Loading...
1n. City Council Minutes dated July 10, 1995In. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ' REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT; Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilwoman Dockendorf, and Councilman Berquist ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Tom Scott, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous and Scott Harr APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING JULY AS RECREATION & PARKS MONTIL, Mayor Chmiel read the following proclamation to be adopted by the City Council. ' Whereas, physical recreation and meaningful leisure experiences contribute to physical and mental well -being as well as the overall quality of life; and Whereas, community recreation and leisure opportunities create socially ' beneficial connections between and among individuals, groups, and communities; and Whereas, parks and recreation services provide preventive health benefits, support more productive work forces, enhance the desirability of locations for business and families, and stimulate tourism revenues to increase a total community economic development model; and Whereas, the provision and preservation of parks and open spaces are both ' an investment and insurance plan for our collective quality of life. Now Therefore, be it resolved that July has been designated as Recreation and Parks Month by the National Recreation and Park Association and Be It Further Resolved, that all citizens of this great city, join in this nationwide celebration bringing recognition to all the benefits derived from quality public and private recreation and park resources at the local level. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of July, 1995. ' Resolution #95 -: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adopt the Resolution proclaiming July as Recmation and Packs Month. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA:, Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: d. Approval of Accounts. ' f. City Code Amendment Regarding Horses and Stables, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' C. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR TRAIL ALONG POWERS BOULEVARD., Councilman Senn asked if Option C, $124,000.00 was the recommendation by staff. The City Engineer stated that it was. Councilman Senn wanted to know how the trail was going to be funded. Through park trail funds or TIF dollars. Councilman Senn then asked that this item be tabled for further clarification of the funding 0 �7 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 sources. Mayor Chmiel stated that Jan Lash, from the Park and Recreation Commission, had called him to notify him that she could not attend the meeting but wished to convey the Park and Recreation Commission's full support of this item. (Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: ...of the fact that the balance of the commission approved this and fully stands behind it so I just wanted to interject that into the discussion. Is there any time frame problems with any of this? Charles Folch: I don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor, with a second to table. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table approval of Change Order for the Trail along Powers Boulevard for further clarification regarding funding sources. All voted in favor and the motion carved. E APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the Minutes from last meeting there are several gaps that I think for the record we should have on there. Starting on page 28, and I think a lot of the comments were from Mr. Michael Byrne, who the speaker system didn't pick up because it was coming from the audience. And just from my recollection, and I hope the Council would help me to make sure we get this right. On the bottom of page 28, last sentence from the bottom. I think Mr. Byrne is saying that he would like to ask Council to table the issue. And at the top of page 29, quoting him as much as I can, I think he wanted to ask us to expedite it. I don't think that really changes what we decided but I just wanted to put it for the record that that's my recollection of what he was requesting. Having said that, I think we did decide that the Council wanted it to go back to the Planning Commission and that was resolved by withdrawing the application as opposed to us denying it. So for the record I'd like those changes made. Mayor Chmiel: I would say that's basically what was discussed at that particular time. Any other input? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not from me. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So with those changes I'd move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting dated June 26, 1995 as amended by Councilwoman Dockendorf. Also to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carved. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Michael Byrne: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Michael Byrne... Kimberly Road... Recalling the conversation ... my conversations with the City Attorney where upon reviewing the tape of the Council 2 ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 action... there's hearing and there's listening. I learned that the hard way. In my conversations, what I thought ' was going on was expediting the process through the removal or withdrawing the application. I was incorrect and I apologize. I've had conversations with many of you... I come before you to update you on what's happened as a result of this. The timing factor was one which I was attempting to ... contract with the Tichy's. Because of the ... and since the City Planning meeting on the 5th was cancelled and the 19th was already full... in time to complete my contract with Mr. Tichy. The reason for the Chapter 13 was to accomplish that. Since, I mean it's a moot question now. We're in the process of removing, withdrawing the Chapter 13. And Mr. Tichy and I basically go back to square one. It's his option if he wishes to deal with me in the future. Or somebody else. Also in my conversations with the City Attorney I said we have purchased the Christensen property... We're attempting to either resolve with the Tichy's to recombine or to work with investors to pay for my portion of the site. Possibly they will work with Mr. Tichy or ... I come to the crux of why I'm here. Most developers when they come in to develop a site ... city ordinances as a guide. Also terrain. The conditions that are... amenities in making a decision to purchase... Then you turn to staff for recommendation, the Planning Commission for recommendations. Listen as much as you can to ... the ordinance to guide us on what we can do. In approximately 95% of the cases in the city of Chanhassen, with the approval by the staff, or a ' recommendation for approval from the staff and approval by the Planning Commission, this Council has seen fit to follow that... What I'm here to, not to complain but to ask if you could, give me some direction on this... this site, something's going to happen here. We normally would depend very heavily on the ordinances... 19 lot ' preliminary presentation ... I'm not being critical but I think if we used, followed the ordinances to the T, this site would be damaged in such a fashion that we would not prefer to have it that way. We have always ... to put houses in a tree setting. Trees in front, trees on the side, and trees in back. As I spoke with many of you, I indicated that when we thought we could get back in front of you too quickly to offer a simple solution in the ' sense that simple being painful for us and ... that was to combine the 4 lots that we showed you on the lakeshore. Combine the 4 into 3. Also to combine the 4 lots along the edge of the pond into 3. Mr. Berquist's suggestion that the 3 lots in Block 3, which is the entryway, that the 3 lots be combined into 2. The basis of that was based on Dave Hempel's statement that there's very little we can do... The roads are basically placed in their very best area for protection... question of density, our solution was to remove those 3 lots and allow even more space between the houses. I brought this to the Assistant City Manager and he very graciously brought to the attention of staff, Sharmin ... and he told me, he said that staff was fairly ... and they came back with a suggestion, ' or a proposal which basically removed the use of any of the lakeshore. I have, had or have approximately 550 feet of lakeshore. My site is different from the Coey site and the Willis site. From the lakeshore. The high water mark, the wetlands are very close together in places. In the Coey site they're approximately some 150 ' feet apart from the high water mark and the wetland. Sometimes they're as close as 50 feet. On the Willis property... That site is unique. The wetland running through it. The high water mark are fairly close to... I come to it again, I'm asking the Council, if we're not going to be following the ordinances, and obviously the ' staff report ... can you give me anything that I can use to follow. It's not going to go away... suggestion of densities. Location or relocation of the road ... Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think you have, did you have an opportunity to get a copy of the Minutes? ' Michael Byrne: Yes I did. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think that specifically spells out what the Council had brought up and pretty much gives that kind of direction as to what we were looking at. ' Michael Byrne: It does, when you review the Minutes, it tells me more of what not to do than what to do. That's the problem. City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: If you know what the what not to do's are, then of course you should pretty much know as to how to proceed with the particular project. Michael Byrne: Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't be here if I thought the answer was that simple. Councilman Berquist: Did Coffman and Grandberg give you any alternatives? Or did they just give you a plan? Your surveyors, your platters. Did they just give you a plan and say here's what they're going to want. Here's what you want to do and be gone? Or did they give you. Michael Byrne: No. We started out with a Plan 1 and we met with Sharmin. We proceeded, with the staff, through 15 various computations. 15. 5 of them were put forward as consideration. Councilman Berquist: However all of them were based on, they were all based on the number of lots that you ended up bringing before us, is that correct? Michael Byrne: The earliest one brings it from 23 down to 19. Subsequent ones, one was presented at 18. Then it went back to 19. They all fell with those ranges. Councilman Berquist: So what would happen if you went back to those folks and said, listen. I just got shot down. Help me redesign this thing for 12. Or 14. Michael Byrne: 12 is not economical feasible. 12 lots. Councilman Berquist: Well what you're asking, the way I look at this, is what you're asking me to do. I can't speak for the rest of us but what you're asking me to do is justify an over expenditure for land by approving 18 or 19 lots, and I don't feel that that's in the city's best interest. Michael Byrne: ...is that a consistency from the Council? Mayor Chmiel: Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we've talked about this on the phone. The issue for me was the tree loss and the massive grading and in discussing the options for how to mitigate those, the only solution that I saw was reducing the number of lots. Or excuse me, the number of lots so that's my direction. Michael Byrne: Density. Are we, is there a consistency on the Council that 12 would be the only number that they would decide? 12... Councilwoman Dockendorf: For me there's not a magic number. It depends on what it does to the grading and to the trees so I can't give you a specific number. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think what Councilwoman is saying is the fact that we I think are all pretty consistent. It's a unique kind of site. There are many things there that are much different than a normal, straight piece of flat land so a lot of things have to be taken into consideration for that. What the magic number is, I have no idea. I know that it's probably not 19. Or 18. But that's at least where I'm coming from as well, and I fully agree with Colleen. 4 City ouncil Meeting - July 10, 1995 Y g Michael Byrne: I'm sorry. ' Mayor Chmiel: I fully agree with Colleen. Michael Byrne: Could I ask for some direction on the use of the lakeshore. Part of what's been said and part ' of... Mayor Chmiel: Kate. Lakeshore portion. Kate Aanenson: Well there are lots that have riparian rights and they certainly have rights by the DNR. Now if there's a wetland adjacent to it, then we certainly have jurisdiction to say they need to get a wetland alteration permit. That's our process but. Michael Byrne: I don't think that was the question. I think the question I was asking was, may we use the lakeshore? The lakeshore in the sense that with the restrictions, setbacks, etc. ' Councilman Senn: Don, if I could. ' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilman Senn: I don't know about everybody else here but I mean this wasn't on the agenda. I didn't come prepared to address it tonight. If Mr. Byrne would like answers to these questions, my suggestion would be that we put some answers together through staff and stuff and let's get them back to him. You know, give him some direction, if he doesn't feel he has enough. If it's just reiterating what we've already put in the Minutes, because he can't understand it, then let's do it but I'm not sure this is going to accomplish anything. Going back and ' forth. I don't even have my materials with me from the other night so. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's probably true and I think that's probably the direction we should probably go with this. I think that's a good idea Mark because I too am not as prepared as I probably should be by looking at what we had. So with that, you provide us the questions that you really want and we'll give you those answers. Okay? Michael Byrne: We can do that with those questions... Thank you for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Right, thanks. AWARD OF BIDS: WETLAND RESTORATION AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION FOR POWERS. BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 93 -29 AND YUMA DRIVE/LOTUS RAVINE WATER ' OUALITY PROJECT NO. SWMP -12A., Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As indicated in the staff report, only two bids were received for this project and both were significantly higher than the estimate for the project. In discussing with the bidders afterwards in terms of why the bids were so high, a couple of things came up, one of which was the uncertainty and the actual extent of the poor materials and being able to access for the excavation. The other was the concerns for the contractor being responsible for disposing of the 5,000, 4,000, 5,000 yards of ' material. And as such, in both bids we saw unit prices for the muck excavation somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 1/2 to 3 times what we'd normally expect. In an effort to try and at least keep the project moving and be City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 able to accomplish the goals of both the trail construction and the wetland restoration project, staff has proposed an option where the park maintenance division would conduct excavation of about 90% of the plan quantity. We do now, we have now found a site where we can actually dispose of or fill with the material, if you will, and we have discussed this with the low bidder for the project. He has submitted a letter to the City, which I passed out tonight, which indicates he is willing to accept the project with the planned quantity of muck excavation reduced from approximately 4,400 yards down to 420 cubic yards, with no additional compensation or extra costs due to him in order to accomplish this work. With this, we believe that we can accomplish the project within our plan budgetary limitations and complete the project. As such, staff recommends that the contract, revised contract be awarded to Jay Brothers Incorporated. The revised contract amount would be $108,534.60. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Any discussion? Steve. Councilman Berquist: Charles, you and I talked about this earlier today. So what you're guessing is that the city staff can do this for roughly the difference between 108 and 130, or $22,000.00? Or 5 1/4 a yard. Charles Folch: I believe that by the time we're done, we'll probably be real close to that $130,000.00, which we originally estimated. By the time we're done with the rental. The time and expense for the rental equipment and if we would factor in the time that we would use the city crews, it's probably going to be around $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 in our time and rental equipment. So that would break, add that to the contract amount, it's probably going to put us, plus or minus within that $130,000.00 neighborhood. Councilman Berquist: Where you going to dump it? Charles Folch: We have, there's one of the park sites that, I believe North Lotus Park. They're going to take a good share of that up there. Councilman Berquist: North Lotus Park on the soccer field, in that area there? Charles Folch: I'm not sure exactly where they're going to put it up there but evidentally they have a use for it that they want it up there. Councilman Berquist: Just out of curiosity, what would the folks that would be doing this work, have been doing anyway? I mean what's going to get put off? Any idea? Charles Folch: In terms of? Mayor Chmiel: Delaying projects or other things. Councilman Berquist: Yeah. I would suspect the man power's pretty tightly scheduled during the summer time Charles Folch: Well, I don't have up to date information on exactly what projects the park maintenance division is working on now. Todd Hoffman pretty well coordinates those efforts now so I couldn't tell you what things are going to have to get delayed, if you will, in order to make this effort work. They figure it's probably going to be a full week, at least 5 day effort to complete the work. So again, I don't know what sacrifices but they seem more than willing to want to do the work. 0 ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Berquist: It just seems surprising to me that we, that the city staff can do this for so much less ' than private can do it for. I mean basically it's half. Charles Folch: It isn't so much less than what, I really believe that normal excavation bids would have been at or lower than what we can do it for. I mean realistically we should be seeing $5.00 to $6.00 a cubic yard. Not $15.00 something a yard. So realistically a good bid would be lower than what we can do it for but we just didn't get those. ' Councilman Berquist: And these folks had just figured on having to haul it to kingdom come? Charles Folch: Right. They obviously didn't have any spot close that they found that they could take it to. ' Councilman Berquist: I'm done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No questions. I'd say in jest, it'd be nice to see BRW would reduce their fees by an equivalent percentage. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any questions regarding to it either. I know whenever we do these projects, we do them quite well and too, when estimates sometimes come in, depending upon how busy they are, they can come in with their bids a little bit different way than ... they don't seem very hungry. Councilman Berquist: No, they're not. Councilman Mason: Maybe the only question I'd ask on this, should we be taking more a look at doing some more of this stuff in- house? If we have the capability. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, there's so much they can do and there's so much they can't. ' Councilman Mason: Well no, understood. But if. Mayor Chmiel: Within reason. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: So, is there a motion? City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Mason: So moved, to approve Reconstruction Project No. 93 -29 and Yuma Drive, Lotus Ravine Water Quality Project SWMP 12A. Mayor Chmiel: Second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for Wetland Restoration and Trail Construction for Powers Boulevard Reconstruction Project No. 93 -29 and Yuma Drive /Lotus Ravine Water Quality Project SWMP 12A to Jays Brothers Inc. for the revised contract amount of $108,534.60. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL ON TH 5 AT GALPIN BOULEVARD. PROJECT NO. 93- 26A -1. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm happy to report better bids this time. For this work we received two bids. The low bid being received from Electric Service Company, which is approximately $3,400.00 under the engineer's estimate of $75,000.00. We did receive written confirmation from MnDot today that they have reviewed the bids and concur with the award to Electric Service Company at the bid indicated at $71,631.00. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Finally. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move it, with delight. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to awanl the bids for the temporary traffic control signal for the Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard intersection, Project No. 93 -26A -1 to Electric Service Company at a contract bid of $71,631.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: We will have before you know it. 2 months? Charles Folch: By the 21st of August. APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Don Ashworth: Basically this item was tabled at the last City Council meeting. Under State Statute, the Mayor has the authority to, has the exclusive authority to make a nomination to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and he has nominated that his term be re- approved. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Steve. 8 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Berquist: Yes, I do have some. Well I started this last week. You know I've got, one of two events should occur and it really doesn't bother me which one happens, but I believe the HRA should be, if it remains an autonomous body, it should have no more than one councilmember appointed for communication purposes. I think if the HRA is a separate advisory board, then the city deserves to have as much diversity as possible on the board. And hence the 4 members with no Council affiliation and the one councilmember. And I just want to reiterate this. It doesn't matter who is up, whether it be you or Mike, I would be asserting the same position. I think the HRA controls an enormous amount of money that's used to fund the various city projects and activities, and as such, the accountability should be an elected board rather than an appointed board ' and the openness of the meetings and the public knowledge of what transpires would be enhanced with Council acting as the HRA. I'd like to see the vacancy advertised and interviews conducted. And in the event that Don Chmiel is the best choice, we rename him. If we find someone equal to, or possibly maybe a little better. ' Mayor Chmiel: There's always potential. Councilman Berquist: We name that person. If that's not acceptable, then I would advocate the Council being ' the HRA. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the reasons, and I just wanted to answer one of your specific questions in regard ' to the communication purpose of having one person on it. It was the, sort of the background community who felt that the HRA should be sort of watched a little more closely than this constituency within the community. We felt that there should probably be at least a minimum of two and there was discussion with Council at that ' particular time as well, and that was when that determination was made. The communication aspect was more or less something that should be provided as well. But it was watching how those particular dollars were spent and that's why the two people were on the particular committee. So I just wanted to clarify that to you, to let you know. For other members that wanted to have Council also, wanted Council to also take the HRA over and I think it might not be a bad idea but I sure don't like it myself but, I like to see other people within the community involved within this because they probably have some of that additional expertise or even more... Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I guess I agree with Steve with the exception of I would reverse my preferences. I really do think that the HRA should be Council and for the reasons that he stated. The fact that there is more accountability with an elected body. That people will know what's going on. So that's been my ' position and it has been for the last couple of years when we've talked about it. Just the idea of, that goes counter to the idea of reducing it to just one person as representation so I guess bottom line, I would like to see it as Council. And not for the reasons that I'm a control freak and want designation over those dollars but I just ' think for accountability reasons and continuity reasons, it should be Council. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, are we here to discuss whether you should be, it seems to me there are two things happening here and I personally need to get them sorted out. That what I see on the agenda here is whether you should or shouldn't be reappointed to HRA, and I think that this other discussion, while certainly is ' appropriate, it's not the issue right now. So I'm not, I guess because of that, I'm not quite sure what direction this is all going here. And I'm not, I don't know whether I need a legal answer here or a Council or staff answer or whatever but what's on the agenda here is whether or not you should be reappointed and whether ' Council wants to absolve HRA and reform as a body of Council I think is a whole different issue. And I'm not, well I'm not willing to deal on that issue tonight. Certainly. I mean I need a whole lot more information before City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 I'm going to make any decisions on that. I think Steve I hear what you're saying but I'm almost seeing, I mean we're not going to get it both ways here. I mean either HRA is going to be Council or it isn't and I'm not sure how the Mayor's getting reappointed affects that one way or the other. I mean if Council should be HRA, then that's kind of a moot point. Councilman Berquist: I'm not saying Council should be HRA. I'm saying it doesn't matter to me whether, well. I do have a preference which I'm not going to say but Council is either going to be HRA or there's going to be one councilmember on the HRA and they're going to have four independents, if you will. Councilman Mason: In your opinion. Councilman Berquist: In my opinion, yeah. And that's simply the way that I would vote. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I understand where Steve's coming from. This process that he described is intriguing to me as it relates to how we would approach it and I guess I would view that as a better process than the current process. But I think overall my feelings remain unchanged, which has been very consistent here for the last several years and that is that I would very much like to see Council be the HRA and I think that's the way it should be. I mean most municipalities have switched to that already. From the accountability standpoint, from financial control standpoint, from a number of different standpoints, I think it has it's merits. And I guess from my standpoint, you know Mike I understand what you're saying about tying the two together but you know, at least I've been bringing it up for 2 or 3 years now. I guess I'd like to see us take some action on it one way or the other. And if now's the time, I'd like to see us take an action to do something one way or the other. I don't think it needs any more study, I really don't. Councilman Mason: Well I've heard the claim here that most municipalities, HRA's are also Council's. Councilman Senn: Call League of Cities, they'll be able give you the information. Councilman Mason: Good. Do you have that information? Don Ashworth: Not available this evening. I could obtain that. One of the points that I was thinking about, I know that I've asked Roger Knutson before as to how the Council could go about the process of having themselves become the HRA. Just as technique, how do you accomplish that? And I'm confident that his opinion before was you have the City Council elect an individual from the Council each time there's an opening. But there's not really a means by which that you can just eliminate somebody. Say okay, we've taken back your term. Your term no longer exists. The last selection you made, I believe was Jim Bohn and that was a 5 year appointment and should go to 1999. And basically the year 2000 the HRA will be done. I mean they still will have, we've just approved the renovation of the bowling center. Those two parcels in there but in the year 2000, the HRA basically won't exist except for control over that minor project and the wheels will have already been put into place as to what they can or can't do. Because you're just basically passing back payments. If they fulfill the requirements for redevelopment of that property in accordance with the plan that you just approved, so I don't. I guess I would suggest. It sounds as though, if anything you're kind of leaning towards an all Council HRA. Therefore, the appointment of the Mayor doesn't seem to be contradictory. And then at the same point in time, seeking an opinion from the City Attorney as to how you might go about doing that, 10 ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 then you make the decision instead of whether or not you want to do it and I'll provide information such as ' what Mike was just asking for. Mayor Chmiel: What do you think? From what he's saying. Councilman Berquist: You don't expect that after 2000 that there will be a mechanism in place by which the HRA will be a required entity? Don Ashworth: It will be, the big district expires under State law in the year 2000. So the control of the large dollars that you're currently seeing now in the HRA, ceases in 2000. ' Councilman Senn: But let's not combine, you're combining two issues Don, in my mind. You're talking about TIF. That's not the HRA. I mean there's a lot of pending legislation that gives new power to the HRA. Or I mean it's being looked at as a vehicle to accomplish things in terms of affordable housing. I mean the HRA as an entity will not discontinue to exist simply because TIF doesn't, and nobody said that TIF is going to ' discontinue to exist. I mean the legislature is looking at remodeling it constantly every year. I mean it may or may not. It's just that they've sunset it which means they have to do something, and make a definitive decision at that point to go forward or not go forward. I mean so to sit here and assume that between now and the year ' 2000, which is 4 -5 years away, that there's going to be no more need for an HRA, I think is a faulty assumption. Mayor Chmiel: Either HRA or... Councilman Senn: Well HRA's were created for a distinct reason. I mean they have powers and abilities that are outside of what a city can necessarily do in some cases, and that's why they've been useful tools to cities. But at the same time, as everything's tighten up and gone along, that's also why many cities have switched over their Council's to HRA's and I mean I don't understand the wholesale change thing. I went through it in St. Paul in what was it, the late 1970's. St. Paul simple made the City Council the HRA and everything all in one single action by changing their ordinance. Don Ashworth: That's why I would suggest getting an opinion from Roger as to how you go about doing that, ' if you wanted to. Mayor Chmiel: I think that'd be a good way to go. Find out exactly what we can and cannot do and if it's so deemed, then go in that particular direction. Councilman Berquist: May I ask you a question? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: Let's assume for the moment that we advertise for the vacancy, and we got 4 or 5 excellently qualified candidates. Chances are that we may get 1 or 2. Would you be willing or would you ' willingly say, by god this fellow may do a better job than I. I know you've got a full plate. Mayor Chmiel: I can walk away from it at any given time. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Good. 11 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would move that we table this issue until we do have a legal opinion as to how we could change it over, because that is my ultimate goal. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I have nothing to say. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do we need a motion on that? Or just move ahead and see if you can find to table this? We need a motion to table? Don Ashworth: I would think so. Councilman Berquist: I'll move to table. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, moved and seconded. All those in favor. Councilman Senn: Friendly amendment. I mean could we move to table it but I'm assuming inherent in that is the fact that you would continue until the issue is resolved? Don Ashworth: I think that's under Statute. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the reappointment of Donald J Chmiel to the BRA. All voted in favor and the motion carved. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 4.500 SO. FT. RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES. LOT 1. BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION. PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT. GUY PAYNE. Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I believe he felt since he made it through the Planning Commission he didn't... Mayor Chmiel: Guess again, right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Boy, that's an assumption. Bob Generous: We did advise him that when he left the Planning Commission meeting he was supposed to be here and we mailed him... This is currently Outlot B ... is located in the southwest corner off Market and north of that... The City is working on the landscaping scheme for the Outlot A that's around this... Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 12 ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Mason: I'm not, until I can see some, do you have any pictures? ' Bob Generous: Color ones? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Bob Generous: You have one I believe. ' Councilman Mason: I mean with Mr. Payne not being here tonight being able to answer some questions, I think it's maybe a waste of Bob's time to go through all this because we're going to end up tabling it anyway. Would be, I mean that's my feeling. I've got some questions that I don't think Bob or Kate or anybody from the city ' should be answering. I guess I'm a little surprised that he's not here tonight, to tell you the truth. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would agree fully. I mean I can look at this stuff but, and we did this the first time through when Perkins came through. They gave us big pictures with colors and building materials and. ' Councilman Mason: And it's all changed now so. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can't make a decision without seeing that. I would very much like to, because our agenda is light but. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve. What do you think? Councilman Berquist: I don't have any real questions, but I can certainly understand their point of view. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Boy, from what I've seen, I would guess I'd have to agree with Steve. I didn't have a lot of concerns but I have a number of questions regarding landscaping and other things which plans weren't attached so I mean, at least maybe I don't have them. I didn't have anything on landscaping in mine. ' Bob Generous: It should have been in the full... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's in your full blue line copies. ' Councilman Senn: Yeah? But that was what, that's after the Planning Commission? Bob Generous: That's what, the conditions spelled out there were some conditions that had to be made. They ' didn't revise those sets. Councilman Senn: Okay but, and that's what, okay. ' Bob Generous: They've agreed to those conditions. Councilman Senn: Okay, but the plans weren't changed. Okay. So it's hard to really see the impact of it. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Bob, if I could take a look at that color photo, I mean that may do it for me. 1 13 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Bob, I noticed that they did not get a PE to sign off on this. Councilman Berquist: Which section? Mayor Chmiel: Every one that's supposed to be signed off. Councilman Berquist: Structural? (There were two different conversations going on at the same time at this point.) Councilman Senn: I thought as a standard course now we were going to have elevation drawings and all that sort of thing. Bob Generous: There were elevations in there ... color ones in the presentations? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Basically none of these have any signatures on them. It's all done by corporate and the architectural, or on the landscaping, the landscaping architect never signed on it either. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I'd really like to see the changes so we know what we're looking at. Bob Generous: Visuals? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the changes to the landscaping? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Mason: The landscaping, yeah. I want to see that picture I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Someone made a motion? Councilman Mason: Yes, I did. To table this until, for my, the reason I want to table it is I want to see some pictures with a new landscaping plan. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on Site Plan Review of a 4,500 sq. ft. restaurant on 1.38 acres, Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition for Perkins Family Restaurant. All voted in favor and the motion carved. 14 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 122.29 ACRES INTO ONE LOT OF 2.53 ACRES AND, AN OUTLOT OF 119.76 ACRES: LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 96TH STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY, 101, BUTTERNUT RIDGE, TIM ERHART., Kate Aanenson: Tim Erhart... 123 acres to subdivide the existing home site, which is located on TH 101 and access to the property is via a private drive off of West 96th Street. The staff had a couple concerns with this... that you have to have an access via a public street or a private drive. It just so happens that this one ... Because this is outside the urban service area, that does have to maintain the density of 1 unit per 10 acres. As you recall, we did change our density requirements to allow people to be ... 2 1/2 acre lot. The concern that we had, is when this property is further subdivided, that we want to make sure that there is access to a public street so we did ask the applicant to provide a ghost plat of how the property could be subdivided and that was accomplished to our satisfaction and we do have a condition here that says, when the public street goes through, this driveway will be vacated and the home will have to access that street ... zoned such that it could get some smaller lots. So ... remaining approximately 120 acres in outlot until such time as urban services are available... this allows him to sell off the existing home site and ... So we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Kate? Steve? Councilman Berquist: No. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Actually I had one and it completely slip my mind. I guess not. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: None. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Kate's staff must be slipping. I've never seen a staff report with only 5 conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Subdivision #95 -9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The smaller lot shall be labeled as Lot 1, Block 1, Name of Subdivision, and the larger lot shall be labeled as Outlot A. 2. The following easements shall be provided. 15 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 a. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. b. Cross access easement over the existing driveway to provide access to the existing residence. 3. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 4. Demonstrate the existing ISTS is not a failing or non - complying system. 5. An agreement stating that when the outlot is developed, Lot 1 will be required to access from that public street and the private drive eliminated. All voted in favor and the motion eanied unanimously. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT A. BRENDON PONDS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT. LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41. BRENDON PONDS. 2ND ADDITION. CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This again is a dual application with the City of Chanhassen is requesting... to put a well site in this area ... A couple of the issues that staff had was that there will be two lots and one outlot. Outlot A is a wetland. Outlot 2 will contain the well house and then Lot 1 will be a future lot. The concern that staff had in looking at this is north of well, on the site, a 50 foot clearance area had to be achieved. Those lots do meet the, both Lots 1 and 2, do meet the, or exceed the minimum square footage but in order to get the 50 foot clear zone from the well, part of Lot 1 had to be ... staff had recommended, based on the grading and the wetland, that a 5 foot variance be given on the side yard. That was also compromised by the fact that the sewer line extension goes through the back of this lot. The interceptor goes through a portion of this plat, and there again it compromises the buildable area of that lot. So it'd not be compromised as far as the structure... but we felt giving a 5 foot variance on the lot made sense in order to allow that to be a buildable lot. The other issue with this is, our normal procedures... direct access but in this circumstance, the well house would only have minimum traffic based on maintenance, having to get in there, so there would just be one additional lot having direct access on a collector street. We did recommend approval of the variance and we did ... as I indicated. We felt that the common lines of the well clear zone and the interceptor, we felt it was appropriate to give them the variance. Other than that, the only concern the Planning Commission did raise is that maybe this property could be combined with the southern adjoining property, from the Carlson's in the future but ... the topography and the grade and the wetland... so having said that, staff and the Planning Commission is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Steve, any questions? Councilman Berquist: Did you say existing house? Mayor Chmiel: No, no. There's no existing. Councilman Berquist: There's no existing, okay. No. I don't have any other questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we do a study of what we think traffic will be on that road when we talk about having a private driveway on it? 16 F, ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Charles Folch: The most current study was done back in 1990 with the Eastern Carver County Transportation ' Study which also, that data was incorporated into the City's Comp Plan Amendment, which was adopted in May of 1991. That's the latest and greatest traffic counts. I don't recall exactly what the 2010 numbers were supposed to be on that road but. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we did look at it in terms of something that? Charles Folch: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I don't have any other questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: None. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion? Councilman Berquist: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilman Benjuist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Bmndon Pond 2nd Addition for 1 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to the side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: I. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate ' otherwise. All areas disturbed with side slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. ' 2. The plat approval is still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond Ist Addition. 3. Building Department condition - The footings of structures proposed on Lots 1 and 2 shall be engineered. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with final plat conditions of approval. ' 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDot and comply with their conditions of approval. r 17 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 6. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 year high water level. 7. 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. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 9. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction. 10. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $440.00 and a water quantity fee of $990.00. 11. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and wetland areas lying outside the right -of -way. The MWCC easement shall be increased from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide centered over pipe. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. CHAPTER 18 REGARDING PLATTING PROCEDURES. DATE REOUIRED AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND CHAPTER 20 REGARDING DEFINITIONS: IDENTIFICATION OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS. STANDARDS FOR SALES TRAMERS. WETLAND PROTECTION AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS OF PUD. A2. RSF. R8. BN- NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. BIT- HIGHWAY & BUSINESS AND IOP- INDUSTRIAL OFFICE. FIRST READING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. We call this the glitch ordinance. What this ... clarify things that ... or change or are not longer appropriate. The Planning Commission had a work session on it and then held a public hearing and there is a couple changes I'd like to go through with you. I wasn't going to go through all the changes. If you had any questions you had specifically but what we're doing here is Chapter 18, which is Subdivision regulations and Chapter 20 from the City Code. Under Chapter 20, streets and their classifications such as Section 20 -5... The other discussion of the Planning Commission was the PUD ordinance. The Planning Commission had been tossing around the idea, similar to ... because we feel like our tree ordinance and our slope 18 i City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 protection, our other ordinances... we're getting that anyway so we've always asked the question, well what are ' we getting. ...but what are we getting on the other end. So really the Planning Commission was of the mind that maybe doing a cluster development.. small lots and leaving the rest of it as open space, may be a better way to do it. But they felt this wouldn't be an appropriate place to do it. Making the change now ... and they recommended eliminating that. But other than the PUD, there was ... changing the gross and net clarifications but ' they want to leave the PUD ordinance as it is now. Other than that, it's again updating and as I'm saying, glitches... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any questions? Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I have got a couple. I tried to go through as much of this as I could. The Section ' 18- 39(f)(c). Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not individual sewer treatment systems. Is that, I've got to re -read it now and figure out what I was thinking when I read it the first time. A Subdivision is premature if any of the following exists. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and to not individual sewer treatments. So a subdivision is premature if we don't have proper sewer and we do not have the capability of ' putting in individual sewer? Kate Aanenson: Right. Again the purpose of this... actually on the public sewer. Not individual. We don't want ' to see small ... large lots with individual septic tanks in the future. Our goal is to provide sewer. So if we have a development that comes in and says, well I can provide individual septics. Right now they would be allowed to do that. We've had circumstances where people have come in and. Councilman Berquist: Tim Erhart's land for instance. Kate Aanenson: Well that's existing but yeah, if he wants to right. If he wants to build up the rest of that, that ' would be an option. But what we're saying, and this is again... wait until urban services are available for future... so right now it could prevent someone from coming in, if they can demonstrate that the individual septics. And it may be okay but we're saying ... It just gives us an out to say it's premature right now. That would be ... and it ' may be appropriate in some areas where we can't service... Councilman Berquist: But this language does not rule out that type of project? ' Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Berquist: In other words, if Timber came in again, it would still be a viable? Kate Aanenson: It gives us the option to say that it should wait until sewer's available. But we may say ... gives the city the flexibility. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Can I continue on? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. ' Councilman Berquist: Section 18 -40. And this is simply a housekeeping thing. You've got 10% or less and then you've also got, 10% to 15 %. Wouldn't you want to use 10% or less and greater than 10 %? Right now you've got 10% as both ends of the reference point. Yes or no? 1 19 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: She's reading. Councilman Berquist: Yes. Now I see that. Kate Aanenson: The reason we changed it to 10... Councilman Berquist: Well I know but I mean wouldn't 11 to 15 be. I mean somebody's going to come in and say, I don't know. They never would but I'm trying to track documents. Definition of a sign or flag. You've got 100 square feet. I seem to remember reading part of the Perkins Planning Commission approval. You approved 80 square foot. Kate Aanenson: Correct. They wanted to come in with ... that was an issue that came up with the Highway 5 corridor study too and similarly with the ... It got left out of the sign ordinance so we wanted to clarify what the square footage could be. That's specifically stated in the ... What we're saying is if they've got commercial... Councilman Berquist: Okay. And the only other one I had, I had actually typed something on. 20 -978. This one is referencing neighbors and contractors yards. In my neighborhood I have a couple of houses that may or may not qualify as a contractors yard. What is it? Kate Aanenson: Well the ordinance... home occupation ordinance 45% of the primary structure can ... we have a list that are acceptable and... Again, if they're running it out of their home, that's fine. It's when you have outside employees parking cars that it becomes a problem. Councilman Berquist: Well my exposure is minimal but I've gotten a number of phone calls from folks who would like to see it a little bit more spelled out. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what the intention of this is. It's to... Right now the list of things that you... Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Councilman Berquist: No, those were all I had. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I was mostly concerned with the PUD changes. But I do understand the rationale so I guess I don't have any changes to what the Planning Commission put. Very small item under Chapter 18, Section 18 -37. On page 2. Change to Zoning Administrator. The City Clerk /City Manager does not administer as opposed to administrate. How's that for petty? Councilman Mason: Good for you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Other than that, I don't have any comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 20 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 t Councilman Mason: I was going to say, nothing could be farther from the truth but. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: That would be distance. Councilman Mason: One question. On Section 18 -60. Lots. It says, (i). Driveway grades shall be a minimum ' of 1/2% and maximum grade of 10 %. Does that mean you can't have a driveway going down then? Kate Aanenson: Here's how we ... fixing this. Right now when they come in for a lot survey, you have to show ' that you're under that percentage. Nowhere is there a standard when you come in that says you have to build to this standard. Now if someone wants to come in with a plat and the only way they could develop their lot was in excess of that, then we'd look at a variance through the subdivision process. Councilman Senn: What if you don't give them a variance? Councilman Mason: But then, aren't you creating unbuildable lots that way then? Kate Aanenson: Well, if you're a lot of record, it's there. And we have those situations throughout the city right now. There are situations throughout the city where they exceed 10 %. The goal is to try to have them ' less than that. If someone were to come in today, certainly we have situations but ... you know we've done them on streets where the driveway's south facing or somewhere we can have a turn around or something with a bottom landing area or something... But right now in the ordinance, it's standard in the building section when you come in ... you have to show that you're under that. But there's not a standard on the subdivisions so if ' someone was to come in today, that's our goals is to get under 10 %. If that's the only way to develop that property, then that's certainly something we have to look at. I mean you have to decide whether or not, if there's no other way to develop it, then you start looking at mitigation. Other ways to accomplish that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike? Councilman Mason: Well. Kate Aanenson: This is the standard right now. It's just not in the right place in the code. I mean if you were to come in today, we would tell you ... It's a building regulations. It's a city ordinance right now but it's not in the subdivision. Yes, you're right. There are places where that's only... We've got some in Hesse Farms... Councilman Mason: Carver Beach. ' Councilman Senn: Right now they don't require a variance though._ ' Kate Aanenson: No, because they're lots of record. Right. But if a subdivision were to come in today, certainly we would try to get them less than 10 %. That's code. But sometimes you can't and then we'd look at variances through the subdivision process to say well, we have to put ... make it a larger lot or. ' Councilman Berquist: It doesn't say it has to slope away from the house. Councilman Mason: Yeah, alright. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. 1 21 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Senn: I had the same questions you did but I'm still not sure I have the answer. I'm sort of confused. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, it's already in the code. It's just not in the right place, is that what I'm understanding? It already is a standard in the building code. It's not in our subdivision code. Councilman Senn: But now by putting it in the subdivision code, we subject it to basically review by variance basically. Kate Aanenson: No. When you come in to plat, just like anything else. We have street standards. Minimum curves. You can't have access on certain widths of streets, depending on classification. Certain curves ... and if you don't want to have someone landing on a street. Sliding out of their driveway. It's a safety issue... so that's where the 10% came in. Now in instances where you're right. You can't, there's no other way to develop. Then you have to decide, maybe ... and start looking at other ways to mitigate. Maybe you provide a landing. You're right. There are instances where we ... but we certainly feel that 10% is ... If you're uncomfortable with 10% and you want to look at something... It's not desirable to have those kind of driveways. We don't want grade problems and that's kind of our job is to try to minimize problems in the future. People can't get up and down their driveways. Councilman Senn: Maybe let me rephrase the question a little different way. If every lot of record which needs to exceed 10% requires a variance, does that then all have to go through like Board of Adjustments and all that sort of thing or is that something you're going to just do as administratively part of the subdivision process or whatever? Kate Aanenson: If they were to come in for a building permit? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: I talked to Roger on this issue. We've got one right now in Hesse Farm that came in and we didn't make them get a variance because they're already using it as a driveway to get to their property. There's really not that many that we've approved recently that have more than 10 %. If it's a lot of record, I don't see. If the subdivision's been approved, that's where you catch these... Tom Scott: If it's a lot of record... Kate Aanenson: If it's a lot of record, they've already gone through the process so this is part of the subdivision review... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it wouldn't be an individual property owner, or an individual buyer of a home that would have to go through it. It would be the developer. Kate Aanenson: Well what I'm saying right now is, it's there right now. If somebody came in on a lot of record, but we've been letting those go through... Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Mark? 22 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Councilman Senn: Yeah. The only other one I had I guess that's really all that important. This is first reading? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. So we've got a chance to kind of, I'm still not comfortable with the, our use of ' words as it relates to single family attached and detached. Now I know you started to get at it in here. In some spots. I would be a lot more comfortable if we would get consistent and have it in all spots. So either we're referring to, you know single family attached and detached or if one or the other or whatever because we've got ' some pretty major misunderstandings over that and you know, I know I asked earlier that you do some of that and I noticed back under Section 20 and stuff you started to get into that but as I look through the ordinances in totality, I mean if we are, if this is the glitch and kind of the clean -up time, I'd really like to go through and make sure that those definitions are consistent all the way through. So somebody can't pick up the ordinances and just look at this section and not see it delineated one way or the other there. Okay? And that was really the only other major comment. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess everybody covered everything that they felt they needed to. I don't have anything on it. So is there a motion to accept the first reading of the amendment to City Code, Chapter 18? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of the Amendment to City Code, Chapter 18 regarding platting procedures, date required and design standards; and Chapter 20 regarling definitions, identification of arterial and collector streets, standards for sales trailers, wetland protection ' and shoreland regulations; supplemental regulations and the following zoning districts of PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN- Neighbodhood Business, BH- Highway Business, and IOP- Industrial Office Pad,. All voted in favor and the motion cared unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, CITY MANAGER., Don Ashworth: Hopefully the Council... Monday evening to pick up the issue that we talked about with the City ' Hall expansion. I'll have Todd Christopherson go through the old bank building so he's prepared to speak to the issues of whether or not that can be remodeled. You've asked for a longer period of time so it's the only item that I would place onto that agenda and I would propose that we start early, 5:30 to 6:00. Whenever Council's available. And I proposed that we do it as a, provide food. Mayor Chmiel: Next Monday. How does that look? 17th? ' Councilman Berquist: Fine, as far as I'm concerned. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's fine with me. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Maybe this is, I'm just, clearly, well I always, well whatever. I don't understand why we're having this work session, to be honest with you. i Councilman Senn: What time? 1 23 City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995 Don Ashworth: 6:00. Mayor Chmiel: You have 6:00 to 8:00 on here. Don Ashworth: 5:30. Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5:30 works better. Mayor Chmiel: 5:30'd be better? Councilman Senn: If we do 6:00. 5:30's fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: 5:30 to 6:30. 5:30 to 7:00. It shouldn't take long. Okay. Anything else now? Don Ashworth: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that as our last item of business, is there a motion for adjournment? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 24