CC Minutes 2000 06 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilwoman Jansen,
Councilman Engel and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Todd Gerhardt,
Cindy Kirchoff, and Lori Haak
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda amended as follows: adding an item l(i) under the Consent Agenda, authorizing Notice of
Intent to Franchise Cable TV Services; and moving item l(h) to be discussed with item 3. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Mancino: There are no public announcements tonight. Actually I do have one public
announcement and that is for those of you that are here on the city's water supply. It is not listed as a
public hearing but we will be taking public comment when we get to number 3, the award of bids.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approval of Consultant Service General Municipal Agreements with HTPO, BRW & WSB.
Approve Amendment to Development Contract/PUD Agreement for Villages on the Ponds 6th
Addition, Project 99-19.
c. Approval of Beer License for July 4th Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club.
d. Accept $1,000 Donation from Target for Safety Camp.
Resolution #2000-41: Approve Resolution Declaring Intent to Exercise Local Transit Levy
Option for Taxes in 2001, Southwest Metro Transit.
f. Approval of Bills.
g. Approval of Minutes:
· City Council Minutes dated May 15, 2000
· City Council Minutes dated May 22, 2000
· City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 22, 2000
Receive Commission Minutes:
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
· Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2000
· Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 23, 2000
i. Authorize Notice of Intent to Franchise Cable Services.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CRESTVIEW CIRCLE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 00-05.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dave Hutton
David Struyk
8441 Wayzata Blvd.
1941 Crestview Circle
Teresa Burgess: This evening we're requesting the feasibility study for the Crestview Circle Improvement
Project No. 00-05. The consultant was to be here this evening but I don't see him present. The
neighborhood.., the impacts of those improvements. The feasibility study, we've attached three copies that
City Council received and that recommendation.., the installation of sanitary sewer and watermain is
feasible .... we are going to be subject to paying a portion of the costs for the sanitary sewer. That is based
on looking at the number of properties that would have been assessed for sanitary sewer... The City has
already.., a connection charge for those uses and so therefore we are not going to be assessing those
properties but we will be using those funds... This evening, it is a public hearing so I do know that a couple
of the property owners are here to speak to the council. The recommendations from staff is for the
installation of sanitary sewer and watermain and for the installation of bituminous paving. We are not
recommending the installation of concrete curb and storm sewer. It is not included... The neighborhood
has requested that we consider the installation of this roadway. A narrow roadway... The other things that
some of you have requested is that undeveloped parcels have their assessments deferred until time of
development. Staff concurs that this is a reasonable request. They would be required to pay at the time of
development is something that.., or watermain at this time. Are there any questions from the council?
Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple. Does that mean that you will be scheduling neighborhood meetings
or a neighborhood meeting when you decide on the design of the roadway and whether it can be narrowed
or not? That you'll be, how will the neighbors know which way you're going?
Teresa Burgess: We have held one meeting with the neighborhood following tonight's meeting, depending
on the council's action. We would schedule another meeting with the neighborhood to discuss the line
issue... We have had seven properties approach the city.., included into the project. We'll be exploring that
and then...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. When will this project begin? Do you have any idea when this will take
place?
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Teresa Burgess: We're hoping to be constructing yet this year. Part of it will depend on any problems
that.., bidding problems. Bids should be... next couple months. It's a simple project and the feasibility
study did...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on the feasibility
study? Please state your name and address.
David Struyk: David Struyk, 1941 Crestview Circle. It is certainly a very small neighborhood. I represent
20%. I don't think there's anyone else here. There are 7 properties but only 5 owners so, and I happen to
own 2 of those parcels. I am also the reason that the whole thing got started. Our septic system is failing
and so I'm the one that did approach the city and request the sewer come down our street. Unfortunately I
kind of shot myself in the foot. It also turns out to be the most expensive for us. By the time it's all said
and done and we're hooked in, we're exposed to about a $50,000 charge. Our portion of the street, the
water and sewer and then our own hook-up to it. So it is very expensive. My only comments to the council
I guess is one Teresa had mentioned regarding the deferments on the undeveloped parcels. That even
though she would recommend that I would have to formally request that. So I am doing that. If we could
possibly request that, that would certainly help us if we can do that. And then the other thing, given that
there is an ecological component to it, that a system is beginning to fail. We certainly would like this done
as soon as possible. And I don't know if you're familiar, we're right, almost across the street from you
and, so there is certainly a sense of urgency.
Mayor Mancino: So I'll check it every day and I'll come over.
David Struyk: You may want to walk down there.
Mayor Mancino: And my road needs working on too so.
David Struyk: Yeah, but since it is a sewer system, it is important that it gets put in as soon as possible.
And there was certainly sentiment among the neighborhood to not widen the street. It's a gravel road. It's
been a gravel road forever and for 50 years our home's been there. A lot longer than we've owned it, and
we've never had a problem passing each other but we understand that there is a concern. Once the sewer
improvement goes in, a snowplow is damaging new manhole covers or whatever and it may have to be
widen slightly but the neighborhood would like to keep that to a minimum. And then also hopefully keep
that cost down. The expected cost on the street, just the paving of the street was $37,200 and the
neighborhood feels that that's pretty high. They don't think it should cost that much, although they didn't
go out and get bids either. I mean we don't know for sure but they just kind of felt that that was high. And
I believe that's about it. I concur completely with what Teresa's already told you. So thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you for your comments.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Have you ever, on the gravel road, has anybody, have you ever had an accident yet where
you've hit.
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
David Struyk: No. Not that I know of.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anyone else here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Then we'll bring
it back to council and Steve.
Councilman Labatt: I don't really have any comments other than I support it. I got something in the mail
on concrete...as far as the cost of roadways per mile for concrete is, it's less for concrete than it is for
asphalt. According to this association.
Teresa Burgess: Was it perhaps the American Concrete Association? I think what you got was a life
span cost, which it is... It really is something that depends on how you do the numbers. But that's looking
at a life span of several decades and asphalt is cheaper up front but it has to be replaced much sooner than
concrete and does have more upkeep in keeping that life span, so that's where they're getting those
numbers. They're looking at a life time.
Councilman Labatt: Okay but as short of a road as this is going to be, what's better in the life?
Teresa Burgess: In this case we're looking at it being an asphalt road. One of the things that we're
looking at is, because it doesn't have curb and gutter on it, curb and gutter gives containment to the
asphalt. Holds it in place. Concrete also needs that containment so people aren't running off the edge. In
this case I would recommend asphalt. It's a small project. There's not very many properties to share in the
cost. The upfront cost of concrete is higher. To do those upfront costs I think that that would pretty much
kill the project as far as the neighborhood's ability to support. Their assessments at both times for the
street alone are about $6,200 each property.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. Any comments?
Councilman Engel: No. I agree. Do it the way the neighbors see it best.
Mayor Mancino: Linda, any comments?
Councilwoman Jansen: No. I support everything that was suggested. When we do make the motion I
assume then you would need us to add to that. The undeveloped properties being on a deferral or is that
understood then?
Teresa Burgess: We would request that the council approve that. Otherwise we can bring that back at
the time of the assessment hearing.
Scott Botcher: I think before you do it, we need to make sure that we go back and check the financial
policy that we just recently passed. I don't have it in front of me and we need to make sure that the terms,
and I don't know.
Teresa Burgess: The terminology.
Scott Botcher: The terms and conditions of the deferment are both acceptable to the city and to the
landowners.
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Teresa Burgess: We could bring that back at the time we approve the plans and specifications. That
would give us time to check that.
Mayor Mancino: And then you could go over that with David, any questions that you have with him.
Okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: Very good, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Mark?
Councilman Senn: Nope.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't have any either. So it's Street Option lA and sanitary sewer and
watermain, correct? May I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2000-42: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council
approve the Feasibility Study of sanitary sewer, watermain, and street improvements, Street Option
lA, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sanitary sewer, watermain, and
bituminous paving. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
David Struyk: What jut happened? The acceptance of the report or to move forward or both?
Mayor Mancino: We accept the feasibility study and we're ordering preparation of plans and
specifications.
David Struyk: Perfect. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: And then we'll have, it will come back one more time.
Teresa Burgess: It will come back for plan approval and authorization to bid and again for bid award.
Scott Botcher: And a report on the deferment.
Mayor Mancino: So it will come back twice. There we go. Thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE LUCY ROAD WATER STORAGE TANK RECONDITIONING~
PROJECT 00-02.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Keith Meles
Jessica Nielsen
9117 Overlook Court
7240 Gunflint Trail
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Steve Bielsky
Bob Lukes
Steve & Robyn B. Chargo
Phil DeNucci
Brian & Chris Kline
David Happe
Carol & Tom Barrett
Dan Rubin
Barb Lindemann
Ted Smith
Virginia Elaine Sievers
6521 Devonshire Drive
Rt. 4, Box 262, New Prague
2338 Fawn Hill Court
9186 Springfield Drive
6839 Briarwood Court
604 Summerfield Drive
7051 Redman Lane
9140 Sunnyvale Drive
552 Mission Hills Drive
9166 Sunnyvale Drive
9491 Foxford Road
Teresa Burgess: Would the council like to address the reservoir bid awards first or the sprinkling
restrictions? Or do you want to place them all together?
Mayor Mancino: Why don't we just discuss them all at once.
Teresa Burgess: The Lake Lucy reservoir. The city has four storage towers that hold our water. It holds
approximately 5.3 million gallons. The Lake Lucy reservoir holds 3.5 million gallons of that total, giving
approximately 2/3 of the city's storage. In 1999 the city hired KLM Engineering to inspect the Lake Lucy
reservoir. I do have a copy of that report for any of the council members that have not had a chance to see
it or they're interested. The inspection resulted in recommendations for renovation of the reservoir,
including minor structural repairs, some repairs for vandalism, road repairs, and resurfacing and repainting
of the interior and exterior of the tank. In May of 2000 the City Council approved specifications and
authorized advertisement for bids for the renovation work. Six bids were received. The bid schedule
included two bid alternates. Alternate A was beginning of work on July 31st with completion by October
31st. And Alternative B... Alternative B, beginning work on August 28th with the interim completion by
October 31st and beginning on April 30th with completion by May 31st in 2001. This Alternate B will
require to paint the...twice. The low bid for Alternate A is $324,500. That's approximately 36.2% below
the engineer's estimate of $508,900. The low bid for Alternate B is $328,500. This is also lower than the
engineer's estimate of $508,900. TMI Coatings, Incorporated is the low bidder for both Alternate A and
Alternate B. At this time staff is recommending approval of award to TMI Coatings for Alternate A.
However I do understand that the council would like to discuss that further this evening. In addition this
evening, to implement this project we will be requesting that the council authorize sprinkling restrictions. I
have received quite a few calls in relation to the article that appeared in the newspaper and I do know that
people want to speak on it. Quickly before they do I'd like to run through what we're recommending to the
council for approval this evening. We're recommending to the council that watering of lawns be prohibited
except between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. by a hand held water hose, or watering can, or by use
of a porous soaker hose. Not the type with the holes that spray. In addition, the properties would be
allowed to sprinkle using automated or manually activated sprinkler systems between the hours of 2:00
a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Let me repeat that so it's clear. 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.. That would be rescinded by
order of the City Manager if the city finds that it is having difficulty maintaining water in the water tanks
and they would be able to discuss with the council what we would consider as an acceptable threshold. The
recommendation is that if the water, if they reach a point of needing to go door to door with the fire
department more than once, that we would automatically rescind that and would no longer allow watering
between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m. Finally the City Manager shall rescind the watering restriction prior to
October 31st of 2000 if the water tower is put back into service prior to that. Does anyone on the council
have any questions for me at this time?
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: No. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Just to be clear on it though. In terms of what you're talking about now recommending
as it relates to the watering times by hand or the 2:00 to 4:00. It's still on the odd/even basis.
Teresa Burgess: It is still on the odd/even basis. This restriction would lie on top of our existing
ordinance. For anyone that's unclear the ordinance, violation of that ordinance is a misdemeanor which is
punishable by up to 90 days in jail and $900 fine. That judgment would be made by a court of law. It
would not be made at this forum and that decision would not come back for review by this council.
Councilman Senn: But the odd/even portion is an existing, standing statute of your ordinance essentially.
Teresa Burgess: The odd/even went into effect May 1st. So it's an automatic, it's a standing ordinance
already on the books.
Mayor Mancino: What is the odd/even, for those of us who aren't on city water?
Councilman Senn: Well in terms of what does it mean?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Teresa Burgess: Odd/even means that if your address is an even number, you water on an even day of the
month. If your address is an odd number, you water on the odd day of the month. You bring up an
important point Mayor. Only those persons that are on city water are impacted by these watering
restrictions. They do not apply to persons on private wells or if they are using either lake or storm water
pond water to water their lawns. In addition, if they were using a water, a rain barrel or something, one of
those alternative methods, they would not be impacted.
Mayor Mancino: And they could still have their landscaping company come and water.
Teresa Burgess: Exactly.
Mayor Mancino: And bring in their own water.
Teresa Burgess: ...they'll come in and water. The restrictions, as long as it does not impact the city
municipal system. So those non-municipal draws on the system are not restricted.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just one second Steve. Any other questions?
Councilman Engel: There's also a little known provision that allows people with long enough extension
hoses to connect to the Mayor's well. I was going through it last night, I found that.
Mayor Mancino: And I charge a lot.
Councilman Senn: Is that because she's the Weed Inspector and doesn't like...
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll open this up for comment or questions. Steve, if
you want to come up and ask some questions, being a professional. And if you could state your name and
address.
Steve Bielsky: My name's Steve Bielsky and my address is 6521 Devonshire Drive. I've been a resident
of Chanhassen for over 30 years. Boy it's getting to be a long time.
Mayor Mancino: You're not that old.
Steve Bielsky: Getting there. A question I have for Teresa. Bob and I from Lukes are here. We've been
going back and forth talking about this. Do we know how many irrigation systems there are in the city?
Roughly?
Teresa Burgess: I don't know how many irrigation systems there are, no.
Steve Bielsky: Because we were trying to come up with some numbers of how much water is consumed, if
everybody waters odd/even. If we knew the numbers of irrigation systems we could figure that out and
maybe widen or narrow that window.
Teresa Burgess: I'm not sure how many systems we have. I do know that we see approximately a 50%
increase in the summer months. The majority of that is for lawn sprinkling.
Steve Bielsky: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And I would assume, if we're finding that we have an over supply or we're not having a
problem we'll lift the ban.
Teresa Burgess: Certainly. We would probably not lift it. We would revise it appropriately.
Mayor Mancino: Revise it, okay.
Steve Bielsky: Right. So those are some of the things we've been really trying to ask each other so we can
come to some agreement on this watering issue rather than just a complete ban. I'm glad to hear the 2:00
to 4:00 window. That's a big help and I think it's a real relief for some of the homeowners here. I got a
little prepared letter here and I'd just like to read it. As a community we understand the importance of the
safe and maintained water utility systems. During the city's maintenance of the Lake Lucy water reservoir,
we feel that a solution can be implemented that would allow Chanhassen to maintain it's water reserve
needs and still allow residents to use irrigation to maintain, protect and improve our residential businesses
and landscapes. The impact of a total watering ban has far reaching effect. And previous to this meeting a
lot of us were under the impression that this was a total all out ban. It sounds like that it might be a little
bit different now. But the impact of a total watering ban has far reaching affects. Those obviously
affected are new residents to our city who are trying to complete landscaping and establish lawns via
seeding and sodding. A watering ban would prohibit this from happening and create further erosion
problems, delay construction schedule and frustrated homeowners. Landscaping and sodding and irrigation
companies, without the water, without the ability to utilize water, these companies are, some of them
merely shut down resulting in a loss of income and employment for their employees. Also people affected
are those with existing lawns. Utilizing water to protect their landscaping investment. We would like to
ask the council to, for the opportunity to arrange a meeting to discuss and offer some solutions for
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
continued watering in place of a total watering ban. A few of our suggestions are as follows, and we can
talk more in depth about this at a meeting if that's possible. Allow new lawns to be watered for a 10 day
period upon receipt of a signature from a city official. Bob and I have some ideas on how that can be
policed. Someone's going to have a new lawn laid down. It's on record at the city so that those lawns
could be irrigated. We'd like to ask that any lawn be watered only once per week, or even once every other
week based on odd/even restrictions set up by the city. Those of you work.
Bob Lukes: That'd be for established lawns.
Steve Bielsky: Established lawns. Those of you with automatic irrigation systems understand that that's
the whole purpose of an irrigation system is to use water efficiently and you can do just about anything you
want with them and the use is very, very efficient. And here's kind of a person point. As an irrigation
contractor, it would be great. We need to allow irrigation companies the provision to test run and set up
new irrigation systems upon completion. We need some time, we need a half hour of run time to set up and
check out an irrigation system so they can run between 2:00 and 4:00 in the morning. And this is going to
be at you know, 2:00 in the afternoon. That's important. This could be enforced through the permit that is
pulled when the plumbing permit is issued at city hall. I think it could be done very, very simply. It
doesn't have to be complicated. And another point I'd like to make is, since the repair of the tower is
preventative maintenance, could the repairs be scheduled at a time when it would have a lesser impact on
all those concerned? You know you had an Option A and an Option B. Option B really didn't sound too
bad. So I'm just wondering. I'm just curious about that. Another question I have is, other industries in
our city, look at the three car washes. They're using water all the time. How can you choose to put such a
heavy restriction on lawn watering and nothing on a car wash? Those car washes are using lots of water
during peak hours. I'm not saying open a car wash from 2:00 to 4:00 in the morning, however the
irrigation system can use and consume water at a much better time than say for example a car wash. And
look at other industries, what are they doing to use water conservatively. You know you've got people
power washing houses. You have laundromats. You have dry cleaners. I mean there are a lot of people
using water. It's just that the irrigation is what I think people see. So I ask for your, we ask for your help.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Couple things, Teresa if you'd like to respond to.
Teresa Burgess: Specifically?
Mayor Mancino: Well about for the companies that are putting in irrigation systems. Is there a way that
we can handle?
Teresa Burgess: I think that we could probably support the irrigation companies doing their test run as
long as they did it between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. That they restrict to that time. And then if
they could have someone on site during that test run so that if an officer did stop by, that there would be
someone from the irrigation company there to explain that they were doing that with their permit on hand.
Mayor Mancino: But again you guys can kind of work out those details.
Teresa Burgess: I certainly can support that. If we run into problems, we would then state that as they're
pulling permits. That maybe 30 minutes doesn't work for us anymore and work that out.
Mayor Mancino: And the 2:00 to 4:00 will certainly give those with established lawns, again the odd/even,
2:00 to 4:00 is two hours. That should give.
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Steve Bielsky: 2:00 to 4:00 1 think is fine for established lawns, Bob?
Bob Lukes: For established lawns.
Steve Bielsky: But new lawns, what I see is a 2 hour window is going to be a huge drain real fast. So you
know maybe open it up a little bit. I'm not so sure, can you explain the way the city water system works in
a nutshell. I mean we have all these reserves. We have 8 pumps. It seems to me that we should have
possibly enough reserves to open up that window a little bit.
Teresa Burgess: We can pump the water. We can pump enough water in a day for usage. In fact we
have capacity for more water than we use in a day. However we can't pump it as fast as we use it. So the
purpose of the tanks is during the time periods when we're not using it, typically after 10:00 p.m. and
before 5:00 a.m., between 9:00 and 3:00 and during the day hours, we're filling those tanks back up for
that big draw on the system during early morning and evening hours. And that allows us to supply the
water when people want it on demand. Otherwise we can't keep up with the demand. We can pump the
volume but not the speed. And our system is interconnected. What we'll be doing is...what we'll be using
is the water from the other 3 remaining towers to serve those homes. There's not a way for us to isolate the
Lake Lucy area and just impose restrictions on them. If we did impose just restrictions on that area, there
would be a much more arduous than what we're proposing at this time.
Steve Bielsky: Don't we have a tunnel hooked up to Eden Prairie somewhere?
Teresa Burgess: Not that they've told me about. We do have interconnection to our neighboring cities.
However we can only use those for emergency situations. For instance if we were to have a large fire run
through town during this work, we could contact those cities and have those valves opened up and we could
draw water. We can't use that water for things like watering lawns because then we would be putting
restrictions on those neighboring cities and they're not going to be...
Steve Bielsky: Have there been any thoughts on restricting car washes?
Scott Botcher: The issue with car washes as I understand it, and I haven't done the research here, that they
recycle a large amount of their water. It's not just fresh all day. They constantly recycle it because
otherwise frankly a car wash would cost more than a buck and a half in quarters or whatever it is that they
charge you but, and I don't have any of the numbers here. In a previous life I was involved in two car
washes and they recycle an enormous amount of their water.
Mayor Mancino: Your first point, what was your first point about new lawns? Are you saying the first 10
days?
Steve Bielsky: The first 10 days. Maybe Bob, would you like to speak on that? Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Steve.
Bob Lukes: Hello.
Mayor Mancino: Hi Bob.
10
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Bob Lukes: My name is Bob Lukes. I don't have a Chanhassen address.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, you can't stay. Nice of you to come but you know.
Bob Lukes: It's monetary reasons that I am here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But if you could give your address, even though it's not Chanhassen.
Bob Lukes: It's New Prague. Do you want my full address?
Mayor Mancino: That's fine.
Councilman Engel: They send fan mail.
Bob Lukes: A point that I wanted to make here was simply Option B. When I heard that there is an
Option B, that made a lot of sense to me. Steve and I had talked several times regarding the timing of this
restriction or ban that was talked about, simply because, now Option B did you say was August 3 lSt?
Teresa Burgess: August 28th.
Bob Lukes: August 28th. End of August at any rate. Basically if there was, go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: Well before we talk about Option B, because we did, can you talk a little bit about the
flushing and the concern of doing for B.
Teresa Burgess: The concern of splitting and doing it twice is that we cannot flush when a tank is empty
and flushing is something that we can certainly do to address the rust deposits that we have on our system.
We do that on a bi-annual process. We also flush on demand when we have a neighborhood that's
complaining about their water. We flush. We will not be able to do that during the time the tank is empty.
In addition we can't do the bi-annual flush. If we do it twice, that means it will be more than a year
inbetween flushings unless we adjust the time frame that the contractor is proposing. We would have to
ask if the contractor is willing. I'm sure they're willing to do it. It's how much will it cost us. They'll
want a change order for that additional time frame.
Mayor Mancino: So I'm just saying there are some other implications for splitting it and flushing, we're
very, very dependent as a city on the flushing because we have, and I don't want too many people. We
have a lot of rusty water in the city and that's the way we get it, how we eliminate it, or try to. So anyway.
Councilman Senn: Which is not saying that even with two flushings, it's still terrible.
Mayor Mancino: Teresa.
Teresa Burgess: Before people get too excited about the August 28th. We would need to drain down the
tank a couple weeks before. Before it starts. We'll be using that water. We won't be just dumping all of it
but we will need to drain down the tank to let it dry for the work so we'd be talking about mid-August, not
late August.
11
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: But I want to get back to, and I'm just trying to come back to the new lawns because the
2:00 to 4:00 really helps the new lawns and the established ones, but the first 10 days. Can you talk a little
bit about that professionally?
Bob Lukes: Yes actually, and I can get you a copy of a care instruction booklet that I provide for my
customers. And basically what I say in there is, on the new sod, to apply 1 inch of water daily for the first
two weeks. Now from a standpoint of guarantees, that's an over exaggeration. I basically have to assume
that it's 35 mph winds all day long and it's 95 degrees. I also have to look at that each customer is a little
bit different. Some of the customers are maybe going to do everything I tell them to do to a T. And then
you're going to get other customers that will probably lag a little bit. For those that lag, we over
exaggerate what they need to do. Okay. It's just, it's a business decision. It's just something that we
have to do. But realistically what you have to do, the most important time frame for that new sod is
number one, the first couple of hours it's put down. If a homeowner applies water to that sod immediately,
starts getting water to everything as quickly as possible, they're off and running. They're already two steps
ahead of the game. If they wait, now they have to play catch up and now it takes more water to get the sod
back into condition. But basically the first 7 days are the ultimate as far as importance is concerned. They
do have to, given varying weather conditions, we have to say 10 days simply because if we're in July and
we're in August and it's typical weather, it's going to be 10 days. You could go 7 days. The 8th day you
could skip. Ninth day give it an inch and so on. You can start to conserve water that way. I always try
and educate the customers as to what they need to do, but there's only so much that I can say and do simply
because I don't know what the weather's going to be a week from now. So we just put a time frame of 10
days on it. When we're asking the council for some considerations as to what they'll allow on the new sod,
we're simply saying let's just say 10 days. That's a good catch all. They usually need to shut down the
system or quit watering at about 11 or 12 days anyway because now they're going to mow the sod after 2
weeks have passed since the sod has been put down. Once they get beyond 2 weeks, depending on weather
conditions, you can go 2 days to 4 days, 5 days without watering after 2 weeks after the sod has been in
two 2 weeks. Again, weather conditions dictate that so much. So the reason that I brought up to Teresa
the August 28th timeframe is simply that, if everything, if a restriction went into effect let's just say August
28th, and a customer needs to worry about that sod the first 2 weeks even, which it wouldn't even be quite
that much. Now we're getting into mid-September. We have shorter days. Cooler nights. Now the sod's,
the amount of water evaporation is going to be at a minimum so now they're not going to have to water
quite as much. Now we get to mid-September, the days again are shorter and shorter yet and it just keeps
going on and on and so basically what we're saying is, if the timing can be changed and so when you
brought up the August 28th timeframe, I said boy, you know, that would be ideal. Now obviously it poses
problems for the city but maybe there's something that can be worked out. Maybe as far as, well let's put
it this way. You said 50%, water usage goes up 50% from like May 1. I don't doubt it. A lot of the
reason that water consumption goes up as much as it does, I mean you could say washing cars. You can
say all sorts of things, but a lot of it has to do with wasting water on lawns. And you know if you're
willing to work with us, we could set up some restrictions or some guidelines as to what a homeowner
needs to do to basically make the lawn survive. It maybe isn't going to be as flush and as nice as they'd
like to have it, but at least they're not going to lose it. You know if somebody doesn't have a sprinkling
system, Steve will sell it to them. But if they don't have a sprinkling system, who's going to get up at 2:00
in the morning and be able to water their sod. Or water their lawn. Even an existing lawn. The way the
weather patterns are going, maybe that's not going to be a problem so maybe the amount of water that
you're assuming is going to be used, isn't going to be that great. Remember one thing, when we state that a
lawn needs an inch of water per week, that's assuming no rain. Now if we get a half of inch of rain during
that week, now we only have to water half inch. We get an inch of rain, they don't have to water at all. So
it's just something that we need to maybe look a little bit further rather than just say, I think, water 2 hours.
12
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
2:00 to 4:00 in the morning. That's fine but I think when it comes to new lawns, I think everybody just
thinks water. I mean I know I have customers that if their lawn isn't green, what do they do? They add
water. They forget about all the other things that need to be done to keep that lawn green. Water is not the
only solution to it, and it's basically everybody just needs to be educated a little bit, and they can be
educated through restrictions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Scott Botcher: Let me ask you a quick question. Make sure I heard this right. One inch daily on new sod.
Is that what you said, for the first 7 to 10 days.
Bob Lukes: Yes.
Scott Botcher: Why doesn't the 2:00, I mean I have a system and it puts out more than an inch an hour.
Why doesn't the 2:00 to 4:00 thing work? 2:00 to 4:00 a.m.
Bob Lukes: Well on new sod, remember what I said also is that once the sod is put down, the first couple
of hours.
Scott Botcher: That part I got.
Bob Lukes: Greatly important.
Scott Botcher: I'll get back to that, but just the 1 inch per day on the new sod, why doesn't the 2:00 to 4:00
work?
Audience: Because you can't water at night because it creates mold and all kinds of things.
Bob Lukes: Well that's a good point but when it comes to new sod what I just say, you water when it's
convenient. That's what you do. You don't worry about the mold deal and wouldn't worry about any
funguses or anything else. You just basically don't want that sod to dry out.
Scott Botcher: So as far as quantity it will work?
Bob Lukes: Pardon me?
Scott Botcher: So as far as quantity, getting the inch on the grass, it would work?
Bob Lukes: It would work. The only problem is ifI come in and I lay the sod in your yard and it's 9:00 in
the morning and I'm done by noon.
Scott Botcher: Understood. Yeah, that I don't disagree with. I just wanted to make sure I got that clear
and then absent the sprinkling systems, it's not convenient. I'm not representing that. When you and Steve
were down there buying those soaker hoses at wherever you're buying them, they have those timing
mechanisms as well that you can set on your hose and you can set those to 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. as well if you
need to do that.
Bob Lukes: Well you do except for those sprinklers need to be moved around again too.
13
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Scott Botcher: It's not perfect. I'm not arguing that. It's just, this is just not a fun situation either way.
Bob Lukes: It's hard where new sod is concerned. The 2:00 to 4:00, I guess I can't see how it would work
because once that sod's put down you need to get water to it right away. After the first day even.
Mayor Mancino: But we could figure something out there. Whether it's a permit that somebody who
knows that their sod is going to be laid. I'm assuming we could do that.
Teresa Burgess: For a one time thing, probably. I do have some concern that we'll have a run on the
system for new sod that we're going to have a lot of people coming in all at once. We do need, if we are
going to allow something like that, we would need to restrict the number of permits we would issue for new
sod. That means that right now we don't, I don't think we issue permits for sod, do we?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Teresa Burgess: So we would need to state that you can lay your sod and get a permit for watering unless
you come in and we count how many we have. Because our system just can't handle that type of drain
during the times when it's convenient to water. If we could restrict the number of people that can do that,
then we can do that. Could allow that type of thing to happen but we need to be able to keep track of how
many people have authorization to do it, and really strictly say we can't have more than a certain number.
I need to talk with Jerry on what that number would be because it's, to just say carte blanche you have new
sod, you can water.
Scott Botcher: I'm taking vacation.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Engel: Kate, how many new homes are going in this summer?
Teresa Burgess: ...because we will be permitting additional works.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but it's certainly something that we can look into.
Teresa Burgess: I would need to talk with Jerry and see how much more load our system can handle
because we are really pushing the system as far as we can right now and we are going into uncharted
waters. We've never done something like this where we've shut down over half of our water storage.
We're trying to push it and get as much out of it as possible so it would be something we'd need to be able
to shut down and property owners need to know that. Our number one priority is the drinking water and
although I get a lot of complaints about it.
Scott Botcher: People still drink it.
Teresa Burgess: And so you know that's our number one priority. Property owners need to know that
even though we're allowing some sprinkling, if this doesn't work we'll have to come back to council and
go, more stringent requirements. So they're taking that risk if you put down sod during this time period
and we end up going with the more stringent requirements.
14
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Kate Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing? We also have a numerous amount of industrial projects
that are, and commercial, that are all sprinkled too. You're just looking at individual homes. We also have
to apply to that same package all the commercial and industrial. If you're going to exempt use on it.
Teresa Burgess: And new sod is typically where we see the large usage of water. It's when that new sod
is going in that all of a sudden we see spikes in our system so.
Mayor Mancino: But I'm thinking maybe you know there could be a plan to figure out how many we could
do you know for the first two weeks, and also in education. Some sort of an education program to be
handed out at the same time when they get the permit to say, you know you really don't need to be watering
as much as you are, etc.
Bob Lukes: Right, and I'd be willing to work with, even though they're not, even though everybody isn't
doing business with me, I can still help out.
Teresa Burgess: Property owners would need to be aware that if we run into a problem, their sod is not
going to be, that's the first thing that we're going to shut down is watering. If we run into a problem, the
first things we need to shut down are the sprinkling because it is an aesthetic, it's an enjoyment factor. It's
not a public health factor so if they're installing that sod, there's a potential that if we run into a problem,
stressing the system the way we are. If we lose a pump, we will be stressing the system and it is something
that is potential to happen.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Engel: How many homes have gone in since last fall and this spring?
Kate Aanenson: Well right now we have 135 escrow out there. That's not including, you know we've got
a significant, Northcott, we've got a significant amount of commercial/industrial that's got landscaping too.
So house and landscaping...
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to come up, and please we need to, if you can limit your remarks to
a couple minutes and if somebody else has already said what you were going to say, we've heard it so.
Ted Smith: Sure, no problem. Ted Smith, 9166 Sunnyvale. I think you guys got my e-mail. Actually I
had to revamp my numbers. A couple of points I wanted to bring up, and I did call and actually there was
248 building permits issued in Chanhassen in 1999. And they estimated 62 so far this year so a total of
310. I got that from the assessors in Carver County. So considering 310 households with potential new
sod, and at $2,500 a pop for replacement costs, you're actually looking at $775,000 of potential loss. If we
cut that number in half, we're talking about $387,500 in loss to replace sod that people have to do. That's
just counting new homeowners. Now the reason why the whole inch and a half, actually in this county
because of all the clay, regular sod needs an inch and a half of water a week or it will not proliferate. All
the homes that are at risk are homes that put sod in within the last year because the root structure,
according to, I should get a job with you. The Arboretum out there, actually it cannot go in a dormant state
because the root structure's not established. It's not deep enough because of this clay so a lack of watering
will kill every lawn. They couldn't believe when I was talking to them about this, and you're talking about
a period of time according to the Arboretum, of peak watering time runs from June to August as far as the
need for lawns need to be watered. Now if you look at those types of numbers and I'm talking about, now
you're talking about the whole issue of people who already have sod lawns in. They're also saying that
15
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
you're even at risk for a lawn to go into dormancy. I mean the likelihood of, according to Debra Brown. If
you allow grass to go dormant at your own risk. While it may come back, especially if you have a low
maintenance lawn, which we don't because of the clay soil, you can never be certain. Meanwhile weeds
will continue to grow and expand while your good grasses remain in limbo and according to the city, if
weeds get a certain height, you get nailed anyways. Watering grass lightly every 2 to 3 weeks, about a
quarter of inch of water to keep grounds hydrated and ensure a better survival rate. At the end of the day I
think that, at any risk, I don't mind. If my lawn goes dead because of a drought, you know what, it's a
natural thing. But this is something that could be totally avoided. I think that the option to have the two
different systems or what have you, I think financially the citizens of Chanhassen are going to be out a ton
of money. Lukes is going to be rich. I don't know, and I guess the other thing that I'm a little bit
disappointed in is the fact that I learned about it on Thursday. I've lived in Chanhassen for 5 years. Now I
moved south. Still in Chanhassen, and on Thursday I read in the paper, and I think that what's happening
is I don't think a lot of people understand what they're really saying. A watering ban you read, and it
didn't go into much detail about you know hey, that means no watering whatsoever. We're assuming
because it's standard that it's odd/even watering days. Everybody, that's kind of, when you move here
that's what you get. So I'm a little concerned that people don't really understand that their lawn is at risk
of dying. I mean this dormant thing is a misnomer. Eden Prairie in '80 had a drought and they stopped
watering period and it killed almost every single lawn in Eden Prairie. So I guess I'm a little concerned that
granted the timing of this thing just does not make any sense whatsoever. From an economic perspective,
as a homeowner in Chanhassen, we're talking about a difference, $170,000 on the bid because the low
bidder, I understand that's the difference of the bid that we're talking about. According to your city
planner.
Teresa Burgess: That's the difference between the low bid and the next bid.., during a different time
frame, that we have not bid for doing it...
Ted Smith: So the cost right now that we're talking about is really a rebid and according to whoever, I
think it was Teresa, that a rebid is a substantial scope of effort so I mean, but at any rate, I'm in business.
Trust me. If they gave you a low bid now, if you say change the date, they're going to give you a low bid
then. It's just going to cost us too much. I mean that's why we're all here. And like I said, I think if
people understood there would be a lot more people here. And not to say that if you look at the community
and look at the people here, there are some people here that really love their lawns and manicure their lawns
and I think that, I just think it's a bad decision. I have all these statistics and back-up from the Arboretum
and everybody else if you want to take them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else?
Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor? If we could at one point with the speakers, one of the points that was just
made as far as the timing that's been chosen. If we could ask and have Teresa maybe speak to that point
because it does seem common sensical when you hear that only, you know that water usage goes up by
50% in the summer months. Why are we doing this in the summer months and why if it's just maintenance
are we in a rush to do it now? If we could maybe just ask Teresa to speak to that.
16
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Ted Smith: Along those same lines, I understand. I love to talk into a microphone. My understanding is
2/3, it represents 2/3 of our water supply. Other communities have had watering, water tower
maintenance. As a matter of fact a friend of mine owns a company in South Dakota and they have some
limited restrictions on water, but again because 2/3 do not reside in one tank. I think it's an exception here
that we have 2/3 of our water supply in one tank. So taking that into consideration, why restrict 2/3 during
the peak time of people needing water?
Mayor Mancino: We'll answer that. We'll take some questions and Teresa will answer it. Go ahead.
Phil DeNucci: Good evening. Phil DeNucci, 9186 Springfield in Chanhassen. Hello to the people I know.
Just a couple comments. In reading the paper it was a little vague so if there could be something back to
the community, something a little more public that'd be beneficial. As a customer of Lukes, he gave me
very good advice. Very sound advice. I do not over water. I have neighbors that do. His sound advice
makes my lawn a strong, deep routed lawn which is very critical. People don't realize the value of the
information he provides so independent of whether we're in the Plan A or Plan B, we need to get that kind
of information out. Final note real quick. We do an even/odd, that seems to work pretty well. I understand
no one wants to be at risk for fire. I don't want my house burning down because my neighbor's yard is
green. Trust me. Real quick comment, I was reading on the council page today, it really describes the
even/odd, just gives the pumps the ability to refill overnight. I know that yards can usually go for a week if
they're established, without water. Consider an even/odd, that applies not just to the day but even/odd that
applies to the week. So an even week, even days, even house, you get to water. You can easily take 7 to
10 days off, at least an established lawn can. At least it seems like our's can. That might be an option if
you're really stuck or you're pressed into the dry season. Give people 3 days during their one week and
then tell them that's it for a week. That might be a manageable approach but I think listening to people like
Bob and the people in the watering system area, and then kind of leveraging that against what our load
would increase by, seems pretty procedural and matter of fact that we can manage this. I guess I'd rather
deal with it now than next spring when several hundred residents are complaining about dead lawns.
Thanks.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else have any comments or questions so we can get them all
answered at one time?
Dan Rubin: Hi. Dan Rubin. 9140 Sunnyvale. I agree. I think it just seems wrong to, when we're at the
peak of our water use for the year to do this work and I just think it just doesn't make sense that that's
when we should do it. It just seems like we should do it at a time when we're using less water. Then we
don't have to have any of these discussions about watering restrictions because we won't even have to
worry that we're going to go over what we have. We'll be well within it. That's it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Carol Barrett: I'm Carol Barrett at 7051 Redman Lane and my concern isn't as big as the lawn watering
issue but it's in relation to my vegetable garden. And we're into the healthy eating for health reasons and
17
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
growing my vegetables in the summer is a big part of our diets and I can and freeze for future use. And I
do work during the day and can't water my garden then. And one question I had was with the soaker hoses.
Do you have to be home when those are on?
Teresa Burgess: No. Those could be placed on a timer. I believe Scott was talking about you can get the
timers at Home Depot or Menard's.
Carol Barrett: Could you do that during the day too?
Teresa Burgess: You could use it on your soaker hose. You could also use it at night between 2:00 and
4:00 in the morning.
Mayor Mancino: So you could put the soaker hose on between 9:00 and 3:00 during the day.
Carol Barrett: Right. I could even come home at lunch ifI didn't want it on that long, so that would work.
I wasn't aware that you could use the soaker hoses.
Teresa Burgess: Those soaker hoses do, you know you could turn the pressure, according to how much
water you wanted to get out of them so.
Carol Barrett: Okay. So that would greatly help, but that was my concern and I know there's a lot of other
people in our neighborhood too that have vegetable gardens. That's a big source of our food too. So I just
wanted to express that.
Mayor Mancino: Thanks.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: So why would we be working on this storage water tower when everybody needs water?
Teresa Burgess: Unfortunately it's prime construction season also. The proposed resurfacing, putting on
the new paint. One of the things we have to do is sandblast, which you can't do in the rain so we do try to
get good summer days. The other thing that we're doing is putting the paint back onto the steel and to do
that there's, it really needs to be above 35 degrees and what happens is if it's above 70 degrees, it takes
about 7 days for that paint to cure. If it's below 70 degrees, but above 35, when you reach 35 degrees, it
takes about 21 days. So there's a significant change in the amount of time necessary for the project. Yes,
we're not requiring as much water usage for putting it out on lawns, but we do spend a longer time with the
tank out of service. The other thing is to be able to do that, you take a chance of frost. When there's frost
on the tank, we cannot do surfacing. We can't put the paint product on. It won't adhere properly. So you
do have to wait for the tank to warm up to a point during the day when that frost not only melts but
evaporates and the tank is then dry again. To do that you're going to waste a lot of valuable daytime, so
you're again extending the timeframe that you're working. Eventually you reach a time when the frost
won't defrost and evaporate at which point you do have the option of tenting. You actually build a scaffold
structure, similar to what you see in buildings when they're doing the high rise buildings and they work in
the winter. You put a tent around it and you heat it. Blaine did this 2 years ago. They didn't do it on
purpose. It was a project that got too late in the season and they ran into frost. When they did that, what
they're finding is the paint that was put on in that tent atmosphere, and the last part of the project, that
paint is already starting to fail. It's only 2 years old. They've had nothing but problems with that paint, so
18
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
there are difficulties you don't expect as long of a life span. We expect to do these projects every 7 to 10
years. Talking to the engineer this morning, he told me that we couldn't expect more than 5 years if we did
something like a tent. So that means we're doing the project twice as often. In addition, tenting and
putting, and heating that area is a significant cost. The estimate that was given was between $100,000 and
$150,000 just for the tent and heating. The additional labor. The other thing that he pointed out but did
not have a cost for it, is there is additional breakage of the equipment. It does have to be outside. It can't
be put into the tent so it's cold. It becomes brittle. You run into belts breaking and paint freezing. The
paint, if it freezes, has to be discarded and new paint has to be acquired. So it just becomes a logistics
nightmare. It's possible but it would require us to reject the bids at this time and to rebid because it is a
significant change in scope.
Mayor Mancino: One more public comment and then we'll close this.
Molly Johnston: Molly Johnston.
Mayor Mancino: And you have someone else who's going to speak with you.
Molly Johnston: Yeah, sorry for all the disruption.
Mayor Mancino: That's okay.
Molly Johnston: He's really anxious for a lawn. I reside at 6485 Tanagers Point. We just moved in in
February and like I said, we're anxious to put in a lawn. And we're looking at having our landscaper come
out in about 3 weeks which will put us right at this time frame. So we're kind of in a bind. We have
money held up in escrow with the city and we have money as a down payment that we stand to lose with
our landscaper. And having known about this earlier would have been a huge help because we could have
had our priority raised with the landscaper to have you know city of Chanhassen jobs done sooner I'm sure
because they weren't an issue so we've just come here to sort of state our frustration with the timeframe
and urge you to do what you can to make it work.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Chris Kline: I'm Chris Kline, 6836 Briarwood Court. We just moved in to the neighborhood also in
January and we are having a sprinkler system put in by Steve this week and hydrofeeding, which requires a
lot more water. We would like to also express our frustration and also I was wondering, with the
sandblasting, can you not do that when the tank is full?
Teresa Burgess: The tank needs to be empty because the tank does, we call it weeping, but it condenses
on the outside because the water inside is cool and so on a humid day there will be condensation on the
outside of the tank. They can't do it when the tank is wet. The inside of the tank has to be empty when
they sandblast the inside of the tank.
Chris Kline: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Good questions. Anyone else? You've got to come up.
Bob Lukes: Oh, I just wanted to ask if Option B was...
19
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Teresa Burgess: Option B was bid for a couple of reasons. One, because we didn't know what the prices
would come in at. We were concerned that the prices would be too high for us to do in this year's budget.
We could split it between two years because we would be paying in two different fiscal years. The other
thing is we didn't know if it would be more expensive to do it that way or if it was more expensive to do it
all at once. We wanted to have the option available to the council for a decision.
Mayor Mancino: We usually like to see a lot of options as a council. And I don't think, and maybe at that
time we hadn't really thought through the flushings not being able to be done. I don't know. I hadn't
thought of that. One last person, thank you.
Jessica Nielsen: Hi. I'm Jessica Nielsen and we live at 7240 Gunflint Trail. And we just moved to the
area in November from Chicago and we moved into our brand new house in March. Mid-March, and we
talked to Steve and Bob and all our other contractors for the outside in January and February because we
had heard how competitive it is so we early on wanted everything lined up. And I heard at the park with
the kids about this, the possibility of this watering ban and I just thought, no. This has to be a bad dream.
A bad dream. So here we are days away from getting our sod. We already completed everything else we
needed and you know with the children, the dog, we're just really eager to complete everything. We too are
frustrated and hope that there can be some happy medium for everyone concerned. So thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you for coming tonight. Okay, let's bring this back to council.
Go the other end. Mark, do you want to give some comments?
Councilman Senn: Well it sounds to me like a combination effectively of what staff's recommendation is
with maybe some adjustments, depending on basically adjusting the timing to allow some type of a
permitting process for the new lawns for an initial period of time as well. Some regulation issues at that
time concerning ongoing, which effectively is going to take us over temporarily but put us under or
essentially in the term beyond the first 10 days. And stuff so it seems to me that staff should just go ahead
and redraft that on that basis and proceed with it on that basis. So essentially then we've got coverage for
a lot of the situations effectively with the 9:00 to 3:00 and the 2:00 to 4:00. You've got coverage based on
the new lawns, which doesn't seem to be a huge number as long as staff can effectively restrict how many
they issue permits for the given time. Okay. And you can issue those permits then for a 10 day period and
then essentially at the same time issue, regulates at that point as far as the ongoing stuff goes which would
even, it seems to me, be probably more restrictive than the 9:00 to 3:00 and 2:00 to 4:00. You know based
on what I'm hearing and that's why I'm thinking, that's where they really need to kind of sit down with the
professionals.
Mayor Mancino: With Bob and Steve.
Councilman Senn: ... work that out, if they're willing to volunteer their time to do it because it seems to me
that that will balance, you know kind of balance itself out and you'll have the ultimate control by how
many permits you can issue so it's not overtax the system.
Teresa Burgess: Just so the council's aware. I am positive we will not be able to accommodate all 310.
I'm assuming that number is correct. New sod. It's not going to be possible for us to accommodate all of
those property owners so we still will have some that are unable.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm working from the numbers, rather than those that I understood some
research.., we're looking at numbers more in the hundreds than the three hundreds.
20
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Scott Botcher: That's how many escrow checks we hold.
Councilman Senn: And so if that's the case, I mean it seems to me that we've got a manageable problem.
Teresa Burgess: If they're staggered we should be able to handle a few at a time. We won't be able to
handle them all at once.
Mayor Mancino: Well they're all not going to put the sod down at once.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's not going to all happen at once. And again.
Teresa Burgess: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Councilman Senn: No I understand but again some of these people that we heard from tonight are ready to
proceed now, which effectively that initial 10 day period's going to be accomplished even before we were
going to get into it and the way July was set up, because we knew it was going to be a little bit of an
education process or there was a little bit of sliding that number, I mean essentially even this process we're
talking about again with the 10 days, I mean you know a lot of that's going to get out of the way for the
people that are anxious to get going now before. And we could expedite that process. In fact if we need to
expedite the process effectively in terms of any building approvals on the landscape or whatever, if they're
necessary, we should do that at this point to go ahead and knock out whatever we can ahead of time. I
mean once you do that and get down to a number now, I'm going to say it's probably less, considerably
less than 100 and now you're talking about phasing that over that period, to me that seems again very
manageable. But again the way we're going to really come out well is if you issue those regulations to
those people at the same time following that 10 day period, we're going to end up saving on what the
general restrictions are effectively back at a period when everybody else is trying to use them. So
essentially we come out well. But again I mean I think you need to sit down with them and get the specifics
of that worked out. This isn't the right place to figure that out.
Scott Botcher: The sprinkler guy.
Mayor Mancino: Steve.
Scott Botcher: Steve. How many gallons of water is pumped at an inch an hour? I mean I'm trying to put
this into cubic measurement.
Councilman Senn: Off of the city water system you mean?
Scott Botcher: Ballpark. Do you guys do those calculations or? ... so we would need to take, come up
with an assumption of how long these, and I'm sort of talking to Mark here. These special new lawn
permits would be. Time frame. Say they're for an hour at a time. We calculate then that okay, that's 500
gallons that we're pulling out of our reserve. We take a check list and we've got this sort of a rolling count
throughout the summer. Say we come up with, and I'll pick a number because it's getting to be 8:00 and
my math is not so good, 2,000 gallons that we can afford. It should be more than that but just 2,000
gallons. That means we can accommodate 4 people on any given day within that 10 day new lawn cycle.
And it's sort of first come, first serve and I guess maybe the way to do it is that if you're ordering sod, so
I'll talk to the sod guy for a second. If you're planning your order of sod, you should first call Teresa's
21
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
office and get your 10 day window established with the city, correct? And then call your sod guy and say
okay, I have permits for new lawn watering between August 6th and August 16th.
Bob Lukes: Now you have to remember when somebody...the weather will affect the schedule so that,
let's just say the weather forecast tonight holds true, we're going to lay any sod tomorrow because it's
going to be muddy... We get that window of time and we...
Scott Botcher: Well, I think from the city's point of view though, if they get a downpour of rain, then
maybe your soil's still wet and you just, you don't need the day, I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no. This is still at council. Just a minute.
Scott Botcher: I appreciate it. I didn't know the cubic measurements so. Is that sort of what you're
saying?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Scott Botcher: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess the point that I keep wanting to come back to and stress is that we are in a
position where some of this is deferred maintenance. We are under a bit of a crunch. It's not as if we've
got you know all this time as far as trying to delay this project. We all understand what it's going to, we all
have lawns and gardens ourselves so we can relate as well and we're trying to work with this and I guess I
want to thank Teresa for working with her staff and coming up with, even before this meeting, two
revisions to the proposed restrictions that I do think we're hearing are being able to work with and that was,
adding the use of a soaker hoses from 9:00 to 3:00 on the daily basis, and then those, the automatic
sprinklers from 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., though I realize not all of us are on them. At least that gives a great
deal of latitude to be able to at least go after the more existing lawns if you would, realizing it's the new
lawns. Boy, I don't know how you crack that one and with what the numbers Scott's working through, I'm
sure you know the numbers from having worked them through with Teresa, as far as whether these new
lawns are really going to pile onto what you're projecting could be a real tricky situation as it is. I wish we
had more alternatives. I quite frankly did like Alternate B. As far as getting rid of one of the most severe
months, so losing July, trying to get everybody through August and coast then, I think we're all feeling like
that one month is enough stress and then you know coast if possible September, October and I've heard all
the complaints about the water quality and how flushing certainly helps with that. It would be good to
maybe know what the bid price would be, if it would change, if we shifted that spring date just by 30 days
to buy us the time to flush the system in the spring. We would probably have what, 2 to 3 times more the
complaints if we couldn't flush the system compared to how many lawns we might lose.
Teresa Burgess: I would guess that 2 to 3 times is maybe low.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. It's dramatic.
Teresa Burgess: It's dramatic the number of calls we get and we are anticipating a lot of calls this fall
because we won't be able to do the on demand flushing either.
22
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: How many on demands, and not to put you on the spot but I don't have a concept
of how many on demand flushings you do in the fall.
Teresa Burgess: We do at a minimum one a week. At a minimum. Typically we're getting more than
that. Those are very small flushings. They're intended to do a small neighborhood. We have at some
instances have 2 to 3 a week in addition to quite often it's during the bi-annual flushes at the same time
we're doing those as well. It's typically one person will go out and open up the hydrant. Get the flow
going until the water runs clear. And it really depends on the time of year. We see a lot of it in the spring
and we see a lot of it in the fall. We also get it mid-summer.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I completely understand and I'm trying to get my arms around this flushing
system and what that would really mean but I'm just seeing more pluses to more people impacted by going
to this Alternate B. Though I understand it brings the system down twice, and I can certainly appreciate
that that's a pretty dramatic project. It just seems more of a realistic burden to put on the community to
say we absolutely have to do this maintenance because it will infect the integrity of the tower if we wait.
Not to say that we're under an emergency situation but better to do it now and not impact, I believe the
staff report had said it could shorten the life span of the existing tank. So we would be doing the fiscally
correct, prudent public safety with our water move, and maybe also then helping our residents be able to
bear the burden a little easier by going in two shots but I guess after spending some time thinking about
this, I am leaning towards Alternate B.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I am as well. Based on what we worked out in the work session prior to coming
into the council meeting. Adding a 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. sprinkling allowance and letting them run soaker
hoses to use during the day. And then some sort of exemption for the newly planted lawns that we talked
about. I don't know what the number is but based on the amount of permits we've got out, if it's 150,
maybe you can do 50 at a time. I don't know. You'll figure that out. But I think that would allow those
people to put those in and keep them alive 10 days, as you rotate to the next set. And stage those in while
using the watering allowances that we just came up with to get them through. And by starting later, I'm
also for Option B because you can start them later and give them the only the one harsh month, August as
opposed to throwing July in there. And then I just want to make sure we push that April date out far
enough to allow for flushing before we bring that tower, or that tank down again. So that's the one I'm
most comfortable with. It's two periods of pain but it's less pain both times.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think we're getting there with Option A. I don't mind Option B but my very big
concern is the flushing, so that you would have to come back to us and let us know if that can be done
because if we can't flush both in the spring, in the summer and in the spring, I just, we have tremendous
problems there.
Teresa Burgess: If we can't push it, we would have the option of continuing, we would be looking at
sprinkling restrictions in the spring for the project again, just to ensure. We probably wouldn't be as
arduous because it is a heavy rain season but we would be looking at some form of sprinkling restriction.
We could extend that an extra couple of weeks and be able to do our flushings after, if it's not possible to
push it. If we are going to be allowing some sod to be placed, I would recommend towards Option B. That
gives us less of a timeframe to stress that system. So if we are going to allow the sod, I would revise my
recommendation to the Option B and really advise that if we can't delay it, we do the flushing right
afterwards and just assume that we'll have to to accommodate that.
23
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: And Option B also, we wouldn't have to do all the special permitting, etc would we? We
wouldn't get.
Teresa Burgess: Not in the spring, no.
Mayor Mancino: Not in the spring, or even in this year.
Teresa Burgess: I'd still like to limit the number of new sod that are placed, just so that we have a handle
on how much is going out. If we find that it's not an issue, we could certainly give them out much more
freely, but I would want to have the control of knowing that if we're seeing problems, that we're not issuing
additional permits.
Mayor Mancino: And we could also make sure that we're doing good communications with residents so
that they can plan next spring when it is going to be down and make sure that they don't order sod or any
new landscaping, etc.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. It does give us an extra month also this year for contacting property owners.
Getting it out to them. I talked with Melissa from the newspaper about getting additional information into
the newspaper after tonight's meeting with the actual restrictions that are adopted tonight at the council
meeting. Just for the council and property owner's information, we have set up a line for people to call.
We will be directing phone calls into that voice mailbox so we can keep track of the number of calls. And
that information will be updated weekly with the newest information on, we're planning to track both
weather conditions so that people know how much rain has been received during the week so they don't use
excess water. And then also updating them on new revisions to the restrictions. If we need to come back to
council and either make things more strict or less strict. We will include that information so people can call
that. Get the information quickly and act upon it then.
Mayor Mancino: So again, I just want to make sure. If we went with Alternate B, we would really be
shutting down mid-July?
Teresa Burgess: Mid-August. We could do it...week before.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Teresa Burgess: We would like to do it during that time frame so if there is, if we do find that shutting
down the tower is something that really impacts it, we can get the tower filled back up quickly and once
they start sandblasting, it's hard to fill it back up without having to clean it out.
Mayor Mancino: So mid-August, September, October. And then next spring.
Teresa Burgess: And then next spring we would be looking at mid-April and all of May.
Mayor Mancino: Mid-April and all of May.
Teresa Burgess: That's assuming we don't shift the dates. Otherwise we would be looking at I believe it
was.
24
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: It may be May-June.
Teresa Burgess: It may be May-June if we do the flushing beforehand. Otherwise we'll flush after.
Mayor Mancino: Because mid-April we could still have snow. Okay.
Teresa Burgess: I believe we finished flushing this year in mid-May.
Mayor Mancino: And if we did that we would still have the soaker hoses being able to use, and the 2:00 to
4:00.
Teresa Burgess: The 2:00 to 4:00 would be sprinklers would be allowed. If people want to, they
certainly are welcome to hand sprinkle during that time period. They would be welcome to use manually
turned on sprinklers. They do need to go back out and shut them off or to use a timer device. Soaker hoses
would be acceptable during those hours but they would also be acceptable from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Hand sprinkling and water cans would also be acceptable. We would ask that no one use the type of
sprayers that would put water up into the air that are not physically held in hand. The idea being that it
limits the amount of time and also people are aware of how much water they're using and we'd like people
to keep track of that and use it, direct it towards their areas that are really necessary.
Mayor Mancino: And doing Alternate B you would also meet with Bob and Steve and go over.
Teresa Burgess: We can certainly meet with them and discuss, for those sod permits, if we're going to
allow watering for sod. We can meet with them and include that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Steve. And then I know there are a couple more questions so.
Councilman Labatt: So Option B would be, you'd be draining the tank August lSt?
Teresa Burgess: We'd be draining the tank probably about August 15th.
Councilman Labatt: August 15th, drain the tank. Okay. For A. I'm talking A.
Teresa Burgess: Option A we would be draining the tank probably the second week of July.
Mayor Mancino: Do you have any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: No. How much prep work can be done at this site before the tank is drained?
Teresa Burgess: The tank is drained by our staff. It's drained by our water department. We'd like to use
up as much of the water as we can before we actually have to drain it. There is some that has to physically
be drained. The prep work, they're going to do the interior of the tank first. So there's really not a way for
them to do much prep work before. Before the tank is drained.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Boy, I hate to go a year of stinky, smelly water. Because I know my
neighborhood has been affected. I've gotten calls from your side of the city.
Mayor Mancino: Well it's laundry too.
25
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Labatt: So how do you tip the scale? I mean do you tip it as far as stinky, smelly water for
the residents for one year, or suffering for approximately 3 months of watering restrictions? What's more
important?
Councilman Senn: Well it's a month difference.
Councilman Labatt: So for the residents that have been 5 months, who haven't experienced the stinky,
smelly water, wait til next spring. Okay, you mm on your shower and you go oh, my god. You'd be better
off going over to Chaska to take a shower at the Rec Center.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think part of maybe going with Alternate B would be that we can still flush. That
we work out. We need to be able to flush.
Councilman Senn: But you're still skipping a flush.
Councilman Labatt: You're still skipping a flush.
Mayor Mancino: But we'd skip a flush regardless.
Teresa Burgess: We cannot flush this fall.
Councilman Engel: Either way.
Teresa Burgess: It's not possible to flush this fall. Unless we want to do sprinkling restrictions a couple
weeks early and flush in early August but that defeats the purpose of shifting to Option B.
Mayor Mancino: So, we could flush in early August with Option B. Could flush in early August. And
then we could also flush next spring.
Teresa Burgess: That would defeat the whole purpose of doing, of switching to Option B from the water
restrictions.
Mayor Mancino: Got it. Got it.
Councilman Labatt: I don't know. I think that the concessions of Option A are a heck of a lot better than
we started two weeks ago. And you know somehow if there's a way to implement issuing permits for
newly sodded yards and for that, to work with what I was talking about earlier, I think it's a win/win for
everybody and it's going to have the least impact is going with Option A with some of the concessions and
recommendations.
Teresa Burgess: If we are, I'd like to stress for the council. If we are going to be allowing the watering of
new sod, I do have some concern about the long period of time because our pumps, we are stressing the
system. We're going to be running the pumps pretty much 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They really
don't get a down time. So the less time we can do that to the pumps, the better. If we lose a pump or two
during this, during doing this, we will have serious problems and we will be having to restrict. So if we're
going to allow the sod watering, I'm more comfortable with Option B because it's a shorter period of time
that we're doing that to the system. If we're not going to allow the extra permits for sod, or if we're going
26
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
to be very limited in the number that we're going to issue, then we would be okay with Option A. But
when you run those pumps like that, you're just asking for trouble. If you run them all the time.
Councilman Senn: But just a question. How do you balance that then? Between going through all the
same issues two years in a row versus one which means you're going to be skipping two flushings because
you're talking two years. You're going to be putting the pressure on the system twice rather than once.
You're going to be irritating another whole group of people in the second year than from the first year. I
mean I come back to the issue that life's too short. I mean let's get it done.
Mayor Mancino: But see I disagree. I mean I have a different point of view and that is, at least if you do
B, you've given people enough time, advance time so that they can plan ahead for next year and not order
their sod, etc.
Councilman Engel: There's not that many that go in in the spring anyway.
Mayor Mancino: And in the spring there's, yeah. I mean nobody puts their sod in in May. Well they do in
June.
Councilman Engel: Not much. Not compared to the fall.
Mayor Mancino: But we're not going to miss a flushing. We're only going to miss one.
Teresa Burgess: We'll miss at least one flushing regardless.
Councilman Engel: I have a few questions.
Teresa Burgess: Unless we want to do the sprinkling restrictions. I mean we did discuss that but then
you defeat the purpose. You don't gain August then. If you do that, you don't gain August. But if
flushing is important, you have to place your priorities. We have basically at this point accepted that we
will not be able to flush this fall. Once the system is back up, we can do that on demand flushing for very
small neighborhoods and try to balance things. Our public utilities department has I guess prepared
themselves for the onslaught on calls of the rusty water and the smelly water. And you know we accept
that that is something that we will have to deal with and the property owners will be upset but hopefully we
can work through it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. You had a couple questions.
Councilman Engel: Yeah. How long does it take to put a new pump back on line if one goes down?
Teresa Burgess: It depends what happens to it. If it's a relatively minor.
Councilman Engel: Total failure.
Teresa Burgess: Total failure? The amount of time it gets us to get a new pump.
Scott Botcher: And I did talk to Jerry, and I don't think it was before you or not, about having an extra
pump on stand-by here. He said that wasn't something he would advise. You'd have to store it and
27
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
everything else and you'd have to have the guys come out and install it. He said the gentleman sounded like
he could call up and they'd order. They would have them in a warehouse somewhere in the city.
Councilman Engel: They could expedite one.
Teresa Burgess: We could expedite one. And it strictly comes down to cost.
Scott Botcher: They'll have you over a barrel. You'll pay a lot.
Councilman Engel: How long does it take to get valves open in an emergency from Chaska? Or Eden
Prairie.
Teresa Burgess: An emergency, if we have a fire emergency and we need to get the valves open, it is a
phone call to our emergency pager. The amount of time for his response and a phone call to their
emergency stand-by person so they can also open the valves. It's a relatively short term. They can turn it
around quick enough to have the water in the system. It will disrupt our system to do that so we would
only do it in the case of an emergency. We will get a lot of rusty water.
Scott Botcher: You will iron from places you've never seen before.
Teresa Burgess: The good part is we probably won't have rusty water complaints for a while afterwards
because it will break it all loose.
Councilman Engel: Well, let's just go ahead and bust it up right now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, there were a couple questions. Please quickly because we want to kind of wind
this up. Bob, did you have a question? And you have to come up and, so we can get it on public record.
I'm sorry.
Bob Lukes: I just wanted to make a comment, and a plug for Option B...
Teresa Burgess: We can't flush in April because there's still a good chance of frost or freeze. Unless we
have really good weather in the spring, then we could.
Bob Lukes: Okay, so you're, it would be what, May?
Teresa Burgess: We would target flushing in May.
Bob Lukes: Just a comment as far as timing. Early May, do you know how much sod I lay in early May?
Even mid-May. Very little simply because as far as the new construction is concerned, driveways are not
in. Sidewalks are not in. Landscaping isn't in. Final grades are not done. So even though you could 150
permits out or houses under construction, very few of those will be ready for sod. Period. Ask my
customers how long they've been waiting already.
Councilman Engel: Even if they get it when the rainy season's in anyway, and the heat's not as bad.
Bob Lukes: Well, rain is always a problem in May. It always is. I mean our volume in May is a third of
what it could be, simply because weather stops us all the time in May.
28
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Engel: All of which is good for us.
Bob Lukes: Absolutely. Exactly. So just a plug for Option B. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. One last and that's it.
Ted Smith: The only point I wanted to make is, again for Option B. I think if you look at the lake charts,
they match up. You aren't running as much risk. But I think the danger of Option A with this you know
2:00 to 4:00 thing is that, your telling people here, say oh go ahead and spend 3 grand, but you know
what's going to happen when everybody finds out their lawn's dead but they can water from 2:00 to 4:00.
It's going to put tons of pressure. I've heard Teresa over here, comment over and over again, it's going to
shut the pumps down. You know 10 days on the sod, that's 10 days but if you don't water it after that, it
will die.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Ted.
Mike Harr: Name's Mike Harr and 551 Summerfield. Is there anyway to hire a crew, 24 hours a day, and
if it costs a little extra, that way the people who want to take showers, to shorten the time line up. And that
way if it costs the taxpayers, I don't know. Whatever.
Mayor Mancino: No, it's on your bill. I mean you're the one that's saying we, just kidding you Mike.
Teresa Burgess: We would be required to rebid it. That would be a significant change in scope that we'd
have to go back and rebid. We do think that we can do it quicker than the 13 weeks that are allowed in
Option A and I believe it's split. It's a little bit longer with Option B. But we have to allow for rainy days.
They're not allowed to work on Sundays. You know that is some things that we could adjust. We could
allow work outside of our normal work hours. We could allow work on Sunday but we don't have
anything right now in the contract that would be an incentive to the contractor to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Mike Harr: For the record I'm for Option B.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Quit. That's it.
Scott Botcher: At the same time my understanding is there is just simply times where you can't work 24
hours a day because of what curing has to occur and that's just the practical realities. The only thing that I
have, and Teresa and I have just sort of been looking at each other and saying you know, no matter what
choice you're going to make, it's just going to be fun anyway. It's a tough call but just so everyone
understands what we're facing and maybe we consider this as we continue to develop our, we have one
more water tower to build, is that right? In the water system plan. Outside of the Lake Lucy water tower,
we have about 1.8 million gallons in storage. Just pulling out the '99 pumping record, in the average
winter day. This is not the summer day, we use 1.66 million gallons. That's less than 200,000 and that's
not really a good situation for us to be in. And god bless the Lake Lucy water tower. It stills up there in
the hills and you see deer up there and all sorts of stuff but as far as a water storage system, we need to
make sure that when we do our next tower, and we consider that, and maybe spend more on it than we
might otherwise spend so we don't have to do this again. Water storage is generally never a bad
29
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
investment, and I guess I say this as much as for the rate payers, and I'm a rate payer, as anything else.
That maybe we should consider doing that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please. I'll move that we go with Option, Alternate B.
Closing it down mid-August, September, October. And then next year, closing it down May, June or
whatever you find out. And I do that based on knowing, making sure that we can flush next spring. And
by the way, Teresa you may have to come back to us. I mean again if we find out we can't flush. Then I
think we may want to revisit this.
Teresa Burgess: Well I think if we're going to make this commitment, we can flush. If it's not possible to
adjust the contract, we can flush afterwards. It will just be something that we'll have to make a
commitment to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then we make sure that we do flush next spring. And I would ask that you, this
week meet with Steve and Bob and go over how the ban will work. Their need to have irrigation checks
when they're putting in the irrigation.
Scott Botcher: I would ask that we take the resolution back and re-write it incorporating the stuff that
you're going to move.
Mayor Mancino: And come back to us.
Scott Botcher: And bring it back to you in 2 weeks because it just, it's quite a ways.
Roger Knutson: You should see the final language.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, that would be great. And using the soaker hose from 9:00 to 3:00 and everything
else.
Teresa Burgess: I would like to get the basic concept down so we can get that out to the public in our
news release. So ifI could just run over it real quick... The 9:00 to 3:00 would allow hand sprinkling and
soaker hose. 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. would allow sprinklers and then we would allow a permit to be issued for
new sod for 10 days. So I will get that out to the public in the next week or so.
Scott Botcher: And just so everyone knows now, if we don't keep up, all bets are off. I don't want to
mislead anybody.
Teresa Burgess: And especially the new sod. If they're putting that in.
Mayor Mancino: And again odd/even.
Teresa Burgess: Odd/even will still stand.
Audience: Is that Plan A or Plan B?
Mayor Mancino: Plan B. Okay. So this will come back to us. Is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Engel: Second.
30
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Resolution #2000-43: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded to award the contract for
the Lake Lucy Water Storage Tank Reconditioning to TMI Coatings, Inc. for Alternate B in the
amount of $328,500. Also to table for a final revision of the Resolution Prohibiting Use of the City's
Water Supply for Specified Purposes and Waiving Required Landscaping Escrows. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Mancino: So probably in a couple weeks, at our next meeting, which is in two weeks. Two weeks
is?
Councilman Engel: 26th.
Mayor Mancino: 26th. June 26th and we'll be seeing a final copy of the resolution. And so if you'd like to
come and see what the final resolution is, exactly what it is, we've kind of given you a general idea. We
will be passing that resolution in two weeks. Okay?
Audience: So is it safe to assume that July 1st, if we have lawns put in like tomorrow, we can go ahead and
put them in?
Teresa Burgess: The sprinkling restrictions will not go into place before August because we're not
implementing Option A.
Audience: Okay, so that whole July 1st thing is, or is August lSt...
Mayor Mancino: Mid August.
Audience: Yeah, but you can still water to whatever degree but at least sod, you can put it in now will be
fine.
Teresa Burgess: Certainly discuss that with your sod company to make sure that they concur.
Mayor Mancino: Thanks everybody for coming and giving your comments. Appreciate them. Really
appreciate them. And Teresa, do you have Bob and Steve's numbers?
Teresa Burgess: I have the information on Steve's letter.
Mayor Mancino: Do you guys have, Bob and Steve, do you have a business card you could leave with
Teresa?
Scott Botcher: ... I've got in the administrative part, did everyone get the District 112 letter?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that you gave us tonight?
Councilman Engel: Yeah, got it.
Scott Botcher: And we're moving ahead with the library. Any questions on correspondence?
Mayor Mancino: No.
31
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Scott Botcher: Let's see. Making use of the time.
Mayor Mancino: No. No questions.
Kate Aanenson: We're ready to go.
Scott Botcher: That's where I thought you were going. I'm sorry.
Councilwoman Jansen: What, to 7?
Mayor Mancino: Oh, excuse me. You didn't get me any...We'll go to item number 6.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING KENNELS,
PRIVATE KENNELS MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN SlX DOGS.
Mayor Mancino: When we do an amendment to city codes, isn't that always a public hearing?
Roger Knutson: No. Only when you're generally speaking and only public hearings are required when
you're amending your zoning ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Staff report please.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, city council members. Approximately about a month ago we had an applicant in
front of you that was trying to get a kennel license, or kennel permit for a private residential and I think the
council at that time realized that there was not a limit on the number of dogs and cats a private resident can
have in their homes. And at that time City Council had placed six dogs and cats as the limit that they
would like to see on residential, or on this applicant's request. Since that time staff has surveyed all our
kennel permits and have come up with one other person that has 4 dogs and 2 cats and one gentleman that
has 7 dogs that he does use for animal therapy with this residents. So based on that information staff is
recommending that the city code limit the private kennel license to no more than 7 dogs or cats.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions at this point?
Councilman Senn: I have a question. Under our existing ordinance, okay I believe it says that you're
allowed to have no more than 2 dogs or cats.
Mayor Mancino: Before you get a kennel permit.
Councilman Senn: Before you need a kennel permit which to me seems absolutely ridiculous and absurd. I
mean I can understand more than 2 dogs, you know or maybe more than x number of cats, but you know to
sit here and require everybody to go through all the work and everything because somebody wants 2 dogs
and 2 cats or 2 dogs and 1 cat or something, or whatever, I mean that to me seems to be really kind of a
ridiculous trigger. You know to an administrative process that appears to almost be.
Todd Gerhardt: Well I'm far from an expert in this field.
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying you are.
32
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Todd Gerhardt: Just ask me tax increment financing.
Councilman Senn: Todd, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to make you the expert because the council's
already decided they're the experts by saying send it to 7 okay, or whatever. Okay. So what I'm saying is
if we're going to mess with it and since we're going to set a maximum, why don't we clear up the other
problem at the same time and just say that you don't need to get a kennel permit you know unless you have
more than 2 dogs and 2 cats or something like that because I mean the current thing, I hate to tell you how
many people in the city are in violation of it but it'd probably be astronomical and we could have a lot of
fun in terms of getting to that whole issue.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the comments I have heard from Bob Zydowsky regarding this is, it's just one to
have kind of a rule on the book that when a neighbor does complain, when somebody does have more than
2 dogs, that at least their yard is fenced in. You know we have some teeth to make them fence it in and
making sure it's secure so those 2 Dobermans don't get out that we talked about earlier.
Councilman Senn: But we're not disagreeing with each other.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I'm just saying the thing that's ridiculous to me is the combination of including a total
of 3, including dogs and cats requires a permit. So anymore than 2 of, I mean effectively those animals. 1
dog, 1 cat or 1 dog, 2 cats now requires you to go through this whole process requires you and staff to
administer and go through all this stuff because somebody wants to have 2 cats and 1 dog. And to me that
doesn't make any sense. I mean I'm not disagreeing with 2 dogs. I think there should be a cap of 2 dogs as
far as the limitation on dogs but why cats was thrown in with that and made a part of a total of 2.
Otherwise you get into a kennel just seems to be kind of silly.
Councilman Labatt: Because we don't want the cat lady from North Minneapolis to raise cats in
Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: Hiding out in the sheriff's cars to get here right?
Councilman Labatt: She's there.
Todd Gerhardt: I think that's where the ordinance went was to limit these cat houses.
Scott Botcher: Cat houses?
Todd Gerhardt: Not the kind that Scott's thinking of.
Councilman Senn: I won't go there but.., ordinary number of cats by again some kind of a reasonable limit
but right now again, any household in this community that has more than is required to get a kennel permit
and that's.
Mayor Mancino: So how do you feel about what we're talking about?
33
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Senn: What I'm saying is if you're going to mess with it and set a cap, you ought to fix the
ordinance at the same time on the minimum.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I agree. I agree. I agree. What does it say Roger? If you could please.
Roger Knutson: Private kennel means any place with more than 2 dogs or cats over 6 months of age.
Mayor Mancino: So it's not and, it's or? 2 dogs or cats.
Councilman Senn: In combination.
Councilwoman Jansen: And it's more than.
Councilman Senn: More than 2.
Roger Knutson: Well you could say, you can say anything you want but you could say more than 2 dogs.
You could write it so you could have 2 dogs and you could have 2 cats.
Kate Aanenson: And a hamster.
Councilman Labatt: And 12 fish.., pull me an aquarium permit then, okay.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, did anybody come tonight about this? About the kennel permit? Okay, I just
wanted to make sure.
Councilman Senn: Of 3 dogs and 3 cats if you want.
Mayor Mancino: So what are you suggesting that it be changed in that area to?
Councilman Senn: I think it should just be something more than a combination of 2 type of thing. I mean I
agree with the 2 dogs because that's something that's outdoors and creates noise, etc, etc. I think we could
give a little more leeway on the cats or something. If you want to make it 2 and 2. I don't care if we make
it 2 and 3 or whatever. I mean it just seems to me we ought to have some limitations there but our
limitation is way too restrictive.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. Did you have any questions on what we're looking at tonight on the 7?
Councilman Senn: As far as the overall, when we do grant the kennel permit limitation being 7, as I say
before, I think that's too high but if that's what everybody likes, that's what they like.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Linda.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I like a comment that I believe maybe Mark Engel said earlier in regards to
it's not the number of animals, it's typically the type. And just reflecting on our restricting the number, I
realize what we're trying to accomplish, but I think we also accomplish that through our other ordinances if
they're become a nuisance. You know the whole noise ordinance, whether you know it's, I don't know. A
problem in a neighborhood. You can address it that way. I don't know. I'm not crazy about limiting a
number, and especially when we do have large lots still within the city because this is affecting everyone, so
34
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
you could have a hobby farm to what, 5-10 acres and heaven knows what they want to do on it. If they
have them fenced in and they're not affecting neighbors, then we almost have to get even more specific as
to what type of properties are we talking about that we're limiting this on. I can certainly see it within
residential neighborhoods but I almost think that that's self restricting because of the size of the lots. I
don't know, that's it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Councilwoman Jansen kind of paraphrased it but again it's, as a person who's had
Great Danes and Westies, it's not the number that matters. It's the way the animals behave regardless of
what they are. You know I bought my mom a little Shitzu. This is basically a mop without a handle. You
could have a little herd of these things running around the back yard. It wouldn't matter. You get 2-3
Great Danes, you'd have a real problem on your hands. So it depends on the nature of the beast, you know
pardon the pun. What have you got there?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know, there's got to be 150 different varieties of dogs.
Councilman Engel: Yeah. And that's why I'm saying, you know Dachsunds. You know take your pick of
those little things.
Mayor Mancino: A mop without a handle.
Councilman Engel: Yes they are. You throw them on the floor and you clean your floor with those little
things, but it doesn't matter how many you've got. You someone's going to come up, well I've got a whole
bunch of these dogs and it doesn't fit in the ordinance. Now you've got a problem. So it's the way they're
behaving that's more of the problem than it is what you've got there, or how many you've got. I don't
want to hold up the process. I made that clear.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Steve.
Councilman Labatt: I don't know how I can top that one Engel.
Todd Gerhardt: I thought the cat house was pretty good.
Councilman Labatt: The feline house, okay. You know but that brings up the whole point and how that
lady in Minneapolis got caught. It was, she took one of the sick cats to the vet and the vet realized that it
was a disease that comes from a feline house where one cat's infected and infect them all. So it's not like
the neighbors didn't notice the smell. You know nobody complained about it so, okay. But, so how do we
find out who has more than 2 cats? Is it really, I don't know.
Scott Botcher: The Weed Inspector.
Councilman Labatt: We'll appoint the Mayor also Cat Inspector.
Mayor Mancino: I could really have fun.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, well I think 7 is too much for the total number regardless. And you know the
ordinance has been there for a while and in place for a reason, so do the numbers need tweaking? I don't
35
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
care. I can go either way but I think we could say 6 and grandfather that one in and when that seventh is
deceased out there, leave it at 6.
Councilman Engel: Is there a death watch on one?
Councilman Labatt: No, but I mean.
Scott Botcher: They live on Highway 5.
Councilman Labatt: But I mean, you know. If you go no more than 2 dogs and 2 cats or no more than 4. I
don't know. I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: I'll just give a couple of my comments and that is that, I don't really think we need to
limit the number of dogs and cats and I guess I agree with the two council, previous council members who
talked about that. For me it has to do with, I know that we have half of Chanhassen that's still
undeveloped and people have bigger parcels and telling them that they can, those are limited just doesn't
seem quite right. And I do think that there is another way that when people do come in to get their permit
renewed, we have a process that we go through and the neighbors can come in and complain, etc. And if
there have been a lot of calls to our law enforcement officers, we have that, etc. So I don't see a need for
limit at this point. So I would just assume that we don't limit it and that we keep it like we have it. Now
Councilman Senn's was something else. Had to do with something else in the ordinance that I, you know.
Councilman Senn: So your comments are just saying you don't think we should limit anybody at all on the
kennels?
Mayor Mancino: On how many kennels they can have. And I think, because we can go through, they have
to come in annually and renew their kennel license, don't they?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We send them a letter and tell them that your kennel permit's due. Please come in
and make out a new application and by the way, license your dog and animal or cat or whatever it is.
Mayor Mancino: And also can't we at the same time, while they're going through that process, have as
part of the process kind of do some due diligence to see if there have been any calls to law enforcement for
harassment for noise or for biting, etc.?
Todd Gerhardt: Well we get a lot of calls on barking dogs so, but it's just that. It's usually 1 or 2 dogs
that are barking. And so I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Do we notify the neighbors that this, that the annual review is coming up?
Todd Gerhardt: For the kennels?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: There's only, the only time a review's done is when we receive a complaint from a
neighbor. That's why you saw the last one and you've never seen one before is that we did have a
complaint from 5 neighbors. The issue that one neighbor complained but it was more than one. And so
that's why that came to you. So that's the first one I've ever seen in my time here.
36
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Labatt: So you don't advertise coming in for stable permits? People that want to have horses.
Todd Gerhardt: Only if we get a complaint or if the conditions of the kennels are not kept to the standards
as outlined in the ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Can I clarify that? They are published in the paper. Stable permits are published in the
paper.
Councilman Labatt: Right, yeah but dog, kennel permits are not.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure of that. I know the stable permits are published.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, that's why, I usually read them in there.
Kate Aanenson: So if people have questions or comments, we take note.
Councilman Senn: Kennel permit applications are published in the paper too.
Councilman Labatt: They are?
Councilwoman Jansen: I think so.
Mayor Mancino: I don't know.
Councilwoman Jansen: I believe they are. And actually the city code does also read, if I could add, upon
application for renewal of a kennel license, an authorized city employee shall inspect the kennel of the
applicant. And then that person reports back affirmative to the city clerk before it's issued. The way the
ordinance reads.
Councilman Labatt: That'd probably be a CSO huh?
Todd Gerhardt: Well a CSO, Jackie went out after she received a complaint to investigate.
Mayor Mancino: But we probably should be sending somebody out then. Okay. So on this change, and
then we talk further about Mr. Senn's if anyone wants to. Can I have a motion on whether to go ahead and
amend the city code to limit a private kennel license to no more than 7 dogs and/or cats?
Councilwoman Jansen: I would make a motion to not amend the city code to limit a private kennel license
to no more than 7 dogs and/or cats.
Mayor Mancino: And is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council make a motion to
not amend the city code to limit a private kennel license to no more than 7 dogs and/or cats. All
voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
37
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Senn: So you're just leaving the ordinance the way it is?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: We're leaving it the way it is.
Councilman Senn: So essentially each one had to come in and be reviewed, which is the way it is now.
Mayor Mancino: Which is the way it is now. Next item on the agenda is, back up to unfinished business.
Councilman Senn: Well wait a minute. Let's deal with the other issue.
Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, okay.
Councilman Senn: Let's deal with the other issue and change it to 2 dogs and 2 cats, and I don't want to
say a total of 4 because then somebody can have 4 dogs and that defeats the purpose so I mean I think you
expand it out to 2 dogs and 2 cats. Or if somebody's more comfortable with 2 dogs or cats, whatever they
want here but I mean we've got to get past this limitation of 2. Or get rid of it totally out of the ordinance
and essentially make it a nuisance issue that would be under the nuisance ordinance anyway.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Councilman Senn: Well if I understand what public safety is saying, they're saying they want something to
at least provide some enforcement powers that relate to...
Councilman Labatt: Well the whole crux behind the 2 dogs and the 2 cats is, it behooves the homeowner to
come in and get a permit and then they have to provide proof of vaccination on all the animals that you're
going to have there in the event that somebody's neighbor is bit.
Councilman Senn: But you have to get that on any pet in Chanhassen under the ordinance. Whether you
have 1 or you have whatever. The issue is the kennel permit. Right now under our ordinance you have to
come to get a kennel permit if you have 2 dogs and 1 cat. Or 2 cats and 1 dog. We have a lot of people
effectively in that situation that don't get permits.
Councilman Labatt: Well people don't get licenses too.
Councilman Senn: That's probably true. That fits everywhere too.
Mayor Mancino: So you would just like to see it, 2 dogs and 2 cats?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Something so it's not that restricted to 2 pets basically. But I understand, but I
would like to keep the limitation to 2 on the dogs because that's where most of the nuisance complaints
come from as far as barking goes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda your views.
38
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I can see adding the term and, or deleting the or. Making it and. But
realizing that a dog can be just as small as a cat. I wouldn't want to show any favoritism and just keep
both at 2's.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Steve.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I'm fine with the current language. I think we're doing the homeowner...
Mayor Mancino: I could go with and. That'd be fine. Just bring it back to us.
Roger Knutson: So I'm clear... You don't mean you have to have 2 dogs and 2 cats? You mean.
Councilman Senn: Before you are required, let's just put it in terms of a motion. Amend the ordinance so
as to allow for 2 dogs and 2 cats before you have to apply for a kennel permit.
Roger Knutson: What ifI only have 2 dogs and no cats?
Councilman Senn: That's fine.
Roger Knutson: Then I don't need a kennel permit?
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilwoman Jansen: It has to be more than.
Roger Knutson: But ifI have 4 dogs?
Councilman Labatt: If you have 3 dogs you need a permit.
Roger Knutson: I need a total of 4 animals.
Councilman Senn: You're okay on a total of 4 animals of which no more than 2 can be dogs. How's that?
Roger Knutson: 4 animals.
Councilman Engel: Don't exceed 2 dogs and you're okay. This is getting confusing.
Councilman Labatt: We might as well just leave it the way it is.
Roger Knutson: No, I've got it now. 4 animals, no more than 2 which are dogs.
Councilman Senn: I'll make that a motion.
39
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Mayor Mancino: I'll second that.
Roger Knutson: You have to ask me to draft.
Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah. He'll bring it back to us so we don't have to do that. Thank you. And that
you for clearing that up for us Roger.
DISCUSSION REGARDING HIGHWAY 101 ALIGNMENT~ HENNEPIN COUNTY
CORRESPONDENCE.
Teresa Burgess: The Council had adopted a resolution in May, 2000 and that resolution was forwarded
to Hennepin County. We received a response from Hennepin County regarding that resolution. This
evening we're asking for council discussion and direction on where we should go next. The correspondence
from Hennepin County is attached, as well as the Eden Prairie resolution that they passed. Hennepin
County has stated that they are not willing to pursue Option lA at this time. They do not feel that it is
appropriate. It does not meet with what Eden Prairie is recommending. Eden Prairie has recommended
Options 2, 3 or 4 be pursued and that at a later date when more design information is available, but then it
be determined which option is best for the corridor. The city of Chanhassen had recommended Option lA
which was described in our resolution as a two lane road within the existing right-of-way. Replacement of
roadway base and sub-base. Removing peaks and valleys. Resurfacing the road. Installing curb and
gutter. Constructing storm sewer and ponding. Construction on the back of the curb line a minimum
impact 8 foot wide trail extending from 78th Street to Pleasant View Road, which we are currently pursuing
by having HTPO do the concept drawings. Constructing a northbound mm lane at Fox Hollow and
signalizing the intersection at Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road. Since I wasn't in on the original
conversations, it was determined that we should just come back and ask the council for some direction and
discussion of what we should pursue now with the response from Hennepin County saying they are not
interested in pursuing Option lA.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Teresa, as I'm reading the resolution from Eden Prairie. On point number 6
on page 2. They do want more information on design concept 2, which is 2 lane with intersections and
signal improvements.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. The only option they are not willing to pursue is Option 1. They're looking for
additional information on those three options and then would be willing to make a determination between
the three.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And concept design number 2 is two lanes but the shoulders which really make it
four lanes. Got it. For future four lane.
Teresa Burgess: It is a widening where our Option lA was much more in the existing foot path of the
existing roadway.
Councilman Senn: Well and 2 was a long way from a minimum impact trail too. In fact the right-of-way
actually required for the two lane was greater than the right-of-way, or is as great as. No, greater I believe
than the right-of-way for the three lane. And almost, or it was the same as almost the right-of-way for the
four lane.
40
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Teresa Burgess: The other thing that has come out, in speaking with MnDot, is that the mm back funds
that were anticipated to be used for this project. Those turnback funds would only pay for three lanes.
They would not pay for the fourth lane. MnDot's turnback funds, they couldn't justify the fourth lane for
the tumback funds. So the fourth lane would be 100% county and city funded. And that is my
understanding from conversations. I do not have that in writing.
Mayor Mancino: That's the first time we're heard that. Interesting.
Councilman Labatt: You mean the four lane road?
Teresa Burgess: If we were to build the four lane road, that fourth lane would not be paid for with
MnDot funds. With the county turnback funds. We would have to come up with that with the city and the
county funds. The other thing that does come up, in the Eden Prairie if you notice the date. Todd is the
expert on TIF but my understanding is the TIF financing is only available for this project through the end
of this calendar year. We need to have our design and our environmental done. Eden Prairie is not meeting
that deadline in their recommendation and so we would be looking at lose of those TIF funds towards the
project.
Mayor Mancino: Give us some options.
Teresa Burgess: Speaking with MnDot, we would have the option of continuing to negotiate with
Hennepin County. They are taking the lead on this one. Carver County, Eden Prairie to find an acceptable
solution to all four of the entities involved. MnDot's position on this is that they would like to turnback the
road and it's really a local issue on what we decide to build. They will participate in the cost of the three
lanes. The fourth lane would be local funds. The other options would be to pursue turnback to the city in
which case we would negotiate with Eden Prairie to accommodate that. We would need to work out where
the city line would fall. If we would take half of Eden Prairie or if we would take the whole thing. Another
option would be to pursue having MnDot roll it back into the highway system and to drop the turnback
option completely. And I'm open to any suggestions from the council. I've been tossing this one around
for a while with Jim Grube from the county and.
Scott Botcher: Has it been fun?
Teresa Burgess: ...but I'm open to them also.
Mayor Mancino: Could you please tell me, your third option. MnDot will back into their highway system?
Teresa Burgess: It is part of the MnDot highway system and we could request that MnDot roll it back
into their system. Right now it is, the maintenance has been deferred with the idea that they're doing this
turnback project. That they'll maybe go out and do some of the routine maintenance with the idea that
they're going to tear it out and build a new road anyway. We could request that MnDot accepts that it's
not going to be a turnback and put it back into their system for normal maintenance of the roadway and
they would...to pursue turnback. That could be our recommendation at this point if that's the desire of the
council. That would at this point, my conversation with MnDot would be that, was that what they would
do is do a minimal amount of maintenance at this time. Fill up some pot holes.., those things that would be
addressed. And then they would decide what the future of that roadway is. Speaking with MnDot, they
visualize it as a three lane so by asking them to mm it back into their system, there is a potential with, since
we no longer have a lot of saying what they did, it eventually would probably go that direction. They feel
41
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
that a three lane is necessary for the next few years of service to the City of Chanhassen, with the eventual
need as development occurs in the western suburbs, for a potential for a four lane. But they don't see the
need for quite some time.
Mayor Mancino: And can you tell us a little bit about the implications of turning it back to the city.
Teresa Burgess: The implications of turning it back to the city. First of all, we'd have to work out the
logistics because right now the city, corporate lines go right down the center line. Maintenance. We would
need to get agreement with MnDot. There would be, if financing. Those issues. I don't believe if we do
that, that we would be able to use the TIF financing...
Todd Gerhardt: You'd have to enter into a third party. Our third party would be Hennepin County.
Hennepin County would have to award the contract.
Mayor Mancino: Couldn't it be MnDot? IfMnDot's turning it back to us.
Todd Gerhardt: The resolution that we passed April lst, or 2nd, was with Hennepin County.
Councilman Senn: Can't that be assigned to a different third party?
Todd Gerhardt: I guess I'm sure there's nothing that, there's a lot of talk about assigning third party
contracts so.
Mayor Mancino: We'll have to look into that.
Todd Gerhardt: You're talking about turning back a road to the city of Chanhassen and we only have half
the road. I mean are you going to take Eden Prairie's half too? Eden Prairie's talking about, if we could
come to terms with Eden Prairie on our concept, I think you could get the road done. So I mean, we still
haven't got a letter.
Councilman Senn: Why do you say that? I mean if we come to agreement with Eden Prairie it's
immaterial. Hennepin County's position from day one on this project has always been the same. I mean
lA is not a new no position from Hennepin County.
Teresa Burgess: If Chanhassen and Eden Prairie could come to agreement, we would be in a better
negotiating position with Hennepin County. It would not just be Chanhassen saying this is what we want to
do. At this point Eden Prairie distinctly said, everything except Option 1 is okay with us. They really
haven't said this is the option we want. If you read that resolution, it is pretty wide open. If we could
come to a negotiated settlement with them that this is what we're going to recommend, Hennepin County
would then have one city to deal with. One city position to deal with...
Mayor Mancino: Maybe it would be worth doing, or having a meeting with Teresa and Scott with Eden
Prairie city officials and talking about those designs.
Teresa Burgess: We could certainly request that. A meeting with city officials of Eden Prairie, as Scott
said, maybe invite DOT. I did invite Jim Grube from the county to be here tonight. He had another
engagement. And this agenda, staff report was also forwarded to Carver County and Eden Prairie so they
42
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
are aware that we are discussing it this evening. I expect my phone will ring tomorrow asking what we
decided.
Councilman Senn: Have you discussed that with Grube basically?
Teresa Burgess: I discussed with Grube that we had received his letter and that we would be taking it to
the council for discussion on what we should do now, since Hennepin County has essentially rejected our
resolution.
Councilman Senn: No, I meant that Hennepin County would accept something if it were agreed upon by
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Because that's not the foundations of the.
Teresa Burgess: What I discussed with Grube is where do we go from here? His statement was, we need
consensus. He's willing to work with the consensus.
Scott Botcher: I think part of the deal is in the conversations that we've had with DOT is that DOT just
wants to wash their hands of this road so badly. I don't want to speak for them but to be honest, they want
to wash their hands of this thing. And if Chan and Eden Prairie could come together on a deal, they may
just tell Hennepin County these are the marching orders.
Councilman Senn: But as we understand it, Eden Prairie can't come on a deal that involves lA because
they have a long standing agreement with Hennepin County and knows what Hennepin County wants.
Because Hennepin County went with what they wanted on Dell Road.
Teresa Burgess: There is no official agreement.
Councilman Senn: Well I know there's no official agreement but come on. I mean I ask the staff over
there, you ask everybody else, everybody knows the deal was made. Now how do you undo that deal?
Scott Botcher: If they want it to be something beyond what it is, they might have to. You might be right.
Mayor Mancino: But I think that that's worth you guys setting up a meeting and talking and.
Todd Gerhardt: What does Dell Road have to do with Hennepin?
Councilman Senn: When Dell Road was originally supposed to become the new 101, the deal was cut that
the upgrade of the highway would occur in the current, existing location of 101 on the basis that they would
back off putting it on Dell Road where it was supposed to go.
Teresa Burgess: Looking at the traffic, even if 101 was to be built to a four lane, it will not provide the
traffic movement that Dell Road provides. Eventually Dell Road will probably need to be upgraded to a
four lane. Same classification just to handle the traffic loads and the traffic movements that are necessary.
So saying that 101 being a four lane avoids that, it may delay it but it certainly won't change the fact that
eventually Dell Road will have to be upgraded to handle the traffic of the development.
Councilman Senn: One other thing, just so you understand because I don't know who's giving you what
information. 101 has not been on a deferred maintenance program because of the turnback program. It
was designated a temporary state highway almost 40 years ago, okay. It had nothing to do with turnback
43
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
funds and because it was designated a temporary state highway, then it was put on a deferred maintenance
schedule 40 years ago.
Teresa Burgess: And MnDot's position is that it is not appropriate for 101 to be a state highway. It
doesn't function as they intend their state highway system to function. That is part of the reason they're
pursuing the county road. The county turnback is that they don't believe, how do I put that? That it's a
necessary part of the state system. That it needs to be ingrade. It's more appropriate to be at the county or
city level.
Mayor Mancino: And if they turned it back to the city, well and I guess I'm asking for you to investigate
or my suggestion would be for you to investigate their turning it back to the city. If they did do that, would
they give the funding, turnback funding to the city too so that we could upgrade at least our side of the road
or?
Teresa Burgess: I did not ask that and when I spoke with him, I actually spoke with Bob Brown after a
meeting and I just, just tell me of my options and one of them was that you could turn back to the city
directly. I didn't pursue it at the time. I really wanted to hear if that was something the council wanted to
pursue before I put it out on the table and got them all excited about the idea.
Mayor Mancino: Other comments from council members?
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I guess I like the idea that you mentioned Mayor as far as getting the two
cities talking. Just the fact that they have a two lane concept, though it might not come to fruition as it is
and we have a two lane concept. If we can at least do the comparison. How far apart are we? I don't have
a real good feel for that right now. But if they're dead set on that maximum width that's within the current
engineering plans or maybe they will come down on that for us. I don't know that we've had those kinds of
conversations and it seems like that would be a very worthwhile next step. Just to see how close we are
with them as a jurisdiction to agreeing.
Teresa Burgess: Just so I'm sure. Are you recommending that we do that at a staff level or that we
contact to see if they would be willing to do a joint meeting with the council?
Councilwoman Jansen: Ooh, I like the staff level myself. Thanks for asking. Absolutely.
Councilman Senn: lA wasn't even in existence at the time that they passed the resolution so.
Teresa Burgess: That was created afterwards.
Councilman Engel: See what they think.
Mayor Mancino: And maybe they'd take it to heck and discuss it with their council and at some point, if
they wanted to meet jointly.
Councilman Engel: In the meantime what's going on with the trail? On the west side.
Councilman Senn: They were out surveying a couple weeks ago.
Councilman Engel: You know what's happening with the trail on the west side?
44
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Teresa Burgess: The trail is still be pursued at this time as a concept. We actually have a meeting
scheduled for Thursday with the property owners that abut the trail. That it will actually run through their
property and impact. We'll have a second meeting at a later date for the neighborhood. The corridor
people that are interested.., in the paper. This one we never, I noticed to the property owners directly and at
this point the HTPO has completed the survey work. They have, we have meetings scheduled tomorrow
morning to go through that information and I had asked them to put a line on the paper, just for comment
purposes, but it is not, it is not the alignment that we'll be bringing back to the council. I shouldn't say
that. It might be. Maybe we would like it but at this time.., comments for the neighborhood to respond to.
That meeting is Thursday night. We're going to do an open house. People will be coming and going and
we're asking them just kind of come in. You know if they have a comment, they can make it to us in
person or write it right on the plan sheet. We'll be posting them on the wall for people to write on.
Councilman Engel: I think one of the things that could help the state move along their closing of that road
is by us getting a trail in because it takes the onus off of us, frankly I think as a body to do something
because a lot of our citizens will be pacified for quite a while and it puts it back on Hennepin and Eden
Prairie for lack of a better way to frame it. To make a decision on the road that I think everybody can
agree with. So what's the State of Minnesota doing?
Teresa Burgess: Minnesota will need to review the permit. The limited use permit. They have stated that
they are concerned that that is the only carrot they have to offer Chanhassen, in their view. I'm not sure if
they could come up with something better, we'd certainly entertain it. But they are concerned that if we get
our trail in, then we have no interest at any improvements to 101. It is something that we will have to go
through the permit process to see if they approve or not. At this point we are coordinating with them and
as a part of the HTPO's contract, that they coordinate both with Hennepin County and with MnDot to
make sure that we're meeting the requirements of the limited use permit.
Mayor Mancino: And how do you feel about giving direction, for having the staffs meet of the two cities?
Councilman Engel: By all means. See what they think of lA.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Steve?
Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with that.
Mayor Mancino: You feel comfortable with that? Great. Thank you. Thanks so much for that update.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS;
LOCATED EAST OF TH 101, NORTH OF MISSION HILLS, AND SOUTH OF THE
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS; MARSH GLEN, MSS HOLDINGS, LLC.
Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you Mayor and City Council. The Marsh Glen proposal was before you on two
prior occasions as a detached townhome development and twin homes. The item was tabled on both
occasions. At the last meeting the applicant was given direction to provide more transition between the
proposed townhome development and the existing single family and Mission Hills. In response to that the
applicant has opted to change the proposal to a straight single family subdivision. The council did remand
the application back to the Planning Commission for their review. They did so on May 17th and they
unanimously approved the item. However since the item was reviewed at the Planning Commission level
45
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
has been changed. There was a private drive that extended down on the southern portion of the proposal
and is now a cul-de-sac with no private street. Thus changing the amount of tree preservation. The lot
dimensions have all been changed as lot area and the length of the proposed cul-de-sac, as I had said. The
proposed plat is to be accessed via the extension of Mission Hills Lane and Trunk Highway 101 in the
future. As proposed all lots comply with RSF single family residential zoning requirements and the land
use plan. It has a density of 2.3 units per acre. In addition to the 19 lots proposed, there are two outlots.
Outlot A is Trunk 101 right-of-way and Outlot B is the proposed trail extension and Rice Marsh Lake.
The site does have two natural features, the lake being one. And significant trees being the other. Staff is
recommending that a conservation easement be extended over the wetland and lakeshore setback. They're
noted as a drainage and utility easement on the plan. There's also a trail as I had mentioned. The Rice
Marsh Lake trail will extend around the lake and the applicant will provide a connector from the sidewalk
that extends along the north side of Mission Hills Lane to that trail. Staff does recommend approval of the
preliminary plat with the conditions in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions from council to staff?
Councilwoman Jansen: I have a question. Actually on the compliance table that starts on page 4 of the
staff report. My question's on the later part of the chart on page 5. Lots 5 through 8. You've included in
the description on your page 6 that the shoreland ordinance requires 40,000 square feet of area and 125 feet
of width for a natural environment lake. Does that not apply to Lots 5 through 8? Should those widths be
the 125 feet and the lots be the 125 feet of width on natural environment lakes? Did I confuse you?
Cindy Kirchoff: No. They don't qualify as riparian lots. They're not within 75 feet ofa lakeshore of the
water level. So they're not riparian lots. They don't have to comply with that area and width requirement.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So you set them back up far enough that even though they're contiguous
with the shoreland, it doesn't qualify as shoreland.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Cindy Kirchoff: They don't have access to the lake, except for the trail.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, I get it. So it doesn't trigger it unless it is part of their property right
up to the shoreland?
Cindy Kirchoff: Correct.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was my only question.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, another question?
Councilman Senn: Basically if I'm understanding this correctly, now the way it reads, or the way that it is,
is essentially they've met all the ordinance requirements?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. As Cindy indicated, they went to Planning Commission. It was our
recommendation that the cul-de-sac be a private drive. Basically you flatten that and taking out the trees,
which was our recommendation for the private drive. The Planning Commission had recommended to take
46
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
out, as a possible alternative, and Mr. Kroiss chose to pursue that alternative. So going back to our
original, we felt dealing with the.., topography...
Councilman Senn: But that was more of a design issue than an ordinance issue. I mean the ordinance
doesn't require him to do it.
Kate Aanenson: A flag lot?
Councilman Senn: No. Essentially the Planning Commission alternative that they're going with is equally
acceptable under the ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's right.
Councilman Senn: So I mean essentially the project now meets all our ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: It did before with the private drive. Right, and that was our recommendation to try to
preserve trees and natural.., but you're right. It does meet all the criteria.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the council please? You made a lot of
changes. Every single lot.
Steve Kroiss: Thanks for consideration again. We're back after several months of redoing this project and
I think we all realized that the first project, was probably the best one but here we are and I think the only
thing I really want to convey to everybody is that we're asking for no zoning. No variances. We meet all
the guidelines. And we're... We're going to build homes between $200,000 and $450,000...and that's
really all I really have to say about it. That was the neighbors, there were several issues about the flag lots
and there were a couple of issues.., addressed that somewhat and I really think that we've got a dynamite
project here and it should work for everyone.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions? Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: What are the outside issues on the flag lot?
Steve Kroiss: Well... see that type of a lot for various reasons. But as we pointed out to them, the city
does these types of lots and the configuration of our land is such that it warrants having them. The city has
done this.., so we're not asking for any...
Councilman Labatt: So is that, position of number 8, is that how it's going to be built?
Steve Kroiss: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Well it's not a flag lot anymore.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, that's all I had. Oh, this is fine here. I'm worried about this one here... No,
this down here at the end of the cul-de-sac is great depending on what you have. I like that but it's Lot
number 8 that I have a problem with. Again, there's two Lot 8's now.
47
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilman Engel: You have Block 1, Lot 8.
Councilman Labatt: Block 1, Lot 8. That's going to be another Craig and Chris Winter.
Councilman Engel: If you look at the way those houses are oriented though, they are side by side. If you
look at where a deck would come off the back. They're roughly, it's not as bad where it's directly behind
the house. You know what I mean. You look out the back of one window into the front of another. You'd
never look in the front of this one.
Kate Aanenson: That's why the staff made the recommendation of approval. I think we've learned from
that. You've got to keep the orientation pattern with the neighbor.
Councilman Engel: If they're side to side and you have one directly looking in the front and there's no way
this one can look in the front.
Councilman Labatt: The other question I'll bring up now is, I'm looking at like Lot 1, Block 1... setback
from the lake. Are we setting ourselves up for variances there coming in for decks? For patios?
Steve Kroiss: No. None of these lots will have that problem. I don't have the plan with me. We're going
to ask for, with this permit.., right away and I have the plan here tonight and we do have a demonstration.
We won't be asking to bring any variances for decks and...
Councilman Labatt: I realize you won't but what happens when the homeowner wants to come in?
Steve Kroiss: None of these lots will have to ask.
Councilman Labatt: In two years.
Steve Kroiss: More than adequate space on our pads to make these work... 14 foot deck or porch.
Councilman Labatt: Now you and I had talked about it earlier about other, not this builder but other ones
have maximized to the point of problems. So as long as you're comfortable...
Kate Aanenson: Well I think you know we have to rely on the builder to work with the homeowner to get
the right size house on the lot. What starts affecting it is if you punch the garage out, pushing the home
back. We try to, we require a certain size pad, not a house style. So he may have a homeowner that likes a
certain lot. If he has to tell them it can only be a certain style home. That's where the problems come.
Steve Kroiss: The other thing I'd like to... do an early grade if I could, if that's possible.
Kate Aanenson: You'll have to work with engineering on that. Grading.
Mayor Mancino: You'll have to talk to engineering on that one, okay. Thank you. Do we have, what's the
process that we have for letting homeowners who buy on the conservation easement of telling them about
the conversation easement. Where it is. How it's located and what they can and can't do there.
48
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Kate Aanenson: We do ask that it be put in the chain of title. We also ask that it show up in the survey.
Most homeowners do see their survey.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Then let's
bring it back to council. Any questions or any comments from council?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess if I could, Roger. I'm just confused, and not that I don't appreciate your
addressing my question. But how is it that these two lots, well four lots, can sit with that sort of an
adjacency and not fall under the riparian lot description? I mean I'm showing the 150 foot setback, which
is the structure setback as is required. But the back of their lots are the ordinary high water mark. So the
lot line is the ordinary high water mark of the lake.
Kate Aanenson: Roger, if I can help you with that. Look up our definition of riparian lot. It says 75 feet
and we also got an opinion from an DNR officer because there's an outlot between the outlot at that and
they accepted that is a non-riparian lot so that's where our definition of lot comes in. That's how we made
the interpretation.
Roger Knutson: I'd have to take a look at it but it's logical. I mean let's say I have a lot that's 100 acres
in size and I'm a half mile or something from the, in this case you have an intervening lot.
Kate Aanenson: We have the same situation on Lake Susan where we own a trail before the lake so while
there's a trail there so they don't have riparian, they're not riparian lots. They don't have to sit that far
back because there's a trail that we own between, similar circumstance here. He made an outlot so there
is... lot situations and that was the way, he met with the DNR to resolve the situation, and that decision was
made way back, all the different projects we've seen on this property, that decision was made.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess maybe I'm confused then as to what we're trying to accomplish with the
ordinance. I'm coming at it from it's trying to make sure that we're not affecting water quality. That the
lots are a little bit larger. We end up with fewer structures. They're set back farther. And we almost lose
that in this definition, though the homes are sitting pretty much in the same location as they would be if
they were designated riparian lots. It just so happens that we.
Kate Aanenson: We don't have people with individual lots putting docks out, mowing that so you've taken
that away. That's what we're trying to protect that so it's kind of a, it's a trade off. So they don't have
those riparian...that was the trade off. You lose that control of the individual owners. Somebody else has
control of that outlot.
Councilwoman Jansen: But since Rice Marsh Lake is a marsh, I mean it's not a recreational lake. It's a
natural environment lake. You wouldn't have docks being put out onto a natural environment lake,
correct?
Kate Aanenson: Again, they can apply for a wetland alteration permit. We have them on Lake St. Joe.
That's a natural environment lake. Sure. And we did the same thing with that subdivision up there.., but
we put a criteria, you know when they came in it was already in, docks and same sort of situation.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. It just seems odd since it does sit basically the same, just on smaller lots.
Kate Aanenson: But that's how our definition of lots, riparian lots.
49
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Mark?
Councilman Engel: No.
Mayor Mancino: Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions or comments?
Councilman Senn: Move approval as per staff's revised.
Mayor Mancino: I was going to say, I don't have any.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the request for
Preliminary Plat (SUB #00-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and 2 outlots as
shown on the plans received May 31, 2000, with the following conditions:
1. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI of the City Code.
2.. Park and trail fees are required. Park fees are $1,200 per dwelling unit and trail fees are $400 per
dwelling unit. One-third of these fees are required with the final plat and the remaining two-thirds
will be paid with each building permit. The applicant can coordinate this construction and be
credited appropriately.
3. One hundred percent screening shall be installed along Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 to
provide buffering from future TH 101. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the City for review.
4. The Fire Marshall conditions are as follows:
a. On Block 2, Lots 6 and 7, additional address numbers must comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department policy regarding premise identification pursuant to Policy #29-1992.
Submit plans to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review
and approval.
b. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire
Code Section 901.3.
c. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire
50
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
hydrants can be quickly and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9-1.
If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site due to
close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued.
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Two will need to be relocated. This will be
reviewed with the City Engineer and corrections will be made on his plan.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the
City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and
specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The
applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100
year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations between each catch
basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In
addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet Model.
Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans.
The applicant will be responsible for a $19,918.80 water quantity connection fee and $8,048 for
water quality fees due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
10.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies i.e.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service
Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
comply with their conditions of approval.
11.
No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard
grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way.
12.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
13.
The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide bituminous surface
and built to 7 ton axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on
the private street shall be prohibited. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be
51
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
14.
15.
16.
17.
prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 in favor of the property
owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide.
The developer shall dedicate to the City a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block
1 to Outlot B. The exact alignment shall be determined in the field by staff. Compensation for the
easement shall be applied to the developer's trail fees.
The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements to the City at no cost:
A 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line through
Outlot A.
Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds and wetlands outside of
the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide
depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall
be up to the 100 year flood level.
The plans shall be revised as follows:
a.
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and wetlands shall
be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year flood level.
b. The street grade at the west end of Mission Hills Lane shall be lowered to 891+ to match
grade with the future intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane.
c. Provide emergency overflow swales for all ponds.
d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler with lowest
floor, top of block and garage floor elevations.
e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan.
f. The sanitary sewer and watermain lines through Outlot A and the City's property
(underneath future Trunk Highway 101) shall be cased.
g. Provide ponding in accordance with NURP standards for development runoff. Pond slopes
shall be 3:1 with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 slopes overall.
Denote Lots 6-8, Block 1 as %ustom graded" on the grading plan.
Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan.
Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site.
All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water
hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance.
52
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
18.
The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not be any noise abatement
improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Provisions for
noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these development plans.
19.
Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end street. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is
upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be connected.
20.
Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed
grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for review
and approval at time of building permit application.
21.
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate building
permits for demolition of the building, disconnection of the sanitary sewer and well abandonment.
22.
The proposed residential development of 10.06 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $8,152. Once the application demonstrates that the ponding provided
on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The
applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $20,176. These fees are payable to the
City prior to the City filing the final plat.
23.
The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or an
approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions.
24.
The wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge.
The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the supervision of city staff, before
construction begins and will pay the city $20 per sign.
25.
The applicant shall add a second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate
the single pond will suffice.
26.
The applicant shall add 5 overstory trees to landscape plan for a total of 24 trees in order to meet
replacement plantings requirements.
27.
The applicant shall expand tree removal limits on Lots 6-8, Block 1 and add the increase in
removal to overall canopy calculations.
28.
The applicant shall work with city staff to explore other options for a retention pond in the
southwest comer of the property that does not remove the four, large oak trees.
29.
A conservation easement shall be extended over the area noted on the preliminary plat as
"Drainage and Utility Easement" excluding the 20 foot trail easement on Lots 1-8, Block 1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
53
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Scott Botcher: Before we head out, in the correspondence packet, not to plug a law firm that I removed as
bond counsel last year. Kennedy and Gravens sent this little note out. Roger's read the case. But you
should certainly read it. The demolition land fill case. It talks about the Court of Appeals holding a
conditional use permit application was deemed approved because the City of Duluth in this case did not
properly act within the time frame. The Court's decision focused on part of the 60 day statute, that we've
talked about in the past. A provision that requires that the written reasons for the city's denial be given by
the city in writing ;;at the time it denies the request". The Court indicated this provision will be interpreted
literally. So as you remember in the past, sometimes we sort of said, we approve or we deny this because
of these reasons. Roger will go write it up and come back. The Court says that doesn't fly. So we either
need to be not on day 60 when we do it, or we need to have Roger draft up, if it passes. If it doesn't pass
and then maybe have a, and I've talked to Rick about this, having a laptop here. Plugged into a printer and
just, so before you adjourn you pass your written record.
Roger Knutson: Clearly the best thing to do, 1599, that 60 day rule, or 120 day rule is not the subdivision
rule. There's a separate rule in subdivisions. This applies to zoning approvals and MUSA extensions.
And septic systems, which you don't get into. The best thing to do is don't get close to the 60 day or 120
days. That is the very best thing to do. But what this case tells us is that within this 120 days I'll say, you
must simultaneously, if you're going to deny something, deny it and your findings, adopted simultaneously.
There's nothing wrong under this case with saying for example, I move to direct the City Attorney to
prepare findings consistent with denial and bring it back to the next meeting as long as the next meeting
occurs within the time period. And that's the best way to do something. Because that way you'll have,
rather than presuming what your reasons might be or where you might be headed, it's better to not have to
do that. And it's also better not to have to write a document like that on the spur of the moment because
that's where you live or die on, those findings are so don't get close to that time limit.
Councilman Senn: So essentially our operating policy should be, we shouldn't have any items before us for
consideration less than 2 meetings before the end of that period.
Roger Knutson: That's what I would like to see.
Kate Aanenson: We're right at that a lot.
Scott Botcher: Well like this one tonight was day 60. Or not day, what was the last day for approval.
Roger Knutson: That wasn't, again that wasn't under 1599. That was under 462... which has a separate
time line. The interesting thing about this case is, which is frankly troublesome if you want to talk about it
a second, is that the motion. If a motion is made to approve something, and that motion fails, that is not the
equivalent of a motion to deny. Which is very interesting and very troublesome in some ways, depending
on if they need a simple majority to do something. So if you have a motion to, in front of you and, to pass
something and it denies, the Mayor can't just say well we didn't get it. Which is common sense. It wasn't
approved so it's denied. The Court said no. You'd better have another motion to deny. So that's what we
tell them.
Councilwoman Jansen: Interesting dilemma.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, the fun never ends with those guys in the robes.
Mayor Mancino: Interesting. Well good night.
54
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2000
Scott Botcher: I have a couple presentations.
Kate Aanenson: Lori Haak is here, our Water Resource Coordinator. I wanted to introduce you to her.
She's been here 6 weeks.
Mayor Mancino: Hi Lori.
Kate Aanenson: She's been busy already. Talking to a lot of people. Been out...
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: Appreciate the introduction. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Mark has something.
Councilman Engel: One item. My customary post Memorial Day suggestion is that we go to summer
work hours, which is we eliminate the work sessions on the first and third Mondays. And extend if we need
to on the second and fourth Mondays in order to make up that time. If needed. From Memorial Day
through Labor Day, which we've done the last couple years. Summer work hours where we go work
sessions only on the second and fourth Mondays, extended if necessary to cover what we don't do in the
first and third. Regular council meetings with extended work sessions where necessary.
Scott Botcher: Yeah we can do it. It's just you guys have to decide.
Councilwoman Jansen: So that would be similar to, excuse me Steve. Similar to tonight where we came in
at 4:00.
Councilman Engel: 4:00 or 5:00. Whatever the case may be. It depends how big the agenda is.
Councilwoman Jansen: So extending one end or the other.
Councilman Engel: Yep. Typically you've got to extend early because otherwise the meetings go pretty
late. And so it's the first and third Mondays off. It's only going to be a few of them from now to Labor
Day. Staff would appreciate it and I know those with kids would appreciate it.
Mayor Mancino: I'm fine. I mean I'd rather start early than do it at the end of a meeting.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah, if we're skipping one.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55