Loading...
CC 2004 05 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 10, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Matt Saam, Kate Aanenson, and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Steve Hauser Valerie Deal Paula Smith Jerry & Janet Paulsen Chaska 9390 Foxford Road Eden Prairie 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: approve the following recommendations: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager's Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 26, 2004 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 26, 2004 -Board of Review and Equalization Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated April 26, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 2004 Resolution #2004-30: Call Assessment Hearing for 2004 Residential Street Improvements, Project 04-01. Well No. 9, Project 02-02: Approve Consultant Work Order for the Contract Administration and Construction Inspection. Resolution #2004-31: Award of Bids, Fire Department Vehicles Included in the Capital Improvement Program. City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Approval of an Interim Use Permit to Allow Riding Lessons at a Stable, 760 West 96th Street, Sandy Worm. f. Approval of Amendment to Chapter 10, Licensing of Sexually Oriented Businesses and Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes. Approval of Agreement Allowing Issuance of a Building Permit Before Demolition of the Existing House, 820 Imperial Drive, Robert Lund& Connie Sackett-Lund. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. WELL NO. 9 PROJECT 03-02: APPROVE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. Councilman Lundquist: The question, concern on this item is around the SCADA piece of it so, what the City Engineer and I had discussed earlier today was to approve the contract minus the SCADA line items, if you will, until we get further, some further definition around that. And then proceed at that time, shortly thereafter with a change order or an addition or something like that, to that pulling it off of this. Paul, unless you want to. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor and council members. What the staff would recommend going ahead with approving of the item before you tonight and we can always have a change order later on if the recommendation that staff has given you, if you're not comfortable with that, we can always take that out of the contract but we feel that if we could leave it in the contract at this time and put it, have a change order later on so we don't have to revisit it if we still want to move forward with the product that staff has recommended. I think that would be our recommendation at this time. Councilman Lundquist: So would we be forced to re-bid if we removed the SCADA piece now to re-bid just that piece, is that what you're? Paul Oehme: Right. If we don't award the contract with the SCADA component, anyway now we would be forced to re-bid or obtain separate quotes and go through the bidding process again, quoting process. So if we leave it right now, and if we feel, still feel comfortable with moving forward with the SCADA system, we still can leave in but for now we can take it out at any point in time prior to construction. We can still award a contract... Councilman Lundquist: How far down the line are we talking about before any of those purchases on hardware, software or any of that installation gets started? Paul Oehme: Well we'll direct the contractor to not make any purchases or schedule any installations until we hear back from the council in terms of your feelings on the components that are in the contract right now. And that' s, right now the preliminary time 2 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 line is for the driller, Traut Construction to begin drilling mid-June so we should definitely have a pretty good feeling, understanding of where, what direction we're going by that time. Councilman Lundquist: Roger, thoughts on putting a condition in of secondary approval on the SCADA. Is that essentially the same thing as not approving it now and. Roger Knutson: If you feel more comfortable, you could put it in the contract saying don't proceed on the SCADA until further authorization from the council. You can put that provision in the contract. Councilman Lundquist: I'm comfortable with that. Is staff amenable to that? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That way ! think we still have, ! feel like we have some control over that then rather than letting it go. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I'd just like to add, these are unit prices on the SCADA and some of the other equipment in here. That's what gives you the flexibility to delete this item in a future time, if you deem necessary. Mayor Furlong: Are you comfortable then following staff's motion subject to the... Councilman Lundquist: ! am. Yeah ! would move that we approve the construction contract as recommended by staff for Traut Wells with the additional condition that further council approval is required before proceeding with any purchases related, purchases or construction related to the SCADA system. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on that motion? Or does it make sense. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve construction contracts with Mark J. Traut Wells in the amount of $521,330 and with Kusske Construction in the amount of $288,351.25 for work to be performed on Project No. 03-02 with the condition that further council approval is required before proceeding with any purchases or construction related to the SCADA system. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 16 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING SOLID WASTE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. On your meeting on April 26th, the staff went through that proposed code amendment as we are marching through the final changes to the city code. This recycling was one of it. There was also a request from the haulers themselves to go to a bi-weekly, so based on the comments that were made by the City Council at their work session, the changes have been made and the substantive changes really are permitting weekly or bi-weekly recycling pick-up. The haulers must providing bi- weekly, must provide the 35 gallon container and that needs to be communicated to their clients. Also, dropping the 95 percent recycling material, which was a concern that the Environmental Commission had. We wanted to require the hauler to report the recycling rate and the amount that's recyclable, that are actually recycled versus beneficial re-use. And again that's part of our goal as the Environmental Commission saw, is educating consumers, so they want to see in those reports bringing back to the city that they can pick between the haulers that they believe are meeting their needs, providing the best benefit or the uses as they see it. Again the City doesn't have a full time person regulated to solid waste, although it's kind of split between the planning department and a couple different people, how we manage that. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the changes to the waste hauling proposal. This is an amendment to the code that does require a 4/5 vote of the City Council so we are recommending approval with the changes as proposed in the staff report attached. Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification. In terms of council action. We need 4/5 to publish the summary but a simple majority can adopt the ordinance, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: Kate we talked a little bit, what mechanism will the residents have to be able to judge performance on the part of the contractor when it comes to recycling? What's the vehicle to do that? Kate Aanenson: A report and that's something that we need to talk with internally, whether that goes in the city newsletter or a separate report, but again as we see it, that the haulers would provide us with that detail. That they're required to do monthly and then we would put it into a report and we haven't finalized that internally but that's something that we could possibly put in there. Councilman Ayotte: So we could impose it upon the hauler to provide reports back to their customer base? Kate Aanenson: Well ! think it would come back to us and then we would provide that, so we'd know how it's going out. 4 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Is there any inspection activity that we're going to perform with regard to recycling? Any validation? Any quality assurance effort of any kind? Kate Aanenson: Well, I think we certainly would work with the County. Again, the state monitors those. The material recycling facility. The recoverable. So we rely on some of the state, the city doesn't have that jurisdiction but we'd certainly work with the county to validate that data as much as we can, and rely on the Environmental Commission too to kind of review those numbers and check to compare with other communities and as we would work to put out a report. Because some of these same haulers are using the same program in surrounding communities so we can kind of have our checks and balances as we're looking at some of those other communities too. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, so the state does the inspections to verify the percentage of recyclables? Kate Aanenson: Recyclable waste are monitored by the state. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. So that's you know, I don't think you want to duplicate that service from the city's level. Councilman Ayotte: I didn't say duplicate it. I just want to make sure that we are aware so our residents are aware of performance. Because ! don't think we are right now. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Kate Aanenson: And that's the goal. That's the goal of the educational component that says they have an informed consumer of picking which hauler they want to use for that. Todd Gerhardt: And I'll make sure that staff receives those reports and that we compare them to other haulers and put out basically a report card every year comparing each of the haulers on how they're doing on recyclables versus non-recyclables. And we'll publish that on our web site and also in probably one of our Connection quarterly newsletters. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff at this point? No? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there are no questions for staff we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any items? Councilman Lundquist: ! just had general comment again. I'm still not in favor of the ordinance as it is. ! still think that we should put something in the provisions that requires a, well ! guess it would have to be a requirement of a price break. Right now as ! understand it, right now Waste Management is doing single sort anyway, even when our residents are putting the things out every week in the little smaller box. And all that's happening with this ordinance is they're going to give us a bigger can. You're going to City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 throw all the stuff in there without sorting it. They're going to throw it in the same piles that they do now, and Waste Management gets a windfall because they get to cut their labor essentially in half for that, albeit they're paying for some capital that they've invested but ! don't see a great benefit to our residents now, and the drawbacks of having, you know if you're on vacation that week, then that stuff' s sitting around in the can for a month and you've got who knows, you know if you don't rinse the stuff out and throw it in the can, ! mean it' s going to sit and stink and who knows what else so ! just think that Waste Management has everything to gain and our residents don't really see a big benefit. So ! understand the business justification for it there but ! still think that there should be something in there as a show of good faith. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments? Councilman Ayotte: ! agree with Brian. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Comments? Councilman Labatt: I think Brian brings up some valid points and I have a hard time justifying amending an ordinance for a single company to benefit and the ordinance we have works fine. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: From my perspective, ! think this will work better. ! think it keeps the trucks off of the roads more which ! think is a benefit. ! think that the convenience, ! think people will as offered by Waste Management that having one container is better than having 2 or 3 with bags and everything else. And ! don't know if I'm prepared to sit down and do the numbers. ! don't know even if this is a lost leader for them. ! don't have any idea whether they're making money on recycling or whether they're losing money today. We haven't discussed that. And ! guess we haven't questioned the profitability of company's that do other services for us in this way so I'm reticent to not approve it as recommended. ! think that the Environmental Commission did their due diligence and are recommending approval and what ! see in front of me, ! think we should go ahead with it. Councilman Ayotte: IfI can add a comment. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilman Ayotte: In terms of wear and tear on the roads, I'm in agreement. In terms of initiative on the part of Waste Management to come forward, that's fine. But irrespective of that point, ! cannot believe that Waste Management or any other firm would push to have something like this come through unless it was a financial gain for them. And ! think there should be some sort of incentive for residents because it's a reciprocal thing. So that's as simple as that, so ! agree with the road aspects but ! think when we had discussions with Waste Management before, they got the signal that it City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 would be nice if the residents have a gain and I don't think they took the signal to heart so that's why I'm interested in working it more as Brian's pointed out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's just some comments at this point. You know I think there are some benefits to allow a bi-weekly pick-up. I think as I look at the ordinance, as is being proposed, one thing that we have, I think if we had and were negotiating a contract with a single company to pick up all the recycling and refuse within our city, there may be some more challenges to, and desire to negotiate a price for our residents. What we do have though is we have competition and while we're allowing people at the request of one company, if we go forward with this ordinance to pick up every 2 weeks rather than every week, that gives our residents a choice if the other haulers continue to pick up recycling every week, to offset the issue. If they don't want it picked up every 2 weeks, they go with the company that's picking it up every week. If there's financial incentives to pick it up every 2 weeks, which indeed there probably are. They have half the labor. Half the wear and tear on the vehicle. One would expect that they'll be able to reduce costs as market forces work, and either the other haulers are going to have to match or somehow meet the market, if that's where it is. I'm very hesitant to build into an ordinance some, and to start regulating businesses when there is competition there. People can argue that 2 or 3 is not enough competition but at least we're not, there is some there. So, and I guess well we have one business coming forward right now requesting this change, that's how things often work. If somebody comes forward, whether it's a resident or whether it's a business saying we can do it better if you allow us to do it differently than what your ordinance provides and I think that's what I'm hearing here, is a way to do it better. I think we've made some improvements since the time that the council first saw this, in terms of establishing or trying to establish some hurdles with regard to recycling rates that were either unattainable or might have been a little over the top. Whether they're good objectives, you know, let's give, one thing that this ordinance does is it gives our residents information. If they're interested in what their haulers are recycling and what the realization from that recycling is, if that's important to them, they can evaluate that against whether they're picking it up once a week or every two weeks and what their rates are that they're paying. And providing businesses the opportunity to create some alternatives for our residents I think is positive. I think it's positive so I can support it. I guess the other thing is, with the monthly reporting that we're asking for now instead of quarterly reporting with the additional reporting on the recycling, when this particular Waste Management came, they gave us some information that said that the recycling actually picks up when you go to bi-weekly. Well a year from now we can look at it and if it's not working we can change it. So I'm comfortable going forward with this and I recognize and appreciate the concerns here but I think the marketplace has a way of working those things out as well, and our residents are pretty intelligent. They'll be able to get that information and they know that there's more than one company that's hauling refuge and recycling in the city and I think they can go to where they best meets their needs, so I'm in favor of this as it is and you know what, you try it. If it doesn't quite work right, if we're not, our residents aren't seeing the benefit, we can modify it after we give it a try. But I think this is a step in the right direction and provides and the market I think will provide the safeguards. City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: The only other comment ! have Mayor is ! agree with your philosophy however in this instance Waste Management's the only hauler in the city that has the capability to do single sort, so in effect we'd be limiting almost the competition at that point by allowing, albeit, you could argue it would drive the other haulers to move towards that but at this point I'd just be more comfortable getting more information from Waste Management. Recycling, philosophically ! just have an issue all together even paying for recycling pick-up. ! mean the whole object of recycling is that you don't throw it in the landfill. And you're re-using it and they're re-processing and selling those things back to someone else so whether or not they cover their costs, ! guess you know I'd be willing to listen to but ! just fundamentally have an issue even paying to recycling at all. In the business that I'm in, we recycle as much as we can because we don't get charged for recycling. They haul it away and then you don't have to pay for that so I'm just trying to encourage the same type of thing. The more you recycle, that lets have a benefit to the residents to financially, other than just a touchy feely say you know we'd like you all to recycle, you know. Do it every 2 weeks. Throw it in this big bin and we'll give you a couple of bucks break a month or you know, whatever it is. So ! would encourage or be open to listening to any of the haulers to come in and talk about recycling more if that's what need be, but I'm still not comfortable that this is the, that our residents are really going to get any benefit out of this. Mayor Furlong: Do you think they're going to be harmed? Councilman Lundquist: ! think there's a potential there is that you know you can have the stuff sitting around and if Waste Management is still your cheaper, by whatever. If you feel like you can't leave your recyclables sitting around for 2 weeks, and then your only option is to pay more to have it hauled away, that's, you could argue that's a harm on a resident. So maybe my problem is ! just don't have enough information on the cost of recycling and to Councilman Peterson's question about a lost leader or a profit center, ! don't know and certainly they're, all of the haulers are free to tell us that they're not going to release that information. You know that's their business as well, but we make decisions accordingly based on their decisions and that information, so. I'm usually one that would vote to put restrictions on the business community but ! think in this case we have an opportunity to provide a service back to the residents and the benefits that we're not taking advantage of. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other discussion? If there's not, is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: Mayor, ! think the gentleman from Waste Management would like to address us. Mayor Furlong: Oh, didn't see you there. Good evening. Sheldon Swensen: Good evening. My name is Sheldon Swensen. I'm with Waste Management and ! know we had met last month at your work shop and had a nice, constructive discussion and ! know there was three topics that ! think were a little bit of a sticking issue and ! believe we addressed all three topics in the revised ordinance, and ! City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 guess to step back a little bit. When you talk about recycling in general, anybody that follows the recycling markets knows since about the mid 90's recycling has somewhat plateaued with the volume that's recycled. Participation that people have been involved with. And at the same time the amount of trash that people have generated has actually increased in that same period of time. And we think what we've developed a program over the last couple of years that has actually reversed that trend. Has spiked the participation in recycling and has increased the volumes by, on average 10 to 15 percent which ! think is definitely an advantage to everybody. Us as a company and the residents, our customers. And everybody else included. But obviously the mayor has pointed out that if people aren't in favor of the every other week pick-up schedule, they do have a choice. We're pretty confident that our program is a worth while program. In the 30 plus other communities that we've rolled this program out in the last couple years, our retention has actually gotten better because of people like the program. It's an easy program. Any time you make things easier for people, they're going to take advantage of it, and that's what recycling is all about. Waste Management feels we're a good corporate partner with the City of Chanhassen. You know whether you look at the rates that you pay on a monthly basis, as your only point of reference as to what the cost versus benefit is, we've donated back to this community in a lot of different ways. Your 4th of July festival. We've donated to 2 other businesses. We've donated to citizens. We have price breaks for neighborhoods that like to organize collection themselves, so there's a lot of different ways that Waste Management has worked with the residents of this community to make it a win/win situation. We'd certainly appreciate your support in this ordinance. ! didn't come here prepared to make a discussion. ! was hoping that our discussion last month had led us to a point where this ordinance was going to be somewhat easily accepted but ! still hope that we can get your support and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions, but again at the same time like ! said, Waste Management has given the reports that you asked for with 2003 recycling reports. I'm confident you'll find after 2004 that the participation and percentage has increased, and that's the whole idea with recycling. At this point if people don't like the program, they do have another option and that's exactly what competition is all about, but again ! guess ! strongly ask for your support and at the same time Waste Management, like ! said has definitely given back to this community in a lot of different ways. And if you're looking strictly at your monthly bill, ! mean who's to say where that amount goes next year, the year down the road. ! think you'll find with a program like this, your rates are going to be a lot more consistent than a program where it's a manual labor job where it's hard enough to find employees. Right now, ! mean that's the biggest advantage ! can see for not only us as a company but the citizens. Recycling is definitely is not a, recycling garbage out is not a life long position. It's a position where you'll find a driver does it for a couple years. He either steps up and do a garbage route or some other type of position that's not as manually as intensive. With single sort, it's an automated position where that driver can do this for the next 20-30 years. And that comes back to the customers as a benefit because you don't have that turn over on the route. You don't have the misses and that type of thing of people trying to learn a new route so it is a win/win situation for us as a company and as our customers and ! think that we've shown that over the last couple years. ! mean if this was a pilot program that we were first starting out, ! think ! could see where the hesitation may be but this is a program that's been around for a City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 couple years and it's here to stay. Waste Management's the number one recycler in the world. We recycle 600 tons a day at our facility in Minneapolis. That stuffs not going away. It's being recycled. Whether it a beneficial re-use or whether it's...Waste Management makes that will be passed onto the city on a monthly report. That will be passed onto your residents. They can evaluate what we're doing with the recycling. Recycling, ! mean when you talk about recycling you talk about the three R' s. Reduce, Re-use and Recycle. We can't necessarily control what the customer's or their residents reduce but we can certainly control what is re-used and that's recycled. Plastic obviously is turned back into pop bottles. It's turned into clothing that people wear. ! mean you can debate all day long what the different types of recycling, what happens to it. Whether, and ! think that's what a lot of the discussion with the Environmental Commission was and ! think in the end everybody agreed that what Waste Management is trying to accomplish is definitely a worthwhile program. We've got the support of the Environmental Commission. ! definitely would like your support tonight and ! guess you'll find in the long run that it's definitely a program that's here to stay and ! think it's just, it's no different than back in the mid 90's when recycling went from 7 sort to 2 sort. Somebody had to get that ball rolling. It happened to be Waste Management back then and it's now again Waste Management now. We take pride in being innovators in the industry. People look at us kind of funny when we've starting mixing material back in the mid 90's to a 2 sort and they had the same exact drawbacks and questions as they do now with single sort. It' s no different so ! think if you think back to the mid 90' s when 2 sort started, nobody can disagree right now that that's a heck of a lot better program than a 7 sort program when everybody had to take the time to sit there and recycle everything. Participation wasn't there. We had to do something to get that participation going. We went to 2 sort. Now we're doing the next step in the recycling generation and going to single sort. Like we said, there isn't, we talk about the advantages and ! think the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages and if there are any disadvantages that the residents don't like, like ! said they still have that option in Chanhassen. The mayor made a good point, if it's an organized collection and you're dealing with one single hauler. Then yeah, you can get down to the details about the price, and get whether you decide to go with the cheapest cost provider. ! mean I'll be honest with you. Waste Management's not in the business to be the lowest cost provider. We provide ! think a good service that the residents appreciate and that they can rely on. If somebody's looking to get a service for less, they can do their shopping and most likely find that. But like ! said, we're in business to provide a competitive service but also service that ! think the residents appreciate and again ! apologize for blabbing here but ! just wanted to make sure ! get my points across. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I'll open it up if there are any questions. Councilman Lundquist: ! have a couple. The single sort Waste Management currently has that capability, correct? Sheldon Swensen: We're doing that in other cities right now. 10 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: Right. So you have the capability to single sort and what's, why can't we do in the City of Chanhassen, why can't we do single sort and pick up every week? Sheldon Swensen: We could. ! mean there's no doubt we could. That's definitely an option. Obviously then the expense to recycling weekly is going to be different than every other week. ! mean it comes down to cost versus benefits. We feel by providing bigger container, and the fact is most the residents don't recycle weekly the way it is. Most the residents, if you do a survey put out recycling a couple times a month. ! mean there may be the residents that are larger families or are gung ho recyclers that put it out weekly but the fact is a lot of people recycle every other week the way it is. If they get missed, we don't have an issue going back. We're not going to let the recycling sit there a month and, you know that's one of the reasons for having a covered container is it's containerized. It's a lot cleaner than sitting in somebody's garage in an open bin, and it's a lot better when you set it out at the curb and on a windy day, which we've had a lot of windy days this spring, the stuff blowing down the road. This stuff is containerized so there's a lot of advantages to the container that we provide. It's a better cart. What we can provide bigger carts if people need it and can provide smaller carts if people are single or elderly and don't recycle as much, so they have a lot of options to go with it. Councilman Lundquist: And I wouldn't argue that the covered container and all those single sort is a great thing. It's not, ! wouldn't argue that. ! guess, is it true that by going to every other week that Waste Management is gaining a financial benefit by doing it every other week? Sheldon Swensen: There's no doubt our productivity, our efficiencies are better. Thus saving us money. Councilman Lundquist: So the single sort, the bigger can, that's not really giving you any money because you're essentially doing that now. What you're getting money on, or what you're gaining the benefit is cutting it from every week to every other week. Is that a correct statement? Sheldon Swensen: ! lost you a little bit but we are gaining a definite efficiency by going from weekly to every other week. There's no doubt about that. Councilman Lundquist: Right, and it' s, but the financial gain is on that and not the going to single sort or going to the covered can, right? Sheldon Swensen: Well, there is a financial gain to going to single sort. There's a definite financial gain. Councilman Lundquist: But you're doing single sort now, right? When I have my, I'm a Waste Management customer so ! got the little tub. The open thing sitting out there every week. Does your driver come around and sort all that stuff out or does he just take it and chuck it over the side of the truck? 11 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Sheldon Swensen: It goes into two compartments in the truck. Manually he lifts the bin into the truck, into the side of the truck in two compartments. All your newspaper goes into one compartment. All your commingle goes into another, so it is a two sort program. Councilman Lundquist: And then when that goes to the recycling center, is it all combined together? Sheldon Swensen: It's a two sort program. All the commingle stays together. All the newspaper stays in a different bunker so it is a two sort program that the city of Chanhassen is currently on. Councilman Lundquist: And so how does the program, when you go to the single sort, do you haul it to a different spot? Is that what happens? Sheldon Swensen: It's hauled to the same facility but a different area in that facility. It's a different bunker where all the material is mixed together. Gets loaded onto bigger trailers to our facility downtown but the biggest advantage is, it's an automated system versus the manual labor. That's the answer that ! can't stress enough. ! mean it's from a safety standpoint and from a cost standpoint. Councilman Lundquist: The, is recycling, is that a profit center for Waste Management or is done at a loss? Sheldon Swensen: ! wouldn't necessarily call it the lost leader. ! would say it's safe to say that we make our money on the garbage. Recycling, you mentioned earlier about the cost of recycling. There is an advantage to getting charge recycling. It's a non taxable item so residents don't pay taxes on the trash service. That's why you'll see that the tax, or the recycling cost, the haulers like to get that at a level that is as high as is feasible because the bottom line cost for customer is less because it's a non-taxable item so when people look at their trash bill each month, they don't look at the different breakdowns. They look at what the bottom line cost each month is. And if we can set aside a certain amount of that to recycling, which is non-taxable, the bottom line costs the customers less and that's the advantage to recycling. But there's no doubt there is a cost to recycling. Councilman Lundquist: And then the last question is, regardless of what happens with this ordinance that Waste Management would still consider the City of Chanhassen a good partner? Sheldon Swensen: Yeah. ! mean obviously, ! mean we don't want to burn any bridges. Things change. ! mean ! think we definitely, ! mean like ! said appreciate your support. This ordinance obviously can be amended or changed at points down the road. All we're asking for is an opportunity to give us the opportunity to implement the program in Chanhassen. If you find next year, based upon your reports, based upon customer, resident comment that it's a disaster, you can come back next year and amend your ordinance to allow, or to make weekly recycling mandated, so by giving us an 12 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 opportunity to try this I don't think you're jumping off a plank here by any means. I think all you're doing is giving us, a company to be innovative and keep progress in our industry. ! mean that's all we're looking for and ! guess if you find after 2004 that, for whatever reason the program isn't working out in the City of Chanhassen, you can amend this ordinance next year to state that weekly recycling is mandated. ! mean that ! think is a fair statement. ! hope, ! guess all we're asking for us that, the opportunity to at least try in Chanhassen and like ! said, it's not, you're definitely not an experiment by any means. This is a proven program and we found it to be a huge advantage to our customers and like ! said, the beauty of it is in Chanhassen, if people don't like the program, they do have a choice and that's what competition is all about. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Councilman Ayotte: If we were to table this to have further discussion, gather more information, that wouldn't break your heart would it? Sheldon Swensen: Well it was just like our work shop on the 26th when we met. We had agreed that we'd table it til your next council meeting, which is tonight. Councilman Ayotte: But you had said, as you stated in your work session that all three of the concerns were addressed. Sheldon Swensen: And they have been. Councilman Ayotte: In the ordinance. However ! remember Brian Lundquist very specifically bringing up the fourth point of cost, price and we really haven't addressed that particular point so that's, I'm feeling a need for more, and usually ! don't feel, but I'm feeling a need for more information on this one, as the discussion has developed. ! felt comfortable at the beginning. I'm becoming less and less comfortable. That's why I'd like some more information, and ! simply wouldn't feel comfortable in going forward unless ! was able to research it a little bit more. So it's not, ! want you to know that I'm not dead against it right at this point. I'm dead against it at this point because ! don't have additional information. Sheldon Swensen: Yeah, we talked about the 3 sticking points was the report that we provided. The 35 gallon cart that was addressed in the ordinance, and the 95 percent recycling issue that was actually omitted from the revised ordinance. Those were the three ! think sticking points that we addressed. From a cost standpoint, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Councilman Ayotte: Neither am I. That's the point. But I don't have the comfort that I had before. Sheldon Swensen: Okay. From an open market standpoint, I mean do you think it's fair to, I mean I guess. 13 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Yes, Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, ! think that I'd rather not get into a pricing discussion. ! don't, that's a slippery slope that ! don't think we should go near. ! think we've spent more time on this. It may be next year by the time we vote on this damn thing and I'm, ! think we've had enough discussion. Let's move ahead. I'd move that we approve and make staff, support staff's recommendation and give it a try. If it doesn't work, let's come back next year and change it. But this is market 101 and market supply and demand. If it doesn't work, people aren't going to use it. So ! think we should give it a try. I'd move to approve. Mayor Furlong: Move to approve the ordinance as adopted. Yes sir. Sure, but there's been a motion so I'd like to seek a second, if there is a second first. Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Mayor Furlong: Then we'll discuss it. Okay. It's been seconded. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: My position has changed. ! think Sheldon's done a good job of answering the questions and ! think the slippery slope is one ! don't want to go down as far as getting a price. Bottom line is, this pulls the trucks off our streets 2 times a month. The wear and tear, the safety, we hear the talks 2 or 3 times a month about neighborhood safety. Traffic safety and this pulls off the trucks so I'm going to change my position earlier and move that we, second that we approve this ordinance so. Councilman Ayotte: Could ! ask for a friendly amendment? Mayor Furlong: Discussion. You want to offer an amendment, absolutely. What are you looking for, or what are you thinking? Councilman Ayotte: One of the comfort issues that ! have is not having the information. We hear, certainly you're going to be stating a position that's positive for Waste Management and I'm certain that staff is earnest and sincere in their desire to start gathering information to demonstrate the quality for our residents and...a year out is to me a tad long. Maybe if we could amend that to require a view, a quality assurance check maybe midpoint. And then again at the end of the year so you have two data points to evaluate whether or not we're doing well or not doing so well. Mayor Furlong: And ! think Councilman Ayotte if ! may, while it may not be something we want to amend in terms of an ordinance, that's clearly a practice that we can ask staff to do. And ! would certainly be in favor of that. This ordinance requires monthly reporting rather than quarterly reporting so we're going to have 6 months of data, rather than just 2 quarters. ! mean it's the same time period but we'll be able to get the data and see it. ! certainly think staff would be willing to do that. Bring it back to a council meeting or work session. Give us an update. ! don't know that that makes sense to amend the ordinance there, because that's what we're trying to consider here. But we can 14 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 give staff direction right now. I'd certainly be willing to do that, unless someone on the council has an objection. Sheldon Swensen: Mr. Mayor, if! just may clarify. Part of this program we do send out a survey to all of our customers after the first 90 days. We can include that information that you're looking for in the survey. And I'll work with city staff to make sure we incorporate that in our survey but we do send out a survey and that way the city knows exactly where it will be sitting on this program after the first 90 days, and then after the first 90 days the residents have a choice to upgrade, downgrade or whatever, make any changes they want on the service. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Does that make sense Councilman Ayotte? Rather than an amendment. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Other discussion? Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. We're still discussing the motion. Councilman Lundquist: I, getting back to, it seems to be the discussion of single sort. ! think we're getting a little bit hung up as well. There's nothing in our ordinance right now that prevents single sort. Waste Management, they could do it tomorrow if they wanted to. They can drop off new carts at everybody's house. They can drive the new trucks down and pick it up every week, single sort so what we're losing sight of is the fact that we're allowing them to provide an opportunity to be the only one in Chanhassen that has this to reap that financial benefit without any other competition right now having the capability to do that, and not providing our residents the benefit back so. You know the pricing argument probably isn't one that we should have anyway. In terms of that essentially, ! just feel like we're kind of letting the rest of the 30, or you know the rest of our residents down by not so, those are comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And ! mean ! think to that point, there's nothing that prevents single sort but by adopting this ordinance there's nothing that prevents any other companies from doing a bi-weekly pick-up too. Councilman Lundquist: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And ! think we speak to traffic and trucks on the road. Clearly there's the engineering issue for wear and tear on the roads, but there's a safety issue for the trucks. Taking some of the trucks off the street of our neighborhoods with our children playing there. ! think there is an opportunity there. So rather than mandating that, if businesses want to continue to do weekly pick-up, if that's what their customer's want. We allow that. If they prefer to go to a bi-weekly pick-up, that'd be allowed as well. We're still discussing Councilman Peterson's motion. Is there any other discussion? What ! would ask is that Councilman Peterson, if it's okay, we'll simply, your motion will be to adopt the amendments as presented and then, or just go with the summary listing as well at the same time. 15 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Peterson: Either is fine. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Sir. Roger Knutson: I'd recommend that you divide them because of the different vote requirements to avoid any confusion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So without objection we'll be, the motion being considered now is to adopt the amendments as presented in the staff report. Is that correct? Councilman Peterson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion on that motion? If there's none, we'll proceed to the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt Chapter 16, Chanhassen City Code, Solid Waste as presented by staff. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Is there a motion now to approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion here? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes of the amendment to Chapter 16, Chanhassen City Code, Solid Waste as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: That motion also prevails. Okay, thank you. SETTLER'S WEST DEVELOPMENT, 55.6 ACRES (44.6 ACRES IN CHANHASSEN), LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL; THE PEMTOM COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS.' 16 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Ao Bo Do REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); REOUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT; REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN), 30UTLOTS (1 IN CHANHASSEN), AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; REOUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE. COUNCIL UPDATE ON COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR SETTLERS WEST LAND USE REVIEW. Public Present: N~me Address Dan Herbst Justin Larson Dan Cook Chris Thompson 7630 Crimson Bay 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson: This is located in the southern area of the city. Actually this wasn't, the subject site is not proposed to be in the MUSA for a number of years. Based on the fact of topography, the staff re-evaluated. This was discussed over a number of years actually. The original owner of this property, Mr. Zwiers had requested in the comprehensive plan amendment that we worked on in 1998 to actually advance this property. At that time the staff was concerned about implications city wide and decided not to pursue that. Over time, in re-evaluating the application our position's changed a little bit and working with the City of Eden Prairie and how we would provide municipal services to this subject site. So while this portion of the property is in the city of Chanhassen, this would be the Hennepin County Regional Trail. So we're just south of Pioneer Trail. Just north of 212. Part of the property actually goes down and abuts 212 so looking at this in just black and white, it doesn't show the topographic changes but really this part of the property, you have to get through Eden Prairie to actually get access onto Pioneer. So this would be the city limits, so this portion of the property. Again about 44 acres is in Chanhassen and this portion of the property is in Eden Prairie so it does require approval of, this subject site does require approval from both jurisdictions. So what you're looking at tonight includes a comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate the property into current MUSA. It does require a rezoning from A2 to RSF, Residential Single Family and again staff is recommending a straight forward subdivision. We are requesting subdivision approval and also a wetland alteration permit. As a part of this subdivision approval it does require a cooperative agreement with the City of Eden Prairie. There is a draft in there, in your staff report. Some changes have been made to that that were handed out tonight. Unless there's questions on that, I'm not going to spend too much time but we do want to give you a copy of that 17 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 because that will be, actually you'll be approving that as a part of the final plat, which will be in probably a month down the road at a minimum but just for your edification we want to show you what, kind of what we're proposing working with the two communities. Again, building permits and the homes will be in the city of Chanhassen, but utilities will be served through Eden Prairie. So what that cooperative agreement says how is that going to be managed, so we wanted to include that for your information. So then the action required would be 2/3 of the City Council for the comprehensive plan amendment and a simple majority for the rezoning subdivision and the wetland approval. Just want to take a few minutes and kind of go through again the request. While ! mentioned the site was 44 acres, there is a significant amount of bluff on the subject site and that will be put into a conservation easement to preserve that and not only the bluff but the bluff impact zones. So that should accomplish preservation on a lot of that site, which again we treated our tree preservation is a little bit more strident than Eden Prairie's so we believe this plan as proposed with the straight forward subdivision is very responsible to serving, to saving a lot of those natural features. One of the other issues as ! mentioned before is providing access to this. In looking at this one when it originally came in, ! showed you both parcels coming off of 212/169 would be one of those access. You'd had to go up the bluff. Cutting across the grade would be very steep and big impacts to the bluff. So the other way to access this property would be coming off of Pioneer Trail. Again through the Eden Prairie parcel. The first Settlers project came in, again the same developer, Pemtom. The City of Eden Prairie wanted a secondary access point because right now there's just one long cul-de-sac and was hoping that the city, developer at that time could get this access point. So when this project moved forward certainly the City of Eden Prairie felt that this would provide two access points in and out. Again jurisdiction on that part would be Hennepin County. The sight line distance and a lot of emphasis is based on the location is actually better. The problem is the compromise that comes with the bridge location. The Planning Commission did recommend some changes. Hennepin County also had some proposed recommendations for that intersection improvements and again those have been incorporated into the plan. This did go to the Planning Commission twice. The first time before it had even gone to Eden Prairie. We kind of wanted to flush out a lot of the issues. Again some of the significant issues were access onto Pioneer Trail, and then also working to get a trail from this subject site, which the residents on this part of the development wanted access onto the Hennepin County Regional Trail so. As a part of that process some of the water problems were discovered. What was dammed up. What was causing water to actually go onto that trail and we've got that resolved. The applicants have worked to find the plugged pipes and how the wetlands were draining so actually now ! have a trail access down onto the Hennepin County which we believe is a benefit. Also tying the two neighborhoods together, so that was seen as a very positive thing and the Park and Rec Commission also took a look at that and was very supportive of that. So some of the other changes that went into effect, the Planning Commission had some concerns about the curvature of that road. That has been changed. It doesn't reflect in your plan but we have received the comments though that they can make that change. ! do want to spend some time going through the revisions to the end of the cul-de-sac. This was the original tree preservation area and the concern that the Planning Commission has is again tying those. There will be a walk tying those two areas together. There was a large retaining 18 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 wall in there and the Planning Commission struggled. There were some really nice stands of trees in there. Again our ordinance is a little bit stringent in that area of preservation of trees so the Planning Commission asked the applicant to work with us. Again the Planning Commission hasn't seen these plans but asked us to working with the applicant to resolve that so again there were some lots. It's hard to see with all this, the lines.., again mentioning the curvature of the road. That has been re-drawn and really what I'm showing you on this orange, back that out just a pinch, is showing the increase of tree preservation. So the lots were reconfigured. We're doing some custom grading down there. Pulled up the cul-de-sac. Removed the retaining wall so it has significantly less impact on the trees. Again saving more trees. Again those lots will be custom graded so review the home placement as each of those individual lots come into place. ! think ! touched on the major changes. The wetlands impact. Again this will come back to you for final plat. The applicants have made some changes as ! mentioned on some of the conditions but I'm not going to go through this because what you're recommending approval for tonight is in the packet and those changes, what they want to show is good faith, that they've done that again. The retaining wall being removed. They've revised to maintain the curve of 180 feet on that long cul-de-sac which is an issue of the Planning Commission. So again after a couple months of a lot of changes and revisions that we believe that they really worked in good faith. We believe this is a good compromise. Again working not only with the applicant. With the other jurisdictions. Hennepin County, Eden Prairie to come forward with what we believe is a really good subdivision so with that we are recommending approval of the different applications, and the conditions of approval start on page 11. Recommendations for different motions. Again, there's different requirements on the comprehensive plan versus the other three so if you want to separate those out. But with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Any? Councilman Peterson: Kate on what we're trying to go after, saving the trees. Where is the balance between the trees and the bluff and do the trees, actually saving the trees where they are, is that going to help any further degradation of the bluff or do trees actually hurt it because you haven't got good ground cover? ! don't want to be saving the trees and then all of a sudden because we can't plant grass, etc, etc, that the bluff is going to degrade. Kate Aanenson: That's a good question because in the previous staff report ! think there was some contradiction in the staff report that went forward and on the backs of those lots they're doing a drainage system that has to kind of snake and weave inbetween the trees and the goal of that is til we're not causing, because if you were to remove vegetation on there, the bluff would erode and part of putting the conservation on the bluff impact is there's a temptation to put a nice structure on there and enjoy the views but again the goal is not to erode the edge of that bluff line. So it is a balance of trying to preserve the vegetation to maintain or reduce the amount of erosion and then we're also providing a unique type of drainage system on the backs of those lots to make sure we don't have that spill off over the bluff line. 19 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Peterson: A system of reviews... Kate Aanenson: Yes, and we did that in Eden Prairie. The applicants had to use that type of a system, correct. Similar to what they did on the other side of Settlers. Councilman Peterson: My goal is I don't want to, I want to save trees too but I'd rather save the bluff more than ! would the trees. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think that was the compromise that was, between the first meeting that we had with the Planning Commission and the second meeting, that was where a lot of the work was done, and ! think it was a little bit confusing in the staff report that went to the Planning Commission that said that no impact can occur within this grading. Well that's not true because we do want to do some impact to preserve the drainage going over that bluff and eroding that, if I'm saying that correctly so. ! think it's a good solution. Councilman Peterson: Other than that ! think it' s very well done for as early in the stages as it is so I'm very happy with it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Follow up questions. Councilman Labatt: Kate up there on the lots like 58, 57, 56 where that gas pipeline, and that has an 80 foot easement. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And Lot 56, ! don't know if you can see that. What is the safety zone recommended by. Kate Aanenson: We have that running through a couple other subdivisions within the city. It's wider, the easement's wider than the pipeline itself. That easement itself kind of acts as a safety zone that you just have to stay outside of the easement so, if that makes sense. Councilman Labatt: Well it makes sense the fact that you can't build anything in the easement but that doesn't, ! don't want to have an incident like up in Fridley or New Brighton when that Williams Pipeline blew and they had a safety zone up there with an easement but that wasn't enough to. Kate Aanenson: Sure. We do have two other subdivisions in the city that are using the same standard. Autumn Ridge, yeah. Councilman Labatt: I'm just saying, is that standard the right standard? I mean. Kate Aanenson: ! believe so, yeah. 20 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Matt Saam: Councilman Labatt, we as staff, I don't believe we're experts in the natural gas and pipeline business but Williams Pipeline I'm assuming has data on these easements and gets sufficient width and as Kate said, they just require the structures to stay outside of the easement. You can actually build right up to the easement line. Just to contrast, we typically get for one pipe a 20 footer. 20 foot easement and they're getting 80 so it's 4 times that... Councilman Labatt: Well, but are we getting the same pipe though? Are we talking the same product and the same pipe that's getting pushed through? Matt Saam: No. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So my question is, is can we find out prior to between now and final, can we find out from Williams Pipeline the types of products that are pushed through there and ! assume it's jet fuel and other stuff. The age of the pipe and the depth of the pipe, and based upon their history and experience, if they would recommend a larger safety zone or what we have there is adequate. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Matt Saam: Correct. We can sure get you that information prior to final plat. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, you know. Just questions. Mayor Furlong: You're looking for that information before. Councilman Labatt: Before final. Mayor Furlong: Before final. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I'm ready to proceed with this tonight. Those are just questions that if we need to adjust something, ! think at final is the time to do it. Right now isn't the time to hold this up with those questions. Those are questions that can be, maybe they can provide some sort of letter or I'm just curious. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions for staff. The clarification, and maybe this was a follow-up question to Councilman Peterson's question on the preservation, the conservation preservation. Is it your anticipation that's a tree preservation across the, as ! understand it as I'm looking, ! assume it's still Outlot F here that we're looking at. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: On our main picture. ! don't know if you have that up there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. 21 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Mayor Furlong: You've got that right down at the table. Essentially that's, is that buildable land or is that bluff?. Kate Aanenson: A lot of it's bluff but just to be clear, it also includes a bluff impact zone which is a 20 foot setback. Mayor Furlong: 20 foot setback which is. Kate Aanenson: Right, from the top of the bluff. Mayor Furlong: At these lots, basically start at Lot 12 and work their way around and to the pond and then on, it's part of the 20 feet is in the 30 feet setback that we would have anyway. Kate Aanenson: Right, correct. And then if you go to page 9 where we did the compliance, we noted on that compliance table which lots would fall within that bluff impact, so again that's, a lot of it's for our's when we're checking setbacks and the like, but if you go to condition 7. The goal is the bluff to be preserved and then they must maintain a 30 foot setback. Then a conservation easement shall be recorded against the bluff and the bluff impact, and that's what's the no touch zone. There's different mechanisms, whether it's a dedication or just a no touch zone, and ! guess in working with the developer we felt that was an adequate way to mark and identify so the homeowners don't get in and try to mow or highly manicure it. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my question is, and maybe this is again similar to Councilman Labatt question for additional information. ! agree with Councilman Peterson. ! think the primary issue that we want to protect here is the bluff so we don't have a bluff continuing to erode. Is the current vegetation, which would be maintained under our conservation easement, the best way to do that or are there other alternatives that, in terms of vegetation or other things? ! don't know the answer to that, and maybe there aren't. Kate Aanenson: No, I think re-vegetation... Mayor Furlong: ...best method from a vegetation standpoint to maintain that bluff so I, there may be some management practices that the homeowners would want to pursue themselves. Kate Aanenson: Right, and ! think that may be an education thing. That's a good point because what was pointed out in the tree preservation and landscaping is there'd be no grading within that bluff impact, and that was the contradiction ! was talking about because you have to get in there to put the draining system in, but right. How would we establish the slope. Mayor Furlong: As I understand it, if you grade a little bit into that impact zone, you can actually preserve the bluff better than leaving it perhaps in it's natural state. 22 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Correct. But what I hear you saying is you want to understand how we're re-vegetating that to make sure that it's functioning. Mayor Furlong: Is a conservation don't touch the best way to protect that or is there some other active management role? Kate Aanenson: Okay. Well we can check on that too for final plat. Mayor Furlong: And as ! understand, one of the values of preserving the trees there is indeed that. Throughout the outlot is to protect the bluff. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: The other thing there were concerns raised about traffic. You mentioned that a little bit. Traffic off Pioneer Trail and this is a question for engineering. Are there some opportunities there that we can look at and also if ! understand correctly, the intersection just west of here at, or little ways west at 101 and Pioneer Trail due to be upgraded to a traffic signal. Is that this summer that they're going to be, the county's going to be doing that or next summer? Matt Saam: 2005 Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: 2005, so next summer. Matt Saam: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So is that at all going to help alleviate some of the concerns do we think or? Matt Saam: Yes, and the way it will is in providing gaps in time for people to get out. Gaps in the traffic flow. Obviously if traffic to the west has a red light at 101 and Pioneer, then there's going to be that much more of a gap versus now where it's just a stop. You stop for a minute, nobody's there, you go. So we're hoping that will provide more opportunities for people to get out into the traffic flow. Mayor Furlong: And if our hopes aren't realized, are there opportunities to do some things or working with the county? Matt Saam: Yes. In your, ! believe in your council background, in the packet, Hennepin County has stated that Pioneer Trail is within their 5 year CIP to be upgraded. It's been upgraded in Eden Prairie ! believe east of 212 to 4 lanes. They're going to continue that west of 212. Now of course things can change with budgets and everything but right now it is planned to be upgraded in the new future so. 23 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Mayor Furlong: So even though we may not be asking for this developer to do some things, there are some things in the works already planned that will help. Kate Aanenson: And we're not anticipating full build out. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry? Kate Aanenson: We're not anticipating full build out in one year either so hopefully the two will kind of come together in the widening of the road as we get close to that. Mayor Furlong: And that's fine. ! know it was a concern raised and ! guess if there are some answers rather than just taking a position that we're not doing anything, there are some things on the horizon. The real horizon that are in the works. Matt Saam: Yes, there are. And just to clarify Mr. Mayor, the only real issue with the access is traffic coming from the west going east. There is not room enough to put in a right turn lane because of the bridge deck just west of the access. So they will be putting in a left turn lane, which as their traffic engineer stated. Mayor Furlong: For westbound traffic turning. Matt Saam: For people coming from the east going west to turn south into the site, yes. So they will be putting that in and that we believe provides more of a safety factor than the right turn lane. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Those were my questions. Very good. questions for staff?. If not ! see a representative from the applicant is here. like to address the council Mr. Herbst? Any other Would you Dan Herbst: Mayor Furlong, members of the Council, professional staff. I just want to say you know since we had a real productive work shop with you on November l0th we've been put through a very good drill with your staff here and it's been a good exercise. ! think we got ahead of the curve on the wetlands stuff, which usually happens between preliminary and final. We got ahead of the curve on all these bluff issues, and we got way ahead of the curve by getting Hennepin County to sign off on our design before, which usually happens between preliminary and final so ! was very, very impressed with your planning board also and commission. Working with your staff. There's 40 conditions of the approval there but they did a very thorough job. Your staff did a great job and it was great to work with them and again the end product to you is going to be a very outstanding neighborhood. ! would guess to say it's going to be one of the better little neighborhoods you're going to have in this community and I'll make it better for you so. Mayor Furlong: No bias in that statement. Dan Herbst: Right. 24 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Herbst? If not, good. Thank you. We appreciate your efforts too. I'll bring it back to council then for discussion. Would anybody like to go? Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that staff and, the council approves the recommended adoption of the motions approving the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit as specified in the staff report April 20, 2004 as amended. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: This is on the comprehensive plan amendment only, is that correct? Councilman Peterson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion? I'll make a quick comment here. ! like being efficient with this. ! like the fact that we're making a motion and moving along. At the same time, ! know there's been a lot of work over the years in trying to find a good way to develop this. ! think this is a good project. ! think it makes sense to amend the comprehensive plan and to move this forward. ! think it's a great example of not only what Mr. Herbst mentioned with regard to how well our staff and Planning Commission worked on this and got through the details, but it's a good representation of how two cities can work together and some up with something that works because it makes sense to work, and so for that reason ! think this is a, it's a good project and it's the right time to do it and ! think we're doing it in the right way so ! support this motion and the entire project. Any other discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: I'll make one essentially useless comment but again ! think it's a great project and it will be exciting to see it go in but me personally, I'll miss the rifle range but ! think I'm the only person in 5 square miles that feels that way so. Councilman Ayotte: Make that two. Councilman Labatt: Three. Mayor Furlong: Oh oh. You might be in trouble. Councilman Lundquist: Great plan Dan. It will be wonderful. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other discussion? If not, motion's been made to approve an amendment to the comprehensive plan. 25 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Resolution #2004-32: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the property in the 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there a follow-up motion? Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: ! would. I'd recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the four motions noted A, B, C, and D with their respective conditions. As noted in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Did we just do A? So we only have B, C and D left or not? Kate Aanenson: They're all simple majority so. Councilman Peterson: We can all do them at once. Councilman Lundquist: We just did A though, right? Mayor Furlong: ! thought we just did A. We just amended, did we not? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: I'm trying to keep track of what I'm doing here. Roger Knutson: Not quite. Mayor Furlong: Leave it to an attorney. What do we do? Roger Knutson: As you stated the motion which becomes the official, you just mentioned the comprehensive plan. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Right, in the first motion. So now. Roger Knutson: So now you need a second motion covering all the others. Mayor Furlong: Right, and ! guess just for clarification, ! think we just had a 5-0 vote on A and so now the following motions would be B, C and D in the staff report, is that correct? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that is your motion Councilman Peterson? 26 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Councilman Peterson: Yes it is. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following three motions: B. Rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential District. C. Preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 48 lots, three outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for street width, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will work with staff to reduce bluff impact and tree loss caused by Settlers Court. The development of the property is contingent on Eden Prairie approving the subdivision within their jurisdiction. Without the road access and sewer and water service, this project would be premature. 3. Deleted. 4. The developer shall be responsible for paying park dedication fees at the time of final plat recording. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around Wetland G (if it is not mitigated). A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetlands ! and J. (Those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. Bluff areas must be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading, except for the areas identified for site drainage as shown in the approved grading plan, may occur within the bluff impact zone 27 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). A conservation easement shall be recorded over the bluffs and bluff impact zones. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers to demarcate the bluff impact zone. The applicant shall work with City staff to develop a plan for bluff management. The plan shall include an assessment of the stability of bluff areas, an inventory of the discarded materials, a plan for the clean-up of bluff areas and a restoration plan for critical and/or severely eroded areas. The plan shall also address reclamation of the Moon Valley site. The bluff management plan shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with subdivision construction. The lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 12 through 39 and 46 through 50) shall be graded to drain away from the bluff and bluff impact zone. In addition, a system of swales and storm sewer with surface inlets shall be installed for the rear yards of the lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 12 through 39 and 46 through 50). 10. The plans for the cross-country storm sewer on Outlot F shall be more detailed. Erosion blanket, shade tolerant seed mix and fiber rolls are recommended to promote vegetation growth and temporarily stabilize the exposed slope. Similar measures are needed shall the 20-foot maintenance access be developed. 11 To provide cost-effective sediment removal within Pond 3, a forebay shall be located at the northern end of the pond near the inlet. 12. A drainage and utility easement at least 20 feet in width shall be centered over any swales and/or storm sewer, including pond inlets and outlets. Slopes within the easements shall be gradual enough to permit access with heavy equipment. 13. Adequate, non-compacted topsoil shall be applied to a depth of at least 6 inches prior to the installation of permanent erosion control practices. 14. Silt fence is needed at the HWL of storm water ponds once the ponds are final grade and stabilized with mulch and seed or blanket and seed. 15. After excavation of slopes adjacent to bluff areas and prior to home building activities (such as excavating for foundations) the builders shall install silt fence or other perimeter control (snow fence) to protect the temporary stabilization methods and final grade elevations. 16. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: 28 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 18. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $80,502. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 20. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone. 21 Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 1/16/04, will be replaced at a ratio of2:1 diameter inches. 22. Any trees removed must either be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued. 23. Silt fence must be placed outside of the bluff impact zone boundary. 24. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 25. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved, alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 of the Minnesota Fire Code. 29 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. As utility service will be provided by the City of Eden Prairie, responsibility for permits and inspections of the private sewer and water services must be determined. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer must be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Because of the sensitive nature of the site, Type III silt fence per City detail plate #5300 be used around the perimeter of the entire site. Also, remove the silt fence detail from the preliminary grading plan (sheet #8.) In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant shall be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Revise the storm sewer pipe diameter from 12-inch to 15-inch minimum. Permits from the appropriate governmental agencies must be obtained including: MPCA, Watershed District, Hennepin/Carver County. On the grading plan: a. Add a 4-inch perforated drain tile at street low point, 4-feet in back of curb. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 30 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Do c. The walkout elevation of Lot 12 must be a minimum of 1.5 feet above the adjacent emergency overflow elevation. 36. Last storm structure that is road accessible prior to pond must be a 3-foot sump manhole. 37. The proposed retaining wall at the end of Settlers Court will not be allowed within the street right-of-way. Also, any retaining wall over 4-feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota and it will require a building permit. 38. Extend the 5-foot sidewalk to the south end of Settlers West Road. 39. The developer must obtain approval from Hennepin County for the City's use of the trail for maintenance access to the storm sewer. 40. The plans are acceptable with the 150 foot curve radius, but the applicant will be required to install mitigation signage. 41. The applicant is required to add 8 foot shoulders per state aid standards and 150 foot tapers on the end of each turn lane and lengthen the left turn lane to maximize the usefulness of the lane and/or comply with Hennepin County's requirements for improvements to Pioneer Trail. 42. The developer will be required to pay the City of Chanhassen an amount of money equal to the number of lateral connection charges, trunk hook-up charges and sewer availability charges (SAC) that are lost to the City of Chanhassen as a result of Pemtom not connecting with the City of Chanhassen's future sewer and water systems. The payment would be made at the time of the recordation of the final plat with the Carver County Recorder and would be based upon the rates in place at the time of final plat approval by the City of Chanhassen, multiplied by the number of buildable lots platted. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide details on wetland mitigation for proposed impact to Wetland G. 2. Staff will field verify Wetlands I and J if the final plans involve the discharge of pretreated storm water into these basins. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The replacement plans should show fixed photo monitoring points for replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland 31 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around Wetland G (if it is not mitigated). A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetlands ! and J (those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet). Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Job well done everyone. That completes our items of new business this evening. Are there any council presentations? COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Ayotte: Just a very short one Mayor. Just want to give lavations, praise, appreciation to our engineers and to the folks that did the test bed out at Lotus for water treatment and to the volunteer force that supports the activity. They've been at it for a year plus and it's starting to pay dividends and I just want to make that comment. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I think we all got the e-mail from Susan Hoffregarding the disparity of athletic field uses between Chanhassen and Chaska. I've spoke to Mr. Hoffman in emails this week and last week and ! think the 24th he and ! are going to come up with a letter to the school board members appraising them of the situation currently and asking them to looking into or reconsider to make it more equitable usage between Chanhassen and Chaska use, using the athletic fields. So that will be here on the 24th. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments council members? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 32 City Council Meeting - May 10, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the only item I have is at our next work session we will be updating you on our 2004 bond sale. Want to run through a few of the issues and let you know about that during your work session, but we are looking for a bond sale at our second meeting in June. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff. Any items? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 33