The URL can be used to link to this page

2i. Minutes I/ CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ' AUGUST 13, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Johnson and Councilwoman Dimler arrived late Councilmembers Absent: Councilman Boyt ' Staff Present: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Scott Harr, Jean Meuwissen and Tom Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda amended to add the following items for discussion: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss the use of chemical toilets in the City; ' Mayor Chmiei wanted to discuss recycling of plastics; and Councilman Workman wanted to get a recycling program update, discuss budget workshop and Crossroads Bank. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA:. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. Approve Interim Use Permit for Carver County Public Works for a Grading Project to construct an Active Play Area in the Minnewashta Regional Park located on Highway 41. ' b. Resolution $90-94: Approve Resolution appointing Election Judges and establishing the rate of pay. d. Accept Final Storm Water Utility District Report; Call for Public Hearing. g. Resolution #90-95: Approve Resolution Entering into an Agreement with the State for reimbursement of monies through the Federal Anti-Drug Act of 1986. h. Approve Purchase Agreement for proposed Lake Lucy Road Park Land acquisition. i. Approve Purchase Agreement for Abby Bongard property for Highway 101 Realignment Project. Resolution $90-96: Approve Change in Heating Permit Fee Schedule. k. Approval of Accounts. • ' 1. City Council Minutes dated July 23, 1990 as amended on page 5 by Councilman Workman to change the word "nepotent" to omnipotent". ' Planning Commission Minutes dated August 1, 1990 , 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 I, Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 26, 1990 1 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated July 12, 1990 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated July 24, 1990 m. Resolution $90-97: Approve Resolution Increasing Mileage Reimbursement Fee. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. LAKE SUSAN HILLS FOURTH ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF THE EXISTING LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS. Mayor Chmiel: There are a couple items on that specific one of which Jo Ann I'll let you bring up the first item on that on the conditions. Jo Ann Olsen: Their condition 8 on page. 4 should read that all the access 1 points to the parkland between single family lots shall be paved. The either should be taken out, and signed. It should say that lost shall be paved and signed that they are public access points. So that was a mistake to keep the either in there. There was a lot of discussion but it was dropped. . . Mayor Chmiel: Okay. On one of the drawings that we have, I have a question. Should that not have been signed by a PE? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. I Mayor Chmiel: And it's not? Jo Ann Olsen: And it's not. We did ask the applicant to submit the title page i where it would be signed and they did submit the title page but it was not signed so we, but you're right. That should be signed. Mayor Chmiel: We will have it signed? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is the erosion control signed on this too? Is that taken care of? Dave Hempel: It's with the conditions stipulated, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That was the only discussion that I had on that. Does anyone have anymore? Hearing none, I'll make a motion that we accept item 1(c). Is there a second? Workman: Second. , Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat and the Development Agreement for Lake Susan Hills Fourth Addition located onthe West side of Powers Boulevard just south of the existing Lake Susan Hills 2nd and 3rd Additions as submitte. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 2 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 (Councilwoman Dimler arrived to the meeting at this point. ) F. MARKET SQUARE, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND WEST OF MARKET BOULEVARD. ' Councilman Johnson: My main problem on item (f) is that we're proposing to fill a wetland as shown on our wetland map without a wetland alteration permit that I remember as part of this item. During discussion creating the ponding in downtown we had a, we designed a two phase system where the water was sent into this Class B wetland. Allowed some infiltration evaporation, whatever prior to going into the large newly created larger wetland. I forgot to grab my current wetlands map so I ran upstairs and got a July, 1983 wetlands map and that is shown as a wetland as of July 23, 1984, I should say. It shows a wetland on either side of the railroad tracks at that location. It has been there for a ' long time. How are we doing this? How is the City going to fill a wetland without a wetland alteration permit? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that it's a wetland. I mean that's been an altered a long time before this project came through. The wetland had actually been filled. I don't recall there being a wetland on that site where Market Square is being proposed. ' Councilman Johnson: During the whole downtown redevelopment program, we talked about that as a wetland. We talked about that as the, that's why we didn't pipe ' it in the first place. We dumped the water into the first sediment retention basin, take the big stuff out and then go into the one that we wanted to use with fountains and be pretty so we took some of the oils and greases and whatever out in the first basin before going into the second. Now we're going to fill the first basin and all the trash is going to just immediately go out to the front of the city in the second basin because we're eliminating it. I have a hard time understanding this. I apologize for not getting back in town until this afternoon and not reading this until after you guys had gone home but that's the way it is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so you're suggestion or your recommendation is that there's not been a permit provided for the operation of a wetland? Councilman Johnson: Alteration, yes. ' Mayor Chmiel: Alteration, excuse me. ' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: I do recall the discussion that Councilman Johnson brought up. However, through the actual construction that area has been filled for many, many years. The area that's proposed for a pipe has existed as an open trench for the last 3-4 years. Councilman Johnson: They're proposing to fill more than just the trench. ' Don Ashworth: I don't believe so. ' 3 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: Here's the blue prints. I mean there's a drainage easement all the way back here. This is the whole drainage easement here. This whole area is shown as a drainage area and here's the trench. The trench that leads into what was the wetland. In fact if you look at the shape of that and go back to the old map, it's almost the same shape still as it was in July of 1984. '' I didn't get a chance to go out and look at it but I know that everybody's in a hurry on this thing but in a hurry doesn't mean that we can, I need to know what the function of that area was during the design of the downtown redevelopment and I think my recollection was, being the only person that was on the Council at that time, was that this area was designed as part of the storm water system as a retention basin. I think we did a wetland alteration permit for what we did in that basin in the first place. I don't know. It's something that has to be researched. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have anything on that Paul or Jo Ann? ' Paul Krauss: We're somewhat at a loss on this Councilman Johnson. This was never a factor during the reviews of this project and we've walked the site many ' a times. If there was a wetland out there, it isn't there now. It hasn't been there for some time. I've also learned to place little or no reliance on that old wetland map that we have because more often than not it's wrong. There may have been something out there previously. Clearly that site's been altered but there certainly is nothing out there now. Councilman Johnson: Can we approve this conditionally upon it being further ' reviewed and if it is determined that it is functioning as part of the existing storm water system, that replacement will have to be made for this area? See I was in on the design of this area 3 years ago and we had a 2 stage water purification, whatever you want to call it, area in here and we're removing stage_ one which ain't a good idea. I know that everybody's in a hurry on this to try and fast track it so conditional, I'm trying to figure out what the conditions would be that we approve it on for this entire area here. If it isn't a wetland, what's the effect on our storm water system? I haven't seen any data on that either. If somebody's here that can, the hydrology and the retention and everything else was all designed into this thing and I don't see any consideration given yet. • Dave Hempel: Councilmember Johnson, I believe the pipe was not extended at that time. It was kind of a two fold purpose, from what I'm being told here. First of all was the cost for extending that pipe which is approximately $100,000.00 and also part of the water purification settlement. It probably was an initial settlement basin there along that ditch system before it entered into a larger pond. Councilman Johnson: This is kind of a hidden little wetland where you can drop ' out some of your greases and oils and stuff before it goes into the one with the fountain that's supposed to be so attractive from our entrance. Does this need any kind of Watershed approval? , Paul Krauss: The entire project received Watershed approval. Councilman Johnson: But this wasn't on the project was it? When it received Ij Watershed approval of the filling of this ditch, was that part of the project? 1 'I 4 i City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Paul Krauss: Watershed approved the project the way it's drawn today. Councilman Johnson: In fact we approved the project his way and I didn't notice this at the time that we approved this project. This is one of those things ' that clicked today when I was reading this rather than when they started talking about pulling the storm water area. Mayor Chmiel: Is there somehow that we can review this and give an approval portion on that? Councilman Johnson: We can actually approve it and. . . 11 Mayor Chmiel: And make sure that everything is consistent to what you're indicating? Check that out and make sure. Councilman Johnson: If we approve it, we've still got some time to check it out and then we can reconsider it anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Right . Call it back for reconsideration. Councilman Johnson: Right . If we find out that we're hurting our storm water system by doing this. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, could I also in relationship to this, because ' this is a project that's delicate to the downtown and the HRA and the City has gone to great lengths to speed up, expedite, hurry along this project. Could maybe Todd Gerhardt or the applicant or somebody tell us, for the record, where we are with this? It was my understanding that we were shooting for an August 1st closing date or was that August 15th? Maybe it's both. Are we on schedule for that or when do we see the earth start to move out there? Mayor Chmiel: Todd, do you have anything to say? Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Brad. Brad Johnson: I can tell you where we are. We're having these agreements ' approved. The lenders just. . . Mayor Chmiel: Just state your name please. Brad Johnson: I'm sorry. I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Where we are is we're in the process of getting all the agreements prepared so the bank can ' look at them. One of the agreements that the bank has to look at is the development agreement. The next agreement is the HRA redevelopment agreement which is not ready as yet but should be ready tomorrow or the next day. Once those two are signed by the City, it will be a week to 2 weeks later that the ' lender will close because he has to review all the documents and feel comfortable with them so we're just waiting. There are othere things that we're doing but in sequence of events we knew that this would be on this evening so we' ' did not count on closing on the 15th and the lenders have just told us that we have to get all this stuff in order to close. So I would say we're, once the 5 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 agreements are approved and signed by the City, we're somewhere between 1 and 2 weeks away from being able to close because the lender has to review them and approve them. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is you would see something either by the 20th ' or the 27th? On or before. That would be the 2 weeks. Brad Johnson: Well, the HRA redevelopment agreement has yet to. I Mayor Chmiel: That's Thursday. Brad Johnson: That's Thursday, yeah. So sometime within the next 14 days after f that would be the earliest we could be there. Councilman Workman: So we're behind schedule? Brad Johnson: Yeah. Part of it is agreements and part of it's all, you know there's 20 different people and deals involved in this particular thing. There's 13 tenants. Councilman Workman: I'm not belittling the process. Brad Johnson: We're about 2 weeks behind right now. We were shooting for August 1st. It's now August 13th and I would guess toward the end of the month would be the earliest just based upon the fact that this is where we are on this agreement and the HRA agreement. We have yet to see the final version of the HRA agreement. We have seen this agreement. That's where we are. Councilman Johnson: It does say the project will go to the Riley-Purgatory- I Bluff Creek Watershed for approval also in Gary's letter. Mayor Chmiel: I guess on the HRA portion, the reason why that's not fully ' completed is because of some of the discussions that you had and changes that were needed because of your requests so it isn't the HRA that's basically behind. I just wanted to clarify that. Anymore Tom? Did you have any other? ' Councilman Workman: No. Mayor Chmiel: Jay, any other item? , Councilman Johnson: That was the main item. I just wanted to make sure we're not shooting our storm water system while we're doing this. With that in the I record I think I'll move approval of item 1(f). Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution $90-98: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to , approve the following items for Market Square, located south of West 78th Street and West of Market Boulevard pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. Approve Development Contract �( 6 I' 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 2. Authorize Feasibility Study_ 3. Accept Feasibility Study 4. Waive Public Hearing 5. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications ' 6. Accept Plans and Specifications 7. Authorize Advertising for Bids 8. Approve PUD Agreement All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING AN EXCESS WATER USAGE CHARGE. Don Ashworth: Council has been considering for quite some time an excess water usage charge. The idea behind it would be to establish a base for each of our customers. That base would be selected by the usage of your winter quarter ' water usage. To that amount we would add a 30% factor and during the summer months any person who would be using more than that base amount would receive the higher charge. It is our belief that we needed to do something in terms of ' trying to control excess water usage during the summer months. This has been a very good year for us. It's been very wet. It's been cool. The charge this late in the year would not become effective for 1990 but would be effective for ' 1991. The ordinance also does make a minor adjustment in the sewer charge itself. That portion would become effective for this year. We're estimating 2% to 3% would be the overall effects of just the base charge changes. Is that correct Tom? Again, the excess water charge would be effective for 1991. Again, staff felt that this would be a very logical way to attempt to control excess water usage. ' Councilman Johnson: Before we open this up to the public. Mayor Chmiel: Let's, unless you have something pertinent Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I just wanted to mention one thing before we get started there is that there is a certain segment of our population that does not live in Chanhassen during the winter quarter. Therefore, automatically their summer quarter is going to be excess water usage almost completely. That's not fair. There has to be some kind of minimum baseline established also which says that if you don't use more than so much, you know you're considered to have used I so much water during the, you're not going to be charged for it but during the winter. I mean how the people get charged for their sewers that aren't here. I mean my next door neighbor takes off down to Brownsville every year in October and comes back in April. Are we charging him sewer rates based on no water flow? • Don Ashworth: People who are gone in the winter quarter do see a lower utility ' bill through the entire year because we set the sewer charge based on the low quarter which happens to be the winter quarter for useage and that will be your sewer charge during each of the 4 quarters in that next year. Again, if a person is gone for that timeframe, hypothetically they are being charged less for sanitary sewer during the remainder of the year. In some ways the proposed 7 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 charging system helps provide a means by which the City can basically recoup I some of it's cost by not getting enough money from that person for the winter quarter. Councilman Johnson: That tells me we've got a little problem with how we're 11 charging the sewer too. Don Ashworth: We could set a baseline. This would be entirely computerized so 1 it could take a look at your low. We could take a look at your quarter, add 30% and compare that to a particular baseline and then charge you one of those two rates. Councilman Johnson: Here's something you can relate to. A couple with kids off in college. The kids aren't there very much during the winter quarter and they move back home. All the bills go up including the water usage 'and the phone usage. I mean there's a lot of situations where it may not be people out there using water sprinkling with their lawn. How has this affected the industrial user too? There's a lot of industrial uses that use a lot more for air conditioning because they use either non-contact or contact cooling water for air conditioning purposes. I know I did the water calculations for several Honeywell facilities when I worked for them and it was way in excess of 30`c was used for cooling. Mayor Chmiel: I'd just maybe like to interject something too. I agree that we're running in a deficit on our water. We have to do something to make sure that it's a viable and payable thing for everyone. One of the things that I requested staff to do was to pull each of the Councilmembers to see as opposed to what the old rate is as opposed to what the new rate is. Councilman Johnson: For our houses? Mayor Chmiel: For our houses. I thought this would be very typical. Right, that's what this is. Just alone on, I'll start out with mine because that's the first one that's on the top here. My monthly norms run roughly about $90.65 per quarter. With the increase and the changes according to the rate, it would run approximately $109.00 per quarter so it would go up $19.00. Not quite. $18.35. Councilman Johnson: Is that based on this year or last year's water usage? 1 Mayor Chmiel: This is based on this past year's water usage. Tom, is that what you used? , Tom Chaffee: Let me correct your figures. First off, the figures that you're talking about, that $90.65. That would be your total water bill for the year. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, that's correct. That's what you told me. You're right. Tom Chaffee: And the $109.00 would be applying the new rate and the excess charge if any. . . That would be the annual total for water only. Then you go down on the left hand side and you see your sewer totals of $18.60. ' Councilman Johnson: What year was this? Was this 89's or 90's? 8 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 11 Tom Chaffee: 1989. ' Councilman Johnson: Okay, so it was a dry year and not a wet year when some people were water sprinkling. Mayor Chmiel: Well it wouldn't matter on mine. I have a well so it wouldn't affect it. Councilman Workman: What's this red number in red showing $1,000.00? 11 Councilman Johnson: That's his old water bills. ' Mayor Chmiel: That means it's a deficit. Okay, the next one that we have is is Tom Workman's. Councilman Johnson: You live in a quad. Mayor Chmiel: You must be tapping the neighbors. His total last year was $47.30 and with the new rate it would come to $58.00. ' Councilman Workman: If I could comment quickly. I do have an association where the outside water is not my own but rather the association. We have a gentleman who would like to discuss that aspect of this also since they don't use those spigots in the winter. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And then we have Ursula's. It was $82.15 as opposed to the new which would be $104.50. And Jay, your's was $97.45 as opposed to $122.00. ' Councilman Johnson: So mine's gone up the most. Mayor Chmiel: So with that I would like to open the public hearing for anyone who would like to address this particular issue. Come up to the microphone and please state your name and your address and talk to us. Steve Best: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm Steve Best of 7221 Pontiac U Circle. I'm President of Cimarron Homeowners Association. It's 156 homeowners. We're quad homes. Each one of these units has 5 meters. One for each owner and one for the association. That is for the outside spigots. During the winter 11 quarter they're shut off so we use no water. But during the summer months we would be using excess water from the first drop on up. Councilman Johnson: That's where the baseline has to go. That's another example of a baseline but that'd be different than a residential baseline. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. Is there anyone else? If you don't speak out now, you'll never get another chance unfortunately so I'd like everyone who has any thoughts or ideas to come forward and please indicate those. If you feel uncomfortable with it, ask the questions. It took a lot for us to understand what it is here as well. If not seeing anyone. ' 9 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public I hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. mm Councilman Workman: I think we're going to have a lot of angry customers on this even though they're not here. I don't know if we can do this and this is a simple mind working again but is the excess useage idea the only idea because I think that the idea to conserve water is an outstanding idea. This year we have lots of water. Sprinklers aren't running but next year or 3 years from now we're going to have a problem. Can't we somehow, can't we put a value on a gallon of water and say you pay for whatever amount of gallons of water you use not taking into account an excess useage? The gas station sets the price and of course it keeps going up but you don't use so much and they don't charge on an extra. It would seem to me that a gallon of water to every resident in the City , has got pretty much an equal value. Maybe save the industrial customers. And that everybody should just use whatever you want but you're going to pay more. I don't know, maybe that 's too difficult to meter every gallon of water. ' Councilman Johnson: We do. Don Ashworth: We do. 1 Councilman Workman: But I mean, can't we? I guess in effect I'm saying raise the price of a gallon of water. Straight out. ' Councilman Johnson: Well we've done that too. Councilman Workman: Rather than this excess usage which I think is going to 1 have a lot of, many of my neighbors are not there. They're in Arizona during the winter months and they're elderly and I don't know. I see a lot of problems with this at this point. , Councilman Johnson: I think by establishing a base line we can get away from some of those problems. Saying a quad, the average use within the quad's in the winter months is so much. Okay, and say that if you're below that average or above that average, that's where your excess starts in the summer is based on that average. I look at this and that last year, that dry year we did not necessarily lawn sprinkling but we've got a lot of flowers and plants and trees we tried to save. The grass you can replant it easier than the trees and I only had a $5.00 excess usage charge. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I don't know if this baseline is necessarily adequate because as Jay mentioned, I have 4 teenagers and in 5 years they're all going to be gone out of the house and my baseline is going to drastically change. How often are we adjusting the base? Councilman Johnson: Every year. The computer just does that. Councilwoman Dimler: Also I had a question on is the City included in this adjustment for City usage? Don Ashworth: The City does not bill itself, no. 10 1 ,City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: They use a lot of water. I've heard comments about sprinkling out there when the rest of us couldn't and so forth. I'm not real sure how we're going to handle that. And also, I'm just wondering if it will ' encourage during the baseline period, it will encourage people to use a lot of water to get your baseline. up. Councilman Johnson: I don't think, when you start looking at a $5.00 excess usage charge over the year, I don't think anybody's going to take that much into consideration and flush twice every time just to use extra water. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So you get your baseline up so you can go over. I mean instead of conserving could it go the other way is what I'm asking? ' Mayor Chmiel: From one extreme to the other is what you're saying? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Councilman Johnson: We're charging .05 of a cent per gallon is our excess charge. Is that how that works out? 50 cents per a 1,000 gallons? 1,000 gallons is quite a bit of water for 50 cents. What can you get 1,000 gallons for 50 cents nowadays? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and my other comment was that you know, I see this ' kind of as a tax increase. I know it's minimal but also on the other hand we're talking about a possible surface water management utility again which is costing us more if that passes. I hate to see us just creeping up all the time slowly but surely. Councilman Johnson: But we're running this utility as a deficit and we can't do that either. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that. Mayor Chmiel: That's the only concern I have with Deloitte and Touche. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would say that I would rather see an across the board increase. IMayor Chmiel: Flat? Straight increase? Councilwoman Dimler: In the price per gallon. Don Ashworth: You could have something like a $1.00 per 1,000 gallons for the ' first 10,000 and $1.20 for each 1,000 after that. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Rather than you know, isn't it going to take a lot of work to adjust base and all this and everybody's bill is going to be different? Councilman Johnson: The computer does it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Now in comparison to just what you're saying, how would that work from one to the other? Would it be comparable to what this would be now? 11 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Don Ashworth: I would say you'd produce about the same total dollars. Under I what I just stated? Tom Chaffee: More money. ' Mayor Chmiel: It would be more? Don Ashworth: I think if the Council were leaning in that direction, you should 1 have us prepare some computer models that would actually show you where you would cross over. I'm throwing a number of the air. . Councilwoman Dimler: Have we done computer studies with other cities what they're charging per gallon? Don Ashworth: A number of cities are still going the opposite direction. They'll take and have a $1.20 per gallon for the first 10,000 and then actually reduce the charge after 10,000 gallons. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to do that. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. The conservation aspect is a good way to go as well but I want to devise something that's going to be equally equitable for the City as well as for the residents so we're not overpaying those total amount of dollars. Just to give us more of a slush fund. I think it's kind of an operation that we should be on an even basis basically. Councilman Johnson: The 30% where did that, how did we decide on 30%? It sounds exactly, you reached up and grabbed it out of the air. Did we look at compared to winter quarter versus summer quarters and come up and say on the average it's about 30% more water usage in the summer quarter or something? Tom Chaffee: For the analysis I prefer to use medians rather than averages. Okay? Mayor Chmiel: Tom, why don't you come up to the microphone here so this can get transcribed. Tom Chaffee: Maybe we've already accomplished what we set out to accomplish by virtue of just getting everybody's attention about the fact that we do have to conserve our water. Now the second thing we have to accomplish is to increase our revenues, our water revenues. I used 1988 and 1989 and I used the median variance water customers. The median variance between the first and the second quarter of the year was 30%. In other words, half of the city varied up to 30% and half of them varied more than that. So I used that median as a basis to say that at 30% is a break point and then applied that. But maybe by virtue, of just the noise we've made, we've made everyone cognizant of the fact that we do have to conserve our water. We're going back to the old NSP style of you know there's a demand charge involved. In the summer months you see that the 1989, the comparisons that I gave you. The third quarter which is the summer quarter as compared to the winter quarter, first quarter, the median variance was over 100%. If you use 10,000 gallons of water in the winter, you use 20,000. So over 100% additional. Los Angeles County is an example. They're rationing their water and we're sitting here complaining about whether or not we should 12 1 .City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 pay an additional, like you say, 50 cents a 1,000. But definitely we should not invert the rates such as a lot of the communities are currently doing. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think it might not be a bad idea for us to sit back and come up with some models. Come up with some conclusions from those particular models and once that's determined, then we can pursue the route that we should go. Tom Chaffee: Might I suggest that we at least for the balance of 1990, at least adopt an increase in the current rate. Councilman Johnson: To the $1.00 per 1,000 without the excess. I think that's a good idea. Councilman Workman: Where's it at right now per 1,000? Councilman Johnson: $.80 per. 1,000 for the first 10,000 gallons. Then it goes ' to $.85 thereafter? Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: And you're charged the first 10,000 gallons whether you use 10,000 gallons or not. The minimum bill is $8.00 so if you use 0 gallons, you get charged $8.00. We're changing that now to where the minimum bill would be ' $5.00 for the first 5,000 gallons at $1.00 per 1,000 gallons: So for those people who are gone to Arizone in the winter, they're going to get a $5.00 water bill versus an $8.00 water bill. ' Don Ashworth: We should be able to have the information requested available by the next Council meeting. Even just putting into effect an additional charge would require a resolution which the Council does not have in front of them this ' evening so I would encourage I think the motion that you had started which is basically to table instructing staff to prepare the model for next meeting. ' Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table action on the ordinance amendment regarding excess water usage charge and instructing staff to prepare models for the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PARK PLACE PHASE II (CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 85-13B; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Richard Andresen, PMT Corporation Roman Roos, Rome Corporation 13 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Dave Hempel: If the Council desires, we do have a representative here from RCM, the consulting engineering that's doing the project for the City. Mr. Dick Potz can give a brief summary of the project. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Dick, can you present that please? , Dick Potz: Good evening. I think all of you went through the report at the last meeting. I'd just like to review it again in case anybody here would like to make any comments. The project location is over in the Chanhassen Business Park south of TH 5. This indicates the site location for the 5th Addition. In 1985 Alscor Investment owned all the parcels in there and petitioned the City for installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, street, curb and gutter, and RCM did that study. This gives you an idea of in 1985 what was presented and what was authorized by the City Council. Construction of the roadway and storm sewer as indicated on here. Red indicates the in place. Storm sewer was constructed along the cul-de-sac along the roadway. It was stubbed out for future use when development of these lots became a reality. Storm sewer was also installed along the back lot line to take the drainage off of Lots 1, 2, and 3 that are abutting up on Park Drive. All that storm sewer in blue was constructed in 1986 under a Phase 1 project. Street that you see out there now was constructed in a rural type section. The area that was graded out through the development of the whole business park had a lot of fill brought in here. It varied between 5 feet to 11 feet of fill that was placed over a lot of soft underlying soils. Based on the soil consultant's recommendation, we proceeded with a rural type section. Rural being pulled off the street into a ditch and the drains then picked up into the storm sewer and along the existing sanitation pond which overflows into the creek. If something was that the construction of the curb and gutter and final surface that in excess of some places up to 6 inches could potentially settle and was a bad investment to put the curb and gutter in and ended up with a wavy roadway. You'd have to go back in and pull it up and do an overlay. So it was recommended and it was constructed to build a bituminous rural section. Part of the feasibility report again in 1985 and 1986 was to install sanitary sewer. The yellow indicates how the sanitary sewer was built through the replatting of this area. What needed to be done to serve this parcel was to extend the sanitary sewer out and pick up this parcel. We also put a stub out to serve Lot 5. Assume that when this parcel developed, it's right in the middle of a building way so Lot 6, 5, and 4 would benefit with the installation of a new sanitary sewer. That was also constructed in 1986. Watermain was discussed in the 1986 report. This is an overlay from the 1986 report. Alscor Investment when they petitioned under using Opus Corporation as a development agent, had potential layout of all these parcels. The water service that they desired followed the lot lines between these Lots 4 and 5. Went around a cul-de-sac, up into Lot 6 and looped back to Audubon so the original proposal by the developer was to construct a loop around here. Like I said, this was done in the 1986 report. At that time we looked at construction of a diagonal watermain loop. Running it straight up the hill to save some trees up in this area before we connected to the 12 inch watermain. We looked at construction of the loop up to TH 5 rather than this lot line. At that time Paisley Place wasn't there. It was an open lot. So now under the proposal, we looked again at the watermain. You can see that in the back of your report. With the addition of Paisley Place here and construction of the security fencing, the internal sprinkler systems and the additional cost to construct the watermain loop through the 5, we've gone back to the ultimate 14 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 route. So the proposal at this time is to construct a watermain loop following the alignment that you see in the report and that's what the costs are based on. Also at this time we're proposing to finish the construction of that roadway surface. There's been a couple of proposals brought into staff to do the development on Lot 3 and Lot 6. I'm not so sure where they're currently at. The roadway has I believe sufficiently settled enough that we can put in the ' concrete curb and gutter with the catch basins that are installed out there in the curb and gutter with some back filling behind there to dress it up and by installation of this watermain, the rest of the subdivision can be developed. Part of the problem with the assessments is the change of some ownerships. ' Appended in your report is a copy of the development contract between Alscor and the City. Alscor has a development contract to maintain or to develop that. All the parcels have. . .equally shared. All those parcels all that cost. That's the way the proposal had been written to assess those by dividing it per acre just ' like it was in 1986. In the front of the report you also see that we did check with legal counsel for Opus and we have not seen the purchase agreement between some of the individual parcels that are not owned by Alscor or Opus Corporation. Like I said, Alscor Investor still does have an agreement with the City to finish that development. The original proposal in 1986 when the watermain was delayed and because the previous roadway surface was delayed, Council did ' • approve it and put a flag on those parcels as future assessments and a pending assessment in the future for those parcels which. . . So those parcels should have been purchased with a pending assessment. If Council so desires to proceed ' with completion of that project, I have included a project schedule in the back of the report. In 2 weeks we can be back, basically the next 2 or 3 weeks be back with the plans and specifications for your acceptance and we can authorize for construction of bids. That's a pretty quick review of what you've got in front of you there. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thanks. Any questions? Is there anyone wishing to ' address this particular item on the agenda? This is a public hearing? Richard Andresen: I'm Richard Andresen with the PMT Corporation. I'm speaking ' in behalf of Al Iverson who was unable to attend. I'd like to read off a letter that he wrote. Dear Sirs. I wish to convey my disapproval of the City project 85-138 and the subsequent specials at this time for the following reasons. One, the improvements are not part of Lots 1 and 4. Two, we've been charged specials ' already for such improvements. I thank you in advance for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Al Iverson, President, PMT Corporation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: Where are Lots 1 and 4 on that diagram? Dick Potz: Well one is the corner lot right across from the city garage. Lot 4 is this parcel. ' Councilman Johnson: So Lot 4 is definitely involved in this project. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, if I could address this issue. Al had asked Richard ' to attend tonight's meeting because he hasn't received the private redevelopment contract as of yet with the HRA. That agreement was executed at 4:30 today and it was sent to him. Included in that agreement are the specials for these I15 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 • pending improvements so the specials that were outlined on the Board above are I going to be picked up as a part of his agreement. I'm sure Al was just making a note for the record. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Roman Roos: My name is Roman Roos with Rome Corporation. I'm the owner of Lot 3, Block 1. We understand the process of development, especially what Opus is doing for Lots 4, 5 and 6. I guess my question and my concern is having to do again with the assessments. Lot 3 which was really a composite of the old development actually was 3 different lots including 3 lots really formed Lot 3 plus it formed the basis of part of Lot 1, Block 2 and part of the Outlot A. I guess my concern number one is that those two remaining lots, Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 2 be part of this as is the other parcels. In fact if that has to be sold. Secondly, I have 3 laterals coming into Lot 3 at the present time off of Park Road along with 3 water lines coming in. It seems that the development of the watermain, the 10 inch main is really solely for the purpose of those interior lots and I wanted to make note of that. I would disapprove becoming a share of those assessments on that basis. Like Mr. Iverson, I also was assessed and will be picking up the existing assessments from the original development. In addition to that , I at this point in time feel that I know under the development contract when I develop our Lot 3 which there will be and has been an approval of a 30,000 square foot building on that, it will pick up those assessments. Those remaining if you will. In the meantime I'm still paying on that so I just want to make that a matter of record please. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask another question here real quick related to what Roman just said? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Johnson: You paid the specials for Phase 1 or the specials have been assessed against you? Roman Roos: They are and I'm paying them off every year and of course as soon , as the building is developed under the contract, it will be the balance that's still left will be picked up. That is correct. Councilman Johnson: Right. Are the undeveloped Lot 4, Lot 5 and Lot 6, were they also assessed during the Phase 1? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Were they assessed equally during Phase 1? So they paid part of the water that's in front of your lot that's coming into your's and is not touching their's whatsoever is assessed against Lots 4, 5 and 6 even though they have no use of that? Roman Roos: Jay, you'd have to go back and look at the original site plan if you will. There was quite a different configuration in there in terms of the lots, most of them fronting onto Park Road. I do happen to have that drawing. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That's why you have 3 stubs coming into your lot. 16 I City, Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Roman Roos: That is correct, yes. And for those 3 stubs I am paying every 6 months that allocated portion if you will. Councilman Johnson: My question is, are those other lots also paying every 6 months for the cost of Phase 1? Dick Potz: Jay, you're getting Phase 1 mixed up. Phase 1 that I'm talking about is because of the redevelopment and redesignation of this addition. ' Mr. Iverson is talking about is when this configuration of this area was in a different lot configuration. The cul-de-sac was not there. There were lots abutting up on Park Drive. This road was constructed. This sanitary sewer and this large. . . The services along here were placed based on that configuration. Then through the replatting of this Lot 1, Block 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Lot A necessitated construction of this cul-de-sac for sanitary sewer and watermains. Councilman Johnson: Inside of there? Dick Potz: That's Phase 1 that I'm talking about. Councilman Johnson: Has Roman's lot and Mr. Iverson's lot, did they get assessed for your Phase 1 that you're talking about? Dick Potz: Yes they were. They were not the owners at that time. The owners were Alscor Investors who owned Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 who petitioned and they desired to spread that assessment for the whole project as a developer's ' contract states over all those parcels equally. That's the way Phase 1 went through. They were assessed for the construction of their road that's there now or for the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer. Yes they were. I've got a copy ' of that report . Councilman Johnson: And these lots before becamse the 5th division were ' assessed also for Park Road, the sanitary sewers, storm sewer and everything along Park Road also more than likely. Dick Potz: I can't answer that . ' Councilman Johnson: But they weren't in this configuration. Dick Potz: Maybe Don can answer how that was developed originally. Mayor Chmiel: You actually purchased it from Alscor is that correct? r Roman Roos: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: It complicates the matter on the assessment side of things but we're not here to decide the assessment side of thing. Councilman Workman: What are you suggesting then Jay? ' Councilman Johnson: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to figure this out. I'm just trying to figure out who's on first here. It depends upon the purchase contracts and everything else that's happened since as to how we spread these assessments and who pays for what in these assessments. If these 17 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 • were still 6 available lots, there'd be no question. All of a sudden there seems to be questions because they're no longer available. They're owned by different people. I mean those costs would have just been passed on. Now if there are pending specials in the designation, this is what we're talking about I would assume. These pending specials and when you purchase the lot you knew there was a pending special against it. But here we're only here to authorize preparation of plans and specs but it always gets into this discussion of assessments. Don Ashworth: I think that Mr. Iverson's question has really been addressed. I think the other owners can. . . Roman Roos: I can make this quite easy. I'm very much aware of the development contracts and I fully intend on using that. I've already been granted it on my development. My concern is not so much that as my concern is that if indeed that is going to be the process by which those assessments are split up to the abutting lots, then in fact it should be all the lots and that would include Outlot A and it would include Lot 1, Block 2. That's my only comment. Other than that, that's the way it is. Thank you. Councilman Workman: The only comment I had was, we laid a lot of asphalt. We did a lot of work on this road. We seem to do this a lot in the city. We build roads to rural standards and then 3 years later we want them to be city standard. Isn't there a cheaper way? There's really not a whole lot on this road. There isn't anything using this road currently. Isn't there a cheaper way for us to take care of a sediment or poor soil problem on a road like this like stacking large piles of earth to squeeze it down rather than laying the asphalt and then having to redo the whole. Waiting for it to settle and then '. redoing the curb and gutter and everything else? Who goofed on this? Dick Potz: Nobody goofed. I can give you a copy of the original report. I Councilman Workman: The City Council goofed. Mayor Chmiel: No. Nobody goofed. ' Dick Potz: I can give you a copy of the original report which had the soil engineer's recommendation there. He looked at surcharging and it was too much down there to compress by surcharging unless he put wicks in it and went through the sediment plate area. You still surcharge it. You still wick it. You still measure the plates. When you assume after 6 months to 9 months it's settled, you remove the surcharge and there's a certain amount of rebound and you pave it. There's not a soils engineer around, whether you believe the one that did the original work out here that says that road after curb and gutter would have been placed that still isn't going to go like that. There was no immediate pressure to build on these lots so we felt that by the expense of surcharging and the wicks involved and the time to do it. Pull it back. Put the curb and gutter on, that it was not probably a wise investment so why don't we just put the rural section in there. The first layer of asphalt which is still going to be used. Overlay it with another layer and add the curb and gutter on the side at a later date and let the thing settle. He had indicated that in this area here it's a potential of up to 6 inches of settling. It did not settle 6 inches based on his calculations. There has been some interest in Lot 6 and Lot 3. 18 I I/ City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 The cheapest way I think is the way we tried to build it the first time. If there had been a building anticipated to go in there right away, you may have selected to go by surcharging or done something different so we could get the road finished in a final condition. Does that make sense? Councilman Workman: I'm not sure what a wick is. I know what surcharging is. Dick Potz: It pulls water out of there and let them squeeze down. Councilman Workman: So you're saying that by putting a layer of gravel or ' whatever and then the asphalt, that does a better job than surcharging it? Dick Potz: There had been a lot of fill material put over the peat and muck that was down there already. So one of the choices was to dig it all up. . . The ' other choice is to put an overburden on there to compress the soft underlying soils and speed up the compression of the underlying before the road is put on. So we had to haul in all the extra material and we didn't think it was necessary ' to go through that expense because nobody was ready to build on Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 that they needed so that was the most economical way to get a roadway in there. ' Councilman Workman: But we didn't need the roadway anyway at that point or even now. ' Councilman Johnson: Could have. A building could have been built there any day. Dick Potz: Two months later the Council could have had somebody come in there. I don't know. The petition was to build a roadway in there so they could develop it . We don't know what was in his mind that he had somebody who's come and gone that wanted to put something on those lots. We don't know that. All we know is that they're still vacant. Councilman Johnson: What's the timeframe for a surcharge? Do you leave it on there 3-6 months or whatever? Dick Potz: Well it depends. I'm not a soils engineer. 9 months probably. ' Councilman Johnson: And we've done this one, since this was built before I came on Council, it's been there over 4 years now? ' Dick Potz: We built what's there now since 1986. There was over burden placed over that soft soils 4 or 5 years before this went in so there's, we anticipate it's not going down a lot further. Councilman 'Johnson: I saw this road out there about 3 years ago. I came in and asked about it and had this whole conversation about 3 years ago. ' Councilman Workman: Is that what we did Dave Hempel on Lake Drive East? Is that why they did such a huge job of excavating to take those soils out of there? Dave Hempel: Are you referring to the one by DataServ? Yeah, that's correct. 1 19 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: So basically they surcharged? Well they didn't really do that either though. Dave Hempel: They took the bad stuff out there to conserve time. Don Ashworth: Adjacent to Empak and Rosemount . Those are two surcharge areas. Those materials will come back out of there. Councilman Workman: You know hindsight you know is very, very accurate and so I guess that's what I'm getting at but it would appear as though the same situation for CR 17 south, if we had maybe done some things, it would appear to be double assessments and upgrading of the road to an urban section and that's, am I making myself clear? Does anybody care? , Councilwoman Dimler: I care. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else wishing to address this? 1 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was- closed. Councilman Johnson: I move we approve preparation of plans and specifications for this project 85-13B. Councilman Workman: Second. I Resolution $90-99: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Park Place Phase II (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition) Project No. 85-13B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE SUSAN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-3. , Mayor Chmiel: Dave, are you going to address this? Dave Hempel: I'll deflect it to our consultant here again. Mr. Scott Harri of Van Doren, Hazard. Scott Harri: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Scott Harri. On Friday, August 10th the City received 3 bids for the construction of the Lake Susan Park improvements. The low bid was received from Finley Bros. Enterprises of $309,185.28. Upon our reference checking of that firm as it matched up it's skills against the construction needs for tennis courts and ball diamonds, basketball courts, and those types of outdoor athletic facilities, we found that they've had about 17 years of experience building these types of things and are I guess highly skilled in this area and we would recommend award of the bid to Finley Bros. Enterprises. Resolution 190-100: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to Il award the bid for Lake Susan Park Improvement Project 89-3 to Finley Bros. i Enterprises in the amount of $309,185.28. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 20 City -Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 AWARD OF BIDS: UTILITY TELEMETRY SYSTEM. PROJECT 90-3. Mayor Chmiel: Who's going to address that Dave? Dave Hempel: Hopefully there's an individual from OSM here this evening. Dean Sharpe: Your honor, members of the Council, my name is Dean Sharpe. I'm 11 with OSM consultants. We prepared the plans and specs for this project. We received three bids for this project on July 27th. They range from a low bid of $270,596.00 to a high bid of $478,687.00. This project utilized pre-qualification of bidders. We checked references beforehand. Past experience in projects of this nature and such. We pre-qualified four parties to bid and three of them did so. The low‘bid we find to be responsive. Have done projects like this before and are presently serving the City and we recommend award to ' Bentec. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. This is something that I have been hoping for us to 11 get for a long time because over the overall run, it's going to save us a lot of dollars. A lot of labor and a lot of truck time. A lot of checking every mornings and labor costs are going to lower in itself so I can't make the motion at this particular time because we're lacking to have 3 members here. If one of ' the Council people can hear it, I'd like them to come back in here wherever they may be. Tom? ' Councilman Johnson: Well, we can make the motion and the second. We just can't vote on it. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I'll make that motion. ' Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Tom Workman, can you come in here? Oh Ursula. Never mind. Councilman Johnson: Just say yes Ursula. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second to approve the award of bids for utility supervisory control and data acquisition Project No. 90-3. Resolution #90-101: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the bid for the Utility Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System to Bentec in the amount of $270,596.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST TO INSTALL A CHEMICAL TOILET ON A BEACHLOT LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ACROSS FROM LINDEN CIRCLE. MINNEWASHTA CREEKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Councilman Johnson: At the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tonight we denied the petition. Although there was a lot of sentiment that the use of chemical toilets at a beachlot may be appropriate versus the use of the lake for the same ' reason that the chemical toilet's used. But we went way beyond this beachlot to say well we've also got these at all of our city parks. Those adjacent to 21 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 waterways and everything else. That it may not be the zoning ordinance that should be totally controlling port-a-potties or chemical toilets and that's why I've asked for it to be on the Council Presentation tonight so we can get some action on looking at the overall use of portable potties or chemical toilets throughout the city. The people are still here from the Association I see. Mayor Chmiel: If anyone would like to come forward and address Council in regard to your particular project. Nancy Christensen: My name is Nancy Christensen. I live at 6561 Kirkwood and I'm the President of the Association. Mayor Chmiel: You're aware as to the position, that the Board of Appeals has reviewed your subject matter of a port-a-potty on your beachlot? As it appears, 1 there seems to be some inadequacies throughout the city and I really sort of agree that we should review this to come up with a conclusion and I think this year is probably almost gone by the wayside unfortunately but this is something that we can have at least an answer for this, at least for next year's beachlot so unless you have something else you'd like to say, we'll be more than happy to listen. Nancy Christensen: Well, it 's not necessarily have a lot to say. I have some things to say. That we have about 60 families using this beachlot. We really feel that it would be better for our ecology to have a portable chemical toilet on site rather than use the lake, the bushes or whatever which is what people do. Minnewashta Parkway is almost an impossible road to travel or to cross and it's really difficult to send small children across it. You can't do it. We have a crosswalk and it's ignored. The 3 years I've lived there, not one person has ever stopped for me or my children. So for that reason we feel that it's somewhat of a hardship not having a toilet down there. Sometimes there's really large gatherings and we don't have, there's nothing there. What do we do with 100 people and that's why we're asking for a seasonal use permit and that's it. Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question. On the two lots that are there that were grandfathered in that do have chemical toilets, can somebody address how that's been working out? Nancy Christensen: Well I have a letter from them. Councilwoman Dimler: Are they seasonal? Nancy Christensen: They're seasonal and the people I've spoken to from there, the President and the secretaries, they said they've never ever had a problem. It's just there like the sand is there. Like the water is there. People expect it to be there. They've never been abused. Councilwoman Dimler: And nobody's tipped it over? The fears that were voiced. Nancy Christensen: No. And our beachlot we plan on probably, I'■ not sure if this we will do it right away but more than likely we'll put a cement slab down. Stake it down and put a fence around it so it can't be seen. It can be cleaned in 2 hours notice. I mean it will automatically be cleaned once a week, probably twice a week, especially in the months of July when it's really warm. 22 1 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' I mean today when I was down there, there were probably 25 people down there. Most of them children. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, is this something that we can act on tonight? Is this something we're going to act on? Councilman Johnson: I have it also under Council Presentations but we can move it to this point just as easily and direct staff to look into it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it would be good for you to move that up right now Jay to this particular one because it's one and the same. So maybe if you'd just reiterate. Councilman Johnson: Well basically we want to look into chemical toilets throughout the city. Construction sites. Where should they be located? You go into a construction site and they locate it right next to the creek. Setbacks from wetlands. Property line setbacks. The whole use of chemical toilets at the 4th of July celebration and whatever. Numbers for the numbers of people. What were the problems in these other cities that they don't recommend them being on beachlots even though they have them themselves on their city parks at the beaches. I'm not sure if the one in Minnetonka got thrown in the lake or just dumped over and it ran into the lake. They don't carry that much stuff in them. But if it's a matter of it getting thrown into the lake, that can be solved by anchoring them and requiring it to be anchored. You can require it to be visible from the street. There's lots of requirements that can be put on there to where you know, if it's more visible it's less likely to be vandalised. ' Councilman Workman: Visibility is one of the problems people see with them. Mayor Chmiel: We've had ours in the city park, Greenwood Shores Park for the last 3 years and we've not had any problems with that. Councilwoman Dimler: And we have a homeowners association too where a lot of people think it's going to be a good idea to put one down there. Councilman Johnson: You don't have one at yours? ' Councilwoman Dimler: No, we don't. But a lot of people ask about it. Councilman Johnson: Yours is a bigger homeowners association than theirs. A lot bigger lot too. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Councilman Johnson: The thing is, there's going to have to be a minimum distance back from the lake and all kinds of rules and regulations on how to do this before we start granting them. That's what I'm proposing that we look into is what are those rules and regulations. Councilwoman Dimler: Greenwood Shores has had one huh? How they'd get it? Mayor Chmiel: It's a city park. 1 23 11 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 I Councilman Workman: The City's different. I Councilwoman Dimler: Ah, I don't like that. I don't like that. Mayor Chmiel: That's the point that I brought it up you know. The City parks 1' have it. Beachlots can't. I guess I don't understand. Councilwoman Dimler: Free water and chemical toilets. 1 Councilman Johnson: But the one at Carver Beach is right up next to the road. It's the only place you can service it and it's probably 50 foot from that ' nearest house. Councilman Workman: How many beachiots on Lotus? I Councilwoman Dimler: Private or public? Councilman Workman: Both. I Councilwoman Dimler: There's Carver Beach. There's ours. There's a public landing. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Three that I'm aware of. Councilman Johnson: Oh, more than that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: A public and two privates that I know of. Councilman Johnson: There's two private next to you and then there's a private over on the other side. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but they don't do anything to keep up their I lot. There's another private one that is not kept up yeah. Councilman Johnson: There's at least 3 private beachiots on the east side that I know of. Brian Windschitl: Jay, my name is Brian Windschitl. I live at 6591 Joshua , Circle and I don't know if it will help you at all but I feel everybody has a bad taste for chemical toilets. They've come a long ways. If they're tipped over right now, they're spill proof unless they're totally overused. Most II people think of chemical toilets as like when they go to the State Fair or any - functions which they're over used tremendously. I work construction so I'm with them all the time and within 2 hours I could have somebody out there and take care'of it. I mean if somebody comes in to me and tells me that they don't like the odor or they don't like how dirty it is in there, in 2 hours I can have somebody out there and have it cleaned so I think most of the people and probably you people, the only time you see them is at 4th of July function or I State Fair where like I say they're just totally over used. They're not as bad as they have been 20 years ago. I mean they've come a long ways and they are designed to be staked down. They have the holes right in the runners. Kids don't even care to tip them over. That kind of went out with the twist too. They're too lazy to tip them over. You know the other thing that we kind of 24 II] I • City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 11 feel, being on the far west end of town is, we don't really have a place for our kids or for that matter for us to go and that is our park out there and there's a chemical toilet on every park in the city that I believe and I don't really see a problem. We don't have, I noticed in the Boards of Appeals there they said that they thought that it might be too close to the neighbors. Well, the neighbors got the letter and there's nobody here that would have a problem with having it out there so I mean. Councilman Johnson: She's dead. One is. ' Mayor Chmiel: If you got a comment from there you'd be. Thank you. Jay, do you want to finish what you were saying? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I do agree that the technology of chemical toilets has changed a lot. I was just at the Star of the North games and they must have had, or not Star of the North. USA Cup Soccer Tournament and they must have had ' 40-50 of those things everywhere but they had a truck continously going around emptying them at that thing. After spending some time in the mountains recently with what they call the pit toilets, no running water or anything. Just a building and the pit underneath it, this is a vast improvement over that. My ' gut reaction without actually getting any real study on this is it's better off to have a chemical toilet the proper distance away from the property line and the lake than it is for the kids to go in the lake and create a warm spot. ' Councilman Workman: I'd like to move this along. I think we all understand that this is getting into the dog you know what scooper rule here. I'm sure everybody's aware and the homeowners are aware of the aesthetics. The potential pollution problem. I think we have to be very careful about, because once you say go on this, you're going to say it. We have 11 lakes or so and so it's going to be a big impact and so I think we're all sympathetic to the situation ' out there and what kids do and what even some adults do when it's late and they're drinking beer and everything else. And so I just think we should be very careful about how, and. I think that's what the Board of Adjustments was ' saying that why did the Council in the past say, the ordinance in fact say none of these toilets. If there's been changes and innovations then we should look at them and we should change with the times if it's prudent but it's a very ' delicate situation I think. Resident: Are you talking about all size beaches? Is that what you're talking about or are you talking about the City? iCouncilman Workman: Well apparently the City has special priviledges. We can put them anywhere we want apparently. ' Councilman Johnson: Our city park's not a beachlot. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes it is. Resident: . . .private access beaches? ' Councilman Workman: Right. I'm just saying it's not just one Satellite. It's many. 25 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Resident: Well how many times has this been brought to you by another private association that want port-a-potties? Councilman Workman: Well Ursula's has said that they want one. Resident: So that's one? Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, when you open up the gate then it's going I to happen probably everywhere. I can sit here and predict sure but I mean. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if you're aware but we do have presently a City Code that does read, no structures, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing houses, , camper trailers, tent, recreational vehicles or shelters shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beachlot. We have to change the Code first of all but I think what we have to do is look into it and study what's the best way for us to go about this to make sure we're not causing any more given problems than what could exist. I guess that's what Tom is really say right? Councilman Workman: Yeah. In addition to decks and everything else because we have those variance requests all the time and we have to say look at the overall. And again, it doesn't mean I'm against you having a, I'll refer to it as a Satellite, out there but once we say yes, then that's a part of the Code that's going to, somebody's going to come in with a deck and more the other side and all the way around and it's going to be. And so the overall protection of the lake is what I'm looking at. ' Nancy Christensen: You can't say it's alright to use just temporarily on a trial basis? Mayor Chmiel: Not according to our Code. We'd have to change the Code first. Resident: But with that Code, would it betaking into consideration that seeing ' you have a 45 mph, which everybody drives 70 mph speed limit and you have a crosswalk that these people are supposed to slow down at and you've got a trail of small children, 8,000 lawn chairs, 2 alligators trying to get them across this crosswalk and it's very dangerous. I've called and complained to the police department because my kids have almost been picked off trying to get them. You know they've got to pee and you don't want them peeing in the lake and it sounds trivial but it is a frightening thing to a small child and we've got like under 9, we've got about 50 kids out there. It's a real frightening thing. It is. You can't say well just run home and use the bathroom or run home because you have to be there to watch those kids to cross that walk. And even the policeman that I talked to said hey, we're not out here and unless we get complaints, they don't come. Mayor Chmiel: I've sat out on Minnewashta Parkway several different times watching the speeds and not having a radar gun unfortunately, I would say yes. There are some cars that do exceed their limits. Resident: You know we don't have the sidewalks and we don't have the bike paths and we don't have those other things so, and being that the park is across the highway, what mother is going to send their children. Right across TH 7, watch 26 I I . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 out for the semi's and you can go play not knowing whether they're going to come back or not. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Plus if you had more kids, you're not going to leave the other ones at the beach unattended so you have to take them all. It's terrible. I've been through it. ' Resident : It is very much so. Councilman Johnson: Basically what we're saying is two fold. One is, we don't ' believe it deserves a variance to the zoning ordinance in this case. Two, we believe we need to know under what conditions we should have them. What distances from the lake. Distance from lot lines. We need m ore study. Third, ' you're not going to put it up this year anyway so there's thetime involved and I think that we want to look at it this year over the winter months and get something going so that next spring this can be addressed. It may turn out that we want to say that any beachlot with more than blank families on it has to have ' one of these in there. Nancy Christensen: So you'll be able to give us an answer by perhaps next ' spring? Councilman Johnson: That's what we'll be shooting for yes. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'd try to do, yes. Nancy Christensen: Okay, that's fair. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ' Nancy Christensen: How will we know? Councilwoman Dimler: We'll put it on the agenda. ' Mayor Chmiel: We'll put it on the agenda again to discuss it and if you'd leave your name and address with Paul and Paul will make sure that you have that. ' Councilman Johnson: I believe we've basically given direction to staff. We don't really need to vote on that. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we need any motion on this. Don Ashworth: No, because the Board had acted on it. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERING/REMOVING VEGETATION IN A CLASS B WETLAND LOCATED IN CURRY FARMS SUBDIVISION. JOYCELYN HUGHES. ' Jo Ann Olsen: You have the report with all the history and this has been presented to you before. We did send it to the Planning Commission who felt to be consistent with past action and with what the ordinance states, they ' recommended denial. They did not feel that what was being proposed was an improvement to the wetland. They did not agree that it should be permitted. They sort of left it with direction to the applicant to further work with ONR, 1 27 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Fish and Wildlife and whoever to see if there were a way to remove some of the I vegetation in a manner that would be seen as an improvement to the wetland. In speaking with the applicant, they still wanted to pursue it through the Council to get full action to see exactly what the Council directs them to do. I'll just throw out what we did. We came up with a survey for the wetland showing the perimeter and the square footage. The applicants are proposing to clear away the vegetation on the easterly side opposite of where the city parkland is. Rather than get into the rest. . . Mayor Chmiel: And the direction on that Jo Ann, what direction from city park? Would it be south of that? Jo Ann Olsen: No, they're directly east across the wetland from the city park. Mayor Chmiel: Well the one south is Class A. Alright. , Jo Ann Olsen: This is an old plan that kind of shows the parkland. Another issue was that there was discussion whether or not the applicants should be required to pay the $25.00 application fee. There are two applicants with this and one of them has paid and Joycelyn hasn't because she was given direction that that would not be required. I explained that that would be really a Council action also whether or not to see. . . So you can also act on that tonight . Councilman Johnson: $25.00? The $25.00 was paid? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. $25.00 has been paid from the Bearrood's. . . Councilman Johnson: Is it one application or two applications? Jo Ann Olsen: Two separate applications. There are two separate lots involved. ' Councilman Workman: Are you through? Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one question Tom. Did you want to go ahead and comment. I have one question. I missed the reason why they wanted to cut the vegetation. Did you say anything about that? Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant's reason? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. , Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if we have the applicant come up and please state your name and your address. Lynn Hughes: My name's Lynn Hughes. My wife's the one that submitted the request. What we wanted to do is we wanted to alter the property, or our property right behind us that's classified as a wetland. When we originally purchased the property 2 years ago, it was shown that it was a drainage easement. There were no cattails. No build up of any kind of vegetation. We just want to go down there and clean it up. We don't want to alter it. We want to bring in some beauty to it with wildflowers. We'd like to get some ducks in there. We'd like to get all kinds of wildlife so that's what we're trying to 28 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ask for is alteration to clean it up. We don't want to go in there and turn it into a pond. We don't want to take all the cattails out. We just want to take some of them out so we can see the ducks. Right now if you were to look at what we've got , we've got a bunch of cattails that you can't see anything and it's covered with green slime. We'd like to clean up some of the vegetation around it and get it where we can see something. A majority of what we're talking about is on our property. It does back up to the park the way it's shown but most of the water and most of the vegetation is what we paid for and what we purchased when we bought the lot. It's part of the reason why we bought that lot. Now we want to go in there and do it. There were other people in our group or in our housing development, Curry Farms Addition that have done some alteration. We haven't touched it. We've waited. We've gone to the Council. We've listened to everybody's proposal. We've tried to go the proper route with ' this thing. All we want to do is clean up our yard. Councilman Johnson: How many other lots adjoin this wetland? Lynn Hughes: I think you can see that there's probably 1 on the end and then there's 3. We've got this one, this one and this doesn't really show it. ' Jo Ann Olsen: There's about 2 more in addition to that. Lynn Hughes: You can see that this one backs up to the end and this person over here has some. The majority of ones and the ones that turned in a permit or request for alteration are these two lots. Councilman Johnson: The two middle ones. Has there been any discussion with the people owning Lot 2 and Lot 6? Lynn Hughes: We've talked to them and I think they've had some discussion with ' Jo Ann. They have no desire to alter theirs. They want to leave it the way it is. Councilman Johnson: Because with the wetland permit, what was it? 20%? What was the percent? Lynn Hughes: It was 30%. ' Councilman Johnson: 30% allowable open area, whatever. These two use up that 30% you know and then you see the other. This one was surrounded by 8 different homeowners, 2 people came in and used all the allowable then it's kind of like a first come, first serve. I've got mine. Lynn Hughes: We'll use just our 30%. We were willing to go along with the proposal but our 30% would be both this side as well as the other side. If you look at the total square footage of the area, of the wetland, we have some on both sides. We're willing to just alter 30%. We're willing to go along with ' the proposal that was presented to us. So all we're doing is we're going along with everything that was presented to us in a compromise. Joycelyn Hughes: And it's taken a year to do it. ' 29 I • City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 11 Councilman Johnson: The development of this area has totally changed this 1 wetland has it not? I mean of the wetland that was there before Curry Farms was developed, there's not much of that remaining? Jo Ann Olsen: It's been dredged out and made smaller and deeper. Lynn Hughes: In fact it has a drainage. This wetland has a drainage. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I mean that's where the horses used to run around from Jensen's horse farm. A lot of fertilizer. Councilman Workman: My question is, is can you thin out wetland vegetation in order to, as they're saying to see? Jo Ann Olsen: Dredge really. You have to dredge it and make it deeper. ' Councilman Workman: In my discussion with Paul earlier today, it was his interpretation that Planning Commission denied this because the word improvement really, they weren't really improving it. They were altering it but not necessarily improving it and improving it is a word they may feel they're improving it and then Fish and Wildlife might have a different term for that and maybe we do. But Paul was saying that, as you do, that dredging it and making it a permanent wetland is an improvement but thinning it really isn't. Jo Ann Olsen: Well, it's a wetland now. Dredging it wouldn't make it any more 1 permanent wetland. What it would do would be to provide open water that would stay open and clear the vegetation of the cattails. Councilman Workman: Is that preferable to so called thinning it? Paul Krauss: Thinning is really not a. concept that I think the ONR, Fish and Wildlife support or understand. You don't thin something that grows back every year. I mean you don't pull out every other cattail and achieve a goal. It's my understanding here that the applicants want to achieve having open water. Having open water, a mixed open water surface and cattail surface is generally thought to be an improvement in most water bodies because you have water flowing into the open water. But the way you get that, as Jo Ann was saying, the proper way to get that is you go in with, you have some equipment and you dredge it out past a depth of 4 or 5 feet so cattails just can't root on the bottom where you have the open water. As I understood the Planning Commission, they were saying that if that was the kind of improvement that was being sought, that they would look favorably on something like that. They were just uncomfortable with the proposal as it sat right now. They didn't really believe it achieved the purpose. I Councilman Workman: But if you dredge something out, aren't you going to have potentially have cattails just moving further up their yard potentially? I mean are you going to have a yard and then a drop off and there's the water? ' Paul Krauss: No. The water elevation of this feature would stay exactly where it is because it's contingent on the outlet structure for the ponding area. What you're doing is you're making a portion of it deeper so that plants can't root on the bottom. 30 i I • City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: They're still going to have some edging vegetation. Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do we know what the depth of that existing pond is? ' Paul Krauss: I don't. Councilman Workman: And one last question. I think I've seen some of the handiwork of your neighbors that you're talking about and it's kind of a hit and miss thing that really doesn't make it look very attractive or natural. Lynn Hughes: That deals with our neighbors. That doesn't deal with what we're ' asking for. Councilman Workman: Right. I understand that. Is this, it would appear as though this would affect these people and so it would be more or less uniform here. Am I correct? Paul Krauss: If we could back up a litle bit. This came out of a desire that was expressed by the Council to try and work out some sort of a compromise here. This project was not processed in the optimum way. The identification of the wetland wasn't made terribly clear. The developer told people something. ' Realtors told people something else. People didn't understand that a drainage easement could be a wetland as well. We have no maps that show these areas with any certainty. We came into this because people had been unilaterally filling and we responded to those complaints that some people were saying, you know there's filling and we went out and investigated. In trying to work out a compromise, and that's sort of what this is, this 30% rule or guideline is a guideline that I'd have to say the Fish and Wildlife came up with to make the ' best of not an optimal situation. We have been working with two groups of neighbors to resolve these things. This proposal means that the neighbors on a given wetland all have to cooperatively agree on what the improvement's going to be. Some people may get the open water in front of their house. Some people may not get any but they all have to agree to it because we don't want to arbitrate with neighbors as to who's going to get what. The other wetland I have to say is much more complicated. There's many more people. There's been ' significant alteration there already and it's interesting to see right now that some of that alteration took place last year when we were still in a drought. There's one fellow for example who built a chainlink fence below what was the high water elevation of the wetland. That is now partially under water and he's got cattails growing inside his fence. So we are trying to work these things out but again, getting back to this particular wetland we've asked the neighbors ' to cooperate., These neighbors did not go in and alter anything yet so I suppose in that, there's a moral step up I suppose from what we had on the other one. We are trying to work out a compromise but again I think the Planning Commission was supportive of it, they just wanted it done correctly. I've got to believe that the DNR and Fish and Wildlife were giving us guidance would assume that to the extent that we're going to allow alteration to take place, that we are doing it correctly. Councilman Workman: So you're saying the way they want to do is incorrect? ' 31 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' Paul4Crauss: And don't achieve the goals that they want and will not achieve the policy goals that the City has set. Lynn Hughes: We're willing to do what the Wildlife, who was it? Jim? Wildlife and Fish but what was it? Jo Ann Olsen: Paul Burke. Lynn Hughes: Okay. What he proposed we're willing to follow in line with that. The 30% so we're saying we're willing to do here as a compromise. Councilwoman Dimler: I think this is the one Paul we were out at it after we ' checked, yeah. I think right now I'm feeling that we kind of promised them a compromise. We gave them a procedure to follow. They followed that procedure and now we're saying that maybe you can't do it. I'm a little uncomfortable with that. I don't think it's the best solution but I would be inclined to go along with it. I also think that Steve Emmings had a good comment in that he thought the City might be involved in the process to see that we do it right . Has that been checked into? Councilman Workman: Are you talking about thinning? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: No. He made some comment that we mow the land around there too. Is that correct? Paul Krauss: . . .park property that was adjacent to this. That the City in essence owned 50% of the shoreline of the this wetland and that we would be a party or could be a part into it. We haven't investigated that further. I guess I'd have to say the City, we're not aware of any desire on the part of the City to alter this wetland any further. This is solely to satisfy some aesthetic and presumably environmental desire of the neighbors. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: But if we're concerned that it's done right, then maybe we should be involved is what I'm saying. Jo Ann Olsen: We'll be involved in like the inspection part of it, the design of it. Councilwoman Dimler: Apparently it has to be done every year right? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Not if it's done correctly. I Paul Krauss: If it's done correctly,. ..and it's good for a number of years until it sediments in. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my comment is still the same that you know we altered one for our purposes over there on Lake Drive East and I think we've taken them to a certain point expecting that we would work out a compromise. I know the City does it when it fits their purpose so I really think we should maybe go along with this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I 32 1 . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: After all this discussion, the dredging and digging and everything, what exactly is the applicant asking to do? Just cut down the, pull out what's there now? Wetland vegetation and put in wild flowers. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe they were just going to remove the vegetation. They weren't going to actually alter the depth or remove any of the soil on the bottom of the wetland. Councilman Johnson.: Basically mow the wetland and replant it? Is there open water in that wetland at times? ' Mayor Chmiel: Is it there at all times? Okay. 11 Councilman Johnson: So we're not doing any dredging and this would be a continuous maintenance type deal where you'd have to mow it after the flowers quit blooming or whatever and replant flowers every year. If you let it go, it just goes back to where it started. I still think we need some fertilizer use ' control over wetland areas and distance wetlands and whatever. Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm not that sure that there's any real reason to. . . ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That brings up a question if I may ask. With the change of ownership, I know you think you're going to stay there forever but perhaps you don't. Being that it's a maintenance every year. Change of ownership, what happens? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. How do we convey this? ' Paul Krauss: Well I think that's one of the, yeah we'd record it against the properties but when you have a wetland alteration, a traditional wetland alteration, you have a plan and the contractor goes out there and does the owrk. ' We inspect it. It 's done. It doesn't change from year to year. This is one that you'd almost have to go out periodically to make sure that the stuff wasn't mowed down too far into the wetland. The people understand the 30% rule. What's growing in the area that's been opened up. It's somewhat more difficult . Councilwoman Dimler: So we're leaving ourselves open to problems in the future is what you're saying? Interpretation problems? Paul Krauss: Yeah. Lynn Hughes: If we didn't touch it, it'd just go back to the wetland. Councilman Johnson: Actually a wetland alteration permit goes with the land doesn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So the next owner may choose to exercise it or may choose not to exercise it. ' 33 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Johnson: But he would probably have no knowledge of the wetland alteration permit and he'd just all the way down if he wanted to. That 's basically what happened over in other areas. Just clean up my back yard because • nobody informed him. Joycelyn Hughes: We'd inform them because I don't want them to have to go through what we've been through. Councilman Johnson: But you're trying to sell a house. It's easy to say right now when your house isn't for sale and you're not trying to buy a house in California for that other job or whatever. I Mayor Chmiel: It's really a catch or catch can on this whole thing. In other words, it's really hard. Councilwoman Dimler: It's hard to decide on this. Mayor Chmiel: It is. I Paul Krauss: If I could suggest. I don't mean to butt in but it seems to me that there may be grounds for compromise here that what the question here seems to be one of technique and not of the other fundamental action here. We've tried to work out this compromise from the start and Ursula you know we've been involved with this for quite a while and we had recommended approval to the Planning Commission. I think we would support it and I think the Planning Commission's intent would be served if this was approved with the wetland improvements taking place subject to the recommendations of the ONR and Fish and Wildlife as to how it be done. Now that may not be exactly the techniques that I the applicants wish to employ but it still would achieve their purpose. I think that we as staff would be more comfortable with a proposal coming down that way. Councilwoman Dimler: Do those authorities have a procedure in place that it I won't take forever for them to find out what they're supposed to do? Jo Ann Olsen: Well after the Planning Commission I talked to Teresa and asked 1 her to make, start that contact so they could provide us with a plan that had been approved by those. I don't know if they've followed through with that yet but no, it doesn't take too long. , Paul Krauss: The staff at ONR, Fish and Wildlife have been out there several times. They're fully familiar with this and it's not going to be an awfully big deal. ,. Councilwoman Dimler: Would that be acceptable to the Hughes' and the Bearrood's? I Lynn Hughes: One comment that he made to us when he got there was that this size wetland is too small for him to waste his time. . . .working with wetlands 3., 4 times the size of this in the city. Councilman Johnson: 100 times. I! Lynn Hughes: Yeah, easy. He's not concerned with the size that we're doing.. 9 34 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: True but each wetland should be treated separately whether it be small or large. They're all valuable. Lynn Hughes: . . .he didn't have time to mess with it. . . Paul Krauss: I think that's really a misrepresentation. I mean we've had their staff people. Yeah, they have devoted an inordinate amount of time to two rather small inconsequential wetlands and yes they probably do have more important things to do with their time but they came out there because fundamentally they're concerned about these things and we've developed a very supportive relationship between city staff and their staff and they did it to back us up as well. I still think that this is something that we can work out and it's a question of technique. iCouncilman Johnson: So it may take staff making a call to DNR too. They work with us on small wetlands all the time. Smaller than this one even believe it or not. But to them if it's under 5 acres, forget it. They really don't, we're one of the few cities in the entire state that protect wetlands under 5 acres. It's getting to be more and more. We were one of the first I think to do such. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Have the applicants submitted a procedure as to how they propose to do it? Maybe that's where we need to start. :I Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be a good idea. Paul Krauss: As I say, if you're comfortable approving it subject to staff obtaining a plan that meets the guidelines of DNR and Fish and Wildlife, I'm confident that we can work that out. Mayor Chmiel: Plus I think to develop a kind of a tickler system, within a year ' from the specific time that you get this thing rolling, make sure that you check back to see that it's being done in the fashion that it was intended to be done. Councilman Johnson: The one other thing I'd want on this particular one is that all property owners of this wetland be made fully aware of the alterations and that they realize that these are the only alterations that are going to occur on this wetland. This is it for the wetland. So that's the 4 homeowners and the City obviously is aware of it because we're involved in this but what I don't want to see is the other 2 homeowners coming in and say, hey that's pretty. Let me do it too. If you're already taking up the 30% capacity allowed for the entire wetland. Lynn Hughes: We'll address the 30% in our area. Councilman Johnson: Oh, 30% on your property? ' Lynn Hughes: Of our property. I'm uncomfortable with you saying get your other neighbors to agree with what you're doing. Councilman Johnson: But you already said they do. Lynn Hughes: They do but that's the ones today. Now if it changes, it could change everything. 35 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Paul Krauss: No, it 'd be done at this point in time. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, this is frozen in this point in time. You can't say that some person in the future has approval over it. We're not even saying they IF approval. I want to say their knowledge in that obviously if they were really upset about it, they'd be here tonight but no. The drawings we have show 100%. From property line to property line you're clearing. That's what's before us right now is .100%, not 30%. Now you're saying you're only going to clear 30% of your perimeter? Lynn Hughes: Our property. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying 30% of each of your properties. I Joycelyn Hughes: 30% of ours and 30% of theirs. Paul Krauss: See one of the guidelines that they gave us was not that each I neighbor rip up 30% of their backyard but that there be 30% open water in the water body itself. And this has been one of the issues that I think Ursula remembers was one of the issues back in November with the other wetland as well is that we told the neighbors say look. You've really got to agree on who's going to do what. It's impossible for us to deal with each individual property owner. Each individual property owner having a pot hole in their backyard. Councilman Johnson: Is there open water currently on your property? Lynn Hughes: There's some open water. I Councilman Johnson: So you're not changing that? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I think I'm ready to make a motion. I move I approval with the stipulation that the applicant come in and present their procedure to City staff. That city staff approves of the procedure and with approval to the Fish and Wildlife and DNR guidelines and Jay, what was your last? Councilman Johnson: Just the neighbors being aware of what's going on here. I Councilwoman Dimler: The present neighbors? Councilman Johnson: The present neighbors. , Councilwoman Dimler: And notification of the present neighbors and their approval. Councilman Workman: And that if they're not satisfied with that, they have recourse to come back before the Council? I Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: We're talking about 30% of each plot? 36 1 I ,City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 IMayor Chmiel: No. Total. Councilman Johnson: You're talking different than the applicant then. See 1 I don't think we even know what's going on here because the applicant's saying we want to do it 30% of our lot. You're saying 30% of the total perimeter. Jo Ann Olsen: The plan that we were given. Councilman Johnson: The plans that we've got in front of us are different than what they're talking about now. Mayor Chmiel: I think we need clarification. Jo Ann Olsen: . . .showed 70 feet which is more than 30% of the lot. Councilman Johnson: Right. They've agreed to modify that and they want to go only 30%. 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Even if each lot does 30%, that totals more than 30% of the whole perimeter. ICouncilman Workman: What's the total perimeter of the whole pond? Councilman Johnson: Well you couldn't because the City owns half of it. If the City has half, everybody could do 60% of theirs. Jo Ann Olsen: Like Paul was saying that's not what, what we tried to work out was a plan where 30% would be the most that could be removed but it wasn't going to be 10 feet here, 10 feet here, 10 feet here. They'd prefer to have areas of open water. Areas of vegetation. So again we'll have to work together with that plan to be approved. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. But if the two people on the end don't want to do anything, the two people in the center do, it makes sense to, on an adjoining property line between the two in the center to make that modification to where we have the minimum impact and they can both do what they want. I think the two groups can work together and come out to what they're looking for. I mean we 1 don't have a whole lot of information and there's a lot of conversation but something that will be actually less than the total perimeter and we'll do it all in one space. Not in potholes of open space. I agree with you. If this ' had 30 homeowners on it and every homeowner took 30% of their perimeter and cleared it, that would be very unnatural. Councilman Workman: Well that's what they're doing in the other pond. Not 1 these people. That's what the other people on the other pond have done and that's why I mentioned it looks ridiculous. Councilman Johnson: Leap frog development. Councilman Workman: Yeah, and that's what I understood the applicant to be 1 saying. That he'd do it and then his neighbor would do it over there and then we start to have these drive in. 1 37 i City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: I'd rather get the 30% done and over with so we don't have anymore wetland alteration permits to waste an hour on and staff waste many, many, a whole lot more than $25.00 worth of staff time on. Councilman Workman: Well I'd like to think this is time well spent. I mean you find out some things. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I shouldn't have said wasted. $25.00 permit is an ' extremely cheap thing when you start getting two. . . Lynn Hughes: . . .we were told it would be waived. Councilman Johnson: Who told you that? Joycelyn Hughes: It all began that night that we weren't aware that it was a wetland and it was a big misrepresentation of the what was there. Councilman Johnson: Oh, the whole Curry Farms wetland wave? , Joycelyn Hughes: . . .trying to figure out a compromise. Paul Krauss: What they were told was that we would certainly make the Council 1 aware of that . If the Council wished to waive it, it was really in your power to do it. Councilwoman Dimler: Is this one application or two? It looks like one. Mayor Chmiel: Two. I Councilwoman Dimler: Then it looks to me like we need the price for two. If it's one, then that 30% is included in the two properties to me. This is two applications each with 30%. Is that what you're saying? Jo Ann Olsen: See what you do is, because it's two different lots, individual lots. It's $25.00 per individual or else you can do $150.00 for more than one, you know a group. Councilwoman Dimler: You're better off with $25.00 each aren't they? I Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, they're better off. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Where are we going? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well I have a motion. No second. Councilman Workman: I'm going to have to have it repeated if I could. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't remember what I said. Where's the secretary? I Councilman Johnson: Who wrote that down? Jo Ann Olsen: I did. It's the applicant present the procedure to staff. Staff approve it along with Fish and Wildlife and DNR. The neighbors be informed and 38 , • I 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 that they give their approval to work on a plan that does the 30%. Then the fee, I didn't know. Councilwoman Dimler: Then we got into the clarification which I don't know if we settled that yet. Jo Ann Olsen: Then the application fees, I'm not sure what we said on that one. Councilman Johnson: We'll do that a separate motion. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I think that should be a separate motion. Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #90-4 for removal of wetland vegetation in a Class B wetland in Curry Farms with the conditions that the applicant present a plan using DNR ' and Fish and Wildlife guidelines for City staff approval. That all neighbors on the wetland are informed of the wetland alteration and approve the removal of 30% of vegetation on the entire wetland. All voted in favor and the motion ' carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Now the fee portion. ' Councilman Workman: Are you saying we waived this fee somewhere else? Jo Ann Olsen: No. What happened was that the Hughes' were told that it could be waived. That the Council could waive the fee and given the impression that there wouldn't be an application fee. The other applicant, when she brought in the application paid. Was told there was a $25.00 fee. ' Councilman Workman: So who's paycheck in City Hall will this come out of if we waive it because who told them that? Paul Krauss: The Council. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think in order for fairness, if one has paid the ' other should pay. Councilman Johnson: Or the other should get the refund. Councilman Workman: I would move to waive it based on. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're going to refund? ' Councilman Workman: Yeah. Based on their willingness to come in unlike some of their other neighbors and working with us and they're going to continue to work with us I think. Jo Ann Olsen: The other group is under the impression that their fees will be ' waived too. You're going to have. Councilman Workman: Is that going to create a big problem? ' 39 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ! Councilwoman Dimler: It will create a precedent. I Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: It will create a definite precedent. Councilman Johnson: Is everyone coming in with $25.00 fees? Mayor Chmiel: Especially with our $250,000.00 shortfall, we have to. Councilman Workman: How much money are we talking about for the neighborhood? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Well for that group it would be cheaper for them to do the $150.00. I Councilman Workman: So we're talking about $200.00 total? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And how many hours does staff have on this? , Jo Ann Olsen: Well we've got a lot because we did the survey. Councilman Workman: The City Attorney's already made double that tonight. My motion stands. Councilman Johnson: I'll second it . , Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to waive the $25.00 application fee for Teresa Bearrood and Joycelyn Hughes for the wetland alteration permit. Councilman Workman and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel and Councilwoman Dimler were silent and the motion carried. R.J. RYAN COMPANY FOR DEXTER MAGNETIC MATERIALS LOCATED ON QUATTRO DRIVE: ' A. REPLAT OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION INTO ONE LOT. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 20.000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING FACILITY. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to construct a 20,000 square foot office/warehouse. The Dexter Company manufactures industrial I magnets and will be relocating into Chanhassen from I believe Eden Prairie. The building will gain access from Quattro Drive. Two curb cuts will be utilized. The building is sited in a matter that allows the preservation of much of the mature trees in the property and also affords consideration screening to the north where there's a large change in topography. The building architecture is, it's not particularly exciting but it is consistent with the ordinance and with other buildings in the area. A conceptual expansion to the north is illustrated but no approvals are being sought for that at this time nor being proposed by the city staff. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 18th. They voted unanimously to approve the project but they did raise some concerns over the number of conditions that had been applied. Earlier versions of these plans weren't nearly as complete as the current set and it did result in a number of conditions being attached. . .review. In addition there were a group of residents from Eden Prairie who were concerned about visual impacts and possible noise impacts. Staff explained to the residents that were there that evening that the 40 1 City .Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 building would be highly screened by the 18 foot change in elevation. A lot of tree preservation that's being over on this property and on their property and also some additional plantings so I think that that concern is generally pretty ' well realized. Since the Planning Commission meeting the applicants have worked with staff to resolve most, if not all of the outstanding issues that were confronted at the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and preliminary and final plat approval. We'd like to add 2 conditions though however. They're relatively routine and they were somewhat overlooked I suppose when the staff report was generated. The first one concerns tree preservation and would be attached as I believe condition 7 to the ' site plan review and that is a standard stipulation that we put in there that all trees marked for preservation, or all trees designated for preservation are to be marked with a snow fence prior to grading and that that snow fence be out there for staff's approval. Staff will walk the site and we'll have it modified if possible to pick up additional trees if when we're out on the site that seems to be reasonable. Designated trees lost due to construction activity will be ' replaced by suitably sized and located material approved by staff. That is a condition that we've been applying routinely to every project that has a significant tree preservation element. The second one is a condition that we wanted to apply to the plat, final plat, that the applicant enter into a ' development contract with the city. That does it for me. Councilman Johnson: Snow fence at the drip line? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Johnson: Or snow fence this far around the trunk doesn't do you any good. You kill the tree anyway. Mayor Chmiel: So you're just clarifying that it goes out to the drip line of the tree as far as the outer perimeter. So you understand that part. Good. I guess I do have just a couple of questions. I'd like to find out the number of trucks per day that we're going to have into that facility. In looking at this, maybe I passed it over but handicapped parking. Paul Krauss: Well Ill defer the truck question to the applicants and handicapped parking has since been added. Roger Fellows: Good evening. My name is Roger Fellows. I'm the General Manager of Dexter Magnetic Materials. We ship primarily UPS so we have a UPS ' truck that comes in in the morning and delivers and one that comes in in the evening at 4:00 and picks up. We probably, I haven't done a formal study or count. We probably maybe get 2 to 3 semis in a day that might be delivering raw material but not a lot of truck traffic and nothing after 4:00. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How early in the morning? Roger Fellows: 8:00. Councilman Workman: That intersection on TH 5 is going to have a light. That's II • going to be a signalized intersection. 41 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. At that particular entrance into the city, that will be and that's in conjunction with Eden Prairie. Right. I notice we're saying we're going to lose 3 mature oak trees and those are going to be replaced by other It trees with specific diameters of the trees. Lighting was one of the issues. Making sure that we had no more than .05 foot candles of light on the property line. Paul Krauss: I guess Mr. Mayor, that 's typically a condition that 's satisfied when they come in with their building plans. They give us the detailed electrical work. , Mayor Chmiel: One of the other conditions I think should be on there and construction of, they should have erosion controls, Type III put on there during construction periods Paul Krauss: The most recent plans which we worked out this past week does show Type III erosion control. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Anyone else? • Councilman Johnson: Usually someone on the Planning Commission asks you a little bit more about the materials that you work with. Your chemicals and all. There was some mention of it in the Planning Commission but not very much. Do you have degreasers? Do you have any examples of what you manufacture? I mean magnets can be a lot of things. Magnetron. Mayor Chmiel: It's the thing that holds my refrigerator up. Councilman Johnson: It keeps the paper all together that holds the refrigerator up. 1 Roger Fellows: We're actually not a manufacturer. It's kind of, this is actually one of our, this is a blood pump. There's a local company. Councilman Johnson: Right. You make the magnet that goes into the blood pump? Roger Fellows: Right . Our primary markets here in the Twin Cities, we're part of the Dexter Corporation which is a Fortune 300 Corporation headquartered out of Windsor Locks. A little history. The oldest company on the New York Stock Exchange founded in 1767. We're a smaller division of that company. We have 11 plants across the United States, 2 in Europe. We're the largest fabricating distributor of permanent magnets and magnetic materials in the world. We don't actually take the, the magnets that you have in front of you are ceramic. They're like your dishes at home except they're unique in that they have these permanent magnetic properties. We don't take the raw ceramic and press it and slurry it. We take the blocks that are made. It's similar to a steel machining, precision machining business where they take bar steel and machine precision shapes out of it. We take magnetic materials, machine them into precision shapes and then we magnetize them and we create the magnet out of it so we're really a fabricator. We're primarily a machining business. We don't use any chemicals in our process. We use coolants which are all contained on small 10 gallons tanks on the floor. No real processes that require any chemicals. 42 1 , City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Johnson: You don't do cleaning processes? Roger Fellows: No. In fact the only things we really clean with, mostly we use ' just water. Councilman Johnson: Do you paint? Roger Fellows: No. Councilman Johnson: I mean these obviously. . . ' Roger Fellows: Yeah, that's coated actually. That's done by somebody else. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Is this your only product? Roger Fellows: No. We really don't . That's just a give away. Our products ' are made specifically for companies. We're a job shop so we make Rosemount or this company come to us and typically we get involved in the engineering and the design of the product and then we make the product for them but it's unique to them so we don't have a standard product line. Councilwoman Dimler: But it's all magnetic? Roger Fellows: Yes. Councilman Johnson: So you may make the magnets for the magnetron on a radar unit? Roger Fellows: Yeah. ' Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Wait a minute. What are you saying? Approval of (a) or (a) and (b)? Mayor Chmiel: Well I read them both. It was replat of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 plus the site plan would be it. Councilman Workman: (a) and (b). Councilman Johnson: With Paul's recommended changes? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, exactly. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Preliminary Plat Request 890-9 Subdivision as shown on the plan dated July 18, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 43 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 • 1. The plat shall show the typical easements 10 foot south (front) and 5 feet , on the north, east and west (sides). The applicant shall show the 20 foot wide preservation easement. ' 2. Park and trail fees must be submitted to the City in lieu of parkland at the time building permit is requested. - - 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City. 1 and approval of Site Plan Request #90-6 as shown on the plans dated June 18, 1990 subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. All trash will be stored internally. Plans for outdoor storage and rooftop screening shall be submitted to staff for approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded and Type III erosion control blanket installed. The detail should be incorporated into the new grading plan. , The applicant must provide retaining walls to protect the existing tree as shown on Attachment #1. 4. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City at the , time of building permit application. 5. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and must demonstrate that there I is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. The applicant shall submit signage plans for City approval. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conservation easement located on the northerly 20 feet of the property. 7. All trees designated for preservation are to be marked at their dripline , with a snow fence prior to any grading and approved by staff. All trees lost due to construction shall be replaced by suitably sized and located material approved by city staff. ' • All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE ' IDE A 10 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS, 1375 LILAC LANE, JAMES DONOVAN. Jo Ann Olsen: This is a metes and bounds subdivision dividing 1 acre parcel separating off a 1 acre parcel from a 10 acre piece. The 1 acre parcel has an existing single family residence on it. We did find out that it is hooked up to sewer and water so one of our conditions that they have to hook up, condition number 7 can be removed. That parcel already is connected to the City sewer and water. Also in condition 8 where the second line, second from the end where it says improvement project be conducted for Lilac Lane, that should be Teton Lane. The subdivision is a simple one but one of the issues surrounding it is the 44 . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' improvement to Teton Lane. We are not recommending that Teton be improved at this time but what we do with any subdivision is if there is the need to acquire right-of-way, if that street ever had to be improved in the future, we'd do it ' as part of the subdivision which we are requiring as condition of approval for this subdivision. So not only along Parcel A but both Parcel A and B we would like to acquire that right-of-way. Again, not to pursue the improvements at this time but just so we have the right-of-way available. Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Donovan here? Jim Donovan: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you'd like to add to what Jo Ann has said? Jim Donovan: Well on number 8 it says if further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created parcels or if access is desired on ' Teton, it is recommended that a full street and utility. I guess I don't understand what they're talking about. What they're saying there. In other words, if someone on Teton Lane decides to put their driveway from their house down onto Teton Lane, is that considered an improvement or are you just talking about my two parcels of property? Not anybody else's parcels of property there? Mayor Chmiel: Strictly your two parcels but I'd like to make sort of a clarification of this. I also sort of highlighted that particular one. From what's here in the staff's report, what I have here, Teton remains as a private street at this particular time. We have not, nor will we accept Teton as a public road. Further subdivision may trigger upgrading Teton but not required now. We are asking for 14 right-of-way and only to protect future options for that additional and any home built on a new lot should, if possible, use Lilac. ' Jo Ann Olsen: One of the reasons that that was pointed out was also just with engineer was looking at that. It would be the preferable access. ' Don Ashworth: I think it's 17. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it's 17. I said 14 but it should be 17. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Right. It wasn't real clear on the half sections exactly what the amount is but it looks close to 17 feet. I think engineering can address whether or not. We felt that we did want to have some say in where access did actually occur, if it does, on Parcel B. That could possibly trigger improvement. Councilman Johnson: Jim, are you building another house? Jim Donovan: No. There's a residence on Parcel A. ' Councilman Johnson: What do you live on? Jim Donovan: I live on, well I don't live on, I live on Parcel C I guess. I ' live to the east of there. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. So nobody's living there now? 1 45 i • City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 I Jim Donovan: No. There's a farmhouse there now and these people who are proposing to buy it are from Connecticut and they want to restore it. It's been rented for years and years and years and I bought the property approximately 3 years ago. Councilman Johnson: And you're doing this in order for the farmhouse to be sold? Jim Donovan: Yes. Councilman Johnson: That's the purpose of this? I Jim Donovan: That's the whole thing, yes. Councilman Johnson: And they've already got access? I Jim Donovan: They've already got a driveway there. They have city sewer and city water and it's all connected already. Councilman Johnson: That's where the deer hang out at night. And during the day actually in the tall weeds right behind there and they head over to your place in the evening. Jim Donovan: Because we feed them. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I was sitting out there with the radar, the City's radar one day on Teton radaring people and looked out and there were about 6 deer just stand up maybe 50 feet from me. I Jim Donovan: If you're looking on Teton and you look straight west then, you'd see my place there. I'm up on a hill there. I Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann that parcel A, what is the total footage on that? It shows here 142.07 by 239. Is that correct? I Jo Ann Olsen: It's just over, it's just an acre. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so a little over an acre. Okay. I Councilman Workman: There's no future proposed use for the rest of it? Jim Donovan: No. I Councilman Workman: And I know there's some people in here that are concerned about a barricade and I'm getting to know them as close friends. Jim Donovan: I want the barricade kept there because if that Teton Lane is made into a city street, I'm the person that's going to suffer. When Centex was I doing their development there, the City did an appraisal of the amount of money it would take for city sewer and water there and on my property alone would cost me over $33,000.00. 46 I . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' Councilman Workman: Well somebody in those proceedings stated there's a 99 year covenant on this piece that can't be developed and that was a premise for barricading. That was part of the premise for barricading in that it wouldn't be developed. Do you remember that? Jo Ann Olsen: It was stated. I don't know if it was ever. Councilman Workman: I don't doubt that but I'm just saying. Councilman Johnson: They said they would put a 99 year, if we wanted to I think ' somebody said they would put a 99 year thing on their property. I don't think there was. ' Councilman Workman: That would be this gentleman. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Jim Donovan: There is not a trust on it. Councilman Johnson: We never asked him to. ' Councilman Workman: No, I'm not going to ask him to but I'm just saying, somebody used that in the argument that that's why the barricade should be up ' because. Jim Donovan: I'm not proposing to develop anything here. ' Councilman Workman: I know that but anytime activity happens in this area, that barricade becomes. Jim Donovan: We're not really asking for any activity as such. I mean this property prior to this has been rented. It has not been improved by renters. These people are willing to upgrade this property and do a lot of things to make ' it more beautiful and to upgrade the whole thing. As some of the conditions for selling it, I've had to do some upgrading of the property itself in order to make it for the appraisals so overall it's to benefit the entire piece of property there. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, that's one of the reasons indicated before. Make sure everything is as is and we're not changing anything. ' Jim Donovan: I'd like to ask a question on number 5 there. The last part. , Designated as a protected wetland part of my property there. That is not a wetland. I mean we've had a lot of rain this year, much more than usual, and it's as dry as can be in there. I'm mowing in there and to arbitrarily designate part of my property as a wetland I don't feel is really fair. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any reason from staff? Jo Ann Olsen: We did go out when I had one of the Fish and Wildlife people out ' and we were looking at Curry Farms afid we drove them up there. It's another marginal wetland but it's got wetland vegetation. One of the reasons we were looking, so we are protecting it as a wetland as it is now and also if that land i47 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 is ever developed, that's where the water drains to and that should be protected. I'm learning from past experience, I just want to make it clear that those are wetlands and not necessarily completely be subdivided into lots. We want them to be protected. Councilman Johnson: A wetland does not have to have water on top of the I surface. Jim Donovan: I understand. I Councilman Johnson: If you've got within a few inches of the surface the water table, then your normal Bermudas, or not Bermudas. I'm back in Alabama. Kentucky's and whatever, cannot grow and you get wetland vegetation. That's what you've got in that corner is wetland vegetation. Jim Donovan: Well you said that you at one time stopped on Teton there and I looked across. Then you've seen how I've cleared off about 6 1/2-7 acres of that property. Mowed it off there. Councilman Johnson: At that time it wasn't. A year ago or something. At least not where I think they're talking about here in the southeast corner. Jim Donovan: That part is not yet. I mean but what I'm saying is that the part 1 of Parcel B at one time was like this and that I've cleared it and made it the same way. Councilman Johnson: We have people that mow wetlands. Jim Donovan: Pardon me. I know, it looks like a lawn now.. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That doesn't mean it's not a wetland because it looks like a lawn. Jim Donovan: My contention is that there are other parts of the property where the elevations are the same as what you're showing there in that wetland, or supposed wetland there and that part is. . . , Councilman Johnson: Not by your survey. Jim Donovan: Toward the western part of the property there where it connects with my. . .property. • Paul Krauss: That's about 8 feet higher. , Councilman Johnson: Yeah, 6 to 8 feet. 4 feet. It's going down. Everything else drains into this area. There is not outlet here is there? It's almost been shown as a depression. That's about where the deer came out of. There were tall weeds in there. Jim Donovan: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is this approval by the , Commission contingent upon this piece of property, this part of my property being designated as a wetland? I'm not clear from what it says. 48 1 , City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' Councilman Johnson: We could designate it as a wetland anyway. Without approval. If it 's got wetland, by our wetland ordinance, if there's wetland vegetation growing in it, it's a wetland. No matter what you did with it, it'd get designated, it 's a wetland. If you tried to develop it, it would then. Jim Donovan: No, I'm not talking about developing it but what I'm saying is that part of my other property that I've mowed down had the same type as here and that could just as well have been, and still can be wetland. Jo Ann Olsen: There's definitely a low spot right there. Councilman Johnson: Explain to Jim what the impact of us designating this as a wetland, what does that do to him? What can he or can he not do now with that property. Jo Ann Olsen: If and when or if he ever does subdivide Parcel B, it 's just letting everyone know ahead of time that that is a wetland and it will have to be protected. Most likely if that property is developed into 15,000 square foot lots, we have to get a few of them in there so it would have to be used as a drainage pond similar to Curry Farms. Councilman Johnson: But at this time he can mow it? Jo Ann Olsen: He can't fill it in. Councilman Johnson: He can run horses on it. I mean Jensen ran horses on her wetlands. ' Jim Donovan: I rented to her. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. See designating this as a wetland at this time has almost no effect on you. Only when you subdivide it it has an impact. Jim Donovan: I got you. I'm planting trees and things like that in there. Jo Ann Olsen: Right . Councilman Johnson: Just make sure that they can live in wetlands or you're going to waste your money. Jim Donovan: Yeah. Okay, that's, I didn't know what that meant. That's fine then. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Johnson: There's a couple hands up in the audience. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have something? State your name and your address please. Randy Carl: I'm Randy Carl at 6391 Teton which is a public street as far as I know since you guys come up and plow it and maintain it and service it and all of that . The barricade was put into place and all of that a couple-3 years ago when you guys approved the new Curry Farms development and it looks like since 49 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' there won't be any development on this, that there wouldn't be any reason to change that. I can understand that. But since there's been some talk about beautification and improvements and things have been done, since the City closed off that road here this year, all they've done is piled up concrete barricades, wooded barricades, hurricane fences and all kinds of stuff across there and it 1 was supposed to be a barricade that would be able to be knocked down by fire trucks and emergency vehicles to provide proper access. As long as you're looking at that property and you're saying you're 'not going to do anything any different or change that road and that access, we ought to at least then go ahead and fulfill the requirement. In my discussions with some of the people at the City on this, the reason they weren't doing it is because they knew this issue was coming up and they thought that this road might be opened up and improved but if it's not, then let's get the proper barricade in there so if a fire truck or emergency vehicle comes up, happens to come up the wrong side, they don't have to spend a couple minutes going back around because that could be a potential hazard to both the people that live on the older side and the people that live on the new side so I think the City needs to follow through now if they're going to leave this this way and fulfill that requirement. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Good point. Marc Simcox: Marc Simcox. I live at 21600 Lilac Lane in Shorewood and I'm here representing two people that do live in Chanhassen. The Ware's and the I Pickard's and the only concern that we had on this entire thing is something that the Mayor brought up earlier and it's item 8. What it seems to do in item 8, and I think you reworded it and I didn't understand it completely but what this does is this said that if there is, or. It says if further development or land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels, or if access is desired on Teton Lane then it opens it all up. The only thing that we would like to have that changed to read, if full development or land division or full land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels and if access is desired on Teton Lane, rather than say or because the way it 's worded now, if the new property owner decides because of the lay of the land they're going to build a new garage and so forth and if they decide to move it around and come on Teton or if the Ware's decide that they don't want to continue to drive over the Pickard's property on that easement, they'd like to go out to Teton Lane. That opens it up and it just really takes off all the other original, I think the original intent that was put on this restriction for Teton Lane when it was first upgrading. And that's the only concern that there is. If that could be clarified so that would state, and I mean we don't, you can't ever say never. We know that. We don't know, maybe Jim might develop it in a year but until that time, which I think was the original intent of the original proposal with Teton Lane, if we could just make sure that that's echoed here. I Mayor Chmiel: I think the clarifications that I had addressed that. Marc Simcox: Okay. Well if we could have that reread again so we understand , that. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Let me just go through it one more time. Teton remains as a private street. We have not nor will we accept Teton as a public road. I 50 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' think that sort of spells that out right now. Paul Krauss: It is a public road now. ' Marc Simcox: I think it is a public street, yeah. It is owned by the City. It was accepted when it was turned over to the City. Councilman Johnson: It's city right-of-way but it's not necessarily a city street. ' Marc Simcox: Oh I see. Mayor Chmiel: What I'm saying here is still is true. Further subdivisions may trigger upgrading Teton not required now. We are, asking for 17 foot of ' right-of-way only to protect the future options. And any home built on now, on new lots should, if possible, use Lilac. Marc Simcox: Is there a way to specify what kind of future development? The density or just to, I mean if you divide it in half that still leaves it open. Paul Krauss: If I may, I'd strongly recommend against clarifying or limiting your future options. What we have in these situations is that sometimes somebody decides I'm going to develop all 10 acres I own in one fell swoop but typically what happens is individual property owners make decisions over a 11 period of time. Right now we're creating a new homesite. Mr. Donovan is not intending to sell it right away but he could turn around and sell it tomorrow. That 's one new homesite. In the future the person who buys this home on the corner could theoretically subdivide that. It's an acre lot. There are lots on the east side of the street that could be subdivided. I don't know where the magic point is that you decide that you need the street but I'd be very relunctant to say that the whole area has to be developed before you make that ' decision. I think that decision needs to be done by you at such time in the future that this comes up. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's right . Marc Simcox: The only thing is that we'd like to go back then and as part of this proposal kind of clarify because it does say substantial additional development and just exactly what is substantial? When does the red flag go up for us when we see a proposal? Is it dividing it into two 4 1/2 acre lots or we don't know. It really leaves it wide open and anybody can challenge anything ' virtually. Paul Krauss: To further clarify this, when this originally came up we were told by neighbors that development wouldn't occur. It's occurring. I've got to believe, and I don't want to dispute anything that Mr. Donovan or anybody else said but I've got to believe that sooner or later it's going to continue to occur again. This is the first of a long series of things that's going to take place, probably over a period of time but it's inevitable that it will' probably take place and I think the City has to be in a position to handle that when it does occur. I 11 51 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 i Marc Simcox: And we don't disagree with that. It probably will. The only thing is that we want to do is have that addressed at that time. If that can be addressed, there's nothing wrong with addressing it at that time. Absolutely nothing. To acquire the right-of-way is fine and to address the rest of it when I/ that happens. We don't want to put in some kind of conditions in what we expect or think might happen in the future because nobody knows and to go and open this up as soon as somebody hiccups, be able to open that road up, that's what we're concerned with. Those are our concerns and that's all. Dave Priest: It 's less than a year since the public hearing when nobody said nothing was going to be developed and here we are. The property's being split now Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to state your name and your address please. i Dave Priest : Dave Priest, 6360 Teton Lane. Marc Simcox: If I could just like to address that . A lot of people have been I here since long before Centex ever dug a first scoop of dirt out of there and the whole proposal for closing Teton Lane never came from that neighborhood. That came from Centex as an alternative to spending a hundred and some thousand dollars to putting another access out onto CR 17 over city property over by where the machine shops are and losing Lot 15 so whether or not Teton Lane was closed off has absolutely nothing to do. That was one of the parts was that that property wasn't going to be developed but the major part of that came from Centex when Centex wanted to save the money and it was their proposal that we close it off and we agreed to that and we just want to stick with that. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any further discussion? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to clarify one of the conditions that's in there. I think condition 1 is misleading. We wanted to voluntarily have Shorewood review this plat to know that we've taken sufficient right-of-way to expand. We've indicated in condition 1 that we'd like Shorewood to be made aware of the fact that we've got sufficient right-of-way on Lilac to improve this street but it's misleading. We do not want nor do we think we need to have Shorewood approve this plat so I would ask you to delete the approval. Councilman Workman: Paul would it help us to somehow say, if further development, number 8. If further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created lots and if access is desired on Teton Lane by the City of Chanhassen? Why is it or? Jo Ann Olsen: We were leaving it so that even now if this Parcel B is developed into one lot and that they are proposing to use Teton. I mean the situation right now is that there should not be even one more access onto Teton Lane. We just want to leave it open that as each case comes in, we can look at it and review it. I Councilman Johnson: So if somebody builds on that Lot B I guess they're calling it. S 52 1� City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ' Councilman Workman: One more driveway onto Teton on Lot B is going to overload Teton? Jo Ann Olsen: Right now it should be improved. Councilman Workman: If we deleted number 8, would that leave it wide open? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, could I make a recommendation? That we pull 8 and ' substitute what I had for clarifications. Councilman Workman: I don't think we need the substitution either do we? Councilman Johnson: Just pull 8 altogether? Mayor Chmiel: Just pull 8 completely is what you're saying? Okay. Councilman Johnson: Handle it when it happens. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I agree with that. Jo Ann Olsen: I guess one reason why we had that in there was because the building permit does not come in front of you. Councilman Johnson: So•basically you want to say if a home is developed on Parcel B, it shall have access to Lilac versus Teton. That's one thing we're ' trying to say. Right now there's basically only one person using Teton. Jo Ann Olsen: We're going to recommend that it 's improved it has to come back ' in front of you anyway so. Dave Hempel: Also if I just may comment. Sewer and water is only available on Lilac, not Teton so most likely building pad would be up off of Lilac versus Teton. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Workman: So we can take 8 out and We'll still be covered? Mayor Chmiel: I think we can drop 8. Yes sir. Jim Donovan: I'd like to address the question of the barricade from Mr. Carlisle here. I asked, I called the city and asked the city to put up the hurricane fence there because of people driving over my property and because they weren't able to get through the barricades there, they decided to drive over my property. Now that is my property and that's my right to not have ' people drive over it. Now if we have, as Mr. Carlisle wants, if we have the break away ones or the knock down ones I'm sure, I mean it's nobody from our area that is going south on Teton over my property. It's the people coming from Centex development, from there coming onto my property and if we have that type of barricade, then they're going to just disregard where they shouldn't be going. They're just going to disregard the knock down barricades and go through 53 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 , it anyway and not have it just be used for the emergency vehicles. I understand the importance of having something for the emergency vehicles but I also understand that I shouldn't be subjected to having people drive around and on my property just because the road is barricaded there. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can have staff look at to come up with what's basically needed within that location. Making sure access isn't off to the sides of those. I Councilman Johnson: I think what he's asking for is to have the proper barricade situation put up which means that people can't go across there and they can't go across your property either. You know a fire truck's got a bumper about yea big. That's going to take out those barricades versus my Horizon. Jim Donovan: I appreciate that, yeah. What I'm saying is that the people from ' Centex now have been disregarding the permanent barricades and going across my property. What's to stop them from doing the same when you have the temporary, when you have the knock down. They have a fence there now because the City put it up for me. Resident: Why is the City providing fences for private citizens? I Jim Donovan: Because you people are going over my property, that's why. Resident: Can you prove it was somebody from Centex? I Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's the point or the issue. Resident: He's making that . ' Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but I think we should bring this back to the Council and come up with a motion on this specific item. Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Mr. Donovan with staff's recommendations minus number 8. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And 1. Councilman Workman: And 1. ' Councilman Johnson: Changing 1. Leave 1 in there but just remove the words and approved. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: And taking out number 7, right . Councilman Workman: And number 7. I Jo Ann Olsen: They do have sewer and water. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I! 54 11 , City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Metes and ' Bounds Subdivision $90-11 to create Parcels A and B as shown on the plans dated July 16, 1990 with the following conditions: 1. The City of Shorewood shall review the proposed subdivision. 2. The applicant shall provide right-of-way along Teton and Lilac Lane to maintain full 50 foot street right-of-way. ' 3. If a future building permit is applied for Parcel B, it shall be contingent upon connecting into City sewer and water located on Lilac Lane. ' 4. The applicant shall provide typical drainage and utility easements along the external and internal lot lines of Parcel A and 8. ' 5. The 1,000 foot elevation located in the southeast corner of Parcel B will be protected by a drainage easement and designated as a protected wetland. ' 6. The shed and garage on Parcel B shall either be removed or relocated onto Parcel A where they meet the required setbacks. If relocation is not completed prior to requesting filing of the metes and bounds subdivision, a ' $1,000.00 financial guaratee should be provided to the City. 7. Deleted. 8. Deleted. 9. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time a building permit application is requested for Parcel B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I'd like to bring up on the plastic situation. Jo Ann I'd like you to reiterate a little bit more what's the potential about plastics being recycled within the City. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Well we had last Tuesday a recycling commission meeting which we invited haulers to come to discuss whether or not we should initiate curbside recycling of plastic and if we do, what the ramifications were. We had 3 of the major haulers, BFI and Waste Management and Aagard come and they could all ' accomodate curbside recycling but it's costly. It takes up a lot of space versus cans that can be crushed and that cost would be passed onto the resident. Our other concern was that the smaller haulers can't accommodate it. We're talking the 3 big ones that do have it and there's pilot programs going on with other cities and a lot of cities are doing just drop off centers for plastic. So we kind of left it at that to look into whether or not we could do a drop off center to start something or whether or not to push for curbside so we are pursuing it. There will be something. Exactly what form, we don't know yet. 55 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel, Good. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Do the smaller haulers, I know some of them were talking about just mixing everything together in one bin and then taking it back to some location and sorting. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know whether they do that. Councilman Johnson: I've got BFI. so I don't know. I know that all the big r haulers use the compartmentized vehicles and so it 's no big deal. They just have another compartment for that. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not another truck that they need? Jo Ann Olsen: They would have to, some of them would have to add another truck. Another compartment. Councilman Johnson: They'd have to empty their truck more often because they're collecting more. 'Jo Ann Olsen: It's all air. Councilman Johnson: Actually it'd be fairly easy to design a compacter into one Y Y 9 of those compartments to get rid of the air. Jo Ann Olsen: They say they're designing something for that now. It hasn't been perfected but they still pop back. Councilman Johnson: Another way would be to shred it as you go. At 6:00 in the morning. Councilman Workman: Does anybody know where you can drop off platics? I was told over in the Menards lot they have something. Maybe that's that Goodwill truck. Jo Ann Olsen: In Excelsior they do too behind the. Mayor Chmiel: Right behind the City offices. I Jo Ann Olsen: The post office? Mayor Chmiel: No, I didn't see any there. It's right behind the city offices ' in the parking lot. Councilman Johnson: We only buy our milk where they provide reuseable containers and then we bring the containers back. Councilman Workman: Well you're good people, I'm not. Okay. So anyway. Councilwoman Dimler: I do both and it is more difficult. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, would you like to talk on recycling? I 56 1 I . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: Yes, and in relationship to that I guess, the Adminstrative packet was a lot of fun this time. Sometimes it can be no good. There was a lot of fun this time. In relationship to the recycling, the Carver County ' Community Health Service people and the Board of Commissioners, etc. are promoting our cigarette vending idea all over the County. I think we are good people and we are forward thinkers. I think that worked out really well. I'm ' patting us all on the back for that. In relationship to that , I think the curbside recycling program has received a lot of publicity. I think we are leaders in that and I want to pat ourselves on the back and especially Jo Ann. I think that thing is going far and wide and I can go down to Chaska every day t and say you know we've been doing this for a year and a half. How come you guys aren't doing this and now they're going to start to use our program just about when they're forced to do it so I think we started a year and a half ago or so ' and so again we are Carver County leaders and I thank staff for that. And in post haste Jim Chaffee for his help with the cigarette vending. So I wanted to get that out of the way. Crossroads Bank. I'm getting some calls in ' relationship to that. Maybe the City Manager can quickly, I think I ask this every meeting about where we're at. What I'm getting calls for now, I seem to be getting all the calls in the city, is it 's unfair to the taxpayers of this city to leave that thing sit vacant and we should have something on it and it's ' not collecting as I know taxes are right now. I guess I'd like to know where we're at. ' Don Ashworth: They have until the end of the year to either potentially sell that to someone else. You could build the same structure or to execute those documents themself. One of the problems was that we had to provide clear title ' to them. As you're aware, some of the title transfer items, i.e. the whole Burdick lawsuit and the rest of that were not finalized until I'd say in the last 6 months and they had a 1 year period from that date to do something. There was an opinion back over from John Dean's office. I have since met with ' Roger. Re-explained to Roger the importance of trying to get that property onto the tax rolls and to see if his opinion is the same as Holmes and Graven. ' Councilman Johnson: I talked to one of their directors in June who's got kids on the same swim team as my kids are on. He said they had a little more problem raising the money than originally anticipated and they were rethinking some of their strategies on raising the finances. The initial, you can't start a bank ' without any money. They think they're going to be able to bring the money together later on. ' Councilman Workman: So are we going to then, Don and Roger, are we going to be able to judge come the end of the year whether or not this is in the best interest of the city? We're going to be able to act in January on that? They seem like good people. I'm just now people are starting to ask questions about how long. Don Ashworth: My discussion with both John and Roger is insure that we have ' provided every notice that we have to provide so that we can start if we want to, in negotiation or the bidding process this fall so when it gets to January 2nd, we're in a position to turn that over to someone else. I literally just gave that assignment over to Roger this past week. Again the first opinion was from Holmes and Grave but I think given the magnitude of this issue, I did ask Roger's office to look into it as well. ' 57 1 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: Tom, just for your information too. There are other banks just waiting to get into this community if they don't move. Councilman Workman: They all want my cash. Okay. Councilman Johnson: They want that location right across from Rosemount. Councilman Workman: Okay. What else was I going to discuss quickly? Public ' Safety Commission meetings. I hope that's not why Scott's hanging around this late. Scott had a memo out and he indicated when the next, oh he's got two meetings in September. I didn't even notice that. . . .Public Safety Commission and I talked to Scott today. The Public Safety Commission is meeting in the conference room in the public safety wing and I came to the last meeting and I guess I was kind of, I rode my bike down here and I was kind of astonished that it wasn't here and it wasn't in the atrium either but was rather back there. I got talking to some of our staff, I never did end up going into the meeting. I think I was thinking 7:30 and it was about a quarter to 8:00 so the meeting was probably just about over. Scott said that Public Safety has discussed this and that's where they want to meet. My contention is purely when people pull into City Hall and are expecting a city meeting or a public meeting, should they find it right here or should they have to find it in a smaller room somewhere within City Hall? That's my question. Councilman Johnson: They'd have difficulty finding it up there. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, all they'd have to do is just post it on either of the doors where the meeting's held. Councilman Workman: Then my second contention is is that this is a rather large room and Scott said that the Public Safety was concerned about, they wanted to have a more personal situation. Well, some people don't want a personal. They want to kind of just come in, sit in the back in the shadows and leave, like me and not be so noticed or so much a part of the meeting and so maybe we need to refer that back and get an opinion again from Public Safety. I don't know if that policy is something that's good either for the visitors or the process. I don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: If I may, I'd like to add a comment to that too. I came that same night also a little bit later. I could not find the meeting and I did catch Todd upstairs and he told me where it was and I too have felt rather uncomfortable walking in after the meeting had been going on for a long time. It's a small room. There's not much room for anyone else to sit and when you walk in, you're very well noticed and I think the public should be able to come in and it is supposed to be a public meeting so there should be ample chairs for public to walk in and leave at will and it is kind of secluded back there. I just don't know how they're going to find it. If they,'re not going to have them in the Council chamber because they feel that's too big and not homey enough, then at least in the atrium. Don Ashworth: I just received Scott's memorandum so we haven't had a chance to talk but I think there was also some building security issues in here as well. I mean right now we can lock off the rest of the building but if Public Safety is open, there's no way to stop somebody from going in and picking up a computer 58 I City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 or whatever else unless we were to have somebody stationed right at the front . Councilman Workman: So you're suggesting here? Don Ashworth: Well again, I'm not sure what prompted the memorandum but I think this area has worked quite well and the Courtyard conference has worked quite well. I would hope that one of those two areas might be acceptable in the future. Councilman Johnson: And there you can lock it off. Don Ashworth: And that 's where we can lock it off, right. Councilman Workman: The atrium you can? Don Ashworth: No, the atrium that still secures Public Safety area and the main portion of City Hall you know where computers are. Councilman Johnson: Unless the janitors are here with all the doors propped open. Councilman Workman: I don't know. Just a point. Councilman Johnson: I agree with you. I've come into those meetings meaning to be, like I do at Planning Commission, inconspicuous and you can't be. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, you're an integral part of the meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I've been to the Public Safety meetings, the last two also. I came in late for both of them. I guess I didn't feel conspicuous. Councilman Johnson: But you're expected to be late. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. You're right. That's fashionable. Councilman Workman: I think the only thing I had to discuss was the budget and perhaps a Council workshop. Are we going to schedule something like that fairly quickly? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I think there's one already. Don Ashworth: Why don't the Mayor and I work together in trying to select a date. My concern is I want to present to you options that are truly options. The magnitude of the problems, staff's suggestions as to how we're going to get through that, and so maybe Don and I could work together in trying to come up with a date hopefully within the next 2 weeks, 3 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: Don has met with staff. Don Ashworth: We'll have another one tomorrow. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Right. And that they review their budgets and to come up with some conclusions.. Okay. Let's move on to Adminstrative presentations and 59 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: And so it's a large expenditure that I don't know. That's 1 some of the details I think that we've got to clear up because we're putting this thing on. We're setting a figure that I'm not sure correlates with what we want. Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe we can explain that situation. Councilman Johnson: What kind of heating savings do we get with this outdoor ice? I mean basically the building heating system becomes the heat part of the refrigeration system for part of the year but if it's outdoors, part of the year you don't use the refrigeration. So I mean all you use it for is fall and whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you start early fall and late winter. Councilman Johnson: Right, and then you can supply heat to your building from the refrigeration system but in the middle of the winter you don't so you have to have your auxilliary heat anyway. Don Ashworth: There's some loss in revenues that we really didn't get into at the last meeting because with the outdoor facility, you would not be able to charge admission, etc. ice component . The point brought out in the McGillvarey study though was that by losing the major groups, meaning having lost the high school, the major contractual agreements, the ice turns into a loser. It is not a paying situation. The question is, as an outdoor facility, will we lose even that much more. The last item is that again, with the bare bones facility it is exactly that . 3.6 million. We're not into a design phase at this point in time. We don't know a lot of the details but some of the things I did ask Mike Neimeyer, I went back to him and said, alright. What type of things, what are you buying for $3.6 million versus $4.6 million? Well at $4.6 million you're probably talking about being able to do some indoor treatments that are different than just the cinderblock, painted cinderblock. From my own perspective, I think painted cinderblock is just fine. The things you will not be able to do would be whirlpool, sauna is not in the bare bones facility. You're not doing the locker rooms where you have adult versus youth. You're not doing any additional treatment in the locker rooms. You're not providing lockers. You're not providing a lot of the, I guess I would really suggest that the Council look to something like saying that the referendum, or that the total cost will not exceed $4.0 million. I'm saying that just to insure that you have some form of latitude. What this will. . . Councilman Workman: We can spend less can't we? Don Ashworth: We could spend less. Councilman Johnson: We could do the study after the referendum and say we're not going to put refrigerated outdoor ice, only outdoor ice and come out at $3.1 million. Don Ashworth: It could be done but I think it's going to be more difficult because you're going to have those people coming in saying well I voted for this and this is the reason I voted for it and now you're trying to cut it out. I do believe that, if the referendum were successful, that is the time that you pick 62 [ • City-Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 out community groups. You get seniors involved. You get the school officials. You start talking about the individual design. It would be nice to do some of those types of things now but you're talking about $40,000.00-$50,000.00. So what you've done is you've just allocated a blank number of dollars associated ' with each of the major components and it now becomes kind of a question. You're making a guess. Is the dollars that we're putting aside for this group to work with in the future, is that going to sufficient or will the seniors come back and say no. The 10,000 square feet is really not enough for us. We should be looking at 15,000. Now maybe at that point you make some hard decisions.. Say alright , we're not going to take and we'll give the seniors what they're looking for and we'll cut this down to a 2 lane pool instead of a 4. But you're at the bare bones right now so it becomes very difficult to cut some of those things back. If you're at like $4 million, then you're starting with a 6 lane pool. You're starting with 15,000 square feet for seniors. You're finishing locker ' rooms. You're doing them at a little higher scale. Councilwoman Dimler: Don, I guess I recall very specifically that one of the ' reasons I voted to put it on the referendum was because this was supposed to be a fact sheet. That we were going to make no statements that would influence the voter one way or another. And even as you're starting out here, you're talking ' about demands. You're talking about serving different interest groups and so forth. I would prefer to see none of that. Just give them the facts as you've given them to us here. Also, under the cost to the taxpayers, I highly recommend that you show the cost to business properties as well as homeowners ' because I think they're going to be more impacted. And then the last one on that first page here where it says, is there an opportunity to build a community center in conjunction with a new Chaska School District middle school? That's ' your question and you put not in the short term. I would prefer to see a positive response that would read something like, yes. Several years down the line. Can we wait? You know and then put in, a middle school is planned in the ' 1995 to 1997 timeframe. That makes it more positive and it gives them the option to decide whether it's feasible or not. Councilman Workman: I found the Minnetonka Public Schools are going through ' another bond election and I have it here. It's signed by the School Board. Each School Board member, they're having their breakfast and we all got this. It explains when and where but the back sheet has 1 thru 10, a two sided sheet ' and I'll give this to you Don if you haven't seen it. Why is the bond election being held? What will be constructed if approval is given? What special considerations are being given to construction plans? How will the new space accommodate students? I don't know detailed but it kind of lays things out ' pretty. I think there's a little bit of objective in here but you know what I mean? It's just 1 or 2 sides and maybe all the City Council members can sign the front sheet or something but it really paints the picture I think. iDon Ashworth: How do we want to proceed on this? You've given me some suggested changes. This is another one. ' Councilman Johnson: I had one. Technically you say there's two full sized gyms. We're only making one gymnasium but it's got two full sized basketball courts in it so it's not two gymnasiums. It's only one gym. Mayor Chmiel: One gym, 2 full sized courts. 1 63 11 City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 ,, Don Ashworth: Two full sized. Councilman Johnson: Basketball courts. Adult sized. I don't know how many that turns into being kids courts but a whole mess. Don Ashworth: Do you want me to put parenthesis, 4 youth? Mayor Chmiel: Well, you could. I Councilman Johnson: We probably have more youth basketball players than adults. I'll take this from 3 to 7 youth courts. Don Ashworth: Why don't I take the information that you've given me so far. Try coming back with another draft. Having that draft a little cleaner than this one but generally the idea of a map type of thing and some of the salient features. Councilman Johnson: The map really has to show them that this is somehow very 1 conceptual, draft, whatever. I mean you've got concept plan written in at the bottom but you know this is not marked in stone. Councilwoman Dimler: You know I'd like to see you put in there like you explained it to us too about the bare bones for 3.6 or you know a little bit more embellished or what you get for the extra million. Nicer interior. I Don Ashworth: I guess what I'm saying is that in talking with Mike, he also would feel more comfortable if there was kind of some position that might be in between. We've got the bare bones and then we have the everything is complete. It's still not a lush facility. Well, I mean is it possible to come back into the $4.0 million bracket or as Tom had mentioned, maybe leaving it at a lower amount with either public groups, if they want to collect monies or somehow, if dollars could be channeled. Get additional dollars through tax increment. Whatever it would happen to be. We're going to just set the limit for the general obligation portion at 3.6 million. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right. Mayor Chmiel: I know that all the things we're talking are specifically dollars but the thing that I keep looking at is for what we're going to put in, what number of parking spaces would be required and where would that be located. Don Ashworth: We show parking here and according to Neimeyer's work, that would be sufficient parking. I continue to be concerned. Mayor Chmiel: Total space? , Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: It just doesn't look large enough. Councilman Johnson: I mean the ice arena hockey area looks like an indoor arena 111 on this drawing too. 64 ,' II . City Council Meeting - August 13, 1990 II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay so we're saying that we're going to present the school site as the one on the referendum so that's the only option they have? 1 Councilman Johnson: It's the only way you can build it for that money. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. 1 Councilman Johnson: Have you written up the question? Don Ashworth: That will be back to the. . . 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? 1 Councilman Workman: What's that dollar figure? Mayor Chmiel: Well you're talking 3.6 to 4.0. 1 Councilman Workman: 4.0? Councilman Johnson: Not to exceed 4.0. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 Councilman Johnson: It depends on how long it takes to get the thing together. You're talking 3.6 in today's money. It could be 2 years before it's actually being built. IICouncilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 II p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth 1 City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I 1 1 1 1 1 65 1 t I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I