Loading...
1k. Minutes SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 15, 1988 [Note: This was a special meeting of the Chanhassen City Council to consider adoption of various special assessment rolls. Due to recording problems, these ' minutes have been prepared in abbreviated form. The City Council followed the special meeting with a worksession to discuss the 1987 audit report (presentation by Bob Voto, City Auditor) as well as a presentation by Don Ashworth regarding the 1989 budget. As the latter part of the meeting was a worksession, no minutes were prepared for such.] Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Horn, Johnson and Geving. ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager; Todd Gerhardt, Administrative Assistant; Gary Warren, City Engineer VISITORS PRESENT: Bernard Hanson, Henry Pauly, Lou Krueger, Al Klingelhutz, Jack Barnes, Gary Brown, Mike Sorenson, Nancy Hillman, Fr. Barry Schneider, Richard and `Eunice Peters, Gary Ehret from BRW, Mary Durben, and Chris Burns ASSESSMENT HEARING, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 85-17: Mayor Hamilton opened the public hearing. In doing such, he noted that correspondence had been received from current property owners purchasing their properties anticipating that no assessments were outstanding. Mayor Hamilton ' noted that the City does have a development contract with Bloomberg Companies and, as a part of that development contract, monies have been escrowed and Mr. Bloomberg has guaranteed payment of all assessments for lots shown in the assessment roll. As the assessments are technically being placed against the property now being owned by individual property owners, those owners were required to receive notice of this hearing and the proposed assessments. Again, ' the total of assessments has been guaranteed by Mr. Bloomberg and any motion to adopt this roll should include such as a condition. Mr. & Mrs. Richard Peters spoke thanking the City Council for the opening com- ments made by Mayor Hamilton. That opening statement cast a new light on the entire proceedings that they had not been aware of. They understood Mayor Hamilton's points regarding state law and, as long as a condition was placed on ' the adoption of the roll regarding payment by Bloomberg Companies, they were satisfied. In addition, they had anticipated being a spokesman for other prop- erty owners similarly protesting this assessment. In light of the Mayor's com- ments, they felt that the other property owners would be similarly happy with the Council's action if conditioned as mentioned. As no other persons were present to speak on this issue, Councilmen Geving moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Horn. Following discussion, Councilman Horn moved, seconded by Councilman Geving, the adoption of Resolution 88-81 adopting the assessment roll for South Lotus Lake Phase I IL Improvements, as included in the Council's packet and dated August 12, 1988, in the aggregate amount of $82,491.76 (the City received a $21,765.00 LAWCON/LCMR grant for storm drainage improvements), subject to Mr. Bloomberg paying assessments in accordance with the development contract for that subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried. r II SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 15, 1988 PAGE 2 ASSESSMENT HEARING, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SEWER AND WATER PROJECT, PROJECT 87-1: 1-11 Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order and asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the proposed roll. In light of the fact that no one was present, Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Following discussion, Councilman Horn moved to approve Resolution 88-82 adopting the West Village Heights Sewer and Water Project Special Assessment Roll as '. included in Councilmember packets and dated July, 1988 (hereby made a part of these minutes) in a total amount of $185,248.96. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ASSESSMENT HEARING, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 86-11A: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. The Manager asked to make opening comments regarding changes in the proposed roll which had been identified after preparing the roll. The Manager's comments were as follows: - Richard Steiner, Parcel No. 25-0122000: Street frontage was improperly included on the back side of the property. With the straightening of the road, the engineer logically anticipated an assessment for roadway purposes, however, review found that the Post Office had paid assessments for both Laredo as well as Chan View. In accordance with City policies, a third side assessment could not be sustained in light of the fact that a "benefit" would have to be found. - Wilbar, Inc. (Klingelhutz Property) , Parcel No. 25-0130100: Similar to the II Steiner property, it was found that Mr. Klingelhutz's property does not have frontage on Great Plains Blvd. Accordingly, the roll is incorrect in showing a proposed frontage assessment. - Kallestad Property, Parcel No. 25-0130800: The parking lot assessment for Mr. Kallestad appears to have significantly deviated from that originally proposed in the feasibility study. The costs associated with Pauly, Kallestad, Pryzmus, and the City parcels should be reviewed again prior to adoption. Tabling these to September 12, 1988 would be in order. I - St. Hubert's Church, Parcel No. 25-0500040 and old St. Hubert's Church, Parcel No. 25-0136500: The City Manager noted that the assessment for St. Hubert's Church was higher than anticipated by the church. A change had occurred during construction wherein the watermain lying on the west side of the church property was found to be in poor condition. Given typical life spans of watermain (30 years), it was anticipated that the watermain would not require replacement and that its location would not interfere with gas, sewer, etc., stubs into the property. Both of those conditions were found to be incorrect and rather than leaving a deteriorated pipe, a decision was made to replace I the entire length of watermain from Chan View to West 78th Street. The total cost of the watermain replacement was approximately $20,000 with the church's share being $12,000. Staff was recommending that a 50% "life credit" be given to the church bringing the additional watermain assessment up about $6,000. In addition, storm sewer costs for the entire project area were higher than forecasted in the feasibility study. Most property owners did not notice that this one line item was increased as the contractor's bid for sewer, water, and 1 1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ' AUGUST 15, 1988 PAGE 3 1 streets were less than originally projected by the engineer. Accordingly, most property owners saw reductions in the proposed assessment for sewer, ' water, and roadway and their total assessment was actually lower than origi- nally proposed even though the storm sewer portion was higher. As the church did not have other forms of assessment, the $3,000 increase in the assessment for storm sewer became noticeable. In regards to the assessment for old St. Hubert's Church, the Manager noted that he had not had an opportunity to review the engineer's calculations regarding the assessment for that property. Accordingly, he would request that the assessment for both the old St. ' Hubert's Church and St. Hubert's Church be tabled to September 12, 1988. The following persons spoke and their comments are in an abbreviated form: ' Fr. Barry Schneider: The amount of the assessments for both the old St. Hubert's Church and St. Hubert's facility are higher than presented to the church as a part of the City's acquiring lands to complete the project. Fr. ' Schneider felt that the City should honor figures as presented during the nego- tiations for acquisition of lands from the church. ' The Council directed the City Attorney to review points brought out by Fr. Barry. Al Klingelhutz/Jack Barnes: Mr. Klingelhutz simply wanted to state that he was I in agreement with the assessment roll if the street frontage assessment was deleted as had been recommended by the Manager. ' Gary Brown, Parcel No. 25-6920020: Mr. Brown stated that he had not been notified of the project. The property looks much worse than it does today than it did when we started the project. Things are a mess. He believes the City should pay him. ' The Engineer noted that the property did have significant construction debris. Restoration would occur as soon as possible. Mr. Brown's section does not include underground watering as occurs in many of the areas downtown. Accordingly, sodding (total restoration) had been placed on hold until after the weather became cooler (September 1, 1988 anticipated). The City Attorney was ' instructed to review the notification question. Additionally, staff is to again review the basis of the assessments against Mr. Brown. Mike Sorenson, Parcel No. 25-0133300: Mr. Sorenson similarly stated that he had ' not been notified and he did not sign a waiver for trespassing. He believes that he has a new watermain and a new water service as a part of his building construction in 1979. Accordingly, he sees no benefit from these supposed ' improvements. Similarly, Frontier Development has storm sewer and he does not benefit from storm sewer. I Staff was instructed to look at a potential corner lot credit for both Mr. Sorenson as well as Mr. Brown, review the method of assessment in comparison to other projects where typically the City does give a credit of one-half of the 1 II SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES II AUGUST 15, 1988 PAGE 4 shorter side. In addition, the City Attorney should review the question Li regarding illegal access (for both the Brown property as well as Sorenson property) . I Nancy Hillman, Parcel No. 25-3500380: Does not understand the necessity for paying a storm sewer assessment. She thought that they had paid a storm sewer assessment previously. There is storm sewer in Chan View and accordingly does not see a benefit. Harry Pauly, Parcel Nos. 25-0131200 and 25-0131600: Mr. Pauly believes that I there are lot size discrepancies with the proposed assessments. Bernie Hanson, Parcel No. 25-0121500: Similar to others, Mr. Hanson had not II been notified of the project. He does not understand how he is benefitting from this project. He had all of the things that they are proposing to assess him for before the project started. II Hearing no additional comments, Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mayor Hamilton. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of Resolution 88-83 adopting the assessment roll for the Downtown Redevelopment Project 86-11A as included in Council member packets dated August 12, 1988 (hereby made a part of such minutes) in the aggre- gate amount of $2,403,536.23 the exception of the following parcels: PIN OWNER I 25-0121500 Hanson, Bernard and Mary 25-0130300 City of Chanhassen II 25-0131200 Pauly, Henry and Gloria 25-0131300 City of Chanhassen 25-0131400 Pryzmus, John and Sharon 25-0131600 Pauly, Henry and Gloria II 25-0131800 Kallestad Enterprises (Pony Express) 25-0132000 American Oil Company 25-0133300 Enright-Sorenson II 25-0136500 Church of St. Hubert's 25-0500040 Church of St. Hubert's 25-3500380 Hillman, Phillip and Nancy II 25-6920020 Brown, Gary (car wash) The parcels identified represent parcels for which questions arose during the public hearing or for which City staff had recommended additional review and are II to be resubmitted to the City Council for final disposition on September 12, 1988. Seconded by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Councilman Horn, seconded by Councilman Geving to adjourn the meeting. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. II CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988 III Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. I COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson II STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Jim Chaffee, Todd Gerhardt and Pat Farrell, City Attorney. IAPPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda as amended with the following additions and changes: II Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss a change to the Zoning Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits, Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the Fire Marshall, Don Ashworth wanted to discuss the water restrictions, Barbara Dacy wanted to discuss Reuter Compost, and Councilman Geving wanted to move item 9 to after I Visitor Presentation and to move item 11 to the Consent Agenda as item (1) . All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. ICONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Ie. Resolution #88-84: South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, Accept Roadway and Utility Improvements. Ii. City Council Minutes dated August 8, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated August 3, 1988 IIPark and Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 9, 1988 j. Resolution #88-85: Set Date of Bond Sale for Various City Bonds. 11 k. Resolution #88-86: Approve Resolution Designating Polling Places and Election Judges for the Primary Election on September 13, 1988 and the General Election on November 8, 1988 1 1. Resolution #88-87: Approve Supplemental Assessment Roll for Chanhassen Hills Trunk Watermai.n Project 86-2 and Set Assessment Hearing Date for September 26, 1988 IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried. I (B) REQUEST TO WAIVE TRAIL DEDICATION FEES, GARY BROWN. k_ Mayor Hamilton: On (b) , I certainly didn't agree with the comments that were made by staff that says regardless of when construction approval is given, we can assess, go back and assess a trail fee. Now, I didn't know Lori was an attorney but I'd like to ask our Attorney if in fact that's true. If it is IItrue, that means we can go back and assess anybody for anything we wanted to. If we wanted to change the rules as we're going along here, we'll just go back II 1 • City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 and keep assessing right along. Don Ashworth: Roger is the one who reviewed it. I did not alert Pat to the question. We're not charging the previous buildings. What you're charging is the new construction. If there's a way in which you can divide out the acreage associated with the new permits versus old, then we should do it in that fashion. The problem is, I believe there were 8 buildings in that first phase. Mayor Hamilton: Well you and I had talked and I guess I'm a little disappointed. You and I talked about having this as an agenda item so we could discuss how the Council wanted to even handle items like this and here we have it coming back. Don Ashworth: I'd suggest doing just that. If you'd table the item and I think the Park and Recreation Commission should look at it as well. Mayor Hamilton: I agree. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the request to waive ' trail dedication fees for Gary Brown until the Park and Recreation Com«ission has looked at this item. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (C) APPROVAL OF LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION SITE PLAN. Councilman Johnson: It's a good plan. I think we need to go forward with this. ' One thing I want to do is, they show some soccer fields on here which one of them has a fence running through the middle of it and it won't be too effective. I'd like them to take a look to see if they can maintain two soccer fields on here. That's really my only comment. They show two proposed soccer fields but one of them, when they put up a fence for the softball field, it will be tough to play soccer with a fence through the center of the field. I'd like to just make that as my only comment. Otherwise, it really is becoming an all softball place. I'd like to see it be multiple sports too. Not just softball. Mayor Hamilton: I see softball, baseball, Little League, soccer. I Councilman Johnson: Soccer's down to one field out there. Mayor Hamilton: There's two. I think the intent is to use two of them and I'm sure that that can be done. Dale, did you have any comments? Laurie, perhaps you could address the issue that Jay has. Would it be a removeable fence or how would you handle that? Councilman Johnson: This isn't a final. Nothing's to scale or anything so you'd still have to do the design. This is just concept. Laurie McRosti.e: The Park Commission would like to see the overlapping field there. The discussion that happened at their meeting two weeks ago was that for I the time being we not put that 300 foot fence all around the edge of the field so you could use the soccer at the same time that you'd be using softball. Until Chanhassen is able to acquire more parkland and additional community play so you can have a larger soccer... 2 11 IICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 II I Councilman Johnson: Okay. That was different than we were told at the Athletic Association meeting the other night. We were told there was definitely going to be a fence there and there wasn't going to be a soccer field so now I've heard two stories. Sounds good to me. ' Mayor Hamilton: I would suspect there are fences that could be put up on a temporary basis to use for softball and then they can take them down for soccer. ' Councilman Horn: I just had one comment on transportation. I would like to see us develop a plan where we don't need entrance through TH 5. I would like to get that off of TH 5 and I know we talked about an alternate going through a ' residential area but I think there might be a frontage road type of option that could eliminate that. I'd like to eliminate totally a park entrance on TH 5. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's significant dollars. We're trying to work within the budget. Lori is given a budget to work with. Councilman Horn: I think we have to look at the developments that take place and plan it with developments. Councilman Johnson: As Eckankar develops, or the land to the east, we need to ' look to, I'm sure that's in their plan. Mayor Hamilton: We've always, in years past, said as that property develops we would try to piggy back off that as far as access to the property in any way. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Lake ' Ann Park Expansion Site Plan as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' (D) APPROVAL OF CURRY FARMS SECOND ADDITION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. ' Councilman Johnson: I was a little concerned, we got the Remmer's letter and their concerns about this. We've already done final plat on this and this is the final step? ' Barbara Dacy: The final plat has been approved but it has not been signed. We're waiting to sign it until the development contract has been approved. ' Councilman Johnson: Has any more work been done with the Remmers on this one? Mrs. Remmer: No. Mr. Remmer: No. Councilman Johnson: It seems to me we're at a small inpass here. While it is 111 kind of an odd thing to do to say that a development next door to me means they should redo my yard, which in this case happens to be weeds, they've offered to put the dirt in but then they've got the concrete curb. I'm wondering if they ' can bring a bulldozer up and dig up the concrete curb. It won't take much to dig that up. The problem with it is how to get rid of that curb once it's 1 3 �L City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 there. If that can be worked out, it seems we're getting closer here but I think they have a real problem if they can't get this easement vacated. Where are we on the planning of this if the easement isn't vacated? ' Barbara Dacy: The easement is not a public easement such that it would require City approval. It's a private roadway easement. Councilman Johnson: They couldn't built a road or Ashton Court , t until they've solved that easement problem. Barbara Dacy: That's not my understanding. They can go ahead and plat the road right-of-way and the Remmers can still maintain that easement over Lot 1 to gain access to their property. ' Mayor Hamilton: You could make that a condition of approval, that the Remmers be satisfied. Councilman Johnson: I wish we had a group within the City as a neighbor g arbitrater group that can arbitrate this kind of problem in that it's, I don't think the City Council should sit in arbitration on something like this but it , is a type of thing where if you want to fully satisfy everybody, everybody can take that to, we can't tie a neighbor tie down a development by having veto power over anything done until he gets everything he wants. ' Councilman Geving: Gary, have you worked out the details with Mr. Natoli for the turn around access and the easement requirement for that? Gary Warren: Centex has not worked out with Natoli because we've been concentrating on trying to get Donovan's cooperation on it. Councilman Geving: But now that that's no longer possible, you've switched your objective to Mr. Natoli. Is that successful? Gary Warren: Centex has not, to my knowledged, talked with Natoli yet. 1 Councilman Geving: So are you telling me that that's a developer responsibility and not ours? And you're going to stay on top of it then. Gary Warren: If Centex could come down with Donovan for a proper turn around, I guess I wanted to have the option that if it fits into either one.. . Councilman Geving: That's all I had. Councilman Boyt: I have a question about the turn around situation. Are we at ' a point where the City is guaranteed that that turn around will be built? As to where it will be built, that may be up in the air but that it will be built? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Boyt: How is the developer going to have the power to get that built if neither one of those people wants to sell that property? Gary Warren: If the developer, I discussed this with Roger and basically if the developer is unable to come to reasonable terms similar to what we're looking at 4 .City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Iwith the drainageway on the Kerber property, the City could just condemn for what it needs at the developer's expense. Councilman Horn: I don't think that's too likely in this case though I y th g because it's a definite benefit to Natoli and he indicated to us at a meeting that. .. Gary Warren: I would agree with you. Councilman Boyt: I just wanted to be sure that we were covered because that ' turn around is a vital key to this whole thing. Then the other one, I would sense that what we're talking about is adding a condition to approval that would involve removing the curb. Is that main hang-up here in terms of the Remmers reaching satisfaction? Mr. Remner: Can we address this? We're the Remmers. ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I realize that. Do you have any other questions? Councilman Boyt: My questions are basically what is it going to take? What ' kind of guarantees can the City give that Centex and the Remmers will sit down and work this out? I'd like to see us incorporate those into the conditions of approval so we can approve it tonight. ' Mayor Hamilton: Can you explain that Gary? Gary Warren: I think all that would benefit is to read the Remmer's letter which goes into quite a lot of detail and they reference having their Attorney prepare a document that would enumerate their conditions. I think that that Ilt _ would be the place to put the issue so we can see that and specifically know where they're coming from. Maybe they chose to verbalize what that is this ' evening. Mr. Remner: We're preparing it right now and we certainly want you to arbitrate this. We appreciate the concern you've expressed already in past meetings and I think it was a condition of the approval, this second part, that they try to satisfy the needs of the neighbors and that just simply has not been done. We don't believe we've been unreasonable at all. I won't go on because I know you have a busy agenda tonight but you've got it all there in front of you on paper with diagrams and so forth. I hope you're fair enough. We have prepared the conditions under which we will vacate the easement and we're preparing to run ' that by our Attorney and then send it to Centex. Mayor Hamilton: So we could make that a condition of the approval. That the documents that the Remmer's are preparing be presented to Centex's Attorneys. Minimally that their concerns are met as far as curbing is concerned. What else? Gary Warren: Similar to the way we handled the Kerber situation. Was to get their documents and we can serve as the intermediary I guess. IL Mayor Hamilton: Is there a motion then to deal with 1(d) if we add a condition, item (p) , Section 8. ' 5 - -City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I have one other question. I was somewhat confused on the Park and trail fees and the analysis by staff, I think it was indicated that they had met those fees in their first addition for their entire development. Is that correct? Gary Warren: I had Lori write that section and that's what she indicated to me, yes. Councilman Boyt: Then why do we have in our contract on page GC-3, item 10, where we indicate that they'll pay them? Gary Warren: Those are the general conditions which are superseded by any special provisions. Councilman Boyt: So we're saying that item 10 is struck? Gary Warren: Basically it's superseded by the Article in the special provision, ' that's correct. Mayor Hamilton: But if it hadn't been paid, it's still 'in there so it's still saying they will pay them. Gary, would you, or the Attorney could word item 8(p) as a condition to deal with the Remmer's concerns. Gary Warren: I would put in a condition to state that the developer will work with the Remmers to satisfy their concerns. Enter into an agreeable document, agreeable with the City Engineer to address their concerns. Mayor Hamilton: Is that satisfactory to everybody? , Councilman Johnson: Can we also say that Lot 1 can not be sold until that ' easement's vacated? Barbara Dacy: As a private easement, we don't have the power. Gary Warren: It's buildable. Councilman Johnson: It's buildable with the easement. How about informing any , potential buyer that there is an easement across their property? Barbara Dacy: It's permanent with the land so it will be a part of the title for the lot. Councilman Johnson: Yes, you do the title search long after you buy it. Well, not long after you buy it but you've already decided and put your money down. You don't do it up front. Mayor Hamilton: You sure do. ' Councilman Geving: That's a .. .consideration and doesn't have anything to do with us. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farms Second Addition Development Contract as amended including an item 8(p) to address the Remmer's concerns. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 6 7 ICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 (F) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION. Councilman Boyt: On the map I didn't see the trails. ' Barbara Dacy: That is shown on the final plat. Councilman Boyt: How did we go from 17 conditions down to 5 leaving out compliance with the Wetland Alteration Permit, compliance with all erosion control measures? Jo Ann Olsen: They would still have to comply with all those conditions. I was ' just pointing out specific conditions that we're applying to this phase. It's pointing out to staff, when it does come through that they still have to do these specific things before we can sign off on the final plat. ' Councilman Boyt: So what you're recommending and what we would be approving are all 17 conditions? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Those are already conditions that have been passed. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just didn't want to see us change it. ' Councilman Johnson: I did remember why I did this. It's a little disturbing that such simple conditions as to redraw a lot line out of the street right-of- { way and some of these conditions that were previously said, do these before final plat, have to be repeated. I just wanted to make kind of a comment on this. This is ludicrous to me that, a couple of these are very simple things that should have been done and we should have just given our final plat back and ' never reached us with this kind of sloppiness in work. That's an editorial comment. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Final Plat for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (G) FINAL PLAT EXTENSION, ROBERTA BUCHHEIT. ' Councilman Horn: Just a quick question. This extension on this plat has no effect on the replatti.ng of the lake property does it? This is strictly just ' the people on the side of the road? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We have separate subdivisions. ' Councilman Horn: So this has no effect on that. That's the only question I have. ' Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Final Plat Extension for Roberta Buchhei.t as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 7 -' --cCity Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 11 (H) APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Johnson: I've been asking and asking when are we going to get asphalt on our streets so we're not bouncing all over the place and I was told ' August 15th the last time I asked. Why are we paying Schafer? I haven't seen those guys in town for a long time. I'd like to get some asphalt down here and I'd like to get that word out to Schafer that I'm concerned about paying them I $24,000.00 or whatever their bill was for this time. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure they submit work orders for the word they've II completed. Councilman Johnson: $75,000.00. We've been told this job would be done. They're getting behind schedule here. I Mayor Hamilton: They're not getting behind, they've been behind all summer. It's scheduled to be completed and perhaps Gary will share that with us later II on. Councilman Johnson: They seem to be able to put a lot of asphalt, the same construction company over at Eden Prairie but we're not getting any. II Mayor Hamilton: Your question really has nothing to do with the Accounts . Payable. I Councilman Johnson: What I would like to do on the accounts payable is, if in two weeks from now we don't see and if the accounts payable comes through and , there's no asphalt on the ground and Schafer Construction's on it, I'd like to see it pulled off, but not this time. Don Ashworth: The final wear course has not been put down because they're still I in the process of doing the trees. We did not want to take and have that final lift of asphalt literally destroy by them again coming back in and finishing the landscape work that's in the process. That's schedule for the final lift to I begin.. . Gary Warren: Next week we're looking to do the settlement corrections on the II roadway and then with that completed, we will put down the wear course. We've also been waiting, this is a cool day today but we've had extreme temperatures and that wear course would not set up under those conditions. Even cars would damage it so we've been holding off because of the temperature. That's really II been at the City's direction and not Schafer's. Councilman Johnson: Why were the sewers lifted up in May or June if we're not II going to put the asphalt in until September? Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have you meet with the Engineer and ask him that separately. It has nothing to do with the Accounts Payable. II Councilman Horn: Since Jay brought the item up. What's a $4,600.00 fiberglass truck body? Are we putting new bodies on our trucks? I Gary Warren: When we bid out the vehicles, we bid them in pieces and the , fiberglass truck body is a pretty unique manufacturing. They come in separately 8 II City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 under separate. 111 Councilman Horn: So this is part of the capital purchase? ' Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated August 22, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' VISITOR PRESENTATION: There were no visitor presentations. SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A BOAT COVER, 3605 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, JAMES KNIGHT. Mayor Hamilton: This was an item that came before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. ' Councilman Geving: The staff recommended approval of this variance for a 7.4 foot variance to the side yard setback for the construction of a boat cover. We had a lot of discussion about it. There are about 25 neighbors that were contacted. None of them had any objections to this proposal. The 25 neighbors represents almost 100% of all the neighbors in the surrounding area of Red Cedar Point. The vote on this issue was 2 to 1 against and therefore the item was denied and moved up to the City Council for further consideration. I think at this point it would be appropriate for Jo Ann to give the staff report although ' we do have the Chairman of the Board of Appeals here. Either way you want to go. ' Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, why don't you give your staff report first. Jo Ann Olsen: Real briefly, the boat cover is existing, it has been constructed, located within the side yard setback. The reason that staff is recommending approval is because of the location of the boat structure is covered by existing vegetation. It's more visually removed from the lakeshore ' rather than if it would be moved to the east or within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. There would be more visual impact to the shoreline from Lake Minnewashta. There is vegetation that would screen it and they would also have to remove a maple tree. They could locate it and still save the tree but there is some topography here and the boat cover would be closer to Lake Minnewashta than the existing structure. It was felt that there is an opportunity for the applicant to meet the requirements of the ordinance and that a hardship was not ' justified and that a variance was not justified but it should meet the requirements of the ordinance. Staff's interpretation was that when we look at variances along shorelines, we review the impact of the structure to the ' shoreline also and we felt that that outweighed it and justified keeping it where it is, where it is more screened from the lake with the existing vegetation. 111 Councilman Geving: There's one other fact too Mr. Mayor. The building is already constructed. It exists. Mayor Hamilton: Willard, did you have any comments that you wanted to make ' Willard? 9 '-City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Willard Johnson: I guess we felt, the ones that denied it felt that two wrongs don't make a right. Mayor Hamilton: So you'd rather see them move the building? Willard Johnson: Move the structure. Whatever you decide but we felt two ' wrongs don't make a right. It's just a self created hardship. . . Mr. Klick, a representative for James Knight showed a video illustrating where the boat cover is located on the property. Councilman Johnson: This is one of the places where we've got to get with our Attorneys on how to write a variance procedure to allow a variance that's good for the City. We have in this case, and few other cases that have come before us, variances that are good for the City but the rules are, just because it might be good for this one road to drive 45, the speed limit's 40 so you don't drive 45. In this case, literal enforcement of the ordinance would not cause an undue hardship or any difficulty if he'd come to us before he built. It's a self created hardship. It's the ordinance that's the problem here, not the boat cover. Since I have been a stickler, if we've got rules, you stick with the rules, that's the only way you can run. If you just arbitrarily say well, this is good so we're going to ignore our rules this time, that doesn't work. We need these rules rewritten. This is just another example of that and unfortunately I'm going to stick with my normal vote on these things and go according to the rules. It's a self created hardship and therefore, should be denied. Councilman Geving: I think Todd, in your defense, did you realize when you constructed this that we did have a variance procedure and that what you were doing you shouldn't have been doing? Mr. Klick: It was a cover. I was not under the assumption that it was a building. That it does not have footings on it would constitute that it's a building? If it were on wheels, would it be alright? Councilman Geving: I think the variance here is in regards to the side yard setback which is a 10 foot setback and you're within 2.6 feet of the next yard, which would be your side yard lot line. That's the question, whether or not you were aware that you were building in that no build zone of 10 feet? Mr. Klick: No, I was not aware. Councilman Geving: I'm going to slap you on the wrist then for sure. Anyway, one of the aspects that I looked at, sitting on the Board of Appeals, we do have rules and this particular case is a self created hardship but I also understand that you have to live with your neighbors and what is visually acceptable at Red Cedar Point may not be the same anywhere else in the community. This is probably the oldest area of the our community outside of Carver Beach and when I see 25 neighbors, which in this case is almost 100% of all the neighbors that the Knights went to and asked if there was any hardship, they had any comments or concerns about this, they basically said it was alright with them. I tend to go with the neighbors. My feeling is, if this is approved in your favor Mr. Knight, that there should be no further expansion of this structure. That's 10 ' Ir . • City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 all I have. ' Councilman Horn: How long have you lived out there? Mr. Klick: I'm Mr. Klick. I'm not Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight is the owner. ' I just represent him. He's in Europe. Councilman Horn: How long has he lived there? ' Mr. Klick: He's lived there for 10 years. Councilman Horn: One of the things that I recall is, and it surprises me that ' you got this many signatures because we had a deck come up a few years back for one of the properties along that area which would have been a great enhancement to the property, and everybody objected to it which kind of surprises me. I tend to go along with Dale to some degree that if it's visually acceptable to ' the neighbors, that's fine but on the other hand, I don't want to get into a situation where we get caught up in who's popular in the neighborhood and who isn't. To me this other development with a deck on here is clearly more beneficial to the area than what this is. I find a very weak defense here for even needing this building. You don't need a permanent cover like that to protect the boat in the winter. Mr. Boyt and quite a few other people cover ' theirs with a covering for the winter and that's enough. The other question I have is, isn't there a building permit requirement for this? Jo Ann Olsen: Right and when we did make him go through the building permit procedure, that's when we noticed they needed a variance. Councilman Horn: So the building was started even before the building permit ' was applied? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Horn: I can understand how you may not be aware of the variance requirement but it's very common to require building permits. That I find not excuseable. ' Mr. Klick: When the building inspector came out, he approached me and told me, he said he didn't know why I needed a building permit. He said that as long as ' there was no wall and there was no footings down. Councilman Horn: You need a building permit to reroof your house. ' Councilman Boyt: First, I think our variance language is standard variance language and there really isn't any room to create language unique to our community. The other thing is that unfortunately, part of variances is not ' neighborhood approval. If the neighborhood came out completely against it, but it fit all five criteria that we have for approving a variance, we would be approving that variance. If the neighborhood comes out all for it, and it doesn't meet the requirements of approving a variance, we basically, in my opinion, can not approve it. To approve this variance is to say that we x essentially have no side yard setbacks because anyone else can come in here and say well, here's an example of where it failed 4 of the 5 questions and you ' approved it. They fail 4 of the 5 questions and they would also demand approval 11 tL) City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 and I suspect they would take us to Court if we didn't give it to them. I don't think we should be putting the City in that sort of vulnerable position. I think that we have a building permit fee that's free for buildings like this. I believe the amount was $2,000.00. Anything being built under $2,000.00 you could come in, have it inspected by the City at no charge to you to help people avoid this situation before they get it in the ground, so to speak. I think this is a variance request that makes sense, as your videotape shows but it is not a variance that we can grant and protect the City's ability to enforce the side yard setback anywhere else so for that reason I'd be against it. Mayor Hamilton: I'll take the same position I always have too that if we can't work with the neighbors in our community, people who are residents here and live here, if we can't work with them, I think we've got real problems. If we don't want to listen to what the neighbors have to say about whether it's a variance or a road or anything else, I think we're doing the wrong thing. Variances are a process that property owners have as a right to come to the City and request. That's why we have the process. You look at each variance on it's own merit. You don't just automatically say because we have an ordinance on our books it says we have to meet 4 out of 5 tests or 5 out of 5 or whatever it is, you automatically turn it down. It seems to me you need to look at each one on it's own merit and this one certainly has a lot of merit. I would certainly be in favor of it. I will move approval. Councilman Gevi_ng: I'll second the motion. ' Councilman Horn: Would somebody review for me what the merit is? The only merit I heard is that the alternative that would not require a variance is a ' worse alternative but to me that doesn't justify the total merit. You can always come up with another alternative that might meet the letter of the law but it doesn't mean it's attractive. Mayor Hamilton: I believe you have a y property owner who's wanting to use his property and he's not using it in a destructive way or in a way that's going to harm his neighbors. He's merely putting up a small structure to shelter a boat. If he did not put it on the side and put it on the other side, as you could see, he's going to be putting it in front of his house and it's going to detract from the beauty from the lake and from his house. It would seem to make no sense to me to do that type of thing. Councilman Horn: And you're assuming if we deny this, that's exactly what he's going to do? Mayor Hamilton: That's his choice. That's what his alternative is. Councilman Boyt: He has several alternatives. He can take it down and put a canvas cover on the boat. He can chose to store the boat in a different location altogether. Mayor Hamilton: But that's not what he's requesting. Councilman Boyt: That's right and our variance process guarantees the City a ' certain degree of security that this body or any other body can't come in and allow somebody to build a dinosaur next to your house because you're protected. They're not protected if we don't follow our structured procedure. 12 I ' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 I I Mayor Hamilton: That's why you look at each one on it's own merit. Councilman Geving: I think there is another benefit too. Regardless of the fact that the structure exists, a mistake was made. Admittedly there was a mistake made. They didn't realize at the time that they were that close to the ' lot line or that they needed a variance. If you'll look and if you understand what goes on at Red Cedar Point, as most of us do, you'll find that nearly every home in Red Cedar Point has had some kind of variance for their home, their ' front yard setbacks practically exist right on the tip of the lake. Their back yards back up to a road in most cases. There's no room for a garage. Even in this house structure that's protrayed here in this sketch, they needed a ' variance just to get the home and the garage next to the lot line. It's 5.8 feet from the lot line. Nearly every home and if everybody that's here from Red Cedar Point tonight will agree with me on this, that there is a variance requirement for nearly every home on that whole peninusula so this isn't ' unusual. The lot to the west of this particular boat covered storage, whatever we're going to call it, really is very well secured. It's visually not impacted. I was merely going tonight on the staff's recommendation to approve ' - this because it's the best location. I would much rather see it on the west side of this garage than on the east side where everybody who drives their boat along Lake Minnewashta can see it every day of the year. To me that's the best place for this boat cover. To me that's one of the benefits. 1 Councilman Johnson: To the west, which is the side of the house the boat cover is on, how far is it to the neighbor's house? 111_ Mr. Klick: There's a street. Red Cedar Point is a road in between. ' Mayor Hamilton: There's nothing on the other side. Mr. Klick: There's nothing on the other side other than his shed that you saw and that's right on the lot line. ' Councilman Johnson: So this is 2.6 feet to the street right-of-way? Y ' Jo Ann Olsen: To the property line. Councilman Johnson: Which is the street right-of-way? You said it was right ' next to the street. Jo Ann Olsen: Here's the street. Councilman Johnson: So there's nothing out next to his garage? Where's the closest dwelling to this structure? Jo Ann Olsen: Across the street. Councilman Johnson: One of the reasons for the 10 foot side yard is to allow space between structures. Mayor Hamilton: There are no homes. It would be the north side of the road. i 1 me 13 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 we're trying to do is to select a right-of-way so that should the road be built, we can tell MnDot where we would prefer, as a community, to have this road built. You have seen a couple of alternatives. We think there are some others. There's been a long process of a lot of people involved. It hasn't just been 171 I City staff or Council or Planning Commission. There have been several engineering firms involved in this whole process. It's not something that we've done without a lot of input from a lot of people who supposedly know something I about highway development. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered yet. When the project would be done for one thing. The funding questions have not been answered so there are some questions that need to be resolved that we do not have the answers to. I wanted to pass on some of those things to you. Keep that in mind as you make your comments. I appreciate that and I would like to then call the public hearing to order. What I will do is take comments from anybody who would wish to make comments. We will not, unless I'm overruled, make a decision on this this evening. I think there is additional information that needs to be gathered and additional alternatives that need to be looked at so once your comments are made and it's a part of the public record, we will then go back and do additional research, take your comments into account and research the item some more and we'll have to discuss it some more. We'll have Council discussion tonight also. Don Ashworth: I think it would be helpful if we could, most of the o le here heard the report as it went to the Planning Commission. A number of comments were made regarding alternatives and what type of progress that may be made regarding those alternatives and staff has spent significant time really trying to look into all aspects. I was hoping to spend a little bit of time just going through what has been done since the Planning Commission meeting. We do have I Don Ringrose here from BRW to go through some of those. Fred Hoisington. Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea. We can update you from what's happened since the Planning Commission time. Barbara Dacy: What I'd like to do is have Mr. Hoisington review the Planning Commission action and then he'll introduce Mr. Ringrose from BRW. Fred Hoisington: Your Honor and members of the City Council, what I'd like to do is introduce the feasibility study team first of all, all of whom you know. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Fred you could tell us and let everybody know ' Y Y who you are and how long you've been involved in this project. Fred Hoisington: Fred Hoisington and I am a land planning consultant and I have been involved in the City of Chanhassen for about the last 3 1/2 years. We first became involved with our efforts to resolve some of the redevelopment concerns in downtown Chanhassen and then later became involved with what we call the broadened study area which dealt with answering a lot of the questions of access that were not answered, really were posed by the downtown project. What we came up with in the broadened study area study, were recommendations that dealt with access to the major trunkline systems through the City of Chanhassen. We dealt to a great extent with TH 101, TH 5 and future, heaven forbid, TH 212. So that's kind of been our involvement with you. In this case, we are coordinating the feasibility study team on behalf of the City of Chanhassen. The folks we have involved in this process, BRW, Don Ringrose who is ahead of the feasibility study for BRW has been in this process for really quite some ' 16 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 period of time. Howard Preston, who is also with BRW, is their in-house project manager for this particular project and who has a great familiarity with MnDot. IHe used to work there which makes him a real resource for us. Jim Benshoof who is the lead traffic engineer in this case, who is the one that is charged with evaluating the alternatives you'll be seeing here in a short time. The purpose ' of this meeting has really changed since the last time you were here. When you were here on the 3rd of August to meet with the Planning Commission, and I guess those things happen. One of the things that we determined was that we could not ' provide the Council with the information that we felt was needed in order to move ahead with a decision on this critical issue this evening. We were originally looking for an approval from the Council. We did ask approval from the Planning Commission and now we're not sure we want you to approve what we ' thought we wanted you to approve only 3 weeks ago. What we're looking for tonight is input. We're looking for that from both the Council and from members of the audience. This decision is too critical, too much involved to make a ' decision fast and that's a bit contrary to what I told you in the past but sometimes things do change a little bit. So let me tell you what kind of schedule that we would like to have this move along on. Tonight we'd like to ' review alternatives. September 12th, we'd like to come back and at least give you a staff report of where we are with the collection of additional information and additional analysis. Then on September 26th we would like to be able to come back to you with a recommendation. We may come back with the same ' recommendation we came to the Planning Commission with. All I can tell you at this point is that I'm cautiously more optimistic about the possibility that there may be one or two other alternatives than I was 3 weeks ago. Now to I reiterate the objectives of the study, we have to define, as we think, as part of this process, a place for TH 101 to go. We're afraid if we don't define that fairly soon, we'll lose some options. The window of opportunity is going to ' close and we simply won't be able to deal with this critical issue in the near term. One of the things that we think we important is that TH 101 have continuity through the City of Chanhassen. It is the only road through this community that has any chance of having of providing continuity north to south. ' A lot of the trips that will use and do use TH 101 today, originate outside the study area and pass completely through the study area. Now one could argue that the alternatives we're showing tonight don't really represent continuity. In my judgment, I think they do. Another thing that we're going to be extremely concerned about and it has to be an objective because MnDot has made it an objective and that is, that the level of service at the major intersections along TH 5, the level of service at those intersections be sufficient to ' accomodate traffic well. The third one is that we separate traffic through from downtown traffic. A fourth is that we develop geometrically sound design. In other words, we can't create accident prone highway designs as a part of this process. One of the things that we're continually and the audience here will recognize is fiscal responsibility. It's very difficult to simply use or take any of the alternatives and implement them no matter the cost. Some of the ' costs, the costs will be substantially higher for some of these alternatives than perhaps others. The risks that I talked to the Planning Commission about haven't gone away and there are two of them. One of the risks is that there is a shopping center in the way of the south leg of the proposed alternative. What that could mean is if that leg is closed, that alternative is closed for all intensive purposes. If that shopping center is built. The second risk is a delay in the construction of TH 5 which is now on an accelerated schedule. One of the things we've learned since we last met with the Planning Commission was ' that we would not require additional right-of-way should we adopt the north leg ' 17 -4ty Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 option. The common leg between TH 101 and TH 5 from the due north leg to Great Plains Blvd.. That has been accomodated and so we're somewhat less concerned that there will be a delay for that purpose. What we will try to do and what we're trying at this point is to make sure we stay on schedule with that and still satisfy the needs of the City of Chanhassen in the process. The reason we changed course is complex. As you know, the Planning Commission approved an alternative which was really two alternatives. The preferred alternative was ' the north leg option. While the Planning Commission approved of an alternatives, the last comment made by the Commission, I think it was it's Chairman, there has to be an alternative that will work here. What the Planning Commission did not want to do was foreclose forever the possibility that we would be able to build TH 101 and I think what they were telling you and telling this community was that if we can do it on the north leg option, fine but if we can't, we want to make sure that at least it can be built. A second choice was of course, to use the south leg. So we thought about that for a while and we decided as hard or as many alternatives that have been considered in the past, we should still continue to evaluate more and we have done that. Another thing that's happened is that the Wards are beginning to show some interest in development of their property. One of the things that they've indicated is that they may wish to relocate at least modestly TH 101 so we. look at that as an opportunity. Whether it produces something for us is questionable but it certainly is an opportunity and of course Rosemount has announced that it has selected the City of Chanhassen for it's new facility and since it's next to the Ward property, it also opens an opportunity for some additional consideration of alternatives. Now, we did meet with MnDot in the intervening periods since the Planning Commission met. Essentially, what we're saying or what my feelings personally are about this process is that we can be cautiously more optimistic [II than we were before. Especially about whether one of the other alternatives can be accomodated. I am optimistic but not as much so that we can do it on the accelerated TH 5 schedule. Now the neighbors raised some good questions as well. Questions that can not be put aside and questions that we have indicated must be answered as part of this feasibility study process. One of those is noise and the noise impacts on the subdivisions to the south. Pedestrian access to downtown and Q-Superette. Traffic on Lake Drive East. In other words, given the different scenarios, which of them would have the most detrimental effect traffic wise on Lake Drive East. Whether the T intersection at Great Plains Blvd., as proposed, would work. How easy it would be for residents to get onto Lake Drive East and whether there would be sufficient gaps created with the signalization so they could get onto that roadway. One of the questions or concerns raised also had to do with the relatively minor level of service improvements that would have existed with the proposal at Great Plains Blvd. and the new north leg or the proposed intersection of TH 101. Finally, the neighbors also asked for a request for the consideration of other alternatives. We have, as a team, feasibility study team, looked at those alternatives and not only the ones that we're going to show you this evening but at a multitude of others, many of which do not work from a geometric standpoint and ones we're showing you tonight are ones that we think do work geometrically. So what we'd like to do is present those and then simply ask you to remember that these have not been tested for their traffic carrying capabilities and that we can not suggest to you this evening, but we will by the 26th of September, that they will in fact work. So with that, what I'd like Don Ringrose to do is to make a brief presentation of the four alternatives than we'd like to take input and get some ideas. If you have any other suggestions, we'd love to hear them and we'd love to hear others from the neighbors as well. 18 ' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 I1- Councilman Horn: I have one question. Were any eliminated because of cost? Fred Hoisington:' The only one that has been eliminated because of cost has been the bridging alternative that would bridge the railroad, TH 5 and so forth which ' is about 10 times the cost of an at grade cost. Don Ringrose: The last week has been, as Fred indicated, as rather hectic one for the people that are involved with this and also as Fred indicated, while we've developed some ideas, we want to present them here to you, bear in mind this was all accomplished in about the last week and it has not had the opportunity of being thoroughly tested from an engineering and traffic ' standpoint. At the same time, we aren't about to present to you or discuss with the public anything that kind of at our gut level we don't feel makes sense or that wouldn't presumably pass reasonable tests of engineering principles. We have this evening four alternatives and the Council has received reductions of ' these that you've had an opportunity to look at. For the neighborhood and the citizens, I appreciate this is the first opportunity to become familiar with these. I'll go through them briefly and then entertaining questions that you ' have. The first one which is presented is essentially referred to as the current proposal. That is basic design that City Staff, ourselves and MnDot started out with about 6 to 8 weeks ago when this whole process started. It ' consists of the relocation of TH 101 easterly of existing Great Plains, crossing over and then swinging south onto Lake Drive and that is the portion which was discussed through the Planning Coitunission and the neighborhood meetings that were held prior to the Planning Commission. On the drawing, we've shown an I extension of that illustrating how that would continue west and then turn to the south and connecting to existing TH 101. One of the issues which was not discussed at length because we didn't feel it was particularly of concern for ' the neighborhood, was how this linkage would occur. MnDot had made it clear to us early on that the T intersection, that would be Lake Drive and then a T intersection to existing TH 101 would be unsatisfactory in terms of the TH 101 ' function. So this drawing represents the original proposal expanded to include the linkage to TH 101. Then we also have, in light of the Ward property casual discussions I think is the best way to describe those, and the more specific proposals for Rosemount, expanded our scope of thinking in the sense that the ' horizons that we can look at here to see how this new activity and new interest would relate to this existing problem entering this one time, and probably not the only time to assure where haste might have made waste in it because I think ' as we've expanded the horizons our thinking here, we have generated some additional alternatives that have genuine merit. What we then have shown on the same drawing, the extension of Lake Drive, the proposal for a Market Blvd. connection and the connection on into the basic center of downtown Chanhassen's ' commercial district. We think that as the advantage of tying this emerging job center to the existing retail commercial district of the City. This as I indicated is the original proposal. This is also the proposal which the ' neighbors were very concerned about. Primarily, as I understand it, because the proximity of relocated TH 101 to the homes along the northerly side of the subdivision and the noise and the issues that they had raised and Fred touched on. Then taking into account primarily the citizen's or the neighborhood issues, we said is there something we can do to address those in terms of a 4 design in terms of some relocation. With respect to the original plan, we can L._. talk about noise berms, noise walls, and some of those issues but I think you ' were looking for something more fundamental in terms of an alternative location. 19 `-''City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 11 In some cases we have to stretch our mind a little bit even to stretch our imagination from an engineering standpoint to come up with these but we felt even though I can't support some of them from an engineering standpoint and we don't have a drawing to talk about, it's difficult to have a discussion. I think this represents one that falls into that category. Essentially the same northerly leg but moving the new TH 101 to the north, essentially halfway between Lake Drive and existing TH 5 swinging to the west and then to the south. The objective here is trying to put some space between the new road and the existing homes. That's the only real change. The complication of that is it, in some respects, from an engineering and from a fiscal standpoint, almost has to be considered, I'd say silly. When you look at it from, we have three roads all running east/west in a corridor of about 400 to 500 feet. There's tremendous cost involved in duplication of facilities. There's substantial cost involved in acquisition of properties to make this happen and while we can certainly draw the line so it would work geometrically and would function, it doesn't have a lot of common sense to it. The rest of the westerly portion is the same. The third alternative is what is referred to as the north leg. This is what the Planning Commission identified as their preference if it could be accomplished. Prior to the Planning Colluui.ssion's consideration, we had Jim Benshoof, the traffic consultant that's been doing all the work for the City, did some analysis on this north leg alternative. I want to be sure you understand the function here because I'm not convinced the drawing illustrates it as it should. The intention here for the TH 101 through traffic is to move on the existing alignment up to TH 5, then east or west on TH 5 and the north on what we call the north leg. So southbound is to this location, a right hand turn, a left hand turn and so forth. It is not intended that TH 101 traffic would in any fashion go like that. Whether or not this would even be permitted, in terms of the close spacing, etc. by MnDot is questionable. It is shown on the drawing as something that we'd like to consider. While the intersections, this intersection and this intersection, can accomodate the turning movements. Physically the southbound or northbound. In particular, the left turn movements that would occur here and here, that is by the introduction of a double left turn lane at this location and this location, the predicted left turn movements can be accomodated through the intersection. The issue that surfaces with this design is not the turn movement but the weaving movement. That is, for example, in the design volumes there's 800 vehicles in the peak hour that will come south, turn onto existing TH 5, want to move over two lanes and make the left hand turn to go south in a distance of about, it's less than 1,000 feet. When we presented this to MnDot at our meeting last week the answer which they gave us was the answer which I think we would have predicted that no, it can not work in their opinion and that they can't suggest that we should even pursue it. The solution, and we had talked about it ourselves in terms of the concept of the common section isn't totally invalid if there's sufficient space in which that weaving movement can occur but this isn't sufficient space. For a while we were actually looking for alternatives to where we could move this back up and create space by moving it to the east. However, then we start looking at apartment buildings and all kinds of major issues on the north side so we're just moving one, we're creating one problem to solve another. But what surfaced out of the discussions of last week and it really was in the form of a brainstorming session in our office when the entire design came on Wednesday morning last week followed up by a meeting at MnDot Wednesday afternoon at which point all we had was tissue paper sketches of some of these things which we were presented but what surfaced out of that discussion is a fourth alternative which we think is substantially different but it begins to address more accurately or more 20 , City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 IIappropriately all of these. It's not perfect but it addresses I think more people's concerns in a better way than most. It consists, in a sense it's a II modification of what we refer to as the north leg or the last one I presented to you but it solves the defect of the north leg alternative by introducing additional space between the left hand turn movements. This alternative, TH 101 ' would come down and connect with TH 5 in the same location as in all the other alternatives. However, rather than turning south at existing TH 101 or Great Plains Blvd., the TH 101 through movements would continue west on TH 5 to Market Blvd. and then we would suggest that TH 101 would be relocated extending south ' to Market Blvd., which exists only to the railroad tracks today but is planned and platted to this location, continue south initially connecting up to existing TH 101 but planning to the future it's suggested that TH 101 would be relocated ' west of the homes along the lake in conjunction with TH 212 so ultimately it would come down and go in this fashion but on an interim basis it would come down and link to the existing. It might indeed come down and go like that. ' There's lots of different detailed alternatives. The concept is what's important. We think that this has all the advantages of all the alternatives with the one possible defect that you could argue that it doesn't have continuity for the north/south direction for TH 101. That is, now you come up here and you make a jog about 2,500 feet, almost a half mile and then continue north. That is the one negative. I think it provides access to an area that will require access in terms of emerging development within the city. It certainly addresses the issues that were raised by the neighborhood. It eliminates the problem and Fred indicated, I think he used the term cautious optimism, I think it's a fair statement. MnDot in our discussions with them, 3 did not reject this categorically as they did the other alternative with the short linkage. I guess that essentially summarizes where we are today. As Fred indicated, we are in the process now with Benshoof of testing this out in terms of the traffic capacities required at the particular intersections. For ' example, we had moved major turning movements and concentrations of traffic from this location to this location. In terms of the overall city plan, long term, we felt this was the 100% corner and it could be that it's moving here because of these changes. So Jim is in the process of doing that analysis. We think that before your meeting 2 weeks from this evening, that we would have completed that analysis and also have gone back to MnDot one more time and be able to be a little more definitive about the ability to work and a little more definitive ' about MnDot's position. If that is positive, then it's my opinion, based on what our responsibility is in terms of this overall feasibility study that we can catch up in terms of lost time in terms of the City's responsibility. ' There's still an issue of whether the State can react to these changes and maintain their schedule. Again, we're optimistic and hopeful I guess. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Don. Did Mr. Benshoof want to present anything or ' you're just in the process of working on the numbers? Does anybody else have anything that you want to present from the feasibility side? ' Don Ringrose: We're just repsonding to questions at this point. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have anyone then from the public who lit would like to make comment and then after the public hearing is closed, we'll make comments and ask questions. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask for a little change possibly? I 21 Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: What would you like? Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest Tom that it might help the public reaction if they had some idea of just a quick where our particular thoughts were initially. That might give them something to bounce off of. Mayor Hamilton: I guess if you want to give them yours, you're welcome to. If 1 that's what you're saying to me. I'm interested in what they have to say and I think they have put a lot of time and energy into studying this and I realize that they've just seen a new concept this evening and perhaps it would be appropriate for them to make comment on that. I have more questions than I have just general comments. Councilman Boyt: I think one of the frustrations of having been in the position 1 that they're in is that if they don't know where we're coming from, it's awfully hard for them to react. By the time they do know where we're coming from, the public hearing is closed. Mayor Hamilton: The process of a public hearing is to gather input from the public. To take that, to massage it and digest it and fit that into the plans that we're trying to accomplish. That's the the way the process works I guess. Councilman Johnson: Tom, I believe by providing the input, by giving our input to the public beforehand, it also may speed up some of the comments as they are trying to cover all bases and if we've already covered some bases, it may not cover it. Boy, it's getting confusing. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I'm saying if you want to make your comments known, 1 you're welcome to do so. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so in other words, what Bill suggested here, you're ' willing to do that? Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. Sure, go right ahead. You're first. I Councilman Johnson: Okay. Of the options, I like the, we got these on Friday night so we had a little more time to look at them. I'm leaning most towards Market Blvd.. I had discussed a similar thing with staff and had been looking at it before. I'm glad to see your alignment. My main problems with it are in the affects on those ponds in there. We tend to look at our wetlands and our ponds very cautiously and this particular affect has a maximum affect on our ponds. However, in this case, this is one of those cases where this treehugger believes that it's best for the City maybe that we do put it right through this pond. I'm in the position of Market Blvd. over any of the other options at this time. Councilman Boyt: I started out liking Option 2. I had two major concerns. One of the major concerns is that we not delay TH 5. I would say that's probably my primary concern and I think responsibility to the whole community but my next concern is that we not put this in anybody's backyard. So looking at the options, I would say that on first blush that Option 1 which put it into Lake Drive East and I think with the big concern of the neighborhood, would be the last option on my list and the first one would probably be the fourth option. 22 1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: I can't make a decision until I have a lot of questions answered. I'm not sure we want to do that at this point. To me there are too many unknowns to make a decision. I think though, looking at Option 2, even though Don has hinted that that's not a feasible alternative, appears to me to be the best solution. ' Councilman Geving: I think the Mayor said it best when he opened with the fact that we've got a lot of public input. We've had a chance to read so much information on this through the public hearing process and I think it's ' important for us to understand that when we review our packet, we're always looking for other alternatives and that was my first and foremost objective. I said to myself, why not force TH 101 as far to the west as we can get it. How about CR 117 or even TH 101 and Lyman. I drove down to Lyman from Mr. Klingelhutz' property. It's exactly 1/2 mile out of the way to get to CR 17 and another 1/2 mile once you get on the north end back to the American Legion. So ' then I got thinking about the possibility of Market Blvd.. This is long before I even looked at any of these maps and that seemed to make a lot of sense to me. I was happy tonight to see that as an alternative. My personal feeling is that this needs a lot more study. I personally need much more time. This is a kind of decision that's going to be with us for a long time. We don't rework TH 101 everyday. It's been there for years and years and years and it will have a great deal of impact upon the citizens of the City and I'm not in favor of trying to impact any number of citizens who moved into our community at all. I got calls over the weekend from business leaders in the community. They said, you're diverting traffic away from my business. I built a motel in town and I want that business traffic to flow past my facility and I agreed with him. We have gas stations and we have other facilities that want that business so we've got to look at it from their aspect as well. We've just spent several million dollars redeveloping our downtown. We want the traffic that flows our community ' to also stop and shop. So we must be concerned about the entry to the Chanhassen business district. Our motels, gas stations, food stores and so forth. Then the question came to my mind, what if we do nothing? What if we ' did absolutely nothing and let TH 5 continue and proceed along? Maybe that's not a good idea because we'll have missed an opportunity and the opportunity is that we could have the State realign this at a time when it's beneficial to us. So with every negative there's a possibility of an opportunity. I think I look personally differently at this project today than I did in 1981 because I was here in 1981 and this was not a big deal. We knew it was going to happen sometime in the future but the future is now because TH 5 is going to happen. ' We've worked on it. We've put a lot of money into it from a Chanhassen community standpoint along with Eden Prarie, Chaska, Victoria, all the communities along the route and these people want to see TH 5 happen and it's ' going to happen. I'm not anxious at this time to start marketing the center line on our official transportation map just to get the project on the Comprehensive Plan. I'm not anxious to do that until we do a lot of study. Analyzing it and coming up with the the kind of alternatives that Don mentioned hopefully we've have on September 12th. Some of the other comments in terms of some of the objectives and that is to make sure that this is not a dangerous situation where we're going to have kids crossing highways to get to superettes lit or to get to schools. I read with interest the comments from Brad Johnson that we have the same kind of experiences on the north end of town. Any of you people that go to work in the morning know what you're talking about when you ' come down 78th Street and try to get onto TH 5. Just try to get onto TH 101 or what I call Main Street is a chore. I pull up in front of Kenny's every morning 23 ti " City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 and I know that I sat there for sometimes 3 or 4 minutes. That's a long time waiting for 15 or 20 cars to pass so we've got to do something about rerouting that traffic off our main street. My real comments are, let's not rush into this whole project without looking at all the old cards. Let's check the alternatives and bad decisions are generally made when you don't do a thorough and adequate job of planning. That's where I think we were a couple of weeks ago when I started to read some of the Planning Commission notes and Minutes, I didn't think that we had done a thorough job, the kind of job that was presented to us tonight and I think we've come a long way in the last two weeks. Another thought, and it's just a thought, is that in this community, for the people who haven't lived here very long, you'll note that there's a lot of things that divide our community. Either it's a railroad track or it's a highway. It's TH 5 or it's TH 7. It's TH 101, CR 17, CR 117 and TH 41. All of those divide and segment our community into little pockets of people and this earlier proposal, the south leg proposal would have done exactly that to Brookhill, Chan Estates, Hidden Valley. All of those little pockets of our community that are new to us and had no idea about this project 2 years, 3 years ago when we proposed it, are now faced with this as a real possiblity. In my opinion, we're going to try to do everything we can to remove that and eliminate that as a problem for you. I think one of the things that I'd like to see, at least I do it in my own business, I'd like to see the pros and cons of every alternative. It's nice to be able to present them here and I think you did a very good job Don but I would really like to see a complete list of the pros and the cons for each of your alternatives when you get down to the final selection point so we can see them in bold print. Let us know what the real negatives are and where we're coming from in terms of the positives. The only other big question I have is, what are the benefits to the community of this TH 101? I've lived here 22 I years and I've lived with TH 101 all that time. It has not impacted me a great deal but I have to be realistic and I know that change is taking place. We have an opportunity, in my opinion, with Rosemount moving to Chanhassen, with a payroll in the neighborhood of 500 to 700 people and the traffic that that's going to bring to this area of Market Blvd., we have an opportunity to reroute that if we can get together with the Ward family. I think personally that alternative number, I'll call it the last one, the Market Blvd. proposal is the ' best from my standpoint. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: This process, as I mentioned earlier, I began looking at alternatives for this in 1980 and it's been a frustrating process for me because I've never seen one that I liked or felt comfortable with and I wrestled with this darn thing and I just couldn't, I don't know, there was just something about it that always bothered me. I couldn't find one that I liked. I saw one tonight that I like. That's number 4. It seems to answer the questions and the concerns that we have and I'll be cautiously optimistic, as Don said, in saying that it's an alternative I think that I could really throw my support behind. ' It looks like it gives the City a lot of new opportunities and it solves some problems that have been existing. We were just talking before the meeting tonight about some other possibilities. I said I don't care what you look at, I don't care if you have to tear down buildings or what you have to move but we ought to consider every possible alternative to putting a road in so we can solve this thing and do it properly. I think we've got the solution. We can put in TH 5 if MnDot will buy it and go along with this and work with us on , getting this done. It's a grand opportunity for the City to make Market Blvd. kind of the main thoroughfare into the downtown. It will certainly help our industrial park. It will be a big boom for them. It will help us straighten 6: 24 1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 out parts of TH 101 that have been a mess for years. It seems to answer a lot of the questions that I've had and it resolves a lot of the issues that I've had so gee, this is really positive I think. I'm really pleased with what I've seen 11 a and although there's additional information that we need to get, Jay mentioned the problem with the pond. We have had, and I don't think that's much of a problem, we've had a development proposed for that site previously and we needed ' to do some things with the pond and I think we resolved them at that time and I see no reason why we can't resolve them again. That's a minor issue to take care of but I look forward to working with the feasibility study group. I'll ' certainly do all I can to help and I think we've got a workable solution. Those are the comments from the Councilmembers. Now if there are individuals who would like to make comments for the public record, please come up to the microphone, state your name and address and give us your comments please. Who's ' going to be first? Stephen Wigg: I'm President of the Chanhassen Estates Residential Association. ' We know there's got to be chances that have to be made and several of you gentlemen said we have to consider some of the different alternatives and some of the problems pro and con, etc. . What is not drawn on this last proposal which everyone seemed to be leaning toward, is that intersection of Dakota Avenue. I've been there for 6 years. I came in right at the end of the controversy where the Estates spent thousands of dollars fighting McDonalds coming into that corner. Now there's a big difference between fighting someone coming in and having an empty building if that would be the situation from lack of traffic. For that matter, two empty buildings sitting at the entrance of our neighborhood. That's the first concern. There is nothing on here that shows. We took in, my understanding is, approximately 8 to 10 years ago, because of the danger of that intersection before there were stop lights there, the Association took and fought very strongly to get stop lights at that intersection for the safety of people crossing. I don't see anything on here that says it's going to address any kind of pedestrian traffic getting across. This neighborhood is a 20 year old neighborhood. It's starting to turn over again. There are a lot more younger children that are growing up in this neighborhood so that concern is something that's got to be very much looked at. There have been things mentioned in the past about pedestrian cross over, etc. but is it feasible once you have these children, all these people are just starting to ride bikes, how far are they going to have to go to get across that highway and what's going to happen to those businesses that are on that corner? There isn't anything that shows an island. There's nothing sketched in there. Mayor Hamilton: I think your concern is genuine and Fred will take note of it and I think that's one of those issues that we'll need to respond to. ' Jack Atkins: My name is Jack Atkins, I live at 220 West 78th Street and I guess first of all I do like the Market Street proposal. I live on the north side here on West 78th Street and I do have some concerns about the north leg there. Mainly the railroad tracks after they cross the existing road there, they go behind Jerry Schlenk's property, they go below grade there maybe 10 to 12 feet and that train, a lot of people say there's only 1 or 2 trains but there are a lot of trains that come through there. If you live near there, you know that. So what you're essentially doing is you're going to have to take out that entire sound barrier for our neighborhood to put that new road in. I just want to make sure that that issue is addressed. Thanks. 25 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Uli Sacchet: Members of the City Council, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle. I came here tonight to fight for what I think is my right and I'm relieved that isn't necessary, at least to the extent that it seemed necessary when I came here and I want to thank you members of the City Council for having taken our concerns seriously and listened to our concerns. However, I still want to address some other points because it seems that the prospect of the original proposal isn't totally out of the window. It's just a more balanced picture with additional and certainly far more desirable possibilities. As such, I still want to take this opportunity and address some of the main concerns that I have found at the neighborhood of the 11 . Brookhill development of the Hidden Valley area. We handed in petition signatures in two packages. Originally we handed in 92 signatures at the end of July, the 30th of July to the City Manager. We handed in another 62 signatures today which I don't know whether you've been informed of. You have, that's great. I personally have been entrusted by 70 of the residents to be the spokesperson in this issue to speak up against the realignment of TH 101 at Lake Drive East. I still want to make some of the points, some of the key points because as I said, the proposal isn't totally gone yet. It seems like we're addressing some problems. The main problem of the City is obviously traffic wise, TH 5. Then we have a secondary problem which is not necessarily just TH 101 in general as much as it is the intersection of TH 101 with 78th Street. Now it seems that the original proposal takes that problem away from the 78th Street intersection with TH 101. However, it doesn't really solve it in the sense that it's gone. In my view, that problem is just moved to the south side of TH 5 and the impact of the problem that is currently felt on the north side of TH 5 with that intersection of 78th Street and TH 101 would be off loaded onto the residents of the Brookhill development and Hidden Valley or Chanhassen Estates. That I do not consider a solution or solving a problem. Further, in terms of the through traffic need, of course it's an overall concern that we need to accomodate through traffic because traffic is rising. We know that. We've seen it. However, it's an envisioned need. It's based on assumptions. It's based on assumptions that things go on pretty much the way they've been going on. It's based on assumptions that 20 years from now we're going to continue riding the same kind of cars and putting up with the same kind of lights, which is likely. I'm not saying that's not going to be the case but it is an assumption. On the other hand, we, the residents of Brookhill and Hidden Valley, we live there now. That's not an assumption. That's not a plan or proposal. That's reality. We live here now and ou Mr. Mayor, Y you made a remark that you were a little negatively touched, that's not the words you used, by some of the comments you got and I sincerely like to apologize if some of my comments upset you. I like to express myself with some spice. Now you can believe that I'm pretty motivated in this case because in my view, the safety of my children is at stake. The soundness of my investment I've made a year ago by building a house there and let's just look at that for a brief moment. How did that come about? The City made a couunitment by zoning that area for single family homes. The City made a commitment by giving a permit to build that single family home there and then what happens? Then comes the individuals and make the biggest commitment of all. They make a mortgage that lasts 30 years and they want to live there and make it their home. I don't mean to blame your planning process or what you're doing but I do believe that it's justified to make this statement. In a previous issue you've discussed tonight, you were talking about a self created situation or what was it? This is a self created situation of the City and all we're doing is standing up for our rights. I 6:: thank you that you do consider us. Alternate plans are obviously necessary and 26 1 I , City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Ihas been heard and very well so. I might just briefly address that obviously the option that is favored by most of y you is certainly going to be the option that is going to be favored by the neighborhood that I'm speaking for. The benefit to the City and the residents in general is really the main issue that I would expect you to consider as the City Council. It was pretty striking in the Planning Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago that the only benefit that 1 could really be mentioned to the original proposal was through traffic accomodation. Well, we have a head on collision here of through traffic interest and residents interest if the original proposal would be implemented. I Obviously the original proposal is not a solution. To sacrifice the desirability of a whole neighborhood, the safety, compromise the safety, even sacrifice a shopping center, what impact does that do to the tax revenue base of I your City? You can also look at it from that angle. After all money has a certain weight in this world. The costs of the right-of-ways of the construction. How does that all fit together with that TH 101 is not even clear in terms of who has jurisdiction. We're trying to build something that was not I founded at the time the proposal was made. It's not even yet decided that TH 101 will have an off ramp at TH 212 highway and I would like to encourage you to continue on the track to accumulate information and build this up step by step I because it's an important issue and it's not going to get a sound solution by rushing and jumping steps before they're matured and clear. Thank you for your attention. ILarry Guthrie: My name is Larry Guthrie. I'm an Attorney and I represent United Mortgage Corporation and Rottlund Homes and I have a few comments. I too .2, - applaud the efforts of the Council to consider alternatives and the efforts of BRW to come up with alterantives and to listen to the recommendations that were I _ made by the Planning Commission and also support the market option. I'd like to make a comment with respect to some of the concerns made by Councilman Geving on I the downtown traffic and perhaps suggest to BRW that when they talk to MnDot, that they see whether or not a business route alternative through downtown could be signed through the old TH 101 so people who want to go downtown who might be not familiar with Chanhassen, will know that there's a business route that they 1 can still hook up with TH 101 by going down the Market Blvd. alternative. The second comment I have is with respect to the public hearing and the other items you're going to be addressing later tonight and some of the concerns that were I expressed as to the timing of this and whether or not the window of opportunity will be closed. My comment is sort of two fold. Whether or not you intend to close the public hearing after all the comments are received tonight and then go II on and consider the mall that is being proposed to go in because that may or may not exclude certain alternatives and I guess suggest to you that because all the recommendations aren't being made to you tonight, that it would be inappropriate to close the public hearing tonight. The public should have an opportunity to 1 respond to the recommendations that are being made to the Council. That's the first comment. The second comment is whether or not BRW can comment, whether or not when they come back on the 26th, what proposals still are going to be viable II at that point. At the Planning Commission we were sort of led to believe that there wasn't much time in doing anything until perhaps 2 years from now would be out of the question unless you acted immediately. So I think that needs to be presented before the public hearing is closed and secondly, or thirdly or IF fourthly, wherever I'm at, on all the alternatives, it seems like the north leg is the same and whether or not something could not be done, if there is a delay � and the window of opportunity is being missed because you want to make a Ideliberate decision and make the right decision and consider all the 1 27 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 L alternatives, whether or not some type of compromise as far as putting in the 11 north leg, even if traffic isn't going to be using it into TH 5 but proceeding on that option. Having the north leg in place and then perhaps two years down the road, putting in the Market Blvd.. Thank you. Philip Schloss: My name is Philip Schloss and I live at 8040 Hidden Circle. My comments basically, I had a lot of than but Mr. Hoisington kind of took those all away by the fact that he came in with some other alternatives tonight and I'm glad to see that he did that as your Planning Commission, even they didn't like the present proposal as it stands. I want to urge you to reject any TH 101 proposal that does go south of TH 5 between Dakota and TH 101 because it seems to me that the impact is still the same as the original proposal. I had a discussion with Mr. Evan over the phone and according to him, Mr. Evan is the project manager of TH 5 on the widening. According to what he said, if you were to separate TH 101 as a project from TH 5, they would not delay the widening of TH 5 through Chanhassen. Now you may wonder what is this going to cost us? The cost means that the intersection then would fall totally on the City to do that. As I understand as it is now, that cost will be shared. However, with some of the other options, maybe that is the most cost effective to put the decision off rather than to go ahead with this without any clear understanding of totally what's involved as this has been rushed upon us. What I want to urge you, please don't be afraid to delay the widening of TH 5. As Mr. Conrad said, and he is the head of the Planning Commission, he said let it be the City of Chanhassen's decision, not MnDot's decision to delay TH 5. However, if you feel a decision must be made tonight, I urge you that I feel that the fourth alternative, in other words, it's the north leg option only with Market Street, I believe that's what we're going to call it, I urge you to support that one. I 1111 think that continuity of TH 101 or having a continuity of TH 101 is like finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Thank you very much. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other comments? If there are no other comments, I would suggest to the Council that the public hearing be continued until such time as we have further information from BRW and from Fred Hoisington and if there is anybody in the public who would wish to either write or make comments to the City, you may do so. Send a letter to the City or contact myself or other councilmembers, you can still make public comment. I think we should hold the public hearing open until after the meeting of the 12th. ' Councilman Johnson: I move we continue the public hearing and stop receiving input tonight I guess. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we need to move with this. It will remain open until after the meeting of the 12th. People can still input through the City or through any of us individually. Actually, the four items are all tied together and the one gentleman commented, he wasn't sure if we were going to move on any of them. I don't think there's any intention to make any decisions on any of them tonight. They're all tied together and they all need to be decided together. At least for the present time. Barbara Dacy: Except for item (d) ... Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we can do that either until we know what alignment we're going to have. 28 I City Council Meeting - August 22, 1983 Y} - Councilman Johnson: I think we need to discuss it separately Tom. IICouncilman Geving: You can't do (d) . Councilman Boyt: I would move, when appropriate, that we table (d) for lack of information because we didn't receive the drawings. I think that's appropriate. Councilman Geving: I would second that motion and I think the New American Homes have to realize that we can't get last minute details on a very important ' subject on the night that we're going to be making the decision. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion and a second to table item 3(d) for lack of ' information. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the Site ' Plan Review for a 40,000 square foot shopping center (Hidden Valley Center) , New American Homes Corporation, for lack of information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Pat, I guess I'd like to ask your opinion on that. We don't ' have sufficient information. Pat Farrell: I understand that. Are you tabling it for a time specific? I Mayor Hamilton: We tabled it only because we have non-sufficient information so when sufficient information is available, we could consider it but it should also be tied with the realignment. Pat Farrell: You're within your authority to table it then. Councilman Horn: I had a question of either Fred or Don. What provision do you have planned to put along TH 5 between TH 101 to the north and Market? It appears to me that what you're doing in that particular section of the road is you need to create a highway that can handle both the traffic volumes of TH 101 ' and TH 5. Fred Hoisington: That's correct. Councilman Horn: So is that going to be 6 lane there? Otherwise you're going to have a bottleneck. ' Fred Hoisington: I'll answer that in a general sense. The traffic analysis will demonstrate what will be necessary there. We think it would involve two lanes in each direction and two left turn lanes so conceivably for a portion of ' that stretch, yes it could be 6 lanes wide. Councilman Horn: Otherwise it doesn't do much good to have four lanes beyond it to the west. i Councilman Johnson: Create a bottleneck right there. I ' 29 4) City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: That's right. The road capacity goes with the smallest bottleneck. Don Ringrose: That's MnDot's primary concern is that we don't diminish the service level on TH 5. Councilman Horn: That's my primary concern. Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple comments. Along with Jay, the two of us sat through the Planning Commission hearing and I guess a couple of comments. One is driving through Wayzata fairly frequently, TH 101 is about as fouled up as it can get when it goes down the main street of a part of Wayzata so our existing situation isn't uncommon but it's certainly not one I think we want to stay with. As I mentioned before, TH 5 shouldn't be delayed. My reaction to the Planning Commission earlier was that I thought they created the impression that this was a mere 2 year delay for TH 5. If we decide to do something that would delay TH 5's extension, it will not be built. Don't kid yourself to think the State is going to come back and give us money to extend it another couple of miles. They won't do it and so what we're deciding is do we want it to be 4 lanes out to CR 17 or don't we want it to be 4 lanes out to CR 17. Personally, I can tell you that the decision may be extremely difficult before we're done but that my vote will be to extend it. Then, as I mentioned earlier, Option 4 I think makes, it certainly makes sense to me from what I've heard. It sounds like it makes sense to a lot of people but I think we'd better be very careful to get Chan Estates reactions to this before we leap ahead. I think that Mr. Wigg made some good points, as Tom pointed out, and we probably need to hear ti from more people in that neighborhood so I think we'll have the opportunity to do that. My last point would be, I think that the neighborhood coming together here, certainly you're not done and you won't be done when we make our decision. I think it's very important that the neighborhood continue to take this to MnDot. TH 5 is going to change dramatically. You need to have input in that change process so if you want noise barriers, they know that. If you have other concerns with how TH 5 is built and extended, that they're aware of that so don't disban simply because the City of Chanhassen makes it's part of the decision. That's all I have. Councilman Geving: I just want to finish with a couple of comments and , questions to Don on how the funding for this project, if it were to proceed, would or could be accomplished. The total realignment of TH 101 to Market or wherever we place. How would that happen Don? I don't believe there's any money for this. Don Ashworth: We had approached the legislature this past year. In fact, our ' bill was included even in the ending session. It lost by 2 votes on the Senate side at 3:30 in the morning on the last day in session. The major stumbling block was contingent from Hennepin County. Some concerns there, staff is already starting to meet with legislative representatives. We've done that on a number of occasions. We're meeting again with than this Wednesday to insure that as we approach this next legislative session, that we will have worked out those problems. Councilman Geving: And then just one other comment and that has to do with the whole issue of this realignment process and what impact it may have on the delay, potential delay for TH 5. I can tell you that we've worked for years to 30 , 1, „ City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 get TH 5 upgraded and expanded to 4 lanes out to Chanhassen and regardless of what's going to happen with our decision on TH 101, I certainly wouldn't want us delaying that project. I don't want to see it falling short to 184th Street Ijust because we did something here that promoted that delay. Whatever it takes, we want to see the committee, Hoisington and Don to proceed along those criteria that we move ahead with TH 5 and push it ahead just like we had planned all ' along and keep us informed so that we're aware that if our decision is to actually delay, let us know. Secondly, if there's anything that the City can do by bringing in our own architects or engineers or draftspeople to bring this up ' to speed, as was mentioned in some of the staff notes here, that's a great possibility. Let's proceed in that vein because we can't let TH 5 delay into the 1992-93 scenario. That's the direct I'd like to see the staff go. ' Councilman Johnson: I'd also like staff, I see Barb's not here right now but Jo Ann probably knows it just as well, tell us what the next steps are. There's a feasibility study yet to be done and things like this. How many more steps do ' we have going here? Mayor Hamilton: Fred, perhaps you could. Fred Hoisington: I think that Barbara laid that out in her memo Jay. Councilman Johnson: Well, they didn't read Barb's memo. ' Fred Hoisington: There will be a feasibility study. It would have to be completed and all the answers providing for us to proceed. If there is an alternative that we can settle on, then we can design.. .and part of that effort to... Then it will be constructed so that's what we expect the process to be. ' Councilman Johnson: Okay, Market Blvd. option has quite a bit of streets involved. Quite a bit of roads involved. There's a mileage limit in our envirnomental assessment state laws and environmental quality law, I believe it's called. I think we need to take a look at that real soon and see if an ' Environmental Assessment Worksheet will have to be done so we can get that going too so we don't come up at the last minute on oh my goodness, we need an EAW for running these type things. This feasibility study is going to decide a lot of ' the questions that have been asked. Pedestrian crossing is one that I definitely want to see in that feasibility study because that is a problem that this City has right now and if we can tie that in here, we can get that addressed as early as possible. This is a good time, a good excuse to throw ' that on the agenda. I think it's already in there but I want to make sure it's in there. Whether the feasibility of what the effect this will have on the businesses in that intersection, the Sinclair station and Mac and Don's there, ' I'm not 100% sure whether that belongs in there or whether that is a free enterprise's responsibility to do that but if that is economically can be added to it, that would be nice to have there too. I do not believe that this would, ' with movement of Rosemount in and a few other changes going in town, I don't think this will have a marked effect on those businesses. I think as we're growing, they're not going to see any decrease in business to our road. Especially when you throw in 500 to 700 new employees just down the road from them. Their lunch time is going to be even busier. Of course, the feasibility study will look at the noise also that people have talked about. I really enjoy listening to Uli. I've listened to him three times now. At the Planning Commission and earlier, I wish I could speak as eloquently as he does. I do ' 31 • City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 believe there is a benefit to this because we have a real problem. This is not just to connect TH 101 north to south. We've got a real problem. TH 101 as it goes through the north side here, goes through a residential neighborhood. It goes past a grade school. It goes past a couple churches. It runs past Kenny's which is where all of our kids go to hang out just like kids on your side go to Superette. We have a present and real danger going on right now with TH 101 on , the north side and we have to do something on that but to create a problem on the south side by doing something to solve a problem on the north side doesn't make any sense either. That's why I favor the one I'm favoring now. I think the business signage can be handled very easily as far as saying Chanhassen businesses, take a right now and you can go to downtown but that's pretty standard stuff. I just wanted to cover some of the public comment that was made there. That's all I've got to say at this time. , Mayor Hamilton: I think you've received a few more questions Fred from the public and from the Council. Especially Dakota Avenue. How is that going to be impacted and some of the others so if you could gather the information on that and bring it back to us, I'd appreciate it. Anybody else have any comments? Councilman Horn: Just a response to Jay. When we first started looking at the 1 TH 101 alternatives, we weren't moving the property to the south because the south wasn't built up like it is. As a matter of fact, when that development went in, we discussed this. It was discussed with the church when it went in and we've always talked with anybody who's developed in any area anywhere in this area about the possibility of realigning TH 101 and what the possible impacts might be. The church people have been debating for some time whether they want to continue with their project until we resolve this. It's not a ' matter of planning. It's a matter of getting the public sector transportation issue resolved in conjunction with the private development. We don't control private development. That happens. The only option we have when a developer comes in is we can say, well, we might be developing there someday. Go by that property. That's the only option we have when that planning comes in otherwise we have to let them go through with their process. We can tell them that you might be impacted at some point but we can't stop them. That's the type of process to go through. It might look like bad planning but it's the reality of the fight between the public and private sector. When this whole thing started, the situation was much different. In fact, many of the options that did look attractive at one point don't look that way anymore. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to just thank everybody for your input. It's been valuable to us and we appreciate your coming to the Planning Commission and to the Council meeting to show your support for what's being done in the City. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1. Public Present: Name Address , B.C. "Jim" Burdick 426 Lake Street, Excelsior Brian H. Burdick 5205 Greenwood Circle Jan Coey Taco Shop 32 , City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ' Michael J. Leonard 8016 Erie Avenue Peter W. Fishcer AVR, Inc. , 6801 150th Street W. , ' Leo Gray Apple Valley AVR Inc. ' Gary Warren: To give you a quick overview. On July 25th of this year the Council directed staff to call a public hearing for Supplemental Report No. 1 for our West 78th Street detachment feasibility study. Basically the purpose of ' the report was to address the issue of the right-in/right-out connection to West 78th Street onto Powers Blvd. which was denied by the County. The supplemental report specifically looks at the installation of the cul-de-sac, public roadway ' cul-de-sac on the or close to the alignment of what was to be a private drive to service the James and the Burdick property. We didn't have an assessment roll in the report at that time and subsequently that has been prepared and sent to the affected property owners. So what we have tonight here is to take public ' comment concerning the supplemental report that specifically addresses the feasibility of construction of the cul-de-sac as a public roadway. Mr. Ehret is also here. ' Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything you wanted to add to that Gary? Gary Ehret: I think I would add one thing and that is the original report was ' received and acted on by the Council a full year ago. Since no action, construction commenced I think by Statute the report had to be brought back and a new public hearing held so it's really kind of a two fold situation. To review the new alternative with the cul-de-sac and also to once again hold the I public hearing to allow us to coiRuence with the project in whatever fashion we choose. ' Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to at this point call the public hearing to order for the West 78th Street detachment feasibility study, Supplemental Report No. 1. Is there anybody here from the public who wishes to make comment on this item? ' Jim Burdick: We're going to file this with the assessment hearing assessment hearing at this time? g or is this ' Gary Warren: This is just a hearing on the public improvement project. The assessment hearing would be, if the Council authorized this project to be ' actually built. Jim Burdick: I'm already on record as objecting to it. ' Mayor Hamilton: To what? The building of it? Jim Burdick: Moving 78th Street because of the great harm it is to my property ' so I'll just let it stand and I won't take your time by going through it again. Councilman Gevi.ng: I wish our Attorney was here. I mean that sincerely because _ this may come to court and I'd like to have our Attorney be present to hear your �{ comment. Mayor Hamilton: Jim has objected formally in a letter. 33 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how do you feel that this unduly restricts snowmobiling in Chanhassen? 11- 1JI Dick Potz: I think it does Dale. The ordinance doesn't indicate a decimil rating. It doesn't indicate the speed. Rather than just a banning, not allowing them, why don't you approach it from a decimil standpoint. The tests that we gave you indicate that a house that was 65 feet away from the trail had zero ratings inside the house so I think the report, the copy of the report I gave you... It's a little tough operating 90 miles of trail out here when you I get anybody that's not familiar with the ordinances, when you hit the Chanhassen border to clamp them off at 10:00 so it will be tough to enforce. Councilman Geving: Would this shut down snowmobiling after 10:00 p.m. in your view? Dick Potz: According to the ordinance it would. When you hit Chanhassen at t 10:00, you're not supposed to be there. If you read the ordinance. I don't know if Jim can enforce that. Councilman Geving: That's what we're trying to get at. Dick Potz: If we have a problem with noise, they were probably traveling too fast or the muffler's inadequate. It's not any different than a car or a motorcycle or anything else. Councilman Geving: By today's standards, aren't snowmobiles a lot better? j I Dick Potz: Oh yes. In the report Dale there's a copy of the State Law. After 1975, all snowmobiles manufactured had to be within 75 decimi.ls 150 feet away. II There were a couple of machines that were tested that were manufactured in 1973 or 1974. Councilman Geving: Let me ask one more question about the snowmobile public. I , know they're active here in Chanhassen. Have been for many years. How many club members do we have in Chanhassen that do snowmobile? Dick Potz: Paying families. I want to estimate last year we had about 30. I Councilman Geving: Active snowmobiles? Dick Potz: That's paid club members. There's probably a few thousand on the trails though. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Potz, before you sit down, since you're our ex rt he ' have a few questions here. As I understand there are curfews in other re I communities. The map you sent us is very helpful. How have those curfews impacted on snowmobiling? Dick Potz: I can't answer that. Councilman Boyt: Okay, let me come at it from a different direction. As I understand from your materials, we have a current speed limit of 10 mph on E city streets so that means when one is off city streets there's no speed limit. 40 1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 II Is that correct? ' Dick Potz: That's correct. Unless you are on the State trails. State law is 50 mph on the state trail. That's the State law. On State operated and maintained trails. Councilman Boyt: As I remember your test data, you stopped at 40 mph and at that point we had all of them up in the 70's and two that were in the 80's and by a point of reference that's somewhere just around a heavy truck going by. ' The question I have for you then was, and you cleared it up, we don't have a speed limit. The State has a speed limit and a speed limit would certainly be difficult to enforce. As difficult as anything given that we don't have any ' snowmobiles to go chase them with. Okay, so 10 mph on a city street, at 10 mph would mean basically 0 decimils from the standpoint of in a house anyway. You wouldn't hear them if they went by at 10 mph? It'd be silent. ' Dick Potz: In that particular case, that was true. That house was 65 feet away from the trail and at 20 mph in that particular house where we did the test a couple years ago, there was no reading on the meter. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay. 10 mph, what kind of a decimil? ' Dick Potz: I would have to say it would be nil. Councilman Boyt: Close to not hearing it? ' Dick Potz: I don't have data to prove that. Councilman Boyt: But since 20 is a library, we're probably talking library quiet at 10 mph. Dick Potz: Library is 30, if I remember right? ' Councilman Boyt: Bedroom quiet. Councilman Horn: Library is between 30 and 40. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's the only question I had. ' Councilman Horn: Do you know of any trail in Chanhassen where you'd be riding over 50? Dick Potz: Yes. South on CR 17 you can get over 50. ' Councilman Horn: How close is that to houses? Dick Potz: I don't think we have any problems down there. Some of the closest houses we might get is right on the other side of Lake Ann, there's 3 or 4 of them in there. There's a few of them up by the Fire Station on TH 7. Those houses that back up to TH 7, as you go down the TH 7 ditch. However, a resident living adjacent to TH 7 with the truck traffic and the car traffic, I'm not so sure those residents are that much bothered by snowmobiles. I can think of about 3 of them right on the other side of Lake Ann. There's probably some of the newer houses behind Chan Estates where you go through Rice Marsh Lake. 41 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 We're probably about 200 feet away from those. Councilman Horn: Do you consider that a 50 mph area? lir Dick Potz: Yes. That particular area of the south there, you can go 50 and on the other side of Lake Ann, you can go 50 there. The 50 mph stuff is pretty much out in the country. Councilman Horn: So you're pretty much south anywhere the speed li.mit...the condition of the trail? ' Dick Potz: Yes, that's true. We get a lot of straight stretches and obviously you can get it going. Through the winding neighborhoods and trees, you've got your life in your own hands. Councilman Horn: That's all I've got. Mayor Hamilton: Do you wish to ask Mr. Potz a question? Georgette Sosin: Yes, I'd like to ask you, don't you include lakes in this because it's been our experience that the snowmobiles are all over the place and going... Dick Potz: Yes, obviously on the lake you can go faster. There's a State Law 1 that you can, as well as a City ordinance, you can only go a certain speed within so far from shore or within fish houses. That's right in the City Ordinance as well as the State Law. ' Mayor Hamilton: The question he was asked was can you go 50 mph on any of the trails. I don't think a lake is considered part of the trail. Georgette Sosin: No, but I just wanted to point out that snowmobiles do in , go more than 50 mph in other areas which are not trails. n fact Dick Potz: I don't deny that. Mayor Hamilton: They probably have to get home before 10:00. ' Ed Williams: I'm Ed Williams and I'm with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and this noise ordinance, there are two things that I think bother people about the lake and that is, mostly the new Skidoos which are very loud and I don't know what they are decimil wise. Councilman Boyt: You're talking about a jet ski is what you're talking about. ' Ed Williams: Right. Councilman Horn: A Skidoo is a snowmobile. Ed Williams: I'm sorry, but those also. And snowmobiles in the winter. They are all very loud and they have more or less coless the group to come together here and I'm representing the five of us here tonight and some of the other board members could not make it this evening, they're out of town. We want to register our complaints about the noise levels of these various vehicles. 42 , 11 „ City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Snowmobiles and what do you call them? The jet skis and jet skis are more in s--- evidence now when we're talking about this and that's a new development on the scene and I don't know if you people are aware of the noise or if you notice it yourself. I know there's a State regulation as far as decimils are concerned and I have no idea what decimil level these do create but I suspect it's substantially above the State regulations so I think that would automatically, ' would it not automatically ban use of these vehicles in the lake? Councilman Horn: At those noise levels it would. 1 Mayor Hamilton: If you can set up a decimil meter on the lake when they're running across and you can prove that they've exceeded the level. ' Ed Williams: In a related reading of this, I think that our ordinance in the City incorporates the State regulations so I've got to compensate regulations and this somewhat, I know we're talking about noise but there is a statement in the application, the State law and local regulations when referring to boats and it says, such rules in this...that this is excerpted from, it says that you can modify the State laws and the Commissioner can accept them if the local ' community requests them. It has here, such rules may restrict any or all of the following: the type and size of watercraft and size of motor which may use the waters affected by the rule, (2) the areas of water which may be used by watercraft, (3) speed of water, (4) times permitted for the use of watercraft or (5) minimum distance between watercraft. In establishing rules, the Commissioner shall consider the physical characteristics of the waters affected, this historical uses, shoreline uses and classification and other features I unique to the waters affected by the rules. Therefore, I guess it is my reading of this, whether right or wrong, is that we do have the power here to restrict what we do and allow on lakes. I believe that there are offensive vehicles or offensive things that are developed and are not necessarily have a great deal of ' social merit to them and I would suggest that currently anyway, right at this season, that the new jet skis fit that classification and I'd like to submit that we, if possible, could restrict or ban these vehicles from our lakes. I ' don't know if it's unique. I would ask the question, is it we, Lotus Lake, who are offended by this noise or has other people brought this up? ' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue completely, banning any particular item or use of the lake. That we need to consider separately from this. Ed Williams: From the noise ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to deal with the noise, not with a particular use. ' Councilman Horn: We in fact have done that. We have a lake use ordinance. We have a speed limit on that also. We can control water skiing. You have to have ' an observer. We do have local restrictions. Mayor Hamilton: The City has the opportunity to be more restrictive than the State and we have taken that opportunity. We are more restrictive. ' Councilman Geving: Ed, in terms of noise, don't you also have some very loud A motor boats on Lotus Lake? We're talking tonight about snowmobiles and that's just one facet of it but I have to assume that you've got the same kind of 43 L;;---City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 problems with loud. .. ' Ed Williams: There is and we have brought up this subject before with Jim as far as the noise level and patrolling the noise level on the lake. There has been some discussion about getting a noise.. . Councilman Boyt: A decimeter. Ed Williams: Is that what it is? Alright. Getting one of those to check out the boat noise and the level and I don't know what has happened. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this. You're kind of unique in that Lotus Lake kind of lies in a pocket there and there's a hill all the way around it pretty much. I imagine that there's an awful lot of echoing from those motor boats. Have you seen any patrol activity? Have you seen the Carver County people out there? Ed Williams: There has been some as of late. I'm not aware of anything that's been suggested to any of us that there has been activities related to boats and their noise level. It has been maybe to improper handling or boats and lack of licensing and going the wrong direction. Georgette Sosin: I want to, as a citizen say that I support this ordinance. I think that it's extremely necessary because of our growth. I'm not just talking about the lake and problems on the lake which certainly are things that we have to look into. I think that having the ordinance will give us a handle on what is getting to be a growing concern and I want to speak about it in I general, not just about the lake. I think that with the industrial noise that we talked about, this will happen more as the City grows and sometimes the person who owns the factories and live in Montana or New York or someplace and might not be as accomodating as we've been seeing the people that we talked about a few weeks ago. I think that having this on our books will give us some very concrete way to deal with this concern. I'm going to make one point which is in relation to what we already have on our books in terms of the snowmobiles and that is that currently on our surface water useage ordinance we have a 10:00 curfew on boats. That is that people who want to go fast and waterski after 10:00 are not allowed to do so. There's also a State ordinance which says that at sunset that motors can not be run at full tilt and it's for the noise so I don't see any reason why snowmobilers should be treated any differently than boaters in that respect so I urge you to consider this ordinance very seriously. I think it's necessary and it will become much more important every day that goes by as more people come to our City. Jim Hurd: I'm Jim Hurd from Lyman Lumber Company. I guess I've got a concern with this ordinance and how it applies to our company and our operation. We've been a long time resident here and the way I read this, we will be limited in hours of operation. Is that true? Mayor Hamilton: Jim? Jim Chaffee: Under B-5, the operation of any construction, earthmoving, building or maintenance equipment for more than 5 days within a 30 day period except during work for which an appropriate City building, grading or other permit has been obtained, no such noise is to be emitted at all between the 44 - City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. It doesn't specifically get at something like Lyman Lumber. What I heard at the last Council meeting, I believe it was, II it could be construed that way. If we get a complaint from a citizen. Councilman Boyt: I would argue that item (e) makes it possible for the Council ' to grant a variance and this is the sort of thing that we discussed a few weeks ago. It's been a long standing, existing condition that you're working to control. I think as long as you're working to control, Council could certainly grant a variance or maybe we want to look at it as some sort of a conditional situation but I think there has to be room in the ordinance to handle legitimate business operations doing what it can to control noise. You raise a good point. Councilman Johnson: Our rules...they don't have decimil limits and stuff like that. You still have to contend with the State of Minnesota rules which are very specific which do have decimil levels which means that they can sit on ' their back property line, just the other side of the railroad track and take a 20 minute or 30 minute LEQ reading or whatever the heck they take and at 10:00 at night you violate it or in a 20 minute period of time, your neighbors have you. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think you'll find that we'll work with very carefully with you. We're not trying to run you out of town. At least I'm not. Maybe some ' are. You've been a very good resident of our community and we want to keep you here. It's not my intent and hopefully not the intent of the other council members to try to restrict the hours of your operation. IJim Hurd: Thank you. ' Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Councilman Boyt: Mr. Potz, back to you for just a second, are you familiar with the speed that you can operate on a lake within 100 feet of a ice house? Dick Potz: Yes. 10 mph. ' Councilman Boyt: Do you feel that the general snowmobile operators are aware of that speed limit? ' Dick Potz: No. ' Councilman Boyt: Not to pick on you, I know from a previous experience with other members of your group that there are certainly responsible snowmobile operators that are doing everything they can to work with the concerns of the people that they ride around and more credit to you. I think when I look at ' what other communities have done, Chaska has a curfew of 10:00 to 6:00. Eden Prairie has a curfew 11:00 to 7:00. Dick Potz: Chaska's curfew says that you can operate in Chaska after the hours of 10:00 if you are taking the most immediate route from the trail to your house. You can not operate on the main street of downtown Chaska. You can get off the trail and go home in Chaska after 10:00 by the most direct route. 45 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 •1 Councilman Boyt: Don't we have a similiar situation in ours? Dick Potz: Currently you can operate on Chanhassen streets at 10 mph. Councilman Boyt: And on the trails at any speed at any hour? Dick Potz: There is currently not a speed limit for Chanhassen on the trails. ' Councilman Boyt: Nor hours. Dick Potz: Nor hours. Councilman Boyt: Chaska has one. Deephaven has one. Eden Prairie. Councilman Horn: Chaska doesn't on their trail. That's operation within in the city. Councilman Boyt: Off the trail? Dick Potz: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Okay, do we limit snowmobile operation to on the trail? Does Chanhassen limit snowmobile operation to on the official trail? Dick Potz: Currently, no. You can operate in Chanhassen on the trail, on the City streets, at 10 mph as long as you're not on private property. Councilman Boyt: You can operate on the lake? Dick Potz: Yes, you can operate on the lake. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you can help clarify some of these other situations but I see in looking at your map that Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, St. Boni, Waconia all have time periods in the evening in which they restrict or eliminate the operation of snowmobiles. Dick Potz: To the best of my knowledge, that's true. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that one of the reasons those communities have gone to hour limitations is because they're enforceable. That we should be doing something to encourage all snowmobile operaters to be as responsible as Mr. Potz appears to be and if we don't, we're ignoring a problem. I would suggest that maybe one reasonable way out of this is to say that you can not, since you're telling me that the closest trail to a house is 200 feet away. Dick Potz: I didn't say that. Councilman Boyt: I thought I heard that earlier. Dick Potz: I was talking about one area that's down south of Chan Estates. 1111 There's a trail down there that's 200 feet in that particular case. Councilman Boyt: Is it closer in other places then? 46 i City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 1 Dick Potz: The closest that I can recollect right now is just on the west side Iof Lake Ann there's about 3 or 4 houses that are probably about. .. Councilman Boyt: Have these people given you permission to have your trail in front of their houses? Dick Potz: Those 3 houses we pass, you're on another neighbor's property who has given us permission or on a county or public right-of-way. Councilman Boyt: It would seem that what we need to do is restrict travel to maybe on the snowmobile trails. The official established trails between those ' given hours. I personally would like to see us restrict it from the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. but I can see that maybe given Chanhassen's rather sparse population in some places that that might not be what we need to do today. I certainly think that it would be reasonable to restrict them to on trail operation. How would your organization feel about that? Dick Potz: I'm not sure I can answer for the organization. However, to get off ' the trail to get to my house after 10:00, I'd have to- go put it on the trailer to get it down the street. I'd have to pull it into the yard someplace over at the Legion, if it still stays there, or up by Filly's. ' Councilman Boyt: But if you're on a public street, aren't you doing 10 mph? Dick Potz: You just told me that you're going to quit at 10:00. Councilman Boyt: But on a public street you're 10 mph and 10 mph has a negligable decimil level and I'd be okay with permitting that. ' Dick Potz: Then I don't have any problem. If I can go by the trail, get off the trail and go 10 mph to get to my residence, I don't have a problem with that. That's basically what.. . Councilman Horn: That's the current ordinance. ' Councilman Boyt: No, it's not the current ordinance because we don't limit it to on trail operation. This would limit them between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to either on trail operation or city streets at 10 mph. ' Councilman Horn: How is that different than the current ordinance? Councilman Boyt: He just told me the current ordinance does not limit you to on trail operation. Councilman Horn: No, it lets you drive 10 mph on the city streets. That's the ' off trail operation. Councilman Boyt: Can you run down the middle of Lotus Lake at 11:00 p.m. wide open? Councilman Horn: Not within the restrictions of the ordinance. Councilman Boyt: Where is that? 47 asp City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 I Councilman Horn: If you're away from an ice house or a certain distance from shore, then yes. Councilman Boyt: Clark, what they're indicating is that they would certainly accept that limitation. It'd be one way to eliminte the irresponsible snowmobile operation within the city. It might win over some people that are currently troubled by those irresponsible operaters. Councilman Horn: So when you're saying off trail, you're talking about specifically lakes... Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about, we have designated trails of operation. I'm saying if you're not on that trail, then you need to be on a city street. Doesn't that seem reasonable? Councilman Horn: That's about the way it works. It's the only place you can be. Councilman Boyt: Lakes. Road right-of-ways. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have another question? ' Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of other comments. I'd like to see us add under C, point number 4. At this point would be basically to address the City would incorporate State statute in it's ordinance so there's no question the City would also be empowered to enforce State Statute. As I said a couple of weeks ago, we really need this so I support it. Councilman Horn: I have a question under B(4) . I'd like to know if the City can legislate over airplanes? It seems to me that they're under the control of the FAA. 1 Jim Chaffee: It's funny, I got a call this morning on an airplane landing on Lake Minnewashta and they were wondering what to do. I reported them to the FAA. I would have to agree with you on that. Councilman Boyt: So do you want to strike airplane from 4? Councilman Horn: Yes. And also on B(7) . It's also referring to aircraft in talking about an apparatus or instrument for the amplification of the human voice or any sound. Would you be referring there to the Mayor would be illegal when he gives his public address at the 4th of July celebration? You'd be talking about the megaphone? Councilman Boyt: That's not true. I Councilman Horn: It's an apparatus or instrument for the amplification of the human voice. Without a written permit issued by the City Manager. So now if somebody wants to give a speech, they have to have a written permit. If somebody wants to hold a track meet, they have to have a written permit. We're talking about running out of staff to support these things now and we're going to give them more work to do? We're talking about cars that have the little song makers in them, they couldn't operate those. A lot of CB's have speakers 48 1 1 IF City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 in that they use as PA systems. You couldn't use those. IICouncilman Johnson: That's good. Councilman Horn: That's good in your mind but. . . ' Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could hold your comments until your turn. ' Councilman Horn: I think that we're anticipating a lot of problems that are already covered under existing ordinances and I don't believe that, I think we're doing the same thing that we've done for years and years that many other legislative bodies have done for years and years and that is, where we have ' areas that are not being enforced, we're going to put stricter ordinances on them. We already have them covered under existing ordinances but we beef them up and make them stricter and I disagree with that philosophy. ' Councilman Geving: I don't believe that we are so urbanized at this time in our development of Chanhassen that we need to shut down snowmobiling after 10:00 p.m.. I just can't see why we are picking on one very small group within our community. We all work very hard at other jobs and it's fun to recreate once in a while too and I think the snowmobiling club that I'm familiar with in Chanhassen over the last 20 years has done a good job of policing your own ' people. We've never had any serious problems with these people. They are a very clean living group. They like to go out on the lakes. They like to go out on the trails. They're recreating with friends and family. A lot of it's II I family oriented and I truly believe that this is an activity that a lot of people can share in and enjoy in Chanhassen and we're not yet so urbanized that we have to restrict that activity. We don't need the king of restriction on our people. People have a right to enjoy the land. Our lakes are free to everyone. They're open and they're not abused. They're not abused by any snowmobiles that I'm aware. Are we merely creating a problem? Does a problem exist? I've sat here a long time and I'm not familiar with any major problems by our Carver County Sheriff's deputies or by our police people who work for the City of Chanhassen that this is a big deal. I'm going to ask Jim Chaffee, is this a big deal? Have you had a lot of noise ordinance problems within the last year? Jim Chaffee: No. Councilman Geving: I submit that this is not a major problem for us to be ' looking at and spending time on. We've got more important things to do. We talked about a lot of them this evening with TH 5, TH 101. Let's get on with the major things. Leave the people snowmobile after 10:00 and enjoy themselves. They pay enough taxes in this city to be able to at least enjoy some parts of their living and I just can't see us continually restrict our citizens. I don't know where this ordinance proposal came from. I personally don't believe it's ' needed at this time. That's all I have to say. Councilman Johnson: I know where this ordinance proposal came from. This is almost identical to the ordinance that used to be on the books and then when we hired a company to put them into our City Code, they accidentally dropped most of it so it's an ordinance that was passed by previous City Councils and from what I'm being told, is basically being put in with a few minor modifications. 1� Councilman Geving: I don't think that's true. 49 is 'City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Jay's got the floor. Let him speak. Councilman Johnson: That's what I've been told by staff is that there's not a I lot of changes. There are some changes in here but we accidentally gutted our own ordinance when we redid the codification. It was an inadvertent mistake. I think that after dark, after 10:00 I would hate to see somebody doing 50 mph on a snowmobile, even on a regular trail. 50 mph on a snowmobile during good daylight conditions, you might be able to see well enough to drive it safely but I'm not sure at night whether you could. I don't know how good the lights are. I'm not sure. I think that's something we need to look at is whether on the trails we need to have reduced speed limits at night as is. Definitely on the lakes at night. Especially Lotus Lake which is in that valley and Georgette has pointed out to me and other people lately that that valley does work like a parabolic amplifier to a point to throw a lot of noise up on the rims towards those houses so if somebody is in there at night on the lake, the residents really get the brunt of it. I think we need under our snowmobile ordinance II restrictions for night time specific to the snowmobiles but I think that needs further study than this very general and somewhat weak ordinance here. Without Bill's little move to incorporate the State regulations -is the strongest g part of this ordinance now. It gives us something that we can take, you can take your sound pressure level measuring equipment, you get a reading. If they're above the reading with the State laws, we're enforcing it. It gives us something very concrete to go with. Issuing a citation because it's a matter of opinion that it's a disturbing or annoying noise, it's all a matter of opinion. That's much harder to prove. I don't have a problem with the ordinance as long as it has what Bill has suggested here for C-4, incorporating the State noise standards. I'd like to see us in the future look at our snowmobile ordinance and whether we should do anything about the snowmobile ordinance for night time use of snowmobiles on trails and on lakes. I would at this time, because I think it is in conflict, I also would support removing that strict prohibition in C-3 where it strictly prohibits after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. snowmobile operation. The rest of the ordinance has been fairly general, annoying, etc. . If you're not annoying anybody by this ordinance, we shouldn't be carte blanche saying you can't do it. Maybe you can reword that so a driver operating a minibike, snowmobile or other recreational. ..between those hours in such a manner as to create an annoying or whatever the general words is we're thrown in through here. That's one way we can modify number 3 is to disturbing noise. That's all I've got. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill hit on a point here a few minutes ago that he ' mentioned that the snowmobile club we have here is a responsible club and the people who operate that club do a good job of trying to live by the laws. You talk about responsibility of people using boats and snowmobiles and I submit that until the State consents to licensing of people to opearate a snowmobile or a boat, there are not going to be responsible people doing it. You will have irresponsible people involved in that. Anybody with $30,000.00, $80,000.00, $100,000.00 in their pocket can go buy a boat, put it in the lake and have absolutely no idea how to drive it and away they go. The same thing with the snowmobile. As long as you've got the money to buy, you've got a license to go out and run it into a tree or a car or whatever you want to do so I think there is a problem here but it's not at the local level, it's at the State level. We need to have these people be licensed to go through a driving or some type of written and probably a driving test, the same as you have to do when you're 50 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 operating a car or a truck or anything else. The comments I made about this ordinance previously still stand. I think it's an uneforceable ordinance. I'm not in favor of passing an ordinance that's uneforceable plus it's so vague in I some cases you would have radios, musical instruments, television, phonographs, etc.. How do you treat someone who is hearing impaired? What might be a normal ' sound level for than is going to perhaps be offensive to someone else? Are you going to tag them and haul them off to jail because they have a hearing impairment? I don't think that's quite right. Item C(2) , if I happen to be out of town and it snows and I come home and there's 4 feet of snow in my driveway and I want to put my car in the garage, if it's been more than 12 hours since the snow fell, I'll just have to wait until, if I happen to arrive home in the evening I'll just have to wait until morning until I can run my snowblower. I'll submit to you I'll get my snowblower right out and do it whenever I feel like it. I don't care when it snows. I think that's ludicrous to have that type of a thing put into an ordinance. Basically I'm not in favor of the ordinance, period. I think we have the ability to handle noise ordinances, ' noise nuisances within the City currently and I see no reason to take away more rights. We're continually losing than as it is and I don't see any reason to take away some more. ' Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that on the one hand you say we have the power but on the other hand you say we're taking away more of a person's freedom. Ironic. If we have the power, we must not be removing something. Mayor Hamilton: I think I said we have the ability. Ij. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to point out that Mr. Potz was comfortable with the changes to the snowmobile situation in this ordinance. That's not to say that anybody else in that group would be comfortable but he's a snowmobile opeartor ' and he's comfortable with that change. Dick Potz: How is it changed? Councilman Boyt: I was talking about the on trail operations. That one. Dick Potz: I was confused because we went back and forth. ' Councilman Boyt: What I was saying was that operation between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would be limited to on trail or if you're on city streets, 10 mph. Dick Potz: If I can speak for myself. Councilman Boyt: That's all I asked you to speak for. ' Dick Potz: After 10:00 I can either be on the trail or off the trail? ' Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that after 10:00 you can be on the trail operating at whatever you think is a reasonable speed or off the trail operating at 10 mph or less on the city street. Dick Potz: Personally, I can get home with that. I don't know if everybody else is going on a trail. That means if I'm in, there are areas in St. Peter, I can get home at 11:00 at night without putting it on a trailer. 51 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Boyt: That's what it means. Dick Potz: That'd be a real problem. What you're telling me is I can get home at a safe operating speed on the trail, get off the trail, cross the lake, go up the street and get home. That's basically what we have now the way I understand it. The only thing you're doing is conditioning that I'm going to operate under a safe speed. Councilman Boyt: When you're off the trail I'm saying you're limited to 10 mph. ' Dick Potz: That's the current ordinance. I have a copy of the current ordinance. Councilman Boyt: That's not exactly the currently ordinance because ' under the current situation, you can run over any field, any lake, at least any lake at any speed provided you're not within 100 feet of the shore or an ice house. Dick Potz: You can't run over anybody's property. .. Councilman Boyt: Any lake. Any road right-of-way. This ordinance is important enough to me that if the snowmobiles have got everybody hung up, take them out of it but to deny the whole ordinance is to miss a very important point. I don't know how you can go out and campaign this coming year and say that people don't have the right to quiet after 10:00 p.m.. They do have the right to quiet. Mayor Hamilton: People also have the right to live. I!! Councilman Boyt: People have the right to live but they have a right to live in harmony and part of that means that they're responsible with their noise level and to say that we're going to turn this down because somebody who's hearing impaired needs special treatment is ridiculous. Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me I heard Mr. Chaffee say that there have not been virtually no problems with noise. I'm certainly not aware of any. I've lived in this town for 20 years. I have never been offended by anybody's noise. I've never had anybody complain to me about noise. Councilman Boyt: I hope you are not offended in the future. The way this is going right now, this for you isn't needed. That's fine. All it is is a tool for the people who need it. As Mr. Chaffee stated as few weeks ago, we're not out there with our decimeter seeing if anybody is over the limit. We're responding to people who have a legitimate complaint and this lays out how we're going to measure that complaint. It says at your property line. That seems reasonable to me. If you're creating a noise and you're out in the middle of 40 acres and I can't hear it, it's not a problem. If you're creating a noise next to me, I'd like to know that at some point at night you're going to turn it off. The way it is right now, we don't have the ability to limit that. It needs to be. Councilman Horn: What problems are we having today that we can't control with the existing ordinance? State or local? 52 , City,- Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 °-T ' Councilman Boyt: When they hold a party down the block from you and they want f to hold it until 2:00 in the morning, the only thing we've got now is their IIcommon sense and their willingness to cooperate. Councilman Horn: You can't close down a party Jim? A noisy party? There's no nuisance ordinance? ' Jim Chaffee: Clark, I'm not aware of any right now that specifically addresses parties. I could research the nuisance ordinance to see if it does. I'm not ' aware of any right now... Councilman Horn: If we can come up with specific instances that we're having trouble with, I'd be more than happy to entertain them. To me I see a general statement here and I think Bill totally missed Tom's point. What he was saying is that we have the ability to resolve these problems with our current ordinances without putting further restrictions on. That's what I heard Tom saying. Now that to me is true and unless someone tells me of instances that are totally out of line that we can't handle, I'll still believe that. We haven't heard that yet. The other point I'd like to respond to Jay is, just ' because we had the law in effect that didn't make sense, doesn't mean we should put it back in if it doesn't make sense. We have other laws that don't make sense. I can't walk my dog down the public access. I can walk every other street but I can't walk them down to the public access. You can't take your dog out on the boat with you. Does that make these laws right just because they're on the books? You can go through and find some of the most interesting laws if you go through the law. It doesn't mean they're still current or they make Isense. Councilman Geving: I'm ready to make a motion on this. I think we've discussed it long enough. We've heard a lot of debate. Have we closed the public hearing? Councilman Horn: Yes. Councilman Geving: I think the Council is ready to take action on this. I would make the motion to deny an ordinance amendment to Ordinance No. 22 as ' proposed, the Chanhassen Nuisance Ordinance by adding a new section pertaining to noise regulations. The reason is that I think we have already enough ordinances in place to handle all the nuisance problems for noise that we will anticipate in the near future or for some period of time to come. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Ed Williams: I wanted to make comment on, you made a statement a few minutes ago and I wanted to... You said you have not heard complaints before.. .as far as noise. ' Councilman Horn: ...and I don't think there was a problem getting it resolved. Councilman Johnson: On our current books, our noise, under nuisance ordinance is one sentence. A nuisance is causing or permitting any unnecessary noises or annoying vibrations. That's our present noise ordinance. I think this is a few steps beyond that. I think this gives us much more to stand up with when we go into court. I know of many occasions in the last year where my neighbors have 53 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 called about loud parties. We happen to have some groups of people who come 11 home after the bars close and continue their party in their unair conditioned house with their windows wide open or in the middle of the street. At 2:00 in the morning they're having frisbee games out in the middle of the street. Things like this. The Sheriff was called quite a few times this last year. Despite what anybody says, the neighbors have assured me that several times at 2:00 in the morning they were unsuccessful in raising anybody at the Sheriff's office. I'm sure they're there. They're probably handling a 911 emergency or something and weren't able to get to the normal call line but I have registered complaints myself. The one incident is a little more than 2:00 in the morning when the folks came home, opened their back sliding door and turned on the stereo. I'm about 200 feet away from this particular house and the operator at the Sheriff's office could tell me what song they were playing on their stereo from my phone in my house. It was that loud. She thought my radio was on. I said no, that's their radio. Councilman Horn: What did they say when you told them about it? ' Councilman Johnson: That I was the second complaint to come in and that when a unit was available, they would dispatch somebody. At that point that's when I slid my sliding glass door open and the music came blowing through the phone. They did dispatch somebody there. Somebody was there within about 15 minutes actually. They do respond but this gives our Sheriff's department a little bit more to help them to respond with when they do have to respond to these types of problems. I think that we need to look at our snowmobile ordinance also. Beyond this to address the noise problems. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the ordinance amendment to Ordinance No. 22 as proposed, the Chanhassen Nuisance Ordinance by adding a new section pertaining to noise regulations. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Pat Farrell: I might suggest to you that under the Public Nuisance Statute in your local ordinance and also under the disorderly conduct, if you have that kind of a problem, you can file charges for disorderly conduct or public nuisance. Am I right? Councilman Horn: I'll tell both Jay and Bill, if you can come back to me with ' specific things that we can not address and come up with language to address them, I'll certainly support that but I haven't heard that. I've heard some vague generalities. ' PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE AUTHORIZING NON-LICENSED PERSONNEL TO ISSUE CITATIONS. Jim Chaffee: Just briefly, this ordinance does not have any affect whatsoever on the use of marked or unmarked vehicles. All it is is allowing our people, such as the building officials to issue citations if the need should arise. 54 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 IMayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Mayor Hamilton: Does anyone have questions on this? This I suspect will be closely supervised by yourself? Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public ' hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the proposed amendment to the City Code authorizing non-licensed personnel to issue citations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING SOLICITORS LICENSES ' Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Hamiton: I would move approval of the proposed amendment to the City Code ' regarding solicitors licenses. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Geving: There's a couple of comments that I want to I all I think that we have to arrive make. First of ve at some kind of a fee at some point in time under 10-144 and whether or not these fees are transferable. They're on a one ' time fee. They're good for one year and some of the details that are necessary to bring this into operation. Then I feel that under the investigation issuance of a license, we need some kind of a manageable but restrictive type of an operation so that anybody who comes up to City Hall can't just get a permit. I get the impression here based on 10-145 that there is, upon receipt of the application the City shall conduct a criminal history investigation and it just ' seems like boy, we're getting into a big operation here and going to take a lot of man power to manage the application and processing of these permits. I hope that's not the case and yet we want them to be fairly restrictive. Then under (c) under the same item 10-145 is it issued for one year automatic renewal? ' Does it come back for the City Council? Is it handled by staff at that point? Some of those, just administrative type items and then most importantly, if we do pass this tonight, I would hope that every citizen is able to read in the newspapers, the Sailor, in the South Shore News, the Villager, just what their responsibility is if they see a peddler come to their door and is a firewood salesmen or is a candy salesmen and to make sure that these people are in fact licensed people by the City. They have a license. They are out there ' legitimately so we can cut down on, if this is what our ordinance is intended to do, to cut down on the people that peddle and go from door to door, then let's instruct our people, our citizens so that they know when they have people knocking on the door, that they have a real legitimate right to ask them, do you ,1 have a license? Show me your license and if not I'll call the Public Safety. So I want to make sure that that gets highly publicized with all the people in 3�- Chanhassen. That's all I have to say. 55 i `'City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 11 Bernie: Does this ordinance require then require to have a license for all insurance agents, real estate agents and so forth? If so. .. Mayor Hamilton: Real estate are already licensed by the State. That's not the intent of the ordinance to cause those people to have to be licensed by the City. That's a legitimate occupation that people are involved in. What we're looking at are those people who are selling fish door to door or wood. Things like that that you don't know exactly what you're going to get. People standing on the street corners selling these paintings and wrenches and those types of things. They come into town, you don't know what you're getting and the chances are the consumer is going to get ripped off. That's what the intent of this ordinance is. Bernie: It would exclude then people licensed by the State of Minnesota? Real estate and insurance agents? Councilman Horn: Not the way it's written. Councilman Geving: It doesn't say that Bernie. Councilman Boyt: We can change it. Councilman Johnson: Why? ' Councilman Boyt: People licensed by the State? Councilman Johnson: Why do we want real estate agents, insurance agents coming to our door, knocking on our door saying I'm a licensed insurance agent and he walks up unannounced to your door and tries to sell you insurance. I want him licensed just as much as anybody else. Anybody can get a license to be a real estate agent or insurance agent. All they have to do is pass the test. Councilman Geving: I disagree. ' Councilman Johnson: How many real estate agents or insurance agents have you had walk up to your door, unannounced? This is only unannounced people. If he's got an appointment, he does not need to be licensed. If you are working with that real estate agent or if that is your insurance agent, he does not have to get a license to come to your house. Only if he is going around soliciting new business, walking door to door such as the chiropracter that was walking around the other day in the neighborhood or claiming to be a chiropracter and saying he's coming around looking at Chanhassen for future, putting a clinic in door to door. 1 Councilman Horn: Or the Girl Scouts. Councilman Johnson: The Girl Scout organization as an organization is covered in here. Churches. Councilman Horn: Or the fireman selling tickets. I Councilman Johnson: Cr the fireman selling tickets. 56 1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: They don't have to be licensed? 1 II _ Councilman Johnson: As an organization. The Fire Department would have to be licensed per se. Not the individual. There's an exclusion in here for organizations. ' Mayor Hamilton: I couldn't disagree with you more. We're talking about legitimate... ' Councilman Johnson: How do you know a legitimate from a non-legitimate real estate agent? ' Mayor Hamilton: You ask them for their card. You obviously know the company. If the guy's working out of the trunk of his car, you'd better tell him to hit the road. Those are the people you want to have licensed. I've never had an ' insurance or real estate person come to my door, ever. Councilman Johnson: Neither have I. ' Mayor Hamilton: If we're starting to hammer the legitimate business people in this community, then we've got a real problem. ' Councilman Johnson: What legitimate real estate agent goes door to door looking, do you want to sell your house? I want to sell your house? I 1 Mayor Hamilton: That's very legitimate. You're out seeking business. We do that in your neighborhood all the time. Councilman Johnson: Walking door to door? Mayor Hamilton: You bet your butt. ' Councilman Johnson: You can do your mass mailings. . . Councilman Boyt: If I can amend item a, we amend item a to say, or others licensed by the State of Minnesota. Councilman Horn: I would suggest that we give our intent to the Attorney and let him redo the whole thing. ' Councilman Boyt: I think our intent is to have some means of control. If the State is licensing these people, there's a means to control. If the State isn't ' licensing them, then what we're saying is we want to do that for their organization so we have some means of control. It seems pretty straight forward. Councilman Horn: I'm uncomfortable that this all states that. Councilman Geving: I think Clark's idea was a good one. I think that we could pass this, give it to the Attorney and let them clean it up. There's a lot more items I think that need to be included in the charitable and business organizations and those that are to be excluded from our intent. There's nothing in here that says anything about public or private school children for ' example and they are the ones in your neighborhood all the time. I think there ' 57 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 could be some additions made here. Councilman Boyt: I would then move that we table this to our Attorney. I don't think we should pass anything before we see the final version. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table action on the amendment to the City Code regarding solicitors licenses to the City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ASSUMPTION SEMINARY TIMETABLE FOR SECURING THE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. Mayor Hamilton: Scott's not here. I guess this is pretty self explanatory. Again, there are a number of items that Jim and Scott have been working on to try to get this property secured. Anyone have any questions or comments or need more information about it? Councilman Boyt: I have one. I noticed that Mr. Harr had mentioned that maybe , boarding up the first floor might be enough. Since your initial intent was to board the whole thing, would you be open to maybe just being sure that the first floor is completely sealed? ' Mayor Hamilton: You can get in there. All the windows are broken. Everything is open so my thought was, if it's totally dark in there, kids aren't going to , go in there. You can't see your hand in front of your face. It's not a safe place. I just thought the whole thing should be totally closed up. You have — rodents in there and birds and everything else going in and out of the windows. Councilman Boyt: They are putting in a security system and Harr did mention it would be nice when they go in to inspect if there was some natural light in there. The first floor, they're going to have to be pretty determined to get in. Not that they can't but if they're that determined, they can also pull a board off. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if they could. The way they're nailed on there, it'd be tough. I was just looking for total security because the place is a real hazard and if kids get in there, there are open dumb waiter shafts that they could fall down. There are so many things in there that could cause injury. If we can keep anybody out of there, it'd be the best thing to do. Councilman Johnson: How about to the satisfaction of our Safety professionals? ' Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I guess if Jim and Scott are happy with the first floor or whatever they can work out with the guy, if they think that that is going to be secure the building adequately, then that's fine with me. Councilman Boyt: I would so move. Councilman Horn: Second. 58 ' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ' , Councilman Johnson: I have a question. Mine's on number 1 here. Specific times and completion of specific work. I don't know what's taking them so. long to figure out the time schedule on this. On the way here tonight on the airplane I spent very little of the flight from Chicago and I worked out a time ' schedule for him. They shall hire a consultant within 2 weeks of tonight. The consultant shall review the site, preliminary review of the site within 1 week of being hired. Sampling of the barrels will be performed within 1 to 2 weeks of that timeframe. The barrels will be secured and removed from the site to a ' permitted storage facility within 1 to 2 weeks of that. That wasn't tough. It's taken us 2 months to get this far. ' Jim Chaffee: I got a call this afternoon, late this afternoon from Mike Shotliff, the Carver County Environmentalist. He feels that Mr. Schumacher is using him as a scapegoat for this. The only thing that he has to do with this is to provide.. .to us and there is no problem with Mr. Schumacher getting this ' work done in a... Councilman Johnson: I would like to give him my schedule that I worked out ' today which is a...but reasonable schedule. I've been involved with the MPCA and given me shorter schedules than this. I usually argue with them and get it extended a little bit but you never start your schedules as wide as you possibly ' will allow somebody to have them. Mayor Hamilton: Rather than posing a schedule on them, I guess I would like to see Scott or Jim to press them further to get this done as quickly as possible. I I It says he's waiting for the Environmentalist from Carver County. Perhaps that's a legitimate hold-up so rather than enforce a schedule on them that they can't maintain, I think Jim has heard what we're saying. We want to do it as Uquickly as possible and we should proceed in that fashion. Councilman Johnson: We've been proceeding on this since what, February or? Mayor Hamilton: That's right and I think we've made a lot of progress. Councilman Johnson: We have but it doesn't take this long to do what they're ' saying here. If the MPCA were involved, they would not give them a month to come out with a schedule. It's been over a month. It was July 21st, one month and one day ago that we asked them to give us a schedule. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's what he's been working on so he's moving along. Councilman Johnson: What he's doing is not spending any money. He's trying to ' let Carver County do it for him and use them as a consultant or something but I'm not satisfied with his actions here. Has he hired anybody? Is there anybody working on this besides the lawyers? ' Mayor Hamilton: Why does he need to hire anybody? Jim Chaffee: We'll work on this diligently to accomplish our goals in a time 111 frame that's more appropriate. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could bring it back to us as an informational item on ' what schedule you worked out. t59 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ', Councilman Johnson: By our next Council meeting? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. September 12th. Councilman Johnson: Would you like to add that to the motion Bill? To bring us a schedule by September 12th? , Councilman Boyt: Sure. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Assumption Seminary timetable for securing the buildings on the property as proposed and to direct staff to bring an updated schedule back by September 12, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW PRYZMUS DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE. ' Barbara Dacy: The applicant is here tonight also and we've reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and what exists out on the property today. The summary on page 4 identifies 3 items which I believe we resolved and then possibly a fourth one would be also removal of the building parts that are located between the parking area and the street. Two items were not discussed during the most recent application process in 1987 and 1988. Those two issues were installation of video games and vending machines and the installation of a sign. As to the sign, that is a typical accessory feature to an operation such as this but video games were not discussed at all. Mayor Hamilton: John, do you have anything you want to present? John Pryzmus: I guess I really don't. I opened up on the 5th of July and it's been a long hot summer.. . The progress so far has been a little slow... Some of our plants and trees will be later on in the fall. As far as the steel building, I'm working right now on selling it. I don't know, I'd prefer to get it sold rather than try to find someplace to store it. If it's a sight problem and I don't get it sold by next month, what I possibly could do.. .so it wouldn't be visible. Like I say, it's been slow but everything is coming together. 1 Mayor Hamilton: You're willing to put the culvert in and the driveway? That apparently wasn't done. You've got to put a culvert in there. The evergreens you're going to do. Have you gotten permission from MnDot to put them in the right-of-way? John Pryzmus: The culverts are all in. ' Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the trees. Barbara Dacy: There are no trees in the right-of-way. Mayor Hamilton: The berm was supposed to be located right? Barbara Dacy: If he wanted to install the berms that he had originally indicated, they would have to. 60 ' Al City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 I T- John Pryzmus: The Y berms are there. As far as the trees, I won't be able to plant, only 2 feet out of the right-of-way so I will be working with the II _ Arboretum. Right now they have some different planting shurbs that I'd like to plant all along the site... I'll put the evergreens inside of the fence. Mayor Hamilton: And you're going to take the lights down that you've got in there as recommended by staff? The lights that you had put out there, you're going to remove those? John Pryzmus: At this point, all my competition has lights. I wouldn't financially be able to compete with them so at this point, I guess I won't. ' Mayor Hamilton: So you want us to shut you down then? You're not in conformance with your conditional use. It was from sunrise to sundown. ' John Pryzmus: That was back when we had the sunrise and sunset. In the original, when just the driving range was approved and I guess we didn't go over it all... ' Mayor Hamilton: Any questions? Jay, anything? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I want to know how the kids are enjoying the cigarette ' machine. You say your vending machines were for the children. I don't see, I'm an anti-smoking advocate to a point, I don't see encouraging. I believe smokers need their own little room they go off into and fill each other's lungs but I Idon't see at a family recreational facility that we should be selling I cigarettes. I'd like to see, if we're going to consider it, I don't have any problems with one or two video machines as long as we don't become a video arcade where the primary purpose is to play video games. As a slight accessory ' to putt-putt, on a hot summer day come in and cool off for a while and play a couple games of Donkey Kong or whatever, no big deal to me but if you start getting 10 or 15 video games in there and the place turns into a teenage video ' hang-out, that's going to be a problem. Cigarette machine is definitely a problem with me. ' John Pryzmus: I have no problem. I don't smoke and I don't have any problem with taking that out. They put them in there. I didn't ask for it. It was part of what came with the machines. ' Councilman Johnson: You can blame us. John Pryzmus: Well, it don't matter... Councilman Johnson: Does that sign need a sign permit or anything Barb? Normally you can get such and such a sign if you have a business right? ' Barbara Dacy: Right. A permit would be required except we amended the ordinance to allow a driving range and miniature golf course. Unfortunately we didn't address in detail of how big the sign should be. Councilman Geving: I think John you made a lot of progress out there. I'm pleased to see it's coming along. The few things that we've got remaining here are pretty minor. You apparently are working towards getting those trees in this fall and you indicated there were berms there, I don't remember seeing any 61 } �City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 11 berms but if that's in the conditional use permit, we ought to look at that. There seems to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the staff on where the berms are or where they should be. How many video games are there out there? John Pryzmus: There's foosball and hockey. Mayor Hamilton: There must be 4 or 5 I suppose. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess when we discussed this way back when we were talking about the difference between a business having 1 or 2 machines versus an arcade and I think we came up with, is 6 the magic number? Do you recall that 6 is an arcade? Barbara Dacy: There are no definitions. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess maybe we were thinking of that at one time. I don't see any big problem with the few items that we've got here. The only one that we did have a lot of discussion over John was the light standards. That there wasn't to be any lighting on the facility. I don't have a real hard feeling about that but I think if we're going to go that route, we're going to have to come back and talk about it again because I can see where that would extend your business day. Does it give you another half hour or something? John Pryzmus: What it does is, in the evening as the sun goes down, before it gets too dark, I would assume that, I've talked with all the neighbors and it will keep it open on a nice evening for another half hour-45 minutes rather than ' sunset. Basically I've kept my standards. Floods up on the out lights and keep them shining down. I'm not putting them in a high place like a ballpark or anything like that. I wasn't... Councilman Geving: I think our discussion when we talked about lights were something far different than what you've got out there. I think we were thinking that we wouldn't let John have these big light poles and lots of problems with any neighbors that might object to that but I see no objection to what's out there now. I don't have any problem with that John except that it's not on your conditional use permit. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have any problem with the sign. To me it looks like a reasonable sign for that kind of a business but again, I supposed we should discuss that... Mayor Hamilton: That can be discussed through the ordinance process. Councilman Horn: I also agree about the lights. I don't see anything. The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area aren't they? The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area? John Pryzmus: Yes, they follow the path. There are two rows of trees that follow the path and they shine towards the mini-putt area. .. Councilman Horn: I realize we didn't allow those but again, Dale said we had envisioned something totally different. I also agree that there should be vending machines out there. People should have access to pop. You don't have 62 i , ICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Iany water on the site do you? Like a water fountain so this is really the only thing... IJohn Pryzmus: Yes, I haven't had it hooked up yet. I do have a... Right now I have the Pepsi-Cola Company with automatic cooler. Like I say, the cigarette machine wasn't one of the machines that I had brought it. The vending company ' brought it in. I didn't order it and I can have them take it out of there... As you get the grass to start growing out there and eventually... As you come in there's one berm that's maybe 7 feet high in front of the building, but some ' of that might even... but I will be working on it right on through the fall to hopefully... Councilman Horn: I don't have any problem with anything I see out there. My only recolimendation would be that I think it would be better, and you may disagree with this, to come to us with what you've done and we would agree with it. Whereas to go ahead and do it before we get a permit to do it can sometimes ' cause yourself more grief. John Pryzmus: There are some things that I changed.. . ' Councilman Boyt: I see where staff recommends 8 foot evergreens instead of 6 foot. ' Barbara Dacy: Yes but since the berms are 6 feet, there's a disagreement so.. . Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear it as a point of disagreement along the highway. John Pryzmus: I don't think that would be done.. . Not all of them, everyone is I the on put P The shorter ones will be put inside. ' Councilman Boyt: I hope you're successful with this. I've got to tell you that it bothers me when anyone intentionally violates the standards the City has set for their development. You won't convince me John that when you put those light ' standards in you thought the City gave you approval to do that. What that means is, you decided that you're going to do that business the way you need to do that business and then you'll come back to the City and get approval. I don't ' think that's a smart business approach. I think that we should definitely look at the sign to be sure that it fits within the standard size for signs. I suspect it does. The light standards, we need to have those inspected by staff to be sure that they're directed so they don't shine on the highway at all and good luck. I hope to get out there and use it sometime. Barbara Dacy: Given the Council's discussion, I guess what I would suggest is ' that the applicant apply to amend his permit regarding the light standards and the sign issue or the Council look at a ordinance amendment. ' Councilman Boyt: I think we should consider hours of operation too. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think John should come back, hours of operation, light standards and the trees. IJohn Pryzmus: I'll bring that up to staff this week. 63 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: So we need to table this until, oh and the sign also should be a part of that. Bernie: I have not been following this but I am wondering why the restriction is placed on a businessman to have restricted hours when the competition certainly dictates that putt-putt courses, their best hours are from 8:00 to 10:00 at night. I'm wondering why his position is so unique that we should have to restrict him from sunrise to sunset? Mayor Hamilton: When we first looked at this Bernie, John had a hand drawn plan that he brought in here and the neighbors objected to it. We tried to work with John all the way through this process and it's been kind of one frustration after another and just as it occurs now he's got lights out there that were not approved and he goes ahead and puts them up there without getting permission from the City. If he wants to have lights out there, he should come in here with a plan like anybody else that's going to try to do something. To just go ahead and do it, like Bill says, that's not the right way to do it. This was several years ago when the first plan came along and we said we weren't going to allow him to have the high pole standards and at that time was when we said sunrise to sunset would be his operation. So I think since that time John has talked with the neighbors and they have seen that it's not going to be the nuisance that they thought it was going to be but he's got to come back to us with an amended plan to try and change it. John Pryzmus: .. .I have worked with the neighbors... Councilman Johnson: When you started talking about your water system, I hope I you realize that when you start serving that water to people, either in that machine or in that water fountain, you have created a public water supply by State Law and you have to do certain water quality tests on that on a routine basis. You'll need to coordinate that with the County Health Department. You'll need to do that and file your reports of this. At one of my rural plants I work with, they have one coffee machine that is hooked up to water, otherwise they have bottled water everyplace. We got stuck because you have more than 25 employees there, as a public water supply system. So you're in the same boat there so watch out for that one. Mayor Hamilton: He hasn't hooked it up yet. Councilman Johnson: It's a fairly simple test and I think they're probably going to be annual tests, I'm not sure. Our test requires to be once a year testing for bacteria and that kind of stuff. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table review of the Pyrzmus Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course until a plan is brought back with additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR KENNEL PERMIT, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mathiowetz is here who is the applicant for the kennel permit. He is here because we've had complaints from a neighbor, Mr. Krueger, which I'm sure Council is well aware of since he was sending all the information on the 64 47 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 J problems that were occurring there. As my cover memo states, it's been approximately 5 months since we heard from Mr. Krueger and at that time, 5 months ago, Mr. Krueger did state that we would be hearing each and every time a problem occurred. I would like to point out that as Public Safety was made aware of these problems, we worked with Mr. Krueger as best as we could and we ' advised the County Deputies that when they responded to one of Mr. Krueger's complaints, that they were supposed to take action. Those remedies still exist. We are not sure that there is a problem. Therefore, we are recommending that the kennel permit be approved with the understanding that the remedies available ' to Mr. Krueger are still applicable at any time after the kennel permit is approved, if the Council should approve it. ' Councilman Horn: Have you talked to the deputies? Jim Chaffee: Yes. Councilman Horn: Because we were told by Mr. Krueger that the deputies were actually out there and heard the dogs barking and told him that that wasn't a problem. Jim Chaffee: Right, that occurred one time. Deputy Swenson went out there, verified that the dogs were barking. He did write a complaint to pass onto Steve Madden. From that point no action was taken for various reasons. As a result of that, we advised the deputies that if they should respond again, they can take action. They don't have to write a report and pass it onto us. They can write a citation. Councilman Horn: So there haven't been any further reports by the deputies of further incidents like this since that time? ' Jim Chaffee: No, there haven't. ' Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Mathiowetz have any comments? Phil Mathiowetz: No, not really. I guess we work as hard as we could to do anything that anybody asked us to do. Currently all dogs are taken in to an ' inside insulated garage at night and put in a kennel there. The CSO was out and inspected the facility and I think she has issued a memo also. I guess I would just ask for approval. Councilman Geving: How many dogs do you have? ' Phil Mathiowetz: Right now? Councilman Geving: Yes, what's the maximum number of dogs that you can have? ' Phil Mathiowetz: The most I can handle would be 5 and I have 4 at the time. Some of them are gone at various times. Off and on they may be in Iowa for professional training. They spend part of the time they're home. ItCouncilman Geving: Are these show dogs? Phil Mathiowetz: Show dogs and field dogs. ' 65 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 '' Mayor Hamilton: What kind of dogs are they? Phil Mathiowetz: German Shorthair dogs. Councilman Boyt: So far I gather from what we're read, that you have taken some action to reduce the impact to the dogs. I saw some things about screening them so they couldn't see the road for instance or the front of the house. Is that right? Phil Mathiowetz: We built a privacy fence along the whole side.. . They can't 1 see up onto the road. For all intensive purposes, people can't see in and the dogs can't see out and that pretty well eliminated any problems with people walking by. We require, as people walk by. .. I think some of Mr. Krueger's concerns may be a bit over stated. We've done everything that I think we can. I'm always open to suggestions if anyone has anymore. I'll try anything if anyone has any concerns. Councilman Boyt: One point that Mr. Krueger made was that the dogs seem to be in control when you were home and when no one was home, there seemed to be more of a problem. How are you controlling the dogs when you're not at home? Phil Mathiowetz: I guess I have a fairly large disagreement with Mr. Krueger over that part because I don't hear them when I am home, at least on the weekends or during the week when someone is home. We've had people stay and take care of our house when we're gone, and they haven't had any problems. We did have a problem with one dog and we put a bark collar on it, put a little electronic schock collar, so I had her surgically debarked and that didn't work 11! all that well so I just sold her. I just got rid of her. I bought a young dog now that has a bark collar on it and that controls him. Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of comments, just in general. I think some of these I've already mentioned to Mr. Chaffee so I won't go over them but my biggest concern is that this was supposed to be reviewed in April and it's August. Next year if there's a complaint between now and next April, I want to be sure that this is reviewed in April not August as our ordinance requires. I think that from what I've heard, efforts are being made. From what I read from Mr. Krueger's commitments to do things, he hasn't followed up on that. I have some sympathy with him. I think that we can all understand how a barking dog can wake one up and you choose not to call to complain. You just hope the dog stops and 5 minutes later it stops and you go back to sleep. That's still a problem, even if you don't call and complain. I think you've taken reasonable action to stop your dogs from being a problem to your neighbors. I think as long as you continue to take reasonable action, you'll probably be able to have a private kennel there. I think it's the City's responsibility to be very responsive to people who are seeking quiet. I think the City has taken every effort to do that and I would expect they'll continue to take every effort. Phil Mathiowetz: Can I respond? As far as making the application in April, we contacted the City and they said that they were reviewing the application form and they would send it out when they got it ready. It took some time and although I guess I didn't send it back any faster, I will take part of the blame for that but I think the City has got a take a little bit of the rap. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. 66 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 I Phil Mathiowetz: I'll apply in April again. Councilman Boyt: I'm not holding you at all responsible for that. I think that's the City's responsibility and we didn't follow through on it and I think you should be approved for a permit between now and next April. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the request for ' Kennel Permit for Phil Mathiowetz at 1630 Lake Lucy Road up to April, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' DISCUSSION OF DECK REQUIREMENTS FOR CHAPARRAL QUAD-UNITS. Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, we had asked you to bring this back to us with some, in fact I think we made a motion dealing with some of the things that I thought you had put in your recommendation like still charging $75.00. I think we had said two weeks ago that we didn't want people to be charged for that, as I recall. ' Since no one else had been charged, we said no one will be charged from hereon. I must have misread it. The size of the deck was my only other concern. It seems like we should say the size of deck, if you're going to put one on there ' is going to be so big and not give them a choice. It's got to be the full width of the unit, however far out they've been making them so it's about the same as the rest of them. But you know there are some that are like a half a deck. I II I think it looks like heck. We shouldn't allow those to be built. They should 11 / make it the full width. They look nice. They do a nice job on those. Councilman Geving: I think Tom the real issue is that the deck shouldn't extend more than 10 feet into the variance area, the sideyard or frontyard or whatever the variance position is so that it doesn't exceed more than 10 feet. We don't care about the size of the deck. ' Mayor Hamilton: I do. Councilman Geving: The Cimarron Homeowners Associations can control that ' anyway. Mayor Hamilton: But if we tell them that we want to see just full width decks, ' it looks much better. Councilman Geving: I hope that they do put a full width but I'm only concerned, personally from a variance standpoint, not exceeding 10 feet into the variance ' area. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. For aesthetic reasons, if we made it he full ' width, that would be much better for the whole neighborhood is what I'm saying. Did you have anything you wanted to add? Jo Ann Olsen: We came up with general guidelines on what we wanted. Are you '/ saying that you still want each one to come in separately? Then you're also saying that any deck that does come in would have to be 10 x 20. I I 67 i City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 1 Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good idea. I don't know what the rest of the Council things but I would. Councilman Horn: I disagree with that. I think it's a good idea that everybody should have a double car garage too but we can't legislate that. Councilman Johnson: I like large numbers on the house too. , Councilman Boyt: We can require all that if we want to. Mayor Hamilton: That's a totally different issue. A double car garage, we're just talking about a stupid little deck. Councilman Geving: What's wrong with this recommendation that you're providing here? 1 and 2. The decks can not exceed 10 feet from the building and a 20 foot frontyard setback must be maintained. Three, administrative approval with no variance procedure and that there will be no cost to the applicant. Councilman Horn: It doesn't do what Tom is suggesting. Councilman Geving: No, but it does what I want and that's to resolve the problems on these quads once and for all. Councilman Boyt: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals had a different opinion 1 Mr. Geving. Councilman Geving: I understand that. 1 Councilman Boyt: And I anticipated that you might represent them. They indicated that they wanted to see all these variance requests. That they felt it was important that they review them and that there should be at least a charge sufficient to cover for the posting of these in whatever the official newspaper is at the time. I think that since they're the body that handles this, we should support their request here and require a fee large enough to pay for the public notice of the variance request and require that. I don't think they intended for the person to go through the $200.00 expense of identifying all their neighbors and sending a mailing to them but a nominal expense and giving the Board of Adjustment and Appeals the opportunity to review these. Mayor Hamilton: Gee and you were the one that wanted to waive all the fees. ' Councilman Boyt: I know. I changed my mind. Councilman Geving: How could you flip flop in two weeks? Councilman Boyt: I listened to them. Councilman Geving: You listened to them? Councilman Johnson: He listened to you. Councilman Geving: You listened to me and now you're flip flopping.flo in . I don't understand your statement at all. I don't represent the variance board. I represent one person's opinion on this Council and I think the proposal that was 68 1 ;. - City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 set for us tonight with two options and I added a third, will resolve this matter. If you want to add a cost to it, that's entirely up to the Council. ' Councilman Johnson: I would like to see the Association permit or request a change to the PUD contract because we're requesting a change to somebody else's PUD contract without anybody having anything to do with the PUD contract requesting the change themselves. I think the more appropriate route would be for the Homeowner's Association to request that. I do believe that we should then hold a public hearing. ' Mayor Hamilton: Why do you need to complicate a very, very simple issue? I don't understand this. Councilman Johnson: We're eliminating 15 public hearings by having one. I don't know if we can change a PUD contract and a whole PUD without going through some process. Barbara Dacy: Staff felt an equal responsibility about this whole issue because of the history involved and how the decks got built. The addendum to the existing development contract will have to be approved by Council. We'll put it on the Consent Agenda but our main object here is, while I appreciate the Board of Adjustment and Appeals wanting to see each and every application, we're ' basically talking about the same type of setback and we can save everybody time and money becauase it takes time to make these legal ads and notify 500 people around a very dense development. We felt we could accomplish this fairly expeditiously. ' Councilman Johnson: I want to do it once for the remaining 15. Get it off the books. Get the remaining 15 of these done. ' Barbara Dacy: One of the options was to have a blanket public hearing for the remaining 15 lots in the Chaparral PUD. ' Councilman Johnson: Yes, I guess we have an applicant more or less but the Homeowner's Association is saying they would like this and we would hold it and since the City I think is at fault here, to a point and some previous city ' employees were granting a lot of decks that didn't meet this in the past, that we should make the public notice this one time. Barbara Dacy: And know that we have no idea whether these 15 other people even want that. Councilman Johnson: I still think that has to go onto, the easiest way is into the PUD contract. I'm not sure what kind of notice we want on that. Barbara Dacy: I think the Homeowner's Association is going to appreciate ' anything... Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor I'd like to make a motion on this. I would like to make a motion for approval of the decks located in the Chaparral quad units 111 for the remaining 15 units and the 3 conditions, actually 4 conditions that I am going to add to this is that the decks can not exceed 10 feet from the building. That there will be a 20 foot frontyard setback must be maintained. That these applications will be administratively approved by staff and will follow no 1 69 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 11 formal variance procedure. Fourth, we will attach a $25.00 application fee for , this process. Councilman Horn: Second. ' Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Councilman Geving: I added the $25.00 because that did came out of the discussion that we had earlier with the Board. We agreed that there was some cost in processing these and others like them. I believe that at least some costs should be attached to this. There is some research and you've got to remember now, the action we're taking tonight might be in existence for an awful long time. Even well into years to come before those 15 ever come before us as a city. , Councilman Boyt: I'm going to amaze you again Dale but stated that way, I would say that we shouldn't charge the $25.00 fee because there isn't any unusual activity going on here. We're not publishing it in the newspaper which is what the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was using to justify their $25.00 fee. And we just two weeks ago granted the opportunity for people to bring projects to the City that were under $2,000.00 and have them reviewed for free. I don't think we should turn around and say to these people, you now have to pay $25.00 because you happen to live in Chaparral. Councilman Geving: The fee is conditional. We did talk about your time Jo Ann. Jo Ann Olsen: I think what we talked about was that it... Councilman Geving: So your time would be extremely minimal? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Just like any other building permit. i Councilman Geving: I'd like to amend my motion then to delete the $25.00 and state that there would be no cost for this application. 1 Councilman Horn: I'll amend my second. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to move to amend your motion again because I think ' the city is going out of it's way to do these people a favor in an area that we never intended to have them pursue in the first place. I think given that special condition, it would be appropriate to say what size deck we want to have II so I would support Tom's request that we tell them the decks must be 20 feet wide. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Councilman Geving: I have to ask, can we still get a 20 foot frontyard setback if we allow a 20 foot? Jo Ann Olsen: Width. Councilman Geving: Then I have no problem. 70 , 4. City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ICouncilman Johnson: I don't like placing Tom's taste on other people. I like the 10 foot deck myself. I Mayor Hamilton: Well, you go out there and look at them and tell me that the 10 foot looks better than a 20. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded an amendment to the motion to amend condition 1 to read, the decks cannot exceed 20 feet from the building. ' All voted in favor except Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the amendment carried with a vote of 3 to 2. ' Jo Ann Olsen: If somebody comes in with a 10 x 10, do they have to have a variance? Councilman Geving: I would say yes based on what we just passed. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the decks located ' in the Chaparral quad units for the remaining 15 units with the following conditions: ' 1. The decks cannot exceed 20 feet from the building. 2. A 20 foot front yard setback must be maintained. ' 3. The applications will be administratively approved by staff and will follow no formal variance procedure. 4. There will be no fee charged for these applications. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I have a question on this now that we've passed it. I'd like ' to see if we can take action against the developer. Jo Ann Olsen: I asked Roger about that, he said it would be difficult. ' Councilman Geving: These were built in 1979. Jo Ann Olsen: It's under different ownership now. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, the people who built them went bankrupt. ' Pat Farrell: You've got two problems. Statute of Limitations and.. . Councilman Johnson: I don't like seeing and continuing to see violations occur and then afterwards we approve them and not take any action. In this case, because the Statute of Limitations and the previous owner went bankrupt, there isn't anything to do but we do need to get tough on our ordinances eventually. 71 r City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you wanted to talk about a zoning ordinance? Councilman Johnson: I would like staff to put together or actually I've been telling them I will put it together and I've never got around to do it. The zoning ordinance change on conditional use permits and maybe if they believe, other permits would be like the wetland alteration permit, to include an inspection schedule to be approved by the Council and an inspection fee for conditional use permits. What I comprehend here is for construction yards and other places that have some fairly strict conditional uses applied to them that can be broken routinely. That we will have an annual inspection of those facilities against those conditions. Less stringent for and also a group of types of conditional uses where you have an inspection every 2 years and every 3 years and I believe there is also a category where the conditions may be such that it's only a structural condition. You will use shake shingles or something on your building. Whatever that thing is. You only need a one time inspection to see if they have complied with those rules. Right now you get a conditional use permit and after you've put it in, you've had your inspection, they say everything meets the conditional use permit and that's the last of it. There are people out there that all the trees have died and the berms have been removed and things like this that we're not getting them inspected. I want to see those inspections made and that inspection should be at the cost of the person that's being inspected who has the special use permit. The conditional use permit. That's what I would like to see. I never have gotten around to writing this up except for on the bottom of my piece of paper again on the airplane this evening as I came in. Those are my thoughts on that. If the ' Council would like me to write the ordinance and present it to the Council as such, I'll do that too. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's your job. Councilman Johnson: I don't think so either. Take my general guideance here and I think staff can put in an ordinance amendment together and present that to ' Planning Commission. - Mayor Hamilton:. Any discussion about that? Councilman Boyt: Makes sense to me. Councilman Horn: How many people do you have to have for the staff to do this? ' Councilman Johnson: The fees will pay for it. It's self financing. Barbara Dacy: We'll be happy to take a look at the whole process. We'll be doing that in-house to see how we can keep better track of things and putting them in the computers and so on. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you wanted to talk about a Fire Marshall. Councilman Boyt: Right. It's my understanding that last week the Council discussed the position of Fire Marshall. You didn't discuss the Fire Marshall? 72 ' ICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 1117- Councilman Horn: We discussed the specific salary offered to this specific person. Y i� ICouncilman Boyt: And that there was some question first into how we conducted the search. I'd like to clarify that the search was conducted because I know I for one that I talked to Mr. Ashworth and the decision was made that we would conduct a search for a Fire Marshall. So the City Manager can speak for himself on this issue but it's my firm understanding that he approved that search. They conducted a search and found somebody that was very highly qualified for a r position that was supported by the Fire Department. Was supported by the Public Safety Commission and resulted in a salary request that was $6,000.00 over the budgeted amount. I think that we should seriously reconsider this issue and I make that offer. This is a position that we definitely need to fill. This is a proactive move that could only make this community better and safer and in the long run save us a lot of money for fire protection. And to turn down the r opportunity to get a very well qualified person in a hard to fill field, is to miss an opportunity that we may not get in the future. I think for us to look at moving a carousel building, which I supported, which was an expensive move for $50,000.00. For us to look at straightening out a corner, which I didn't I happen to support, for a minimum of $10,000.00 and feel that we had the money to do that, to turn around and say we don't have $6,000.00 to make an offer to a highly qualified Fire Marshall is something that I'd like us to reconsider. IDon Ashworth: We did look for applications. We have not finished that process. We will hire an individual who I think will be very well suited for the r position. It will be within the budget and the guidelines established under your personnel policy. That decision should be made by the end of the week. The person selected will have the support of the Fire Department. IMayor Hamilton: And Public Safety Commission. Don Ashworth: I don't know if they will have seen the person but the Fire rDepartment will be in on those interviews. Councilman Boyt: Don, are you saying to me that you're going to be able to hire as well a qualified person for $6,000.00 less? rDon Ashworth: I'm saying that the position that we would look to is a continuation of a position as it was which is really a Fire Inspector. The r individual that we're looking at, or the group of people does not need the highest qualifications that specifically would be obtained by the individual who was brought back to you about one week ago. ICouncilman Boyt: The individual that was brought back to us a week ago is also a qualified building inspector. rDon Ashworth: I don't know that that's a necessary requirement. Councilman Boyt: It's not a requirement of the Fire Marshall but it's certainly 111 something that could help the City. Mayor Hamilton: Do we need more building inspectors? I thought we had plenty of those. r II 73 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ', Councilman Boyt: We have building inspectors who are bringing in a g reat deal more money than we're paying them so clearly they are busier than we've staffed it to be. We've got a situation in which building inspectors are not catching all the violations that are happening in this City so maybe there is an opportunity for additional building inspectors but above and beyond that, I think our experience in the last year has shown that a Fire Inspector is not sufficient to meet the needs of this city. When you're looking at a Rosemount. When you're looking at the bakery situation. You're looking at major builders. When you're looking at the Dinner Theater. We've got situations in which we clearly need the expertise of a Fire Marshall. I think it's short sighted to say that $6,000.00 can not be spent to bring in a person with those sort of qualifications. Mayor Hamilton: One of the major reasons we did not want to do that is simply because it does not follow the guidelines that have been established and follow the practice in the City for the past several years. If we start now with this position, bringing in someone well over the mid-point, the mid-range of that particular job, where do you start? People will start coming in and say, well if you're going to hire this guy higher than where he ought to be, then you might as well give me a salary adjustment too. I would think that you would understand that being in the type of position you're in. You just don't open that door. Councilman Boyt: I understand it very well and the justification for a mid- point is that that's what you pay a highly experienced person to do the job well. Well, that's what we have so it would be very reasonable to pay the mid- point for that job. It's not a good personnel practice to limit yourself to I paying under the mid-point to get an individual and if we had done that, we wouldn't have hired Gary Warren. Mayor Hamilton: What this City has done over the years is, and the Council talked about this long before your being around, when we hire individuals for the City, we talked about hiring those people who were either just coming out of school or just moving into a position. Perhaps their first in charge position with the understanding that they would stay with us and grow and develop and become better in their field. We know that we can't pay the high salaries that Minnetonka and Edina and Hopkins and some of the other surrounding communities can pay. We just don't have those kind of funds. I think we've stuck with that pretty much. We still do have excellent employees. We've been very fortunate in that regard. I see no reason to deviate from that. We can still get an ' extremely good person to do this job that's going to do a very good, very effective job. I don't think we need to be paying the top of the line for a Fire Marshall. We have people to do the job just as well for fewer dollars. Councilman Boyt: I'll stop after this comment. With the mid-point, what , p you've said is that's what we're willing to pay someone to do that job. It's my understanding that that wasn't what the person was asking for was to be paid at the mid-point. That's not busting your salary scheudle to pay somebody what you've already agreed is a reasonable salary for that job. Because they happen to come in with more experience can be a real benefit to us. We've got it sitting right in front of us. The City is evolving and we can't start with rookies in every position we've got. This is one of the most critical positions the City has. 74 II 4 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ' Don Ashworth: I don't disagree that there's a critical need and we'll have [ somebody on that I think has the confidence of Fire Department in terms of doing the job. If we're going to make amendments to position classification. If Iwe're going to change the position write-ups. If we're going to change how people are to be brought in and under what guidelines and what not, then that should be considered when we do all of our write-ups. When we update our plan ' at the end of the year. The proposal, you did not meet the guidelines as far as bringing the personnel. Did not meet the guidelines. ..position. It's that simple. ' Councilman Johnson: In general, I've got a reputation for supporting public safety very strongly. I also support Don with what he just said that we will be getting a good man or a good woman for this position. I disagree with Tom's, I ' don't think we're, while the decision was made before you and I were on the Council Bill, I don't believe that currently, in the current situation, that it's good to always bring somebody in for the mimimum side, 1 or 2 years out of ' school and stuff. That has worked well for us in the past but in some cases it hasn't worked real terribly well, in my opinion. I do believe that certain positions, you don't want somebody and I don't think we're going to get a 1 or 2 ' year out of school person for this position. I think we're going to get somebody with a fair amount of experience in this field. It's a critical field. I think we can also, if something comes in that that person feels is beyond his capabilities, a large project coming in, we pay a considerable review fee. That ' person should be willing to come and say I need some professional help here and we can hire a consultant to come in and provide him help on that review. There are safety consultants out there who are totally qualified Fire Marshalls that we can get, I believe. Phil Mathiowetz: Besides trying to raise a few dogs, my profession is a Fire ' Marshall for another community. I guess from a fire protection standpoint for our community, at the rate we're growing, I have to agree totally with Councilman Boyt. What you're asking someone to do for the money that you want o pay them...first off, I don't believe that you can get a qualified person to do ' that. I know just about every Fire Marshall and every inspector that's qualified to handle this job in this area. With the projects that we've got coming into this community, particularly things like Rosemount which is some ' 300,000 square feet. It's a highly technical project. You're asking someone to come in here and try to take a job that is way out of his league. I've been doing this for some 15 years and a project like that would terrify me and it would take me a long time to sit down and work a project like that out. Someone ' coming in here with minimal qualifications that you can expect to get for that kind of money, is not going to be able to handle the job. He's not going to be able to provide for this comlmunity what needs to be provided. The $6,000.00 or the $31,000.00 or $32,000.00 that you're asking, that they were proposing to pay that individual is at the middle part of the Fire Marshall salary. We do an overall salary survey every year to determine that. The qualifications of that person are going to be up at a reasonable level. You are not going to find somebody down at that level. I'm sorry. I wish you could because I pay taxes too and I'd just as soon keep down those costs but it's not going to happen. For someone to come in here that has a number of years of experience for that IFlevel of pay at $25,000.00, I would seriously question your motives. Mayor Hamilton: I guess that's what we'll have to find out when we interview. 75 1 a . City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: I think he might be right and we will have to take a look at that position. The problem is that we're doing this in the middle of a year and I don't think that you set precedent in one situation. You have to set your guidelines for the year at the time that we do that, we may very well find out that that is the thing we need to do is to change up our guidelines for our Fire Marshall but you don't come in just because somebody happens to walk in and say I'm going to change my guidelines. The other thing that I think we should discuss here in the next year is what our procedure is for this. It seems to me if we're going to develop a city management team, we need to let them make those kinds of decisions. If they can find within their budget a means to accomplish this, it shouldn't even come to us. If Jim can live within his budget and he gets this guy and he can get that $6,000.00 somewhere else or whatever it is or for whatever it is this year, it shouldn't come to us. We can't manage every , employee in this department. That's what we have City Manager's for. That's what we have group managers for. Councilman Boyt: He's not saying the $6,000.00 isn't there. Don isn't saying ' that. Councilman Horn: I think he implied that it would be outside of the budget guidelines. Councilman Boyt: He didn't say the money wasn't there. , Don Ashworth: It's a matter of semantics. If you want the $6,000.00, I think we could find it but it is not currently budgeted in that fashion. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to see who is going to be suggested for the position and go from there. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTAIONS: PROPOSAL FOR EROSION CONTROL SERVICES, CARVER COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: Our recommendation is on the top of page 2. What we have prepared is that the Council adopt some erosion.. .to start working out an agreement. Mayor Hamilton: Is this really necessary? This isn't something that we can't ' accomplish now? Barbara Dacy: Just looking at the engineer project board.. . Mayor Hamilton: The reason I ask is because you look at the fees associated with it and we keep adding on more and more fees everytime a guy turns around. We've got more fees to deal with. That's more on the developer. You can only have so much. Gary Warren: I think it really relates to what kind of accountability you want ' as far as the erosion control. We can put a high priority on it and really work hard at the platting on the spec process. The plans are in but we are short handed as far as the inspections and. .. We're dealing more on a crisis basis in the field and with the magnitude with the planning process that we've been 76 4' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 doing, I think a specialist on this thing should be brought in. Councilman Geving: I think it's a good idea. ' Barbara Dacy: We can reevaluate the fees. Those are just... ' . Councilman Geving: I just want to know right now whether we're interested in pursuing this. I think it's a good idea and I think we ought to go ahead with it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to authorize staff to prepare a letter to the Conservation District Board stating the City's intent to pursue an ' agreement with the Conservation District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION REQUEST, MERLE VOLK. Mayor Hamilton: He's not here. Do you want to talk about this or was he supposed to be here? Don Ashworth: No, it's simply a notification to the City Council. I don't know ' if the City Attorney wants to make any comments or not or if you want to have any comments from him. If Mayor Hamilton: We received some information that needs to be not discussed but I guess... Councilman Geving: This is confidential. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, and I think it states clearly what our p osition is. I guess the move is up to Merle. ' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear from our coituuittee of councilmen that we sent to Chaska to get tough and do some negotiating over the swamp land they offered us and see if they've come up with a better offer yet. Mayor Hamilton: I talked with Shirley Beyers and with Bob Ropetke, the Mayor. Told them I'd be willing to sit down anytime they'd like to to discuss this. I've never heard from them. I'm not going to chase them around. Councilman Johnson: Have you done this formally in writing that we could take ' it into the Annexation Board and show them that Chaska has not responded to our requests or is it only a verbal that we won't be able to prove anywhere other than standing up and sitting on a stand staying we've got. .. Mayor Hamilton: I think you'd find that Chaska will still make their original offer. Councilman Johnson: Which Council said we didn't think that was a real fair offer. We'd like them to consider a few other things. Have we counter proposed anything to them? 77 4 HCY City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 1 Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we did. In one meeting you and I met with, I don't recall ' his name. He was an inspector or something. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure of the meeting that you're referring to. Mayor Hamilton: It probably was this spring sometime and I expected for that meeting that there would be someone there that could kind of make a decision and it was some guy, he just said, well I can't do anything. Councilman Geving: I really believe that we should pursue a meeting with Bob Roeptke and their City Manager with the original team that we proposed and try to get as much out of this as we can. That means whatever negotiation you guys can do, I just don't want to drop the ball on this and let the courts decide. If we've got something to gain from this, and I think we can, one or two meetings with Bob and his City Manager, I think we could resolve this. I don't know if we've got a counter proposal. We've never really come up with a 40 acre tract that we'd be interested in. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you see if you can get a hold of the manager and see if we can't talk to them because I have asked both Shirley and Bob and I've never gotten a reply or response from them. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see, not necessarily, it doesn't have to be 40 acres but acreage with a future potential as great as what the future potential , for this area will be. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think you'll find any. That's why they're saying the property down there by the pickle factory. Councilman Johnson: What I'm thinking of, they want the property by the pickle factory over in this little area over here. What I was looking at is the property by the pickle factory then you cross the railroad tracks and take this little clump there. Just take that. It's less than 40 acres but it's on TH 212. It will be commercial when we get sewer there and so will this be commercial when we get sewer there. That may have a potential value. It's got probably better taxes on it now because of existing industry on it. Mayor Hamilton: We can discuss some alternatives and see what we can come up with. Mayor Hamilton: Don you wanted to talk about some water. Don Ashworth: We are in the position to move to the next step in our watering ban as far as the restrictions. I would hope that the newspapers would pick this up. I've asked Molly to come in and we'll try to do some type of an article thanking everyone for living through the ti.meframe while we got the water tower in service. For those people that have held off in putting out their sod or other type of plantings. That we will have a permit system available. Sod, you need 5 days of continuous watering to be able to effectively have that grow and then they can move to an every other day schedule and it operates just fine so there's two points there. One is we're able to loosen the restrictions and secondly that we want to thank everyone for living through this past summer with us. Again, those people who did hold off on 78 , ,' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 IIeither sodding landscaping, h 9 or p g, t at we are in a position to provide them with a permit to allow them to water a little bit more than an odd/even schedule would II allow. Councilman Johnson: Good idea. I'm glad we're finally getting away from the ' hour restrictions. Councilman Horn: My only comment is, like other things, why did the City start ' doing it before we allowed other people to do it? I've heard a lot of comments on the City watering every day. I think we have to set an example on what we're doing ourselves. ' Don Ashworth: We tried to address that though in terms of when we went into that whole ban situation, anyone who came in and showed us that they were under contract to lay the sod, they were given permits to go ahead and do that sod ' work. We held off for as long as we could but we are under contract to get that sod done. There was a question earlier, how much longer do we hold off on the paving, finishing off that wear course down there and on the one side you're kind of questioning why we're not finishing up. On the other side, we're trying ' not to put in dead trees or dead sod or whatever else. I don't think it's a double standard. Councilman Johnson: We participate it as a double standard because now it's not a double standard if we pass this tonight but they were watering at all times of the day. 5 days, 7 days a week. There was one Saturday that the guy was watering up to about 12:00. I woke him up in his truck and reminded him we had a watering ban but he said, yes but we don't do that. I said the Sheriff will z- be over here in a few minutes to discuss it with you and he shut the water off. I think we should have been more sensitive to this and I would like to move that ' we go to the odd/even watering restrictions if this requires a motion by Council. Mayor Hamilton: I second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconed to move the watering ban to an odd/even watering restrictions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Mayor Hamilton: Barb, you wanted to talk about Reuter? Barbara Dacy: Yes. The Chaska City Council is heading toward final approval on the composting project on Monday night. I was contacted late last week by Mr. Schmidt and Gustafson that live in the area. I updated the Council about the progress of this plan on June 13th. At that time the Council had no major concerns but the Schimidt's and the Gustafson's would like the City to send a letter to Chaska stating their concern for the potential odors from the compost plan in view of the number of homes in the Ti.mberwood subdivision and because their property is situated in a low spot, they're comparing it to the compost 's site as well as Healthsted Laboratories have done some additional research on 3 other composting facilities and have some varying reports as to the air quality from composting plants and basically have stated it's concern. I told them that the City Staff, myself, there's no way that we can respond to some of these ' environmental issues because that's why we have the PCA to regulate some of ' 79 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 these larger concerns. We can certainly continent as to alerting Chaska to make sure that as many impacts as possible are realized on the Chanhassen folks. I just wanted to gain your concurrence tonight if that would be acceptable to send to the Chaska Council a letter outlining those general items. (ii Councilman Geving: Can we prove that? Can we prove that there is going to be odor? I didn't smell any odor when I was over at the Reuter plant in Hopkins. ' Barbara Dacy: That's where I was trying to explain my point that the appropriate agencies are going to have to look at what's going in is according to State Law but basically his intent, or I should say the homeowner's intent is to alert the Chaska Council that the City of Chanhassen is concerned and not necessarily making the recommendation of approval or denial. Just stating a concern to make sure that those impacts are properly discussed. Mayor Hamilton: I would think they would be. I can't imagine that they could put them in there without doing those things. ' Councilman Johnson: I've been involved in this. Plus the State of Minnesota legislature this year passed a new law requiring immediate action to be taken by anybody who releases an obnoxious odor who irritates somebody so there is something there. I have no problem personally with saying that we have citizens near this plant and our primary concern is the potential for odor. It doesn't accuse anybody that they're going to be emmitting odors. This is an airobic plant. I'm fairly confident that they'll do a very good job. There are some slight potentials in there of my analysis of the plant to produce some odors but they have done quite a bit to control it. This new State law will really give these people some teeth. Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council want staff to write such a letter? It would seem to me that if the Schmidt's and Gustafson's are concerned, they could write a letter on their own behalf I guess. Barbara Dacy: And they have and they've been going to all the hearings and so on but they were looking for an official response from the City. Mayor Hamilton: Personally I would not be in favor of writing anything that may sound the least bit negative because I think it's an extremely good project to have in our area and I hope they give it final approval but I guess if it's a vanilla type comment that says make sure you meet all the requirements of noise and odor, why. .. Councilman Johnson: Should we throw some mother and apple pie and all that stuff in there about our support of the environmental processes and the composting? That we believe this will relieve much pressure on our landfill, however we do have concern over odors since this is bordering on three sides to the City of Chanhassen. Give them support but at the same time saying we support you Reuter but we're watching you too. Councilman Geving: It sounds like you almost have that letter written. Councilman Johnson: I think Barb does. (7:: 80 ' { City Council Meeting - August 22, 1988 ICouncilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.. II2 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager ' Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I 't 1 It ' 81 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17 , 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE . OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. ' Headla: I 'm not quite sure I understand where it says Page 5, July 13th, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit. Number 1, the two approved septics sites must be staked and preserved prior to receiving a building permit . Aren ' t they staked now? Olsen: We' re just saying that they have to remain staked. A lot of times after a site has been approved or when grading of the site begins, a lot of times they' re not properly roped off and the sites are damaged. Headla : And I understand there really isn ' t any other hard spots with this or with the applicant. The applicant is aware of all this and they agree with all this? Olsen : I don ' t know if they agree with it . ' Headla: Do you have any hard spots with any of this? ' Bryan Pike: Oh yes . I have a few. Do you want to hear? Headla: I guess I 'd like to hear if there ' s a serious disagreement . ' Bryan Pike : When we put the site plan together , we had this 60 foot easement going across as well as the sewer line that you can see clearly, this stiped line going across . When we came to the planners , we were told that we needed a 50 foot setback from that 60 foot easement road and originally when we put this site plan together we designed the parking lot, we see the edge of the parking lot, it is 50 foot exactly from that ' 50 foot easement road back and the church which we originally wanted to put up in the corner, the church that we originally wanted to put up here facing this way we moved down here because of the 50 feet again from this road. We noticed in the Minutes of the last meeting one of you asked them a question about the possibility or whether they had reserved easement rights . We understood that there were not. I ' ve done some checking with our attorney and there are not. We understand then that it is still I i � _ Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 2 possible for us to move our building up in here and build in this area. If we did that, it would open up a primary site. This line right here is the sewer construction limits. We did give them permission to move down into here some dirt that came from this 52 foot hole that they had over here but this area hasn' t been touched where the church is. It would enable us to put a primary site right next to our building. The soil borings were done right in here. We feel for the primary site a simple septic system, if it fits with the soil borings . I got this report yesterday. I sent my secretary after it at 4 : 30 and I looked at it later in the afternoon. Then I called the architect about 5:00 so some of this is new to us but what we' re being told is that a mound system 350 feet away is going to cost us about $12,000. 00 to put up. From what Machmeier says at the end of this report, it sounds like he thought we might have to I even pump to that 350 foot mark. Is that what you understood? So the pumping would be an additional cost to us as well . What we' re hoping is to be allowed to make an adjustment to this plan to swing that building up I and we' ll submit new soil borings into that area that is right below the church or if it' s required by you, we' ll do the whole thing. We were not given an understanding that we could put the church up in that area before. We were told that we had to stay back 50 feet from that 60 foot easement . Erhart : There is a 60 foot easement or there isn' t a 60 foot easement? Bryan Pike: There is a 60 foot easement with property owners that are behind us so they are not land locked to the east . Erhart: So the City has that easement right? Bryan Pike: No , the City doesn' t have it. Olsen: This plan is providing a 60 foot easement for the future road. Erhart : Because you' ve asked them to provide it? I Bryan Pike: Who ' s providing it? Olsen: You show it on your site plan that you ' re providing that 60 foot easement. Bryan Pike: We provided the 60 foot easement for the people that we bought the property from to the east. Brian Klingelhutz, Leland Getschatch and Leland Basalm and Leland Getschatch. I Erhart: So that' s in your contract with them? Bryan Pike : It' s in our city. The city has nothing. . . cErhart: But it' s in your contract. Bryan Pike : The 60 foot easement is but no 50 foot setbacks on both sides. I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 3 C ' Erhart: Well , that doesn ' t matter . ' Bryan Pike : Oh yes it does . There' s 1. 5 acres of land that we were told we couldn' t touch that we can now touch. ' Erhart: But you have to provide, does that contract say exactly where that 60 foot easement is going to be? Bryan Pike: It says that 60 foot easement is right here and we checked ' with our Attorney and that is all they got. They don' t have any rights to a 50 foot setback. I don' t think intentionally but we didn' t have proper information when we sent this to our architect and we want to move ' that building to gain as much of our property as we can. In fact when we master planned this thing, if we ever grow to the point of needing bigger buildings , which we hope we will someday, we really limited ourselves to a ' point where we have to cover everything just about out there with parking lot to meet the current City requirements for our next bigger building. Conrad: Jo Ann, explain that. Are we talking about a 50 foot easement from a 60 foot right-of-way? Olsen: A 50 foot setback from an easement . Conrad : And that was whose condition? Olsen: I 'm sure this was information that was given, there is plans for Lake Lucy to be continued through that property and that would be best to maintain that 50 foot setback. ' Erhart: Our ordinance states that a 50 foot setback exists from a street, not from an easement . Olsen : From right-of-way. Erhart: An easement for right-of-way? Emmings : The 60 foot easement they have through there, to landlock, otherwise they have. . . is a 60 foot easement for a road, right? ' Olsen : Right . Emmings : And does the City have the right to have this property owner stay back 50 feet from that road easement or don ' t we? Olsen : Technically it' s from right-of-way. Dacy: We recommended the 50 foot setback because that' s what the Zoning requires from a street. Sooner or later there will be a road traversing that property. Emmings : Lake Lucy. You' re talking about Lake Lucy or are you talking about the road from the people behind? 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 4 C Dacy: Lake Lucy. The applicant is sayin g well , I want to move closer, than he should be aware that if Lake Lucy Road comes through, his parking and/or building may become non-conforming because they' re within that setback. Emmings : But once it' s there it' s there right? Dacy: Right . Emmings : It sounds to me like they want to change the site plan. Can we II look at it now? Conrad : You do want to change the site plan, is that what you' re saying? I Bryan Pike: We' re not asking to make a major change but. . . Conrad : But you do want to change the site plan? Bryan Pike: Yes . Conrad : Do you want to just have us table this until you can bring it back? Bryan Pike: If you think that that is . . . , Conrad: It' s sort of up to you. We'd like to see what you really want to ' take to City Council versus something that' s kind of well , we' re not sure where this is. We'd really like to see the absolute final . Bryan Pike : I don' t know how you all function but is it possible for us to say we want to move it up here? We have our architect here to show you exactly on the condition we could continue on and cover the other areas that are mentioned in here that are talked about? Conrad : Okay. If we find too many cases where we' re not seeing something close to what ' s going to go to City Council, we will table it. If we find ' one or two that we think you can solve in two weeks with staff because we think that there' s an agreement, then we don ' t need to see that final plan that you ' re going to present but if you continue to add different issues , then we' ll table it and have you bring it back so we can see more. Bryan Pike: Okay. There' s two other points that are in here and they are conditions that we want to bring up. That is , we were wondering if we had enough screening . It looked liked in the ordinance that the screening that we have would be appropriate. If we ' re not, I don't have the species of theses and we' re going to have to by and get them but we do have screening that is in here. There is more actually than we show. We don ' t show every tree that' s here. some of these are pretty good sized trees . We had a picture up here that we could show you some of them. It said in \_ the ordinance that if there was already existing , that that could be considered as part of the screening. And we don' t have to screen for a road that as we understand , this is the firmest that I 've heard about this road. Each time I 've asked there' s always been the possibility that that ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 5 ' road would never go through. If that road never goes through, then we' re wasting a lot of space and effort. Okay. We have a picture of those ' shurbs . Is that a possibility? Do we need to put that extra screening up is what our question is? ' Emmings : What extra screening? Where does it say he has to have extra screening? Olsen: The ordinance requires that there be screening between the vehicular area and the road right-of-way. There are some existing trees out there . ' Emmings : But what I see here Jo Ann is it says they have to provide a landscaping plan. Couldn' t they present that plan and if there' s adequate screening , I supposed they wouldn' t have to do more. As I look at this, all you' re being required to do right now is provide the landscaping plan. You can put the existing vegetation on that and as long as they' re satisfied. Bryan Pike : Okay. So we submit that to you? That part? Olsen: Yes. The only thing that doesn' t allow to count is . . . ' Bryan Pike : The only other thing was the paving. The paving of the parking lot. We' re wondering if we can stay with gravel . It would be our sincere desire and hope to put pavement out there because it'd be a lot nicer but our budget right now, would not allow us to build the building . It would be an additional $27 , 000. 00 to put that in right now and we ' re trying to build a building and we ' re saying that in this area, we' re not going to be disturbing anybody. Our traffic flow is definitely not the traffic flow that' s right across the street in Minnewashta Park and that is not paved. It' s all dirt so we' re wondering if that were doing . ' Conrad : We ' ll mull that through. Okay, Dave. You' re still on . Headla: He' s got me really. . .across the street there. He' s right, that' s all gravel . I was convinced he needed blacktop but he sited something else. I ' ll pass . ' Conrad : Let me throw it back to Dave. In terms of the plan that ' s been presented, do you want to see that back? Are you concerned that the plan is going to be different? What ' s your feeling? Do you want that to come back here or do you want to do it in conditions? Do you feel comfortable with it as it is and let the City Council have at it Dave? Headla: I think it was an interesting question that you asked and I want ' to throw it back to Barb and Jo Ann, are they comfortable with it? Are they just a little ways away if they make the change? They've been so involved with that . After we get done I 'd like to hear their opinion on '�- that. Conrad : Jo Ann , what do you think? 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 6 C Olsen : That ' s the first I ' ve heard of it too and I would expect it to be a major change. They' re changing all the parking area also. Conrad : You would change the septic site too I would imagine. Bryan Pike: The primary site. 1 Carey Lyons : My name is Carey Lyons , . . . the architects and we are designing their structure. That would be the intent. To move the church to this area to allow the primary septic site. To move to this area so the church would not be required to go 350 feet and possibly pump to that primary site because it would be a suitable site adjacent to it. There would be some rearranging of parking and access to the building and there II would be the relocation of that one site but beyond that I think we could work with the staff to meet all your requirements and not hold the project up. Conrad: Let' s talk about this setback from a right-of-way. I guess I still don't know what, if that is our standard, a 50 foot setback, it is a standard? Olsen : It' s from a dedicated right-of-way and this isn ' t a dedicated right-of-way. 1 Conrad : It isn ' t a dedicated right-of-way. Batzli : What section is that in? What section is that 50 foot setback? 1 Dacy: The rural , it ' s under the RR setback. It ' s 50 feet. It ' s more of an issue for . . . 1 Batzli : Well , right-of-way is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance so I doubt it' s right-of-way you' re talking about. 1 Olsen : It' s from the property line. Batzli : Easement , on the other hand is and it' s either public or private for what that ' s worth. Dacy: Again, if it' s not 50, if it ' s below that , then the applicant is II taking his chances as to the non-conformity of the building in the future. Conrad : And what is the risk to the City? Dacy: As far as what? Conrad : As far as allowing them to build within this setback area? Dacy: At this point, none . Olsen : They might end up with a church with barely a setback once the street is in. i ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 7 11( Conrad : So once the street goes in. Olsen: You might have a church parking lot. . . Dacy: And we don ' t know if they' re talking 40 feet or 30 feet or what so ' maybe it ' s an issue that we can resolve. I don' t know. Bryan Pike : Do you build 60 foot roads through there? Is there not some ' extra space in there anyway? Dacy: For a 60 foot roadway is a typical right-of-way for a street which could accomodate two lanes of traffic and boulevard areas. ' Bryan Pike: So there is some extra space on both sides of the road then? ' Dacy: Yes , but that ' s not included in your setback calculation because the right-of-way, that boulevard area may be used for installation of utilities , pole lines, trails . ' Wildermuth : How close to the easement do you propose to place the building? ICarey Lyons : We don ' t know at this point. We just discussed the issue 1: this afternoon so we haven' t had a chance to analyze it to determine exactly where it would best fit and allow that primary site to move up ' adjacent to the building. Conrad : I 'm going to interrupt you . If they don' t know, I think we have to table the issue until , if you' re talking a couple feet, I think we ' wouldn ' t mind it but if you don ' t know yet, I think we' ve got to have you knowing. If you were here saying we are going to do it exactly this way, I think we could probably pass something conditioned upon that kind of ' knowledge but if you don' t know yet, am I off base? I don' t want to belabor a meeting when we are probably going to table it if they don ' t know. I guess I 'm kind of uncomfortable. Headla: I think it' s appropriate Ladd . Emmings: The other issue is, if there ' s a strong likelihood that there ' s ' going to be the extension of Lake Lucy Road going through this property in the future, I think they'd be foolish not to take it into account even if they don ' t have to. We ought to make sure we know what our basis is for ' imposing it because I think there should be that setback from that easement that we mentioned . Batzli : I think we also have the basis to look at that since this is a conditional use. Conrad : So if you'd like to revise your plans , I think we could go ahead tonight with the plans as you've presented and we could pass a favorable motion but if you do want to change them, we will table this until you can come back and tell us specifically what you want to do. 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 8 Carey Lyons : I can understand your point and your stand and it ' s very Y easy to see that you feel that way but it ' s also, you should also appreciate that if we' re allowed to build within that 50 and we just are now made aware of it, why are we the only ones to be penalized? Conrad : I just think you should know that what the Planning Commission' s , role is , is to take a look at as close to absolute plans as possible so we can make right decisions . What you' re telling us is you' ve presented us , and through whatever reasons, I understand that you just found out some I information this afternoon and I appreciate that and you can' t react in a few minutes but on the other hand, our role here is to take a look at what really is real . What really is being , what you want and so far , what you' re saying is we want to change a lot of things. Parking lot . Location of church . Septic systems and I think it ' s not appropriate for us to say we agree because we don't know what you ' re talking about yet . So we understand that you got new infomration and you certainly have the I right to change whatever you've got but on the other hand, from our role, I think it' s not appropriate for the Planning Commission to react to something. Our charter is to react to something that' s being presented as I actual and you don' t have that to us tonight . Bryan Pike: How long of a delay are we. . . Conrad : I think it' s a simple, straight forward. I guess it' s going to ' depend on where you want to locate the church. I think generally we would ask staff if they really believe a road is going to go through there , I think that' s what Mr. Emmings just said, if there is a road that we anticipate that will be going in there , we' re probably going to hold you to that 50 foot setback. I think what we challenge staff to do is say, is that a real thing . If the road is kind of imaginary and we may never do it from the City standpoint, then we take a look at that and say, gee if we' re not convinced that it' s needed for Chanhassen , then we'd be able to slip some of those maybe standards or regulations, whatever . But if they I come back and say, yes we really believe to serve the neighborhood to the east, there has to be a road there, then we' re probably going to uphold pretty much the standards that we set . And I think it' s also to your benefit. Bryan Pike: I think Jo Ann has already stated that it isn' t something that is legally, that the City can take. ' Emmings : That' s something we want to look into . Batzli : I would disagree with it for one. I 'm just reading the Statutes . I Emmings : I found a definition for right-of-way here. Batzli : But it' s from, it' s a setback. If you go to setback, they define it as roadway easement. Easement is both a public or private right . Headla : But we haven' t adhered to that. ' ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 9 Batzli : I don ' t know what we' ve adhered to . I 'm just reading what g t the Code says . ' Bryan Pike : What does that mean? ' Conrad : These are two lawyers , I don ' t know. Let' s try to resolve that before the motion occurs. It means we don ' t, as lay people up here, we don ' t understand what the law specifically commands us to do . As Planning ' Commissioners , we don' t know what' s right or wrong and we'd like the staff to consult and tell us what is appropriate . So if we don' t have to enforce the 50 foot, if you have full right to use that 50 feet, that' s your perogative. We don' t know. We can ' t tell what our ordinance is ' telling us to do right now. Therefore, if we table it, we' re talking two weeks . You' re two weeks further down the line. Is that right Jo Ann? Can we sneak him on the next agenda? Olsen: Sure. Conrad : So we'd bring you back as soon as we can which is two weeks from now so we' ll delay that. It may be to your benefit. On the other hand, if you want to run with what we see, I think we can react to that. We haven' t discussed bituminous. I think the other thing they deserve to ' hear though, a little bit of conversation on what we want to do with the parking lot. Jim, what do you want to do with the parking lot? They don' t want to pave it. ' Wildermuth: I think in view of the contours involved , it would be very desirable to pave it. ' Batzli : I agree with Jim. Emmings: I agree. ' Erhart : I agree . ' Conrad : I think the same. We' d like to see it paved . At least I think you ' re taken care of on the landscaping. That looks clean to me. Paving you' ve got to do probably. Based on what we ' re saying . City Council disagrees with us occasionally. We get involved in setting precedent and ' things like that in terms of what the ordinance. It ' s hard for us to say, well you don' t need to pave and we understand the financial considerations that you' re under but when the next group comes in and says they don ' t 1 want to pave, we don' t always have rationale to say why you don' t need to and why they should . So typically we uphold the ordinance because the ordinance is driving a lot of our decisions here. What I 'm saying is we' re looking at the ordinance. The City Council may have a different ' opinion. Bryan Pike : Does the ordinance require it in that area? ' Olsen: For commercial , it states for any commercial or industrial uses or similar uses like that , they must be paved . Concrete curb . It ' s in the ' parking section. It was staff ' s interpretation that the amount of traffic Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 10 on that parking area is similar to other uses that we have proposed in rural areas where there' s a lot of traffic where it ' s going to be eroded . Run off into wetland locations . 1 Bryan Pike: What I understand her to be saying is that it ' s her interpretation of that ordinance. Conrad : You persuade us that it' s not based on your interpretation of the ordinance, I think you may have a chance because it doesn' t necessarily say church. You could dig into it a little bit and say, based on our interpretation on how we read it, we don ' t need to. Bryan Pike: Would it be wrong for us to say go with this plan for tonight and then present our change to the City Council? Is that wrong to do that? Olsen : Staff would recommend that it probably` be taken back to the Planning Commission. Bryan Pike : See , we' re pressed for building before fall . We' re in a I situation where we' re meeting at 1: 00 in another church. We' re hoping to get it up. If we have to break frost ground , we know that we' re not going to be able to afford that. Conrad : I suppose that ' s your right . It ' s not the process we like to follow because typically we kind of like to clear the way for the City Council so that when we say something regarding planning , they say yes . I The planners. These lay people who think they' re kind of planning . They agree with it. It makes sense but on the other hand , you have the right to go in and say this is what was approved. Here' s another plan that was I not approved and you potentially could present it to them. They immediately, it' s a gamble on your part. They could table it and say send it back to Planning Commission because they haven ' t reviewed it this way. It' s a gamble. It would cost you an additional two weeks but it' s sort of I up to you. Batzli : Jo Ann, what is the likelihood that MnDot gives up an access permit for the current arrangement of their driveway? Olsen : I spoke with Evan Green and he sounded like that wouldn' t be much of a problem. Batzli : So with this condition, you probably wouldn' t have a change approving it with them applying for the driveway access permit? They ' wouldn ' t have to change. Olsen: Right. Conrad : What do you want to do? Bryan Pike : We don' t want to throw that political hot potato at the Council . Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 11 Conrad : I 'm glad you' re doing that . I 'd prefer you to come back. Any other comments on this one? I didn' t let you folks to my right talk about this one a great deal , but anything else? Emmings: I think I 'd look at the same thing that Bryan did. I think we should make a motion to table it . We should also have the City Attorney look at it and maybe Bryan could just outline what he ' s been scribbling over there because I think we can impose the 50 foot easement but I think we should get a legal opinion on that because that' s going to make it real simple for them. Batzli. moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission table this matter in order for the Westside Baptist Church to determine whether they want to rearrange their site plan and also move that the staff has the City Attorney review whether a 50 foot setback is required in the RR district in this case and the setback is defined as a roadway easement. The definition of easement includes both public and privately held rights . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Olsen: And just for the record, we did not have a current address for them. I had to call somebody to get their reports to them. I 've talked with them by phone. Dacy: The point being that what he represented is not exactly true as to when he received that report. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 76 . 5 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 66. 5 AND 10 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES, AND LOCATED AT 775 WEST 96TH STREET, TIM ERHART. I I 1 Public Present : Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : It ' s hard for me to understand the 30 and 60 foot easement Jo Ann. If you could graphicly help us . Olsen : It' s in the rural area so any roadway easement right-of-way would have to be 60 feet. We did obtain 30 feet when the Worm property came through, the Jeurissen and Worm property so what we are requesting from the applicant is the additional 30 feet that would be necessary to provide us with the 60 foot and it would jog up. Typically you would want it to ' continue straight across . What we' re saying is that these properties , the only time you can acquire that right-of-way easement is when the property is platted and these two pieces of property can not be subdivided until I Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 18 Dacy: That ' s correct . According to the UBC and their classification on this building and it' s occupancy. Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see the Public Safety Director take a look both at what may or may not be stored within the sales building and also what the water useage of this place will be during water shortages because I assume they would be exempted from watering bans . I also had the same concern about differentiating between outdoor sales and displays. I think if we limit some applicants by specifying that they can ' t perform outdoor sales rather than displays , we should be somewhat consistent. Conrad : So you want the trees inside? Batzli : No, I didn' t say that. They can display them all they want out there but they' re not going to set up cash registers outside. Emmings: Condition 4, I agree with the applicant ' s statement that, I think we ought to do it now. We ought to look at this thing and figure out what' s going to be adequate. Tell him he has to do it. I think it' s always hard to go back a year later and tell him he' s got to do more. Especially if his screening involves plants that aren' t going to have grown to their full height in a year . I can see you want to leave the door open a little bit but if that' s the case, if we' re going to leave this in than I think it' s got to be rewritten because all it says is the site will be reviewed in a year and it doesn' t say what you' ll do if you deem it to be inadequate. If it ' s going to be left in, I changed it just to read that the screening of the site shall be reviewed in one year and if the City determines that the screening is not adequate, the applicant shall be required to do additional screening. Make it say something . If that ' s what you mean to say, then let' s say it that way but on the other I I hand like I say, I 'd be inclined to say let' s evaluate the plan and then just impose it now and take number 4 out all together . Conrad: Let' s follow that up. What' s the concern that we don' t have the right screening right now or what' s going to change in a year that we can' t anticipate? Obviously we don' t know everything but what are you thinking Barbara? ii Dacy: I think maybe Steve described it the best as far as to leave the door open to make sure that the greenhouse is screened. To make sure that the display area is properly contained . What the applicant has suggested is that instead of number 4 that you put in a condition that says the conditional use permit shall be required prior to expansion of the use. If you want to go the route of approving the plan with the conditions as is and making it clear that if he wants to come back and expand the conditional use permit is required at that time. Emmings : Won' t that be the case anyway? Dacy: Yes. I 'm just offering that just to make it clear . Conrad : Restating what is required so the applicant understands . II� Planning Commission Meeting ' August 17, 1988 - Page 19 c IN Emmings : Is it clear that , you mentioned Shorewood Nursery and I guess I agree. This looks to me like that type of operation and I spend a lot of ' time over at Shorewood . . . As far as you mentioned that they have trucks and a design business and so forth. It's kind of , almost a contractor ' s yard type of use. This could not be used that way I take it? Dacy: If it' s a contractor ' s yard, no. Emmings : But let ' s say, if they do have trucks and Bobcats and so forth for doing plantings, I 'm assuming that they can' t be parked there? Dacy: That' s not what ' s being proposed , correct? Jay Kronick: It' s not being proposed but I would ask the question, what is the limit on the size truck that I might have? I propose a truck for a vehicle, a small pick-up truck. Where do you wish to draw the line? I ' will need a forklift for my business . I don ' t anticipate needing a Bobcat but if I decide to get into the landscaping contracter ' s business , I ' ll move that operation off somewhere else where it' s suitable. This is a ' retail facility. Emmings : What you' re asking me is what is the limit? I don' t know. What is the limit? What would he be allowed to do here and not do? Dacy: He ' s got to be able to do the things that he needs to do to move the materials in and out. The vehicles that he has described are not ' vehicles that would be involved in a contracter ' s yard . Jay Kronick: If I could add one thing, I anticipate the possibility of ' landscape contracter ' s bringing their trucks in and buying materials from me or truck traffic would come into the site. Emmings : I don ' t see any problem with that . And it' s clear that if you ' wanted to expand this onto this area that ' s marked future expansion , which is the lot that' s in the IOP, anything you wanted to do over there, he'd have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council? Dacy: That' s correct . Emmings : Now this is a big open field out here and what if he does use it tfor storage? If he ever needs storage, it ' s going to be an obvious easy place to go to put it. ' Dacy: Your conditional use permit is based on approval of this plan and he' s only showing the display on the north and south side of the building and that ' s all that would be permitted . ' Emmings: Okay. You went through this analysis with the traffic and you came up with this 1, 100 ADT figure which you thought was real high. If it were that high, would everything be adequate then? You could handle that? ' Dacy: It ' s hard for me not to say that because what there' s not out there is any, trip generation analysis is different than a parking demand Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 20 ' analysis and you could have trips coming in , staying for 5 minutes and leaving . 18 parking spaces could be adequate for the length of stay. I can ' t answer your question as to if 18 spaces is adequate for 1, 100 ADT. Emmings : From what I observed, again over at Shorewood, I think it might be adequate . If the use of this is going to be similar to what' s over at Shorewood, I think it' s adequate. ' Dacy: Shorewood , I don' t think there' s even close to 18 spaces there. It' s just a gravel driveway off the road and. . . ' Emmings : I don ' t think I ' ve ever seen 18 cars in there at one time. The part that' s in the IOP, there' s no chance that could be broken off separately or sold for some other use or something like that? Dacy: It' s the applicant' s intent, he has bought the entire property. He wants both sides for his use . They are separately described so he could , if he so chooses, to sell off the IOP parcel . Emmings : If something like that would happen , would the setbacks be appropriate? Dacy: The ordinance would allow for a joint parking situation. Joint parking lot situation and I think that would happen in this case. Emmings : And the setbacks as far as the buildings are concerned would be alright is that , for whatever reason would become a separate parcel? ' Dacy: In the IOP District , it' s 30 foot front setback and the side setback is the same, so there' s no change there. The IOP parcel can accomodate some type of small industrial office. Emmings: Are we looking at the alteration permit now? Conrad : We really haven' t . Emmings : I like the fact that the staff report puts in the 12 points from II the conditional use permit and analyzes this thing based on those 12 points. I think we ought to do that all the time. I think it ' s probably a lot of work but I think it' s a real good approach to do that because it really waxes it . You know exactly where you ' re coming from. I don ' t have any qualms about the outside display but I think there' s something to be said for being consistent in talking about the restricting of sales . I don' t think this is similar to storing pop cans outside of a SuperAmerica or even lawn mowers . . . Erhart : The gate is intended for what , securing it at night? Jay Kronick: Yes . Erhart : So the gate ' s not part of the business during the operating ' hours? Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 21 Jay Kronick: It will be left open during the . . . Erhart: Then there' s no fencing around. The gate is simply to prevent people from using your parking lot at night? Okay, in the wintertime what, you say you' re going to be open year round , what are you going to sell? Jay Kronick: Bird supplies . Food and feeders . Christmas in season.and February I 'm t' y going to take a vacation. I would not want to close off the option of operating year round but I may close for a few weeks in the winter months . Erhart : I assume you' re going to sell Christmas trees? Jay Kronick: Yes . Erhart : I think it ' s a good plan . I also wanted to comment on the format of staff' s presentation. It' s really helpful to get this down. Conrad : It is . The socket lighting . Do we have any problem with the socket lighting? Is it soffit or socket? Dacy: Soffit . Conrad : What do we need to do in terms of the applicant ' s request of the gravel road back through? q t for use Dacy: I think that we could work with him on that . The only issue that I want to resolve about having the general public using the road is only for a liability standpoint and I 'm sure we can come to some type of agreement. Either a yes or a no. It is agreed that the City will be constructing a gravel road and we should look at the liability issues . Conrad : I don' t know what to do with the screening issue with 4 . I don ' t know how to define that . I think the applicant should know what we' re thinking about and if we can' t define what we might be looking for , I guess my preference is to eliminate it although I do appreciate staff ' s comments because we don' t really know what we' re doing in terms of screening the whole site . We don' t know what it ' s really going to look like until it goes up. But on the other hand, I don ' t know that you can hang this over his head so whoever makes the motion , you ' ve got to deal with condition 4. I think we need some clarification on condition 6 because I don ' t have a clue what that means . Wildermuth: In reading Larry' s report, I understand what that ' s all about . That ' s the sedimentation and dirt . Conrad : The natural run-off from the garden center . Wildermuth : This is strictly the sanitary sewer system. It ' s a real sand trap to keep dirt from getting into the sanitary sewer system. I i 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 34 li I comprehensive plan dictates just like everybody else . Conrad: Any other discussion? Does anybody want to make a motion? Erhart : I 'm willing to make a motion that we deny the approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11 as presented to us . Headla : Second . Emmings : Whatever we do we' re going to make sure we lay out our reasons? 1 Conrad: We' ll have to. Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11. All voted in favor of denial except Wildermuth and Batzli who opposed the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. II Conrad : The conditional use permit is not approved with a 4 to 2 vote. d The reason Brian for your nay vote to turning it down? Batzli : My reasoning is that I think we' ve got an ordinance on the books II that we should stand by it. If we don' t like it, we amend it but I don' t know that we really have valid reasons to turn this down. All and all I thought it was a pretty good proposal . I had some concerns with it but not enough at this point to reject it. Wildermuth: I agree. We have a set of ordinances on the books and basically it looks like a good proposal . It' s virtually in the middle of a 40 acre parcel . It' s well screened from the highway. It would appear to be appropriate use. IIConrad : I 'd like to continue on and give the Council reasons for those of us who voted against it. Tim, can you condense your feelings to a few words? i Erhart : Again, just an overall feeling that this is not compatible with a I rural , really it' s become a low density residential area. I also am I I swayed by a couple new points that were brought up and that it doesn ' t even meet the intent I think of the original ordinance which was based on having someone who lived at the site use their storage shed or garage. This is not intended . . .at all . Essentially an office and warehouse building . I think Dave made a great point on the potential pollution. This is an area that' s particularly sensitive to pollution but moreover it' s the incompatibility with the surrounding uses and what our overall I intent of this area is. In both our ordinance and our Comp Plan. Emmings : I essentially agree with Tim' s comments . I guess this is the A-2 and this is not, although we do have an ordinance we have to deal I with, this is not a permitted use. It ' s not a permitted accessory use, it' s a conditional use which I think allows us to look at it much more I Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 17, 1988 - Page 35 C carefully. As far as the standards themselves are concerned , it ' s clear from reading the history and the approval of contractor ' s yards at all in the A-2, that we intended to include those people who were living in the rural area and this was sort of a secondary or accessory use of their property rather than being the whole reason for developing the property as this plan seems to be. The scale of this seems to be, to me, still too ' large. It would be more appropriate to an industrial area . I think the traffic issue is an extremely important reason. The reference to the traffic and as far as aesthetic compatibility, I think is standard 10. With the types of developments that are going on in the Bluff, and just with the general nature of the river valley itself, I don' t think this is aesthetically compatible. ' Conrad : My comments, I think the applicant did a very nice job of working with staff and presenting a good plan and working issues out. I commend him for that. I feel that I have two concerns in terms of traffic problems on TH 212. In terms of the potential` pollution problem down there which may be worked out . However it ' s still , based on my comments before, I feel that it' s a greater intensity of use than I anticipated ' that we could allow in a contractor ' s yard . I felt that contractor ' s yards should be a secondary use to that site and commercial businesses should go to our industrial areas . Ii Headla : I agree with you Ladd . It ' s a very good proposal and I think they tried hard but if I look at the year 2000 and think of the way it' s going to expand and the number of spills that are going to happen and I 'm not saying the people aren' t trying diligently. You just don' t control things 100% . Then the petroleum products that go into the soil and into the water system, the whole area ' s affected. That really could go over a large area . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-572 AND 20-574 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. ' Public Present : Name Address J. Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd . Diane Weeks Emmings : Could I ask a question? Are we going to go through these one by one and vote on every one? Conrad : I think we have to set direction. Emmings: Can we get done with one at a time? Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 36 ' C Dacy: Most of the people in the public are here for the contractor ' s yard II issue. This is a public hearing. We had intended on some of these that you could take action on. ' Emmings: What are they? Dacy: This is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment . ' Emmings: Yes, so we are going to make a motion whether each one is approved . ' Dacy: Yes , either approved or leave as is or recommend for further study. Conrad: I suppose we could approve them. I guess my comment reflects , ' they are conditional use permits and I don' t see the conditions . If they' re going to be conditional , I don' t know what the conditions are yet and therefore I was having a tough time approving any of these tonight . , Erhart: I think what Barb said, there were some that are pretty straight forward . ' Emmings : If we' re eliminating things, that ' s no problem. We can approve them with recommendations that staff bring them back. Olsen : And the ones that we ' re recommending to add already have conditions. Just generally, what' s been suggested is to eliminate contractor ' s yards, bed and breakfast and mineral extraction from the A-2 District and then to add temporary retail nurseries , churches , recreational beachlots , golf courses, group homes for 7 to 16 persons and public buildings to the A-2. I ' ll go through the first three that we ' re recommending be eliminated . The first one is contractor ' s yards . As Tim Erhart has presented, it was first, the ordinance was a condition to allow for the existing contractor ' s yards in the rural districts . Staff has gone through some of what would happen if we do remove the contractor ' s yards so we agreed that they are coming in each time and not necessarily the whole business that they' re accomodating on the side. We do hesitate eliminating it from the A-2 district just because then all those existing II uses that do have a conditional use would become non-conforming . Conrad : And so what? Olsen : They can not increase their size but if they burnt down or if they Y closed down for one year, they could not rebuild. Conrad : That has nothing to do with regulation. Being able to regulate. I So they become non-conforming, it doesn' t restrict our ability to be managing these yards in any degree? , Olsen: No. Conrad : In applying the conditions that we had on? I know that staff has never liked non-conforming uses . In this particular case, it sure looks I Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 37 11(7 like it ' s a good alternative. I don ' t know why staff doesn ' t like non- conforming. ' Olsen : First of all , it seems like the intent of the whole ordinance in the first place was to make them so they were no longer non-conforming . Currently they are a conditional use which has specific conditions that ' you can eliminate those specific conditions from the ordinance. With specific conditions to each site , with that conditional use we don' t know if that' s . . . Emmings : Wouldn' t they be grandfathered? This is , that would have no regulation on them whatsoever? Olsen : That ' s what I think . Conrad : I would think that their uses would be frozen. ' Olsen: They can' t expand but whether or not. . . ' Emmings : But you have no right to. . . if you can ' t impose the conditions we have. Conrad : There is something to that and I think that is why staff has always told us to make them conditional so you have the regulations because when they' re non-conforming you lose control . Emmings : Because we had all those people coming in for conditional use permits at the time because we wanted to give them some control . ' Batzli : What would happen if we made another condition that it be a secondary use? Olsen : That was one of staff ' s recommendations . Instead of eliminating ' them completely, is to come up with more strict conditions and what we were trying to define is that they must be an accessory use. ' Erhart: I think we have to find out specifically the answer to that question is to what happens if the current use is conforming and we make it non-conforming so specifically what happens? Olsen : Most of the conditions are those standard conditions that we would use. Conrad : Are you totally confident of what you just said? Olsen: The standard is , yes . ' Batzli : What ' s the gentleman ' s name that runs the excavating business? Emmings: Lowell Carlson. Batzli : Isn ' t he a non-conforming use? I II Planning Commission Meeting II August 17 , 1988 - Page 38 Emmings : No . He never came in for a conditional use permit. He' s still II non-conforming. Batzli : We' ve never actually imposed our conditional use? I Emmings : We haven' t been able to because he' s been. . . IIOlsen : Evasive. Emmings : He didn' t have to apply for a conditional use permit. He was II grandfathered in. Headla : He keeps expanding . II Olsen : We do have a difficult time controlling that and enforcing . . . Conrad: Let' s continue on with your staff report but I just wanted to II raise that issue. Olsen : Just a few specific conditions that we added with that conditional II use permit. I think that if you eliminate it as a conditional use permit. . . The standard conditions of the ordinance would no longer be enforceable because it is something that is recorded with the County. In II summary, we would rather not have them non-conforming uses . We would still have some control but it just appears that the conditions that we do have now are allowing uses that contractor ' s yards maybe aren ' t appropriate. II Conrad : I don' t know how we' re going to hold a public hearing on this tonight if we keep opening them up and closing them down on each issue. II I guess I 'd like to hear the public ' s comments if they do have any on this particular subject. We' ll run this real loose. I 'd just like to open it up. I 'd just like to open it up once and close it once on this whole issue and get their comments as we hit different items rather than opening II up for each item. Are there any comments on this particular aspect of contractor 's yards that anybody would like to bring up? Diane Weeks : I just hate to see you eliminate contractor ' s yards as a I conditional use. There are many that are very good and I think. . . take away those as a conditional use, therefore. . . It just doesn ' t seem like a responsible thing for a governing body to intentially make a property non- conforming . It seems like. . . intentionally the 15 properties non-conforming. Up to a few years ago we went through all the hoops and made all the applications and did everything you told us to do . We' re II meeting all the conditions as far as us personally concerned . . . Dave Stockdale : I live on Galpin Blvd . . I applied for a conditional use II permit a few years back and prior to the buying the land I purchased the property, I put my own business out there. . . Right now I 'm enjoying raw land. We applied for a conditional use permit identical to what was approved a few years back and similar to the . . . What I saw denied earlier II is the way our . . . the conditions for denial . . .conditional use permit . II Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 39 C IDiane Weeks : I just wanted to make. . . If we happen to have a fire or something would happen. . .we would if we' re non-conforming but we' re still living on that property. . . Conrad : What do we want to do on contractor ' s yards right now. Which direction do we want to set? ' Erhart: Is that true if they burn down that your use is eliminated? ' Dacy: The way the ordinance reads is that no non-conforming use building or structure except single family dwelling which has been damaged by fire, explosion, flood, act of God or other calamities to the extent of more ' than 50% of it ' s assessed market value may be restored. Erhart: Okay, that' s the building and structure. Dacy: No , it says non-conforming use , building or structure. Erhart: How do you rebuild a use? Dacy: The use of having the contractor ' s yard use. Storage of vehicles. Erhart: Whether or not a contractor ' s yard, the garage or shed burns down IN: in the A-2 area . . . I agree, we wouldn ' t want to find ourselves in the situation where a garage burned down and that business . . . I think we' ve got to be careful to set up that situation. That wouldn ' t be fair . Dacy: It' s still a use but if the primary use of the garage is to house those vehicles , what would happen is that the assessed market value of ' that use would have to be determined . . . Erhart : Whether or not you ' re a contractor ' s yard , it means you would have to have a garage . . . Dacy: Correct . If it ' s a garage for your personal vehicles and it burns down, you can' t rebuild it because of outside parking. Conrad : Just opinions on what direction you'd like to go . We can vote on something if we so desire or we can just set a direction for staff on this issue . Erhart : I ' ll give you my comments here. I don' t have any problem, I have two contractor 's yards on West 96th Street where I live. For the most ' part they' re not a problem the way they are and I don ' t think those necessarily are so much the concern however I do want to point out that there is problems with those 10. . . It really comes from, the buildings are very nice but it comes from the outdoor storage. That ' s the problem with the Lowell Carlson property. We' ve had some problems in our area with outdoor storage that tends to accumulate and I think what I 'm trying to get to here is that i think we can adequately regulate and find a way to ' work with the existing contractor ' s yards and yet basically place a message that the City is growing. This is becoming more and more of a residential area and that at some point here, or this is a good point to • MEE Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 40 quit expanding that use. The way we have it now, although you might say that because of the 1 mile radius thing , the thing is , you can get one of those guys quit and then another guy like the application we say today and ' I think it' s a good time to just basically make it non-conforming and quit the expansion of that use . I think there are too many problems . I 'm not suggesting problems in my area or that the people here cause the problems but I 'm looking 20 years ahead . It' s difficult to define what it' s like ' . on the south today is on one end of the spectrum. I know Ronnie has got a nice brand new house and everything and it' s fairly clean and how do you define that? I think it ' s a timing thing and I think it ' s time that we do II what Eden Prairie some years ago and say that we are now going to protect our low density residential rural areas because there are so many people living out here now and we' re going to make contractor ' s yards non- conforming. The option to that is , just make it more strict. I guess I 'd be agreeable to that too . Obviously I think we all agree that we have to do something but instead of looking at just making it the primary use being their residence, make it a condition that too, I think we should try to eliminate outside storage. Emmings : I would not be in support of making contractor ' s yards non- conforming uses. I think it would be better to have a set of standards. Maybe they should be more strict but have a set of standards that we' re comfortable with and rely on those standards and the general conditional use standards to prove or set restrictions on contractor ' s yards. I think it 's much better to have, it seems to me what was going on when, or it ' s obvious that ' s what was going on when this contractor ' s yard was made conditional uses was to start to get some control over them to keep them I from expanding . Keep them becoming problems and if we turn them into non- conforming uses, I think we' ll have them of all coming back again and we can ' t get rid of the ones that are here. We don ' t have to make more. I 'm II particularly concerned with the scale of the one we looked at tonight so I think as a matter of theory, I think it' s better to have good standards and I would recommend that we'd better spend working on those standards so we' re comfortable with them and so that they work rather than giving up on them. Batzli : I agree with most of Steve' s comments . That' s not to say that if I there was a way to eliminate them in the A-2 district, which we would run into the non-conforming problem, I would be in favor of that as well but it doesn' t look like it' s going to go that way so I would recommend trying to consider a new set of standards where we would be insuring that it ' s a secondary or accessory use. You' re going to run into problems such as this gentleman that has split off the land running into the same problem Tim had trying to get a mortgage. He' s going to try and get a contractor ' s yard with this other parcel of land , it' s going to have to be II office definition of an accessory use if it' s on an adjacent parcel . Wildermuth : I agree. It sounds like we need to change our regulations ' rather than a straight outlawing of contractor ' s yards in the A-2 districts . Headla : I feel we should have a contractor ' s yard but the conditions that Steve mentioned, I think we ought to look at. One of the things I think Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 41 ' that we really want to control is the size. That' s one of the main things , if we can control that we can control a lot of the problems . Conrad : I agree with your comments . Let ' s direct staff to take a look at some of those conditions that may give us a little bit more control in terms of size. What else besides size are we looking at? Headla: I think the type of equipment. When you start bringing in these great big diesel tankers and burning diesel oil . ' Conrad: So that from an environmental standpoint, the equipment type may be appropriate. The amount of outside storage. Dacy: Employees . Conrad : Number of employees . ' Batzli : Can we make it a different setback from wetland areas? ' Wildermuth: How about trucks to and from the site? Dacy: Vehicles would be the best way. 11( Conrad: Take a look at accessory use, secondary use versus primary use. Headla : Let me just make the comment on traffic . Lowell Carlson has several vehicles and they' re going up and down but I don' t think it' s wrong . I think it' s appropriate. I don ' t have a problem with his vehicles going back and forth. It' s the other huge trucks go up and down the parkway. . .so vehicle useage like that for like a ma and pa operation, let them have it. Erhart : Can I ask Ron, how many vehicles do you have. . . in your operation? ' Ron: Two trucks . ' Erhart : You' ve got what , two besides your personal vehicles you ' ve got three trucks? Emmings : When we approve these as a conditional use, do we record that information at that time? The number and type of vehicles that are going to be used and keep that information here so we always know that? ' Conrad : Intensification is something we' ve never been able to deal with either . It can border on being unfair . We can freeze the use that whatever you apply for, that' s what you get but on the other hand, in the 1 cases where intensifi.cation . . .and that' s why it ' s a conditional use but we still have a hard time measuring the real impact . Emmings : But on the other hand , if you see someone coming in with a plan and they' ve got a building and they' re going to put all their vehicles are going to be inside and their outside storage is going to be minimal and they' ve made provisions for screening and so forth so it can not be seen, Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 42 1 what do we care? I don' t know. That doesn' t bother me. Conrad: Anything else on this? Okay, does that kind of give you some feel? Diane Weeks : I was just wondering , you' re talking about . . .and people coming in . . . ' Conrad : Yes there are . Not on yours but on other contractor ' s yards and there are cases where they are poorly maintained. There are abuses and we hear about the abuses at different times during the year . I think what Chanhassen has tried to do is accomodate a limited scale use of property because we' ve always thought it was fair to do that. The primary intent II was, at least my philosophy has always been, if somebody else had property and they had some work that ' s associated , they should be able to work off of that property. That seems right to me. Tonight we saw something where it was obviously a larger scale . That ' s just big and all of a sudden we get a little bit nervous I think, or I am when I see something like that but going back to your question , there are abuses in contractor ' s yards . There are traffic patterns that the neighbors just complain about. We tell contractor ' s you' ve got to use certain road access and if they have a lot of trucks going to that location, those different truckers don' t always take the preferred highway pattern so you create traffic patterns that maybe you prefer not to and then the neighbors come in and complain so it ' s not consistent and it all depends on the scale and nature of the operation. The other reality is, Chanhassen is growing and neighbors are moving . Whether we want them or not , people are moving into Chanhassen . We' re trying as a Planning Commission, trying to figure out where that puts us . Let everybody use their property fairly but also be realistic and say there' s growth out here and somehow we have to anticipate what' s going to happen when those people reach us . Emmings : Maybe some things that we can look at are setbacks for storage . Another thing that I 'm wondering , you just brought it to mind , have we approved any contractor ' s yards under the standards that we presently have? Dacy: The Admiral Waste application and when they went through the ' ordinance. . . before all these folks came through the process . . . Emmings : Except Lowell . I guess my question is this . As far as , complaints that we get, if any, do we keep track of those by the way? Dacy: Yes . Since we' ve had the Code Enforcement officer . ' Emmings : Do we have any ability if we get complaints about one particular contractor ' s yard, do we have any way, I supposed if he' s violating your standards then you use your enforcement but if it ' s not violating some condition of the permit, then there 's nothing you can do about it? Dacy: If the complaint is valid and if they are violating any ordinance requirements or permit conditions . It depends on what they' re complaining about and what actually is occurring . 1 ' ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 43 1 C Emmings : It would seem to me that the types of complaints that are coming in, all ought to be constructive to us as to what kind of conditions we should be imposing I guess is what I 'm trying to say. 1 Erhart: Your thing is, I 'd like to tie down the actual use a little more specifically. One thing right now where we ' re using it for actual contractor ' s yard, landscape contractor , building contractor but when you talk about these garbage trucks under contractor ' s yard , I think we ought 1 to tighten that up. Basically let' s talk about people who run their businesses out of their garages or storage sheds . ' Conrad: Next item. Bed and Breakfast. Olsen : Bed and breakfast . When this ordinance was amended , we researched bed and breakfast quite a bit and we came up with specific conditions that ' we feel will allow bed and breakfast to be compatible in the A-2 district . We feel it should be maintained as a conditional use in the A-2 district. Erhart: The reason why I brought these to your attention is because I do not have strong feelings one way or the other on the rest of them but I started writing up a philosophy of the A-2 district and these got brought 1 in so don' t feel that on the rest of the issues that I have no strong feelings one way or the other . I 'm not against bed and breakfast establishments . Conrad : Does anybody want to eliminate bed and breakfasts from the A-2? I guess the 5 rooms is really arbitrary. I guess I could go along with the 5 rooms but there are great bed and breakfasts with 7 rooms. I think ' it' s just an arbitrary number. If somebody came in here and had a use with 7 rooms , I would be ready to change it on the spot. That' s my only comment. It' s just as good as any other number. ' Batzli : I like 5. I hate to disagree but 5 is a great number for a bed and breakfast and I would hold firm. I ' ve been in a lot of bed and breakfast in my day and 7 , they don' t cut it . You want the small homey feeling of a bed and breakfast. Not this large bussling hotel of 7 rooms . Erhart : Can I come in at my house and make that into a bed and breakfast? ' Dacy: As a conditional use. Erhart : Is it the intent of the bed and breakfast to use old homes or ' just. . . Emmings : That ' s what typically is built. 1 Erhart: We' re not . . . to build a motel out there? I(— Dacy: If it' s owner occupied . Emmings : What are you thinking? 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 44 Erhart : I just bring it up. Batzli : I 'm being slightly facetious when I say hold the line at 5 rooms II but I 'm envisioning this small owner occupied type place. My only experience with them is overseas and they' re really neat and you get to meet people along the way. I don' t envision trying to let people build hotels in the A-2 district. Emmings: Maybe it ' s the place to put a little intent statement . Conrad : You don' t want to turn the asssumption seminary into a bed and breakfast? Something like that would be really intriguing for me and I don ' t know how we justify it but it was a case where it might be an interesting use down there. I would like to do something totally out of the ordinary right now and ask if there are any other comments from the public on any of the items . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? , Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted II in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Conrad : Let' s run with the bed and breakfast and let ' s keep it in there . There' s mineral extraction. Olsen : We' re saying if you want to remove it, we should study it further to see what impacts it would have. I Conrad : Should we direct staff to study it further? Erhart: Yes, I think so. I have a concern about mineral extraction. ' Conrad : I don ' t know how much study you want to put into this . It doesn' t seem like it' s worthy of a whole lot of time. 1 Wildermuth : Especially with only one site in the City. Conrad: I 'm not in favor of mineral extraction. I see no benefit to Chanhassen but I guess I would like to have staff take a look at it and say is there any. . . , Olsen : We just have to work out . . . Erhart : Barb , we had a question here while you were out and that was, if we were to eliminate contractor 's yards or let 's say mineral extraction and they are now under regulations of a conditional use permit with a number of conditions, do we lose that ability to enforce those conditions once we eliminate them from the ordinance? Dacy: No and I ' ll confirm that with the City Attorney but I would say the opposite . Yes , we would be able to enforce the conditions of their original approval . The non-conforming status really protects the City from the use from expanding . For us not to be able to enforce the ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 45 C Iconditions of approval , then they can go hog wild . ' Emmings: Yes , but you know what you' ve done there. I guess what you've just said is , we can pass an ordinance and drop all your non-conforming uses to come in and get conditional use permits so we can impose conditions on you and then we ' re going to jerk out your conditional use ' permit and make you non-conforming uses so that they can' t expand or if you' re destroyed , and by God , I ' ll tell you, I 'd be willing to take over a lawsuit against the City. That'd be a dirty trick. 1 Erhart : You' ve got one of those guys as non-conforming anyway because they' re not . . .and none of them have 5 acres so they' re non-conforming ' anyway. Emmings : Well , how would they get permits? ' Dacy: Because the 5 acre standard and all those other standards weren' t passed until 1987 . ' Erhart : Okay, is anybody prepared just to eliminate mineral extractions tonight? I vote just to eliminate them. Olsen : There may be other issues . lk: Headla : What happens if I want to clean up my barnyard with a Bobcat? Am I supposed to get a permit for that? I see you talk about grading in ' here . I come through with a Bobcat and I scrape my barnyard . Farmers scrape their fields . Where do you draw the line on grading? Dacy: That ' s part of the reason why we' re saying we prefer to study it. Headla: Okay, I agree. ' Batzli : Is mineral soil? Dacy: Yes . ' Conrad : Okay, look into that more . ' Olsen : Temporary retail nurseries . Number one , we can ' t really control a temporary use and we just feel that retail nurseries is too intense a use in the A-2 district . ' Conrad : But we could allow it temporarily. How could we do this? How could we accomodate a farmer who wants to sell produce on their land ' during the selling season? Erhart : I know you' re not going to vote for this but I keep coming across this idea that you can make a temporary use. I looked back in the Minutes again and I read , in 1981 a permit was issued and I can ' t figure out under what section of the ordinance but we issues a permit in 1971 for a 5 year conditional use permit. Now isn ' t that a temporary permit? II Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 46 I II Dacy: That' s illegal . Emmings : We got a letter from our Attorney that says it ' s illegal . II Conrad: I really like that idea. You've got 3 years. Emmings : And that ' s what they' re asking for . You say give me 3 years . II Why can ' t we enforce that? Erhart : Our Attorney. I guess the one that hit me was the fellow who now II is downtown so I think it all worked out. His initial proposal was to put a retail nursery out in our , actually it was our RR district. I just felt II it was sort of ridiculous. Given that we could give this guy a temporary permit, if we could enforce this temporary, it made good sense to take TH 101 or TH 5 and allow them to put a temporary use. That was my only thought . I Dacy: What Roger is coming back and saying is that State Statute says that if it runs with the land, then the property owner has realized a II certain amount of investment of that use and on the land . For the City to come back 3 or 5 years later , even though he may have agreed to that condition and come back and say, no you can ' t do it anymore, Roger was saying that the City is on shaky ground because the temporary nature of it II is not really valid . He has made a solid investment in that land . Emmings : Under the conditional use section it says that they are not ' personal but run with the land . So you throw that into that calculation and that makes it, that' s the problem but if you couldn' t make them personal , what if we had some way to give a certain individual the right II to do something on a piece of land for a certain period of time? Don' t call it a conditional use permit . Call it something else . Call it a license. Dacy: You can ' t avoid that though. It ' s either permitted , accessory II or . . . Emmings : No . If it' s a conditional use , why can ' t there be a license? I Dacy: Even if it ' s a license for a business , that use still has to II conform with the Zoning Ordinance. We just can ' t establish another set . . . Headla: Why can' t we ask him to post a bond that he' s going to get out after x number of months? I Dacy: It' s still the same issue. Headla : Yes , but if you' ve got the money in hand , he ' s got a little more II incentive. { Dacy: But still requiring them to leave within a certain amount of time, with or without money, what the Attorney is saying is that ' s not I consistent with State law. II 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 49 Erhart : And we allow them in the A-1? That ' s my argument for recommending is if we allow them in the A-1, why wouldn ' t we allow them in the A-2? Olsen : It was always the intention. Conrad: Yes , it should be. Public buildings. Any feelings on that? Erhart : Same thing . It ' s allowed in the A-1. Conrad: Going back to group homes. Do we have conditions for the A-1? Olsen : They have to be a mile. . . Conrad : Anyway,- I think that takes us through it. I think the things we could, do you want to handle all these collectively? We could make a motion that dealt with beachlots . Olsen: I have a recommendation that covers this . Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend adding churches , recreational beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as conditional uses in the A-2 District. All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3 , 1988 as presented . All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried . OPEN DISCUSSION: Erhart : Barb and I talked about the last meeting on this TH 101 thing . I think I sort of spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission a little bit on indicating that we were all concerned , we felt that issue was important to try and resolve this TH 101 thing . . . Emmings : What' s the status right now? Dacy: It ' s going to Council Monday night. Pursuant to the Planning Commission ' s direction, we are investigating other options beyond the north and the south leg. We met with MnDot today to try and determine some type of understanding of schedule so depending on which options is chosen, we wouldn' t lose TH 5 as proposed so we' re hopeful but cautious . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p .m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 47 Conrad : . . . It seems like if you want to make an investment and build this structure and you know that it has to comply or it has to cease after 5, that doesn ' t seem like an unfair thing and I don ' t understand that . Erhart: Especially if you' re going to deny it. You can deny it entirely and it would seem to me you could allow. . . Emmings: There' s a conflict here too that someday might be a problem but a nursery is defined as an enterprise which conducts retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site. That could be an agricultural use or nursery as accessory and directly related to the care and maintenance. It doesn' t say anything about. . . Conrad : Okay, churches . Add churches . Anybody against churches? Anybody concerned with the recreational beachlots? Batzli : I guess backing up to the churches for one moment, I am really disappointed that this church who has that interceptor line running 10 feet outside their door can ' t hook up to it . They' re 150 feet or whatever away from a Class A wetlands. The perfect time to do it and there' s so much red tape around here , they can ' t hook up. It amazes me. Conrad : That' s just the way it is. You sign a contract and you sign stuff and you have to live up to it. Batzli : It ' s like that guy last time who instead of fighting City Hall moved out of Plymouth to Chan only to find that we were just as bad as Plymouth . Emmings : Golf courses are okay? Conrad : Staff is looking for direction. Keep them small or make them big? I don' t care if they' re big or small . What do we care? Batzli : For instance , the Lafayette Club. Let' s look at that . Small 9 hole golf course. Residential all around it. Now obviously it' s got the lake as a huge buffer and a railroad tracks running right behind it but a place like that, I don' t know. I guess I would call a City like Minnetonka Beach or wherever the heck they' re located in and ask if there' s complaints about a big club like that on a small piece of land because they have functions continuously. Wedding receptions and everything else. Headla : It isn ' t that easy access to it either . Batzli : I was trying to think of other ones that were big that have a lot of receptions or not so big actually that were built up around , for instance, Minnetonka Country Club. Are they in Shorewood? Emmings : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 48 C Batzli : Fairly close to residential on the one side and they just go right over the 10th fairway to residential . Emmings : In Hopkins, Oak Ridge has houses on two sides of it. Erhart: It gets back to this non-conforming thing. We have a golf course in our City and we make it non-conforming . It ' s a resource there that' s not well done but I think it' s starting to get to a point where it' s starting to come along . I 'd like to see us encourage that place to grow into a real asset. Right now they can' t grow. Emmings : You' re seeing housing developments now where they' re being advertised as built around golf courses . Erhart : Look at the one in Victoria . Batzli : What' s the one in Eden Prairie? Conrad : Edenvale . Batzli : Condos built all the way around it. Erhart: They' re doing one out here in Victoria. The golf course is part of the subdivision . Conrad : But here you recommended that it be a conditional use in the A-2. Erhart: What was the option, a permitted use? Conrad : Yes . It probably should be conditional . I think just the shoe size and the fact . . . Olsen : And in the unsewered area too . Batzli : I think that was our initial concern when we talked about it was because if we do make it a large facility and they have a lot of receptions and all that kind of thing there, and it is unsewered, what kind of problems are we going to run into? Conrad : We' re saying to staff on this one, we think a big golf course and clubhouse is acceptable . Are we not saying that? What we' re now looking are their conditions that we might want to hold up. Group homes . Emmings : I don' t know much about group homes . Batzli : I don' t have any idea what a group home is . Olsen : We have a definition of one. Dacy: We have one now on the north side of TH 5. Headla : The old Harold Vender farm.