Roger Mac~eier: 7~at' s correct. Councilman Johnson: There is some lawn watering done. Especially on 2 1/2 acre lots where people put a lot of grass in, those that do do that. Roger Machmeier: ~he proper way would be to plumb this in so that it measures not what flows to the outside silt box where it may be used for lawn sprinkling, watering the garden, washing the car, etc. and in a new home that's anywhere from 6 to 10 extra feet of pipe. When we purchased our home, we were the first to put in a water meter and I had to put it on the main pipe as it comes off the pressure tank because the plumbing was already in for the outside silt box. So I take readings during those period, of times when you're not, right now you're not sprinkling your lawn very much or ev~ washing your car but you can certainly get a good reading of what that family is using with respect to water flowing into the waste syst~n. That's the idea. Councilman Horn: I think it's just fine. Roger Machmeier: When I drove out here tonight I looked at the gas tank in my car to see if there was enough gas to get out here. We read meters every day. People who have, let's say a home out in the country that don't have natural gas, but a gas tank with a meter on it. The idea behind this meter is to give the homeowner protectioru To give the city protection and give anybody who installs it protection. The homeowner should he able to evaluate whether the 35 City Council Meeting - Nov~r~er 16, 1987 sewage system, how it's functioning before sewage backs up in the basement floor. If anybody has ever had that happen... Councilman Johnson: How do we get s~mebody to take meaninful readings on this meter? When the system fails, to go take one reading does not provide us a lot of data. The lack of data is the purpose of the meter. I've run into this in many cases. You get there and you don't know what's happened in the past. How often should the meter be read and what is the incentive to the homeowner who is used to having services provided and you forget about it? Many people that's exactly what happens. How do we get them to take the readings and how often I guess is what I 'm asking. Roger Machmeier: You don't get them to take the readings unless you pass a law and then how do you enforce the ordinance. As I suggested in one of my letters, perhaps a small fact sheet pointing out the responsibilities of a homeowner with an on-site sewer system. On the back sheet could be a table suggesting that they take water meter readings during that period of time when other water is not being used. Unless the inspection pipes or well, inspection holes are located in the trenches of this system or in the raw sewage treatment mound, there's really no need to measure water. You need to know how much water is going into that waste system and how much of it is being used. How you press that upon the homeowners is a matter of education. When we began to advise the City of Chanhassen on the sanitary ordinance and updating it, it was our understanding that and it still is that you want to have on-site sewage treatment systems as a viable, long range sewage treatmen{ alternative. This is one way of doing it. You can have a properly designed system with a good site evaluation and along with that you've got to accept some responsibilities for the city. You've got to have a good ordinance. You've got to make sure that you do a good site evaluation. That you rope off the the sites where the sewage system is going to be constructed, etc. and then beyond that you've got some responsibilities to educate the homeowner and they in turn have some responsibilities. If the homeowner is going to say well, we don't want to worry about what goes down that sewer pipe, we want to discharge as much sewage down there that we want to with any kind of sewage, then they should be on a municipal system. They shouldn't be on an on-site system. That's the facts of life. Every on-site system has got a definite finite size and that's the way you plan a system, according to the size. If it's a three bedroom house, you estimate 450 gallons a day. We also know that every three bedroom house isn't like every other three bedroom house. You've got some three bedroom houses and then you've got three bedroom houses. There are some $750,000.00 houses and they're still three bedroom but we also know that sewage flows tend to increase with the price of the house. Now if you permit a system for 450 gallons a day, I'm talking about sewage in Chanhassen, and the people put up a three bedroom house, very expensive, lots of entertaining, lots of hot tubs and that type of thing in there and they are using 750 gallons a day or 1,000 gallons a day, essentially you're protected. They've got to increase the size of their system but if they operate on the premise that you permitted a three bedroom system out here and that's what we guess three bedroom houses... The bottom line is gallons per day for an on- site system coupled together with the proper evaluation of soils. I think real estate people are...because they come to our site evaluaters and go to our workshops and say, please evaluate for us this septic system. You don't 36 263 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 have any history, all you know is that there is a system down there and apparently it's taking sewage from the people that are living in the house. Well this couple that was an older couple that carried water in from the windmill a number of years ago and now there water use is maybe 100 gallons a day or less for the two of them, the system is adequate for that and a family with 4 or 5 teenagers moves in, in two months the~re going to have sewage problems and the people who sell the house can very validly say we never had any problems with that system and the people are going to say we have nothing but problems. The difference between them is water useage. That's the point you've got to get across. The idea of the monitoring 'is two things. Find out how muc~ of this system is being used and how many gallons a day are going into it. I think it protects the homeowner. I think it protects the city. I think it protects the installer. We~e got people who are puttin~ out new types of systems, you may have heard of them, graveless trenches where they don't even put gravel in the trenches. A couple of these are on the market. There is some relunctance because of the added costs of the system. I tell ~ this, I find it difficult to believe them unless you're not really sure you numbers are right. You ought to welcome putting in a water meter so you can say to your homeowners, we'll guarantee that our syst~ handles 450 gallons a day and it will be right there in front of them. I look at it from a different perspective I guess. Councilman Horn: ~hat's the typical cost of one of these total systems? Roger Machmeier: Total systems, we did some surveys a number of years ago. It depends on haul distances for materials and access onto the site and location competitioru But averages for a trench system for 450 gallons a day system probably is arour~ $3,000.00. I surveyed 15 contractors arour,] the state. For a four bedroom home, not an awful lot more because you just add some more trench and the contractor has to set up anyway. He's got to put his equipment on the lot and so on, so you're maybe talking another $500.00. Three and four bedroom mound systems in the $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 range and that's complete with holding statioru In some areas it can be considerably more than that. If the~ve got problems with getting materials in there but these are some averages from s~me contractors that I took a survey back,' I think it was two years ago. Oour=ilman Horn: So this thing is probably less than 2% of any system cost? Roger Machmeier: Yes, I would certainly think so. You say what percent of the cost do you have? A person buying, I don't know what lots cost out here, they are selling lots in North Oaks, I use that as an example, they're selling for around $50,000.00. That's before the house goes up .... then look at the cost of the water meter when you compare the cost of the lot ar~ the house and all that, it drops way down but the system costs. One of the other things that should he in there is an electrical event power pumping station if you have a mound system. ~he reason you have a mound system is likely because of a high water table in your soil. The water meter tells you want goes into the septic tank and the pumping station activates a cycle counter tells you what goes from the pump station up to the mour~L If the two are about the same, you don't have any infiltration but if you've got leakage into that tank, and you get appreciably more water goirg from the pumping station than the mournS, the~ 37 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 you get hydraulic overlay even though your water meter doesn't indicate that~ The electrical event counter, a good electrical event counter costs about $30.00. Mayor Hamilton: Thanks Roger. I think it's a good idea. Whatever we can do to improve septic systems and use them in the community is good. I'd like to see the staff somehow come up with something we could utilize, just a brochure that we are given, so anybody who was going to build in the unsewered area receives one of these and perhaps any other information that they ought to have outlining that they have to put in the meter and the electric event counter just so everybody knows ahead of time what it is we're doing and why we're doing it and perhaps do as much as education as possible ahead of time. Jo Ann Olsen: We still give that whole, what's attached, we give that out with each permit. Councilman Boyt: I think there's a real simple summary to this which Mr. Machmeier put in his memo to Jo Ann. "The best possible insurance", and I think the City of Chanhassen has said that's what they want and I think that's what we're getting. It may be taking some people a little of their time to adjust to that but I think it certainly is in our best interest. Councilman Horn: I would like to see us lose our dependence on Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's system entirely. Mayor Hamilton: Do we need a motion on this, to approve the use of water meters? We don' t need it? Councilman Johnson: It's part of our ordinance. REVIEW HERMAN FIELD ACCESS PLAN, MARK KOEGLER. Don Ashworth: The notice did not get out to the neighborhood. They did receive the notices that went to the Planning Commission. They did attend that meeting but they did not receive this notice of it going to City Council so we have informed people in that area that we would suggest to the City Council that action be tabled tonight to allow them to be contacted on a more timely basis. councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table action on Herman Field Access Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT #87-4 AMENDING THE UTILITY CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM POLICIES AND INFILTRATION/INFL~ POLICIES, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, APPLICANT. Mayor Hamilton: DO councilmembers have any specific questions or can we dispense with the staff review of this? It seems rather straigth forward. 38 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 CounciLman Johnson: It's good. I%n glad we're addressirg this very important issue of infiltration and inflow. I know we had our summer intern work on that kind of continuously. I talked to him a couple of times. He was amazed by how many sewers we had. This is a significant problem that I believe the more we can work on this, the more we can get from Met Council. The amount of water probably going in our systems is not water that we want to put there in the first place. CounciLman Horn: One of the points we'd use, hopefully we can get a reduction in our sewer rates. CounciLman Johnson: Reduction of the sewer .rates and if we can reduce the amount of sewage going in, we may be able to get more sewer in the long run. Mayor Hamilton: The infiltration's that really killing us and has been for years. Main street beirg done is going to solve a great portion of that we hope. I told the staff the other day I showed a house to someone and I took them down to the basement ar~ sure enough, there was the sump basket with the pu~p with the pipe coming out of the su~o basket right into the sink. Councilman Johnson: That's the inflow portion of this. I~m wondering what percentage of homes there are. Mayor Hamilton: There's a lot of them. They used to all do it. Councilman Boyt: I have one question. This ann,,~l televising, is it really necessary to televise all the sewer lines every year? Gary Warren: We wouldn't televise them all. We're putting it on an 8 year interval, we're .televising, in fact we're just finishing up probably this w~ek with 30,000 feet of the old syste~. CounciLman Boyt: One other question, in the Chapter Four, Conclusions and Recommendations, it talks about Lift Stations 91 and 92, they are apparently over capacity during peak conditions. ~4~at are we doing to take care of that? Gary Warren: The pumps have a capacity to handle the flow. If you recall, we did the Shadowmere development, that lift station, the problem is that 'the reservoir is a wet well and the cells had a short response time so when. we get heavy flows if we aren't there right away to monitor or if we don't allow lead time or if the pump happens to get a lightning strike so this year we brought in a telementary system for more rapid response and alarms so guys can get out there and maintain the station. CounciLman Boyt: If the pump can't handle it, would it be reasonable to increase the size of the lmm~? Gary Warren: The pumps can handle it. ~hey just can't handle it when they are out of power. 39 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: So this telementary station is going to tell us when they are with power and without power? Gary Warren: Anything that would cause either a power failure or pumps do plug up, even the big ones, anything that is a problem. What we call a high level alarm is sent in to... Councilman Boyt: As I recall, you assured me that we wouldn't have a problem with Shado~mere increasing the load on that lift station. Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ~87-4 to amend the Utility Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include the proposed sections entitled, Infiltration and Inflow and On-Site Treatment Systems, as reflected in Attchments ~1 and ~2 and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan council. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ACQUISITION OF LABALLO PROPERTY AND INITIATION OF CONDf~NATION PROCEEDINGS. Don Ashworth: The City Counci has been working hand and hand with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. To date though all of the acquisitions have occurred basically by the HRA. ~ne funding to acquire certain key parcels in the downtown area has now ~_n accomplished through the City Council's expansion of Tax Increment District ~2 or Economic Development District. Again, that now provides the funding necessary to start that process. Since the City Council has not previously been involved with the actual acquisitions which means the appraisal process, condemnation process and again relocation benefits, I do believe that I will ~ to eventually meet with individual council members to discuss that whole process, potentially go through the appraisals that the HRA did establish, how that process was completed. However, in the meantime we would like to start with the condemnation process for the Hendrickson/Modeen property, that's the development that lies directly behind the Lawn and Sport and the Lawn and Sport itself. To do that we need your authorization and resolution which Roger handed to me this evening. The resolution simply goes through the necessity that the subject parcels should be acquired to carry out public purpose. Again, I sincerely believe that we will be able to carry out negotiations with Bernie Hanson, owner of Lawn and Sport. I met with him again today. All of our meetings have been very positive. However, we can not afford to wait. It takes about 60 to 90 days by the time you've selected persons to carry out the appraisals, to do those appraisals and get those back in, to give initial notices to property owners and if we find ourself in February and we have not reached agreement with Mr. Hanson, we would be in a very difficult position. We are still are hoping to see the medical facility carry out construction in the summer of 1988 and they want to see it in the spring of 1988. I don't personally think that that's possible but I think we can shoot for it. If we do not start the legal process right now, realizing full well that we will be continuing negotiations outside of that court process, we will never get there by summer of 1988. 40 267 City Council Meeting - Nowm~ber 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I just had a question on, ! wanted to make sure and maybe it doesn't make any difference, I would think it would, the spelling of Mike LaBallo's name appears differently in two different places. One is LaBallo and then in the Agreement it's Labalo. It's a significant difference so I would think that it should have some meanirg in a legal document doesn't it Roger? Roger Knutson: You' re suppose to do it right, that' s correct. Mayor Hamilton: You probably got to spell the guy's name right so I would encourage you to check the spelling and make sure we have his name spelled right on the purchase agreement. I think it's the one that appears in the City's, I think that's the correct spelling. I didn't have anything else. I think w~ should move ahead. Whatever it takes to get the job done. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the acquisition of the LaBallo property and initiation of condemnation proceedings in the Downtown Redevelopment Project as indicated by Staff. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. ~ ~%~O ~ [ [ ~ -~. OOUNCIL PRES~TI~S: Councilman Johnson: The area that's now between Pauly's and Family of Christ Lutheran Church, as we all saw in our feasibility studies, have a design to it. I'm not sure if staff has any information for us tonight but everything was squared off in there and when the final plans came through, everything got changed. There is new design of the pattern of the concrete in there. City Hall which, it was already dark this evening, I didn't see, it may already be set on the foundation but the foundation is now at an angle to everything else in there. The patterns do not match anything as far as I'm concerned. We have lines running across here pointing to nothing. We have the building at a different angle than other angles in there. I~ not sure what happened. I checked the prints, the May prints that we approved in June do show that it was changed. BRW did not point out to us this change. think as our consultant, it behooves them to point out a major design change in a small park area like this. You have that overhead there Gary. I do believe that this is going to be a real great benefit to the City. The original design showed off the old City Hall and it originally showed off the entrance to the Family of Christ. Don Ashworth: That's the diagram that appeared in the feasibility study as it was presented to the City Council. As we got into the planning stage and Councilman Johnson's correct, it shoul~ have ~ maybe highlighted more to the City Council what was included in the final plans. Some of the concerns staff had was with the thing being moved up here closer, it was close to the Pauly building. We were worried about people entering the back section here and potentially damaging the facility itself. Jim was able to pull the old City Hall back. I think that the angles are not that bad in comparison to the parking lot. One of the things that we tried to accomplish in this process is the sight line through here towards the old existing church also attempting to, for those people approaching in a sidewalk system in this fashion, to give 41 City Council Meeting - Nov(anber 16, 1987 an orientation back to the center like this. I think that the angles and what's trying to be accomplished with the exposed aggregate in that section. I think it will look very, very good. Again, I think the facility itself is a little more protective from potential influences from the bar element. Again, I apologize if Jim did not go through in greater detail this section of the plan. I know that we did have him out and we did review a number of the boards. I personally can not recall this one either not beirg presented or being presented. But it has stayed consistent through and after preparation of the plans and specs. Councilman Boyt: Show us the one that reflects where it was originally? Sitting right besides the church? Don Ashworth: Here's the church and it's tucked up in here further and it does have a more or less square. Councilman Boyt: So the front of the City Hall is facing 78th Street? Don Ashworth: That ' s correct. Councilman Boyt: And it really becomes a square with the church on one side, Pauly's on the other and the old City Hall in back? Don Ashworth: ~nat ' s correct. Councilman Boyt: And can you point out on there where we've now moved it to? Don Ashworth: I t ' s moved back to this point. Gary Warren: It's rotated about 24 degrees and moved back so it's alignment probably now is more like this. Jim had a couple of those motivations down for it. One was to facilitate the parking a little bit better. To utilize the parking lines and the parking space and also to give a view in this direction. From the back of these buildings and also you get a view now of the front of the building from TH 101 here where in this configuration you just ~cc the back square end of the building. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that it would have never been built like that. People would have never positioned it that way had they been sighting it originally. Don Ashworth: Ironically that's one of Jim's points in locating it that way because it would have a feeling that's more or less the original location. Gary Warren: The other too, the look that you have here against the wall but I think it's like everything else we've seen along the project goes until you see the finished product. Sometimes it looks scarier than what it really is and this planting area through here he's included all evergreens to screen out the side of that building there and I think once that's in, you will see a whole different look to that. Mayor Hamilton: It gives us a bigger plaza really. 42 269 City Oouncil ~ting - Novenber 16, 1987 Oouncilman Johnson: The citizens of Chanhasse~ will be on the north side looking in. It's obviously now being designed for other than the citizens of Chanhasse~u The people who are walking up from the south side, The people who are coming in. We have to live with it. I agree with Bill,. I don't think that's going to look the way that it would have ~ planned. I've never --c-~n_ a city square where everything is crooked. I can see how we would walk in up on the east side of it coming in from the south, that that will look very nice. I want to know what it's going to look like from the north coming in because it doesn't make a' lot of sense. You're going to get dizzy looking at the different lines. Mayor Hamilton: I think that building has been placed on the foundation so you can probably walk do~n there t~morrow. Councilman Boyt: I guess the question is, what would it cost us to move it? Gary Warren: To rebuild the foundation, rerun the sanitary sewer a~] water that's ~ run to that building and I think the moving charges a f~me about $6,~.00. Theoretically they can pick it up a lot easier than what they had originally but you're probably looking at say $5,000.00 plus some redesigning as far as the brick and the rest of that plaza area and the parking area. Councilman Boyt: So the question is do we want to spend $8,000.00 to move the City Hall? Mayor Hamilton: Not as far as I'm concerned. I guess it wouldn't have been my first choice to do it like that but I~ sure willing to see how it's going to come out and live with it. I don't think it's going to detract it. We wanted to have a plaza area was the most important thing, not how the building was positioned. I think that was a park area and the park area is now bigger. Councilman Johnson: It comes down to the money. On the money side, $8,0ff0.00. I do see with his new design he can put more trees in again. Everytime Mr. Lasher has a chance he increases the vegetation in therm I have to worry about vegetation in there and I want to make sure that vegetation we're putting in there is a vegetation that can take low light levels. You've got a church on the east of it, a rather tall structure that's going to shade it and we've got Paul~s on the west of it that's going to shade it. Mayor Hamilton: It' s open to the south. Councilman Johnson: And it's open to the south except for the City Hall we're putting in there at an atuse angle to help shade those trees also. Councilman Boyt: We're probably not losing anything by letting them build, it there. If we can't live with it somewhere down the road, we'll move it again. Councilman Johnson: I'd like at least for Jim to take a look at the concrete design in there. It no longer shows Off the entrance to that church. Mayor Hamilton: You also wanted to talk about using the army. 43 27G City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: The secor~ idea, my last assignment in the Army Reserve as part of their civil affairs unit who coordinates during wartime or whatever, between the civilians and the military. Part of the peacetime training is to do this type of coordination work. I've heard a lot about how expensive it's going to be for grading our Lake Ann area. The Army National Guard, the Army Reserve both have all the earth moving equipment, engineers and whatever to accomplish this work. They are many times looking for projects to do this. I'd like to coordinate through the various levels of beauracracy and see if we can get some fairly low cost earth moving done and help us along with this project at Lake Ann. The military may want us to pay for the fuel or somethings like this but I've heard price tags up to $300,~0.00 for the grading for two baseball fields. If we can get the earth moving done by the National Guard, who knows maybe get Rudy so~e press or something to help out to show cooperation between the State. Originally I was thinking of the Army Reserve, a federal group and then I was thinking maybe the state would like to show that the~re out helping the people too. This will provide good training for the guys rather than going to Camp Ripley and moving a pile of dirt from here to there and back again. Mayor Hamilton: You should probably look into that. Councilman Johnson: Tnat's what I wanted to do is get the Council to assing me to look into that and coordinate that with the people it needs to be coordinated through. Councilman Boyt: I borrowed your idea a little earlier and talked to Lori about it, probably a month or so ago and she was familiar with St. Cloud having done this. I don't know what she's done with the project but maybe Don you could put that on your list of things to bring up tomorrow in the staff meeting. See if Lori is following up. Mayor Hamilton: And Jay can continue to follow up too. Bill wanted to talk about Shado~ere. Councilman Boyt: I don't know what the cause is that makes it unique~but the Shadowmere Develo~ent is creating a problem for at least one homeowner in that their house is vibrating when they are doing the roadwork. I think that's inappropriate. I don't know what the alternatives are but I wouldn't ask anybody who is currently a resident to sit through having their house vibrate while the developer puts a road in. Mayor Hamilton: It's probably the packer that has the vibrator in it. It occurs all the time. Every store uptown vibrates when they're doing West 78th Street. Councilman Boyt: Well, when it's a place where you live and when it happens six days a week. Gary Warren: It should almost be done with. I checked in with Helen and Bill up here and when I've ~_n talking with them over the last couple of weeks when they first brought it up, there's a cul-de-sac that comes very close to their Sunridge Subdivision there. The rock is down now, they're doing some 44 271 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 tolerancimg of it. The curbing is down so we should be nearing the end. It's not to say we won't having some fine tuning in the next week but a majority of it must be behir~ us as far the road is concerne& I advised them ar~ they did go on record here with Mr. Fenning and with the contractor to make them aware that they are experiencing vibrations and to monitor their house. The developer is required to carry a million dollar umbrella policy of insurance for any problems and likewise the contractor b~- his insurance. Mayor Hamilton: Do those vibrating packers, does that really make a difference to have ~ vibrating? Gary Warren: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: It packs it better? Gary Warren: I don't know if you've ~ able to watch West 78th as it moves on, s~me of ~ fresh soil it really sinks it in. Helen Loebl: Mr. Mayor, last Thursday Mr. Loebl and I were talking over breakfast and that table was actually going like that. The dishes in our cupboard were rattling. I had to go hold the dishes to keep them there ft was that bad. I don't know how much longer w~ can take of it. Mayor Hamilton: It vibrates my office which is a long ways from 78th Street. Everything vibrates up there. That's probably 1~0 yards from ~ street. What I'm saying is it's a powerful vibrator and it does a lot of things through the ground but perhaps Gary can check and see how much longer that's going to take. Gary Warren: I just got their letter this afternoon and went out there. I visually observed that most of the rock is down to the utility trenches and the suhbase preparation where the majority of the vibration is r~ed so he should be pretty well done and I'll check with him tcmorrow to see where they are and see if we can't eliminate it. If we don't ~ it anymore, we'll obviously stop tl~. Councilman Horn: Does that other instances where it's caused damage to adjacent buildings? Gary Warren: None that I've ever experienced. Councilman Horn: Because I was down at the automotive store when they were working on the street out there and everything in there was shaking. The countertops and all of the merchar~tise and everything was shaking. That's right next to the street, this was maybe 1M feet away from the thing. I can imagine. How far do they go out? HOw far does that travel? What distance before this is damped out? Gary Warren: It depends on the soil. When we get a vibrator on clay soils, , it will carry a lot longer than say sand would. 45 City Counc~.l Meeting - Nov~nber 16~ 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could let Helen and Bill know tomorrow what the prognosis is for their doing that any further. Helen Loebl: What recourse do we have if our walls should start to crack or things like this? Mayor Hamilton: As Gary said, the developer carries insurance and it would be a suit against the developer. Gary Warren: No, make a claim. ~ney both have insurance and I've got the certificates on file as I had mentioned to you last time. If there is any damage, just let us know and we'll get a hold of his insurance agent and have him come out and check it out. Councilman Horn: Can they change the frequency on that thing? Gary Warren: It's either on or off. Councilman Johnson: I think in our specifications, we just bought one of these compactors for the City this summer, it had a frequency specified of what that was. Gary Warren: That is a paving packer. ~nis is a subbase packer. Councilman Johnson: I also stood there and watched it and was wondering why I was vibrating, then I noticed the guy stopped and I continued vibrating. Gary Warren: With the more base that we have down will also help to dampen it. I'll check with him tomorrow. Councilman Boyt: What I'd like you to do, is to determine, if this has to happen, when is it going to happen and then be sure that the developer or someone notifiy the Loebl's so maybe they can make some plans around this. If they don't know when it's going to happen, it's very hard for them to arrange to not be there. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like that would be something that absolutely should not occur on a weekend. Maybe they can do their construction during the week but that's something that they shouldn't do on the weekend but it would seem that it's something that unreasonable to occur on a weekend or after even 4:00. We should have a cut off time there so you just don't use a packer like that after 4:00 or on the weekend or whatever a reasonable time is. Councilman Johnson: Do they use that to compact the rock too? Gary Warren: They'll do that for some final tolerancing but a majority of it is with a flat roller. ~nat's why I say, I think he's pretty much done with it. He has scme isolated areas perhaps. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could consider those types of things for any future developments. Type of vibrating packer not be used after a certain 46 273 City Council.Meeting - November 16, 1987 time a~] on weekends and just include that in the develo~t contract. Councilman Horn: I think we should also look and -_~_~ if they can't vary the frequency. You're probably going to get sympathetic harmonics in this thing and certain frequencies, and if you varied that slightly might make a big difference. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 47