Loading...
1f. Minutes II ' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconed to approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilwoman Dimler wanted to adopt the City Values that was brought up last meeting and also a complaint registered by Marcy Waritz; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the motion made at the last meeting instructing staff to look at other law enforcement agencies. All voted ' in favor and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize which is at $450.00. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Approval of One Day Temporary On-Sale Beer License, Chanhassen Lion's Club, Oktoberfest. c. Approval of Medical Arts Facility Development Contract. d. 1990 Budget, Set Public Hearing Date (October 9, 1989) . e. Final Plat Approval, Reed's Orchard Ridge. ' f. Approval of Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan. g. Final Plat Approval, Quattro Addition. j. Consider Utility Service to Cedar Heights Addition, Shorewood, Kelly Bosworth. ' 1. Accounts Payable. m. City Council Minutes dated September 11, 1989 ' City Council Minutes dated September 13, 1989 All voted in favor_ and the motion carried. I Daniel Cole: Your Honor? G■]. are here on behalf of Centex Homes. One of the items, 1(n) involves an authorization to draw on a letter of credit. would ask that that item be tabled until a future meeting. TA; think it's far from routine and we are prepared this evening to deliver, we have a letter stating 1 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 .. , 1 Centex's position. We don't intend to take up the Council's time this evening with that. We are prepared to answer any questions you might have but we certainly would request that that item be removed from this consent agenda at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Could I have your name again? Daniel Cole: My name is Daniel Cole. I'm an attorney with Briggs and Morgan representing Centex Homes. Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just discuss it. Get it over with. Councilwoman Dimler: Somebody pull it. Councilman Johnson: I'll pull item (n) . Daniel Cole: If I might ask what the affect of pulling it at this time. ' Mayor Chmiel: It will come into discussion. Councilman Johnson: We'll discuss it after we approve the rest of them. A. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING SWIMMING RAFTS. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Item (a) . I just wanted to make sure that you all knew that there was anew copy that was handed out this evening and it does include the wording that we had in the Minutes the last meeting and I wanted to thank I!! Roger for getting that in there. Then there is a letter here from Michael Schroeder that was just put on our desks. I don't know if you've had a chance to read it but he did have a concern and it has to do with the mooring of his boat. It states up at the top, it gives the amendment and it talks about the removal of the boat but it doesn't, at the bottom when, the seasonal stuff when you put it back in in the spring, it doesn't address the mooring at that point. So the wording that we thought might be appropriate is that all non-conforming structures except legally non-conforming docks, moorings and swimming rafts once removed may not be returned to the lake. Legal non-conforming docks, moorings and swimming rafts, for example the Carver Beach raft may be returned to the lake. Any questions? Mayor,Chmiel: I don't have any questions. Does anybody else have any ' questions? Councilman Boyt: It sounds like you're amending the motion. Is that right? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm amending the wording of 6-30. Councilman Boyt: And the effect of your amendment is to do what? ' Councilwoman Dimler: To put moorings in there in both places. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask Roger a question? If it's a legal non-conforming Li' use, does it matter whether it's said in here or not? It still stays as a legal non-conforming use and can be put back whether we state it or not? 2 1 ' "City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Roger Knutson: Yes it matters because in another provision of the ordinance it says that when non-conforming uses are discontinued for certain periods of time, that they can't be restored. Councilman Johnson: Isn't that a year though? Roger Knutson: I believe that's correct. Councilman Johnson: So even in this case, if they took it out and kept it out a whole year, then it would become a non-conforming use. He'd have to put it back in every spring so if he skips a spring, it doesn't really matter. I just want to keep it straight in my mind that we're not saying he can leave it out for 2 or 3 years. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I think we'd all feel safer if the wording were in there. Councilman Johnson: Sure. No big deal. ' Councilman Boyt: I have a question about whether this is a legal non-conforming use? Councilman Johnson: Well we're not saying specifically that mooring either. We're not saying his mooring. Councilman Boyt: Is it legal now? Mayor_ Chmiel: As it is now, presently? Roger? Roger Knutson: I don't know. I'm not familiar with that. I'm not sure what mooring you're talking about. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Schroeder's here. Michael Schroeder: I think I called you earlier in the week... Roger Knutson: You mentioned a Mr. Winters? That situation. Michael Schroeder: And I think I discussed in a letter.. .the one part of the ' amendment states that dock moorings and other structures, it states that non-conforming structures.. .and it says that docks and swimming rafts can be returned but it specifically seems to leave out moorings.. .in the long history ' of this process that that seems to specifically mean. .. I think I quote several different documents and proceedings. Mayor_ Chmiel: Why don't you come lip to the microphone. Michael Schroeder: Basically I quoted several places in here from previous parks meetings and from a letter from Mr. Ashworth to the City Council concerning this whole Carver Beach area and I contend first of all that it is a long standing tiseage and I think you'll find documentation that points to many, many years of Mr. Tauch as well as Mr. Winters and the swimming raft up by Rocky's area has been used in there. The second contention is that specifically leaving out moorings in the second part there of the amendment is discriminatory r 3 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 towards just my own use and you seen to be leaving in the docks and the rafts ' wherever they are in the City that were non-conforming but the moorings, which is me, seems to be left out. Roger Knutson: I was asked to investigate and briefly did, as to whether our office had issued a citation on those moorings. I said to the best of my knowledge the answer was no. I did not investigate further whether or not they were legal or illegal moorings but this ordinance really has no bearing on that. If they're legal, they're in, if you add that word. Councilwoman Dimler: It doesn't hurt anything to add it? 1 Roger Knutson: No. Michael Schroeder: That's where I pointed at the beginning there even with the whole amendment is the use of the word legal and it wasn't really defined what legal meant in the first part of the amendment and I think that affects also the raft. Roger Knutson: Legal means, as it conforms to our zoning ordinance, is that when it was put in initially it was not in violation of ordinance requirements. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I don't think, you know several claims are made in the letter 1 about length of time it's been out there and history and I have no reason to doubt those but I also have no staff background other than what's in that letter on what's going on there. The way this ordinance would be written with that interpretation, if anyone in the City or outside the City wanted to put a boat out on Lotus Lake in front of the boat launch or in front of that park between now and November 1st, they could do it. Councilman Johnson: No. Councilman Boyt: They couldn't? Councilman Johnson: Because that would not be a legally non-conforming use. The legally non-conforming use had to be at the time of the zoning ordinance that was passed to make it non-conforming years ago. Michael Schroeder: That's why you wrote that section is my understanding was to ' grandfather things in, if I remember correctly. Councilman Johnson: They have to be a legal non-conforming use as of right now. Tomorrow you can't start a legal non-conforming use. Am I somewhat correct there Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes. ' Councilman Boyt: So what we're saying then, I'm not aware of any others other than Mike's here. I Councilman Johnson: There could be. 4 r City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 ' Councilman Boyt: There could be but, so we're saying that Mike is granted the IIA right to keep his boat in front of that piece of park property as long as he puts it in every year. Councilman Johnson: And if it can be proved that it was a legal conforming use when the ordinance changed to make it a non-conforming use so thus it becomes a ' legally non-conforming use. So he has to prove that that mooring has been there a while. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Michael Schroeder: I think your files even have airplane photographic evidence of it being there way back. Councilman Boyt: I just want to understand what I'm voting on. And so what we're voting on, if Jay is right, then we're voting to say that Mike's boat has ' always been out there, or a boat has always been out there. Councilman Johnson: Not that one particularly. If it has always been out I there. Councilman Boyt: A boat? ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. If a boat has always been out there. Councilman Boyt: And as long as it's out there or another replacement every It! year forward, it's legal. Is that right? Is that the understanding that f everybody has? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: I move item (a) with the amendment. Margie Karjalahti: I'm Margie Karjalahti and I live on Frontier Trail and I'm ' a member of our homeowners association. I just have a question. Does mooring mean the same as dock.or is that different? Councilman Johnson: No. ' Margie Kar_jalahti: So it'd be if the boat was like there was a plug out there and just hooked up to that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Margie Karjalahti: Okay. That's what I was curious about. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: I move item (a) with the amendment that a we add mooring into the wordage under Section 6-30. 11 Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. 5 r City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Swimming Rafts with the amendment to add the word moorings into Section 6-30. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I. APPROVE ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR TH 5 INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR GREAT PLAINS , BOULEVARD, DAKOTA AVENUE AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BARTON ASCHMAN AND ASSOCIATES. Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this one, I had a chance to talk to Don about ' this one today. I have a lot of concerns about it and I think it's probably a lot of unanswered questions so if we don't want to go into a lot of discussion, I'd just move that we table this one until we have those questions answered. I left those q►.uestions with Don this morning. Councilman Boyt: Does this create problems for us Dave if we table this? Dave Hempel: I guess I'm not that familiar with it Bill to ive you an answer. ' I don't think it will at this time. g ` Councilman Johnson: What kind of questions have you got? Councilwoman Dimler: Well okay. Don, will you explain? ' Don Ashworth: I think that was the problem. Councilwoman Dimler: We don't know what we're approving. 1 Don Ashworth: Had asked me various questions regarding the scope of the contract. What parcels is it that we're acquiring as a result of the contract I back with MnDot. Barton Aschman's role. Originally Barton Aschman was going to be employed because it could speed the process up in that Barton Aschman is the engineer for the highway department as well as the person we work for so therefore how is that going to speed them up. And I did not have those answers for Councilwoman Dimler. Councilman Johnson: How_does it speed up by having the same engineer work both ' sides of the street? Don Ashworth: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Well they're going to have to go through the process anyway for MnDot and we're saving that we're going to pay them extra to do it for us as well. In other words, they're going to be doubled paid. Once by the City and once by MnDot. y Don Ashworth: We already went through the example. In other words, it's a good ' idea to hire Barton Aschman because you want to insure when you're setting grades going around a radius, that you've got a consistent point and one person doing the job. And the question though, in terms of the various land [!! acquisitions that are going to occur, why is that process speeded up by employing Barton Aschman versus simply letting Barton Aschman do it asja part of the State contract. 6 r ,City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Are these land purchases above and beyond the State contract? The State contract is for TH 5. Don Ashworth: It refers to 60 parcels that are going to be acquired in there and again, I was not sure as to what those parcels were. Councilman Johnson: Because if we have to acquire the apartment parcel, that's not one of the ones need to be.. . Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Johnson: Some of them are above and beyond what Barton Aschman has to acquire for MnDot. The way we could proceed is that anything that Barton Aschman already has to do for their MnDot contract cannot be charged to us on our contract. We're not going to pay and a good reputable firm's not going to ask to be paid twice for the same. Their accounting procedures aren't going to even allow it hardly. Councilwoman Dimler: Then there were several questions too on what does the ' $74,000.00 buy us? We weren't sure on that. We were not sure about the $52,000.00 here because they were part of the $120,000.00 that was already allocated to BRW and that was supposed to be the third phase of the BRW and now ' we've gone to Barton Aschman and there were just a lot of unclear things in this so I asked Don if he would check those things out before we would vote on that. Councilman Boyt: Well if it doesn't throw the time table off, it shouldn't be any problem in dealying it. It's just the time table that's critical. Councilman Johnson: Right, and we don't know about that. Don Ashworth: I don't think that it will but I couldn't answer those questions. Councilman Johnson: Could we put a conditional approval that Don and Ursula ' look at these conditions and if there's a problem with them, that we'll bring it back on our next agenda. In other words, we approve it. You two check it out and if you're satisfied that we're not being ripped off by anybody and that it's all legal, vote for it. Don Ashworth: Then I could set up a meeting with Barton Aschman and we could bring somebody in and talk about each of it. You see the problem was what parcels are we going to acquire? I didn't have a listing. It's late in the day. Mayor Chmiel: I agree with it. That's a good idea Jay. As a friendly amendment, would you accept that? Councilwoman Dimler: You're making me do extra work huh? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Or we could just say have Don do it. Councilwoman Dimler: No, I'll do it. I'll do it. That's fine. I'll accept your friendly amendment. 7 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 Mayor. Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the ' Engineering Contract for TH 5 Intersection designs for Great Plains Boulevard, Dakota Avenue and Market Boulevard with Barton Aschman and Associates with the condition that the City Manager satisfactorily answer Councilwanan Dimler's concerns. All voted in favor and the motion carried. N. AUTHORIZE DRAW AGAINST LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONDEMNATION CURRY FARMS SECOND ADDITION. Councilman Johnson: I pulled (n) because we have people in the audience that , want to talk about (n) . I don't think we should have it on the Consent Agenda there. To me, as long as I pulled it I get to talk first. It seems like a very logical thing to do. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. I'd like to hear why we shouldn't. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your presentation at this time? Please state your name and address. Daniel Cole: My name is Daniel Cole. I'm an attorney with Briggs and Morgan in the St. Paul office here representing Centex Hanes. I really am not prepared to take your time this evening to explain why we don't think this is a proper item for the consent agenda. WO have delivered a... Councilman Johnson: It's not there anymore so you can explain it. Daniel Cole: Pardon me? Councilman Johnson: It's not on the consent agenda anymore so you don't have to explain why you pulled it. Now why shouldn't we approve it? Daniel Cole: We are here tonight to request that this matter be tabled to allow the staff and the Council to review the information that we have prepared since we were informed on the 20th of the fact that this was going to be on the consent agenda. Mr. Tom Boyce of Centex Hanes met on Friday with Don Ashworth to try to understand why this item was placed on the consent agenda when the staff has known for sane period of time that there's been a dispute about this item and to put it on the consent agenda seemed a little premature. We have delivered a letter which we hope people have an opportunity to read and think about the rights of the parties here before deciding this matter. We hope that the letter addresses most of the concerns. Without going into them in great detail, there is a development contract. There are other documents that have gone into this matter involving Teton Lane and some of the highlights of why we don't think the Council should take this action is among others, that we're talking an improvement. That is, finishing a barricade. Improvements are supposed to be completed by November 30, 1989. We'r_e not at November 30, 1989. We don't think there's any default. There needs to be a default before a letter of credit can be called. We don't think there's an contractual obligation on 8 1 , , City. Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 IIbehalf of Centex to do what the City is now saying that Centex should do. That ji is somehow pay some money in connection with the alleged rights of land owners ' to compensate them for aj taking. And we go into substantial detail on that. Thirdly, it was the City who told Centex to stop putting up the barricade. For the City to now call the letter of credit because the barricade isn't up, is somewhat of a paradox, to say the least. We think that this whole item should I be reviewed. The idea of cost being incurred in connection with the barricade beyond the cost of physically putting up the barricade was not considered and we think that based on that, and if there are going to be costs, that the l feasibility study should be reopened to decide whether that's what the City really intended in this matter. We would move at this point that this matter be tabled until the next meeting or whatever meeting the City Council sees fit I after staff input to see if there is a way of resolving this. Centex continues to want to work with the City to resolve this situation. We think that there are some alternatives and we don't think that simply calling the letter of I credit is going to solve the situation at this time and we'd hope that you would consider our letter. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: You may want to stay there in case there are some responses that I I'm sure there's going to be. I guess the only thing that I look at Mr. Cole is that this has been going on for almost 2 years without resolvement. I think it's time that something be grabbed onto and moved with that. At least that's I my position. It seems that the letter of credit is going to be out by the end of November. Daniel Cole: I think it's the end of December. I'm not sure. I'd have to look at that but I think it's December 31, 1989. Don Ashworth: It could be. They have to complete the work by November and so I Iknow it goes through that period. Whether or not December. Mayor_ Chmiel: I stand corrected. From what I was informed, it was the later II part of November and I guess that's really where I'm coming from. It should have been addressed before this period of time. Is there anyone else on the Council? I Roger Knutson: I was just going to say. I looked at the letter of credit or a copy of it. It expires the end of December. IMayor Chmiel: It does? Okay. Councilman Johnson: Do we know if there's a condition anywhere that they get the access issue resolved or that they purchase or whatever. Wasn't that a II condition of the approval? Councilman Boyt: What we've got Jay is item (k) in the development contract. 1 It talks about prior to the City signing the final plat, the roadway turn around be provided. Part of the closing off the road was having some place for trucks and other vehicles who were going to be plowing snow, to turn around at the barricade. It was, if I might interrupt for a second, Jay and I were both here the couple of times that this was talked about during the development contract. It was certainly an issue of concern for the neighbors that we not increase traffic and so the developer and the City Council and the neighbors agreed to resolve this by blocking off the road. There was some discussion that evening, II 9 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II as you point out, about the turn around and it got specifically put in the ' development contract. Since then I gather both the City and the developer have found out that it wasn't quite that easy but if you want to know what our intent was, it was to blockade that road. 1 Daniel Cole: Well we should point out that we, we meaning Centex, has no problem with the concept of blockading or barricading the road certainly on a temporary basis. There is I believe Councilman, and I'd have to look at my notes but I believe that there is a, in the Minutes, a statement that you made indicating that, in 1988, that eventually Teton Lane is going to be a public road so no matter what we do here, we're talking about a temporary situation, ' and those Minutes are referred to in here. We agreed to barricade the road and that is a part of the development agreement. The feasibility study, which Alternative 4 was blockading the road, does not in any way address anything about cost over and above physically barricading the road. Neither does the development contract and there is a memo in here, which our client received a copy of, I believe from Mr_. Warren to Mr. Ashworth which it's here. Indicating that when this was done, it was assumed that this was going to be done with the cooperation of the neighbors. He even mentions there, it says it's now somewhat frustrating that they won't cooperate apparently. All of this is in here. I mean the record is here as to what happened but plain and simple there is no contractual agreement that Centex was going to on it's own do whatever was necessary financially to pay whatever was necessary and we're not agreeing that it's necessary to pay anybody anything but if it was, that Centex took on that responsibility. There's no default on the part of the developer as far as we're concerned. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Item (k) . The development contract that Bill 1 was just talking to. SP-4 that you just gave us. The developer shall obtain on behalf of the City a 12 foot x 15 foot roadway easement. Have you done that? - Tom Boyce: That's completed. That's right.roadway separate. That's done. Daniel Cole: We're looking at (i) . Tom Boyce: We're looking at item (i) where it says barricade the road off. We went off. We agreed to acquire that easement. We did that. Daniel Cole: Item (i) says the developer agrees to upgrade Teton Lane in accordance with the approved feasibility study and plans and specifications at the developer's expense. It is further agreed that the developer shall reimburse the City for it's consultant's expenses and preparation of the Teton Lane feasibility study. If you go to the feasibility study, one of the items is barricading the road. Councilman Boyt: I'm sure that you understand the legal ramifications of all this more clearly than I do. I just, if there's any question about intent, and you raise that question, the intent was that the road would be barricaded. You and the City and the neighbors all accepted that intent and we're now looking at this situation in which week by week more and more people get used to using that as an access and an entrance. fIt's completing defeating the purpose of what we were trying to do and we need to have, we need to reach that intent. I'm not particularly happy about drawing down your letter of credit. I want to get the road closed and we can't close it because of the easement issues out there. We 10 11 II .City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 need to get those resolved. Daniel Cole: You say the developer, the City and the neighbors all agreed to ' barricade. We agreed to barricade but if the neighbors are now unwilling to have that happen, then we think other things should be looked at. What we want ' to make clear is, we're not opposed to barricading the road. What we're saying is, we did not agree to be the ones bearing the sole and the whole cost of acquiring any sort of easement rights. Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to make one more point then I'll turn the floor over to anyone else but I would follow the logic in this of a but for argument. We wouldn't have proposed the barricade if not for the development. Therefore, ' when the development comes in, the responsibility of settling that situation rests on the developer and I'm just saying that that's a logical response. Whether it's legal or not, I wouldn't be able to tell you. Daniel Cole: All I can say is I think there would be some serious dispute with that under contract law. ' Mayor Chmiel: Your letter of credit, going back to our original statement, does expire in December of 1989. The development contract although does expire in November of 1989. ' Daniel Cole: As I read the development contract, the improvements have to be in place by November 30th of 1989. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Daniel Cole: It's been almost a year ago that Centex was told to not put up the ' barricade. Now we can put that barricade up I think fairly quickly if we're told to do so. Councilman Johnson: Do it. Mayor Chmiel: Not just by one person. Councilman Johnson: -Then we'll go to court with the Natoli's and whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, do you have something? Roger_ Knutson: Just briefly. First I've not read Mr. Cole's letter. I've glanced through it so I can respond to everything it says. I don't think this is a great forum to debate the fine points of what's right and what's wrong as ' far as the law goes but we do have a warranty deed from Curry Farms that says, they conveyed Teton Lane to us free and clear. It's not subject to any easements. That's what our warranty deed says and then you have the development contract. Again, I don't think this is the right place to argue what the law says. Councilman Johnson: I think we should send this to our City Attorney and tell him to handle it. y Mayor Chmiel: Prior to any other. discussions... 1 11 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II Mrs. Natoli: Mr. Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes maam. I have a couple of people in back there that are ['- raising their hands. Mrs. Natoli: We're all raising our hands. Mayor Chmiel: Right and I will recognize those. Mrs. Natoli: I hope you're not going to table this for another year. ' Mayor Chmiel: I certainly hope not. Mrs. Natoli: It's been a whole year and it's getting ridiculous. I have a , school bus going by. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have the gentleman who raised his hand previously to came 1 forward. Would you cane up to the mic and state your name and address please and your position. Randy Carl: My name is Randy Carl. I live at 6391 Teton lane. I realize I've come in on an after the fact situation here. I'm a new homeowner up in that area. The lady mentioned that a school bus is now coming down the road. We were advised by the Minnetonka School District that a bus couldn't cone up that way to pick up the children if it had to turn around. Our children would have to walk a number of blocks to the closest bus stop because of the way the streets are designed so by blocking off Teton Lane, you're going to cause a safety hazard for school children and there are quite a number of very small I!! children in that area that are now in school and other kinds that will be in school as the years go along. I don't know if this has any bearing on whether Centex owes the City any money but the issue of whether the street continues to be blocked off I think would have an impact on the safety of our children. Marc Simcox: My name is Marc Simcox. I live on Lilac Lane at the end of Teton Lane. We've been in the thick of this since the very beginning and I just want to reiterate. I think I talked to just about everybody in the last week that no one has changed their position as to whether Teton Lane should or should , not be closed. I like €o bring it up again that this is not a suggestion brought up by anyone at all except Centex. Centex Farms is the one that suggested this. They were the ones that suggested this to avoid building a third exit out onto CR 17. Every time that it's ever toward resolution, they've taken a new position and every time that it seemed that it was going to cost them 5 cents, they wanted to back up and start over again and blame the neighbors. Say it's their fault. It's everybody's fault except Centex Farms. The fact is is that they suggested this. They agreed to it. Part of that agreement was to turn over property that apparently they did not have clear title to and they did that. I think that they've stated their position enough times. Everbody's tired of it and just wants to see the whole thing end. No one there has changed their mind yet and that's all I want to say. Florence Natoli: If you ever get this solved I'll never come to this place ['if! again. Mrs. Florence Natoli. Okay. I went and drove around and there's no reason the bus has to come. I don't know how the rest of you did but I thought back. I went to 8 grade schools, 1 junior high and 1 high school and the LII 12 ' II , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 shortest distance I even walked was 3 blocks. Okay. Today I went over and if you enter off of CR 17 coming from Chanhassen, you can go down Devonshire and you can pick up at Preeton Court which is on the corner of Devonshire. You can go over to Welsley Court and then you can leave via the exit onto Lake Lucy Road and it's a nice, a curvy road. It's not like ours where they're going 100 mph. We go have that 30 mph sign now but not too many people pay attention to it so ' there is no reason for them to say they have to use Teton. They haven't used Teton in a hundred years. It hasn't been a road. It was dead ended right at Mr. Mac's place. It was never used for that so to say that these kids are in ' danger is not true. They can use their bikes that they have to leave on a corner. It's all by itself. It's a nice neighborhood and I'm sure that one of the other neighbors would let them leave their bikes there but that is, when I ' saw that that really upset me but I've got a whole bunch of notes but I'm not going to go into it. As Marc said, we all agreed a year ago and this has gone on and on and instead of 100 people now as your count had, there's at least 200 to 250 cars going now. And it isn't only cars, it's trucks. A garbage truck ' went today. It wasn't our garbage truck. We gave the easement to Centex to turn in our driveway so if there was any reason to plow snow or any problem that happened, they could use it. Now across the street is where the fire plug is, ' the water, and so there's no reason for the Chanhassen people to go all the way up Lilac Lane and come down Teton to go to that fire plug in case a fire. That was the reason for the barrier so it would be used as a fourth place to get the ' people out in case of trouble. Now these are all the things we went through a whole year ago and I just hope you'll get it solved and get it solved tonight because Centex agreed along with the rest of us, and if they haven't gotten these easements, it's not my fault. They got mine about 1 week after. We've had ours a whole year and if you're not going to close the road, we want our easement back and we want a fence in the front of our house to keep everybody out. So that's all I've got to say. Councilman Boyt: I have a possible motion. Mayor_ Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay, Bill. Councilman Boyt: I would move that the City make plans to draw down the letter of credit effective November 31st. If Centex hasn't resolved this situation, ' that the City then draw down the letter of credit, acquire the easements and block the road. ' Councilman Johnson: How about December 1st? There is no November 31st. Councilman Boyt: Sure. Oh, you're right. Fine. You've got the holes in the road. We ought to get it blocked off. ' Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. ' Don Ashworth: I would like to have some form of a progress checking. In talking with the developer on Friday, he felt that if he were given permission to meet with the owners, that at least he might be in a position of advising the City as to whether he thought he could obtain those easements without sane of the burdens that we were looking at. I still think that's a good process. I'm not changing the date but I guess I would like to see this item or the developer , _ be encouraged to continue that meeting schedule that I had set up with him. In other words, within 2 weeks that he be responsible to inform myself of his 13 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 progress and if at any point in time prior to that December 1st date, I feel that he has not been moving forward, that I would have the ability to bring that item back to the City Council to potentially move it up even sooner. , Councilman Johnson: He's making a good point. He's not breached until November 30th. If it's November 29th and he gets the easements or whatever he has to get, then he's fulfilled his contract? Is that reasonable to say? Daniel Cole: The only comment I'd like to make here is that what we object to in this is that somehow this is all Centex's problem and we do not see it that way. Without the City cooperation in getting involved in this, we don't think that it can be accomplished. It's my understanding that the neighbors, the "neightbors" who had agreed to this, now do not agree. It doesn't take many to not agree. Councilman Johnson: The City has been involved with this. We've been fighting this. We're sick and tired of this. Okay? There has not been a lot of cooperation. Daniel Cole: So does that mean we have to pay? Is that what is being said? , Councilman Johnson: I think you should have been brought on board a long time ago when Centex was here without you saying that they would do this stuff. Now they're bringing in the lawyers saying well we don't have to do it. Daniel Cole: No, no. It's because you're drawing the letter of credit. That's why we're here. Councilman Johnson: Well yeah. That's the way we're trying to force them to do what they've told us they're going to do. way ' Daniel Cole: You should do it by the development agreement however. Mayor Chmiel: Let me, this is not an argumentive position here. We're not in a ' court of law so consequently I would just...We have heard from Mr. Ashworth presently. Is there any further discussion on that? Councilman Johnson: Can you think of an easy way to modify your motion to provide? What Don wants is a little stronger to where we say we want to see action... ' Councilman Boyt: We can have a time table and adequate progress being shown on the time table and that that time table should be planned to have this issued resolved effective November 30th. If it's not, as of December 1, we will act on whatever rights we have under the letter of credit to resolve the issue. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I'll modify my second then. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger, did you hear the modification that we had to the... Roger Knutson: You want periodic updates on progress reports. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. And if it were not, then as Bill mentioned, that it would LIIbe on November 30th and then proceed to December 1st with the letter of credit. 14 ' II , • City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 If I Councilman Johnson: Should we also say something about that City staff will assist in talking? say City Don Ashworth: I think just as the motion is. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to authorize drawing against the Letter of Credit and Condemnation effective December 1, 1989 for Curry Farms 11 Second Addition if no resolution has occured by November 30, 1989 and Curry Farms will live up to progressing according to a time table established with the City during that period. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 0. APPROVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PORTION OF MURRAY HILL WATER TOWER I SITE TO GILBERT AND JILLENE KREIDBERG. Councilwoman Dialler: I pulled item (0) because there is someone in the audience that would like to address that and I wonder should they do it now or go to ' visitor's presentation? Mayor Chmiel: We can do it right now. Either now or later. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Mr_. Wayne Fransdal would like to speak to that issue please. Wayne Fransdal: My name is Wayne Fransdal. I live at 6200 Murray Hill Road. First of all I'd like to thank you for moving this from the consent to the discussion agenda. I appreciate the opportunity. My primary concern is with ' the procedure used for the proposed sale. First of all, was there a public offering or notice of the proposed sale? As far as I know, none of the neighbors north of the property that was proposed for sale were informed or aware that the property was for sale. Was a study completed over the future 11 use of the property and was the property deemed surplus? Has a public entity, what is the procedure for selling public property or public goods? How is the price determined? If the property is sold, what is the adequate size to be ' retained and what is .it's purpose? In the past, many years ago, I attended Council meetings when the school district has asked the City to discontinue use of their easement on the city property for access to the water tower. To use 1 the access from the road. At that time the reason for not using the road was it was a private road. It's now a public road and yet access is still from the school property. The question from the school is, and rightfully so I would think, is why should we provide access when they're going to sell off their own. Why don't they use their own access from a public road? If the land is sold, are there any restrictions or can there be any restrictions on the future use of the land? Could there be a variance for a home for a small lot? Could it be used or restricted for outlots? Could it be restricted at all? As I said, my primary concern is the procedure. I agree with delegating to the lowest possible level. Let adminstrative people do what they need to do but there I! should be due process so that everyone has an opportunity, so that everyone knows what the City is doing with the people's resources. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ' 15 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? I have to agree with the procedural aspects of this and before I make a motion here I'd like to also say there's covenants in here that no building will ever be built on this. There's also access to be given to the City on an easement so we can service the water tower from that side. So for those two things, we are providing both of those so there will never be able to be a house built on that small property plus the City will no longer need the access from the school area. But procedurally, I'd like to find out if we may have goofed up here because there may be some, we may have to do public offerings and stuff like that for excess and I'd like to table it until... ' Mayor Chmiel: Or can we address it now? Gil Kreidberg: Maybe I could add something because I'm the buyer. Would you ' like to hear what I have to say? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. I Gil Kreidberg: Some of you are familiar with this situation. My name is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road. Some of you who were on the Council a year and a half, 2 years ago, we started this process and Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, are familiar with this situation. It's a little more involved than just an outright sale of the property on the part of the City II for excess land. A couple years ago the City wanted to build, put a road through to the tower and those people in that area, south of the tower and some to the north. Right at this time I don't know but other people objected strongly that they had the access and that they could possibly acquire an access, a permanent access from the school district behind their... We were concerned up there of changing the environment. Damage to the trees and taking risk to the kids that play up there and so on and in the last 2 years I've worked along with the Pleasant Hills Homeowners Association trying to work out a compromise with the City so they could get what they want and we could be satisfied where we are in terms of the net result at the end. I've spent the last year working very closely with Gary Warren, the City Engineer, trying to work out a compromise which we felt we had here. I'm sorry that this gentleman's concerned about the procedure and I understand that issue but essentially what was determined is that, I reside directly to the south of that piece of property which means that what this is going to be is this piece of land is going to become part of my yard. It isn't going to be built in anything. It's not going to be developed. Nothing's going to physically change up there except now it will be a 10 foot wide gravel path with a gate that will prevent snowmobiles and all the other stuff that will go through there if they don't gate it, from going back to the tower but it will be locked and the City will be able to access the tower from the east side. I have agreed in kind to build a fence along that pathway which will eliminate snow drifting and stuff along their new road and it also will protect the cul-de-sac down to the south against the additional activity that will be generated not only by the fact that more people living up there but by the fact that there will now be vehicles entering in there that were not entering in there before. The lot was appraised as though it was a buildable lot. Okay? It is obviously not a buildable lot. I have agreed to pay a buildable lot price which is more than what the City would otherwise get with the covenants they put on it if they just put it up at auction or whatever. The reason I'm willing to do that is obviously it becomes part of my yard. Secondly, it's important to me in a sense to protect my 16 ' I , . City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 investment and the homeowners around me to make sure that this thing is done right. In a sense what I'm doing is funding the City's ability to put that road ' in. I don't think that there's even an issue here that the citizens of Chanhassen are not benefitted by what's taking place. I appreciate the possibility that the procedure may have been different but the circumstances that brought this whole thing about go back 2 years and they have to do with a ' lot more than just me. We've been going through this for 2 years. I would appreciate not tabling it and moving forward unless by chance you have some strong objection knowing the background and circumstances that we do proceed 1 tonight. Otherwise I'd just like to go forward because it's taken a lot of time, both mine and the city's and I'm sure... 11 Don Ashworth: The points brought out are correct. The only thing I might add is that it did involve a lot of people through that whole process and a lot of people coming into the City Council again very concerned with the trees. Very concerned with access to the school. Very concerned with how that property 11 might be used as it would relate again back to the trail requirements and yet still accomplish the City needs for that property. In terms of the procedural question regarding the legality of publishing, etc. that is not there and I IIthink that the law understands issues such as this where the City looks at an issue as to how it's going to best serve the citizens in that area as well as the City itself. ' Councilman Johnson: Can I hear from Roger on that one Don? Don Ashworth: Sure. I f Roger Knutson: Bidding is not required for 9 eqL the sale of property. Other stuff, yes but not real estate. ' Councilman Workman: What's the actual size of the lot? Gil Kreidberg: Not even 2/10ths. About .445 of an acre. Buildable lots up there go for, I mean it was appraised at the egt.uivalent of about $32,000.00 on the basis of a contract for deed assuming it's a buildable lot and I volunteered to pay cash if they cut it to $30,000.00... Councilman Boyt: Why isn't it a buildable lot? ' Gil Kreidberg: Because you're putting a covenant in there that tells me I can't build a home structure on it. Councilman Boyt: But otherwise it would be? Gil Kreidberg: Otherwise in theory it could be but you know, when we went through this discussion...you weren't on the Council at the time, the whole idea was we wanted to keep it like it is and the City wanted to get their access but we still had to work on a compromise and I think this is fair because essentially what I'm going to do is get the City to put the road in and that goes on the tax roll which means I'll pay taxes in the future, not to mention what we're paying now. Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway to combine this lot and your lot to where ' it becomes one lot of record versus two lots? I 17 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Gil Kreidberg: You know I've asked Gary about that and I guess he wanted to explore that. I don't know. y Roger Knutson: You get one PIN number for it, yeah. Councilman Johnson: Because if it's one lot, then you'd have to subdivide. You've have to come in and request for a subdivision in order to build the second house on it. ' Gil Kreidberg: I have no problem with if you want to set it up that way. I just want it as a yard and I want it as a buffer against this road and I'm going to... It will be a nice deal when it's all done. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question Mr. Kreidberg. You say that you want to clean it up. Would you explain that a little bit more? I understand... ' Gil Kreidberg: ...a couple of the Council members have. The City has let it go downhill in the last 15 years and it's got barbed wire fences. It's got debris. It's really a mess. Councilwoman Dimler: Brush you mean? Gil Kriedberg: Not just brush. I'm talking about the land directly to the north of this piece of property is a farm. It's a little horse farm. It's about 2 1/2 acres and they keep horses out there and up until they actually ' developed the area where I am, which is about 4 years ago, this guy used to let his horses and everything wander over there. He built, he put up barbed wire fences and an old wood fence and I mean there's all kinds of debris that was thrown there from whatever the sources are and I told the City that I would, at my expense, clean that property up. Councilwoman Dimler: You're not talking about clearing trees and stuff? I Gil Kriedberg: Oh, that is the last thing that I want to do. I mean there's a long letter... , Councilwoman Dimler: Alright, thanks. Mayor -Chmiel: Any further discussion? ' Councilman Workman: So he's basically paying $30,000.00 for less than an half of an acre up there? y I Don Ashworth: That he can't build on. Councilman Workman: That he can't build on? I Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: Might somebody else be interested in this Pe t_ro r y? P Councilman Johnson: Only if they could build on it. 18 , II , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Don Ashworth: We could start the process over and advertise. I just find it very difficult to believe who's going to buy it under similar conditions. 111 Gil Kreidberg: Also remember there's a water tower directly behind it. It's a nice monolith but it isn't an art form you would normally. .. ' Councilman Workman: Is this kind of for the neighbor's, who voiced concerns, is that bring things a little better into focus maybe as far as the purchase? 1 Mrs. Fransdal: ...no one knew anything about this. We had no idea this was going on. Even the Woida's directly, they had no opportunity to bid on the property...I just wonder how the City. ..and what does he mean by a locked gate? Gil Kreidberg: No, no. What the City is going to do, this is for your best interest. The City is going to build a 10 foot wide gravel path that allows than to get their vehicles back to the tower. They will also provide pedestrian access to the middle school and the fields and so on back behind there sanewhat to satisfy the trail pattern here in Chanhassen. Mrs. Fransdal: Will the children be able to get... Gil Kreidberg: Oh absolutely. The reason for the lock is to prevent these bozo's who run these snowmobiles out across there fran going across Murray Hill 11 and shooting right down that path where the kids are. The gate will allow pedestrians through. It will be locked. The City will be able to unlock to take their trucks down in there and relock it when they leave so we don't have a road in there that will have traffic. Only the one's we're supposed to have. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I t's basically for the access of the City to get to there? Gil Kreidberg: That is correct and for the pedestrians to get back and forth. Mrs. Fransdal: This is our only legal walkway to MIS. Gil Kreidberg: That's right and you're going to still. .. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right and that still will be because the City will still own that 10 feet. Gil Kreidberg: 20 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Or excuse me, 20 feet. ' Mrs. Fransdal: And now maintain it so the children can walk? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Gil Kreidberg: That's the whole idea. Councilman Johnson: That was the whole purpose of this was to get that now. The other part is how are we going to get the trail from 65th Street over. That hasn't been resolved yet. That's another one. A thorn in my side. After 2 years we haven't resolved. I 19 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 , Mayor Chmiel: That's not the issue. II Councilman Johnson: But this will be even better, right now they have to walk li through that lot and it's not in any good condition. They have to climb the barbed wire fence and everything to get back there I guess. Mrs. Fransdal: There's a little path now. I Gil Kreidberg: Right. Have you noticed the logs that are in front of the path now that NSP cut down and left in the middle of the path. You will have a II better access back there because you'll literally have a 10 foot wide gravel path. It will be easy for people to get...gate so you don't have snowmobile traffic or small motor vehicles who might decide it'd be a good time to go II shooting through there. Mrs. Fransdal: Our main objection was to the procedure and not... Gil Kreidberg: It's my intent to inform Mr. Woida and Mrs. Woida what's going II on but it's only been a few days that I've known about it and I just haven't had a chance to visit with than. II Councilman Boyt: I have just a quick question. Explain to me how kids are going to get through the fence but snowmobiles aren't going to get through the II fence? Gil Kreidberg: Apparently, as Gary has described it, and I have not seen a picture of the kind of gate. It's the kind of gate that they can lock but it PI allows pedestrian traffic. He said they're used it on one other entryway. I don't know if it's to a water tower or another facility here in Chanhassen. He said there was one like that but the idea was, whatever the use, I've seen these II before. Not here in Minnesota but elsewhere where the gate locks and so on. .. A snowmobile, you might be able to marginally get through that. I don't know. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but the intent is to allow the walking path to... II Gil Kriidberg: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's a two prong thing. One, so you can get the truck back and two, so that people can get back and forth. It'd be II self defeating if the people can't get back and forth. Councilman Boyt: I think the neighbors have brought up an awfully good point. I II hope we've learned something from it and I'd like to see us move on this now. Councilman Workman: What I'm trying to get at is there the slightest chance, and maybe the Fransdal's can answer this right now, would somebody else be II interested in this property? Again, it is all of our property and we are selling it and it appears to be a good deal and you appear to be doing pis good by this transaction but could there be somebody out there that might be II interested in also owning this property and that seers to be the issue? Or in what is going on with it. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. The issue originated when, well not only were we I looking at the trail but I believe we had a public improvement in the process. ,, LilGil Kreidberg: You wanted to put a road in there and the.. . 20 I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 I Don Ashworth: The neighborhood had come out and we had 20 people who were here talking on the issue and that's really where the issue had started. You know, if I would have believed that the neighborhood had not supported this entire transaction or there was anyone else who was interested or there was any 1 question that this had not originated from the neighborhood itself, I guess we would have gone through a different advertisement process than we did but I really had believed this was kind of a grass roots process that they themselves were starting and finally a year and a half later we finished. 1 Gil Kreidberg: I'm sorry. I thought everybody who was party basically was aware of the net results. They may not have all been aware of that this was ' going to be decided here this evening because as I said, I just found out on Friday so. Wayne Fransdal: My comment is regarding the availability of the information. We telephoned the three neighbors closest on the north side of this and none of them were aware. If it's grass roots, it came from a very small group within the development or people on the south who had an interest in it. The people on the north who have equal interest and access from this property to the school were not informed. ' Gil Kreidberg: They were informed. They were informed all along up until tonight. They were party. They signed a petition they objected to the road to begin with. Mr. Woida did and so did Mr. MacFarlane and the other people on the opposite corner of the MacFarlane's... Councilman Johnson: Could you tell me what your objection is? What are you trying to gain by stopping this tonight? Would you like to purchase this? ' Would you like to make us an offer? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from? Wayne Fransdal: Where I'm coming from is the frustration with the adminstration in dealing with a lot of issues in the city. We can come in, developers can come in, make a proposal as an example, and they get an approval and they go out and do whatever they can negotiate with the staff. This is a case that has been negotiated with the staff and there was not public input from a lot of the people in the area. Maybe is a frustration on my part that we have things in our neighborhood that if I individually came in and asked to do, they would not be.approved but when negotiations with staff, they end up being built and there they are. they Councilman Johnson: So are you objecting to the roadway? Are you objecting to the City trucks going through there? y Wayne Fransdal: No. I think the City should have access to the water tower ' from the public property which they own. I do not believe that a complete study has been made on the future use of this property. When we looked at all things + that are being done from digging a pipe in or installing public easements, we had studies. We had environmental impact studies. We have future use studies and I don't believe they have been done and for me to say there's someone else that is interested in the property, I certainly don't know and no one in here can answer whether someone else is interested unless you ask. I'm not against the sale. I'm against the procedure. I may be all for the sale. ' 21 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 Mayor Chmiel: I agree with the concept and the idea that you have. r Councilwoman Dimler: What should have been done? Councilman Johnson: I can see staff's point of view. It's a little matter that's been going on for a year and a half, two years since before I was on the Council when this was originally approved there. This thing has been going on and on and the developer caused some of the frustrations when he didn't give us the trails he was supposed to give us and everything else and this is staff's way of coming to a conclusion on about half the problem now so we maintain that open, it was kind of Council a few years ago, 2 years ago, whatever we were on this, Council directed to reroute that trail through this property. I guess that's... Mayor Chmiel: I think that's very true. Councilman Johnson: I think it could have been handled better. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make a suggestion to staff that all adjacent properties be notified on any transaction of sale of property within the city. That way at least that procedure would be taken care of. Notifying the adjacent neighbors. Making them aware of what's transpiring and then proceed from that. Councilman Boyt: This has been sort of in limbo for at least a year. I don't think we, maybe we do, I'm not aware that we lose anything by publishing that this property is for sale as a non-buildable lot and 2 weeks from now resolve it. It seems like we're following a better procedure to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm speaking in the future with any other transactions that we do. As I look at this particular piece of property Bill, if the road is going to be on the far end adjacent to that Lot 1. No no would, in my opinion, want to own that property with a road going through with an easement. What he has is his land is abutting the property here and of course the road would be on, if we're looking at a northerly direction, it would be to the north of that segment where the road would go. Gil Kreidberg: It gives me a little buffet from all the traffic is really what it comes down to. I was willing to pay a premium because I live right next door to it. The chances that somebody will pay you what I'm paying you, they'd have to be, you can't build on it. If you could build on it, that's something. You know I'll leave it up to your judgment. We spent a lot of time trying to work up something that was amicable. Councilman Johnson: Another thing we should have done, instead of having it 90 feet wide, we should have had it 89 feet wide because at 90 feet it doesn't need a variance to build on it. Because it has the covenant it does but at 89, it would need a variance to build on it at all so we couldn't even put it on without a variance and the covenant on top of that. We'd have two ways of telling them, if somebody came in 10 years from now trying to build there, we'd say you can't. Don Ashworth: As long as it's considered a lot of record though they could build on it. If you bought a lot in the downtown and it's 60 feet in width, as long as you meet setbacks. 22 II , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Gil Kreidberg: What about my original suggestion of making it part of my particular lot? Don Ashworth: That's something that should be looked at. The covenant is good ' but as long as it's a separate legal lot of record, it could be built on. Councilman Johnson: Well if it's a separate legal lot of reference, they still have to have a variance to build on it even though it's a legal lot of record. Mayor Chmiel: They can make it contiguous though can't they Roger? ' Roger Knutson: If they legally split it, once you have a legally split lot, I don't know how they'd get it legally split if it were only 89 feet but if they were somehow to manage to accomplish that and they came in for a variance, and they own 89 foot lot, met all other ordinance requirements, you'd probably be hard pressed to turn down a request for a variance. Councilman Johnson: Unless there was the covenant? ' Roger Knutson: Unless there was a covenant, correct. ' Councilman Johnson: I mean you'd still want both. You wouldn't get rid of the covenant. What would it take to combine it to one lot? Roger Knutson: Is your existing lot a meets and bound description or is it a lot in block? Gil Kreidberg: You see what happened is they platted 6 lots in what they call ' Pleasant Hills okay and this of course is not part of Pleasant Hills. Gary was telling me something and I'm not sure that there's two ways. One is to keep this separate and the other was to kind of redo it and I think they had to ' survey it and then there were some fees in filing but I think it could be done and like I said, I have no problem with that. I'm not going to build anything. I can't build it. It's going to be a yard. ' Councilman Johnson: I think the City should pay those fees and make it as a single lot. Roger Knutson: Your property that you presently own is a lot in block, is that right? Gil Kreidberg: Pardon me. Roger_ Knutson: You have a lot in block legal description? Gil Kreidberg: Yes I do. As a matter of fact I think I have it here. Roger_ Knutson: See if you had a meets and bounds, then you could make one meets and bounds description. This accomplishes it. This says non-buildable but you number combine them for tax purposes. Have one PIN n� ber by working with the County and if you ever wanted to divide a PIN number, you've got to cane back to n the City. you've 1 23 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II Councilman Johnson: The covenant is strong enough to where they'll never be able to build on there. Councilman Boyt: That's the best way to do it. Otherwise, they can subdivide the lots someday and build. Councilman Johnson: Well the covenant would still stay there no matter what we did. Councilman Boyt: Let's table this for 2 weeks. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved to table for 2 weeks to come up with a conclusion and with a second. Councilman Johnson: To talk to the neighbors and inform the neighbors. ' Councilman Workman: Inform the neighbors and set up a policy that we can follow each and every time we have a situation like this. Don Ashworth: It will be short notice that will occur in the newspaper. We can do it but we turn it in for this Friday and it would then appear in the following Wednesday which then would be heard by the City Council on Monday. Councilman Workman: Is once enough? Don Ashworth: You potentially would have a challenge that I only saw this. Mayor Chmiel: Can we notify those adjacent property owners by letter? ' Don Ashworth: Yeah. I'm just saying that we still have really the same list from the last time. Mayor Chmiel: That would process it and make it move just a little faster. J er. Councilman Workman: If I could bring up one other thing while the motion hangs ' here also and some frustration up there. It's a different sort of a hill up there as I'm told by the neighbors. It was going to maybe be Carlton College up there possibly way back? I don't know how we lost Carlton College but I would like the Engineering staff and Dave, if you're listening, I believe it's called Somerset Circle there off of Murray Hill Road. There's a large, very large ditch there. I guess I'd like a little bit more information. Neighbors claiming that perhaps that ditch is something that it never was intended to be in the development contract. Can we check out what the circumstances are with that? It's the north ditch off of Somerset. Councilman Johnson: That's a different subdivision. Councilman Workman: Right. But again, adjacent to. I Gil Kreidberg: That'd be to the north about a block and a half or so. 24 ' ICity Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Workman: But again, it's a unique area up there and there's some frustrations. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table approving rovin a Purchase Agreement for sale of a portion of Murray Hill Water Tower Site to Gilbert and ' Jillene Kreidberg so staff can notify neighbors. All voted in favor_ and the motion carried. y VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were none. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS: A. KERBER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-9. II Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council, this is the assessment hearing for the Kerber Blvd. improvement project. The total cost of the project was $444,840.12. The project was covered by 55% tax increment funds and general ' obligation with the balance of the cost to be spread against the benefitted properties along Kerber Blvd.. The developers of Chan Vista, Saddlebrook, the James property, all had development agreements where they agreed to the assessment and those assessments have been collected as the lots have been sold. ' The lots that have not been sold, those assessments are on the assessment roll. The project cost was slightly under the original bid amount which showed up as about a $2,700.00 reduction in the feasibility study cost for the tax increment and general obligation. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have on the project. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have any questions at this time? Is there anyone wishing toy address this for the public hearing? If so, this is your opportunity to come forth and address it and if you do, please state your name and your address. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Resolution #89-104: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt the Kerber Boulevard assessment roll as modified dated Septemember 11, 1989 with a payback term of 8 years with an established with interest at the ' rate of nine percent (9%) of the unpaid balance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2. ' Public Present: Name Address Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street 25 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This public again is ublic hearing. It's for the Minnewashta Meadows subdivision consisting of, I believe 16 lots. The developer of the project, Mr. Gary Carlson, petitioned for these ' improvements. The original feasibility study called for an assessment of approximately $11,900.00 per unit. The revised assessment roll indicates that the cost is within $120.00 of the original feasibility study. Mr. Carlson is here tonight. We have worked with him on the project to try to address any of his concerns and we'd be happy to again answer any questions that he might have tonight or the Council. Gary Carlson: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Gary Carlson and I'm the owner of Minnewashta Meadows and I live at 3831 West 62nd. I think on the listing it shows my address, house number as wrong. It should be 3831. As I previously mentioned at the last Council meeting, I again just want to briefly thank this City for it's very expert and cooperative manner in which this project was brought on line and completed. I especially want to thank the engineer, Bill Engelhardt and his company. To see an undeveloped corner and see it brought, put down on paper with ideas and see it accepted by the City and to see it let and properly built by B and D Underground from Mound, Bob and Dennis Frobar, they immediately came out and did the project and it's been done excellently so I want to thank the City for it's ability to be able to move on a starter home residential development and get it done. Get it done correctly and also get it done within budget. There is just a couple items. When you're doing single family, starter home development, just as I'm sure all the Council when you bought your first starter home, you looked at every item in that home and did you need it and was it necessary and was it correct. So I'm looking at a few, actually there's 3 items within the assessment that I think if we could accept the assessment roll tonight and just let this, because a couple of the items staff hasn't quite had a chance to answer some of the questions. If we can bring those three things up to resolve with me, then that will be possibly lower the assessment because in single family starter homes, although we're within budget, there are some items that aren't answered. There are three things as I said and we can discuss them or we can just accept the assessments with the contention that they be resolved and if they can't be resolved, possibly the Council can again act on them. Sometimes it takes Council decision. The three items would be how the Church Road assessment. You see I was, my project was a stand alone project but there were some costs coming off of Church Road and those were basically, in other words, how they're being assessed is not resolved to my satisfaction and I explained that. The other item is the interest charged on my bond issue that wasn't used for a year. Other cities do different things with that interest rather than charge it to the development because those funds, although they were, the funds were obtained by the City through a bond last year. The funds weren't paid out until August of this year. Those funds were deposited in the City construction account which drew interest of which I had no use of. Minnewashta Meadows had no use of so other cities take that interest earned on that bond and take it off of your capitalized interest cost which I'm being charged a capital interest cost from the beginning the bond was let. Or they take that as interest that are accrued and they credit overages in the construction. We had a few overages which soil conditions were such that we had to do a little bit more with that road to bring it up to stand up so we had some overages but our city just, in my case, I wouldn't mind if I had a 160 lots to charge and spread it out. So what's a few hundred dollars there? It's several thousand in this case. The third item is this property had 8 sewer and water units charged against it on the western 26 ' 11 , City Council Meeting - September_ 25, 1989 11 boundary, none of which I'll ever use and I have Minutes from previous Council IF and letters from previous councils that state that some of those original assessments that came with the original north end sewer project on undeveloped property, if you developed in the future, they've stated in here that there's possibility that they can be credited to future assessments. In other words, II I've charged 8 water and 8 sewer units on the western boundary which I'm not using. I'm a stand alone project. I have my own sewer and water that came in the middle so some of those charges so it's just resolving these little items II and whatever we can do to do it. I don't want to take up your time tonight. I think it's just a matter of sitting down and saying what's fair. My interest is of course to get starter home lots under $30,000.00 if possible and I have to keep assessments down as low. Other than that, I'm very happy with the project 1 and I just want it to go ahead and be assessed out. Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate the fact that it's good to hear someone come in say I something good about the City. Thank you Gary. I would make a recommendation that we do accept that assessment roll as indicated with further discussion with staff to come up with conclusions on those other three items rather than discussing them here. ICouncilman Workman: I'll second it. II Councilman Johnson: If we accept the roll, aren't we accepting $11,786.05 per lot? I( Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: Then it would have to come back to modify that in the future if there's a change? IIMayor Chmiel: That's correct. I Councilman Johnson: Did we credit him with the interest we earned on that money that we stuck in our bank account or whatever? Don Ashworth: I checked with Andy Merry. He informed me that the capitalized I interest that he had -shown was a net and it does show the word net because I went back and I checked the sale. Now we're getting down into the technical portion of what did he consider in the word net. That's what they've done I previously and I did not have a chance to get into it in any further detail than just that conversation and I believe.. . Councilman Johnson: If we borrowed $188,000.00 for one year and got $14,000.00 1 interest off of that, charged to us, I think we sold these bonds but this $14,000.00 isn't interest to date. That's the full interest of the bonds until we pay all the bonds off so that would be, are they 5 year bonds? IIDon Ashworth: I believe these are going out over an 8 year period. Councilman Johnson: It's 8 years but the $14,000.00 is 8 years worth of interest on these bonds. Don Ashworth: No. It would include the interest.. . I think the Mayor's point is a good one. Let staff work with the developer. Mr_. Carlson presented the 11 27 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 issue to me on Friday. I tried getting back to Andy. Andy did get back to me with the position that he had used net but we did not get down to actually looking at the detailed book records so I don't want to mislead anyone as to what may or may not be in there. anyone Mayor Chmiel: I don't see where that would be any real problem Jay if we did that as I motioned with a second. any Councilman Johnson: I think tabling it would be more appropriate then. Either way it's got to come back to us. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but at least we know that that assessment is there and what has to be done will be reduced from there if it's going to be reduced. We don't know. Don Ashworth: The second part of that is, and again we don't know what the state is going to do and when we're going to have to make certifications but from the date that City Council adopts a roll, an owner has 30 days to pay that assessment without interest. You literally are starting that clock. If during the next 2 week period a lowering does occur, I'm sure Mr. Carlson's not going to run in tomorrow and pay that amount until he's satisfied so if on October 9th a decision is made for a reduction. Again, we've started that clock and we have given him an opportunity to potentially see a reduction if he's capable of convincing staff that there's been some type of an error. Resolution #89-105: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt I the Minnewashta Meadows Assessment Roll for Improvement Project No. 88-2 and that the assessment term be set for eight year at nine percent interest. The development contract requires that these assessments be paid at the time of sale of the property and the security remain in force until they are paid off. Also, staff is directed to work with Mr. Carlson to answer any questions he has regarding the assessment amount. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 80-5. Public Present: Name Address Albert Dorweiler 1565 Bluff Creek Drive James and Joey Jacobs 1545 Bluff Creek Drive John Skraba 1530 Bluff Creek Drive Nick Waritz 1271 Bluff Creek Drive Roger and Vikki Broun 1200 Hesse Farm Road Joseph and Mary Elmgren 1221 Bluff Creek Drive I Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This is the assessment hearing for Bluff Creek Drive. The Bluff Creek Drive project was a construction of State Aid street from TH 212 to CR 14. As being a State Aid street, 80% of the cost of the construction and the cost of the project are being paid for out of the use of State Aid funds that the City receives annually. The remaining 28 1 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II ' 20% of the cost, roughly $148,200.00 is being spread against the benefitted properties where in this particular project the benefitted properties were considered properties having access not only directly on the road but off the I road. There were a total of 65 units on this particular project and the total cost is divided by the 65 units to come up with a unit cost of $2,280.00 per unit. The original feasibility study on this particular project indicated a cost of $1,647.00 per unit. At the time of the bidding we had very unfavorable ' bidding climate and the cost of the project, the construction cost exceeded the engineer's estimate by approximately 19%. During the design phase, additions were added to the project to meet State Aid Standards and that accounted for ' some of the increase in cost. At the time of the award of the project, the unit cost was calculated to be $2,440.00 per unit and this cost was presented. The project has underrun slightly. ..underneath the bid forecast unit cost. With ' that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on this particular project. Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Please come forward and state your name and address please. Albert Dorweiler: My name is Albert Dorweiler. I live at 1565 Bluff Creek Drive. As Bill said, about $1,647.00 he was talking about on April 20, 1987 and they did a feasibility study. So I understood when I was at this public hearing on April 20, 1987, I asked Mayor Hamilton what if it goes over? He said then we'll have another public hearing. We never had that other public hearing when this took place. I don't understand how come this project got underway without another public hearing. I guess that's all I had to say about that. It kind of upsets me a little bit that you went ahead with the project that there was not a public hearing about it and Mayor Hamilton sat up there and told me that there ' was going to be another public hearing. I said, what if the cost goes over? I think the cost is quite a bit higher than the proposed 80%. $535,282.00, take 80% and that's what it should have cost us. I can't see that 10% over that. Why these contractors can name their own price tag on these things here and that's what I think is happening here. I am not really satisfied with what goes on on that particular item and then there's a few other things I've got here. ' Another thing that kind of upsets me here is the acreage deal. Across where I live, up on 1565, there's a whole cornfield, I don't know how many acres it is. How many acres that it, that kind of upsets me what's going to further development in that acreage there across the road from me there. I don't think ' the assessment for his acreage is fair because I've only got 1 acre and we're talking 10 acres. What's across the road, I imagine by looking at it it's about 80 acres there. What's going to happen with that? I just got a letter here, ' let's see here. What else do I want to talk about? Because of the traffic, it's terrible. I've got a blind driveway which Bill Engelhardt did put up a sign there. I was happy that he did that but some people don't look at that. My driveway I don't feel that is safe because I've got to go up a hill and there's a blind driveway. Bill worked with me with that but I'm not completely satisfied but I don't know what else we can do. I just wrote a letter here that I'll present to you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That's why tonight is a public hearing. Hopefully this will take care of that specific suggestion that you made or indicated that 11! Mayor Hamilton said we would have a public hearing on it. This is basically what it is this evening. Bill, can you address any of those specific issues that he was addressing regarding the 10 acres and 80 acres as to cost analysis on that? 29 City Council Meeting - September_ 25, 1989 1 Bill Engelhardt: The parcels that were large parcels that were vacant, , we looked at those as being split up eventually as rural subdivisions and counted units for those based on the current zoning ordinance for those particular pieces of property. So if you look at some of the property, there's one particular property that was assessed 3 units. He had three 2 1/2 acre lots with the 10 acre zoning I think is what it was and so they were included as units and they did get more than just one unit. They were assessed for what they could build on there. Excuse me. That was done for all of the vacant property up there. Joe Elmgren: My name is Joe Elmgren and I live at 1221 Bluff Creek Drive. ve. I wrote a letter to Don Ashworth with a carbon copy to Bill and we do have a couple of things we need to settle as far as the entrance of my driveway onto Bluff Creek. Bill's been out there a couple times already and we've worked on it and there's a couple things that haven't been finished but I'm sure we can resolve that. I'm not here to say that the assessment is right or wrong. I do have one difficulty with the road however. I sell furniture for a living and I don't build highways but I've had this pointed out to me before. Where my driveway, first of all, probably had the biggest impact as far as this Bluff Creek Drive development was concerned. The access to Bluff Creek Drive now is between 4 and 5 feet higher in respect to my driveway than it was in the beginning. Before they started the construction. That's one of the things Bill and I are working out as far as my entrance is concerned to make it a safe entrance. What's happened to the Bluff Creek Drive is the curb on my side, which is the west side of the road is, I mean I haven't taken a tape out there to measure it but I would say from standing on the railroad tracks, is at least a foot higher than the curb on the east side so when the rain and drainage comes down Bluff Creek Drive, it never reaches the storm sewers on the west side and all drains over into the east side and they've also put some temporary, what looked like temporary drainage solutions on the railroad tracks. If we ever have another one of those big storms like we had a few years ago, I just don't foresee that those barriers are going to hold it. Did you get involved in that Bill? In that drainage? ` Bill Engelhardt: Yes. As Mr. Elmgren has stated, we have worked with him fairly closely in trying to resolve his issues on his driveway and there are two items that we need to take care of. One is straightening a lilac bush and there's a culvert underneath his driveway that needs to be cleaned and that will be taken care of. The issue of the change in elevation or difference in elevation between one side of the road to the other side of the road. As most ' of you are aware, Bluff Creek Drive was a very, very difficult grade. Had very, very difficult grades in there and where he's talking about, we had to match 2 existing signals, railroad signal arms bases. Unfortunately the signal arms were not at quite the same elevation themselves so we came in around the curve. We not only have to match those bases but we had to match the State Aid requirements for what we could have a curve in there and so we tapered them in the bases in lieu of having one of the bases sitting higher or one of them sitting lower to provide for safety. If we were going to redo those without doing the tapering work and having the difference, and I don't think there's a foot difference. It's maybe a half a foot at the most but there is a difference. If we were going to try to eliminate that difference in elevation Lil between those sides, we would have to redo the railroad signals and those signals were about $150,000.00 to redo those so we thought it was more of a 30 11 City Council Meeting - September_- 25, 1989 benefit for the overall road project not to redo those. To keep the costs down and to live with the slight difference in elevation on those sides. So that was the reason for it but we'll take care of those two items that you mentioned. ' Councilman Johnson: Bill, can I ask you a question to follow up on that? there storm sewers on the high side that aren't going to catch any water? Is Bill Engelhardt: No, that's not quite true. There are storm sewers on the high side and because of the grade in there and the steepness of the grade, it ' doesn't catch as much as what we'd like it to catch but we even offset the catch basins to try to get as much in there as we could. Now last winter and during some of the heavy rainstorms, we didn't have the final wearing course on and this spring when we put the wearing course in, I tried to raise those to direct it more into the catch basins and I think it's going to work fine. Joe Elmgren: I hope what he says works. My concern is, there are right down ' onthe tracks, if you go out and visit, there are what appear to me as temporary diversion dikes to prevent, for the water that's supposed to go into the drain sewer which now goes across the tracks, they appear to be temporary little dikes that send the water in the direction where it was supposed to come out if it had gone through the storm sewers. What my concern is, are those temporary? They look awfully temporary to me so. Bill Engelhardt: I guess I don't consider them temporary. They are bituminous swales and they are to prevent the erosion. We had some erosion problems on the tracks and since we put those in there, we haven't had the erosion that we did and I feel they're going to work properly. Time will tell and I suppose if we get a big gully wash we're going to have some problems but I think under your normal rain conditions, I don't see a problem with them and I think it will work just fine. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Nick Waritz: Nick Waritz, 1271 Bluff Creek Drive and say hello to Don. He's about the only real familiar face I see up there. I do want to thank Bill. We gave him a little heat at the first part when the project started. I think he ' really did a good job. I think the road ended yip very nice. Our yard ended up looking real nice after. It was sodded and everything. I think one area I'm concerned about and I thought some people maybe did express that early on in the year was that the areas that were seeded, I don't even know if they seeded them ' because nothing came up on there but weeds and that looks pretty bad as far as the areas that weren't sodded, that were just seeded. The major concern I guess as far as the actual road construction have a little bit is the entry off of TH 212 onto Bluff Creek Drive. That seems to be a little narrow. A little confined and maybe there's a purpose to that to slow people down. I don't know but compared to what we're used to, it used to be a real wide and it seems now a little confined and in the winter time if you happen to slip a little bit and if there's some traffic stacked up there, you might just spinout into their side. I guess the other thing, which Ursula mentioned earlier, at least I heard my illustrious wife's name mentioned, and I think she had called earlier, is the amount of truck traffic that is continually been building on the road. I think tonight I noticed and there must be a project somewhere. After I got home at 6:30 I counted about 20 semi gravel trucks going up the road and another 10 or 15 going down and this is at night. 6:30 at night. I understand during the day 111- 31 11 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 I when I'm not there to count like the wife counted 37 semis and business trucks just booming up and down the road during the day today within about an hour period. I think there probably won't be any road left in a year or two if that's going to continue. I don't know. Councilman Johnson: Chaska's closed a road over there. Mayor Chmiel: County Road 17 is closed and I think that's probably why the diversion of traffic coming that particular way. I don't think that's going to continue. Or at least I hope not. Nick Waritz: That's a concern and I guess I am a little bit concerned as Al Dorweiler was that initially the project was plus or minus $1,600.00 and it comes in about 50°% over that and I know there were improvements like the concrete curb and gutter which I like and I think it makes it look much nicer. That would raise the cost and that but I'm a little concerned about that but all and all I think it was a great job. ' Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, I'll try to address Nick's questions on the seeding. It was seeded. Unfortunately sometimes seeding doesn't always take hold and maybe we can go through there and get some of those areas shaped up and seeded, put some more seed down. The issue of the road onto TH 212, that's a very interesting issue. The state highway department gaves us the instructions on how that entrance was to be designed. In fact they wanted it realigned so II that it came in at a 90 degree angle to the TH 212 highway. In doing so, the turn lane that had presently existed was shifted over. When it came time to blacktop the road and bring the blacktop into the TH 212, we were going to blacktop that corner and feather it into the turn lane and the State Inspector said, no we cannot do that because we have to hit a 90 degree angle coming into TH 212. The intent is that once the State looks at this project and accepts this project, that we may be able to do something as a maintenance item and get that blacktopped around the corner. So that's all I can say about that. It was a State requirement. We don't like it anymore than you do and hopefully we can get it taken care of. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, while you're up here. I did have it under Council presentations but maybe we can answer the questions now about the trucks, the excessive truck useage. I guess we were wondering what tonage you upgraded the road to and what trucks are legal and which ones aren't. Bill Engelhardt: Because of the State Aid funding on it, which comes from the ' gas tax and the Invet Fund and those types of things and also federal funding, the road had to be built to a 9 ton design which allows for truck traffic and I've been through this same issue in another city where the citizens have requested that truck traffic or not trucks allowed signs be put up and you really can't prohibit trucks from using a State Aid road. You can do it on some of your local roads but on a State Aid road where the funding has come from the State and from the federal government, which in this case is 80% of the cost of the road, you cannot eliminate truck traffic without losing your State Aid status of the roadway. As far as the amount of trucks on it, there's a tremendous amount of construction taking place in this particular area. A lot of toad building. A lot of filling in sites. Industrial sites and that type of thing and the gravel is coming up from the south of the river. In particular I think this gravel is coming up from Shakopee where they have a large project 32 1 • • F City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 lir down there where they're trying to get rid of a lot of dirt. Consequently, the shortest route according to the truck drivers is between, it's a straight line and even if they wanted to, they couldn't use CR 17 because that's closed right I now for some reconstruction so it's a combination of things. It's coming straight up from Shakopee to get up to the projects that are requiring fill and I then the closing of roads and hopefully once those projects are completed, there won't be a need for those trucks to use that roadway but it's very, very difficult to, in fact you can't do it without losing your State Aid standards. II Don Ashworth: In this same area, I did talk with Marcy today and I know that, especially with the trucks and since they have gone through this detour, I think they're trying to pick up some time so there is more speeding that's occurring. II We will try to do a blitz of patrol on that roadway the remainder of this week and next week. Hopefully that will help some too. Bill Engelhardt: The other thing, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a weight 1 check on the trucks because they do have a tendency to at times get over loaded and once the word gets around that you're checking weights, they tend to stay away from it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good idea. II Joey Jacobs: Joey Jacobs, 1545 Bluff Creek Drive and I just want to make one statement that I know it's a State funded road and I understand that now. I didn't know about the trucks but I just find it hard to pay what we have to pay for a State road that seems more like a county road with semis. I was one person that sat there and counted today, thinking of having this meeting tonight, and I counted for 40 minutes and 40 huge semis flew by and yes, they do speed. But I wish I would have understood that I guess a little bit more 1 clearly before this happened because we had a nice country road and now we have a state funded highway that I'm helping to pay for so it's very difficult... That's my objection. 1 Albert Dorweiler: My name is Albert Dorweiler, 1565 Bluff Creek Drive. I was wondering now, because of all this truck traffic, how long that road's going to last and who's going to be responsible for it maintaining that road after the IIroad goes? Mayor Chmiel: That's a loaded question. IIBill Engelhardt: Come on Al. That is a loaded question and the design is a 19 ton design and hopefully the road is going to hold up but again, unless we check the weights on these trucks and if they are running over loaded, then we could Ihave some problems with it so we definitely need to watch it and to watch these trucks and find out where they're going. Now it may be a possibility that if we can find out where they're going, that maybe we can consult with these 1 contractors and find out if they can reroute it. I'm not promising you can do that but at least we could point it out to than that they're going through basically a residential area and that they are speeding. As far as who I! maintains it, it's maintained by the City. It comes out of the City's maintenance budget or in the case of a State Aid road, we do collect State Aid maintenance funds on roads of this nature. Then those funds go into the overall maintenance program of the city of Chanhassen's budget to be used on all roads IFand it could be used in particular on this road if we had to. II 33 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Mayor. Chmiel: Thanks Bill. Albert Dorweiler: I had one more question I forgot to ask. On my driveway and retaining wall, I've got a retaining wall and because they raised the road f4 feet, I was wondering who would be responsible for that retaining wall because of the road been raised 4 feet. Councilman Johnson: Who's property is the retaining wall on? 1 Bill Engelhardt: The retaining wall is in the right-of-way. Albert Dorweiler: It goes 25 feet... ' Bill Engelhardt: Who's going to maintian it if it goes to pieces? Albert Dorweiler: Right. ' Bill Engelhardt: That's another tough question. If it's within the right-of-way I would say we would have to maintain it because it was part of the road cost. right-of-way it's on your property, technically we can't go onto your property to maintain it but I'm sure that the portion that's on your property Al would be very limited in scope as far as what retaining wall would be involved and I would think that we could use our State Aid maintenance funds to maintain it. Councilman Johnson: Bill, if there is portions on his property, we probably ' ought to look to getting an easement agreement for maintenance so we have an agreement from him that we can maintain that wall if we don't already have it. Jim Jacobs: Jim Jacobs, 1545 Bluff Creek. I'd just like to say there's always going to be construction out in that area. All the land is so and we need a weight restriction on there desparately. Bill Engelhardt: You can't do it. Jim Jacobs: You should have told us before. Bill Engelhardt: It was always presented as being a State Aid road. It was always presented as being a 9 ton designed in order to get the State Aid funding. Again, that 80%, that was pointed out in the original... Jim Jacobs: I wasn't aware of that. I'm a truck driver. I don't use it. It's a residential area. Bill Engelhardt: I agree with you but again, the State Aid funding and because of the designation and connection with a county road and a State highway, it automatically becomes a State Aid road. The City, by having that piece of roadway as a State Aid road, gets other funds for maintenance and it goes on the overall system and you get additional monies from the State to take care of all the rest of your roads. Jim Jacobs: How do you, in a residential area, how do you get a 3 ton? Bill Engelhardt: You don't. Not when it's a State Aid road. 34 II' ' ' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II If Jim Jacobs: No variation? No exception? Bill Engelhardt: No exception. II Jim Jacobs: I can only put it up to you and ask you for some kind of help on that one. Bill Engelhardt: The Council really can't do anything other than taking it off IIthe State Aid road and that is highly not recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Once State Aid's been granted for something, it's very difficult Ito it back off Jim. Bill Engelhardt: If you would take that road off the State Aid route, you would II lose the 80o funding and the cost of that would have to go back to the assessments, back to the property owners. Jim Jacobs: That's it huh? IIMayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. Thank you. Anyone else? I Roger Broun: My name is Roger Broun. I live at 1200 Hesse Farm Road. My objection with the project is the way the finish work is done on it. I'm very disappointed at the way the edges of the road look. They're full of weeds 6 I( feet high. I was under the impression that prairie grass would be planted and obviously it didn't come up or whatever they planted didn't come up and I guess I'm looking for more favorable response from you other than the fact that maybe we can look at perhaps reseeding later. I'd like to see same type of action I taken where we know the reseeding is going to take place and that we're going to have some kind of schedule on it. It was on the front page of the paper last October-November where the power company and phone company went through after 11 the seeding had taken place originally and tore up the project somewhat and it was stated at that time that someone was going to came in the spring and regrade and reseed and that never took place either. I just wonder who's responsible for these, to make sure these people follow up and who's responsible to make I sure that the grass seed comes up. In some areas you have taken 'care of the homeowners with sod. Our development, the entrances, you did nothing. I mean they're a mess. There's 6 foot high weeds there so when can we expect something IIto be taking place? Councilman Johnson: We should talk to our weed control officer on that one. IIBill Engelhardt: The problem with the grass is that we use what's called Highway Mixture No. 5 which is a fescue grass. It's not going to be a lush bluegrass type of material in there. It's basically to establish some type of II growth in there to keep the erosion down. Unfortunately in the case of even with seed, you have to do sane kind of maintenance and watering if you're going to have kind of growth at all and it's just not practical on some of these projects, especially in a roadway like this, to maintain and to cut the weeds along the edge of the road. Now like I said, we can go back and try and get them to cut those weeds that are there and see if we can spread same seed and get it to grow again but it will be a Mixture No. 5 or Highway ditch mixture in order to get a more solid growth in there and not a lush growth. As in the case II35 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 of the power company going through, we've been working with them. They've been fairly cooperative but on issues like this, they tend not to be cooperative. All I�can tell you is that we're working with than trying to get than back in there to repair what they've done. That's the best I can tell you. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Why couldn't it be prairie grass sort of thing? Why does it have to be this mixture number 5? Bill Engelhardt: Well it could be. The mixture number 5 is designed specifically for applications of this nature to get a fescue and to get more rye grass in it. When they're talking about weeds, they're seeing more like oats and rye coming up because it hasn't been cut and once it's cut, you're still going to have the good sound root system and that's why I use a mixture no. 5. You could use the prairie grass but it's not as hardy and it doesn't hold the erosion along the edge of the curb and gutter and side of the road as well as the fescue and the oats and the rye. Mayor Chmiel: That's not NSP that's causing that problem is it? Bill Engelhardt: No sir. , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger Broun: Again, I'm looking for a response as to when this will take place. - I All of a sudden it's like, well now you've answered the question but there's no time frame. Bill Engelhardt: I can't give you a specific response. I can tell you that 11.!! we'll work on it and try to get it done within the next month before it snows. Roger Broun: If you seed, you don't get germination in the cold weather. ' Bill Engelhardt: That's right. You aren't going to get any germination until you'll have dormant seed at this time of the year. The other option is to wait until next spring and then go through and seed it again. Roger Broun: But will that take place? ' Bill Engelhardt: Pardon? Roger Broun: Are you saying that that will take place? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you prefer that it be done in the spring? Roger Broun: I would prefer that it be done. Mayor Chmiel: I realize that. I Roger. Broun: I have no preference when. I'd like to see ground as opposed to 6 foot high weeds. Mayor Chmiel: I think the intent is to take care of that with the reseeding and have that completed. 36 ' I. . , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Ili_ Councilman Johnson: I prefer to have it done in the fall to where in the first rains of the spring and the melt of the spring we can start getting it, otherwise what will happen is what we've seen before. Oh we're going to do that first thing in the spring. It's too muddy to do it in the spring and now it's June. IMayor Chmiel: It probably would be best in the fall. John Skraba: I'm John Skraba, 1530 Bluff Creek Drive. Those weeds are terrible I like everybody says. I think there was a mixture of cockleburr, a little rye grass and an awful lot of some kind of brush. I believe it's box elder because the bugs are just terrible. When they do do this seeding next spring, I wish I they would pick up their two tires that they left that used to cross the road. They left than on my property. I put them out I don't know how many times and they never picked than up. They're still laying there. I will not get rid of them. They'll have to get rid of them. IMayor Chmiel: Can I ask you a question? IJohn Skraba: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: The locations of all these weeds, what are the road sides like? Can they be mowed with a mower? Is it hand mowing that has to be done or can a rider be done? John Skraba: Well I don't think you can mow them with a mower with the curb. I don't think so. You'll have to get beyond the curb. Mayor Chmiel: You can? IBill Engelhardt: I think so. There are some areas that are a little steep but it depends on how far back you have to go. IMayor_ Chmiel: We'11 have to have the weed inspector take a look at it. John Skraba: One particularly unsightly area is where they put in that wall, I that retaining wall just north of the Maloney property and that really can't get, there's barely enough walkway before you drop off the retaining wall and the ragweed and goldenrod in there is like... I think the City's going to have II to.go in there with one of these, what do you call those things? The string that whips around. But that's got to be an every year maintenance problem. Joey Jacobs: What was there wasn't tall and that's there now is so tall that we Ihave a real hazard getting out of every one of our driveways. Mayor Chmiel: We'll address that. Is there anyone else? This is a public I hearing. You have an opportunity one more time. If not, does someone have a motion to close the public hearing? I, Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II-- II37 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 ' Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the assessment roll. Adoption of the assessment roll. Project 80-5. Councilman Workman: What about these concerns? Don Ashworth: Put those in as conditions of your approval that staff will be directed to ensure and if you just want to go. As long as we're taking verbatim minutes, we do have a list of everybody's... Councilman Johnson: I would like to see staff address all of the concerns, especially the sight hazards where tall weeds are making it difficult to get out of driveways. We should have those cleared as soon as possible. Councilman Workman: Also, perhaps checking on the general truck traffic. ' Mayor Chmiel: That will also be addressed with some weight restrictions being checked on on those trucks as well. ' Bill Engelhardt: I think the most effective thing you can do on that is to moniter the speed and moniter the weight so the word gets out that samebody's up there and they'll find different routes because they don't want to get caught. Councilman Johnson: We want sane portable scales out there. Mayor Chmiel: We will impose that as soon as some discussion can be done with the Sheriff's Department. Councilman Workman: I would second the motion. ' Resolution #89-106: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to ' adopt the Assessment Roll dated September 11, 1989 for Bluff Creek Drive Project No. 80-5 and to establish a payback term of eight years and nine percent interest rate for the assessments. Also, to direct staff to address the concerns raised by the residents. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL/LIBRARY REMODELING PROJECTS. ' Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's consideration is the award of bids for the City Hall and Library remodeling projects. Included in the award of bids for the City Hall would be painting of the offices and common areas, recarpeting of common areas that have...carpet and offices. Electrical would include the replacement of the existing light fixtures with 3 way switch which I is the same model used in the public safety area at this point. Library expansion would consist of painting the existing library and the new library expanded area. Carpeting of both the existing area and the expansion area. J Acoustical tile for just the expansion area. Mechanical would be consisting of the dropping of the sprinkler heads in the expanded area. Extension of the heating ducts into the expanded area and also the relocation of a thermostat. Electrical would include several outlets and the lighting of the expanded area and the general contractor would be responsible for taking out the existing wall which is dividing the existing library into what is the basement of the public safety area for the expanded area included in the report. Staff is recommending 38 ' • City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 IIapproval of bids for painting, carpeting and electrical to Lund Painting and Decorating, Pink Companies, Page Electric for the City Hall exapansion for the I amounts of $3,200.00 for the painting, $10,579.00 for the carpeting, $14,975.00 for the electrical. The library expansion would be award to painting, Lund Painting and Decorating for $1,300.00; carpeting, Pink Companies for $7,230.00; II acoustical tile, Architectural Sales of Minnesota, $1,246.00; mechanical to Allied Mechanical Systems for $4,660.00; electrical through Page Electric for $2,624.00; and general contracting to Dean and Associates for $14,969.00. Staff is prepared to answer any questions that Council may have. Included in the IIreport were the tabulation of bids for both the project library and City Hall. Mayor Chmiel: This has already been included in the City Hall expansion fund? IIDon Ashworth: Correct. Todd Gerhardt: That is correct.- ' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question as to why, why didn't we get a second u bid on the electrical for the City Hall? Todd Gerhardt: We sent out four requests for bids to potential electrical companies and Page was the only one that submitted one for the City Hall. So 1 that was all the bids we received for that project. I do not know why Vantage didn't submit a bid. 0. Councilwoman Dimler: That seems strange. Councilman Workman: I've never heard of these electrical companies. Don't we ever bid to local companies or is this of a magnitude that it's larger? IITodd Gerhardt: No. We went off the list that was provided as a part of the City Hall expansion. The same contractors that bid that project. IIDon Ashworth: You're talking about from Jack Anderson so you asked Jack to provide a list of sub-contractors and this was the list that he had given you? II Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. And then we also included local people. I guess I didn't know of a local electrican. I Don Ashworth: Because he wouldn't have had Lund. You must have put Lund on yourself. Todd Gerhardt: We also included Countryside Carpets, Allied was not a local IIfirm but was out in Hutchinson. They were awarded a bid. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure on electric. We used to have Frontier Electric but Ithey're not in town anymore as far as I'm aware. Councilman Workman: Not to promote Chaska but I know there's some good II electrical outfits out there. I'm speaking generally. Excelsior. I mean we're going to Hutchinson for this stuff? Todd Gerhart: Well they were one of the companies that were interested and did Fbid on the City Hall project. They were low bidder. I mean you're looking at a II39 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II difference of $600.00 for that particular bid. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to develop a list of local bidders that we would like to see. It's off the subject slightly but I agree. We should, there used to be a state law, I'm not sure if there is, where you can actually give a price advantage to a local bidder on some kind of contracts. I think it was a federal contract. This is a while back. I think if on a federal contract and a local bidder is involved, he can get a 3% break on his cost or something versus what federal money's worth on it. I just want to say that I have no problem with these bids as they are. I'd just like to see us make sure that we give everybody in eastern Carver County a good chance at this. Councilman Workman: I guess that's my only concern in that I don't recognize any of them and if I were an electrician in Chanhassen and somebody from Chanhassen called me up and said, or somebody from Hutchinson called me up and said hey, would you like to bid on this and some nearby town electrician out there, you know. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see us try to stick with locals as much as we , can. try Todd Gerhardt: You've got two locals that submitted. , Mayor Chmiel: That's something I'd like to see done. Councilman Johnson: I just don't think we have a local electrician anymore. Councilman Workman: I mean in the surrounding communities. Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe we do. What is the startin g date on this and what's completion date Todd? Todd Gerhardt: This is going to be a very difficult in the amount of work that has to be done. We have to move full file cabinets filled with files. You've got desks that are filled. I want to start this Friday and have furniture in 3 or 4 of the offices moved out. Carpet would be ripped out in the afternoon and then work on a three phase office system throughout next week for the carpeting and painting. Electrical wouldn't have to be done at that time. This is just for the City Hall. The library expansion would be starting next week also, as soon as we sign contracts with the general on it and we have been working closely with the library on doing that work. There will be a one week period when the library will be closed. , Mayor Chmiel: I think one thing we should bring out the fact that the lighting that's going to be done is to change out the old fixtures and putting in the new which are more energy efficient. Over a long period of time it's going to save us some money in cost of operating. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. The lights in here are a 8 bulb system. We're ' going to a 6 bulb which have also the capacity of breaking into phases where you could have potentially 2, 3 or all 6 on at one time so that saves the amount of wattage used and also.breaks down on the glare when you're working on the 40 ' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 computers and writing reports at different times of the day that offices that have lights or natural sun that comes in and working in evenings. Don Ashworth: I should note that I threw a monkey wrench into Todd's work. He's been working back with staff members. He's been working under the guideline which really is $15,000.00 as far as the bidding process and coming back to Council. Ijhad stated that I wanted to see this onto the agenda and to insure that the Council was aware of the work that we were doing and that has delayed some of Todd's work and that's the reason again he had looked to this Friday for that for starting. Again, I want to make sure that Council is aware of what we were doing. Mayor Chmiel: That includes the library portion as well? 1 Todd Gerhardt: This Friday? That probably would not start this Friday. That really falls back into Dean and Associates they have provided me with a schedule that I received today. I think it starts next Monday. Mayor Chmiel: We're coordinating that with the library people down there? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We're working closely with Mary from the library. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Don just threw up a flag to me. Did you say there was a limit of $15,000.00 here? Something in the bid informed than that if their bid was over $15,000.00? Don Ashworth: No, no. This was as far as bringing the item back to City ' Council as far as the State law is concerned in terms of what staff can award. Again, I felt uncomfortable in making sure that the City Council was fully aware of the project. What it was we were proposing to do so there was absolutely no ' question as to again, the work that was... Councilman Johnson: So there was no kind of $15,000.00 cap that was put on the bids? Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Johnson: Because I notice we have $14,975.00 and $14,969.00. Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of. Todd do you know? Todd Gerhardt: I was accused of telling than that and no. Nobody referred that back to than that they had to come under $15,000.00. ICouncilman Johnson: Because when you put in a maximum bid, you find people coming in just under that bid withJa few if, ands and buts written into their bid that sometimes can add up to a lot of change orders so you've got to watch out for that. Todd Gerhardt: The architect and.. . Councilman Workman: I move approval. t Councilman Johnson: I second. 41 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II Resolution #89-107: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to II award the bids for the City Hall and Library remodeling projects as follows: City Hall Contract Bidder Amount "'- Painting Lund Painting & Decorating $ 3,200.00 Carpeting Pink Companies $10,579.00 II Electrical Page Electric $14,975.00 Library: Painting Lund Painting & Decor.atin i ti g $ 1,300.00 ng Pink Companies $ 7,230.00 Acoustical Tile Architectural Sales of MN $ 1.246.00 II Mechanical Allied Mechanical Systems $ 4,660.00 Electrical Page Electric $ 2,624.00 General Contracting Dean & Associates $14,969.00 I All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF 11 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VINELAND FOREST, VAN EDCKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION. II Paul Krauss: On September 18th the City Council reviewed access alternatives prepared by staff to serve the Vineland Forest plat and the surrounding area. III Alternative No. 3 was selected as the preferred alternative. This routing would ultimately result in the construction of a street connection from Nez Perce at the south to Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane at the north. The applicant was directed to revise his plat accordingly and to return to the City Council II for review of the preliminary plat. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to prepare the plat as requested. We believe that the result is generally acceptable. The street alignment that you see before you is consistent with the II selected alternative and most of the lots meet or exceed RSF standards. We do however have several remaining areas of concern with the design and note that there are two variances that result with this final design of the plat. The first concern is with the drainage plan and there's been some recent updating on this. The original drainage plan utilized a series of three ponds which would be coupled together before outletting water down the hill into an existing storm sewer system. Staff had some concerns with the use of three independent ponds. II They become a maintenance nightmare over time and some of the designs of the ponds that were originally proposed really had some severe limitations on individual rear yards. What people would perceive as their rear yards really couldn't be used as such because of easements that we would have to take. We II have worked with the developmer_'s engineer and he has prepared a revised plan that we received tonight that we're really not in a position to show you but basically what it does is replaces the three ponds with one large pond on those II two lots and we think the plan has a lot of merit. It does combine all those ponds into one and it does avoid the need to build basically a dam at the end of the gully over there which would have been used to provide ponding. We had some ' concerns in terms of stability of that and what it would look like if you were down the hill as well. So we think they made a lot of progress with that. We propose some stipulations for dealing with the drainage issue and we're quite 42 II City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 confident, especially based on what we received tonight, that those issues can be worked out prior to the final plat. The plat design is based on the new street that we proposed. However, it results in the need to serve one of the lots by neck off of Pleasant View. If you recall the original plan had run the street parallel to these lots and provided direct frontage to them and we had some issues of concern regarding a stub end of a right-of-way that ran into a home on an adjoining property. Based on the City's redesign of access in that area, there is sufficient area to create more than adequate lot areas for an RSF lot. However, there's inadequate frontage. What they're proposing is a neck ' lot with a 30 foot wide frontage up to Pleasant View which does take a variance. Staff supports that noting that the lot is oversized and that all other respects it exceeds our ordinance requirements. The second variance is to allow a 10% grade on what's called Vineland Drive on the plat. When we came to you last time we acknowledged that there was, going back to the original, that there was a bit of a design constraint in the area of the road connection there and that our engineering department had designed a road section that used a 10% grade for a short distance and did have an acceptable landing area at the top which we believe would be a safe way of routing traffic into the area. That is however a variance situation. I've been informed that we've granted similar variances ' previously and we are comfortable that a safe road design could result. We've also tried to look at alternatives. What it would take to lower the road grade in there to 7% and you wind up with an unusually large amount of grading that ' impacts the adjoining lots severely and you lose a lot of tree cover as well so we believe this is the way to go. Based on the foregoing, we're recommending that the Vineland Forest preliminary plat be approved with the two variances subject to appropriate stipulations. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mr. Van Eeckhout. Would you like to? Chuck Van Eeckhout: This drawing represents the current proposal of the proposed change. The concern I have however is the stipulations that are being suggested. One of which is that I seek to obtain additional right-of-way and slope easements along what is now Nez Perce Drive to the south. I have no means of doing that. I do not have the power of eminent domain. I have an adjacent landowner who does not want the road there and so with that stipulation, I have been cast in the muck so to speak. I cannot proceed. I'm dead in the water. 1 The other stipulation as related to that also in that slopes no greater than 3:1 which again we can't function on our own property with those slopes. The only other mild concern was the watermain requirement where they're asking for an 8 inch watermain to loop from Pleasant View down to Nez Perce or Lake Lucy. The extra size being a city requirement and probably more a city expediate in that it does help them to circulate the waterline and perhaps if we did that, we would like to receive the credit for the cost between the difference of the 6 inch line and 8 inch line. The 6 inch being all that we need for our purposes. If the reservation on the right-of-way and slope easements were lifted, I have no problem with the other reservations but with that stipulation, I am nowhere. If that stipulation has to be, and we knew that going in. I think I pointed out to the Council that we did have substandard right-of-way and we also, the grade is no problem. Never has been for me but I have no way of dealing with the substandard right-of-way. I would like that stipulation removed. If it can't be removed, then I would propose that we go back to the original proposal which contains no variances and does meet all the City requirements as to lot sizing and so forth. ' 43 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Could you tell me what number those are in the requirements? Chuck Van Eeckhout: There are two sets of requirements. One by the planner and one by the engineer in the staff report. In the engineer's report, nuMbers 2, 3, and 6. Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Page 3 of the engineering letter from Dave Hempel to Paul , Krauss. Paul Krauss: It's item 7(f) in the staff report on page 9. ' Councilman Johnson: Are you saying that you're not going to be able to get the necessary grading easement to get us to 100? Chuck Van Eeckhout: 10o is not a problem. It's the slope, I would have to use very steep slopes on the sides...with some sort of an erosion control method. It would have to be steep slopes with plantings and retaining walls of some sort. I have no means to acquire the additional right-of-way.. . Councilman Johnson: You're about to show us where that is right? II Paul Krauss: Yes sir. The issue that's confronting us is that Park Drive isn't under right-of-way. The dashed lines outside the limits of the right-of-way indicate where we think slope easements would need to be acquired. I've been informed that, well there's two property owners there. One, as I understand it is more willing to negotiate than the other but be that as it may, we don't have final topog in that area. The engineer for the developer is shooting that today. Based on our preliminary investigation, the data we had to work with, we think it's workable. Now there may be same easements that need to be acquired. That could either be through the developer doing it or through the City's use of eminent domain if it came to that. We are not sure of the final design of that road though until we have that topographic information and would like to be in a position to resolve that before the final plat. Councilman Johnson: .. .when we had to get an easement in order for things to go ahead. We want to make sure we have those before we go ahead instead of trying may to get than after we went ahead. That's something that ma change by final y Paul Krauss: It could very well. Councilman Johnson: 8 inches is pretty standard. I think we've done this on several subdivisions. Take 8 inch. Dave Hempel: Mx. Mayor if I may address that. I believe under the first submittal of plans they did show an 8 inch line going through the subdivision. It was felt that for looping purposes and adequate fire flows that 8 inch would be most desireable. Mayor Chmiel: 8 inch as opposed to normally for the subdivsion that size, 6 inch would be sufficient? Would it or wouldn't it? Lil 44 11 ICity Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Dave Hempel: I guess without calculations to be exact, it's getting close I 1 guess. Borderline. For future flows, possibly to the west to insure quality of water and so forth. ' Councilman Johnson: Do you have the cost difference between 6 and 8 inch is? Dave Hempel: I would say approximately $3.00 a linear foot. ' Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's about $2,500.00 approximately. It's not a real big deal. The smaller the lines you can use to serve the property properly is the best line because you have the best flow and the best quality water. 6 inch ' line is all we really want in there. If the City wants more for looping, I understand that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps... Councilman Boyt: I think we have a lot of precedent where we've required full size lines. Councilman Johnson: And for adding or getting into the city water system, this ' becomes a part of the city water system. We will be doing the city a disservice if we put anything in there less than what the City requires for that line. That is not one of the best areas in the City for utilities already. The area ' to the south of that. Anything we could do to help would be appreciated. Mayor. Chmiel: Any other discussion? ICouncilman Boyt: Sure. Paul, I assume that in your staff report where you indicate home setbacks, that that's a typo under the rear setback? ' Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Okay. They look like they all fit. Where is Lot 2, Block 3? I don't think we got that on any of our plat maps. Maybe you can. ..me on this. Councilman Johnson: Page 4. ' Councilman Boyt: Ah ha. Good. Got it. And that needs a variance because of what? Councilman Johnson: No frontage. Paul Krauss: Lot 2, Block 3 has only 30 feet of frontage up on Pleasant View so basically it's a flag lot... Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying there is that that lot fa View? ces Pleasant Paul Krauss: Yes. That and the one north of it, yes. I! Councilman Boyt: Well, my understanding is that variances require an overwhelming reason, especially when the developer has got a taw piece of land and is coming and is laying this out and now they're saying to us, we can't do it. Can't lay it out and meet city standards and what's the overwhelming reason they can't do it? There's any number of starred lots here that apparently don't 45 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 have the required width. I guess I'm not convinced that the development meets our standards for a development. Paul Krauss: If we could take the lot width at the right-of-way standard first. I think the ordinance is a little ambiguous on that as well. The ordinance appears to allow up to 4 homes on a private driveway in the subdivision section 11 I believe but then says that all lots shall have 90 foot of frontage on the right-of-way. Well, you can't have both. In this case, there was an original road plan that would have avoided the need for a variance. It was designed specifically, and sort of gerrymandered if you will, to avoid the need for a variance in the plan that you saw originally. This City Council has given some guidance as to the correct road alignment for serving this area which results in the stranding of quite a bit of acreage inbetween Pleasant View and the new street. The lot as we see it meets all other RSF standards and would be a good building site. Only by nature of the fact that we decided that the road should run somewhat south of there, it can't be accessed. Given that kind of ambiguity in the ordinance and the fact that we contributed to the situation, we felt that the variance had some merit. Councilman Boyt: When you're talking about Block 3, Lot 2, I think I can follow the logic that generates that although then of course to take your definition or the City's definition of this, then what happens to the other two lots in that since they have no frontage, if that's your definition? Paul Krauss: No, the other two lots have full frontage. The north one has full frontage on Pleasant View. The south one has it on the new street. It runs just off the bottom there. ' Councilman Boyt: Is this what we've got up here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: Show me what we've got. Chuck Van Eeckhout: We're talking about these 3 lots here. This one has it's frontage right here. This is the variance lot with the 30 foot frontage here to serve the center lot. This one has both frontage on the south street. , Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for laughing but I've seen that kind of street before and what you've done by putting that bubble in there is create frontage footage. You've got made the roadway safer but you're created a plowing problem. y Chuck Van Eeckhout: This is a temporary cul-de-sac until this gets built. I Councilman Boyt: Okay. Excuse me. So when that's straightened out, the frontage is available. I Chuck Van Eeckhout: Right is what we vacated. Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying Paul is that this private drive accesses ' the middle lot and that lot has no frontage on anything other than the private Lildrive? 46 ' IICity Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 IIPaul Krauss: It has 30 feet of frontage on Pleasant View. IfCouncilman Boyt: Oh because we create that flag? Chuck Van Eeckhout: The width of the private drive. IIPaul Krauss: As to the second group of apparent variances, that was something I came across in reviewing the plat. Again, there's an ambiguity in the ordinance where it says that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac require less than 90 feet of r width. You measure, I think you measure the lot width at the setback line for the home. Now it just says on a cul-de-sac. It doesn't say where on a cul-de-sac or how and in speaking to Jo Ann, it's been my understanding that II that's typically been construed to mean on outside curves as well as on cul-de-sac bubbles, which is the situation that we had in here. All these lots exceed, far exceed the standard, _90 foot standard at the building setback line. ICouncilman Boyt: Now this development hinges upon that access. So tell me, I seem to follow that you said the City was going to be in a position to need to condemn that property? rPaul Krauss: That's not an implausible scenario. I discussed it with the City Engineer and he indicated that that's a possibility. It would be our preference Ito have the developer negotiate the easements but condemnation I suppose is one route the City could use. Councilman Boyt: Remind me again why we're doing this? I guess I need to see lit the overwhelming public need for that piece of property. Paul Krauss: The overwhelming public need if you will goes back to the access I concepts that were developed to serve the area and on the presumption that the selected alternative had some merit from an overall neighborhood standard. That given all the options for serving that area, that this was the only reasonable r way of doing it. Hence it was something that we probably need to make work if it doesn't work that easily on it's own. Councilman Boyt: Are we in any better situation if we come up to Nez Perce or rLake Lucy someplace else? Paul Krauss: Well we looked at all those alternatives and Nez Perce really lent r itself to the thru movement and to off loading traffic in both directions so that hopefully none of the streets in the area were severely impacted. We did look at all the other opportunities to connect and one of the ones was I think Kiowa which is to the east had some grade problems and runs into a very dense rstand of trees. We looked at that outlot further down Lake Lucy Road and while that's technically feasible, it really didn't provide the thrii movement that we were looking for and didn't provide any direct service to this particular plat. rCouncilman Boyt: We've generally not created flag lots, which is what that Block 3, Lot 2 is. How deep is that holding pond? ll Paul Krauss: How deep is the new holding pond? 8 feet. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and how deep is it during normal conditions? What's the bounce? While I'm interested in other people's questions, I guess I'm not real I47 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 comfortable with this development as it is. ' Councilman Johnson: Why 6 foot of depth at normal time? Paul Krauss: I'd like to defer that to the engineer. Steve Johnston: My name is Steve Johnston. I'm the engineer with Merrill and Associates. The reason that we have 8 foot of depth in the pond is two fold. One is that it was desirable we felt to create a pond that would be an amenity back there rather than just a hole in the ground that collects water during a storm. We had sufficient room to do that and that's what we've tried to accomplish here. The second reason is with the increased fill required to extend the road off of Nez Perce, we found ourselves extremely short of fill material on the site. By going in there and mining that out to create the pond, it served the purpose of obtaining that fill and at the same time create an amenity and alleviated the staff's concern regarding the three smaller ponds so we thought it was a very good compromise and met all of our design needs here. Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have rolling bottoms, varying from 1 to 4 foot in depth as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends? , Steve Johnston: What we've got shown here is a, probably not the most desirable from a Fish and Wildlife Service but what we have got is a 6:1 slope above and below the normal water level for depth of 3 feet at which point again, above and below that it goes to a 3:1 slope. What this hopefully will do is to make those side slopes as safe as possible while providing us with the maximum amount of fill material to come out of that hole. 1 Councilman Johnson: Are you saying you've got 3.1 slopes outside the pond? Steve Johnston: We've got 3:1 coming down the back yard areas. Flattening out at around the normal water elevation to a 6:1 slope and then once we get out over 3 or 4 feet deep, we were taking out a little more material out to make it a little deeper. Councilman Johnson: We have in the past asked that the Fish and Wildlife Services, I think it's 4-or 6 conditions for wildlife ponds and this would be a good place for kind of a wildlife because it's in the back of some folk's yards. It's not really a swimming pond or anything like that. That those conditions, we'd ,like to see those put in here. One of those is a rolling bottom so the ' feeding birds that feed at 1 foot depth have 1 foot depth and those that feed at deeper depths, you know. Steve Johnston: I think we're going to find though on this pond, it's going to ' be very hard to obtain that rolling bottom. The pond itself is not that large. A whole lot of differential is going to be difficult to obtain although I'm not saying it's impossible to obtain. I Councilman Johnson: Since it just came tip today and it's not before us to even consider since it wasn't brought to us in time for us to see it other than that drawing, something has to be done. Ell • Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion or questions? 48 1 11 „ City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Boyt: What's with Lot 13 and Lot 9 in Block 2? There were staff comments on both of those. 111 Paul Krauss: I believe that that's referring to the original pond design which quite severely impacted those lots. I don't see the right illustration in front of us but the original ponds basically absorbed their entire back yard. The edge of the contours canes quite close to the rear of the houses. Councilman Boyt: Well there must be, is there quite a bit of grading going on in their new ponding site? Paul Krauss: Yes. That would have to all be excavated out. Councilman Boyt: It looks like, from what I see right now, you've got a fairly gentle slope across the back of Lot 5 and they're going to be recontouring that whole area. What's that do to the trees? I'm sure you wipe them out but how big a percentage are you talking? Paul Krauss: Fortunately that area of the plat, the tree cover is very sparse. There's clearing in the general location of the pond and the tree cover surrounding that.. .small ash on the order of 1 to 2 inch diameter ash...but the reason that location was selected was because of the clearing that was there. The natural break in the trees. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I agree with Jay that the pond should be bigger. That's basically what it comes down to when you start changing the bottom contour. You've got to have a certain volume so you've got to make it bigger. Item 6 in the staff's conditions where we talk about tree preservation, I'd like to see added to item 6 that all erosion control be put into place prior to any grading permit being issued. That all trees be reviewed by the DNR, staff and that all trees that will be saved be staked off at appropriate distance from the trees prior to any grading permit. And that all that be maintained throughout the life of the development contract. I think there should be something in regard to, I know that we specify tree preservation. I've walked some of that piece of property but I'd like to think that if we've got any trees in there that are hardwoods in the nature of 80 to 100 years old, that we know about it ' before those get removed. I want to avoid any radical changes in the woodland part of this development. Councilman Johnson: Bill, as long as you're talking about trees, can I interject something? I believe preliminary plat suppose's to show where the trees are. I haven't found them yet. This has quite a bit of forest. Usually you have the little squiggley lines showing where the forest ends. Where is that? That's a requirement of preliminary plat I believe to show that on the drawings. In the past I've moved to table if I don't see where the trees are and don't see what the grading is. Steve Johnston: When the original topographic survey was prepared. ..the nature of the site which is condensed open areas and wooded areas and so forth, at that point they were doing a rough topo for preliminary plat pirposes.. .which will incorporate the final but it was felt that this preliminary, we needed to see where we going with it before a lot of dollars were spent on the design.. . 49 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 e Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying, our city ordinance requires that information to be provided at this point. If we don't have that point, we can't evaluate what you're doing. If you don't give us any information, we can't evaluate it. We shouldn't continue looking at these. Chuck Van Eeckhout: We've spent 4 months on this application. We've never been asked for it until right now. We certainly would provide it. The site is almost entirely wooded mostly with young trees. You can't see through there right now so it's essentially all wooded except in the northeast quadrant is somewhat lighter. The rest of it does contain a smattering of mature trees amongst the smaller ones. It would be kind of difficult for us to try to delineate the trees. An aerial survey is probably the only way you really get a good feel for it because it is a brushy, young forest interspersed with maybe a few, maybe a dozen, maybe 2 dozen, more mature trees. I don't know if that helps any but we have not been asked that information. We certainly would have provided it. Councilman Johnson: Have you read our city ordinances? We don't take developers by the hand and say you have to do this, this and this. We have a fairly new planner here that maybe missed that point. It's one of the points that I've made over the years but it's in the ordinance. When you hire somebody to do this for you, they take our ordinances and read them and I believe it's in there. I didn't bring my ordinance book with me tonight. It's in my car, which doesn't help. ' Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you know whether that's factual or not? Paul Krauss: As Councilman Johnson indicates, I'll have to plead ignorance by reason of being a novice at it. I'm familiar with the tree preservation statute. I wasn't aware that that was a requitement. It was certainly something we were going to look for given the level of impact on those areas. Roger, are you familiar with the exact citation? Roger Knutson: Location of wooded areas is listed in the requirements... , Councilman Boyt: Well if the whole thing is wooded. Councilman Johnson: If the whole thing is wooded but they've said that it's not ' because where the pond is it's not. Chuck-Van Eeckhout: It is wooded with young trees. How you want to qualify I that I don't know. I walked through it and you can't see through it right now but 15 feet above the ground you can, that's the height of the trees. Councilman Johnson: Okay, your engineer says it's cleat and we're not affecting trees. You say it's wooded so you don't have to show a line. Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don't think so. He's saying there's no significant 11 trees. He's saying they're very small, 1 and 2 inch ashes I believe is what he said. There's probably a few in there that might be 2 1/2 or 3 inches, I don't know but there's no significant large trees that would be disrupted and we do plan to move the trees that we can salvage from that area. That's what the nature of the area is. It is a young forest of primarily ash and other similar deciduous trees. A lot of decent trees in there for moving. 50 II " City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II If Councilman Johnson: It's hard to get in and look at this spot. I came in from the east up towards that retaining wall and above the retaining wall it looks to be some fairly substantial trees in that area. I Chuck Van Eeckhout: Off to the south, yes. That whole strip, which was my original intention to try and preserve that was the original plan. The whole south third of the property or fourth of the property contains the majority of the mature trees and the more mature forest. The north half or two thirds of il the site is scattered small trees with a few small open spots, especially around the house and then there are a scattering, a half dozen or a dozen of more mature trees on the north half of the property but it's essentially all wooded IIor partially wooded, depending on what you want to define as being wooded... Councilman Johnson: I've got to_ let the engineers tell me what is the normal on that. I'm not a city engineer but, I've not walked the whole property so I I don't know. The City does not normally go out and condemn property for developers so he can develop his land. Of course by saying we want this access the way we want it, we're kind of forcing him into that situation. The other II alternative is to go back to the original plan which then puts it straight through many, many, a very long cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View which I don't think is very desireable either. ICouncilman Boyt: If I might suggest something. I think that the developer and the City need to know a lot more about this condemnation action that's proposed and I don't know, if we can pass the preliminary plat with a condition but I'm not ready, for my part, to say that the City will condemn that land. Chuck Van Eeckhout: I think the preliminary plat and the final can be handled II without additional right-of-way. I think we can get by with the 40 feet of right-of-way. ICouncilman Boyt: Well I don't. The City has a standard of 60 feet? Dave Hempel: 50 feet. II Councilman Boyt: 501 feet? And we need all of that and we're looking at going to 66 feet at some point in the future so 40 feet, what you're asking us to do then is squeeze the utilities into 10 less feet than we should normally have. I II don't know. I think that's the most volatile issue on this whole thing is how do we get access onto Lake Lucy Road and Nez Per_ce. I'm not prepared to say that I'm going to condemn that guy's back yard. II Chuck Van Eeckhout: Fortunately it's a vacant lot yet but that doesn't necessarily help the situation if we have an unwilling participant. 11 Councilman Boyt: Well we may want to shift that road to the east some and move that participant out of the negotiations. But if we do that, it's going to change your lot sizes which is going to change the layout of your development. It seems to me we have a tree issue. We have a holding pond issue. To some extent we may have a variance issue. Maybe not, from what Paul has said, and then we've got this access issue. II 51 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Chuck Van Eeckhout: I just want to remind the Council that we had a ro osed ' P P plat that has no variances in it and the Council selected this one with all the problems. I'm relunctant to accept all those problems. I think if you accept this revision as a preferential one, that we have to find some way to go forward here otherwise I'd like to go back and have action on my original proposal which perhaps... ' Don Ashworth: In regards to the street access issue, I really do not think that that's going to be a problem. I have not talked with Gary but I think you can recall, time and again on projects that we've had where the project has crossed another parcel. It's literally impossible for a developer in that instance to carry out that construction. He has no means to ensure acquisition of the parcel and carrying out the construction. Although we don't like to go into , condemnation, in many projects it's the only way it can be done. It doesn't mean that it's going to have to be that way if we can work something with the owner but I think again, if you think about, I think almost 50% of the projects that we've had, have involved the necessity for the City to come in and do some portion of the project. I mean you wouldn't have a business park if the City hadn't gone...I can't remember now the farmer on the corner of CR 17 and TH 5. Even with the recent waterline down in the Lake Susan area, that was another one that traversed a number of parcels. Anytime you get a project that again crosses other properties, the City needs to seriously consider doing that project as a municipal project. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you're saying is that that 40 feet would be? Don Ashworth: Yes. We could either do that 40 feet or literally carry out the 1 entire construction. Very similar. We had one this evening. The Meadow Greens where we carried out the entire sewer, water, street construction. Assessed the lots. I think the developer was very pleased with that project. It involved 3 additional lots that really weren't under his control. That's one of the issues he brought up to this evening was he had carried out the financing for those 3 lots and was hoping that at some future time he might get a reimbursement for those. I mean those are the type of things that you work out with the individual and I would anticipate that the city would be able to work with this developer to ensure equitable payment for the construction of that 40 feet or whatever the distance is.down there. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I feel comfortable with that if that's something that we've.done previously. ' Councilman Boyt: I'm not comfortable with agreeing or suggesting that we're going to condemn part of somebody's lot when they don't even know it. I just don't think that's a smart action for us to take. I have some real qualms. You want to go back to your first development, your cul-de-sac's too long as I recall. Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's well shorter than, it's half as long as a number of others that have been recently approved. Councilman Boyt: Nothing by this Council. ' Don Ashworth: A question for Paul. The property owner where the road is Proposed to go across, was he notified of the various hearings that we've gone 52 , IICity Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 through? He has to g be from the standpoint that everyone within 300 feet. I I Paul Krauss: Certainly he would have been on the mailing list, yes. I have not spoken to him myself. ' Mayor Chmiel: Have you received any calls? Paul Krauss: No. Dave? 1 Chuck Van Eeckhout: The engineer has talked to the gentleman who owns that lot very recently. His indication was he would not cooperate. I don't know if that's just an off the cuff remark or. He does not want the road going his way. ' He was in the first meeting where everybody didn't want the road going to the south. ' Councilman Workman: I thought Daryl Fortier discussed this with the owners in there and said that everything was on key and going great. ' Chuck Van Eeckhout: On the east side. Councilman Workman: Well there's two sides to this. Chuck Van Eeckhout: I know... Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move tabling this until we can figure it out. I ' don't know. i think we're running this thing around. We had some plans. I had nervousness about Nez Perce anyway but I think there's enough unsettling going on to table at this point. I'm not quite sure what this 22 foot high dam is. ICouncilman Boyt: That's gone. Councilman Workman: Oh that's going to be eliminated? Okay. Paul Krauss: Which we had a lot of concerns with and we're glad to see it go. ' Councilman Workman: We went from 3 ponds to 1. Mayor Chmiel: I think with all the questions that are here, we have a motion on the floor to table this. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion. Mayor Chmiel: And I think there are many questions that we have to get resolved and get it resolved quickly. Is there any other further discussion? Councilman Boyt: I'd sure like to see the developer and the staff work on those conditions about erosion control and such that I mentioned. I think if we can get this road access situation cleared up, the rest of it seems like it's pretty straight forward to me. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the preliminary plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots for Vineland Forest. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' 53 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II 1 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING DECK, 1710 TEAL CIRCLE, BILL AND NANCY FEBRY. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting a rear yard setback variance from 25 feet down to 16 feet for construction of a deck. No building permit had been requested for this deck and construction was not authorized. Staff only became aware of it in responding to a complaint that was phoned in from one of the neighbors. We're unable to find any hardship in this instance. Had the applicant obtained a building permit thorugh the usual channels, he would have been informed as to the limitations of the lot and we think could have designed a deck that was consistent with those setbacks. The hardship as it is is self made here because obviously the deck was installed without any city approvals. Staff is recommending that the variance be denied and that the deck be rebuilt to be consistent with City standards. The Board of Adjustments reviewed the itan tonight and voted to deny the application. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask one question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Johnson: Do we know who built, was it a builder or was it built privately? Paul Krauss: It was the applicant. It was the homeowner. Councilman Johnson: There was no builder? Councilman Boyt: There was a builder involved. Councilman Johnson: A construction company? Councilwoman Dimler: But not with the deck. Councilman Johnson: So at was a home made deck? ' Mayor Chmiel: The deck is very substantial. I was over there this evening and looked at it. y Councilman Johnson: I was over there yesterday. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, would you like to. ' Bill Febry: As I said earlier this evening, my wife and I and our three daughters are new to Minnesota and without shedding any tear drops or asking for I a great deal of mercy, we have moved our family 8 times in 10 years. We've lived in 5 different states and this is the first new home that we've owned. Along that path I decided to leave the job that I had and take on a new job responsibility here in the Twin Cities area to put sane stability in our L family's life. I don't know much about building. I personally did not build the deck. I had a brother-in-law who builds decks for a living in Texas fly up and put this thing together. The point that I made earlier this evening was 54 • , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 IIthat not understanding codes, ordinances, or anything that you folks deal with on a regular basis, we don't ask the types of questions that someone in the il- business normally would nor did we anticipate this. When I met with the builder, I explained the type of home that we wanted. We looked at it and I also at that point in time, based on his pricing of a deck, indicated to him I that there was a family member who could build a bigger and nicer deck and he agreed with that and said fine. That's why it never appeared on the plan. At the same time, the developer was fully aware of our intentions. The size of • home. The type of deck that we wanted built and at no time did either party II indicate to Nancy or myself that this would be a problem on this piece of property. If in fact that would have been the case ladies and gentlemen, we would have not purchased this piece of land because this was to be our dream I/ home. Again, we're not aware of how far back you had to be building a deck to the lot line and so on. I would have found a different lot and I told the developer that and I told the builder that. It's a little late now but I unfortunately we closed on the home and everyone has been paid and we're here in front of you tonight. We have a couple of nice decks there. It's not that we have such�a large family that we need two decks but we had intended on building a screened in porch on the upper deck. That's why it's as big as it is and II maybe eventually make it into a four season porch or whatever. That necessitated another deck, a lower deck that we could spend some time outside with. That's essentially the situation. You've seen the deck. It's all I/ redwood. The bill we got from Scheer Brothers was $2,000.00 for materials plus my brother-in-law's airfare here and a few beers on the side. That's where we're at so when we got this notice, first we were upset and we didn't understand what had happened and we called the builder and of course they I( informed us that yes, that we have a problem on our hands and I also contacted the developer and of course they said, yes we have a problem on our hands so by - golly, we have a problem on our hands. They were right. So they were upfront I about that but we're here and we've got some neighbors that own property adjacent to ours. As you've seen out there, it's wooded and I certainly don't want to be that close to my neighbors and appreciate the privacy that we have I don't know if you'd like to hear from a few of these folks, we'll try to ISO. keep it short. I notice the last thing on the agenda this evening was shortening meetings so I want to certainly try and set the example and move along here so thank you. i tMayor_ Chmiel: Thank you. I Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live at 1641 West 63rd Street. I have 1,000 feet that is adjacent to Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. My property abuts up against Mr. Febry's. I have in the past been most vocal about some things that II have happened in Pheasant Hills that I've found disturbing but at no time have I ever found any phase of construction of Mr. Febry's obtrusive at all. In fact, I can't even see this deck from my property at any point just by his property being adjacent. Closer examination shows it to be a real asset to the II conmunity and I feel he's being singled out in that neighborhood when there's probably other cases that might be more objectionable. There's no objection from me who has probably more at stake on that one section than anybody else II except his immediately neighbor behind him so there's nobody that objects to it and I question who called in the first place. ! Jim Flowers: My name is Jim Flowers. I'm at 1721 Wood Duck Circle and I'm the I— one that's adjacent to him in the back. In fact my deck looks at his deck in I S5 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 • • II kind of a way except for there happens to be about 50 feet of woods. If you've been out there, you've taken a look at that and I happen to think the deck is a very nice addition also. It is redwood. It fits in with the trees and it's far enough apart that we're not looking at each other all the time but I think if you had to build kind of this funny looking little line deck, I'm not sure what Bill could put up there that would look as nice as what he's got there now. I think there's no problem with it as far as I'm concerned and I am the one that probably is affected by it more than anybody else. Mike Kester: I'm Mike Kester and I'm going to be living at 1641 and I think I that when Tom Klingelhutz had that development, he didn't know it was going to be quite as good as he anticipated and I feel that it's a real asset to their house. With wooded area behind, I don't think there'd be any problem. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, any discussion? Councilman Johnson: First I'd like to ask Roger about the pending legislation. Do we know how pending that pending legislation we've been discussing the last few times regarding variances? Roger Knutson: Yes. I have testified before a legislative mini-session down in Rochester on the pending land use bill. And interestingly, the only issue, the only two issues in the whole darn bill that got everyone's interest up and one was variances. The other was impact. Variances was the hottest issue there. I'm not a phrophet but I would anticipate, I shouldn't even say this because you never know what the legislature will do but I'll go out on a limb and say I think there's every reason to believe that a bill will be passed this session, but I don't know that. Councilman Workman: For what? To do what? , Roger Knutson: To rewrite the whole land use law. One of the things that would be rewritten is the variance provision and as drafted now, and I don't know what's going to happen to it, but as drafted now, in addition to the present situation where State Statutes say what the requirements are for a variance, they're going to say, or such other conditions as the City Council may put into their own ordinances. Give you really the right to state when you want to grant an ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: When will this be formally? Is this with the tax bill too that's coming through? Roger Knutson: NO. Mayor Chmiel: It's coming up next legislative session? Roger Knutson: Yes. It was introduced last session. Last March. It's still , be studied. Lots of people are looking at it. Generally people are in favor of the idea. Councilman Johnson: We're talking next year? I Roger Knutson: Yes. LII 56 ' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't really help us right now though? IIIRoger Knutson: NO. Councilman Johnson: For those of you listening and wondering what we're talking about, the State requires, controls when we can and can't grant a variance I because they make the laws. These are the laws. These are the standards. It's like speed limit laws. The State says such and such a street has to have a 30 mph speed limit. We're not allowed to go in there and give it a 50 mph or 25 I mph. We have to give it a 30. The State does the same thing with variances and land uses. If you sat through it earlier, they went through those 5 conditions. For us to grant a variance we have to find that those all 5 conditions have been met. IICouncilman Workman: Were the footings it in by the builder for this deck? IBill Febry: Yes they were. Councilman Johnson: Which builder? IIBill Febry: ...I mentioned earlier to the committee that this is the first home that he has built in Chanhassen. I'm not here to speak for him because he's in the business obviously and I'm not but the footings were put in prior to final II inspection. Again, If wish someone would have said something to me then because I wouldn't have invested the money and the time in what I have. I would have tried to, in lieu of the fact that I already bought the property and the home, I( _ designed something differently. Councilman Johnson: Were they on the blueprints? IBill Febry: No. I guess if you discussed it with the builder and the developer and they don't say anything about it and they know what's happening, then we're kind of caught. That's why we're a little disgruntled over it. Not so much II with the political process but with the fact that you invest a great deal of money, at least for us, in something that is to be an exceptional piece of property and ownership and two groups don't come forward and tell you the whole story. That's tough. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was thinking about this quite a little bit this evening and I even had to sit down and write something. It's not really going to help I you but it at least expresses my feelings on this. I wish there were a way that we could accommodate that variance. I really do because I know there's a lot of hard work and a lot of thought put into what you did. What I basically had 11 written down here is that we may think that we live in a world where anything goes but if we didn't follow rules of laws, etiquette, grammar, life would be really sort of harsh. Rules make life sort of warm and easier and secure. I II find that Chanhassen is like every other community and we have to really abide by what rules we have. We have stopped people from building decks. People who wanted to put on additions because of this side yard variances and so on. I guess that really is where I'm coming from. Not as much as I'd like to. I'd much rather see you accommodated with what's there. Let me ask another question. By 9 feet, this is a 14 foot depth and 9 feet off that, that would only leave that deck 5 feet right? That's not going to be worth having. II I- 57 City Council Meeting - September. 25, 1989 1 Paul Krauss: That's true Mayor. The northern deck, or the lower one. The one that's behind the garage, could be larger because the home is canted from the back property line. ' Mayor Chmiel: And I was out there and I looked at that. It's well constructed. There's no question in my mind. I wish mine were as well constructed. Bill Febry: I'll give you his business card. You can fly him up. Well, if I could add something else. In the future, if there's some way that the City could figure out how to be a bit more of an informant to people from out of state or out of the Twin Cities area to let them know that there are, when developers are in the business to make money like everyone else. I sat and listened to the gentleman before this and all I thought of was boy, I'd like to get up and ask him if there's room enough on each one of those lots for people like Nancy and I to build the type of home and deck that we would like. I wanted to ask him that but of course it wasn't my place or time but the point I'm making is, I don't know how you could address this for people in the future but it certainly would avoid people like us, and I understand through Ursula earlier on that we're not the only ones. There have been several people that have faced this so it is a problem and it's an ethics problem as far as I'm concerned. These people that are in the business. We would have bought a different lot. That's how simple that is. Councilman Workman: I think the variance system is actually not bad at all. We ' don't have a variance system. We're not giving out variances. We don't have flexibility. We're not doing anything. We've had long time residents of this community that I'd like to do nothing better than to give them 2 feet but we ' weren't. I'd like to say welcome to the cortriunity and say yes, that'd be very easy for me and I think this is all supposed to be set tip so that it is easy for - me to make the decision to say no, forget it you know but it's not. It doesn't make it any easier. Case by case, piece by piece, we've again charged people for an application for a variance which they probably didn't have a chance in all get out of getting. So the warning needs to go up there too. Not that we can tell you hey, forget it because they're not going to do it. Here's the line. You can't build over it and the Board of Adjustments is going to deny it and then we're going to reinforce the Board of Adjustments and that's the way it is. I received more than one call from somebody, from folks on the other side of the fence saying you're going to do it for one, do it for all. That's again supposed to make it easy. I've been on the Council for 8 months, 9 months, and I'm actually only 14. I look older now. But boy I can see the faces of the folks-that were supposed to have, wanted the same thing who have lived here for years. They're going to line up outside that door and say what's going on. But again, I'm disappointed for you and for us in that we really, where I think we're supposed to have some flexibility, we don't have it. The only advice I can give you is after the legislature here passes their law, save your lumber. We can put it up. Again, I'm disappointed for you. I'm sure it's beautiful. I didn't have to go out there quite frankly. I didn't have to go out there and look because I knew what was going to happen so it's disappointing. It's money ill spent for the variance. End of preaching. Let's deny these people. Put them out of their misery and let than go home and go to bed. Councilman Johnson: Include a refund of the variance fee? 58 1 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Boyt: No. Can't. Too much staff time. How are you going to do Jr- that? And I think the staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you ' brought in this application, staff said to you it's not the kind of thing that's going to be approved. That's what they're supposed to tell you. Is that what they told you? But you didn't have a choice. If I had $2,000.00 into that deck, I certainly would have paid my $75.00 and given it a shot but staff ' routinely Tom advises people of what their chances probably are and we've been pretty consistent on this so I think it's easy for staff to give you an idea. ' Bill Febry: I understand what you're saying. I just have one more question and I don't mean to sound argumentive here but I'm a firm believer in uniform enforcement also and I'm not asking for special favors and so on tonight. I ' understand the situation here. However, if it's going to be uniform, then it should be and what I've seen and been told, not by any legal counsel but at this point, that things were overlooked and not everyone is checked into as far as permits and distances and things like that. Again, I'll drop it at that point but it should be uniform and I appreciate, my wife and I, your efforts to be upfront about those things. I would only ask that the rest of than out there that are totally cognizant of what's happening and what should and shouldn't happen ought to be looked at in length. Councilman Johnson: It's difficult to find, when somebody doesn't, somebody has ' to turn you in basically. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, remember I said that at our Board of Adjustment meetings. We would never have come looking for it but since there was a complaint registered, staff had to look into it and they had to bring it before us. Councilman Johnson: I don't know how many basements have been finished in this city without a permit. How many decks have been built. In the 2 1/2 or 2 years, 9 months, whatever I've been here, we've seen quite a few of them come in that have been built and later came back. In fact we're going to see one on Lotus Lake aren't we? Councilman Boyt: In all frankness, one of the complaints that I received is ' that the City hasn't been looking. The residents that have complained to me, and there haven't been a great many but there's been more than 5 or 6 in the last year, who've said why isn't the City out enforcing this? Why did you have ' to wait until I called in order to respond to this and it's everything from erosion control barriers being down to decks. I think that if we're going to enforce it, that means that we enforce it. We don't close our eyes to a situation that City staff or one of pis sees. Mayor Chmiel: I've had some discussions here with Don. j Maybe you can just.. . j you � ' Don Ashworth: If I hear what the City Council is saying, number one, you feel for the applicant in terms that there's a number of things that have occurred regarding this permit process which if we had local flexibility we might feel differently about. In other words, the sentiment of the neighbors as it applies to the deck. The circumstances as it dealt with the permit issuance and recognizing the move from states. I also hear the Council saying, very corr_ectely that their hands are tied in terms of State Statute as it's currently written. f The only alternative that I can come up with, I did visit very shortly 59 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 with the attorney on, I would see the Council's action really being one of denial of the variance but in that process instructing staff not to pursue the literal enforcement against the property owners for a period of time. I will hi pick out a one year period of time and during that one year period of time, if Roger is correct and the legislature does make amend to the land use section of State Statute and if that amendment process provides you with the flexibility that Roger was discussing, then we can came back and deal with the issue as it would apply to these owners and would give us a little more flexibility at that point. Again, I think that the specific action would have to be one of denial. There would have to be agreement reached with the owner where we would put in writing basically what is occurring, and that would ensure some protections back to the City so that tomorrow you don't sell the home and 2 weeks from today we're dealing with a new owner. Totally unsuspecting. Whatever. I don't know if that solution in any way will work. I do not know if Roger's prediction that the legislature will make that change or not but potentially it could at least put the order stay for a period of time to find out whether or not the legislature will make that change or not. Again, I don't know if that's something. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying we aren't going to prosecute for a year? I Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're safe for a year. ' Councilman Workman: Is the deck completed? Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. Councilman Workman: But you don't have it screened in? ' Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Workman: You might want to hold off. 1 Councilman Boyt: Yeah. You can't add anything to the deck. I think if you asked Roger, in fact I'Ll ask him so he can tell you. What impact, no matter what the legislature changes, what impact will neighbor opinion have on our ability to either grant or deny a variance? Roger Knutson: None. Councilman Boyt: So we're going to have to come up with some kind of criteria and I don't think that's going to be easy. I think that's why we've got the State gave us the ones that they did is there just isn't an easy way to be flexible on these consistently. f way Don Ashworth: That may be true. Councilman Boyt: I've no problems with giving a 1 year extension or however you word that butyI just would hold out no hope. Mayor Chmiel: In the event that it doesn't happen, then something has to be done. 60 1 II • • ' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I think that it's interesting and I'd like our Code Enforcement people to look into the fact that the builder built the foundations for this in the rear yard setback. As a professional builder, he should know better, and see what we have for that action taken beyond the building permit that was issued to him. The fact that our staff didn't notice the foundations out back when they're inside doing the final inspections. It does not relieve the builder of any liability in any case but generally when you have a violation of a law or an ordinance, code enforcement should be involved instead of zoning 11 is my opinion anyway. If you're parked someplace, we don't get zoning involved trying to change it to a parking area. Code enforcement gets involved. Public safety gets involved and issues a parking ticket. ' Councilman Workman: I'd move denial of the variance with a one year extension for this already built deck until leadership from the State is relaxed. ' Mayor Chmiel: With the additional conditions that Don had mentioned within there. Indicating that hopefully you don't sell that home, that it goes to another property owner. If it does, it has to be removed for that with some ' kind of condition in it. Bill Febry: My interpretation of that is if the legislation is pending, during that one year time frame... ' Mayor Chmiel: And is passed, then you're in good shape. 11 Don Ashworth: It would have to cane back to the City Council and establish local rules and that may still not help you but it sounds as though the Council would sure like to give it a try and see if they can't find something to help ' you. they Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to deny the request for a rear yard setback variance for an existing deck at 1710 Teal Circle with a 1 year extension for enforcement with the condition that if the property is sold during that time, the deck shall be made to conform to city ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion.carried. CONSIDER PETITION TO DELETE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS IN CURRY FARMS ADDITION. ' Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that we're probably not going to get past item 7 tonight and maybe we can mention that to anyone who would be waiting for the other items. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: If you ever get back to item 12, those are some of the concerns I have which is how to shorten agendas. Lori Sietsema: The City recently received a petition from the Curry Farms residents requesting that the sidewalk requirement be reconsidered. This item was taken to the Park and Recreation Commission at their last meeting and there was quite a bit of discussion as I understand in that the bottom line, the motion was made to delete the requirement that the sidewalk be required and instead collect the trail dedication fees frail the developer. The motion carried 4 to 1. 1 61 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 . . II Councilman Johnson: It's going to be difficult. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here wishing to address that specific item? And I'd like to ask you to just limit it to as short as you possibly can and I'd like to limit it to no more than 5 minutes max. If you can wind it up sooner, I'd appreciate it. Joe Cook: Yeah, don't we all. Joe Cook. 1291 Stratton Court. Basically what we have here, Bill Boyt was out Sunday checking with same of the residents and I spoke with him at length outside and he had indicated his informal survey of the neighborhood along Devonshire which is directly affecting it. Indicated that most people along the route were in favor of deleting this trail. That's what his informal survey found out. Ourselves, we did a petition of the neighborhood and we have 36 households in the neighborhood who do not want the trail. Then we do have 1 individual, 1 household that wanted the trail so there's an over- whelming majority that don't want this trail. Again, we are the people who are paying for this trail. Vie are the people that will in the future pay for it's maintenance through our taxes and assessments, etc.. Also we're the people that are going to use this trail the majority of the time if it goes in. Obviously there isn't any interest in having a trail and the idea of the Council and Park and Rec's is to serve the people of the City and to be an extension. You people are our voice in the City and our voice is telling you people that we don't want this. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much Joe. Anyone else? John Flaa: My name is John Flaa. I live at 6560 Devonshire Drive. The over- whelming reason that we do not request this path is number one, we don't see that the volume of traffic warrants the kind of bike trail that is proposed to be in the path like that. The traffic that's running through Devonshire right now predominantly is a lot of construction traffic which within a year or so will be gone since the development will be finished. Second of all, if you look at how the trail is set up in it's dimensions and the way it's going to be constructed, the type of trail that they're proposing is equal to those kind of trails that you find on major county roads such as TH 4 that runs in Eden Prairie and also on County Road 5 that's in Minnetonka. The same dimensions are applicable to this road here which by no means carries the same kind of traffic volume as either one of 'those roads. The road itself is going to run approximately 2 blocks to the north from Lake Lucy into the park and also 2 blocks from Powers back into the trail heading west. So the functionality of the trail, in our opinion, is not needed since the distance the people are traveling is not great enough really to warrant the kind of construction that's going to have to take place in people's yards. Another concern is the fact that the houses are built awfully close to the front or to the street itself so if ' you're talking about a total of about 10 foot, eating up of somebody's front yard, they've got a 3 foot wide area that's just going to remain grass and then you've got a 6 foot asphalt trail. So those of us who have 30 or 40 feet of yard up until our house are going to lose about a quarter_ or a third of our yard to this trail which we don't see a function for. Obviously the survey was taken by those people who live there, who are going to be affected most by it. Those people, the majority of them have small children who, it's been proposed that this trail is for the safety of the children who live in the neighborhood. I feel if the people are saying that they don't feel that it's a risk enough not ' to have the trail for their children, they've obviously taken into account that 62 ' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 safety issue of their children. So we feel it should be rejected number one. The overwhelming majority of the people do not want it. NaMber two, there really isn't a need for it as it's proposed. Number three, which is a separate issue that we had to deal with Centex is they never told us about it in the whole development. It was never on any of the plats. It was never discussed. As a matter of fact we started the issue with Centex and we threatened to go through legal channels with than but they are now behind us saying these funds that they were going to propose to build the bike path, they're going to take and apply than to the City either in their general fund or apply than towards ' roads that could more effectively utilize a bike path other than ours. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Before you sit down, can I ask Lori a question? 6 foot asphalt through a residential neighborhood? We don't do that do we? Joe Cook: It's like the one they put out on Powers that runs right... ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that's not a neighborhood, residential. Isn't this supposed to be a concrete trail? John Flaa: That's not how it's proposed. ' Lori Sietsema: At the time that the Curry Farms development went through, we were talking about asphalt trails as sidewalks. 6 foot wide in the residential areas and 8 foot wide along the collector streets. Since that time the trail plan has narrowed it down or more specifically defined sidewalk to a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. If that development were to come in now, the requirement would be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. At the point in time when Centex came in, what was required was a 6 foot wide bituminous. ' Councilman Johnson: But we would be looking at building a 5 foot concrete sidewalk, not an asphalt here anyway because that's our new standard. ' Lori Sietsema: It would require a change to the development contract. Kathy Posthtumus: My name is Kathy Posth'imus. I live at 6550 Devonshire. Just to be a bit sentimental. My husband and I, we built our dream home on that street and had we known there was a chance of a sidewalk going through our front yard, we would have definitely reconsidered a different area and not have built ' in this area. Chanhassen has a very interesting aura around it that it's country you know and lakes and the woods and the trees and we just feel that sidewalk, bike path, whatever the term, is not indicative to the type of country type living that is promoted in this area and we feel that it would detrimental ' to our property and it really wouldn't be used we feel. How many times do you see bikers going down and they're in the road instead of on the bike path on the side of the street. Especially the fact also that we weren't informed of the ' fact by the builder, any of us. There are representatives from each household that would be affected on Devonshire here tonight and we just wanted to come to make a point. Thank you. I! Councilman Johnson: Bill, do you recall whether this was one of the ones where we told the developer to inform the people? I know we've been doing that the last year or so. Saying hey, tell the people coming in that there's going to be a sidewalk in front. I 63 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 I Councilman Boyt: Can I respond to that? Mayor Chmiel: In a moment. I'd like to see if there's any more people first that would like to address this. any John Laduch: My name is John Laduch. I have a home at 6401 Teton Lane. Up in the 2nd Addition of Curry Farms. My interest in this issue is one of Centex's obigation to build a second path in Curry Farms and I've a letter here from Lori stating some confusion perhaps on Centex's part about the petition and how it might impact all sidewalks or paths in Curry Farms rather than just the one down in the 1st Addition. We have a path that's supposed to be adjoining my property and eventually will make it's way down to the park at the lower end of the development. I just want to make sure that this action that's taken here tonight either does specifically exclude that second path or if it's a part of it. That we all know exactly what we're agreeing to here. Councilman Johnson: Would this intersect the Devonshire Pa th? John Laduch: No it won't. ' Councilman Johnson: Just to the park? John Laduch: That's true but...by a letter I have to Lori. Apparently Mr. Spiess from Centex is holding back on some work that has to be done on the second path, on the upper path, awaiting for some action to be done because of this petition and my interest of course is either finish the path that he's supposed to that adjoins my property because it's now bare dirt and causing an erosion problem, or don't finish the path and sod it and forget it. I don't care what they do one way or the other. Just finish the project. ' Councilman Johnson: That's to give your neighborhood access to the park. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Randy Carl: I want to second what John says. I'm Randy Carl. I live at 6391 Teton. I've got 500 feet of access along this walkway that is currently dirt and eroding along my driveway so I think it's real important that when you guys make a decision, that if you're still working on one issue, that you separate this from the other one or bundle it in but we'd like to go away from here tonight with a very clear message to Centex of what they can do, at least on the upper trail. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, you asked a question of Bill. Bill, do you ' want to answer that now unless there's someone else who would like to address this yet. Councilman Boyt: Yeah I would. I think if we checked, well let me start again. Jay, what was your question so I make sure I answer it. Councilman Johnson: We've told several developers that they have to inform the residents that there is a sidewalk planned. I'm pretty sure Lake Susan and the one off of Kerber. Cil 64 , City Council Meeting - September_ 25, 1989 11 Councilman Boyt: In all honesty I don't remember. I know that we have worked with developers. It might have started with the Lake Susan West development most specifically to try to do that to avoid the problem we have here. At least 111 what I see as a problem. I'm generally disappointed in the background information that the Council received on this issue. Or the lack of it. I think there's no question but that the sidewalks are going to be taken out of ' this. It's ironic to find an issue that's so difficult to deal with. Tom was saying he was having a hard time with the variance. I have an awfully hard time working through issues when the neighborhood doesn't want something that I want ' and that I think is in the best interest of the City overall from a safety standpoint. I would argue the side of the issue that says that this is part of our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan states very clearly that we believe in a trail or sidewalk system that connects from our trails to our parks ' or basically connects our parks and neighborhoods to one another. Without this there isn't going to be any trail or sidewalk that connects from the trails down both CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road into that park. I agree with the neighborhood ' that the road, and I hope it always stays a low traffic volume road. I would think it would and being a low traffic volume road, they can probably get away without having a sidewalk. I can't recall a residential development where we've put a sidewalk or a trail in that's been anything other than concrete. Saddlebrook had one of these. We worked with the developer and ended up putting in concrete with the City covering the difference in cost. You name it and that's the way we put it into our residential development and I think it's ' awfully unfortunate that the neighborhood was led to believe that this was going to be something other than that. I think there's 2 issues that are very important to me. One of them is that we don't resolve this until we have a firm commitment from the developer to pay that money to the City. Kathy Clarke: They made the commitment at the Park and Rec Commission meeting. Centex was there. ' Councilman Boyt: It's too bad they didn't stay around. Since they were here earlier, I would have really liked to have had them on this issue because in ' talking to the people in the neighborhood, the people who apparently bought homes June and later, were shown a map with the trails on them and the people who bought homes prior to that weren't. I'll make the accusation that that was ' intentional. Resident: That's incorrect. I bought a home after June. There was never a sidewalk... Councilman Boyt: And they didn't show it to you then? Well, okay. I don't want to get into a debate with you about it but it just makes the point that the ' developer didn't show you something that quite clearly was in the development plan for that neighborhood and that, I think is an outrage. It circumvents the intent of the Council when that development was put in. So we need a written ' verification from the developer that they will pay that money and I know that the neighborhood knows because I told them, at least the 80% that were there, that the City, in my belief, the City is not in a position to be able to guarantee you that people won't speed down that road. You've told me that you accept that safety risk. I guess it's yours to accept. Councilwoman Dimler: I have one question of Lori and that is, where are the Park and Rec Minutes to this? I was a real disappointed not to see them. I 65 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 think that would have given us a lot of good background information. Lori Sietsema: I was dismayed that they were not included in the packet as well. At the time that the packet was put together, they were not available and so the decision was made to go ahead and put the item on the agenda and if you felt that you need more information, you could at this time table it to make your decision. Councilwoman Dimler: Because the neighbors very definitely did address their safety concerns and I think one of the things was, I was very angry that they were being accused of not being good parents because they didn't want a sidewalk. I think all the arguments that were used were intimidating and I think that's one of the reasons Park and Rec didn't pass it then. , Lori Sietsana: The Minutes of that meeting are not completed yet. Councilwoman Dimler: But I just want the neighbors to know that they're good ' parents in spite of the fact that they're not going to have a sidewalk. Councilman Workman: I think my intentions are known on this. ' Mayor Chanel: Anything else? If hearing none. Councilman Johnson: The only thing I've got to say is, right now that neighborhood has a lot of young kids but when there's teenagers there, especially like my neighborhood with a group of teenage girls at the far end of it, it's a long cul-de-sac with sweeping streets. You shouldn't see anybody speeding but we do quite routinely yell at teenage boys that are going to visit the teenage girls at the far end of the cul-de-sac. We have a lot of young children moved in there and I would love to have a sidewalk now that we didn't ' want when we first got there but at that time there was no teenagers on the block and no speeding cars. Mayor Chmiel: By the same token, I've lived in my same neighborhood and we , don't have any sidewalks. I just went through the parade of homes and looked at all the new developments in 7 different developments in 5 different cities and each of those 7 developments, none of than had sidewalks. So I guess with that I'll call a question. Randy Carl: Excuse me Mayor. Are you going to delete all of the sidewalks or just the one on Devonshire? Mayor Chmiel: We are basically in discussion on the one that we have before us right now. It's not for the balance of it is my understanding. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we need to get access to that park and that those need to be paved. They're going to be used. It's a way to stop erosion. It's just a good maintenance thing to do. Whether we pave it or not, they're going to be going over that strip of property. I think the Chan Pond Park is a good example of where the access to that, after a lot of erosion, we just need to agree that we're going to pave that. Resident: They can't access the park...so it's not clear access... 66 11 IICity Council Meeting - September_ 25, 1989 ' Councilman Boyt: But isn't that where the outlot is that accesses the park? Resident: That's correct. ' Councilman Boyt: So people are going to be going over that to 9 g get to the park? Resident: Not unless they walk through. .. The trees are very, very thick there. That's right adjacent to my property and it's fine with me. I just want to know what they're to use... ' Mayor Chmiel: We're just dealing strictly with the one. Can I have a motion? Councilman Workman: I would move, I don't know which way do we want to look at it? Denial or. Mayor Chmiel: Delete. ' Councilman Workman: Deletion of the sidewalk through the Curry Farms Park along Devonshire Drive with staff looking into retrieving the fees from the developer for further use.in other areas. Councilman Boyt: Can't we make that stronger? ' Councilman Workman: Where else? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to guarantee that we're going to get those funds. Councilman Workman: I think it goes without saying and I was disappointed that Centex also left because it was ironic that we had them for 2 issues and I think they've been giving us the run around and I think we better proceed with some teeth. I know I had a conversation with Don Ashworth in regards to that in getting those fees back. Whether they need to be designated for a wading pool or something for this neighborhood or whatever. Something but we need to get ' them. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to delete the sidewalk requirement on Devonshire Drive in the Curry Farms development and request that the developer be required to pay trail dedication fees. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1: ' Mayor Chmiel: It's fast approaching 20 minutes to 12:00. My suggestion is that we table the balance of the agenda items and carry this. .. Councilman Johnson: Is Mr. Clark here? Mike Clark: Yeah I'm here. I got here at 8:30. Give me 2 minutes. Mayor_ Chmiel: Okay, we'll give you 2 minutes but just let me finish what I'm saying. Do this on Monday the 2nd at 7:30 with the balance of the agenda. Special meeting. I67 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 II REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO CITY WATER AND SEWER, 695 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, MICHAEL CLARK. Mike Clark: Mike Clark, 695 Pleasant View. I'll just give you a quick background on the house. I bought the house in December. It had been gone through a number of hands. It finally went back to the bank. I don't know if you're aware of the background of the house. It's been run down. The taxes hadn't been paid for I believe over 3 years. I acquired the property because we love it. It needed a lot of improvements which we're doing. I was not aware of the requirement to hook up to city sewer. I'm not opposed to doing that. If you read the letter, I'm more than happy to do that. I want to be hooked to city sewer. My only argument is that I don't think I should have to pay for the part that I haven't used and the other argument along with that is, why didn't this Council or a previous Council require this home to be hooked up in 1986 when they passed the ordinance. I guess probably the response to that is, if the current charges or the people before me were paying like $9.00 for sewer and so they probably didn't have a big reason to hook it up. I wouldn't spend $1,200.00 either if all you were charging me was $9.00 and not requiring them to do it. I will do it. I stated in the letter I would do it. What I want is the fees that have accumulated so far that I've not used to be waived. It's that simple and it's about, we're coming up on about $200.00. The price out of pocket for me to have that done is going to be $1,200.00 to $1,400.00. I'll do it. I just want you to waive the fees up to this point. Mayor Chmiel: I understand what you're saying. I went through the same process with my home. It was necessary that I had to connect even though I had a good septic system and with that I of course ended up putting in sewer and water as well which I've been very happy with because I haven't had any problems with my septic. Mike Clark: It is already connected to the water. I'm not sure why it wasn't done at the same time but it wasn't. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Normally it should have been because that's a requirement of the Metropolitan Waste Control Conmi_ssion and has been for some time. Any discussion on this item? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to hear from the City Manager about it. Mayor Chmiel: That was my next question. Don, would you like to address this? Don Ashworth: I think the report is fairly clear, or at least I hope that it is. The lower charge that was applied to the property only dealt during the period of time that the home was rennovated so where you have seasonal homes, the Carver Beach area, Riley and no one is occupying the home in like new construction, that's really the only time frame that you have that lower amount in there. To the best of my knowledge, during the time frame that the Thompsons were in the property, they were charged a sewer charge associated with the property very similar to what we have in place now for Mr_. Clark. Mr. Clark has made his points. I think that he has made those very well. The policy as we have had it in effect in terms of charging an individual for sewer recognizes [!!that you have a utility system and that if individual people have the right not LII to connect in, then we'll all end up paying a higher cost associated with over sizing the pipes and lift stations and all of the things that are needed to have 68 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 a system. Accordingly, over the years the City has established a policy whereby you are charged even if you're not connected and the reason for that is to encourage you to make that connection. Again, I think Mr. Clark's point is that they're new. They're trying to improve the property and they would like to see some relief in that area. I just don't have a good rationale for you in terms of why or how that could be given. ' Mike Clark: Is that a requirement of the ordinance to hook up? Doesn't the ordinance specifically state that the houses must hook up? Don Ashworth: That's right. Mike Clark: Then my question is, why didn't you require it of the other people so I didn't inherit the problem. Don Ashworth: It's probably one of those ordinances that, well I don't want to say do you want to take it off the books because in the case where you definitely have a faulty septic system, we want to have the ability to get in there and+to literally force that connection. We've used that ordinance maybe 3-4 times in the past 15 years. Yes, we had some in there. We had one in the ' Carver Beach area but generally it's simply not a good idea to be going onto private property, changing people's plumbing around. We're going to be facing claims for whatever number of years into the future for what it is that we did I wrong in going on that individual's property so although you want the ordinance in place to protect you where you definitely have a leakage problem, you're better off finding other forms of encouragement. Charge the individual as though he were connected and hopefully that will provide an encouragement for him to make the connection himself. Only go onto somebody's property if that's the last resort. That's what 2 or 3 attorneys have advised over the years. Roger, I don't know if I've recently confronted that issue with you. Do you ' disagree with anything I've said? Roger Knutson: No. Actually the night I first started working for the city, 1 that was the issue discussed. Councilman Johnson: It was almost your last night? I think we probably have ' quite a few of these around where the people have been told you now have sewer, you must connect and follow up the lack of staff and everything, the follow up never was done to find out if they ever did connect. I doubt if we followed up on 65th Street. ' Don Ashworth: We can tell you every person that has not connected. We know that for billing purposes. Mayor Cruel: Michael, I guess we can't tell you why it wasn't connected. ' Councilman Johnson: Don't we bill them as if they're connected? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Then that's overbilling purposes. Don Ashworth: That still doesn't change the fact that they are reported for every parcel. I don't know Dave if you ever got into any of that but we do do i 69 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 that. We can tell you that Councilman Workman: I guess the justification, the potential pollution, the utility system, everything else, I think that goes without saying. What I'm looking for is Mr. Clark have reason to plead ignorance in this situation for his bill and should Council give him some room to go ahead? Is that where we're heading towards here? Councilman Johnson: That's what I'd like to see. Councilman Boyt: When did you buy your house? 11 Mike Clark: I bought it December 1st of last year. I Councilman Boyt: When did the water bill start accumulating that now amount to $114.00 or something? Mike Clark: I got the first one I believe sometime in January and obviously it wasn't possible, it wasn't possible to hook up until probably April when the frost went out... Again, I have no problem with the ordinance and I will hook up. As a matter of fact I did...but I wasn't informed... Councilman Johnson: I don't have a problem with a couple hundred dollars as long as he hooks up. Councilman Workman: Are you planning on doing that this fall yet? Councilman Johnson: I would put it that if the connection is made by such and such a date, that we will not go after the $200.00. It's not like we've provided a service to him that he's abused and doesn't wnat to pay for it such , as some of the other delinquents. In this case the purpose of charging it is to encourage him to hook up and he's going to hook up. The purpose is there. It's being achieved. i Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that position. Councilman Boyt: A question very briefly is, are you then saying that anyone ' who comes in and says, I repent. I'm going to put in the sewer connection is then rebated for their water bill for the year? Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. I think it's a one by one situation. Councilman Johnson: His uniqueness is that he bought it. Mayor Chmiel: He bought it in December and he had his first billing in January of this year. Councilman Boyt: So the next person comes in and says, my sewer is working great but I decided this year I'm going to connect and I want the rebate from the beginning of the year. Mayor Chmiel: If the sewer's working good, then t in good shape because then they didn't need their septic. they're LII 70 • City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Is your sewer failing? Mayor Chmiel: The septic system. Mike Clark: No, it's fine. Councilman Boyt: So how is that any different? All I'm saying is, if we're going to do it, then we really should do it for everybody who comes in and says I'm going to connect. Councilman Workman: Do those add up to a large amount Don? Why don't we be Jinmy Carter here and offer amnesty. I think it's worth more than $200.00 to the City to have him hook up. Don Ashworth: It's under 15. I personally think that it's under 20. Mike Clark: Put a stipulation in there that they stay through 3 1/2 hours of a City Council meeting. ' Councilman Workman: We can call it the Michael Clark amendment that anybody that comes across now and does it now, yeah we will forgive them and let's get them hooked up. Don Ashworth: October 10th is the last date for certification. The Council has already agreed to this roll. What I'm going to have to do is turn that over to the County. If the work has started on or before October 10th, I will call the County and have them delete it. Is there a way that you can have the work started? ' Mike Clark: Yeah, they told me they can do it within 2 days. The only thing is they have to get something from the city. They have to get a permit so however long it takes for them to get that taken care of. Councilman Boyt: One other question. You said you were hooked up to city water? ' Mike Clark: Yes. .- Councilman Boyt: Isn't the water bill part of this? Mike Clark: No, the water bill's current. I'm not disputing the water bill. ' Mayor Chmiel: Can I get a motion in? Councilman Johnson: I move that if the sewer connection construction is started by October 9th, that Don should contact the assessor and delete it. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that if sewer connection construction is started by October 9, 1989, the City Manager will contact the County Assessor and delete the sewer charges for Mike Clark at 695 Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 71 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 1 I LAND SALE AGREEMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 41 AND WEST 82ND STREET; GLEN PAULS. Todd Gerhardt: Mir. Mayor? Item 9, do you want to take action on that tonight? Mr. Pauls is here and is somewhat anxious to try to... Mayor Chmiel: Everyone's picking up and leaving. I think we will adjourn and I'm sorry Mr. Paul. What we will do is... Councilman Johnson: Does he accept staff's position? Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should discuss it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think that's going to be a discussion so with that we will continue this next Monday at 7:30 here in the Council chambers. Glen Pauls: ...we're starting to grade the lot next to it and we're basically...we're going to start grading on it. Councilman Johnson: We were going to ask that it stay over winter anyway. , Glen Pauls: That's our problem... Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we have a possible annexation there I would think from the City of Chaska, etc. and I think it's something that we need to discuss. If not tonight, Monday night. ' Mayor Chmiel: Which would mean they remove their offer for that specific parcel? Councilman Johnson: Sure. It's a dead issue if we table it. It's a dead ' ead zssue if we deny it. Mayor Chmiel: What's the wishes here? What should we do? Councilman Boyt: Let's discuss it. It got my attention. I Mayor_ Chmiel: Okay, we will go on with item 9. Consider acquisition of public works facility, corner of 82nd Street and Highway 41. Glen Pauls. You've got the floor right now. Todd Gerhardt: The City Council at their August 28th meeting directed staff to work with Mr. Pauls in negotiating a purchase price for the existing public works building on West 82nd Street. At this time we have agreed to the purchase price of $100,000.00 for the property. Mr. Pauls' request for that $100,000.00 for the property is that they take ownership immediately. Staff is making the reconmendation that we keep the facility until the new one is constructed and Mr. Pauls is here to make his request of why he needs that immediately. Glen? Glen Pauls: I'nm Glen Pauls with Nordic Track from Chaska. I guess as I showed ' in the last meeting, the building we're building is right on the land behind LII your property. We've been trying to negotiate out a price for sale on the property. We would like we said earlier when we got into this whole deal, we 72 11 , , City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 were pretty much led to believe that this was all been taken care of between the two cities and that it was going to go smoothly but it's been a little harder than I thought but I guess what we've been trying to get through here is that we're starting grading. They're going to start cutting some of the underbrush tomorrow and the grading's going to probably start Thursday maybe. Wednesday or Thursday. If we have to grade around that site, that's going to cost a lot more for us to cane back and cut it down later and I guess at that point we'd just like to grade around it and leave it. Just build behind it. It really doesn't affect our building. We have to move about 15 parking stalls to another area but it doesn't really bother the other site that much and being that we're a mail order company, we're not really out for appearance. We're not trying to attract, we're not looking for words for the building or anything. We're just out to build a building. We need more space. The main thing is we've got to get going now because we've got a time restraint so we've put in an offer of $100,000.00 for a lot that we feel is only worth about $50,000.00, even with the buildings on it. We've made offers to look into helping maybe move some of your stuff into a mini-storages around here being that there seems to be an extra amount or surplus mini-storage space available. I guess none of that seems to be enough to sway you into selling the property so we'd just like to say that we're basically to withdraw all offers and just go around it and see what happens. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess I'll start out. You know we never had the need to sell it in the first place. We would still have to spend between $36,000.00 to $50,000.00 for storage of those implements. We're not ready to move out before next spring and you're in a hurry to get going and you want to withdraw your offer. I guess that's what you'll have to do. Glen Pauls: I guess the only problem can come up with MnDot requiring us, it's supposed to be downhill. The grade is supposed to be downhill off of TH 41 onto 82nd Street there and it's 13 foot uphill. I don't know what the percent grade is but I guess Chaska's already gone through with, I guess they're pretty much proposed grading that down for you. Doing the work and actually cutting the dirt down. Councilwoman Dimler: That was all premature. I did bring the question up of annexation with Todd but we've never agreed to anything. Glen Pauls: I don't know about annexation. I think they were just going to do it even if you still owned it. I'm not sure how that all went. I wasn't in on that part of it. Mayor Chmiel: Those are the things that we don't know. Councilman Workman: I was having a burger down at Butch's a couple weeks ago and Alderman Dale Diedrick, proprietor of the place and I ended up sitting and talking for a little bit. I spend a lot of time down in Chaska. In fact, right in City Hall and I would like to work something out here. I think we should give it to Chaska. Somehow.. . Councilwoman Dimler: But they're in a hurry now. 1 Councilman Workman: Again, I think these are issues that are looming large for ° the citizens of our community. I'm not sure Don where we're going to cane up J ' 73 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 with the extra cash for building this and I understand the positives. Again, it's a situation, we're in a tough pickle and I appreciate if it's an outstanding offer, we appreciate that. Again, it doesn't hide the fact that we're going to have to spend some more money at a time when we're looking at cutting a million out of our budget but somebody's going to have to tell me how we justify it to the people of Chanhassen that we sold off some sheds that we've now got to improve. We're going to improve for the purpose of consolidation. Councilman Johnson: I don't know why anybody's talking about annexation though. That's in the city limits of Chaska. It's not the City of Chanhassen property. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah it is. Todd Gerhardt: It's in the City of Chanhassen. Councilwoman Dimler: Once they purchased it, they would want to annex it to Chaska. Councilman Johnson: Well that'd have to be a condition of the sale is that they don't do that. They it remains Chanhassen. Don Ashworth: Keep an open mind in that area because if all of this would occur, right now we're doing maintenance on that west side of 82nd or west side of 41 and Chaska' doing the east side. We simply go down 300 feet and then that's it. We turn around. It's a dead end run for us. If this property were to be sold to the Pauls, and I think that's the most logical use for the property. I don't know of anyone other that might come in and use it but if ' that were to occur, it would only be logical at that point in time that all of their parcel would be within the City of Chaska and they would take over the entire maintenance and building and everything else associated with 82nd Street. I I would echo Tom's conments. I hear a statement that we need to do something tonight and I would only hope that the applicant would recognize that at 12:00, good decisions aren't made. If we could have potentially a committee, I might think, maybe if we could talk between the council but Tom, since you're in the area. I don't know who else on the Council, maybe meet with the Pauls and the City of Chaska or representatives and see if we can come back with something for this next Monday night. . , Councilman Boyt: If I might, I think we ought to sell it. The question is, are we giving up $150,000.00 worth of storage space here or are we not? I would gather that you could make the argument either way but my guess is, given what the property is worth to some other buyer, we're not giving up $100,000.00 worth of space in all likelihood and it's a chance to get your expansion done properly. That helps the County and school district which is a big part of Chanhassen so I want to see us do it. I think $100,000.00 is a good offer but the diletma is, what do we do with our equipment? Everything is good except we can't just park that stuff on a field somewhere. Have you got an answer for that? Glen Pauls: Yeah, I've been trying to find some places for you. I don't know, there's a couple different things. Mini-storages, I'd have to see what you have but from what I heard, it's just mowers and what not in the wintertime. Councilman Boyt: Is that what we're talking? No big trucks? 74 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 3 Mady: I don' t think they have any choice. John Spiess: I 'm John Spiess. I 'm a resident and also work with Centex Homes . Whatever park policy is for the requirements for developers to contribute to the trail system. I think there' s a dollar amount per lot is there not? Mady: Yes . ' John Spiess : How much is that? Mady: $150.00. John Spiess : $150. 00? We discussed this today and if the agreement is that the people don' t want it, then the money can go to trails systems or ' whatever any other developer would pay towards the park and recreation recommendations for developers to pay towards the trail system as they develop lots . Joe Cook: Okay. Thank you. Mady: I have a couple of questions for you guys . This is a sidewalk system. I don't know how much thought you all have given to sidewalks . I 've been involved with the sidewalk issue for 3 years officially and it' s something that' s been near to me for a long time. A sidewalk is more than just a place for people to ride their bikes or to get from another neighborhood into your park. It' s also a linear park system for the kids that live right on the street . I know in my neighborhood and other neighbors in the city, we've got kids who roller skate, skateboard, play hop scotch, all those types of things , and the sidewalk is a place they do that. I know your neighborhood, driveways aren' t real long so they don' t have a lot of area there . You' ve got a 4 year old , where are they supposed ' to learn to ride their bike? Do you want them in the street? I think as people start thinking about it seriously, they start to realize that maybe a sidewalk isn' t that bad. I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why it shouldn ' t be there. What I 've been hearing has been concern for dollars and not concern for safety and concern for kids lives. Last night at the Council meeting one of my neighbors got up and asked for a sidewalk on my street. It amazed me because he has been against it for a number of years and he asked for it last night . I just about died when I heard it and I don't know why for sure. I haven' t had the opportunity to talk to him about it but I think it came down to he started looking at the safety issue. He got up and told the Council that 3 people in the 30 years out street ' s been there, 3 people have been killed on our road. Your road has just been in, started and it' s true, it probably does have minimal traffic . Up until 2 years ago my road had minimal amount of traffic but yet supposedly there were 3 deaths on it. There are other areas in the City where there have been kids hit by cars . If we continue to put our kids on the street, we're just asking for more and more and more accidents to occur . And I , as a city official , have a hard time saying well kids should play in the street because that' s what we' re asking for them to do. So my question to you is really, what do we tell parents who ' s kids have been hit 1 by cars? What are we supposed to say to them? Well , gee I 'm sorry but $40, 000. 00 is worth a heck of a lot more in the city bank account than Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 12, 1989 - Page 4 II putting cement in front of your house. Kathy Clarke : Yeah but wouldn' t it be worth more to put it on Powers? II Mady: We will be putting it on Powers . II Kathy Clarke: You could do that right now with this money. . . Mady: We will be putting sidewalks hopefully throughout the entire city. II What we' re saying is , we have the opportunity right now to do yours right now. I mean it' s in the development contract. It's not costing any more money to the City. It ' s there. Powers will get done . II Joe Cook: The thing is now, okay so we've got the trail going on Devonshire from Lucy to Powers on Devonshire . What about the rest of the development? The development of Curry Farms? I John Flaa : There' s 2 or 3 other roads. Joe Cook: There' s 2 or 3 other roads that have no trails. Okay? So why I aren' t you saying , if we follow your logic , which is fine. I don' t have a problem with it, then there should be trails on every single road throughout that development if you' re following that plan . I Mady: I firmly believe that, alright? I firmly believe that but the compromise that ' s been made at the city level is that we do not put them oll not thru streets . We put them on thru streets only and Devonshire is a thru street. The remaining streets are not thru streets at this time. That's what the compromise was. I don' t like the compromise. My personal opinion, and I ' ve talked to people who live on small cul-de-sacs with mayb 4 homes on them, they would rather have the sidewalk in front of their house even though they know that practical matters may not be more than 8 cars driving on that street the entire day. I firmly believe in the safe" issue . We have a safety issue here and you ' re asking to put kids on the street because that' s where they' re going to go. They always do. They always will . y 1 y They I Joe Cook: That' s the thing . Kids in general will , if a parent says go on the sidewalk, well , I mean it' s up the parent to be looking out for the safety and welfare of their child and You can tell your child a hundred II times to stay on the sidewalk and they' ll be on the road every time. It ' s again, it boils down to the fact that parents have to be responsible for their children and that' s really what it comes down to. So that' s our II rebuttal on that . Mady: So you personally feel that your children will be fine in the II street? Joe Cook: No . I 'm saying that it' s up to me to keep them out of the street regardless. Whether there' s a sidewalk there or not isn' t going to make a lot of difference . Mady: Where' s your child going to be roller skating and riding their bike.' 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 5 Kathy Clarke: In the path around the park. Joe Cook: Probably going down to the park which is just down the road . ' Mady: How do they get to the park? Kathy Clarke: They cross the street . Mady: They walk on the street. John Flaa : My name is John Flaa . I 'm at 6560 Devonshire and again, I have i to agree with what Joe' s saying . I think by the fact that the petition that we issued to you indicated that people had some time to think about this. I think, I don' t know what the exact numbers but I think there was only one dissention as far as rejecting the bike path. The way it was set i up originally is that this was supposed to be a 6 foot wide asphalt bike path that was supposed to start 3 feet into the yard. As written that way, I think that' s unnecessary because if you look at some of the other streets ' that have that similar facility, such as if you look at CR 4 in Eden Prairie, CR 5 in Minnetonka, those are off of main county roads that will have this same facility and the same thru fare as what is being proposed here. Maybe there' s been some revisions of what' s going to go in but I ' just again , agree with Joe. I don' t think the traffic on that street is going to warrant something that would run through people' s yards and I think the fact . I really don' t think people are going to cut through ' Devonshire to get to Lucy from Powers . I think if anything they' ll go down to Lucy and cut through. I do myself because I live on the corner lot at Lucy and Devonshire because it' s a lot quicker that way. I think, we've ' done some informal studying . I know Jan was out there one time and we watched the traffic that went through there for about a half hour so and nothing went through there and I think the traffic will be even less once the construction leaves because that' s really the bulk of the vehicles that go through there right now. I think the fact that we' re talking about a sidewalk to take people, at least proposed, a maximum of 2 blocks, is really hardly worth the money to put that in. If this was a long road that • I went blocks and blocks and blocks such as Lake Lucy, that' s a different matter but if we' re talking a maximum of about 4 blocks from Point A to Point B, all the way from Powers to Lucy, I really don ' t think it ' s necessary. y Mady: Do you have any children? iJohn Flaa: Not now, no . Mady: Is it just as possible for a child to be hit in a 4 block stretch as on Lake Lucy Road? It' s a real serious safety problem with me. I know the problem. Kathy Clarke : If this goes through my front yard , my children are, in my mind, in a lot more danger because there are 4 teenage boys that live across the street that instead of skateboarding in their driveway are going to skateboard on the sidewalk and then I ' ve got 9 feet less of yard td try 11 to control my toddlers in. yard I Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 6 John Flaa : You' re bringing more traffic into a non-traffic area as it is. Kathy Clarke: I mean that' s the way I see it. They' re going to skateboard in my front yard now instead of in their driveway. Mady: No, they' ll skateboard in the street. 1 Kathy Clarke: They skateboard in their driveway right now. These 4 boys happen to do that. They build jumps and things like that in their drivewad and they' ll for sure do this now on a 6 foot wide sidewalk. Mady: It' s a 5 foot cement sidewalk . Kathy Clarke: No, right now. . . Mady: No, it' s a 5 foot wide cement sidewalk. ' Kathy Clarke: When did that get changed? Mady: Isn' t it Todd? ' Hoffman : 6 foot asphalt. John Flaa : And part of it, this is an off shoot , this was an issue that we just got with Centex, that it was never in the development. It was never told to any of these residents along Devonshire Drive that it was in the plan at all . That's a side issue that we discuss with Centex but I think if people would have known about it, they might have thought differently about purchasing at those locations . Kathy Clarke: I 'm Kathy Clarke. I live at 6510 Devonshire . We ' re . . .and part of our attraction. We could have bought a house in South Minneapolis or we could have bought old Edina or any of these places that have sidewalks and things. We chose to move to a more rural setting and that' s really what we want . The asphalt 6 feet wide is completely unacceptable because of what it' s going to look, the maintenance and the weeds and how wide it is and how far it would go into our yard . This 5 foot wide cement I sidewalk would just be a sidewalk but we didn' t buy in an area with sidewalks because of how we wanted our property to look and it' s the neighborhood we wanted to live in. I think that that' s why the people who II signed a petition who don' t even live near the sidewalk and their lots aren't affected, are against this . I mean what do they care if there' s a sidewalk going through my yard . What they care is that it ' s not , why live II in Chanhassen. Joe Cook: A further issue might also be that , maintenance on this thing . Now the residents , that' s a real foggy issue for the residents , myself included . What' s the City' s responsibility for maintaining this? Who ' s maintaining the green strip between the curb and the sidewalk? I know the city of Chanhassen. I know it ' s typical of any city out there and it ' s a matter of long term maintenance on this sidewalk. 10 years from now when these sidewalks start busting up and weeds start growing up through them, are the funds going to be available to properly maintain these sidewalks t the city looking as it should versus something that ' s crumbling and Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 7 I falling apart and weeds coming up. John Flaa : I think a further example is the asphalt bike path that goes from CR 17 up along TH 5 that goes into Lake Ann. That looks to be what is being proposed for our neighborhood and it' s a shambles . There' s weeds ' growing all over . Mady: The reason that bike path has not been updated is because TH 5 is being upgraded. The state will be putting in an 8 foot bituminous path with the upgrade of TH 5 so we are doing minimum maintenance on it at this time. We recognize that it' s in bad shape but we' re purposedly not doing it . ' Joe Cook: What about the trail here that' s along Powers Blvd . here next to the Saddlebrook? That path was put in about a year ago and there' s already ' weeds coming up along the edges and I guess that ' s the thing too . You' ve got to look at, what' s 10-15 years from now. What' s it going to look like? ' Mady: If you' re acquainted with the trail referendum, the past two times , that issue' s been in the referendum both times and we have stated that the City will be responsible for maintenance of those items on a rotating basis on a 5 to 8 year schedule. Whatever the engineering street department ' deems necessary to keep those well maintained . It is the City' s responsibility and the City has made that commitment. Made the commitment 2 years ago. Joe Cook: I understand that but trail maintenance , if there ' s budget crunching that occurs, which usually does happen, the trail maintenance is going to slide first . That' s one of the non-essential things in the overall city budget. Mady: I guess that' s not a statement I can live with because it ' s up to ' each individual Council as it comes up. The current Council made that commitment , or the Council during the referendum made that commitment. Joe Cook: Sure, it' s all the Council and it tends to do it , and I 'm sure hopefully. . .there ' s really no guarantee of that so to speak so that ' s another thing. ' John Flaa : Maybe while we' re eating up 10 feet of our already small front yards, the way it' s written it doesn' t start until 3 feet into the yard . Who' s responsible for that yard way? Mady: You would have the same responsibility for that 3 feet whether or not the trail ' s there because right now it ' s road right-of-way so it' s city property. You have the responsibility of maintaining that whether or not. You know, cut the grass . Kathy Clarke : What about shoveling responsibilities? Mady: Shoveling , on the trail situation has always been, essential areas will be shoveled and maintained by the City during the snow season . Non- , essential areas will not be, and part of the reason is that some of those may be deemed as cross country ski trails. We will not be shoveling every I Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 12, 1989 - Page 8 II trail in the city. Kathy Clarke : The other thing . . .when we were discussing the plan of the II park, we have two ponds in the park and we brought up the safety issue. I can ' t remember who' s answer it was but it was the responsibility of the parents to make sure that the children don' t drown in the pond. Now all AI a sudden it' s your legislative, that responsibility if away from us by forcing the sidewalks on us and. . . Mady: No , I 'm saying that the City should provide you the safety means. I We can ' t guarantee safety on any situation but we at least allow you the opportunity to provide a safe opportunity. Otherwise they don' t have a safe opportunity. I Kathy Clarke: If you' re talking about. . . Mady: I can' t guarantee any. . . Kathy Clarke: . . .the child playing at the playground and they drown in thel pond than it is for them to get hit on Devonshire. they Mady: I disagree with you 100% . I live right across the street from Lotu Lake. 3 people have been killed on the road in 30 years . I don' t know of anybody who ' s drowned on Lotus Lake in 30 years so I guess I disagree with the statement. It' s an unfortunate situation that we have to have standing ponds to take care of the runoff water . I don' t like it in the park myself" but that's where the developer put it. That' s where the City allowed it. I don' t believe it' s a steep sided pond . I hope it wasn' t. We typically don' t let them put them in steep sided but. II John Flaa : Could I ask, what road do you live on? Mady: Frontier Trail . It' s on the trail plan and hopefully it will get a I sidewalk. Joe Cook: Is that .a pretty busy street? I Mady: It is real busy now. Joe Cook: Because , of the way it was built? I 'm not real familiar with it " but I 'm assuming that there' s been some developments around the outskirts of it. Mady: Our street was a dead end street up until 2 years ago. A new I development went through and our neighborhood had no choice in the fact that our street had to become a thoroughfare. We weren ' t happy about that .' Joe Cook: I 'm sure not but earlier I made the statement that the land around the Curry Farms development has been. . . ' John Flaa: Is non-developable. Joe Cook : In other words, there is no future development . II 1 'Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 9 Joe Cook: And that marsh area on the opposite side of Lake Lucy on the ' south side, is supposedly undevelopable. To the north of the park there' s no room to develop. I think somebody owns all that land up there . ' Mady: The Exhibit A in our thing shows that the north side with one exception is all future single family homes . There ' s no reason to believe that land prices are not going to at some point make it very attractive to the owner to sell that property. Maybe it will be 30 years from now. I ' don ' t know how long that will take but someday it' s going to be so attractive that somebody' s going to sell it. Kathy Clarke: Where? Mady: On the north side of Curry Farms Park. ' Kathy Clarke: Yeah, but that' s not very much land. I mean there'd can' t be 10 houses . Mady: There' s a considerable amount of land actually. Hoffman: Jim, again if I could ask that we end the back and forth ' discussion and if the visitors have a statement to make, to step up to the microphone please. Mady: I guess my concern is the safety issue. It sounds like the ' neighbors don' t really care if their kids are forced to play in the street. I guess I can ' t force you to have a sidewalk there. The southern most part of Devonshire from Lake Lucy Road to the street that park ' s on, Stratton , that is going from an existing trail to the park. That ' s what it 's for . That' s why it' s there. That' s the portion I feel strongest about because those are people coming out of other neighborhoods to come into your neighborhood into the park. I don' t think you' re going to be ' letting them go through your back yards so I would like to at least see them off the street. Allowed off the street. It was my understanding when I talked to staff last week that this was a 5 foot sidewalk. It was no ' longer a 6 foot asphalt trail . Joe Cook : It' s never been changed . Mady: Well , I talked to staff last week. Joe Cook: There ' s been no formal letter from the city to the residents involved that it would impact. We've been hoping. We haven' t been informed if that is in fact so . ' Kathy Clarke : Is there any possibility that that southern part , if you could just make that side of the street no parking to eliminate any car conflict? Mady: We don ' t deal with no parking issues . You 'd have to , I believe go to Public Safety. ' Kathy Clarke: That would make a safer entrance to the park if that ' s what You' re concerned about. I Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 10 Mady: No , it just gives the cars a wider street to drive on. We have people hit on no parking streets. Jan' s neighborhood has no parking on one street. They had 2 kids hit there in the last 5 years . Kathy Clarke: Could you just do an on-street like you have on Lake Lucy? Just for that little bit? Mady: I don' t know how wide the road is there . 1 Joe Cook: 28 feet I think. Kathy Clarke : We' ve lived there for almost a year now and I haven ' t seen all biker go through and I take my kids, I walk at night. . . I don' t know where all those people are going to be coming from. Mady: Talk to the people in Pheasant Hills . They' re just to the west of you. Talk to those people. Kathy Clarke: Do you think they' re going to come all the way up. . . Mady: Yes they will . They have no park. They've been asking for a park for the last 5 years . They have no park. Kathy Clarke: But don' t you think they' re going to drive? Mady: They' ll drive. They' ll ride their bikes . They' ll walk. They' ll do' anything they can to get there but as soon as that park' s useable, they' ll use it . ' Joe Cook: So there, and I know on Lucy they've got the walkway in the road bed. It' s a wide enough roadbed and there' s a stripe there. I 've walked out there with my son and I still feel , I don' t feel it' s safe out there with the traffic. . . Mady: I 'm 100% with you. I Joe Cook: So now what we' re saying is , why not let ' s get the trail system, establish the first part of this trail system on these major , the more heavily traveled corridors . Therefore the people from Pheasant Hills can come down safely on a sidewalk, bike path, to our development which is a low traffic , low volume, low speed also development . That' s what we' re saying. I think the priorities of this trail system are real backwards because the trails should be first , where the money' s available and obviously there' s limited funds , the trail should first be established on the busy corridors . Secondly, they should be established on the interior , II low volume streets because that' s where, the low volume streets are the safer streets of the two. You have to agree with me on that. You go on these 40-50 mph streets. Those are dangerous roads . Mady: I ' ll agree that a high mileage street is dangerous but I also disagree that a low mileage street is just as dangerous . It only takes on car and one kid. ' 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 11 Joe Cook: Oh certainly but I 'm saying that where the traffic speeds ' increase and also the volumes by 10 fold, that there' s more danger period. I mean yes , a child could be hit just as easily on a side street as it could on volume but the likelihood if there' s a child playing along the two streets , same situation, the child on the busy street is going to be ' injured first and sooner than the child so I 'm saying we have limited funds. We should put the funds to the use that they' re going to provide the most benefit to the City and the residents of the City. Doesn' t that make sense? Mady: What makes sense for me, and anybody can jump in after I 'm done is , we have an opportunity. When this development came in to the Park ' Commission, we had a comprehensive plan already in place that said where we were going to put trails. Where we' re going to put sidewalks. How we wanted our city developed . Your development came in . We set those I policies up against that development. It came in that way. That' s what we want to happen in every development and if we don' t do it right now, when do we do it? Joe Cook : Well who' s we? ' Mady: The City. Joe Cook: The help or the residents? ' Mady: The City. When does the City get safety. Joe Cook: We' re part of the City right? t Mady: When does the City get safety? When does the City consider safety number one? City Kathy Clarke : Aren ' t you supposed to be representing us? John Flaa: You' re supposed to be serving the residents . Mady: I don' t know if I do or not . I'm appointed. ' Kathy Clarke: . . .why can' t you represent us? Mady: I have to represent the whole city and , see I 've been up here for 3 years . Kathy Clarke : Don' t you think if you polled the whole city and you said. . . ' Mady: We did poll the whole city. Kathy Clarke: Do you want this path to go through Curry Farms or do you want this $40, 000. 00 and we' ll put on Powers or we' ll put it off the street on Lake Lucy? What are they going to vote for? They' re going to vote for it on the busier street. Joe Cook: Where they can use it . Where the city as a whole . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 12 Kathy Clarke: We have some priorities . Put it on the busy streets . We' re not arguing with your past. We' re just arguing that it' s unnecessary. , Joe Cook: It ' s a priority. And I don ' t think it' s fair for you to say that we don' t care if our kids play in the street. That' s not the issue. Mady: It' s the issue . Joe Cook : I think the number of people that answered that they didn' t want the street, obviously took into account what they' re going to do with their children when they' re playing and they' re not going to say, okay go out in the street because I don' t care. They' re going to be watching their kids whether they' re on the street or the path. And by having the path doesn' t, automatically guarantee safety. You' re saying you can' t guarantee safety in every situation . Mady: But we can at least provide opportunity for safety. Joe Cook: But I would think that the people who voted not to have this street obviously considered the safety issues . It ' s not like we' re trying to fight an issue for it' s sake. People understand okay where are we going to have our kids if we' re not going to have a sidewalk. Where are they going to play? The fact of the low traffic on Devonshire. People say okay. To us it ' s not worth having a bike path because there ' s not enough volume on Devonshire to warrant a bike path. It' s not just for fighting you to fight you. In fact , the path is going just a couple blocks or something, people will walk their kids down to the park or walk on people' s yards. John Flaa : We just about had this man' s daughter killed on Saturday on Lake Lucy where there' s an on the road bike path trail . Mady: If you were up here when the Lake Lucy trail was tried to be taken off in January when I was up here and got angry with the Council and Mrs . Dimler will remember that. I got pretty angry with the Council then because they tried to take that bike path off the street completely. Remove it. We want to get it off . Ursual Dimler: Aren ' t you. . . Mady: No, they brought it up Ursula . Joe Cook: Look at the structure of that road. Lake Lucy is a straight ' road . People speed on there. I ' ve seen people go 70 mph on that road . Devonshire Drive does not create an opportunity, in my mind, for people to go flying through that road . I mean Lake Lucy is a straight shot west and II people go flying down that road and if you've ever watched the traffic volume, that ' s the scares street . Yeah , there' s an off side trail there . Mady: I 'd love to get one there. I don' t have the support in Council to do it. Hoffman : Jim, just to regain some structure to this meeting . I would like to just make one statement. That I do not believe that neglecting this I Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 13 opportunity to put this sidewalk, this trial system within your ' neighborhood is going to speed up the development of other trails on other streets in the city. We go through this lengthy process every time a new trail is proposed on a sidewalk or on a street and neglecting this opportunity is not going to speed that up on Lake Lucy or Powers Blvd . or anywhere else. I would like to call for last comments. If either of you gentlemen have a last comment and then I ' ll open it up for commissioner presentations . ' Ursula Dimler : I 'm Ursula Dimler . I live at 7203 Kiowa Circle. I 'm on the Chanhassen City Council . I wasn' t going to say anything until Jim ' brought my name up. I sit here and I get very angry at the misrepresentation Jim. When you said about Frontier Trail , the 3 deaths . You' re scaring these people to death . I know what those deaths were. The first one was about 30 years ago. A boy was sledding down a hill okay? A ' car could not see him. He came right directly in front of him. Okay, that was the first one. The second one that I 'm aware of . I 'm not even sure what the third one was . The second one was a drunk driver . Okay? Very ' understandable. Had nothing to do with whether there was a sidewalk there. Neither death had anything to do with whether there were sidewalks . I just don' t like to see you misrepresent things to scare these people to death about the safety of their children . I believe the residents know what they want. They also know how to best care for their children and I think the City has to be responsive to what the residents want . After all , the city is the residents. That ' s all I have to say. ' Mady: Any other comments? Commissioner comments . ' Lash: I ' ll start with this since I was the one who opened it up to start with. First of all , I agree with Ursula ' s comments . I do not think it is our responsibilty to pass judgment on these people as parents and on the safety of their children . I believe that' s their responsibility. If we want to get into a safety issue on sidewalks, I believe that' s a safety commission responsibility. Unless this is a major trail link to a park or to a recreational facility, I don' t really even believe the Park and Rec ' Commission has any purpose discussing it . Jim, if you want to talk about where kids are going to roller skate and ride their bikes, skateboard , that ' s in the safety of their own yard . Their own home. If we want to talk about safety at home, that ' s not a park and rec issue anymore as far as I 'm concerned . I don' t have a problem at all with this coming off , if that 's what the residents want. In the future, if there' s new people and they feel they want the sidewalk in badly enough, they can come back with a ' petition. Petition the City and we' ll assess them if they want it badly enough and put it in. Right now if they don' t want it, Ilsay that ' s fine with me. Take the money. Put it in the fund. At the last meeting , Jim I ' remember you bringing up you want to start getting trails on TH 101 . Why not get this money and put it into fund so we can get it on TH 101 a little bit sooner . Start taking them out where they' re unnecessary and put them in where they are necessary. That ' s the end of my comments . ' Schroers : I agree that our mission here is to represent the citizens of the community. That' s what I try to do. I have mixed feelings about this . ' We have just received a new sidewalk in our neighborhood . I live along Carver Beach Road and the kids were using it and they love it before it wa 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 12, 1989 - Page 14 II even done. They really like the sidewalk. I took the opportunity to walk up and down the sidewalk. Talk to the neighbors and residents along the II sidewalk and ask them how they felt about it . With the exception of one person who didn' t have children, who was upset about some displacement of a couple of his shrubs , every one along that sidewalk said that they liked , it. They thought that it enhanced the neighborhood and they felt a lot better about having their kids off the street. Granted, Carver Beach is a very busy road but my personal observation is that the people that live along there like, enjoy and appreciate their new sidewalk. To me it' s II logical . If I had children, and I don' t, but if I did, I would want a sidewalk for my kids to play on but on the other hand , I feel it is my obligation here to represent the community and the citizens and what you II ask for . You' re the ones that purchased your property and are paying the taxes and if you don't want it there, you don't want it there and I guess I feel that I should support you on that. I also agree with what Todd said. Taking the $40,000. 00 from your sidewalk and applying it to the idea that II we could immediately apply that to a major route . $40, 000. 00 isn' t even going to get us started there. We could put it in a fund and hold it and maybe it will help out eventually but it' s not like we can take that money II right now and next week start to work on another major trail because it' s not enough to do it . I guess that' s all I really have to say about it. Robinson: I think it was about a year to 2 years ago we adopted the II policy, the Park and Rec Commission did , to put off street trails wherever possible. I was opposed to that at the time because I said wherever possible and practical and I was shot down on that . To me this falls into II the, it's not practical to do it here, especially when the people themselves don' t want to do it so I don' t think there should have ever been proposed to put an off street trail on this low traveled street . I Erhart : I jotted down a few things as the discussion was going on and some of it is going to be repetitive of what was already said but the safety issue . I understand what Jim' s saying about safety and children being not having someplace to ride their bikes and stuff. I also sympathize with what Kathy Clarke brought up, that if the sidewalk goes in her front yard, that just chews up .more of her front yard for her kids to play in and all of a sudden you do have a safety issue there. I would like to see the safety commission address that. I don' t feel qualified to be addressing that. I feel that I do represent people and the people, looking at your petition here, it looks like the majority are not interested in having this, sidewalk. Then I say, fine. I would like to see it on a major corridor like TH 101. I live off of TH 101. I 'd like to see one out there. This is all I have. I Mady: I have no further comments . Schroers : If I can just touch on one more thing . There is not consistency' within the city as far as how the residents feel on any given issue. You can take one neighborhood and they' ll feel one way about a specific issue and the other neighborhood will feel exactly opposite on the same issue and this creates problems for the City to operate . From a maintenance point of view and from trying to set up a plan on where you ' re going to remove snow and where you' re going to mow and all this . What you end up doing is hop scotching here and there and everywhere and you try to come up with an II 'Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 15 economical and efficient way to operate and without a plan and a consistent ' set throughout the city, it' s really difficult to operate the city and from a maintenance point of view, it' s just really hard when you don' t have a consistent plan and I think that' s what our trail system had intended from the beginning was to connect major areas and also to have somewhat of a ' flow and a consistency that that' s going to get people where they need to go and it' s also going to be able to operate efficienty. What we' re having to do, because all neighborhoods come in with different ideas, is just ' address each issue separately and it' s a difficult way to operate. I guess that' s all I have to say about that. Mady: Are you looking for a recommendation? Hoffman: A motion, correct . Mady: Is there a motion? Lash : I ' ll make a motion that the Park and Rec reconsider their previous recommendation on putting the trail on Devonshire through Curry Farms by removing that and accepting the fee from the developer to go into our trail fund. Erhart : I ' ll second that . ' Lash moved , Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to reconsider the previous recommendation of putting a trail on Devonshire Drive through Curry Farms by removing it and accepting trail ' dedication fees from the developer to go into the trail fund. All voted in favor except Mady who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mady: Just a second Todd. First off, I 'd like to apologize to the Commission for letting it get out of hand on that item. I think you all know that trails are very, very serious to me and I guess I come from the ' school where government sometimes has to look out for the well being of it' s citizens and I firmly believe in this situation, if these residents had been approached with the idea from the very start that a sidewalk was a positive thing instead of a negative thing, it may have been different but unfortunately it' s approach has , why do you want to have this thing that' s going to chew up your yard . That ' s the way it happens I guess and so . ' Schroers : I don' t think anyone disagrees with you on the safety issue of that. It' s just obvious . It' s black and white. It' s much more safe on a sidewalk than it is in the street . There' s no question about that but the whole deal is that we' re here to represent the community and what they want and when you' ve got the whole neighborhood telling you that they don ' t want it, we can' t shove it down their throat. It just doesn' t work. ' Robinson: But who tried to talk them out of a sidewalk at some certain stage? Are you implying that. . . Mady: I 'm just stating that there ' s been a lot of, at the trail referendum there was a lot of bad information put in the paper . Some fairly negative 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 16 comments were made and this has happened within the city over the last few years. The last number of years but it' s unfortunate that the negative information , negative feelings of people seem to make the paper . You know letters to the editor and things more so than people who are positive. I look at survey. What was it? I don' t remember off hand . 74% of the people want trails in the city yet every time we try to put a trail in someplace , the people who are being impacted in their yards, always say no . We' ll never have one. We really won't so I don' t even know anymore where it' s going . ' Lash : Maybe what people are saying is they don' t want them in their yards. They want them other places . 74% possibly are saying they want them on the. . .but that' s not in their yard . Mady: But we had the people on Lake Lucy Road, which is a major road , say no we don' t want them here but yet I think every one of us will admit that ' s a major road . We' re going to have the same situation I 'm sure when it comes to TH 101. Even some of the people I 'm sure on Minnewashta are going to say no . I guess my fear is that we' ll never have a trail situation because to me I know, through my neighborhood. At the last trail referendum. I talked to a lot of my neighbors and they were firmly against the referendum because Frontier Trail was going to get a trail but they wanted it in the rest of the city. It was yes , do it but not in my yard . II Everybody, I 'm sure there' s going to be a lot of people who feel that way and if that' s the feeling , how are we supposed to get it done if every time the city says to do it and then the residents say we don' t want it here ' specifically but we do want it, how are we ever going to get it done? I don' t know that I guess . Hoffman : One possible solution Jim is that originally this was part of the development contract but that did not get communicated with the residents . That happens in the same instance when there' s a park located within other developments. Lake Susan Hills West, Chanhassen Hills, the developer says yeah, there' s a beautiful park there . Nice wooded area . It will be an asset to your home and then when they find out what' s going in there, they don' t always agree with that. They form preconceptions before they find II out the facts. If we can work more closely with those developers and make sure they pass that information on a little more clearly, we could alleviate these problems in the future. Mady: I agree 100% . Lash : I don ' t feel that these particular residents had any negative data I coming in. I think most of them have lived in town probably weren' t even here when the referendum went through so I don' t think that they had any negative things. I think their problem began when they were not informed of it in the beginning and that had nothing to do with the city or the Par Rec Commission. It had to do with their developer but it' s a problem that could be remedied by the city, by the Park and Rec and by the City Council and I think therefore then it came back to be our responsibility to try and see if we could solve a problem that they were having . Mady: Okay, let' s move on. 1 'Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 17 I ' REVIEW 1989 TENNIS PROGRAM. Hoffman : You can all breathe easy now. These next 3 items will be much more fun. This year as part of the discussion that took place with the two ' different community service organizations that serve the City of Chanhassen, Minnetonka and Chaska, we agreed and negotiated to take over the tennis lesson program with the facility here at Chanhassen, the elementary school at City Center Park and then the two new facilities at Meadow Green and North Lotus Lake Park. We advertised to hire a tennis specialist. A person who would coordinate and not only coordinate but teach these lessons . Somebody who had the qualifications and we hired Mary ' Johnson for the summer . Mary did an excellent job in the program. We had good attendance from the participants . Quite a few people came out for these lessons and the dollar figures as well . It' s meant to be operated as 1 a self supporting program and that turned out to be true in this case. If there' s any questions or suggestions on how we may improve this program, I will take those at this time. Mady: Do we pat Todd on the back for making money with this program? Robinson: Did he? Mady: He made a hundred bucks . $103 . 85 . Lash: Did you say Lori 's in Vegas with that money? Hoffman: For those of you who don ' t know, Lori ' s is attending a conference in Washington State for the next 2 weeks so that' s why she is absent. Schroers : I just think that this relfects a good job done by the administration and I would recommend that we continue the program for next year . Robinson: You might want to look at hiring a teenage boy next year . Mady: Anybody specific Curt. Robinson: I 'm kidding . I really am and I think it takes a person like Mary Johnson that relates good with the kids and also knows tennis where a teenage boy would not do that. Hoffman : Mary did an excellent job of not only relating with the kids but with the parents as well . That ' s important in this type of program. ' Mady: I know my daughter participated up here at the City Center Park with Mary. She loved it and I was concerned because she doesn ' t know a about tennis and my experience with tennis is about as much as my anything experience with soccer , and I do coach that but she had an excellent time ' with it and learned a lot of fundamentals so staff deserves a pat on the back and I think Mary deserves a pat on the back for making a very successful program out of it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 18 Hoffman : Something to take note of there is the participant numbers at Meadow Green and North Lotus. Even though those are brand new tennis courts , the participant levels are very, very low when compared with City Center Park. REVIEW 1989 OKTOBERFEST PLANS . Hoffman : Item 6 has to do with Oktoberfest . Last year with the development of the 1988 Oktoberfest, due to the canceled fireworks display for the 4th of July, we needed some event to shoot those fireworks off so we created Oktoberfest. It came off to be a very successful and positive community event for all those attending. It was just thought that we should continue that in 1989. In an attempt to alleviate some of the work load . Last year we just kind of jumped into it with both feet and a large ' portion of the City staff worked this event and were able to serve those people that were there with the food and beverage, etc . . This year we looked to get our new community groups more involved. As a result of that,. the Chanhassen Lions will be the major sponsor of this event and also the new Chanhassen Jaycees and the Chanhassen Snow Snooper Snowmobile Club and possibly the Chanhassen Women of Today will all be involved as co-sponsors and then there are also other community groups. Recycling organzation ' which is a community group dealing with this recycling in town will be there to answer questions. Representatives of the South Shore Senior Center will be there to answer questions as well as representatives of the Community Center Task Force will be there to talk to the citizens so it really should be entertaining as well as informational evening for all those attending. Mady: I guess I 'm glad to see that the City doesn' t have to give away food this time around. It was a nice touch to get people there the first year so I 'm glad to see we' re not doing it continuously because that gets to be real expensive. Hoffman: We did charge last year for this . For the Oktoberfest . It was II the 4th of July which is the ongoing. The 4th of July is the ongoing community picnic which is free of charge. This was a pay fee basis last year . Lash : Is this flyer going out in the mail? Hoffman: Yeah. The orange flyer will be inserted in the Villager the weel of the 21st . It ' s also the center layout of the new fall brochure . Robinson: This is a neat, I got this someplace last night or yesterday in vuUuTusomething . Hoffman : It will all get to you sooner or later here . Robinson: I was really impressed at the way this is laved out. I mean there ' s little activities all over . The snow scoopers are involved in here. The Chanhassen Jaycees have got the popcorn and then the caramel & ,&x (%&4'&0$pe hamburgers and brats and beer and there' s I/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 19 ' activities all day long starting with a softball tournament. I think it' s going to be a neat deal . ' Erhart : All the way to midnight . Hoffman: These events , they continue to get easier to organize and I don ' t have to worry about the people who are going to man them and actually do the work that evening and I 'm sure all the food will come off very well . As far as commissioners go, we are not in dire need of helping out that night. It ' s a night for you to enjoy as well and if you can lend a hand at any time, feel free. REVIEW 1989 HALLOWEEN PARTY. Hoffman : For those of who attended in the past , either the Halloween Party or the Easter Egg Hunt, any of those, they've grown considerably in size. The number of participants over the years and there' s always the problem of trying to organize not all these kids but all the parents as well in telling them or trying to persuade them to do the activities which you have arranged. To try to eliminate some of that confusion, my thinking is we ' have to make these activities as walk through and as self instructional as possible. That' s why the change in the Halloween party is coming about this year . In the past we had the three organized activities . We tried to ' separate everybody into groups and that' s just real hard to do. This year we' re going to have two basic activities . Trick and treating and then a horse ride, a hayride. It will be the same people that did the hayride at Oktoberfest last year . Diamond , the name escapes me at the time, over in Eagan. They' ll be out here to do that portion of it. What we need to do is create , decorate, and then staff or man in costume characters these ' hallways where the children come in. They pick between a scarey hallway or a real nice easy happy hallway, depending on if they' re young kids or they' re old kids. Then their parents can accompany them down here and they pick up their tricks or treats . Then they go out in back and get ' refreshments. Hot chocolate refreshments and that type of thing and wait to take their hayride. Robinson : Back it up. Where ' s that hayride going to be? Hoffman: At the elementary school . The hay ride will take place in the back. Right in back in the playground area in the park. Robinson: So they' re just going to make a loop of 2-3 minutes? ' Hoffman : Yeah . They' ll make a loop and it will be dark by that time so they' ll make a loop and unload and pick up another batch. ' Mady: They' ll be looking for a shovel detail . Robinson: It' s good fertilizer . Hoffman : The thing that has evolved over the years , when this first started it was fairly scarey and the little kids did not like to attend but Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 20 the older kids like something a little more exciting so we thought the idell of the scarier hallway and then the, what did we call them? The trail of good natured ghosts and then the evil witches , dark and mysterious passage. Erhart: So you have something for both? ' Hoffman : Yeah, something for both and this one, the commissioners we will need a lot of assistance in setting up. Decorating and designing those hallways and then dressing up in either that good or spooky costume to han out candy. Robinson: And what date is this? On Saturday? , Hoffman: No, it' s on Halloween night. Tuesday, October 31st. 6: 00 to 8: 00 at the Chanhassen Elementary School , 5th Grade and under . The cost II this year is $2.00. They pre-register up here at City Hall . It' s sponsored by the Chanhassen Volunteer Fire Department who comes out and Fritz is doing a very active role in creating all sorts of sound effects II that type of thing for the activity and the firemen dress up and have some fancy costumes and then also the Chanhassen area businesses are solicited and we annually collect upwards of $400. 00 to fund this event. They think it' s very worthwhile to get those kids out of the neighborhoods for those kids who don' t, that kind of traditional trick or treating does not appeal to them. Robinson : It seems like there' s bigger attendance very e Is that true? year . Hoffman: Yes . These have leveled off to about 300 to 400 participants foil both this and the Easter Egg Hunt. Erhart : Also less children are going door to door because of the safety issue. Hoffman : Any comments on that? ' Mady: Just hit us up again in October with a reminder Todd . Hoffman : We certainly will . 1 Lash: I assume we don' t have a meeting that night? Hoffman : I assume if it is , we' ll have the meeting there. Mady: I talked to Lori about our meeting schedule and she' s not planning on another meeting this month and potentially another one in October . Hoffman: I 'm sure we can plan around that. We should really give you one evening off in October if we would ask you to be at this one and that would work out nicely for all of us . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 21 ' COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS : Schroers : I don' t really have a presentation but I have some information I ' guess you would call it. I was talking with the owner of Chanhassen Bait and Tackle and he was aware that in our park development plans we had included an archery range as something we've been talking about for a long , long time and he' s wondering why we' re unable to get anything accomplished ' as far as putting in some kind of facility. He feels that he is losing business from sales of archery equipment and accessories to other communities that are providing a place to shoot. He felt that not everyone ' in town is a ball player or a tennis player and that the city hasn ' t been doing a lot to provide any kind of facility for the outdoor sportsmen type of individual and he would very much support and be in favor of getting an archery facility in the city as soon as it's practical and as soon as we can get to it. We all realize that it ' s pretty much too late for this season. Saturday the archery season starts and people wouldn' t be using the range a lot but for the coming season, if we could work that into our plans of summer . He felt that through response he ' s received from his customers , that there would be a lot of interest in this area . ' Hoffman : Larry, just a comment on that. Lori received a call from a person who was looking for a archery range the other day and I receive those calls every couple weeks or months throughout the summer . We' ve always tossed around the idea of somewhere inbetween the two barns at Lake Ann and down towards the wooded area there. That area would accommodate this type of activity. It' s not used for picnicing . There' s no traffic in that area . There' s parking accessible. Dale is using it more and more for storage of equipment and black dirt and gravel and that type of thing but I think we can probably solve this fairly quickly if I just went out there and kind of talked with Dale on it. I know yourself have gone and looked at archery ranges in other communities to get an idea of what it takes . Do we need a chainlink fence down the side or what do we need for safety aspects and it ' s a low budget item so let ' s just get it on line . 1 Schroers: Okay, I _would very much like to be included in that. I ' ll be at your disposal whenever it' s convenient for you. I would enjoy getting involved with that project. ' Robinson : We should . Boy, we' ve been talking about this for 2 or 3 years now and like you said, the cost is minimal. Let ' s quite talking and let' s get something by next spring . We bring it up and then forget about it and ' nobody brings it up. Lash : Is it something you think we could already do this fall? If it ' s minimal . Mady: The problem is , the archers are going to be spending all their free time now in the woods . The bulk of the archers because they' re deer hunters . Schroers : It is somewhat of a seasonal type of activity. It ' s a very few people shoot outdoors in the middle of the winter so it' s not used then but as it warms up in the spring , there are people that just enjoy archery Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12 , 1989 - Page 22 through the warm season and up until the middle of September and even I continuing into October . A lot of people, when they' re going out to hunt like to just stop for a few minutes and take a couple of shots to tune up before they get in their stand so it' s something that I anticipate would get used from May through October and into November probably. Mady: Todd what we might do then is , a good source would be the Minnesota Bow Hunters Association. Would probably be a source to contact with getting information on a safe range. If you have trouble getting a hold o them, I can probably get you information on how to get a hold of them. Because what we' re basically talking about is some Excelsior bales probably, maybe back drop for a safe range and not necessarily a fenced area but a safe area . Schroers : I 've been to several ranges and in the back, what they have for I a back drop. In Bloomington off of Normandale, they have a swamp. Not many people in the summertime go wandering around in the swamp so that ' s reasonably safe. Other places like in the City of Plymouth they have a large berm. It' s just basically a hillside. That is a pretty safe situation also. I 've not seen an archery range or been on one that' s fenced . Mady: I haven' t either . I remember the archery range by my house in South Minneapolis at Lake Nokomis was simply straw bales sitting out in the middle of the park toward the lake . It wasn' t a safe situation but they didn' t experience a problem but I guess safety should be a primary concern too . I think we can do it, you' re talking probably 3 or 4 piles of Excelsior bales so they have a place to set their targets and 50 yards maybe. Lash : But you don ' t want to have it right in front of the woods or there may be somebody. . . Schroers : No . You need it to be open . You need some visibility behind unless you have a berm or a backstop. ' Hoffman : I would anticipate that we would put this off until next year to look into all these different questions so we can do a quality job when we do it. Also , I would anticipate that we'd probably have to do some amending' to the ordinance, not only to the city ordinance of shooting a firearm but also to the Lake Ann ordinance of not having a firearm within a city park and that would have to be addressed at Council . ' Schroers : And I think there' s also something about being north of TH 5. Lash: Maybe Lake Ann isn' t necessarily the spot . Mady: We might want to look at the new settling pond by Lake Susan Park might be the opportunity too. I guess it' s something we should . . . Lash : Isn' t there one going in down there? 'Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 23 I Mady: I was trying to remember . Where did we say we were going to do this? Schroers : We didn' t really say. We just kind of poked around . Possibly at Lake Ann. Possibly at Lake Susan so we' re doing the same thing now that we have been doing . Everybody' s in agreement that . I haven ' t heard any opposition from the staff or anyone on the commission that we shouldn' t have an archery range. It ' s just we can ' t decide where to put it and to get off the ground and get going on it but I agree it' s too late in the year right now to think about one for this fall but I just wanted to bring it up and keep it fresh in our mind and let' s get it put in our priorities somewhere so that by maybe June or July of next year it ' s in operation. Mady: Can I make a recommendation that we put this item on our first meeting in November agenda and that commissioners take the opportunity late in October to go out to Lake Susan because they are doing the major ground work right now out there so we should have a pretty good idea of the lay of the land once they've got that done. So I would guess they' re going to have a lot of that dirt moved by the end of October . Also take a good look at Lake Ann. Robinson : Or any other . Mady: I guess those are the two large community parks that we' ve got . Rice Marsh Lake might not be so bad. Robinson : I don' t know. I just threw that out . Mady: Well , they have the play equipment there. Hoffman: The neighborhood opposition would shoot that one down. ' Schroers : That and accessibility. Rice Marsh Lake is hard to get to . I Robinson : But I would agree with you and I don ' t think we should put it off until next year Todd. I think we should be asking these questions and looking into it right now and I agree with Jim that gees , put it on the agenda for November and let' s not be putting it off anymore or we' re going to miss it next year . Mady: Because we' re only talking about a couple hundred dollars total . Schroers : I think we might be talking a little more than that . Lash : If we do much berming or something. I could be mistaken here but I thought I read one time that an archery range was going in at Lake Susan. Did that get cut off? Schroers : I think you read that in the minutes probably because it was discussed and we had allocated $1,0000. 00 in our budget. • Robinson : Yeah , I think we even did that one time. I Park and Rec Commission Meeting il September 12, 1989 - Page 24 Schroers : Oh yes . I remember that . We budgeted $1, 000. 00 for the I installation of a range. Lash : So it' s not in the plan right now for Lake Susan? IMady: Don' t remember . Hoffman : It' s not shown there. I Schroers : It' s somewhere in there for $1,000. 00 in the budget , I know that. I Robinson : Well let' s just pursue it again. Lash: But if we put it down there, it would seem like we wouldn' t have thi problem with the ordinance or the firearms north of TH 5 would we? Hoffman: That one I don' t think is the major one. It' s the ordinance I restricting firearms within the city or within a public park. Schroers: Maybe staff can research what we currently have in writing or proposed for that range and then bring that information to the November meeting . Hoffman : I will assure that this is a little more dear to my heart than Lori ' s and I ' ll pick up on it and bring a report back to the Commission th first meeting in November . Mady: And that wasn ' t a negative comment on Lori . I guess I have a I commission presentation. This weekend, the school playground facility went in on Sunday morning . A bunch of parents were up there. I was up there helping. It' s a beautiful structure. It' s a metal structure. Painted metal structure. It works great . It was difficult keeping kids off it initially. We put it in Sunday morning. Started at 7: 00. We were done by 2: 30. Everything except the cementing in the posts and getting the pea y' rock spread and that was done Monday morning . They let it a day to set up and today the kids were up there in force. I mean all over this thing . There is one problem with it. The tunnel that goes from one section to another is not in place . It got shipped to Circle Pines instead of I Chanhassen. We got 2 galvanized slides and they got our circle bridge but I guess that will be done this week hopefully but it looks beautiful and the kids, gosh, you can tell they love it. One thing we do need to be il concerned up there. Everything west of the new structure is still on the old dirt and what little sand there is is basically clay. Since I helped a lot in digging out some of the old , putting some of the old structures back in place, we had to reset two, it' s real rock hard dirt there so I don' t know who ' s responsibility it is there . I know the school is real tight on funds this year so I don ' t know how we can work on that but we Ishould be concerned about the safety in that equipment because it' s probably going to stay in place . Pea rock looks like it' s better than anything else. If you really want to do a nice thing for the kids , it' s funny how kids always find out a situation and make something great to play on. Since we had all this pea rock piled up in the parking lot, these kids `Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 25 ' were riding their bikes up right into it and then they'd jump off their bike into this pea rock. They were having a great time. I don' t know if it ' s the safest thing in the world but they were having a great time with it. It might have been a nuisance but they looked like they were having great fun with it but it looks really nice and if you get the opportunity, because it' s different than anything else we've got in the city. We usually go with wood structures and I know personally I prefer wood ' structures in a natural area because it kind of blends better but since that was all painted stuff up there anyway, it kind of blends real well and it' s a fairly good sized structure that the APT got a heck of a buy for 10 ' grand . I mean they got more stuff than we would ever dream of getting . They got it on sale, cash price. They bent more arms to get that stuff. It' s wonderful . ' Hoffman : Any other commission presentations? ADMINSTRATIVE SECTION. Hoffman : Any questions? Discussion? Mady: Only one thing on the Lake Ann beach. I talked to Colleen Klingelhutz a couple of weeks ago I guess and she asked about the Lake Ann beach. She had some concerns about it and I told her that the Commission doesn ' t really review the Lake Ann beach too much. We don ' t get real involved in that because the Minnetonka Community Ed handles the life guard situation up there. She indicated some kind of concern with how much the ' beach was being allowed to be used and life guards weren' t being, I wasn' t too sure what the whole thing was . I told her what she should do is contact staff . ' Hoffman: I 've talked to her . Mady: Maybe we can do it because we do definitely want that beach to be the best beach in the whole southwestern part of the city. That' s what I always say it is . Hoffman : Her main concern was on the children ' s area there . That MCS or Minnetonka Community Service personnel would like that restricted to where they allow the children to play. The toddlers to play to a small area so they can keep it contained and watch them. At times on weekends that gets very crowded and it seems like it would be better to spread it out so you can have some more space for those people to use but it ' s a recommendation that' s been in our packet from Minnetonka Community Services over the year . ' It ' s re-evaluated each year and it seems to be working . Schroers: I would have a comment in support of our beach. I was down ' there probably on the average of 3 nights a week all summer long and I felt that the life guards conducted themselves very professionally for young people. They were attentive. They were on top of what was going on . I saw no horse play or any activity that would take away from the safety. I think that the area looked well maintained and we really have a jewel in Lake Ann. It is the nicest place to swim that I know of and I just hope we Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 26 keep up the good work down there and I hope that we realize and are aware of what a really nice facility we have there and do everything that we can to protect it . Hoffman : Just a side note on the raft , which was destroyed this spring . 1 We are taking a look at soliciting bids or just getting some price estimates, preliminary price estimates on what that would take to replace that. That would be the same people. Minnetonka Dredging that did it the I last time. We also contacted the City of Shorewood . They have 3 floating rafts which they have taken out of their beaches because they had an injury off of one of those but that was due to shallow water . We may have the opportunity to purchase one of those as well to use at Lake Ann beach. There were many requests received this year to have that raft back in there. Mady: Anything else? Robinson : Just back in the mission statement here. Are we going to address the mission statement again? Hoffman: For the Commission? Robinson: Yes . Hoffman : Last time we left that we would take a look at some mission statements from other communities and at some time in the future come back with some proposals of what ours might be. Robinson: Okay. Robinson moved , Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor I and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim 1