Loading...
CC 2004 02 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:40 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, and Paul Oehme PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 9, 2004 -City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 9, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated January 20, 2004 -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 3, 2004 -Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 27, 2004 Vasserman Ridge 3rd Addition: 1) Approval of Final Plat 2) Approval of Plans and Specifications and Development Contract c. Approval of Cost Benefit Analysis for Financial Software. d. Approve Certificate of Compliance, Bogema Addition. Resolution #2004-08: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Membership in the Hennepin County Chief' s Association and Approving an Agreement for Joint and Cooperative Use of Fire Personnel and Equipment. f. Accept Quote for 2004 Boulevard Tree Planting. City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen. I'd like to make some comments on item 5 which is the Chapter 18 amendments. Is it more appropriate to wait to that comes up on the agenda later? Mayor Furlong: If there's, ! know you sent us an e-mail today Mr. Paulsen. If you'd like to address it now and maybe we can make sure that we address, because there are, ! think there were 3 or 4 items on your e-mail. If those are the same ones. Jerry Paulsen: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Maybe you could address those now. We'll make a note of it and be sure to bring it up in conversation. If there's follow-up questions, we can deal with it at that time. If that would be alright. Jerry Paulsen: Thank you, I'll do it right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Jerry Paulsen: There's two items in Chapter 18, proposed amendments to City Code that we'd like to raise an issue with. Some of which information came up since Planning Commission passed this partially at their last meeting. One of which is on Section 18-37 which are called exemptions from platting procedures. If! understand it right the City is proposing that this falls under a category of what we call administrative subdivisions or minor subdivisions as other cities call it. And what it does is allow property owners to exchange property lines without going through any formal procedure like a public hearing or Planning Commission review or like that. And we're questioning whether it's appropriate to not have any conditions attached to it, as some other cities do. We found that both Plymouth and Eden Prairie have conditions attached to that and the city is taking the approach that state statute prohibits them from putting restrictions on and ! guess the question is, does state statute really prohibit our city from putting some kind of filter or conditions on these subdivisions, so that's what I'd like to ask that question. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Jerry Paulsen: The other issue is with Section 18-61 which is under landscaping and tree preservation. And this is basically what you refer to as a 60 by 60 pad, which is a requirement to prove that the lot is large enough to accommodate a house, including setbacks and deck and so forth. We'd like to see that stay in the code. The city is proposing to strike that and replace it with a different set of circumstances. The 60 by 60 pad doesn't mean the house is going to be that big, but it's under design standards which is a general category in the code and it does help preserve trees but that's not the only 2 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 reason. We see it as a way of making sure the lot is big enough. That the lot lines aren't irregular, as some lots end up being 6 or 7 different sides, which can be kind of messy. So the wetlands part of the code already has, or they have a 60 by 60 in there and ! think it'd be appropriate to leave the 60 by 60 as such in the other part of the code. So with that in mind I'd like to see a discussion or maybe going back to the Planning Commission wasn't, some of the members weren't sold on this idea either so. ! think that's all. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We're still within visitor presentations, if anybody would like to speak on that issue or any other issues, this would be the time to come forward. If there are none, then we'll go ahead and close our visitor presentations and move on with our other agenda items. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: Tonight we will receive updates from both law enforcement and fire department. Sergeant Jim Olson with Carver County Sheriff' s Department is here. Good evening. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening, thank you. I'd like to introduce Deputy Ken Brooks to the City Council. Deputy works in the city of Chanhassen and he works our p.m. shift which is from quarter to 4:00 to 2:00 in the morning. Ken has been with Carver County Sheriff's Office since 1991, and has been in law enforcement since 1988. Prior to coming here he worked in the City of Pequot Lakes and was a sergeant there. Ken actually had a canine and it was one of the few bloodhound handlers in the state of Minnesota and was running a bloodhound up in Pequot for a number of years and retired the dog ! think prior to coming here or was it coming here. Ken Brooks: He was active until ! came here. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. Active until coming here, so Ken has quite a bit of experience. I've had a number of calls and some good feedback on Ken in reference to his customer service and follow-up's to calls and we're glad to have him. ! just want to introduce Ken to the City Council this evening so. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you Ken. For the City Council ! have our office area report for the month of January. The area citation list. A copy of crime alert put out by Crime Prevention Officer Beth Hoiseth, and also community service officer report that ! have. For monthly numbers we were pretty static from this compared to last year. Our total calls for service were up about 20 for the month. Our DWI's were up from 5 to 13 so we had a few more of those. Both our theft and our property, or damage to property were down last year. This month compared to last year. Or this year compared to last year ! should say. Theft was down quite a bit from 36 to 28 so that was a good thing. Our accidents were up from 68 to 63. Our property damage accidents but our personal injury accidents were down from 4 to 14. And you know driving was not real good in the City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 month of January, so the only thing I can think of is speeds were down quite a bit so we had more accidents, however the injuries themselves were reduced because of the speeds. You might also notice that our miscellaneous traffic was up from 65 to 85 and ! attribute that to more cars in the ditch, because of the weather again. Miscellaneous traffic, vehicles in the ditch is covered under that. Our alarms were up from 69 to 85. Traffic stops were down a little bit from 168 to 144. Again, traffic driving was hampered last month by the weather. Citations were about static for the month. 170 this year compared to 172 for last year, so any questions on the monthly report? Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, the DWI' s, 13 to 5, was that an intentional activity that the sheriff' s office had out in play you know on a Friday night type thing or is that just randomly how it happened? Sgt. Jim Olson: I think there was one Safe and Sober project that the county did in the month of January. There might have been one or two out that in the city of Chanhassen itself. Some of that also is cars in the ditch and so on where people will go in the ditch and you'll see some, an increase from that. And just. Councilman Lundquist: So you're driving by to help them out of the ditch and then the deputy discovers through that process that maybe there was some alcohol involved. Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then suspicious activity, attribute that to a lot of the alerts. ! know that both yourself and Beth work hard on getting those emails and those types of alerts and things out. Is that, do you have any reason to believe that has just, the level of awareness is leading to that, to those reports or again, just an anomaly? Sgt. Jim Olson: You know that's something that Beth and I both push pretty hard as far as if you see something that looks out of place, give us a call. That's not tracked from a dispatch standpoint as far as what causes them to give us a call or anything but then ! would think that that would certainly have some type of an impact because we push it in the papers. We push it at council meetings. These crime alerts, we do push that very hard, and that was up from 71 to 100. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: ... about DWI's. I recall you talking about the time it takes to process DUI, DWI. It used to be ! want to say 3 or 4 hours. Something along that line, and ! understood that that was shortening. There was, something has happened to reduce that time. Sgt. Jim Olson: You know if we have a CSO that's on at the time of the. Councilman Ayotte: I'm talking about legislation that's helped us shorten that process. Has that occurred yet? 4 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Sgt. Jim Olson: No. Councilman Ayotte: There is something in the cue though to. Sgt. Jim Olson: I know that they're looking at lowering it to a .08 but I don't know of anything to shorten the time required to process one. Councilman Ayotte: Would you mind checking it out. ! thought there was something on the horizon. Sgt. Jim Olson: I'll do some checking. I've not heard councilman. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Sergeant, as we see these numbers fluctuate from one year to the next in the same month, ! guess one of the questions that ! have is, are you seeing any emerging trends that we need to be aware of or that the residents and citizens need to be aware of as we see some of these fluctuations. You know it sounds like snow and weather had a big effect in terms of some of these January numbers, and if memory serves well, a year ago January was pretty mild weather compared to this year. So is it that type of thing that it can be, that what we're seeing here are more just the change in the weather as opposed to some emerging trend and whether it's DUI's or other types of activities, or do you have any sense there? Sgt. Jim Olson: You know some of the real trends that ! have seen overall going up is certainly medicals, alarm calls, you know accidents are going up progressively higher. Generally a rate over the past 10 years so with the increase in the population and the increases, you know not only population here but also west of here with people commuting back and forth. ! think we will continue to see a general upswing in some of those kinds of things. Mayor Furlong: And more from a population and growth and development standpoint those over the long term. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: A couple other things that I wanted to go over tonight. Winter parking. I talked a little bit about winter parking last month and I just wanted to reiterate that winter parking is in effect until April lst, so just because it quits snowing or snow starts slowing down, you still need to abide by those winter parking rules until April lst of this year so ! just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that, and that' s no parking between 1:00 in the morning and 7:00 in the morning again, and if, or if there's 2 inches or more of snow on the street. Until it' s plowed curb to curb. ! also want to talk with you about solicitors. As it starts warming up a bit we start getting some solicitor complaints. Solicitors should have a permit, a city issued permit with them if they are City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 authorized to sell things in the city and that does not mean that the city endorses them. That just gives them the authority to sell items in the city. And Kate, maybe you can help me out a little bit with this, but we will be the city has purchased an ID card, or an ID maker that the solicitors will be issued and ! think that should be up and running a couple months, somewhere in there. Kate Aanenson: Probably sooner than that. Probably within the month. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it's in the accounts payable. I've gotten a couple of questions from council members. The badge machines in on this accounts payable. Sgt. Jim Olson: But just for the public, once that's up and running, the solicitors should have an ID tag with a picture of them on it for them to be allowed to solicit in the city of Chanhassen. You know it's starting to get nicer out and as it starts to get nicer out, we also see an increase in thefts and burglaries from open garage doors. ! just wanted to ask people to make sure that their garage doors are closed. That if possible they park their cars inside the garage. You know if they're parked on the driveway, take your valuables out of it, and lock them and that' s very important. Hopefully we can help deter some of those thefts that we start seeing in the spring and as it gets lighter outside. ! also wanted to talk about the CSO calls for, total calls for service for the month of January. It is up for this year compared to last year, but this year we also have two CSO's that are on that are giving a total of 40 hours a week for coverage versus 30 hours last year. Justin Miller: 60 rather than 40 total. Sgt. Jim Olson: Oh I'm sorry, 60 rather than 40 for this year. I'm sorry, so, and that certainly helps us out. They will take some of those calls from the deputies that we would normally be responding to if somebody was not there so ! think that would reflect quite a bit on why the numbers are up for the month of January this year compared to last year. Any other questions or anything for the sheriff' s office from the council? Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you very much. Next on our agenda is report from our fire department. ! see that Assistant Chief Randy Wahl is here this evening. Good evening. Randy Wahl: Mr. Mayor, Mr. City Manager, council members, good evening. My name is Randy Wahl. ! am the newly elected Second Assistant Chief, replacing Mark Littfin who has probably decided in his 30 plus years on the department to concentrate a little more with his family and maybe maintain some larger duties within the city fire marshal's office but, so I'll be taking over for Mark Littfin. Some of you may already know me from the Relief Association. For those of you that don't know what that is, allow me to briefly explain. The Relief Association is a separate entity within the fire department. It has it's own state statutes. It has it's own by-laws. The only similarities between the organization, fire department and relief is that it's comprised of members of the fire department. The Relief Association is primarily responsible for the benefits for the fire fighters. To the tune that the state probably finances 85 percent of that entity, and City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 with the municipality making up the additional 12 to 15 percent. Having said that, ! don't know if anybody read yesterday' s paper regarding PERA Police and Fire and what' s been going on with that. We're nowhere related so hopefully some of you can feel a little at ease with that. But that is a whole different issue and ! believe the only member within this department more so maybe with the city would be Mark Littfin. So the city's fire department is not covered under PERA Police and Fire and hopefully those images don't reflect us. As far as training goes, the department's still on track with the training schedule. We've been practicing some of the instant command systems and recently have done some dive training, and those guys, they've put in some late hours recently doing some of their ice dive training. So ! commend them. The department is currently trying to certify our rescue officer into a position that would enable us to recertify annually our EMT's and first responders in-house. So that way we don't have to out source it anymore and so we can probably cut down our costs in that regard. The department also received recently about $700 from the County EMS awards group, and what that primarily is for is an auto extrication train trainer program. We basically would facilitate that grant, but open it up to the rest of the department within the county. The rest of the fire departments, so we're going to be soliciting attendance for that and we'll be proceeding with that shortly. The department also did receive recently a new radio from the county, as the county was given a grant. Every department within the county received a new radio as a result of that. The inspectors position, as you all probably well know is going forward. ! believe they'll be starting interviews this week with that process. Trying to get that position filled recently vacated by Greg Hayes. And then ! also recently forward to Mark Littfin another grant application that might fall in line more with Beth and her department. Some Neighborhood Watch grant programs are out there as part of the Homeland Security defense so. As far as some of the calls, we are down about 26 calls year to date. We're at about 112. Figured we'd probably have a little more given some of those recent weathers but that's probably part and parcel to some of the priority dispatching that's been taking place and passing along some of the medical calls onto the sheriff's office, so. As far as some of the recent calls that we've been on, we did respond to a furnace fire. Dishwasher fire. A bathroom fire down in the apartment complex. We've been requested for mutual aid by the cities of Eden Prairie and Victoria for assistance at their stations. And we did respond recently to a bus versus car P.I. recently on West 78th Street, and we can train for these things all year long but when that call, when that type of call comes in, it's something that just plays over and over and over in your head while you're trying to go to the scene. But Greg, or not Greg. Dale Gregory and Mark Littfin were pretty quick on the scene and pretty much assessed that it was a minor issue really. All the kids were pretty much evacuated off the bus and stuff before we got there, so it was not really a big issue for us in that regard. With that, let me give you a little more background as to who ! am. I'm a 14 year member of the department. Having held some of the positions, hazmat specialist, 6 years of lieutenant, 11 years SCBA, 8 years ladder company, 6 years engine company, 2 years Carver County hazmat response team, 14 year member of the relief. 8 as secretary, 6 as the current president. I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 15 years with my wife and CFO of 17 years. ! have 3 daughters, all attending the Chaska School District. And like the chief! am also employed by the Wateress Company. Greg is actually my boss during the day. City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Labatt: And at night. Randy Wahl: The position there, ! am the Central U.S. Canadian Pump Sales Rep. What can that do for me? It enables me to actually get around to full time departments, volunteer departments, paid on call departments, all throughout central North America. Which would enable me to bring back some of their ideas, skills and we may be able to introduce some of that into our program at the fire department here. Some of the goals that ! would like to see short term, make sure that this transition is a smooth one, which has been going pretty well actually. ! can't thank Mark Littfin and his staff enough for the assistance that they provide us on a daily basis without, without that group ! don't know where we would begin to give you guys updates or be able to maintain that level of professionalism that a lot of departments are expecting from us. Some of the long term goals, ! want to see the review the 5 and 10 year plan. Most of you may already know that the city is going to probably need a new engine in 2006. With the advent of the new highway coming in on the south side, and the additional growth that it's going to be bringing, we'll probably need to start reviewing some facility concepts on the south side of town so, but that's more long term, 10 year out window than anything, but nonetheless we'll still need to review that. That and then ! would like to try and get the emphasis back onto the fact that we are a volunteer department. The only full time member that we have at this point is Mark Littfin, and he is with the city staff and he holds a position of a fire marshal. The rest of us are all volunteers. Some of us, or some of the perception out there is that we are professional, full time fire fighters. We're not. We get interrupted all throughout the day, all throughout the night, during holidays, birthdays, all kinds of celebrations and the level of expectation amongst the membership is, is reflecting that but ! would still like to introduce a little level of, ! don't want to say fun, but make sure that we don't burn anybody out by doing this. So ! would like to maintain that volunteer status and really emphasize that so. We can maintain that level of professionalism. We're just going to do it as paid on call volunteers, so with that, ! don't know if anybody has any comments, questions regard that ! might need to bring back to the department. Mayor Furlong: Questions? Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: What was the value of the neighborhood watch grant that you? Randy Wahl: That was an early assessment. No dollar figures were given at that point other than there are programs out there for that. There were programs for citizen awareness groups, neighborhood watch programs. They didn't really attach a dollar figure to it. Councilman Ayotte: I was just wondering would it be, could we get a status of what that's all about. Nothing's free but you know... Randy Wahl: Right. ! did forward the entire memo to Mark in the form of an e-mail to forward to Beth so. City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, and I'm sure Mr. Gerhardt could extract that from Beth. Another question, do you know the cost of the outsourcing? So if we have train to trainer inside the department, what potential cost avoidance would we realize there? Do you know? Randy Wahl: The train the trainer program, from what ! recall is around, about $100. About $100. To re-certify the entire department, EMT and first responder levels, ! would venture to say bringing in Ridgeview and all the resources is around $1,500 to a couple thousand. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And one last question. ! hear the same thing from Chief Wolff. He was a little bit more on the periphery than you were on the burnout issue on volunteerism but do we have a mechanism to gauge whether or not burnout is a QA viewpoint of it to check it out to see if we do have a potential for burnout on the fire department? Todd Gerhardt: Well ! think Randy and Greg have a pretty good handle on their staff over there. When they realize certain people are pushing the envelope, they have sabbatical capabilities. Councilman Ayotte: So there's a procedure in place. Randy Wahl: Yeah, we've got procedures in place that does allow for personnel to take off personal time and time required for certain incidences and stuff so. But ! want to get back to that volunteer status. Councilman Ayotte: Good report, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: ! just want to thank the whole volunteer fire department. They do a great job and under your leadership and Greg's, ! think we're going to still improve over there every day and thank you for what you do. Randy Wahl: Great, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thanks. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SEWER~ WATER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS~ 2005 MUSA AREA. Public Present: Name Address Mitch, Jill & Zachary Anderson 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This item again for your consideration is the authorization to prepare a feasibility study and award a contract to a consultant for the 2005 MUSA area improvements. MUSA area improvements are shown on this drawing here. They generally are included basically south of Lyman Boulevard, west of Powers. The new Powers, county road to be constructed in the 212 project. Proposed 212 project. North of Pioneer Trail and east of Audubon. The contract for, proposed contract for the feasibility study is proposed to be awarded to Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $42,300. While the city could wait for a developer to petition.., feasibility staff, the city staff believes that it's in the best interest to be proactive in this area and to basically get going on our feasibility study as soon as we can. Basically it gives us a little more time to handle and review some of the costs, the financing, assessments, to the benefiting property that would potentially be developed in this area. And improvements that would be necessary prior to the development again from 2005. Some of the items that would be addressed in the feasibility study would be the extension of sanitary sewer and water main, the trunk water main. Improvements of the existing roadway system in this area. Construction of east/west collector roads as well on drainage. Storm water studies would also be addressed. Provide an estimate project cost basically for allowing improvements. Provide project scheduling too when things could, projects would be phased in potentially. Evaluate alternatives to minimize cost related to proposed improvements and also financing assessment options for improvements again on Lyman Boulevard and internally in the MUSA area. The contract that is before you tonight for consideration again is a contract with Kimley-Horn in the amount of $42,300. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: I see the, Matt got the quote on 3 February and the request for quote or request proposal was prepared and issued when? Paul Oehme: That was to Kimley-Horn? That was approximately I think about. Todd Gerhardt: January. Early January. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So, and when did you come on board? Paul Oehme: I came on the 20th of January. Councilman Ayotte: Have you reviewed the scope? Paul Oehme: Yes I have. Councilman Ayotte: And you feel comfortable with it? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Alright. That's it. 10 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, ! recognize the difference as you stated in your note that you feel the differences Kimley-Horn's familiarity. Do you have any reservations that we might not be getting all of the different opinions and ideas in that area with putting it all in Kimley-Horn's boat so to speak? ! mean going with Bolton Menk, the other contractor obviously is more costly but it's kind of a big deal down there for now and the future between 212 and the MUSA and everything going on. Do you have any thoughts that maybe bringing in another face and another new set of ideas might not be a bad thing? Paul Oehme: Sure, we did consider that. We feel that Kimley-Horn again knows this area the best of all of our consultants. All of our consultants in the pool. They have, ! feel the most experience in these type of feasibility studies and these type of development. Again ! think they work well with city staff and ! think it' s a good fit for this project. Councilman Lundquist: So you don't have any reservations about making sure that you're getting everything that you need to get out of that or the city staff will be acting as that check and balance in that entire area? Paul Oehme: Right. Yeah obviously we're going to be bringing in the rest of the city staff on this project to hire developers and ! think from our, from staff' s perspective ! think we'll definitely get a good product. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And Todd, what's the funding source? Where are these dollars coming from? Todd Gerhardt: We will recoup these dollars as a part of the feasibility study assessment process, so we will assess it back to benefiting properties. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: He answered my question on the sensibility. Mayor Furlong: Okay. ! guess the one question ! have maybe following up on Councilman Lundquist's question is, as we went out and solicited two bids. ! know we have more firms in our engineering pool than two. Why just two? Or why these two? think we understand why Kimley-Horn but why just two? Paul Oehme: ! think. Mayor Furlong: And if this was before your time I'll defer the question to the City Manager. 11 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Well, Kimley-Horn definitely has the experience in working in the AUAR area. We had other consultants working on other projects and Bolton Menk had experience in feasibility studies and MUSA area and we just narrowed it down to two at this time. Some of the other consultant pools that we're using, one's working on a trail project. One's working on water treatment so right now we didn't want to double up on consultants. Councilman Lundquist: But you would be doubling up with Kimley-Horn though. Todd Gerhardt: Well, you want to double up on that one so they have the similarities so they can stay on the same track with 212. Have that knowledge and taking some of the potential costs that we would be responsible for on 212 and potentially assessing those back into the 2005-2010 MUSA areas. Mayor Furlong: And we spoke tonight about, in our work session, or got an update on the status of the 212 municipal consent process and in there were some assessment values. Would some of those costs be also included in the feasibility study so if somebody were to look at the information we got tonight in the feasibility study, could there be some overlap? Turn lanes or utilities or trails. Those type of things so there could be some overlap. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Trails. Widening of the bridge on Powers. The...projection, project under 212 for the trail too. That's tied in to this development as well, so there's a lot of similarities and a lot of continuity that we want to keep between the 212 project and this feasibility study. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the final question ! have, from an awareness standpoint, and that is the time table or the schedule of events here that are proposed beginning this project early in March, completing it during the next 3-4 months. One of the initiatives that as a council we talked about our strategic planning process this month was to look at land uses within the 2005 MUSA area, as well as 212 corridor and such like that. And so ! think we'll want to be addressing that early and concurrently here as they're working on it just to make sure that we don't enter into any inefficiencies or do things that have to be re-done. Todd Gerhardt: This is a tentative schedule. We wanted to put it together. ! think Paul made the point that we have some time on this one. We will definitely dual track it. We're going to want to know what the land use are going to be in this area as we determine future assessment practices that we're going to use, so staff is aware of that and we'll dual track both. Mayor Furlong: That's all ! had, thank you. Any other questions for staff?. If not, thank you. Any discussion? Bring it back to council. Councilman Labatt: No. ! think it certainly makes sense to go with Kimley-Horn. 12 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think too, you know as I understand sometimes we can wait until a developer comes forward and generates this, and as something that we talked, this is really when we approved the AUAR for this area back in, ! think it was December, we were told the next step is this feasibility study so we're really just... Kate Aanenson: IfI could just add one point to that. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: We've been speaking to a lot of developers down there and one of the main points of the AUAR was that we might want to consider building that road the entire segment of that frontage road at once. And the property owners are all aware of that and they know there's pending assessments and they want to be involved in the hearing, because that might be the most economical way for that to happen so if somebody's not ready to develop, somebody else is so... Mayor Furlong: And that's one of the things that this study's going to be looking at. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: Alright. ! think it makes sense. It's for good planning and gives really the council and staff the road map if you will for this so. Any other discussion on this? Councilman Labatt: Kate, we can assess back all $43,300, correct? Kate Aanenson: That was the main point that Paul talked about too. That's what this study's going to look at. Yeah, and what other assessments you're going to have, right. Councilman Labatt: Yeah but ! mean, so we control our own destiny. Kate Aanenson: Just like the AUAR will be assessed back too when they come in for development, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Lundquist: My thoughts. ! threw up the 212 thing. I've been really happy with the work that Kimley-Horn has done. John seems to be real thorough and does a nice job for us. ! am still concerned though about having, not having another set of eyes down there on what's going on, especially considering some of the things we still maybe have up in the air with the AUAR and ! think it might not be a bad idea to get another set of eyes on that, although the cost is considerably higher. You know we don't want to make any mistakes down in the AUAR area either. To get that done, so although ! think there's a lot of synergies that probably can be gained, this might be one time where we want to get another set of eyes to take a look at what's going on. Councilman Ayotte: Can ! ask for a point of clarification on that Mr. Mayor? 13 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: Are you saying, having another set of eyes to take a look at what Kimley-Horn is doing or are you saying, widened these solicitation base? Councilman Lundquist: I'm saying possibly go back and ask for another one or give the job to Bolton & Menk for the higher amount. Mayor Furlong: When you say go back and ask for another one, is that a consultant? Councilman Lundquist: To another, yeah widen out the pool, and if we've got time to do that. ! know that we want to get going as fast as we can but just my thoughts on an area that's that big with as many things as we've still got going on in the AUAR and ! think there's still a lot of concerns. ! still have some concerns about some of the information and some of the mitigation things that were in there and you know not getting really comfortable with those things. It's nothing, no dissatisfaction with Kimley-Horn but just another set of eyes never hurts in my opinion. Councilman Ayotte: Question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: Would, ! mean there's been a certain amount of staff time associated with getting up to this point and to Brian's point to add, what would the solicitation process be to add a head to the vendor base to take another look? Paul Oehme: Sure. We could solicit for another quote to our consultant. Probably you know about 3 weeks probably to obtain another quote because due to the fact that the AUAR area is so involved, there's a lot of information that the consultant would have to digest before he'd give us a quote. A reasonable quote. Councilman Ayotte: See when ! ask the question of Paul if he reviewed the scope, ! was kind of getting to that point. He's a new guy on the block and if you started a week prior to this, so now when you say yes, you're comfortable with it. Now the point that you're bringing up, I'm wondering if there' s, I'm just worried about your feel for the scope and what' s involved. Paul Oehme: Again, I think from what I've seen in the background, of the time allocated, ! think Kimley-Horn has enough time allocated for the project. ! think they covered the scopes or the items that ! think the city will value in the proposal. In a feasibility study. ! think that just based upon the background that Jon has, Kimley-Horn has with this area, ! think there might be some information that gets lost in translation from one consultant to another. But like Councilmember Lundquist's point, that to get another eyes on this area, just due to the fact that it is such an important area for us. Maybe just throw out an idea that once we get a draft copy of the feasibility study, we have another consultant briefly 14 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 review it. Come up with some other points that may be, that they would have a chance to look at. That way we do have another set of eyes looking at this area. Councilman Ayotte: ! don't like the idea of expanding the vendor base only because if we did extend that solicitation, and we had another guy come in at. Councilman Lundquist: One dollar under? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, or you just have the same point, so going to your point, to hire someone to validate that the, what's proposed and what was requested makes sense, is a... Mayor Furlong: ! guess one of the questions ! have, just so ! understand what you're concerned about. ! didn't, you know a lot of things that the AUAR covered is not what, this isn't going to be revisiting, as ! understand it, and Kate jump in. We're not going to be revisiting the same issues. What we're doing is taking it, given where the AUAR is, here's a plan, the feasibility to start to implement from the streets and utilities and such like that so would the feasibility study look at for example the location of that east/west connector and say is that a good place for it to be, or should it go some place else. Is it going to be that type of level or is it just? Paul Oehme: Yeah, the lines of the road ! think are going to be addressed more in depth. Kate Aanenson: Speed, curvature. Paul Oehme: Yep. We're actually in the feasibility study be identifying more or less the infrastructure too. You know the pipe sizes and the grades that we think will be necessary for the roadway project out there. More of the detail. Mayor Furlong: It's the detail but we're not going to, would they be looking at and saying, you know what we really don't need an east/west connector. We need a north/south and so start changing that. That's not part of this? Kate Aanenson: Some of the decisions that were left is, you know we talked about is, how much development can occur. And just, if we can go back to Bob's question. How did this feasibility, Matt started the feasibility. Planning staff looked at and when Paul came on board we kind of went through it again so that everybody's up to speed so it wasn't done with one person looking at it. Kind of in staff meeting kind of talking about what are some of the issues out there that we want to make sure that are based on that AUAR. One of the things that we talked about is what development can occur? What if this development goes in place? What's the minimum threshold that needs to happen? How are we going to pay for sewer extension so we've kind of all looked at it. It's like you said, it's taking it to that next level. We kind of said these are the framework issues. Now how do we make that happen? Who can go first? How can it get paid for? Who can be assessed? What are the roads, if the county does, you know are these depending on the county to put some of these improvements in? What we talked about on Lyman 15 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 and Audubon. There may be some widening. How do those get paid for so it's really fine tuning it. We're not going to decide the road's not going in. That's a given as far as the study. It says it has to go in there. What's the curvature going to be and all that stuff. The speed design. Paul Oehme: More of the engineering function. Councilman Lundquist: They'll be taking that AUAR as the basis for it though, right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: So essentially that becomes their guide book on how to develop the things? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yep. Councilman Lundquist: So they will be looking at some of those mitigation things and trying to put those into play? Kate Aanenson: Exactly. That's exactly it. Right. So that's why going with Kimley- Horn, because they were so grounded in it, and just kind of taking it to the next level. More detail. More specific. Councilman Lundquist: But that's exactly my thoughts on why we might want to have another set of eyes because you know we might find some other thoughts and plans around ways to mitigate things or different things. Different things that still feel are kind of up in the air on the AUAR. We've accepted it. We've gone through it. Kate Aanenson: We can do that but we've accepted the AUAR as a premise. If you're going to amend the AUAR, then we have to go back through another process because that is your framework. You can't deviate too much from that because we set that in place. There's tweaking within that. Councilman Lundquist: But as ! recall when we went through the AUAR acceptance process, ! know myself ! specifically asked a question, you know what does this lock us into. What are we agreeing to? What are we not agreeing to, and ! guess my understanding was that, it's a guide to help. If what you're telling me now is our hands are tied and we have to implement all those mitigation strategies as part of this, then ! guess then maybe we do need to go back at the AUAR because ! still have some, I've been waiting for the feasibility study to come out and get more detail on some of those things, and if what I'm understanding you're telling me is that we're locked into those mitigation strategies and those things that came out of that, then I've got some real issues and problems that we need to address as a whole in that area, because that wasn't my understanding. 16 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Kate Aanenson: The question when you ask about flexibility on land uses, and we said as long as we stay within that threshold that we studied, that number is a fix. As long as we stay within those traffic things. The mitigation strategies, again what we're talking up here tonight is engineering issues, so if there's a broader brush. But the mitigation strategies were noise. What was the biggest? Traffic. And that's kind of what this is speaking to. Specifically what traffic things, what design speeds. Those sort of things so that's what this study is going to look at more specifically. Councilman Ayotte: So that feasibility study determines that what we thought to be a part of the boundary for what we originally agreed to, needs to be altered, or the feasibility study say that? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure I'm following that. Paul Oehme: Can you repeat? Councilman Ayotte: Well to Brian's point. If the feasibility study says this parameter that we talked towards and we gave the nod, and it has to change, if the feasibility study says from an engineering standpoint that traffic rate is way off. What latitude do we have? Paul Oehme: Well in terms of traffic, you know ! think there shouldn't be that much deviation from what was projected in the AUAR. We know exactly, we know approximately how many units would be potentially developed in this area. ! can't foresee any significant traffic implications and that would be... Councilman Ayotte: ! just grabbed traffic. Paul Oehme: Exactly. Traffic or even wetlands. They're something that definitely there's different techniques that we could look at, that maybe are outside the AUAR area that maybe haven't been addressed but again, getting back to Lundquist's point, maybe if we had a second consultant come in after and just give a different review of the feasibility study, maybe that's a compromise that we could. Councilman Lundquist: But what I'm hearing now ! guess makes me even more inclined to push it another way and get another set of eyes. ! mean there's a lot of things, you know the primary AUAR we had, you know we were talking about a school in one corner. There was a lot of talk about worst case scenario on development and there's a lot of things that are still up in the air on what's going on out there, and ! was looking at this feasibility study as really getting into the details of what's going to happen. And by taking the AUAR and saying assuming, ! mean we have some residents from Chaska here that have voiced their concerns over the traffic several times. If you know, whoever this engineering company is, is just going to take that AUAR and say well here' s where the streets are. Now let's figure out how wide they've got to be. What the curvature is. All of that. ! mean I'm still looking at somebody to say, are we sure that this is where the 17 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 streets all go and you know based on the feasibility of getting into the details, maybe the soils don't work or whatever detail they're going to get into. Paul Oehme: I think that's more or less staff's responsibility too to dive in and ask those questions that you just raised in terms of traffic again. What school is not included, or the school's not going to be included in the AUAR area, but obviously there's going to be different traffic patterns. Traffic loadings on those streets. Obviously we'll be addressing each of those, every one of those issues making sure that the consultant is giving us correct data and a reasonable approach to how he's potentially going to address those issues. So ! think from a traffic standpoint it's something that we'll take a look at. We can mitigate, you know there's several traffic calming items that we can implement in the design, you know if it warrants it. We can look at sending a letter techniques to address those concerns that you guys have raised, but in terms of the entire scope of the project, you know again ! think from my perspective, ! think it's something that the city should focus in on is getting the best consultant on board that we can who has the most knowledge of these particular projects and so we can try to put the best product out there. Councilman Lundquist: And certainly, now ! guess as ! get a deeper understanding, it makes sense why Kimley-Horn's bid would be so much lower because, ! mean ! would assume what they're going to do is take all the work that they've already done and just apply that. So ! guess it makes sense, and you know maybe this is a lot of my misunderstanding on what the purpose of the AUAR is and what we agreed to then, and so maybe I'm mixing up my issues here. Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear. We modeled it with the worst case scenario, so whether the school or industrial, the traffic would be at the max. No matter which way. It is for both ways, so that doesn't change. And that road around there would service whether it's industrial or the school. If it was a school, it' s probably be a private street. If it was an industrial, it's probably be a public street so the trips would be the same. It's just whether it's public or private. So I'm not sure there's as many variables as maybe we think there might be. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: ! guess the question that ! would have, following up on Councilman Lundquist's concern here. In terms of the scope of work, not necessarily the time involved and therefore the fees from either of these consultant firms, but the scope of work and the output, would you, is it going to be necessarily different between the two firms, even though the fees being quoted are significantly different. Paul Oehme: The output or the final product should be virtually the same. With the existing data that we have, or will be collecting, they should be able to come up with the same type of scenario or design that any other consultant would have. Mayor Furlong: So the second set of eyes at this point, maybe it's getting back to you know what, where you want that second set of eyes, and ! don't know that we need to go 18 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 back and re-open, but if we're getting about the same output, obviously or apparently Kimley-Horn here is indeed building upon it's experience. It's already got the file. It was intimately involved and so it doesn't have the learning curve that the other consultant has. So that's why ! guess ! look at the output and if it's the same, unless we know that there are some things that would benefit, and then ! guess I'd like to understand what those benefits might be relative to the cost. But my sense is it's just more of a concern. Councilman Lundquist: Well let me go back just for one more clarification, and humor me if I've asked this question 3 times already, but this feasibility study we're required, no matter who the consultant is, either one of these two, we are required to take the AUAR and use that as the guide. Where do the streets go? Where do the sewer lines go? Where everything goes, we have no recourse to go back and do anything but where all that stuff is already drawn. Now we're just trying to figure out how wide the road has to be, and all of that? Kate Aanenson: Right. Again, there's other jurisdictions that commented on the AUAR. The county says it has to touch down here. MnDot said it had to touch down here. So what Kimley-Horn did is as part of this is, approximately this is the narrowest part of the creek. This is probably where it's going to go, but they're going to fine tune that alignment, but basically the touch down on either end is a fixed place because that's been approved by two other agencies. So what Paul's saying is we'll be working with them to figure out the curvature and exactly how it's going to cross the creek and those cross and those sort of things. But there's a lot of fixed because other governmental agencies have said they were fixed. On the storm water, we talked about regional ponding. We'll get more specific input on some of that sort of thing too. And we've identified the wetlands as a part of the AUAR. The ones we want to preserve and some of those sort of things so, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? Comments? Councilman Labatt: No. I just think the combination of our professional city staff and Kimley-Horn and Associates, we can certainly utilize the savings of over $46,000. Mayor Furlong: Hearing any other discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: I'd move approval that we authorize preparation of feasibility study with Kimley-Horn as the vendor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: I'll second. Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? 19 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: I would just say that I guess it probably does make sense but still ! guess a little bit disappointed in where we ended up with understanding on what we're going forward here, but clearly under the circumstances with the majority of the big decisions being made, it probably makes sense. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Resolution #2004-09: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to authorize preparation of a feasibility study for street and utility improvements within the 2005 MUSA area and to approve a consultant work order with Kimley- Horn & Associates in the amount of $43,300.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE~ SUBDIVISIONS; AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This is a culmination of approximately a year work of trying to discuss the subdivision ordinance revisions to make it work better. Revisions to make it more user friendly we hope. To let people know exactly what they need to submit. The majority of this we believe is administrative in nature. However, in our cover memo we point out the areas of contention. The first one is in response to Mr. Paulsen's comment was the deletion of the first two sections of Section 18-37, exemptions to the subdivision ordinance. These are currently exempted from city review requirements so taking them out has no effect on them. We requested that the city attorney look at the state statute requirements and he concurs that the change of a lot line is not a subdivision by either state statute or by our definition that we've adopted in the ordinance, so we don't have any formal review procedures taking it to Planning Commission, City Council and any public notice requirement. That's currently in place. We're deleting that because it seems to be confusing. Giving people the impression that we have some type of authority to stop these lot line changes when we really don't. ! have an example of a neighborhood that if someone were to come in and request this corner of this property be combined with the property to the north, they'd be able to do that. They don't have to get city approval for that because it's not a subdivision. However across the street, this big lot, if they wanted to create two lots out of the one, that is a subdivision and requires going through a hearing process. Either Planning Commission and City Council or the metes and bounds approval by the City Council. So Mr. Paulsen referenced the Eden Prairie ordinance. The minor subdivision that's discussed in that is the creation of these two lots. Eden Prairie. Mayor Furlong: Could you show that again? Bob Generous: Creation of two lots from one lot. That's what they notice the neighbors about and that could be approved administratively. ! believe the Plymouth ordinance permits up to a 3 lot subdivision with this notice requirement to be done administratively, provided that no neighbors object to it of course, so our ordinance is actually more 20 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 stringent. We don't allow the creation of a separate lot without going through a public hearing process. Or a public process. Councilman Labatt: So hypothetically speaking, let's say that Lot 13 gave that corner triangle to Lot 14. And that new addition is enough to allow Lot 14 to subdivide. Bob Generous: Then they would have to come in through the hearing process to get approval for that additional lot. Councilman Labatt: But are we creating a loophole to allow that? I'm just trying to. Bob Generous: Well if you will, the loophole's already there. Councilman Labatt: Okay, the loophole's. Bob Generous: It's exempted already under our ordinance. We're just taking that, we're proposing that that language be removed from the ordinance because it just says that you're exempt from the subdivision requirement. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Roger. Mayor Furlong: Roger. Councilman Ayotte: He brought his book. Roger Knutson: ! brought a book. Try to make it simple? Our ability to regulate subdivisions is a creation of statute. The statute say we can regulate subdivisions to the extent that the city can. The statutes define subdivision, and I'll just read one line. This is not a subdivision, according to state statutes. The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. By state statute is not a subdivision, and is not subject to our subdivision regulations. That's all we're recognizing. Our current ordinance, before you amend anything, already recognizes that in the definition of subdivision. Reference has been made to the Eden Prairie ordinance, which ! just read tonight for the first time, and the Plymouth ordinance which ! had a hand in writing. And then it also recognizes, state limitation is, and as Councilman Labatt said, is there a loophole there? Yeah, maybe you know you could call it that. Could some.., happen because of that potentially but it's the state law. It's not under state law. It's been around for 30 years or longer. ! don't remember how long. Since I've been practicing. That's the... You can move your, adjust the property line and it's not a subdivision. And there's nothing we can do about it. We can talk, if someone' s upset about it, they can talk to their legislators and ask them to change the statute, but until that happens, that's the law. And it's not a change from our current practice or in current application or what our ordinance says now. Right now we just have something that's a little confusing and we're trying to eliminate that. Mayor Furlong: Okay? 21 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Bob Generous: The next one that, and ! had a handout tonight. In reviewing Section 18- 39(c) for the notice requirements. As part of the zoning ordinance we're reviewing what our notice requirements are and what the statute requirements are, and we're trying to make, for properties that abut a lake, the current ordinance requires that we notify everyone around that lake whether or not there's any impacts to that lake. So if there's a lot that's being subdivided, a corner of the lot's on a lake, we notify everyone on that lake that they're proposing a subdivision. This tends to be onerous to those properties that don't have any impacts on the lake, but may have to notice 200 homes. We've had this recently where the person came in and their notice requirement was over $300 from the city. And then most of the people don't care and they're not impacted. This language that we're proposing is from the site plan review portion of the ordinance that says where there' s impacts on the lake, it' s up to the community development director to determine that and they, she may expand the notice area. So that was new. That resulted from our search of the zoning ordinance. Councilman Labatt: One more question? Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Bob, another question. We'll call it a very parochial issue then. When Pulte came into town, in with plans. The Longacres neighborhood, which is beyond the 500 feet requirement, however very visible to this development. So how do we take into effect when you have a large expansion of land that isn't a body of water, to apply those same standards for the lakeshore owners to the owners of natural wetlands that extend. Kate Aanenson: Just as, the state law requires 300 feet. We do 500 feet. So we already exceed that. What we try to do in those situations, if there's an association president or homeowners association, we try to contact them. We can notify at 700 foot and the person at 800 person will say ! didn't get noticed. It's where you draw the line so you know, when we... notice and then we know people are talking together and that' s a good thing. ! think the neighbors are talking, you know. So we do go beyond the statutory requirement for our notice so, and again, we try to use discretion. If it's on this street, cover the whole street and we do that all the time. We do that on the school site. We went well beyond the school district boundaries. What was 500 feet. Todd Gerhardt: We do it on every application. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we do it on a lot, but when you've got someone doing a remodeling on a lake that' s not on the lake side, it' s on the front side and needs the setback on the front, and we notify the whole lake and they come in for a variance, it's onerous when it's $400 or $500 extra. So we just want that discretion. If you know they're putting in additional dock or impacting lakeshore requirements, then we certainly want to notice, let people know so we're just saying that we think there should be some flexibility. 22 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Labatt: Good, okay. Bob Generous: Okay. Now on page 2 of the cover memo, Section 18-57. It's just the street standards. It's everyone concurred, we're going to recommend that the City adopt our current detail plate as the requirement pavement width. Originally the Planning Commission had proposed that we go with a higher standard. To the last go around they agreed with the engineering department to go down. On page 2, the Section 18-61 (c). This shows up on page 11 of the strike through and bold format. This is when a subdivider comes in and begins to, begins the subdivision review process and during that timeframe he goes out and begins to clear a site of trees and allows the city to help that process. Require the developer to do a resurvey if you will of the tree canopy coverage and the tree removal area, and we propose that we penalize for that and make them replace that and revise their landscaping plan to meet that. Because they've changed the conditions while the process has been started. We should point out that, normally residents can remove an individual tree or two on their property. The zoning ordinance only prohibits the clear cutting of trees on a property and clear cutting is defined as removing a complete stand of trees on the lot. So Section 18-61(d)(4). This is the portion that Mr. Paulsen referenced the 60 by 60 building pad. It shows up on page 14 of the strike through and bold format of the proposed revisions. This section was originally adopted to determine what the tree removal area of a lot was when we did not have a specific building plan, because as part of our tree protection ordinance we have to estimate tree removal. The 60 by 60 pad, the city forester has determined through review of subdivision that that doesn't actually count the total area that is impacted is as part of a subdivision review. She suggested and the Planning Commission concurred that maybe we should look at this front 105 feet of the lot. Now the 105 feet came up from us looking at the, a typical, or there were ten typical lots that we had. We included the entire buildable area so squared up the building pad and then we took the average of that, so that came to the average lot or house depth was 47 feet. In addition you have the front 30 foot setback. We also included a 12 foot deck and that came to 104 feet, and then we just added the one foot so it was a round number for people to look at. We're saying for that first 105 feet of the lot, we're estimating as part of the tree removal, that all the trees in there will be removed. Now, if at the other end of the development project, the developer is actually able to save those trees, he would be able to count the saved trees against his required planting requirements. But up front it's a way for us to determine the tree removal level on the property. We did look at other communities to see whether or not their ordinances were better and provided more information, and these are examples of it. Comparing, we took the Burlwood development, because we had the information. If you look at, we looked at Maple Grove and Eden Prairie because their ordinances looked like they may provide additional enhanced protection. However in comparing their ordinance against what the city's ordinance was, for Maple Grove there were no replacement trees required as part of the Burlwood development. And then for Eden Prairie there were 29 2 inch trees required as replacement. Under the city' s ordinance we required a 43 tree replacement on the property, so it seemed, it appears that our ordinance does a better job, at least for the tree protection and tree replacement requirements than other ordinances. For the Ashling Meadows, the same thing. We looked at Maple 23 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Grove. Their ordinance would require zero tree replacement. The city of Eden Prairie's ordinance would require 2 trees to replace it and our ordinance required 19. So we believe our ordinance has worked and does provide a higher degree of tree preservation and protection. Section 18-61 (d)(5) is the, it shows up on page 15 of the strike through and bold format. This deals with once a development has an approved landscaping and tree protection plan, if the developer, and by inference any of the builders on the property come in and remove trees that were slated to be saved or protected, then they have to pay a fine. Originally the Planning Commission wanted $500. They did in the last go around recommend that there be a $300 per diameter inch fine on that. In addition, the developer or builder would have to replace those trees on a 2 to 1 basis. The 2 to 1 replacement is part of the current ordinance. The Planning Commission felt that builders were looking at this tree requirement as a cost of business and if it made it easier for them to put in a big home, they'd just ignore the tree protection and so they wanted to give a little teeth to the ordinance. And then finally on page 18 of the strike through and bold format, Section 18-78(b)(5). We drafted some potential criteria for determining when sidewalks would be included as part of a development, and basically is if we have existing sidewalks in adjacent properties, adjacent subdivisions, we want to continue that. If the development was adjacent to a commercial area, we'd want to provide a sidewalk to get people to that or to a trail system or a park. We're proposing that these criteria be used to help us in determining when sidewalks will be included in developments. Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 with the revision that ! provided tonight, and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt: Bob, just one more question. On that sidewalk issue, we're not locking ourself in a room here with street project, since this is an area, or section (b). Connected to neighborhoods or adjacent schools, since this is in the school walk zone or by saying the word sidewalks may be required. Kate Aanenson: Right, this is the criteria. Bob Generous: Discretionary on the City Council's part to determine whether or not they would be required as part of a subdivision. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Bob, ! thank you very much for that tree comparison. I've often sat up here and wondered, you know are we doing the best we can and obviously with what we have here, that was very informative, thank you. That's all ! have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions? 24 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Going back to 18-78. Is there, the following criteria shall be used in determining if sidewalks are to be included in development. To follow that initial comments, sidewalks may be required. Would it provide that latitude to say sidewalks may be included in the development, because again, when you take a look at that criteria, if you don't keep on stressing the word may throughout, you're going to have an issue. Kate Aanenson: Leave it up to the attorney to word smith that. Councilman Ayotte: He's looking at his book again. Kate Aanenson: Page 18. Todd Gerhardt: Page 187 Councilman Ayotte: 17. Roger Knutson: If you change the second, the following criteria may be used in determining. Councilman Ayotte: Sidewalks may be included in a development. Roger Knutson: May be required, the following criteria shall be used in determining. Kate Aanenson: Should that shall be a may? The second one. Councilman Labatt: Scratch that second shall you mean, you're saying? Roger Knutson: ! think it'd be good to change that second one to a may would be fine. Kate Aanenson: The goal is to make it discretionary. Councilman Ayotte: That's my point. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right. They just add some criteria. Councilman Labatt: So does our redevelopment of that street project. Kate Aanenson: I'd have to ask. Councilman Labatt: ! mean. Roger Knutson: This is subdivision ordinance. Councilman Labatt: This talks about subdivision. Roger Knutson: If you went in for a subdivision, this doesn't apply to you. 25 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: This places a condition on the subdivision. If you go through a street reconstruction. Councilman Labatt: It's another issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Not at this time. If there are no other questions, I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Thoughts on 18-61. At the risk of offending our members of the Sierra Club, ! think we're spending a lot of time and effort on trees. Not that trees are a bad thing, but ! mean ! look at these ordinances and ! think, you know, you have to have a PhD to figure out what's going on and the one that ! really have an issue with is the financial penalties. 18-61 (d)(5). Councilman Ayotte: Say it again? Councilman Lundquist: 18-61 (d)(5). ! guess ! have an issue with putting penalties, not only from a, it just seems like, you know we're kind of getting back into the thing like we talked before. ! understand the Planning Commission wanting to put some teeth into the ordinance, but when ! picture this, these things out here, ! mean ! picture, you know that we're worried about a developer sneaking out at night and cutting down a tree so they can put their house there. Or build a bigger house and you know ! guess, and I'll use Bob's example of what we've got as far as our existing tree ordinance. It seems like we're, although that's one of our trademarks is our tree preservation and the things that we do to maintain that, that we're getting a little bit over the top when it comes to dealing with some of these things and one of our goals with this council has been to remove the, you know some of the onerous things that we do and that we put forth for our residents and our developers in trying to get some of these things through. We use that nasty term that we all don't like to use, so ! won't say it, but this one is pushing the limit for me to that so, I'm not comfortable with the penalty phase and a lot of the things that are on. You know 2 for 1 seems like it's already you know a penalty for the developers. Having that financial penalty, now we're getting into all kinds of crazy stuff. ! mean who's going to go out and measure the trees? Is it a 3 inch tree? Is it a 4 inch tree? Is it a 5 inch tree and you know, it just seems to me like there's a lot of stuff going on there that we're taking it a little bit over the top. So other than that, I'm comfortable with what's in. ! like the staff' s re-wording of the landscaping and tree preservation piece on 18-61 (c) to just halt it instead of starting all over. Again, ! think that's a good compromise to making sure that we're keeping an eye on our developers to do the right thing, but you know asking them to scrap what they've done and start all over just seems a little bit ridiculous so ! think that's an example of more along the lines of what I'd be more comfortable with as far as the rest of the 18-61. Let's take another look at that tree thing and maybe some of that lot size calculations and all of that type of stuff and take another stab at that. See if we can't come up with something that's not quite so restrictive and over the top. 26 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Ayotte, anything? No? Councilman Labatt: Just to follow up on Brian a little bit and offer another perspective. Vasserman Ridge. Lundgren Brothers and they came in and developed that. Their plans include a complete inventory of all trees on the site. So you know whether it' s a 22 inch oak tree or a 6 inch maple or whatever. That's all done by the developer, right? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Labatt: Is there benefit in having that done? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Okay. The problem with, on Lake Minnewashta with Boyer when they completed what they completed up there. Developers do stuff behind the city's back. And ! guess it's no different than a fisherman going out there on Lake Minnetonka and catching 75 crappies. If you get caught, you're going to pay restitution for each crappie over your limit, per fish. So if you're going to go out there, whether it's the middle of the night, on a weekend, or you're just going to do it during the week and cut down trees you shouldn't cut down, by gosh you should get punished if you're caught. And the ordinance we had in effect when Boyer did their work up there, didn't have a lot of teeth behind it. We got caught with our pants down so to speak. I'm not going to sit up here and open up a loophole and allow the developers to come back and in essence cut down just to maximize their total area so ! strongly support the 300 per diameter inch in there just as a preventative medicine for them. Just so they know it's there and if you get caught, you're going to get dinged pretty darn good. What happened on Lake Minnewashta was a travesty up there, what that developer got away with and we're only going, by showing leniency in here, it's going to happen again. Councilman Lundquist: Just for clarification, our current ordinance has a 2 for 1 replacement of protected trees, just not the financial penalty. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And ! guess for clarification to the issue, was it Boyer that you mentioned? At what point did they do that? Was that during the process as opposed to taking trees down after approval? Protected trees. Bob Generous: Part of. Mayor Furlong: It was before the approval occurred. Bob Generous: Before final approval. 27 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Kate Aanenson: We were trying to protect some trees. They chose not to. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so I think there' s, I understand what you're saying Councilman Labatt. ! think from, where I'm struggling, first of all I'll go back. On most of the issues here that we've talked about, ! concur. The ones where I'm struggling is in the trees and the penalties that are being added at this point, and if we need to do that, then maybe we need to make sure that we do that right. In addition to, it sounds like from a tree replacement policy, for the example that we received this evening, we're demanding more out of developers in this town than other cities are, from the ones that we're aware of already. And this would be on top of that. Adding more on top of that. ! think, if I'm understanding correctly, the issue that was brought up on Lake Minnewashta, since that was during the process, that wouldn't even be a function of this $300 per diameter inch, the way I'm reading this because that would, this $300 is being proposed this evening to be added on top of the replacement policy is for trees in a protected area of an already approved development. ! guess ! look at that and in some cases ! think if it's a travesty, you know $300 may not be enough. If it's not, and ! think reasonable people can look at a situation and know when somebody did something wrong. And we can also look at a situation and say you know what, even though it occurred, are the penalties warranted. ! guess the question ! have is should we be building some discretion in here for council. Whether that's the 5 of us or future. Councilman Labatt: ! think that we have that now with our liquor license. Fact of the matter is, if you sell to an under aged person you lose your license in the first offense for 3 days and you pay a fine. We have the latitude in that liquor license and we've used it against my judgment but we've waived the 3 day suspension. So anyway, with all ordinances and penalties there's room for discretion. Yes. Mayor Furlong: And ! think in a liquor license there is language that talks about just that. The ability to evaluate the facts and circumstances. ! don't know, and I'll defer here to the attorney whether that's there. ! guess as ! look at this this evening, you know I'd like more work done and gain some more comfort on the two penalty clauses that are being added with regard to trees. Tree removal, clear cutting obviously is going through and as ! understand, taking all the trees out. Tree removal, if there's one taken down as part of the process, suddenly everything gets put on hold. If it's one tree versus 100 trees, that's a different situation. So maybe there should be some discretion there. And from a replacement policy or if it goes on hold until they recalculate, what ! don't understand is during the application process, so I'm back on 5(c) here. Without that penalty phase where it could be beneficial to the developer to do that or not. ! don't, and that's a function of how those calculations would work. So ! guess what I'm saying right now that I'm comfortable with going forward and ! think we can do it because both of these are being added to our ordinances, not necessarily current practices that we're trying to clean up, which we've been throughout the code. ! would be comfortable going forward with everything that's been proposed here, including the sidewalks because ! think that gives us something to work with. But except for these two items under whichever code we're in, 5(c). 18-61(5)(c) and 18, where am I? Help me here. 28 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: 61 (5)(d). Mayor Furlong: 61-6 that brings in the dollar amount. ! think the memo is off unless I'm looking at, on page 15 is what I'm looking at. Because we still have, if somebody goes into a protected area, there's already in place the replacement policy, which we heard this evening is greater than what other cities are doing. So ! don't want to get into a piling on here but ! guess ! want to understand that. So just a twist on how I'm looking at all this, we've got a lot of information. I'm focusing on these two items saying I'd be comfortable going forward with everything, excluding these two items tonight, and then if this is something that we need to review or talk about, let's do that and we can always bring it back in because again, these are items that are being added on top of our current practices. And the reason we got into all these code reviews was to update the code to match our current practice. Councilman Ayotte: With a time line Mayor to bring it back to. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilman Ayotte: So you're saying that staff work those two more and bring it back to US. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. My concern is building in discretion rather than fixed. Here it is, bang because situations are different. To the extent that that's possible. And just, ! guess understanding if indeed, if we are already protecting our trees better than all other cities, do we need to keep protecting them more. From a reasonable standpoint so. Councilman Labatt: But they're still cutting them down. With the ordinance we have, it still doesn't. Mayor Furlong: But in the example, and that's fine. The example that ! want to understand is, is this going to do what we want it to do and ! guess we're trying to understand that better. Kate Aanenson: ! think we can come back with some examples and make sure, the difference in here is pre-building, once the homeowner's in and show how, some real cases so you can understand what's happening. I'll give you examples of people that have done that and what the implications would be. With this new ordinance. Some different language too. Mayor Furlong: Good. Councilman Ayotte: But the intent is, based on, I want to see the contractor's name.., but what we're trying to do is to have the ability to, on a case by case basis, determine what the penalty ought to be. Is that? 29 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong: I'm saying, if this situation which occurred, that's an example. I'm sure that we have developers that build in this city that wouldn't do that. And accidents happen and things that are done intentionally also happen. And ! think what we need to do is build our ordinance to deal with the intentional issues and often times that's a decision that the 5 people sitting in these chairs, whoever they happen to be, need to deal with. Councilman Labatt: So how would you suggest the accidental one happens where a contractor goes to the wrong lot under construction and clear cuts it? Councilman Lundquist: You're not necessarily talking clear cutting. You're talking about. Councilman Labatt: No, this is what happened to one of my neighbors when it was under construction. You know which one but, and ! want to use this as an example of when they go in there and you cut every tree down in the back yard, when they go in there for the final staking and say this is the position of the house and they realize every tree's been cut down, how do you then go back and say well, it was a mistake. Yes, it was a mistake. Officer, ! didn't mean to speed 71 miles an hour in a 65 zone. Mistakes happen. How do you punish that guy? How, are you just going to say well, ah that's too bad. Accidents happen. No big deal, or are you going to put some teeth in behind the city ordinance and say no, you know we realize it's a mistake. You cut down 27 trees. All between 6 and 12 inches in diameter. Here's your fine amount. Here's your appeal notice to the City Council. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, to use your example, you don't get a speeding ticket every time you go 71 in a 65. Councilman Labatt: That's why you have the discretion. We, as a governing body here have discretion, have this guy come in and appeal his violation of the ordinance to us and we have final decision as a body here of what his penalty's going to be. Councilman Lundquist: Right, and all we're asking, ! think the mayor and ! is that let's put that, let's build that discretion in at the start. ! mean the way this thing reads now, the way ! read it is you know, the damage or removal of protected trees, if you have somebody out there that is driving their boom truck around delivering shingles and the guy scraps a large tree and damages it, ! mean we could come up and slap him, you know we'd be required to slap him with a fine, $300 per diameter inch because the guy cut it a little close and you know, maybe you do anyway but maybe you don't. So ! think what, ! know what I'm looking for is a little bit of let's put some discretion in here for those things that don't necessarily fall into the black and white. The egregious type things where you say, the guy comes in and cuts 25 trees or whatever the amount is, that's, you know people don't make mistakes like accidentally cutting down 25 trees. Then that's a little bit different so, ! mean ! want to make sure that we're maintaining our, you know that's one of our standing points in Chanhassen is our tree preservation and things and that's a wonderful thing. But this one just seems to be a little bit like we could be getting 30 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 ourselves into a mess that we don't always want to be in and build in some discretion ahead of time is probably the prudent thing to do. Councilman Ayotte: Well, I want to go back to the contractor that we dealt with before. Sometimes I think you ought to be very, very extreme, even more so than what we were talking towards. Almost a threshold level that someone who removes an entire stand of trees, that requires a very stern penalty, and I don't think this provides a stern enough penalty, to be real honest with you in that case. And I see penalties outside of the fee issue. You can't do business in Chanhassen for blank period of time. For certain violations. I see that extreme activity because it's obviously a developer that has only his own interest in mind, so I don't mind the idea of re-visiting it but I'm interested in having a very extreme solution for those types of folks that step over the line. Councilman Lundquist: If you build that discretion in ahead of time, then you can go there. ! mean make it $10,000 per diameter inch. You know if you build that up to and including or something like that where, you know if you really want to, if it' s something that's nasty and you want to get them, then you've got the penalty there. So yeah, ! hear you. That's certainly another option to have as long as you put that discretion in there that allows some latitude. Councilman Ayotte: And this is an important issue for Chanhassen from an environmental standpoint. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Councilman Ayotte: And I'd like to hear Craig's view on it too because of that aspect but if we were to take that approach and make it a wider range of scenarios, I'd like to see a very extreme scenario. How far can we push the law? Because there are some folks that ! would like to see not do business in Chanhassen based on what they've done. Mayor Furlong: And that makes sense, and at the same time not everybody that's a developer that works in Chanhassen would find themselves in that position, and that's where ! think we need to build in discretion and we're trying to move back and forth between so many hundred dollars per diameter inch and maybe Councilman Ayotte what you're saying is maybe there's some different formulas as well from a, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I mean I think if you use the, similar to what the sheriff' s office uses for the spring road weight restrictions. Councilman Ayotte: Say that again. Councilman Labatt: The spring road weight restrictions on large vehicles. The axle weight. You know you're allowed up to 3 ton or 4 ton, whatever the road may be, and if a cement truck gets caught going down the road, and they are 20,000 pounds over weight, they pay X amount based upon a fee schedule. If they're 80,000 pounds, they're going to 31 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 pay a huge fine. The heavier you are, the more you pay. So maybe what we come up with is a scale and you're going to say well okay, you cut down 27 trees for a gross total of 2,000 inches or whatever, and you have a fine up to and including this. You build in a zone or an area where for every 1 inch to 50 inch. From 51 inches to 100 inches. From 101 inches to 200. As you go up and the more cutting you do, the bigger penalty you get. You know and ! agree. Mayor Furlong: And ! don't know that we're going to come up with that tonight. Councilman Labatt: And we're not. No, this is for staff to decide but you know for the guy that wants to put a deck on and goes out there and whacks off one tree, that' s dying anyway or something. You know we all got a dead tree in our yard or two we'd like to get rid of, but there is some latitude and leeway that we need to establish and have some discretion, but for the developer, and ! don't know if you can use the one over on the west side of Lake Susan, when that was under construction, but there were some, that'd be a good one to use there too. Mayor Furlong: It sounds like unfortunately we have some experiences... Councilman Labatt: We do, and ! think that's why the Planning Commission and these people. Kate Aanenson: It's emotional. Mayor Furlong: That's fine, and it is emotional and, but I think at the same time we probably have some examples where events occurred that if it was like this, whether it's accidental. Now clear cutting the wrong lot, that's a big boo boo, but you know there are other examples. Councilman Ayotte: Boo boo ! understand. Efficacy ! don't. Mayor Furlong: I'll bring you along Bob. Stay with me. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so ifI understand you right, you want to go with everything else and we'll kind of more or less pull out, or just table it until. Mayor Furlong: The changes to 18-61. Roger Knutson: Just 18-61 (d)(5)? Councilman Labatt: (d)(5)(c)? Councilman Lundquist: 18-61 is tree and landscaping as a whole. Mayor Furlong: So just take out all the changes. That way it's clean. Because that covers both the areas of concern. 32 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Leave 18-61 alone for now and we'll revisit it. Can I take that as a motion? Do you want to re-state? ! would move that we approve the changes as recommended by staff with the exception of Section 18-61. Roger Knutson: Mayor, does that include the extra may if you will in the sidewalk? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. The extra may in Section 18-78(b)(5). Councilman Labatt: I'll second Brian's motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion? If there's none, ! always ask. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the amendments to Chapter 18 of the City Code, Subdivisions, with the exception of Section 18-61 and adding an extra "may" in Section 18-78(b)(5). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: For clarification ! think that would also be a similar motion for the summary. Or since we had four votes. ! think do you need, the summary motion will be so amended to match the changes. Or the summary presentation. Roger Knutson: Well you should move to approve summary publication in that format with that change. Mayor Furlong: As amended? Roger Knutson: As amended. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the summary format as amended. Councilman Lundquist: So moved. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: And Roger will figure out what we just approved. Roger Knutson: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any discussion on that? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes, amended to exclude Section 18-61 33 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 and adding an extra "may" in Section 18-78(b)(5). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FARMER'S MARKET PROPOSAL IN CITY CENTER PARK. Public Present: Name Address David Boorsma 185 Arboretum Boulevard, Chaska Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. In the name of brevity ! think I'll start by just going over, council has reviewed this 2 weeks ago at a work session. There were 11 conditions of approval for the farmer' s market at that time. One has been modified. Three additional has been added. I'll go over those. Ask any questions of the council and we also have Mr. Dave Boorsma here this evening representing the farmer's market proposal. At about this time you're probably thinking about planting out there... sitting there for a couple hours. Number 11. The city retains the right to close the market for any reason. With one weeks notice has been changed to for any reason at any time. And again that just, in case there are any health concerns or other issues with the market. First item added, condition added is 12. The farmer's market board shall obtain a million dollar comprehensive general liability insurance policy naming the city of Chanhassen as additional insured. And this would be the non-profit group that would form and they would take out the insurance policy. Number 13. The farmer's market shall utilize the portable restrooms already on site in City Center Park. And those are located on top of the stairs near the skate park. Where the current warming house is. Then the 14th item, the farmer's market shall pay a $25 weekly fee to the city, payable in two installments at $200 payable prior to the first market and the remaining balance due at the conclusion of the market season. And the reason for the split in the compensation is we just don't know how many markets they'll hold. There may be some markets that are postponed or cancelled due to weather so collect the majority up front and collect the remainder at the end of the month. The recommended action to the council tonight is that the council approve the farmer's market proposal for the City Center Park with the conditions listed. Approval required is a simple majority vote. Any questions of the council to staff?. Mayor Furlong: Questions? No. Okay. Very good, thank you. Mr. Boorsma, anything you'd like to present or discuss this evening with the council? David Boorsma: I have nothing to speak of. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Does anybody have any questions at this time? If not, good. Thank you. I'll bring it back to council then for discussion. Councilman Ayotte: They did the extra step. ! think we're ready to go. 34 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: I think it's a good deal. Councilman Labatt: ! think the 3 additions and the one correction are very good, and ! support this project. Mayor Furlong: I concur. This is something that was initially presented to the council in our work session and it' s a good concept. I think it will be a good addition to the city and I think we've got a layout here that, with these conditions, even though we're adding a few conditions, I think it makes it safer for everybody. And I think I commend the staff for listening at the work session and picking up the items addressed so, with that is there any other discussion? The first market tentatively planned for the first weekend of May, is that correct? Or do you have a date at this point? Todd Hoffman: Mayor Furlong: David Boorsma: Mayor Furlong: advertising too. approve. Towards the end of May. End of May, June timeframe perhaps. ... second week of May and it's pretty early... Okay. Look for it when they're there and I'm sure you'll see With that, is there any other discussion? If not, is there a motion to Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Farmer's Market proposal in City Center Park with the following conditions: 1. All vendors shall be restricted to the area depicted on the site map. 2. No vendor shall be allowed within the right-of-way of Market Boulevard. Each vendor shall comply with all state and local regulations and provide proof of appropriate liability insurance. These documents or copies thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous location at each booth. Products shall be limited to produce and other food products, flowers and outdoor plant materials. A member of the farmer's market board shall be on the premises during weekly set-up, operation and take down of the market. 35 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 The market shall provide it's own barricades to block off both the east and north access to the vending area parking lot. 7. The market shall provide it's own trash containers and pick-up. 8. Access to the library shall be maintained at all times. The City of Chanhassen and the Chanhassen Library shall be permitted at various times to display and sell various items pertinent to their operations. 10. The farmer's market board shall submit an annual report to the City Council at the close of each season. 11. The City retains the right to close the market for any reason at any time. 12. The farmer's market board shall obtain a $1,000,000 Comprehensive General Liability insurance policy naming the City of Chanhassen as an additional insured. 13. The farmer's market shall utilize the portable restrooms already on-site in City Center Park. 14. The farmer's market shall pay a $25.00 weekly fee to the City, payable in two installments. $200 payable prior to the first market day, and the remaining balance due at the conclusion of the market season. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman Lundquist: I have one, not real presentation I guess, but wanted to publicly thank Todd Hoffman, your department. Especially Corey and his gang for the Daddy Daughter Date Night, which myself and my daughter attended, and I thought it was a great program. That group did a nice job of putting that together. Not the easiest thing to keep, there must have been 25 young girls under the age of what 9 or 10, or whatever the age limit is. To keep them involved for that amount of time without any major or minor accidents is a great thing so pass along our thanks to Corey and hopefully that program will continue and get bigger and better every year. Mayor Furlong: And if I could just build on that. I would concur with Councilman Lundquist. As it turned out, he and ! were there the same evening with our daughters and I just, I'd like to ask, if you could follow up with Corey because ! think he has a picture of the two of us doing the chicken dance and I'd like to make sure, with our daughters, thank you, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't accidentally end up on the web site. For Councilman Lundquist's benefit of course. It was a wonderful evening and best of all the girls had such a great time, and that was just clear from all of them there so. 36 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Todd Hoffman: We have two copies of each of those for you. Councilman Ayotte: I'll pay you. Councilman Labatt: I'll double it. Mayor Furlong: Any other council presentations at this time? Councilman Labatt: Todd and ! attended the Carver County Sheriff' s contract meeting last Wednesday, and very enlightening long night. The meeting was supposed to last hour and a half, and it lasted 3. ! think Justin has the new update packet if anybody want to send out the 5 options to the other councilors on what Bud is proposing to the county board and ultimately the council board will choose one of the options. On which way they want to proceed with law enforcement and contracting in Carver County. And then from there each government subdivision, township, city will decide how they want their, ! mean what avenues they're going to take. So, is there anything else ! can update them with? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, no big changes really in the plans for us. We contract. We're up to our hours that we need to be. Some of the other things might be some, they didn't get into details on the Maximus study that potentially might be impacting us regarding, you know potentially an investigator may be using a lieutenant versus a sergeant for supervision. Didn't get into rate of pay so those are some of the other outstanding issues that we need to talk about one on one with the sheriff. Councilman Labatt: In our work session we discussed the Chaska/Carver County Sheriff' s lawsuit and the settlement agreement. At this meeting Bud broached the topic and he and the county attorney are going to meet with the City of Chaska and their attorney to try to come up with an addendum to that agreement that there will be no more agreement. It's causing problems and we know what the problems are and we've talked about them, so that was something that we had discussed, but he's already taken that step and they're meeting this week, weren't they or next week? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Justin Miller: I believe it's this week. Councilman Labatt: It's this week the two are meeting to discuss it and they want, even Chaska was very open to meeting and discussing and getting rid of it because they've all kind of lost friends over it so, is the way Bud termed it so. Councilman Ayotte: Just a question on the contract, the period of performance is going to be 5 years? Is that true? So there' s no lock in? It's a year to year activity so ! had heard that there might be some, okay. 37 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Furlong: Isn't he also, and maybe you spoke about this on Wednesday night... you talked about a phase in period. Whatever the changes are. Did he talk much about that? Todd Gerhardt: No. Councilman Labatt: 2005. And ! guess, you know with what we contract for, I'll just give you my opinion, and what we contract for, 48 hours plus Sergeant Olson, there's other townships and cities that are going to be facing big time dollar decisions and the stuff that Bud is proposing doesn't really impact us here because we're ahead of the curve so to speak. Waconia, Victoria, all these townships, they've got big decisions to make, so. Councilman Ayotte: Based on those decisions, that will affect us. So once they make a decision, won't that have an impact on us? If their scope, if they elect to do something different than what they're doing, could that affect us? Councilman Labatt: ! don't think so, because he has 18 contract deputies and 16 regular deputies are his numbers. And you know, the 18 contract deputies are employed because he has these contracts. And they all fit into the 34 in seniority. So if they were to lose some of the contracts or pick up more contracts, that number of 18 may fluctuate up or down, depending on what they pick up, but our scope here, our 48 hours plus Sergeant Olson, ! don't think will change. Todd Gerhardt: If people don't sign onto the contracts, you know the county board and the sheriff have to make a tough decision if they're going to continue providing service or not to those townships or smaller towns, and if they decide not to provide that service, then they'll be in the position of laying off officers. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other council presentations? If not, administrative presentations. Mr. Gerhardt. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Nothing other than the police contract meeting that we had. Still waiting on March 11th for the Chiropractic Relocation Claim. We sent a letter to them for Brian, Steve and Craig that were going to sit on that panel and we haven't heard back from them so ! think ! put a letter in your bin upstairs to that effect. That's it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. 38 City Council Meeting - February 23, 2004 Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39