The URL can be used to link to this page

1q. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING II IF MAY 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened ' with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson ' COUNCILMEMBER ARRIVING LATE: Councilman Horn arrived during the last item of discussion. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown I OLD ASSUMPTION SEMINARY DISCUSSION. Mayor Hamilton: I'll just move ahead with one item I had and that is the old Assumption Seminary. It's been brought to our attention a few times that there is a problem with the Assumption Seminary. Scott Harr has been talking with the owners and trying to work with them and he's done an excellent job of trying to keep on top of this project. I've gotten so many complaints about that property that last week I went down there with Jim Chaffee. Walked the whole property and let me tell you, that's a scary place to be in. It's just awful. You can't believe how bad that place is. We spent a lot of time Friday and today talking about it trying to figure out what we're going to do to resolve this issue. I think what we need to do, what I would like to see us do tonight is pass a resolution saying that the seminary property in total is a public health hazard and a safety hazard so that will give Scott the ammunition he needs and a little more clout to move ahead with the owners, and Roger also, to get additional ' things done with the seminary. Board it up. Close it up. Torn down. Burned down. I don't care what we do with it but it's got to be changed. I found about ten 55 gallon drums stored behind one of the buildings. There is something in them leaking and it's going right into the creek. There's hundreds - of tires out there. The place is supposed to be totally secure and we had them board up all the doors and windows so you couldn't get into it. I had never been there and within about two minutes I was in. The door was wide open so it's not very secure. Once I got in I wasn't so happy I was in there. In the basement level there are huge walk-in coolers like you see in a grocery store or in a big apartment building but the door is still on. We have some very, very serious problems there and I think our staff can probably take care of the doors so we don't have the problem of somebody being put in there. I know that Scott will be contacting Roger to find out how do we move ahead to secure the ' property. There are a total of about six buildings there and two of them are being occupied. I would like us to even pursue the possibility of telling the owners that the buildings that are being inhabitated can not be until they get the others cleaned up. There are certainly a lot of hazards for the people ' living there because they have children and the whole property is just unsafe. I'd like to see us pass a resolution saying that it's a health and a public safety hazard. Perhaps Roger could draft wording for that so we could send that Ito the owners. Councilman Geving: Let's go ahead with the resolution. I noticed it was up for sale. It's up for sale and will that have an impact on the sale? If we declare 1 22" City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 11 it as a safety hazard, Of course, I don't know what the people were doing with it anyway. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that anybody who would come in here to 11 purchase that property, we should tell than that until such time as it's cleaned up, the building taken down and the debris removed, that they're just going to have to do that or the City wouldn't be satisfied. Councilman Geving: The houses that are occupied, I drove by yesterday, and it seems like I remember that we had almost declared it uninhabitable at the time because we were concerned about water pollution I believe. Contamination possibly from the well. I don't recall that specifically but it seems like the homes that are being occupied were almost unfit because of the wells. I have no problem with that. It looks like we should do something because the windows are all broken out. It's a shabby looking place. Mayor Hamilton: It's such a beautiful setting. A beautiful area. It's a shame that it's gotten to this point. ' Councilman Geving: There have to be some of us who remember what it looked like when the Seminarians were there. Mayor Hamilton: There are big trees that have been cut down in the area. We should try to eliminate that. There are some huge, huge trees out there. I don't remember if they're oaks or poplars but those things are this big around. They're huge. It's just a beautiful piece of property when you get behind the seminary. A creek running past the seminary behind it's all wooded. It's just gorgeous. To have a mess like that, it's a shame. Councilman Johnson: Did you see what was in the drums? Mayor Hamilton: No I didn't even want to touch them, to be honest with you. 1 They've ben there for a while and one of them had tar running down it. That was down by the barn and it was leaking out. All I know is one of them was leaking out. I Councilman Johnson: We should get the MPCA site investigation to go out there immediately. If you saw something coming out of the drums that were there, that's enough for them to respond and they will go out and look and call the t II homeowner and everything. Mayor Hamilton: That was the direction we gave to Scott. To talk to the MPCA. Councilman Geving: Tom, do you know who owns that property? Mayor Hamilton: There are five attorneys who are attempting to sell it. They realize that they've got a white elephant and they have a million dollar pricetag on it. There's no way it's worth near that. I Councilman Geving: You're interested in directing Roger to go ahead with the resolution. Roger Knutson: I'll just draft a resolution for your next meeting. I 2 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 IMayor Hamilton: We could have it on our consent. II I . Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution declaring the the Old Assumption Seminary as a public health hazard and a public safety hazard to be available for the next City Council ' meeting. In the meantime, directing staff to move ahead to proceed to do whatever they can to close it down. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton: We've gone over this a number of time. I guess Barb, has ' anything changed since last week that you want to bring to our attention? Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding from the Reed's that Roger Reed has signed a petition agreeing to the vacation. Councilman Johnson: So now we're at a three-fifth's vote. Roger Knutson: Last time there was a concern that two people owned the property. Have they both signed? IMayor Hamilton: Gary, your brother is owner with you, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Now you both signed the petition? 111_ Mayor Hamilton: Including your wife so there's three of you. Jan Reed: We haven't actually signed it. Roger Knutson: If they sign it and if they own a majority of the land abutting the road to be vacated, then it is. .. ' Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could examine the document and tell us what needs to be done. Roger Knutson: I guess know someone needs to sign it. Barbara Dacy: They are signing our standard application. You should probably write on there we're going to vacate 64th Street. Roger Knutson: From point to point. Councilman Hoyt: It's a little sketchy isn't it? Roger Knutson: Yes. Why don't I draw something up right here. ' Councilman Johnson: Of course his brother's not here. IL Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, could you review what the current plan is at this point in time? Barbara Dacy: The Council at last Monday's meeting was talking about one of the 3 228 ` City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 II cul-de- sac options and what would have to happen is 64th Street would be vacated from the southwest corner of the HSZ site to TH 41. So this area would be vacated. Then either cul-de-sacs here or into the Reed property. At the last meeting the Reed's and HSZ appeared to have agreement to build a cul-de-sac ' into their property. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that Gary? II Gary Reed: Yes. They've given us a written agreement that is putting the cul-de-sac into our property, that compensate... He would like some area for ponding on our property. Barb, that hasn't been approved? 1 Barbara Dacy: The planning issue is really not part of the Council's review tonight. The main issue is whether or not 64th Street should be vacated or what II alignment it is. Other related ponding issues or drainage issues have to be addressed at another time. Gary Reed: If you'd like to see, I drew up an option of coming in off of TH 41 II and some of the reasons why it doesn't seem to be working out. Bill was concerned that we looked that over as an option. .. Councilman Boyt: I'd like one, thank you. II Gary Reed: This would be coming in off of TH 41 coming down to here.. . Without II Ben Gowen's cooperation for the...it comes real close to the house right here...so that's one of the reasons. III Councilman Geving: How many units are there? Gary Reed: As far as lots go. With the West 64th Street cul-de-sac I get one more lot plus I don't use all this land on the road here. So this is not quite II as efficient as what I consider the land use to be. So that's another reason that it doesn't really work out for me. The other reason is HSZ won't put in the other cul-de-sac. On this plan.. . Then we would probably have to stub the II sewer in across the easement from West 64th Street. Sewer and water is not available up here by the highway and that would be another additional cost. To get the sewer from West 64th Street to seven lots, in this area here. .. I guess my conclusion was that this option worked for me. A little better land use. I t II come up with approximately a 260 foot from West 64th Street to the end of the cul-de-sac here. Anything you wanted to ask? Councilman Boyt: What's the length of the whole cul-de-sac? I Councilman Johnson: From Orchard. IIGary Reed: I suspect it would be close to 1,000 feet. Councilman Johnson: Where are you with the drainage issue? I Gary Reed: We're trying to nail that down. We have put in the holding pond for their property and the main drainage coming off of TH 41 from the school is channeled through our property. It's been a problem with us and it would go 0! into the holding pond and is this correct now, the runoff is going to go underground to the park? II 4 II City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 IICouncilman Johnson: How does it affect the 8 lots you're proposing? Gary Reed: I haven't nailed down the ponding site with them. Possibly put it up in this area here with this sharp angle.. .the drainage comes into my property now. At that point now there's a natural.. .and from there goes underground. There's another possibilty but I'm not sure. .. - Councilman Johnson: So you're not fighting the ponding at this point? ' Gary Reed: No. Councilman Johnson: You're just trying, you agreed in principle to allow them to pond on your property for their area and it looks like. .. Gary Reed: I agreed to a pond of not more than 10,000 square feet. Somewhat smaller than a minimum sized lot should be sufficient I imagine. ' Larry Brown: Just a point of clarification, if West 64th Street is vacated and Mr. Reed comes in for a plat, he will be responsible as well for on site ponding ' to maintain a predevelopment runoff rate. Therefore there will be a pond somewhere on his property. Gary Reed: Just for the blacktopping? The water running off the blacktop? ILarry Brown: And the houses that potentially would be there. II1 Councilman Johnson: His pond could be the same pond? Larry Brown: Correct. If it were sized appropriately, yes. Gary Reed: Like I say, the major drainage comes off the school parking lot and they have no on site ponding at all. I feel that they should be responsible for their blacktop and should provide on site ponding for their runoff because it comes down really fast through there. They've got a spot next to the highway there. They've got plenty of land. They're going to channel their runoff into... ' Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't any of that go to the park? Gary Reed: Some of it does go into that pond to the north... Mayor Hamilton: Underneath that driveway? Gary Reed: Where that pond is now. ..if that culvert ever opened up, you would have a problem there with our lake. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Gary? Is that it? Bill, do you have any ' additional questions? 4 Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the answers I got. Barbara, I had a question for you. The current limit on cul-de-sacs and how that affects this? Barbara Dacy: There's is no specific limit identified in the subdivision 5 230 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' ordinance other than length that's appropriate for the development and intensity which the cul-de-sac serves. The cul-de-sac that goes into the Reed property is approximately 900 feet from Orchard Lane. Typically staff has used a 1,000 foot rule of thumb in the urban area. There are different issues that we look at. Gary Reed: The density is not too great on that cul-de-sac. The lots there are over 60 feet. ' Councilman Boyt: You've agreed to maintain the walkway from the end of 64th Street out to TH 41? Gary Reed: I have agreed to make a walkway through my property. Councilman Boyt: There's a road through there right now and I thought one of the considerations was that you were going to allow a path width to remain. Gary Reed: A road easement you mean? Barbara Dacy: As a condition of the vacation, if the Council wishes to reserve a trail easement in that vacated area, they have the power to do that. Councilman Boyt: In talking to the neighbors that day, it was my understanding. that there was concern that there be some way for the kids to continue to cross that property to the school so I think we should maintain a trail easement on 64th. My concern with this is, as I have expressed I think right along, is I don't know how to deal with long cul-de-sacs. I would like to see the City Council wrestle with this issue in the future. I think that we need to work at it with the Public Safety people and come up with what are we going to do with long cul-de-sacs. This is a pressure all the time it seems to allow them yet I think we all know that they test the limits of our ability to provide public safety protection for the people in the community. I don't know that now is the time to fight that issue. I think the developer and the Reeds have worked at this for quite a while and if the neighbors don't substantially object to this plan, I gather that they don't from the conversation that I had with them, I c::n su000_t it. Councilman Geving: I like to know now if we have. narrowed the potential cul-de-sacs to the three that are shatin on the sketch that you've provided. Now II we can rule out 2 for sure. That's certainly not to be considered. At least in my view and apparently you have now ruled out number 1, is that correct? I guess I'm most concerned about the comments from citizens who are now using 64th everyday to get to work from TH 41. Do we have any live petitions? Do we have any recent comments that have come in in terms of memorandums? Letters from people? Barbara Dacy: I have not received any at my office. I know some Pe P o le are here. Councilman Geving: Again, like I said, my major concern was those people who do live to the west who are now traveling east to get to TH 41. Their comments regarding our action tonight and what their alternative will be if we do vacate 64th. Whether this is a substantial number of people who would object to that or whether there's a substantial number of people now will accept this cul-de-sac arrangement and if they want to use TH 41 they'll have to go out onto 6 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 TH 7 to get to TH 41. I'd like to hear from those. Mayor Hamilton: I'll get to you in just a minute. IICouncilman Geving: I'd like to hear that in our discussion before we vote. Whether or not there are people representing the area to the west or anybody • that lives on Oriole Lane that would want to speak to this issue. I guess my_ ' only feelings is if there is substantial agreement among those people that this would not be an undue hardship, they could live with this, I would vote accordingly to vacate the property. I think what I saw tonight in Mr. Reed's ' alternatives and what he's going to do with his property, you're going to develop there obviously and we have to move ahead with the HSZ development and I don't want to hold it up any longer. I'm pleased we're at this point. ' Councilman Johnson: I met with the citizens too. I still have, even though I had a meeting with the neighborhood, the only one part I have problem with even 'I though I'm in general favor of it, is emergency access and our fire trucks are ' going to have to use TH 7. Fortunately our prime responder is going to be coming from Minnewashta so it's going to be coming down TH 7 anyway but you're ; secondary response would be coming from the main station or again, the call for extra help from Shorewood and Excelsior, etc. would be coming down TH 7. Seeing the primary use may be actually TH 7 now anyway and conditioned upon the fact that the deceleration lane to go into the HSZ property is going to extend all the way back to Orchard Lane to act as an acceleration lane and be a much safer ' entrance onto TH 7 than they presently have onto TH 7. I'm not sure whether that lane's going to extend all the way to TH 41 or not. I don't think it will. '' It would be nice if it went all the way to TH 41 and then you wouldn't have to get on TH 7 at all. Generally I would like to see it connected through...there because of the commercial going on, it's going to be residential traffic. If it went all the way through we could again be looking at the front part of this ' property being built commercial and when we would have commercial on this residential street again. I don't particularly want to see that happen so weighing everything I'm leaning towards this option and they want to sit in there and fight it out and negotiate for this easement. I agree with Dale, I'd like to hear from citizens that are here tonight. Whether they agree with my analysis or not. Mayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of comments. I too have been concerned about the residents to the west. However, the previous developers of this area had always tied the shopping center in with the traffic going to the west to get into the center, as I recall, from Oriole. Now we've eliminated that. I guess ' that's what the residents wanted and now I'd be surprised if we heard them say they didn't want that. I think I'm concerned that they're satisfied with their access. Entrance and egress onto TH 7 is going to be adequate for them and I'm ' pleased that the Reed's have reached agreement with the developer that's going to satisfy their needs and accomplish what they want to do. Perhaps sooner than they want to do it but nevertheless get it done when they want to do something. ' Seeing how that's the case I'm all in favor of this. Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: I would like to restate, just to make sure that it doesn't drop through the cracks because sometimes things seem to do that, that any vacation of 64th Street be absolutely tied to a left turn lane being completed before vacation on TH 7. 7 232 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: I too go TH 41, turn south and go to the great city of Chaska to work every morning and on behalf of the neighbors and having sat through a lot of meetings, I really feel this is probably the optimum solution. Fran the standpoint of talking about the longer cul-de-sac and emergency exit, one of the alternatives that had been discussed was an exit back up into the shopping center. Well, when you really get down to reality with that, that would be in the southwest corner where you've got a 20 foot berm, ' privacy overrides this in my opinion. An emergency exit...but I really believe this is probably the best solution for the neighborhood in spite of sane minor consequences if I have to go up to TH 7, which is two blocks out of my way. Resident: I live to the west on Minnewashta and I guess I'm a little surprised, I hadn't heard about this prior to about two weeks ago. I guess there was same discussion to the east of us but in our area it wasn't discussed until one of the neighbors stopped over and told me about it. But I came over here to work everyday in than in my office and two things I'm wondering about. One is the entrance onto TH 7 certain hours of the day is very difficult to get on. The second thing, if that park is developed behind us, is that traffic going to be forced onto TH 7 without relief or not? Is that a consideration? Mayor Hamilton: From Herman Field? ' Resident: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. They would use TH 7 also. We don't anticipate heavy useage of the park though. It's more of a passive use than it is an active use. Resident: Is there any type of an entrance lane? I heard discussion about deceleration and entrance into the Minnewashta area off of TH 7 but what about from Minnewashta onto TH 7 during rush hour traffic? Mayor Hamilton: There's a right turn lane out. Resident: There will be? ' Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Geving: To follow up on Jay's comment, in terms of the construction on TH 7, does anybody have any knowledge when that will take place? Building a left turn lane? ' Barbara Dacy: That's post year 2000. Councilman Geving: Post year 2000? , Barbara Dacy: The center lane that was identified in the TH 7 study report. .. John Uban: The highway department has already gone out and measured. There's enough room to stripe a left turn lane in there today so it's a matter of getting it on their schedule for striping. Barbara Dacy: I though you were talking about the center left turn lane all the way down TH 7. 8 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 1 'r- Councilman Geving: No, just on Orchard. I John Uban: And that is, I guess as soon as it's approved and we go ahead with this, we just contact MnDot and say go ahead with that and whatever their schedule is. Councilman Geving: What is your comment relating to what Mr. Conner's proposed here in terms of timing? ' John Uban: That would be fine. In fact we would go out and paint it ourselves if we were given permission to do so. ' Mayor Hamilton:_ I thought that's what you had said previously. Councilman Johnson: I don't think MnDot has to wait for us to approve this. MnDot can go out there and put that lane in there today because it's needed today. Gene Conner: With no little irritation I'd like to ask, if it's not yours, it's ' the highway department, if there's room there now why the hell didn't they do it a long time ago? There's been a lot of bitching about that. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think you should know we've worked with MnDot over the years in attempting to improve TH 7. They don't seem to inclined to work with us. We have had many requests and studies and they know the traffic is bad and they won't do anything to help us improve the situation. I Mayor Hamilton: I'm of to g � move partial vacation of 64th Street using Option #3 into the Reed property with conditions as outlined by the staff with the fourth condition that the left turn lane be put on TH 7 prior to doing this if it can possibly be accomplished. Remain under construction. Whether it's through your company's efforts or MnDot's. Also, that we reserve a trail easement on the vacated 64th Street so there can be some access for kids to get to the school. Barbara Dacy: On the motion, if you're going to cul-de-sac it then conditions 1 ' and 2 of the staff report will not apply but condition 3 would. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we have 1, 2 and 3. ' Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Roger Knutson: One question. It's going to cost money to cul-de-sac it. Mayor Hamilton: The developer has agreed with the Reeds to accomplish that. A written agreement. Roger Knutson: That should be reflected in the development contract to make sure. .. I 13 Mayor Hamilton: As the City develops the development contract that should be a L. part of that. Just so the Reeds are aware of it and you guys are aware of it, that the agreement needs to be signed by both parties and included. 9 234 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' Councilman Geving: It doesn't have anything to do with the vacation. It's a separate issue. Councilman Johnson: You've got to cul-de-sac the end of the street. Roger Knutson: The fact that you're vacating it is causing an expense to incur. ' Now's the best time to make sure everyone knows who's paying for it. Mayor Hamilton: That's what Mr. Reed had said. That they have agreed to that in writing. Roger Knutson: The vacation is contingent upon them signing a development contract with us. Mayor Hamilton: That would be a fourth condition. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that we modify the trail easement. I think it should be more than an easement. There's a roadway there now. I think the trail should be there and done. It's a very minor cost to pave that trail. There are going to be people, children who are going to want to use that. Gene Conner: A lot of them ride bikes. Mayor Hamilton: Do you see any problem with that? Okay. We're modifying the third which was that there be a trail easement. Not just a trail easement but that a trail be constructed from the portion of West 64th that's being vacated to TH 41. Roger Knutson: At who's expense? Mayor Hamilton: The developer's. Councilman Johnson: Who maintains it? ' Mayor Hamilton: The City. Councilman Johnson: I need a review of exactly what we're voting on. 1 and 2 = ' are out? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Approval of the vacation of 64th Street with the ' recommendations are, number 3 becomes 1. 2 is that the left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed as quickly as possible as soon as the construction starts. Whether it's by the developer or by MnDot. Councilman Johnson: Prior to vacation. Mayor Hamilton: 3 is that the trail be constructed through the property. And , 4 was as Roger had stated. Roger Knutson: The condition be put in the development and that the development contract be executed before vacation actually takes place. 10 d i�eJ City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be ' signed so everybody knows who's paying it. iCouncilman Johnson: The trail being built? IMayor Hamilton: Right. Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished. ' Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so there's no confusion. That's our typical trail. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded and ec ed to approve the partial vacation of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: ; 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary drainage and utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval. 2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer. 3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated 114-- y pe portion of 64th Street to TH 41. 4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction of the trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 &6 ( 7) OF THE CITE CODE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/ ' DOCK REQUIREMENT. Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue. Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So ' the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues. Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7? 11 236 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' Mayor Hamilton: There was some rationale for that. Barbara, maybe you could pass that on. Barbara Dacy: The number 7 as a maximum was based on, staff looked at all of the recreational beachlots in the City and looked at the maximum number of lots _ that would be allowed under the 1,000 foot perimeter and that worked out to be - about 45 lots. If you assume that each rack has 6 slips per rack, that way 7 x 6 was 42 so that was a recommended maximum on the canoe racks. Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the maximum is right now? ' Barbara Dacy: On canoe racks? Councilman Johnson: On canoe racks. What beachlot has 7. Barbara Dacy: There is no language now which says that. Councilman Johnson: 7 is just an ungodly number of canoe racks I think. Mayor Hamilton: Why? Councilman Johnson: That's a lot of canoes. I don't think everybody in a development owns a canoe. Mayor Hamilton: One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is everybody has a right to use the lake. If you use it with a canoe, how are you hurting it? That would be, I would think, the ultimate use. We would want everybody to use a canoe or a sailboat on the lake. If you say well, we're going to limit canoe racks we'll restrict people from canoeing. I don't care if you put 100 canoes down there. What would happen to Lake Harriett and Lake Calhoun if they said you can only have 2 canoe racks? Councilman Johnson: I think you haven't even included that. I'm saying 7 is too many. I'm not saying 1. I never said 1. I think l's too little. Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with 10 is what I'm saying? I'm saying, what difference does it make the number you have. You want to encourage the people k II to use the lake and using a canoe is the best way to use the lake I think. Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should put an unreasonable number down. If you look at a 30,000 square foot beachlot, which comes out to have maybe 10,000 square feet of useable area, put 7 canoe racks on there, the beachlot's going to be aesthetically terrible. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe instead of saying 7 it should be the number of canoes because you can stack canoes in such like they do in the city so you hardly know they're there and there are more than six on a rack. ' Councilman Johnson: I think the number should be, is decided upon on the site plan and how it will be visually in that and how many households there are. If you get a group that has 42 homes and they've got an area where they can hide the canoe racks to where they don't become a visual disturbance, there should be some number. I think 4, 4 is one more than we've got at any other place. If I 12 fl r S. i ICity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Iwas going to put a max on it. I think that 4 is more than every other house owning a canoe and wanting it at the lake. A lot of people want a canoe at home. IMayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you have anything you wanted to present to g Y p us this evening? _ 1 Robert Pierce: I think you've pretty much seen the plans for it down there but I did draw up a little bit of a plan here showing the lake useage as I see it. I I'm just trying to show why I'm doing this. I guess by showing you this, just visualize a little bit the idea. The reason I think there should be an amendment is one, I don't think that the ordinance as it stands is taking into II effect the parcels on this portion of the lake and as hard as everybody has worked on it, sometimes there are areas that can be overlooked. We have enough here, breaking into 150 foot plus frontages, just saying that the possibility of each one of these homes, three homes, just were inclusive of these lots. We I could have three docks and nine boats. Again, I think that's even a very reasonable request but I think what we're doing here with the way we're trying to use it is to minimize the impact of power boats on the lake, which I believe I was your number one concern. Be able to set the tone for a really top quality development by using the lake to a lesser degree that everybody would be happy with and just start this area of development. There's a lot more to come and I think the way we're going about it, I think it's really a good way to use the I ' lake. A good way for the City of Chanhassen to have a high quality home and it's a good way for me to market to produce a top quality development. IIMayor Hamilton: There used to be a dock in here. Where would the dock be if you L were going to put it? Robert Pierce: Up in here and I would come out this way. IICouncilman Geving: Where would you put the canoe racks? I Robert Pierce: I'm open to any suggestions but they could be put out in this area here behind some of the trees something. .. I was down there this weekend, I think you could almost hide 20 to 30 canoes down there and people would be IIhard pressed to even find them. Councilman Geving: If you had the ability to put in any number of canoe racks, how many would you want? In your development how many? Three? IRobert Pierce: Yes. IICouncilman Geving: So you need three racks? Robert Pierce: I would like to see one per buildable lot. That may not have answered. II Councilman Geving: The problem is, I recognize that we have to have some kind of basis when we do something like this. Some basis for devising the. ..that we've got a basis and we say if you've got so many lots, virtually every lot can I have a canoe. I know fully well that not every home is going to have a canoe. Maybe 50%. II 13 - 2"8 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' Robert Pierce: My guess is you're probably very right. Councilman Geving: I think a rationale is more important in the long term. Robert Pierce: It's no so much that I believe that everyone is going to have a canoe down there. I don't believe that that will probably happen but what I'm __ trying to do here is say, you have the opportunity to use the lake and that gives value to the person. Whether they're going to use it or not, that's their perogative but it allows us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I was out on the lake this Memorial Day weekend. I think too, if you have people canoeing and windsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeing then out there for one but I also think that that type of useage will probably, if there's a lot of canoeing, a lot of windsurfing and that type of useage of the lake, I think it also curtails the high speed boats. Not to say that there might not be some that would abuse it but as a rule I think people are somewhat courteous of each other's ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think it's an excellent way to use the lake and to impact it as little as possible. Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I know that the Council is getting involved in discussion about the number of racks but I just want to remind the Council that the way that it's written now, in order to have any canoe racks you have to have a dock first and I think at minimum it really should be amended to say that canoe racks are a permitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock. The number is kind of... ' Mayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question? Jeff Bros: I don't live on Lake Minnewashta but both our families do and we've been very concerned with past activities by the Council. It seems like every time somebody is going to develop something near or on Lake Minnewashta, these ordinances have been changed to suit whoever's going to develop. My mother lives on Minnewashta Parkway. There is an access three lots north of her's. There's not supposed to be any boats there. There are power boats anchored off of that beach. We have a hard time believing that anybody's going to be able to develop anything on the lake and not want power boats to be there. Now we're not against power boats, we both have then and we're both avid skiers. We're both avid sailers and sailboards. We're using the lake as much as we possibly can. We're greedy about it but you start by saying you want canoe racks. I can't believe you can have more than five homes in an area to develop that somebody's going to have a power boat and somebody's going to have a sailboat and they're going to want to keep that down on the beach becomes nobody on the west side of the lake is going to drive all the way over to the park and launch their boat everytime they want to use it. We're concerned that it's going to be abused like it's being abused now, the ordinance. We're scared that everytime somebody wants to develop on Lake Minnewashta, the ordinance is going to get changed to fit them. Mrs. Bros: Is there 100 feet on the section where you're planning on putting , the dock? Mayor Hamilton: That would include the road. Robert Pierce: What you're looking at there too, if we were just taking lot [!! width into consideration, we have more than ample for lot width. This is the 14 IICity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Vtype of useage. We're looking for three overnight slips. One boat for those three front lots. There are actually four but three that directly face. One overnight storage and the canoe racks for the development for each landowner. 112 We feel that is an extremely light useage. Jeff Bros: I think you're being unreasonably light in your useage. I don't I think anybody's going to buy a home with lake rights and not have a boat. I mean it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's going to pay any price that you want for a lake useage lot and now own a boat, and not just a canoe. IMayor Hamilton: We have other developments in the community that are very similar to this one. What we have told them is they can start out with three boats, the same as what Mr. Pierce is asking for. We told the developer it was I up to him to decide who was going to have use of the three slips that were available to them. We are totally out of it. However they handle it is up to , them. We have never heard a complaint and people are still living there so I somehow they've handled that within their neighborhood and their association. ; That's fine with us. ; That's their problem. That's the problem Mr. Pierce will have to work out. II Mrs. Bros: They can have 3 boats and 1 canoe on that strip of property? Have you been out there and seen it? I Mayor Hamilton: I certainly have. I've walked the whole thing. It's a very big piece of property. 30,000 square feet. 3 Jeff Bros: How about sailboats? Councilman Geving: Sailboats are a permitted use. IJeff Bros: Anchored out. Mayor Hamilton: What's the number of those? IICouncilman Johnson: Three. I Barbara Dacy: Three sailboat moorings. Three sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Jeff Bros: What about sailboats on the beach like we've got at the other common 1 area? Are they allowed? Barbara Dacy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be II stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. Jeff Bros: It's being abused right now on the lake. IMayor Hamilton: We have to rely on people like ourselves to call it Y to our attention. We don't have lake patrols going around and looking at every beachlot. If people don't inform us, they don't in all cases go on. We need to I rely on people who live near by or use the lake to let us know about it. IIJeff Bros: Could you please go over with me again, since I'm not completely 15 2O City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 clear on it. Why can't this go through right now? What's restricting this from going through now? Is it size or what has to be amended? Barbara Dacy: The lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Commission reviewed this and suggested that the lot_ depth be changed to include the road right-of-way in the depth measurement. In - - this particular case that would give the developer the 100 feet so he would be allowed to put a dock in. Mrs. Bros: And what is it without it? What's the depth without the right-of- ' way? Barbara Dacy: Between 40 and 80 feet. Robert Pierce: In spots 115 but you're talking, ' n5, the wa y the City has interpretted it is they want, I believe 100 feet across the boat and I believe on the very northern edge I believe we have about 115 feet and on the very southern boundary we have about 80 and it gets narrower down to the slope inbetween so there is an area of a lot less. We have the equivalent square feet in excess of two buildable sites square footage wise and what the ordinance is stating right now, without any change, there's 9 acres roughly. There's 550 feet of lakeshore and right now you could not put one home on 9 acres and put a dock. That's how the ordinance says and I think that's not what the City or anybody with a home for something like that. Jeff Bros: We're concerned because obviously you bought this parcel of land knowing that these lots were not buildable in this way. Did not meet the requirements. Robert Pierce: When I first started the process, no and that's why I came through the Council. As I started to get into it, I had some contingencies on the purchase agreement. I started to get into it and saw there were some problems. I started to go through the process to see what I was up against and I felt that I had a lot of encouragement to continue. It was down a different road at that particular time but I think for the city staff write an ordinance amendment is, as I understand it, certainly protects everyone in the best possible way. ' Mrs. Bros: So your dock, you're proposing putting that out there is where you have the 100 feet deep? Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. On the northern end. You've got to remember, when we adopt ordinances we can't anticipate every possible scenario that's going to come before us so I would certainly hope that this Council and future Councils could be open to change at any time. We can't anticipate every possible change that's going to happen in the world at the time the ordinance is adopted. Mrs. Bros: But you do have ordinances set up for reasons. Mayor Hamilton: That's true but they also can be changed for a reason. Jeff Bros: This is our biggest concern is everytime somebody is coming in, it seems like everytime someone is coming in to propose something to be able to 16 - 1 IICity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 IIgain access to the lake, which again we're open to if it's done in a correct manner. It seems like everytime it's done the ordinance gets changed. My I other could not build the house she wanted on her lot because she could not get a variance for how she wanted it on her lot but now this and change it around so somebody else can develop more land and it just doesn't weigh out for us. That's why we raise concern. ICouncilman Boyt: A comment to staff. I think this is the beginning of the process and not the end of the process. I think we're making a mistake if we I don't continue to clean up the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blow at a time. We're going to take a good hard look at it. There are some parts I'd particularly like to direct staff to. Some of them are related to this II , issue. One of them is, I think we need to very seriously look at the size of the beachlot in terms of the number of people that are going to be using it. I think that we need a different minimum actually. That may be impacted by the number of boats. In reading the Planning Commission Minutes, they talked about I the inequities of someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 10 houses versus ;someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 45 houses and how are minimum standard is the same either way. I think that we already have a reasonable I 'minimum that we should contemplate looking at and that is, when we ask for park dedication we work on 75 people per acre. 75 people per acre would mean that basically 40 households would not work with our existing minimum. We would require a bigger minimum for 40 households. I think the reason we need to look at that is because the issue we're dealing with here is concentration of people. Although I wasn't here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my assumption would be that they tried to come to some sort of grips with how many people can we put on 30,000 square feet or bigger? The gentleman tonight has a bigger lot to deal with and he finds himself handicapped by our ordinance because I think depth was an attempt to wrestle with this same issue of concentration of people I use. I think the second issue is separation from neighbors so we ought to have some way when we deal with beachlots of saying, is there an appropriate separation from neighbors. Now clearly in this beachlot we've got a great separation from the neighbors. The lot's big enough to certainly handle park 1 use of I believe it was, did you say 15? 20? How many houses? Councilman Johnson: 15. IICouncilman Boyt: The lot is certainly big enough to handle park use of people from 15 households if we assume the typical average of around 2.8 people per I house. So from the standpoint of the logic of can this piece of property support a beachlot, I think we've agreed all along that it can, or at least I have felt that it probably could. It's a matter of how can we approach it and retain our ability to protect the lake from the people around it and the II concentration of use. I am in agreement with the Planning Commission that the easy way out for this particular situation is to include the permanent roadway. I happen to feel that that is a stop gap measure and we're missing the boat if I we don't take this opportunity to go back and look at the whole issue itself. Then distance aside, I think that point 2 under the beachlot ordinance that does not allow beachlot owners to maintain a Satellite needs to be corrected. It implies that those people are not responsible enough, can not sign a contract with the same service the City signs a contract with and I don't think the City is any better qualified to maintain a Satellite than the people who own beachlots and we're making a real mistake when we encourage people to make some IIother provisions and don't allow them to use the best available equipment. To II17 x'42 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 1 the canoe racks. It's real interesting as I look at this issue Tom because I agree with you that it makes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. My concern is, in having used and lived around city lakes for a good bit of my life, Lake Harriet. I may be wrong but they don't, in my memory, have 7 canoe racks and they service thousands of people who enter a drawing and if you're lucky you get a canoe. I think the problem I have with it is the screening issue. Now you mentioned in this particular situation the canoe racks are easy to screen. on the other hand, the drawback to a screening issue is how do you protect your canoe? If you can't see it and once somebody's down there, it would be very easy for them to vandalize the canoes. Especially is a situation where you're going to have a relatively small number of people using that beachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, one canoe rack for a 30,000 square foot beachlot is overkill. I'm concerned that 7 canoe racks is conceivably too many and I'm interested in the comments from the rest of the Council but the issue of putting canoes and other items on the lake, I guess I don't have Mr. Pierce's confidence, having just spent a good bit of the weekend out on Lotus Lake. I don't think people watch out for canoes or sailboats. But on the other hand I don't think we have the right to deny reasonable access either. Councilman Geving: I'll keep my comment quite brief. I think that we always ' have to be consistent in how we're dealing with developers and their perspective developments. In doing that we have to also be fair. We've invested a great dean of money, we have a vision. We can see the market and how it could be ' marketed best particularly on lake lots that have some amenity and we shouldn't deny them unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consistency that I mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amending the provisions for adjusting our ordinances for each of potential developments that may come along. Developments are all different and we have to have requirements. one thing that has to stand however is our ordinance. It was built...with a great deal of thought and the people spent a lot of time looking at the issues and they should stand, for the most part, being successful a good deal of the time but it can be changed and that's why we have an amendment process and the variance process. In this particular development I'm not really in favor of changing the ordinance. I'm not in favor of it for the same reason that I mentioned, a matter of consistency. I change this ordinance now and amend it, tomorrow or next week, next year another developer will come in with something slightly different with a little bit different twist but essentially they are same. They want to amend the ordinance. In terms of the canoe area side, I really feel strongly that if you have a development of 15 homeowners who can see the lake, you can smell the lake and you bought your home to take advantage of that amenity, to buy that to own lake property, it's kind of nice to be able to have a canoe. At least a canoe if you don't have a motorized boat. But to be able to go to down to the lake and utilize it. For that reason I think we should build into our ordinance some provision where we have a recreational beachlot where every homeowner should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use the lake so I agree with the staff proposal here to break that apart from the dock issue. I think we can provide the homeowners with canoe potential without having a dock. That's really about all I have to say Tom. I think I've said it all. I'm not in favor of amending the ordinance. Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on all of his comments on looking at the whole ordinance here. I also want to look at useable land. You've got a 30% grade on the beachlot and you've got a swamp along the front of the 30% grade or I 18 I / 9 A ��• IICity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 I20% grade on the back end of it. Sure you might have 50,000 or 60,000 square feet of beachiot but how much of it is really useable and where are those people going to concentrate. Are they going to concentrate on the beach which in this II case happens to be right on the edge. The beachiot issue, he's already got the beachiot approved. He's got a reasonable use for that land. As a beachlot, I almost laugh, I was talking to somebody on the phone today who did laugh when I 1 told them exactly what was going on here as far as, gee we're going to include the road right-of-way. If you really look at that and start looking and say, in order to make this fit we're going to include the city property in what we can tell the people they can use. On the surface it looks pretty arbitrary. Now I what I do believe, if the purpose of the 100 foot was separation again, that an ; ordinance change saying that at the point that the dock will be at, for 100 foot ;makes some sense to me but to include road right-of-way in the 100 foot doesn't I :make any sense at all. It's just ludicrous to me. Canoe racks, I can go two ' different ways. One is enough canoe racks holding 6 canoes each to handle 50% of the population. In this case he's got 15 people, that would be two canoe I racks so he'd actually be able to do 12. That's kind of a complex way to look .gat it but this gives, I'd say at least half the people or just put an absolute maximum, I'd put that at 4 right now because I don't think anybody's ever requested 7. I know that Mr. Pierce is requesting 2 in this case. I do believe I 'canoe racks should be separate issues from the dock. It doesn't make sense. Maybe sailboat moorings should be based on length of the property also versus just arbitrarily 3 sailboat moorings. He's got 550 feet of property that he can U :put 3 sailboats on where somebody else can put 3 on 200 foot of property. That's interesting there. That's not on here either but I think the entire lit ordinance does stand to be looked at again to see if it is still reasonable. I'm still not 100% sure of the basis of a 100 foot. I have a feeling the 100 foot depth is for separation purposes. If it includes road right-of-way in it, you don't separate anybody because the road is still within 100 foot. I would much rather see them say 100 foot at the point of the dock, in which case I would II have been halfway inclined to vote for this. As is, I'm not at all. I would vote for 4 canoe racks and maximum of 50% of the houses. A canoe is one thing you can carry down to the beach too. I wouldn't want to keep it at the same II lake. Mayor Hamilton: Even if you have a canoe rack you can do that. I guess Bill points out some good points. We do need to have some work done on our ordinance II and certainly the people who did the work on the last one, put it together, did the best job they could at that time but times change and things change. Life changes and everything is always in a state of flex so we have to try to keep II current with everything that's going on around us. To ignore and turn down a person's request to change an ordinance seems ludicrous to me. Since times change and if at the time the past ordinance was being developed we looked at I Mr. Lawson's property and said heck, this is going to be requested to be a beachlot someday, we ought to take it into consideration, it probably would already have been accomplished but who can know how a property's going to develop who's going to request what. So I feel very bad that the comments I'm I hearing that some people aren't willing to change ordinances on a sound request. I do also feel and agree with Councilman Boyt that we should look at the entire ordinance and probably do a significant changing of the ordinance. Redrafting I of it. Separating the canoes and docks makes a lot of sense and perhaps coming up with some more concrete reasons why we are attaching numbers that we are attaching but that isn't going to help Mr. Pierce at this time in his development. We're all in agreement in separating docks from canoe racks will II 19 244 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 I ' help some. I think if you are familiar with the property, if you go out and took at it, you can see the nice piece of property that it is. It has 115 feet of depth not including the street right-of-way at one end. You could put a dock in there for only 3 boats, I think there is more than adequate room and depth , and length and to deny it, I would think that Mr. Pierce would have an awfully good case in court and I'd be inclined to back him up. I think it's an . unfortunate thing that we're doing to a developer to a nice development and when you look at a piece of property that is being proposed for one dock, 3 boats is II not a very intense use and could handle that use very easily. Councilman Boyt: I think that if you look at the piece of property and then you I go along Lake Minnewashta and look at where the other docks are. Where the house is separated by the road. Now have we had any reported trouble? Barbara Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta, no. II Councilman Boyt: And we're looking at something when we talk about impact on the lake, there's quite a bit of frontage there. When we talk about impact on II Chanhassen as a whole recognizing that maybe this is some way to, it's easy to think of it as a way of just penalizing the developer but it penalizes all of us. Instead of him having houses that are a quarter of a million dollars and II paying, I don't know, $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in taxes a year, it helps us all to bring taxes down. We're saying to him, you can't do it. As you said, homes with lake rights are very expensive homes right now and what we're doing, we're II taking a lot that, forget the road. Nobody can get within 100 feet of there living wise. Of where the dock is going to be. We've got plenty of square footage. This is a situation that cries out for some kind of a reasonable solution that doesn't overwhelm our ordinance for future consideration. I would i like to see us state to this fellow and to others that are going to be in very similar situations, this is a fairly low impact. It's a chance to develop the city. Yes, it helps the developer but that's minor. It's what does it do for II us? I think we ought to pass this. I'm not comfortable with the canoe racks situation and maybe we ought to hang on to a part of that for when we review the whole ordinance but you guys, there's something about this that says it II shouldn't be turned down. Mayor Hamilton: I guess to make a comment that we're just doing something for a developer whether it's Mr. Pierce or somebody else, what if somebody who had been on the committee who developed the first ordinance came in here and said, I've been studying the ordinance that we passed several years ago and I feel that it's deficient. We've missed something in here and brought up a similar I case like this without even having Mr. Pierce here. Would we then say, well you're just a citizen. We're not going to listen to you just because you were on the committee that passed this thing. That's what you're saying now. You don't want to do this because you don't want to change something for a specific II developer but if somebody came in here and said I think we missed something in our ordinance. I think it should be changed. Does that make a difference? Let's be fair about it. I Councilman Geving: Has any member ever done that? Mayor Hamilton: I'm making a scenario. You know I am. I'm making a scenario. [!! Councilman Geving: Well, you are but you might be making an unfair scenario. I 20 " J.aM•.rt �.tt�L..drN�Y -. -.....x-..-WtiLbYiY9iita� City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Ilir. , You might be talking about people who don't exist. I don't know of any member that would come in here and say to review this ordinance. ' Mayor Hamilton: I'm just making a scenario. I can't say it's going to happen or not happen. I'm just saying what if. It's a what if situation. What if's happen every day. ICouncilman Johnson: I think one of my biggest problems on this one is not only how it's done where it looks like it's, it's including road right-of-way, it is so obviously pointing at this one piece of property. There is only one piece of property in the City of Chanhassen, according to what I was told, that this will really affect because the other pieces of property along Minnewashta are too small. They're going to be thrown away because they're less than 30,000 square foot anyway. When we make this, it's going to, future people are going to look at it and say obviously this ordinance was revised specifically to allow this one thing in. If the purpose of 100 foot is separation, we should say 100 feet at the dock. If there's a different purpose for the 100 foot, then we should 'lhave, street right-of-way just doesn't do it. 'Mayor Hamilton: Without the street right-of-way you have 115 feet at the dock. Councilman Johnson: Right. Robert Pierce: I thought that the separation too was to keep the beachlots away from single family home dwellings and the closest to this particular dock, roughly we're looking at about 180 feet to the lot line then you take the setback. There's probably 200 feet to the closest house. As it is right now, the property to the north, I don't know how many acres it is and there's a house on it and the lady is an elderly person. She can't put her dock in anymore because she hasn' t had it in for the last couple years. There's something drastically wrong with the ordinance. Councilman Johnson: She can't put a dock in? Robert Pierce: No, she can not put a dock in. Councilman Geving: Why can't she? Robert Pierce: Because she is elderly and has not had a dock. If we would have had a dock on our property, if the Lawson's would have stayed there, we wouldn't be arguing about a dock because it would have been grandfathered in. At any point that there's not a dock put in, for whatever reason, you lose your rights to the lake. Mayor Hamilton: For how long a period of time Barbara? Is it a seasonal thing if you take the dock out? When do you lose your rights to put your dock back in? Barbara Dacy: I'm not familiar with the case that ou're y talking about. Mayor Hamilton: If you had a dock in on your property continuously and you r continued to put it in there, those that were grandfathered in when the ordinance was passed remain to be grandfathered in. However, if you take it out and leave it out for a period of. 21 2F 4€ City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Barbara Dacy: The ordinance section says it's a non-conforming use. Mayor Hamilton: Is it one year Roger? Do you recall? Roger Knutson: I'm double checking. Mayor Hamilton: Because the Lawson's had a dock on that property last year at ' this time. Councilman Johnson: But once you subdivide and you change this not to an individual homeowner's lot but a recreational beachlot, it's under a completely different ordinance and you're no longer grandfathered in at all. Even if he had a dock there last year. Robert Pierce: What I'm saying is, the neighbors themselves, she's going to be moving out to a home and I will guarantee you that the person who buys that houes will not bother to call the City and ask if he can have a dock. It , wouldn't even cross my mind and they can not put a dock in under your ordinance period and they probably have. 200, maybe 300 feet of lakeshore and multiple acres and your ordinance states, it's the green house to the north of the property, they can not do it. According to your ordinance. It's just beyond comprehension to me. The idea that the dock on this size parcel, it's just beyond... Councilman Johnson: ...can't he put it back in? I'm not familiar with that ordinance. This is getting a little off the subject but it still is docks. A riparian homeowner can not put a dock in if they weren't grandfathered previously in? Roger Knutson: Does she own a home there? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Johnson: She lives there. I Roger Knutson: She's not under the recreational beachlot ordinance now. Robert Pierce: We have a home but we can't put a dock in there. Roger Knutson: You don't have a home there now? Robert Pierce: We burnt it down because it was abandoned. Roger Knutson: A recreational beachlot is one thing. A dock, an accessory to ' a single family home is something else. If you can have a single family home there, you can have a dock. Robert Pierce: I don't believe that's right. That's not what I was told when I I came to the City. Roger Knutson: It's an accessory use. Robert Pierce: Even if it doesn't conform? i 22 r'q City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Roger Knutson: It's a non-conforming use. Mayor Hamilton: Roger, perhaps you could make comment on this beachlot. I guess I'd appreciate your input at this point. Roger Knutson: Everyone who has come in contact with it, that I've been aware of and I'm not saying, it's certainly been a controversial ordinance for you. Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent, I'll let you decide but it has generated a lot of heat, a lot of discussion as to whether it's appropriate. I ' think what you're talking about is all the other lots...and how many people are using it. That kind of examination which... ' Mayor Hamilton: Should this particular case be tested? I know what you do about it. What would your view be? I think it's quite important that we know that. ' Roger Knutson: The standards of whether, in regards to the City Council acted arbitrarily and capriously and that's a matter of opinion. Your opinion would be that it is. Other people would say that it's not. I guess that would be up to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis. .. The ' first day you hired me Tom, remember you told me one thing. Whatever you do always win. Remember that? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you'd have a hard time on this one. I Jeff Bros: I'd just like to speak. We're not concerned about having ng a dock if they want to have a dock where the property meets the 100 foot setback but I I certainly think that is being one-sided and showing a certain amount of unfairness to the rest of the homeowners and property owners on the lake to include the street and the roadway right-of-way to make room for his dock. I ' think that's being just ridiculous. Mayor Hamilton: He has 115 feet without the roadway. Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he wants to put the dock in where it's 115 feet, that's fine but for the City Council to change the ordinance for this instance to include the street as his property to make room for a dock, I think • that's being very selfish and I think it's showing favoritism. .. I think it's being abusive to the homeowners on the lake who are paying the $7,000.00. Anywhere from $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in property taxes. Who had to get variances to put houses that they wish to build on their lots that they paid a premium price for, to be able to arbitrarily change it to include now the street. Somebody else comes in, they get the other side of the street. I don't understand how you can show this kind of favoritism. ' Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there's any favoritism being shown. Its the recommendation from the Planning Commission that the street right-of-way be ' used. I don't know why they recommended that but it. Whether it was specifically directed at Mr. Pierce's development. It would be used for anybody's development, not just Mr. Pierce's so it's not for just one person. Jeff Bros: I think they're going to want to add another two car garage to my mother's house. 23 Cify Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Boyt: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the road right-of-way becomes attractive is that it's so limited. It makes a change to the ordinance but it's very narrow in it's impact. You may think of that as a liability. It's actually a strength in that it doesn't open the ordinance up to other abuse. Let's take the possibility of having a dock built where the lot's a 100 feet deep. Now what we've done is we've given somebody out there the opportunity to construct a beachlot that looks like this. Sure, we'll give you = 100 feet but then along the two sides we're going to have it be about 5 feet deep. There are probably worse case scenarios with every event and I think what was appealing to the Planning Commission is that this was so narrow in focus that it would actually apply to only a couple of potential beachlots. I don't know quite what your issue was a year or two ago or whenever this came in. I think you raise the question of is the City going to be fair to everyone? It's awfully hard. I think the City is going to try to be but clearly you don't think the City has been. When we change an ordinance we certainly have to be careful that we create a situation that we think is going to have as little as possible impact. I don't think this has a lot of impact. It has a lot of impact on our ability to get some tax money to this town. I guess I can't say anymore. Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that we take that canoe one separately. The whole issue of the canoes. Councilman Boyt: What's your magic number going to be? Councilman Geving: I have several suggestions. It could be based on the number of lots in the development with a maximum number of four. Mayor Hamilton: I suggested that there wouldn't be any number established but each request would be evaluated during a conditional use permit approval. Councilman Geving: I like that idea. Here he's got three. ' Councilman Johnson: With guidelines written in, here's the normal guidelines. We can put guideline whatever and say our guideline is canoes for 50% of the households and some situations might warrent more. Some situations might warrant less. Councilman Boyt: We can do that but I don't think that makes sense. We've got to fight the issue out as clear as we can tonight such that I don't have any trouble separating the canoes from the other issue but I think if we say we're going to let this just float with whatever the situation is at the time, as soon as we make our first decision about it, we set the precedent then that, let's suppose the first person comes in and they want 12 canoes because they are going to have 12 houses. You approve that. The next guy has got 40 houses and wants 40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a difficult position. Anyway, I would argue that why not put it out there like Dale said with four racks max and look at the whole ordinance. ' Mayor Hamilton: But we can review them when they come in for a conditional use...just because you allow 15 here doesn't mean that you have to allow 40 for the next one. 24 ' City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Ir Councilman Boyt: I think that we have to make our decision based on some fact and I think this will open it up to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to ' resolve each time if we don't have a clear statement. Councilman Johnson: I would like to see us say a maximum of 50% of the households. Canoe racks able to hold 50% of the households or a total maximum of four. Mayor Hamilton: That means he gets to build another rack. ' Councilman Geving: No, four. Four would give him 24. Councilman Johnson: He's got 15 households so 50% would be 7-7 1/2 so it's ' over 6 so he gets 2. You can't build a rack with only one. He gets 2 racks with that. ; Councilman Geving: I guess I would go the other way. Recommend that every lot have the possibility of getting a canoe. ' ' Councilman Boyt: How are we going to make that decision at the time? Councilman Geving: Base it on the number of lots that are being proposed in the development and you condition it. Make a condition that if in the judgment ' of the Council that particlar recreational beachlot won't hold as many as there are for that particular development, you'd say let's cut it down to 2 rather 3 than 4 but the maximum would be 4. IICouncilman Boyt: When you get into those situations then we create an area where Jeff could say you're not fair. I think we open ourselves up to that. Why don't we just come to grips with it. If we want 1 canoe per, then let's see if that passes. Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with it. That's a good place to start. At least you've got a basis for your intention and then you're not going with 50% or 75% or whatever. 1 Councilman Johnson: I would like to see 1 per with a max. Mayor Hamilton: We've already put a maximum of 1,000 feet so you've limited the number of homes that could use the outlot. Councilman Johnson: Until you start putting like this PUD that they have up, what's that one call with all the condos? Barbara Dacy: Red Cedar Cove. Councilman Boyt: What about 1 per with up to 4 as a place where we can start. We can leave the whole ordinance out and figure out what the reasonable logic is here. If it comes out that 1 per household up to whatever. '1 Barbara Dacy: That's the way the proposed language is written now. One per household. The Planning Commission recommended 7. If you want to change it to 4, that's fine too. 25 _ _. City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 , Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. One per with a maximum of four. Councilman Geving: I'll second that. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's being near sighted. Councilman Geving: It still gives you 24 though Tom. Mayor Hamilton: I don't care. Still the useage you want a ou wan to have on the lake if 11 you want to clean up your lakes, and not allow people to use them unless they. .. I don't know that we're ever going to get to a maximum of 42 or whatever. Councilman Geving: A practical maximum number of users is probably close to half. If you tood 42 homeowners, my guess is that no more than 15 or so would have canoes. Mayor Hamilton: But we're kind of limiting it for the people who do. Councilman Geving: I'm just taking it from a ' how many people live on a lake and what kind ofPboatsctheythaveoint of knowing Councilman Boyt: If we go back to 1 per household but provide some sort of provision so that people don't. Suppose I had 2 canoes, there's an open spot on the rack so I store my canoe down there. I don't know, are we after a place for people to store their canoes or a place where people are going to use it? If we had someway of preventing... Mayor Hamilton: You're park of the Sunrise Hill's Association right? 1 Councilman Boyt: Right. Mayor Hamilton: They have two racks. Councilman Boyt: Two racks and I don't know, 45 homes. Mayor Hamilton: I've never heard anybody complain about that. Those ' have it on the beach probably don't even have a canoe. ose who don't Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. What happens and maybe this wouldn't happen were more racks, but what happens pope if there ppens is if one of those spots becomes open and it's open for a few weeks, if somebody has a notion, they'll move their canoe off their rack at home and put it up there. Get it out of the yard. That's not all bad. It kind of cleans the neighborhood up. There's a whole lot to this issue and I guess if we could strike something, I just have difficulty looking out on this lot, it's fairly narrow or any other lot and seeing 7 canoe racks. It's a forest. Mayor Hamilton: There aren't going to be 7 here. You've got to keep that in ' mind. Councilman Boyt: Well, as I've said all along, the thought of having everybody !!! who is a part of the beachlot who wants a canoe or sailboat to be able to have it makes a lot of sense. 26 1 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Barbara Dacy: But the motion was for a maximum of four. Mayor Hamilton: I still don't have see the problem with having a maximum of 7 as I long as you can control that within your conditional use. You're saying if in the future some, and I don't think we're ever going to have that situation, but if something came in and they had a huge outlot and wanted to have 7 canoe racks on this huge outlot. The potential is there but Mr. Pierce doesn't want 7. Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at 7? ' Barbara Dacy: That was based on existing examples of largest subdivision in an urban area was Lotus Lake Estates which had 44 lots so if you say 1 per lot, 6 on a rack would be 7. ' Mayor Hamilton: They can have how many right now? " Barbara Dacy: Canoe racks? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. ' Barbara Dacy: No more than 3. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how about the Kurver's property that's 1being developed? They had a recreational beachlot. Barbara Dacy: They received approval for two docks and I believe it was 3 canoe racks also. There were 36 lots. Ii Councilman Johnson: Seven just seems to be too high. Councilman Boyt: It seems like the thing we're saying to somebody, if you have a beachlot you can put up a canoe rack. We're taking that away from the dock issue so that's a good point. ' Mayor Hamilton: I kind of agree with Tam. I think I'd rather go back to the 7. There is that practical possibility. There's nothing wrong with a 7 as a maximum. ' Councilman Boyt: Once we go there we can't come back down. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right now and then like Bill says, there's a lot of issues to look at with the beachlot and we might want to put a beachlot group back together, look at the whole thing including the numbers instead of sitting here tonight and figuring it out. We've got a reasonable compromise here between the 1 and 7 that will fit every application we know in the City. There's nobody asking for anything near the number we're proposing. It should be kind of non- controversial. ' Councilman Boyt: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4. ,1 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6) to read as follows: 27 252 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 1 No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Mayor Hamilton: This will be separated from the need to have a dock, correct? , Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Just the canoe rack issue here and we're not tying it to docks or anything else. (Councilman Horn arrived at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Hamilton: We are wrestling with the issue right now of the dock to be allowed on Mr. Pierce's outlot and have the use of three motorized boats for overnight storage. We have just voted favorably to change our ordinance allow, the first reading, to allow four canoe racks, a maximum of four canoe racks per beachlot, six canoes per rack as a maximum. That brings you up to whatever happened. We seem to be fairly split on the issue of Mr. Pierce's use of his property to put a dock on and to allow him to have three boats. He has 115 feet of depth on his lot without the use of the road right-of-way... Councilman Horn: He still needs a variance though? Councilman Boyt: What he's proposing is to change the ordinance. II Councilman Horn: The proposed location would include the...? Mayor Hamilton: That's the Planning Commission's proposal to us. There seems to be some disagreement on whether or not you want to continue with that or come up with something different. ' Councilman Johnson: My disagreement Clark is that including road right-of-way appears that we're changing our ordinance specifically for this project and I believe that we can draw our position anyplace that we try, buy your property and go for it and get your ordinance changed to where you can get what you want. These guys they'll come up with some creative ways to do this. Include road right-of-way. If the purpose of the 100 foot was for separation, he's got 100 foot where the dock is, then that makes sense to change the ordinance to meet the purpose of the 100 feet. Include road right-of-way into that to meet the confines of the ordinance to me seems fairly arbitrary. I have a problem with ' 28 - City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ' that. I don't think with 500 feet or whatever of lake front here with one dock will have a huge impact on Lake Minnewashta. I will be more than willing to go the other way. I'm not moved much by the argument that we're going to get all ' these huge taxes. We don't get that much taxes by the time the County and everybody else takes our their whack but that helps all of us too I guess. These are going to be some fairly good sized homes. Even without the rights to ' have a boat on this dock, I don't suspect you're going to put $60,000.00 homes on those four lots without a boat there. They may not be $250,000.00 homes. It might just be $200,000.00 homes but to me that's not a huge difference. I'm not going to vote for changing our beachlot ordinance on the fact that this change ' will generate more tax revenues to the City. Councilman Horn: That's the argument? Councilman Johnson: That was one argument that we had earlier was that geez, look at what this would do for generating money but I don't like the road right-of-way part. That's my argument against it is including road right-of-way ' in measuring your setback and this is essentially a setback type of thing to me. It's kind of silly. Councilman Horn: It's unique to this property though? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Barbara Dacy: It will affect one other property on the west side of Minnewashta also. I Councilman Johnson: What would you say, 100 foot at the point of the dock. How many properties would that affect do you think? ' Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission struggled with that because how wide of an area do you have that 100 feet? Do you keep it at 20, 30 or 40? And they felt uncomfortable that that was being just as arbitrary as anything else so we wanted to try to establish a consistent means of creating a guideline in the ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as Mr. Boyt pointed out. Yes, they looked at the map and saw that there was one other property, the Ziegler's south of the Lawson property on the west side of Lake Minnewashta that this would ' affect but separation was a big issue. The rationale being that that road right-of-way does serve a purpose as a buffer and the Planning Commission chairman really explained that they felt that that should be included as part of the buffer between a beachlot and a group of single family homes. Also, it provided an easy mechanism to enforce the ordinance because again, look at that area. He's got maybe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that really what you're trying to separate from adjacent single family homes? ' Councilman Johnson: The other one would be a 100 foot depth with an p average lot depth of the entire length of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or something to ' where that, obviously that type of "T" shape, your average lot depth is going to be way low or flag lots or some wording there. Barbara Dacy: Again, it still doesn't affect those beachlots that do not have road right-of-way. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth no matter what in this case so they felt that you're acheiving both objectives. You're setting an established minimum with or without the road right-of-way. 29 254 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 1 Councilman Johnson: What about the people who, they want to add a two car garage in the front of their house but they're too close to the road right-of-way to do it and they say we'll just include the road right-of-way in 1: our setback. They did it for the beachlots. Councilman Boyt: Whole different issue. - , Councilman Johnson: Similar. Councilman Boyt: No. Much different issue. When we talk about a garage and in putting traffic on the road, we've got a safety issue. What we're talking about here isn't a safety issue, it's a concentration of useage. Councilman Johnson: We're putting pedestrians across it. Councilman Horn: Can you distinguish, in your November 12th memorandum you said you couldn't differeniate between lot depth and lot size. Can you do that now in terms of intent of ordinance with what the Planning Commission recommended? Or do you think, the impression I'm getting here is that the Planning Commission feels that their proposal meets the intent of the ordinance. I don't think there is anything that meets the intent of the lot size. You looked at this in terms of depth... If you look at it in terms of if we allow the road right-of-way as they would get the total area, there seems to be lots that would change their compliance based on the area. Barbara Dacy: The Commission's intent was not to include the road right-of-way as a part of the lot area. Councilman Horn: So how do we differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and capricous? ' Barbara Dacy: The difference being is that the Commission was looking at this. Councilman Horn: So it was intent of the ordinance? Barbara Dacy: I don't know. Councilman Horn: That's the question to the Attorney. II Roger Knutson: You're changing the ordinance. ' Councilman Horn: As I got your issue the question could go backwards. Why would you change the ordinance for depth without changing it for lot size? What would be your rationale? Roger Knutson: Do we think that the ordinance is fine. It helps you...in the depth part of the ordinance shall we change? Are we talking about changing the depth as a buffering and by including the road we accomplish the buffering. Councilman Horn: You could argue that lot area is a buffer. Councilman Johnson: Now we could use the lot area, the 66 foot of road right-of-way to get some of these below 30,000 square feet up to 30,000. 30 255 ICity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Johnson: That's the next request. They'll use the exact same logic to get it. ICouncilman Boyt: It's a different issue. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have another question Clark? I ; Councilman Horn: No. I'm still trying to sort out how that's a different issue. In my mind I can't differentiate that. II , Barbara Dacy: If clarification of the intent needs to be solved, we can easily add a sentence that says, however, road right-of-way shall not be used in the ' calculation of lot area for the beachlot. That can be added. Roger assessment I lof the distance and the depth issues is exactly right there. For whatever ; reason in 1982 100 feet was set as a minimum lot depth, so what they were looking at is well, we do have narrow stretches between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta and the Commission felt that including the road right-of-way as II far as that lot depth calculation was, was appropriate. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Clark? ICouncilman Horn: I'm still having trouble with it. I can't differentiate I 'between 30 and... IL Barbara Dacy: The other criteria for area is that you have enough area for canoe racks and play areas, swimming beaches, volleyball nets and so on. So I supposedly the ordinance already says 30,000 square feet and then 20,000 square feet for any additional dock so there's a relationship there between docks and useage. I Councilman Horn: So one is strictly related to a dock issue and the other is related to. ..? IBarbara Dacy: I guess, yes. Mayor Hamilton: There were some comments made by some of the Council members that they were relunctant to change the ordinance for a specific developer. I ' guess I still ask the question, we're not going to change it for a specific developer, what if the staff, another what if, what if the staff had looked at the ordinance and said look, ...and brought this same issue before us to change? I Would we be sitting here, ...in mind to deny it or would you...? That's certainly an issue for me because I know the...just to use it can make a difference. ICouncilman Horn: I agree with you Tom on that. I think obviously when you get new uses and new circumstances that come in, that's usually what the problem is. Take a look at the ordinance see if it still makes sense. I don't have.. . IMayor Hamilton: I'm going to make a motion to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment for a recreational beachlot to allow. How do you want to do this? Section II20-263. 31 G qRy Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Barbara Dacy: It's on Page 7. 20-263(7) . Mayor Hamilton: To adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as outlined on page 7. Do you want me to read it? Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. ' Mayor Hamilton: Is there further discussion? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like the City Attorney to look at something. In the existing ordinance it states no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. In our definitions, in our Zoning Ordinance definitions, we never define actually, we define the lot depth but here we did not say 100 foot of lot depth. We just said 100 foot of depth at this point in this ordinance. Can there be an argument that he does not need lot depth or have we used it every place else in the ordinance? What I'm trying to say is, is this even necessary in this case? Roger Knutson: It's a good point and I think it is somewhat ambiguous but from my understanding is that they're talking about lot average and he did not have 100 foot average lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: The ordinance amendment would clarify that where it says 100 feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. It's more specific than what's in there currently. Roger Knutson: I suggest so we're all very clear that usually the word lot depth, actually lot depth is defined in the ordinance and what the means is an average depth. Councilman Johnson: Lot depth is defined. Here we're just saying depth. He's ' got 100 foot depth laying perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line period. He's got that right now without including the street right-of-way. With the street right-of-way he has 180 feet of lot depth at this point. There's no need to include the street right-of-way here in this case, the way they defined it. Barbara Dacy: He doesn't have an average lot depth of 100 feet. He has a ' point in the lot that's 100 feet. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't say average lot depth. , Barbara Dacy: That's defined. Roger Knutson: That lot depth is an average. Councilman Horn: So if you cut in, pulled in the sides of the lot, take out the area that don't comply to pull it under the mean, could he come out with a lot that we would? [!! 32 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ICouncilman Boyt: He'd lose square footage. Councilman Horn: Would he lose it in the square footage then? Councilman Boyt: I think so. He's only got 40,000 square feet. Barbara Dacy: No, he's got 31,500. -- Councilman Boyt: Then he definitely can't. ' Councilman Horn: When we originally changed this ordinance, the argument was brought forth that we should not be more restrictive on a beachlot than what a private individual could do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. That time ' the argument made sense to me that we should use that in making the decision to change because that argument was sound. I don't think that requirement in true in this case. I don't think we have a buildable lot and I don't think there's any way that this mean average thing will work out to where it would comply. Barbara Dacy: When he first applied, our interpretation was that the P ordinance was saying that you had to have a consistent depth of 100 feet all the way ' throughout the beachlot. That's what we required every other application to do. If he had a spot that had 100 feet so I agree with you kind of. It's ambiguous and there is an advantage to amending that to clarify how we measure ' ; lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: Since we're arbitrary on everything else, we can be arbitrary on the width be at the 100 foot depth to give you a minimum. I would think we're arbitrary. You pick 100 feet out of the air. There's no reason why 100 foot is so. ' Councilman Johnson: As I go through the Zoning Ordinance, every place else in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about depth of the lot, it says lot depth. This one point it says depth. Roger Knutson: The easiest explanation for that is that often the Zoning Ordinance, you're looking at was drafted by the Planning staff of a consulting planner. The recreational beachlot was drafted by a committee and I think the difference is the style that we're talking about. A slight language variation are a result of that rather any intention on the part of the draftsman to draw attention. ' Councilman Johnson: If the people who drafted this were thinking that they were looking at an average lot depth at the time or they were just looking for 100 foot at any point. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows: No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two ' hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred 33 amity Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 II (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion- and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. II Robert Pierce: Can I say something? I Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Robert Pierce: I guess at this point, you put this into a, I was encouraged by I your Planning Commission. I've been encouraged here and there. You leave me no choice but to start legal action. We will get more use on that lake than what we asked for. I don't fight unless I'm pushed in a corner. I don't ask for II unreasonable things...but I guess as far as I'm concerned, the people around your lake has lost. The City has lost. The whole tone of that whole area out there is going to be $100,000.00 less per home. We will come back and maybe do II something there with the lake frontage but I can't believe it. You throw the baby out with the bath water and you're losing all the way around. We'll be back and we'll get it. I just can not understand. Thank you. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 II p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth II City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I i II II II 1 [!! II 34 II e. 7 I BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUATION) JUNE 6 , 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Horn, Johnson, Boyt and Geving. Don Ashworth, City Manager and Todd Gerhardt, Administrative Assistant were also present. Visitors ' present included Larry Zamor, Lloyd Anderson, Rick Murray, Carolyn Barinsky, Charlie Coffee, Scott Gavin, Sherwin and Shirley Taradash. ' Mayor Hamilton stated that the Assessor has reviewed each comment that was received at the May 16, 1988 Board of Review meeting and 1 made a recommendation on each parcel. The Board discussed each parcel and their specific motion/action is listed on attached Exhibit A. ' Motion by Johnson, seconded by Horn to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 30 p.m. All voted in favor. Don Ashworth City Manager 1 1 I I I I 19 IIBOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW r II June 6, 1988 Exhibit A Ref. Name/ II No. Address Parcel No. Comments 1. Jim Wehrle 25-2130100 He is President of the Near Mountain 241 Mountain Way Homeowners Association. This area has (for all Near been reassessed for the second year in a Mountain) row instead of the 4 year cycle which II was promised. Board's Action: 1 Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn to set the valuation at $130,000. A11 I voted in favor. 2. Lloyd Anderson 25-2021260 Last years valuation was $71,900. He II 6981 Redwing Lane put a $20,000 addition on his home and the value increased to $104,700. The additional value is unlivable. Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Geving to II set the valuation at $86,000. All voted in favor. 3. John Dorek 25-2021260 Valuation increased from $1,100,000 to II Chanhassen Bowl $1,476,000. He feels that is too much 581 W. 78th St. of an increase. Board's Action: II Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton II to set the valuation at $1,400,000. All voted in favor. 4. Dick Schwegman 25-6860020 A private appraisal was conducted by 1 Chan Center Newcomb and Hanson Appraisal and they Partnership estimate the value of this building at 80 W. 78th St. $835,000. The Assessor's established II the value at $1,149,100 for 1988. This is 35% higher than the private appraisal. In 1986 the property was assessed at II$1,286,000 and in 1987 it was assessed at $937,000. Feels the valuation should be lowered in line with the private II appraisal. I I 2 I ' Ref. No. Name/ Address Parcel No. Comments 4. Dick Schwegman 25-6860020 Board's Action: Chan Center Partnership Motion by Horn, seconded by Gevinq that ' 80 W. 78th St. the value be set at $937,000. All voted in favor. ' 5. Larry Zamor Chanhassen Inn 25-8900030 Valuation was 835,000 in 1987 and it increased to $1,300,000 in 1988. He 531 West 79th St. added on eight new rooms which cost ' $115,000, yet the increase was $450,000. Board's Action: ' Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn to set the valuation at $938,000. All voted in favor. 6. Henry Dimler 25-1600680 Valuation increased from $69,000 in 1987 961 Western Drive to $77,000 in 1988. He feels this is ' too much of an increase. Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to set the valuation at $73,800. All voted in favor. 7 & Julius Smith 25-2150050 The value of this vacant lot in 8 Representing Christmas Acres increased Clients 27%. Feels that is too much. Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the valuation remain at $73,800. Horn, Geving, Johnson, and Boyt voted in ' favor. Hamilton voted against. Motion carried. 25-0025000 The value of this half acre parcel increased 20% to $65,200 and no improve- ments were made to the property. ' Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to set the valuation at $60,000. Hamilton, Horn, Boyt and Geving voted in favor. Johnson against. Motion carried. I I 2 1 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. _ _ Comments Julius Smith 25-0020610 The value of this older home increased 77% ' Representing from $41,600 to $73,800 in 1988 with no Clients improvements being made. Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving I to set the valuation at $45,700. Hamilton, Geving, Horn voted in favor. Johnson and Boyt voted against. Motion carried. i 7 & Julius Smith 25-0020600 The value of this home increased by $78,900 8 Representing or 22%. Improvements were made to the Clients property, but after a private appraisal for insurance purposes, the insurance co. raised their replacement value by 9.6%. Board's Action: , Motion by Hamilton, seconded Geving to set the valuation at $415,000. All voted in favor. Instant Web 25-5650080 The assessor has valued this 14 acre parcel at $5,593,300. After giving com- parisons of other property in Chan Lakes Business Park and replacement cost estimates from their architect, they feel a market value of $4,662,000 is more reasonable. This is based on using 90% of the land value which they feel is $20,000 per acre and 90% of the full market value of the building which they feel is $4,900,000. (See letter.) , Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving ' to increase the valuation 5% over last's value. All voted in favor. United Mailing 25-5650070 Based on similar comparisons used for the Instant Web property, they feel that a fair market value for United Mailing is $3,815,500, not $4,138,600 as recom- mended by the Assessor. This is based on a using 90% of the land value which they feel is $19,000 per acre and 90% of the full market value of the building which they believe is $3,644,500. TWo I 29 I I Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments I 7 & United Mailing 25-5650070 acres of this property is unusable 8 because it is a public easement for walkway and under watershed district 1 control. (See letter.) Board's Action: 1 Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to increase the value 5% over last year. All voted in favor. 1 Victory Envelope 25-5660010 Using the same formulas applied for the above two parcels, they feel that the land value of this property should be 1 $251,400 compared to the Assessor's valuation of $512,200. Nearly 5 acres of this parcel is unusable because of II the public walkway and watershed control. They agree with the Assessor's ultimate building valuation of $3,309,600 except that they believe the 1 building will not reach its full econo- mic value for several years. They feel penalized for planning ahead and 1 building a facility large enough to house their needs for many years to — come. (See letter.) 1 Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to increase the value 5% over last year. 1 All voted in favor. 9. Scott Gavin 25-4070130 He bought the property for $30,000 and 11 1851 Lake Lucy Rd put a garage on it which is not finished yet. The value increased to $56,000 and it should not be more than $40,000. 1 Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton to set the valuation at $40,700. All Ivoted in favor. 10. Ann Sevey 25-2020620 Value increased $9,100 in one year. Her II 7016 Chaparral Ln neighbor's twin home is valued at $68,000 and her's is at $76,000. Board's Action: 1 Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the valuation remain at $76,000. All [7 voted in favor. 1 1 3 ir- Ref. Name/ ' No. Address Parcel No. Comments 11. Todd M. Adams 25-6300160 Value was $279,000 in 1987 and increased 469 Pleasant View to $340,200 in 1988. This is a 21% increase and is too much when no improve- ments were made. Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the valuation remain at $340,200. All voted in favor. ' 12. Ken W. Wolter 25-8100090 Value increased from $112,000 in 1987 to 341 Deerfoot Tr $133,200 in 1988. This is a $21,000 increase. His neighbor's property is assessed at a lower value and Eden Prairie has the identical home which has 11 a 1988 value equal to his 1987 value. Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton to set the valuation at $123,000. All voted in favor. 13. James Carlson 25-2300110 The 1986 value was $109,500. In 1987 he 7020 Dakota Cir put an addition on and the value increased to $159,700. Now the value has increased to $193,000. The value of two homes in this neighborhood have not changed in the past two years. Other homes in the neighborhood are unequal. Board's Action: Motion by Johnson, seconded by Hamilton to set the valuation at $164,000. All voted in favor. I 14. Harvey Parker 25-8400060 Assessed value in 1987 was $92,600 and 7480 Chan. Rd. it increased to $128,900 in 1988. Two building permits were taken out to repair the home. Board's Action: 1 Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton to set valuation at $116,900. All voted in favor. 1 ' Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments ' 15. Richard Steller 25-6030020 This was a new house in 1987 and valued 6321 Steller Cir at $149,800. The value increased to $170,500 in 1988. Board's Action: ' Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton that the valuation remain at $170,500. All voted in favor. 16. Robert Finley 25-1220030 Moved -in this home in 1986 at a value of 740 Vogelsberg $77,400. The value increased 29% in the ' Trail last two years to $98,100 in 1988. There is no sewer and water to this property and he feels the valuation is too high. (See letter.) ' Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton to set the valuation at $86,900. All voted in favor. 17. Frank Reese 25-1100210 Has adjoining parcels in both Carver and 6200 Chaska Rd. Hennepin Counties. The property is assessed at $16,000 per acre. The par- , cel in Chanhassen is .8 acres and was declared unbuildable. Either the parcel should be buildable or the valuation ' should be lowered. Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton to set the value at $5,500. All voted in favor. 18. Barbara Allison 25-6300250 Valuation was 68,000 in 1987. They 6681 Horseshoe Cu remodeled last year and the valuation increased to $199,600 in 1988. Their I neighbors also remodeled and their home is twice as big and valued $32,000 lower. All other homes in the neigh- ' borhood are better homes with lower values. Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to set the valuation at $155,300. All voted in favor. I `55 r Ref. Name/il- No. Address Parcel No. Comments 19. Douglas & Carolyn 25-0220500 The property was reassessed in 1985 and ' Barinsky the value was increased based on improve- 8731 Audubon Rd. ments made in 1984. No other improve- 11 ments have been made since that time. Now there is a 75% increase in value. The County's system of assessing only new/resales is illegal. (See letter.) I Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn to set I the value at $102,000 and that the value should increase 10% to 15% annually for the next four years to bring it up to II$189,000. Hamilton, Geving, Horn, and Johnson voted in favor. Boyt voted against. Motion carried. 20. Cheryl Newton 25-2090150 The 1987 valuation was $115,000 and II 6228 Cascade Pass increased to $125,300 in 1988. No improvements were made. Why the , increase? Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving II that the value remain at $125,300. All voted in favor. 21. Dennis Karstensen 25-7610050 A 15% increase in the market value is II 7482 Saratoga too large over the past three years. He refinanced one year ago and the Iappraisal was only 1.59% more than he originally paid. (See letter.) Board's Action: II Motion by Boyt, seconded by Geving that the value remain at $113,000. All voted in favor. I 22. Ken Weigel 25-2110040 Wants to know the formula used to assess 6370 Near Mtn. Blvd his home. Why is he being assessed II every year? He's at 92% of the market value now and he feels that is too high. Board's Action: II Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton that the value be set at $120,000. All voted in favor. The Board directed II Scott Winter to send the Weigel's the formula used in establishing their value. II I 2f3 I 1 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments [-- 23. Marge Rossing 25-1602061 Her 10 lots are taxed $845 versus her Carver Beach 25-1602071 neighbor's 11 lots are taxed $420. Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton that the value be set at $10,000. All voted in favor. 24. Richard Rossing 25-1601490 Valuation increased from $82,500 in 1987 ' to $96,000 in 1988. He built a shop at a cost of $4,000 and feels his valuation should not have increased $13,500. The Assessor also included a greenhouse used only for storage which is not a permanent structure as it sits on railroad ties. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn to ' set the value at $94,000. All voted in favor. 25. Rodolfo Alejo 25-1980150 Disappointed because his assessed value 7465 Chippewa Tr. is only $73,000 when he paid $79,400 for the property. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the value remain at $73,000. All voted ' in favor. 26. Ron Mielke 25-8800190 In 1986 he built a gazebo/storage shed 405 Santa Fe Tr. for about $800. Valuation increased ' from $86,000 in 1987 to $100,000 in 1988. Neighbor's properties are not assessed this high. Requests a valuation of $84,500 or less. (See letter). Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton ' that the value be reduced to $88,300. All voted in favor. ' 27. Charles Markert 7461 Hazeltine Blvd.25-0090310 Value has increased $13,500 over last year and no improvements have been made. (See letter.) ' Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Johnson that the value remain at $80,300. All voted ' in favor. 27 II Ref.. Name/ I No. Address Parcel No. - Comments 28. Mark Rogers 25-6150140 Value increased from $97,300 in 1987 to II 3851 Leslee Cu $106,200 in 1988. A 9% increase in value equals a 17% increase in taxes. II He paid $118,000 for the property including points, which should be deducted from the purchase price. Board's Action: II Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton II that the value be set at $102,000. All voted in favor. 29. Darcy Westlind 25-2090010 Value increased from $89,200 in 1987 to II 6211 Cascade Pass $98,900 in 1988. She has only lived there for 10 months. Why this type of increase? II Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Geving that II the value be set at $98,900. All voted in favor. 30. Sherwin & Shirley 25-2400060 Their house was built and completed in II Taradash October, 1986 and was assessed in the 61 Sandy Hook Rd. fall of 1987. The County should not II continuously reassess property. They received a 12% increase in valuation bringing the 1988 value to $205,300. If II only new parcels are increased, unequal taxation occurs. Board's Action: I Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the value be reduced to $201,000. All II voted in favor. 31. Tom Akins 25-2100130 Same concern as other Near Mountain 6203 Cascade residents. He thought that houses would II Pass be reassessed based on the 4 year cycle. Board's Action: II Motion by Boyt, seconded by Johnson that 1 the value be set at $135,900. All II i voted in favor. L II "8 ' Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments ' 32. Ray Roettger 25-1400110 Objects to the excessively high tax paid 3221 Dartmouth in relation to the same size and types ' of homes in other parts of the State. Wants to know the assessment formula. (See letter.) Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Horn that the value remain at $241,300. All voted in favor. ' 33. Gary Dungey 25-0030400 Valuation increased from $107,000 to 1910 Stoughton Ave. $198,000 in 1988 with no improvements made. Wants to know why such a large increase. ' Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Hamilton that the value be reduced to $107,500. All voted in favor. Gary Dungey 25-0340100 1988 valuation of $224,000 for 21 acres ' of mini-storage, .16 acres on green acres, and 5 acres with buildings seems high. ' Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Hamilton ' that the value be set at $86,200. All voted in favor. ' 34. Kevin Dauwalter 25-5500440 Purchased his home for $135,000. What 6300 Castle Ridge is the assessment ratio being sought, i.e. 92%, 95%? Board's Action: ' Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton that the value be reduced to $122,100. ' All voted in favor. / ewI') I IrRef. Name/ 11 No. Address Parcel No. Comments 35. Tom Kraker - II 25 6040140 Gave examples of 5 properties (4 in 6441 White Dove Chanhassen and 1 in Victoria) that are for sale in the County that are assessed II at anywhere from 52% to 79% of market value. His property is assessed at 95% and would like to lowered to somewhere II between 50% and 70%. (See letter.) Board's Action: I Motion by Geving, seconded by Boyt that the value be set at $127,800. All voted in favor. 36. Dennis Vanderbur 25-2400270 He moved in in 1987 and just received a I 7008 Sandy Hook Rd. $7,000 property tax bill. He's assessed at the 96% to 97% range and wants the II City to look at the system used for setting values, i.e. new properties assessed at 97% versus existing being 90% or lower. Board's Action: II Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Horn to set the value at $189,000. All voted in II favor. 37. John R. Stephens 25-2000810 Withdrew his name. 6800 Chaparral Lane I 38. William Austin 25-1601530 Value increased from $58,200 in 1987 to 749 Carver Beach $78,900 in 1988. He built a garage for II Road $5,000. This is a 39% increase. Feels it is too high. Board's Action: II Motion by Geving, seconded by Johnson to reduce the value to $76,500. All voted in favor. I 39. Chris Bellino 25-3451020 Purchased the home in January. An 8140 Dakota Lane appraisal was completed by the lending II institution which paralleled the cost of the home. Now, 4 months later, the Assessor increased the value by $15,500. II Why? (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton II to set the value at $136,000. All voted in favor. II I 0 ' Ref. No. Name/ Address Parcel No. Comments __ . [- I40. Keith Sheser 25-2130080 Value increased from $138,800 in 1987 to 261 Mountain Way $141,900 in 1988. No improvements were made to the home and he thought it was ' assessed on a 4 year cycle. (See letter.) Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving that the value remain at $141,900. All ' voted in favor. 41. Charlie Coffee 25-7610090 His assessed value increased from 7474 Saratoga $108,000 in 1987 to $148,000 in 1988. ' He put on a $13,000 addition. Feels that his house would not sell for that amount of money. ' Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton ' that the value be reduced to $123,000. All voted in favor. 42. Robert Peterson 25-6030040 This is a new home valued at $160,000 in 1988. His neighbor's house has 2800 square feet and is assessed at $61.00/ ' sq. ft. He feels his home should be based on the same criteria which would equal $134,000. He presently has it listed for $165,900. Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to reduce the value to $141,300. All voted in favor. 43. Dan Dammermann 25-2090060 He has an 1100 sq. ft. home that was 6221 Cascade Pass reassessed from $100,600 in 1987 to $106,400 in 1988. Why the increase? ' Board's Action: ' Motion by Geving, seconded by Johnson that the value remain at $106,400. A11 voted in favor. , 31 II Ref. Name/ I No. Address Parcel No. Comments 44. Fred Plocher 25-6500140 All parcels are assessed at $97,000. Red Cedar Cove 25-6500130 Two are finished and two are shells. 25-6500150 The first unit sold for $133,000. II 25-6500160 Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton II that the value for each parcel be set at $77,300. All voted in favor. II 45. Gerald Barber 25-4450080 Wants to schedule a future date for tax 3850 Maple Shores review as he was out of town. Drive (See letter.) II Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Boyt II that the value be reduced to $256,200. All voted in favor. II 46. Robert Zima 25-2130070 Feels the assessment of $139,500 for his 271 Near Mtn Way 1500 sq. ft. , two bedroom house is too much. (See Letter.) II Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Johnson II that the value remain at $139,500. All voted in favor. II 47. Robert M. Bowen 25-2550050 Feels that an assessed value in excess 6275 Powers Blvd. of $305,100 is too high. (See letter.) Board's Action: II Motion by Boyt, seconded Horn that the II value remain at $389,200. All voted in favor. 48. Ed & Donna Clark 25-1601430 Property raised 20%. Due to unstable I 6859 Yuma employment, a tax increase would cause a real hardship at this time. (See letter.) Board's Action: II i Motion by Boyt, seconded by Hamilton II that the value remain at $70,200. All voted in favor. I 1 2 1 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments (-- ' 49. Gary S. McGlennen 25-2140060 Protests his assessment and authorizes 6240 Near Mtn Blvd. the Near Mountain Association President to represent their interests. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Geving that the value remain at $137,000. All voted in favor. 50. Glenn & Bonnie 25-1800460 Valuation raised from $95,300 to Hageman $103,700 with no improvements made other ' 8021 Cheyenne Spur than wallpapering, drapes, etc. An Assessor has never visited their home so how does he know what kinds of improve- ments exist? Feels the valuation is too high. (See letter.) Board's Action: ' Motion by Horn, seconded by Geving that the value be reduced to $99,000. All voted in favor. 51. Robert & Marilyn 25-8010250 His estimated taxes are $10,000 per year Wolf and he feels that is way too high. While 7636 So. Shore Dr looking for a house in Chanhassen, there were other houses located on Lotus Lake with taxes ranging from $5,000 to $6,000. (See letter.) ' Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving to reduce the value to $293,100. All ' voted in favor. 52. Wynifred Fynbo 25-1601330 Feels the assessor's estimate of her 6865 Nez Perce 25-1601340 house is incorrect. She has a very basic 1100 sq. ft. house and it is esti- mated at $113,700. She receives another tax statement with an estimated value of ' $9400 which is non-homestead. She feels that this is one parcel and all should be homestead and that she should only ' receive one tax statement. (See Letter.) Board's Action: ' Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Horn that the value be established at $104,000. All voted in favor. I .543 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 53. Rick & Cynthia 25-1990050 Feels their assessment is high as they Yokiel purchased the house for $107,680. Their 741 Bighorn Drive assessment is 10% to 20% higher than their neighbors. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Geving that the value be reduced to $96,700. All voted in favor. ' 54. Mavis Skalle 25-1980320 They purchased their home in February. 780 Santa Vera There is a conservation easement which, for all practical purposes, eliminates 55% to 60% of the lot for their own use. They feel that this will adversely affect their market value. (See letter.) ' Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Johnson that the value be reduced to $106,900. All voted in favor. 55. Doug & Jane Cook 25-8570190 The assessed value of $183,400 would 290 Trappers Pass create a market value of $203,800 - more than they paid for the property. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Boyt, seconded by Johnson that the value be reduced to $181,300. All voted in favor. ' 56. Peter Whatley 25-2110060 Assessment increases in Near Mountain 201 Mtn Way have increased in varying amounts, some have risen modestly and others signifi- cantly. Why? Does not feel the ser- vices they receive properly reflects the amount of taxes they pay. (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton that the value be reduced to $120,000. All voted in favor. 84 Ref. 1 Name/ (-- No. Address Parcel No. Comments 57. John R. Stephens 25-2000810 They received a large increase in 6800 Chaparral valuation and no major or minor improve- ' ments were made. Neighboring property owners received only a small increase. (See letter.) Board's Action: 1 Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving that the value remain at $93,100. All voted in favor. 58. Douglas Dougherty - g g y 25 8570030 Market value and taxes too high. What ' 301 Trappers Pass percentage of market value is property taxed at? How was assessed value deter- mined? Are older homes with same owner ever reassessed? Why are Carver County ' taxes higher than other metro areas? (See letter.) Board's Action: Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Boyt ' that the value remain at $263,800. All voted in favor. ' 59. Michael Ludwig 111 Shasta Cir. West 25-5500420 This is a new home approximately 2 years old. No changes have been made to the house. The value increased from ' $112,900 to $120,000. They were origi- nally taxed at a high level and the 4 year guideline was not used. The home at 6228 Cascade is identical to his and ' is valued at $115,000. His neighbor's assessment went down $1,000 to $108,000. (See letter.) 11 Board's Action: ' Motion by Geving, seconded by Horn that the value remain at $120,000. All voted in favor. At II Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments II 60. W. Sinnen 25-2500040 Feels a reduction in assessment is in 8800 Sunset Tr. order because the property originally II included a house on 15 acres. Now the property has been subdivided and includes the house on 3 acres. How can the value increase by 20% under these conditions? I (See letter.) Board's Action: I Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Horn that the value be reduced to $133,600. II All voted in favor. 61. Robert & Margaret 25-2090170 The value increased $11,700 over last Seeley year and no improvements were made. II 6232 Cascade Pass They contacted a realtor who stated that they could not get any more for the prop- erty now than what they paid for it. I (See letter.) ILBoard's Action: Motion by Geving, seconded by Hamilton II that the value remain at $119,700. All voted in favor. II 62. Stephen Slack 25-1850150 Concerned that property was reclassified Lot 15, Block 1 incorrectly and should be classified as II Chan. Hills 1st seasonal recreational residential. He was not aware of the reclassification. Board's Action: II Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Geving that the property not be designated as II seasonal recreational residential and that the value remain at $87,400. All voted in favor. II II 1 II CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1988 II Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the ' Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Hoyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following changes: Councilman Johnson wanted to move item 5, Bluff Creek Drive Roadway Improvements to be placed on the Consent Agenda and to move item 20(c) , Update on Sprinkling Ban, Request Ordinance Amendment to the Visitors Presentations so the residents present at ' the meeting could hear the update as well. All voted in favor of the agenda as 'amended and the motion carried. - '" CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #88-49: Approval of Downtown Redevelopment Phase II Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids. rb. Resolution #88-50: Authorization to Amend West 78th Street Feasibility Study. c. Resolution #88-51: Accept Utilities in Chanhassen Vista Fourth Addition. d. Resolution #88-52: Accept Utilities in Saddlebrook Addition. f. Resolution #88-53: Approve Preliminary Assessment Roll for Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project No. 86-13 and Set Public Hearing Date. g. Resolution 88-54: Approval pproval of Plans and Specifications for Minnewashta Meadows and Authorize the Advertising for Bids. h. Approval of Ordinance No. 87 Amending Section 20-263(6) , Final Reading. i. Approval of Ordinance No. 88 Rezoning 2 acres from A-2 to BF, Final Reading. j. Approval of Findings of Fact, Driveway Access Permit on Pleasant View Road, Jim Hanson. k. Approve 1989 LAWCON Grant Application Projects. I1. Request to defer Park and Trail Dedication Fees, Mike Sorenson. m. Final Plat Approval, Lake Susan Hills West. 1 ...._ ur...... _ ._ .� 262 j + City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 n. Richard Ersbo, 1211 Lake Lucy Road: 1. Preliminary Plat Approval to create 5 single family lots. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit to develop within 200 feet of a Class A Wetland. r. Reassign Conditional Use Permit, Jack Brambilla. t. Approval of Accounts. 1 u. City Council Minutes dated May 16, 1988 City Council Minutes dated May 23, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 18, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 24, 1988 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 19, 1988 v. Resolution #88-55: Bluff Creek Roadway Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Just one small correction. I don't think it's necessary to pull it but there's a typographical error in item 1(j) which our office prepared. On page 2 of that item, the first line refers to, in the road east of Mr. Hanson's lot. It should be in the road west. I got my directions backwards. If you just want to note that one change. TH: Will Mr. Hanson be made aware of that change or already has been? 1 Gary Warren: Yes. 1 CONSENT AGENDA: (E) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR STRATFORD RIDGE ADDITION, BOB PIERCE. Councilman Boyt: The only comment I have about this is on the tree removal plan II and I'd like to see our development contract language changed to reflect this as well. The applicant is required to submit a tree removal plan but it doesn't saying anything about the City having the ability to approve or disapprove of that plan and I would like to see the plan must meet approval by the City Engineer added to the language. Mayor Hamilton: That's item k so ( ) you want to add to that, the applicant should supply the City with a tree removal plan that will be approved by the City Engineer. Anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Development Contract for Stratford Ridge Addition with the noted changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 2 1 263 II •City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' CONSENT AGENDA: (0) DEVELOPMENT SITES LIMITED, LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO AUDUBON ROAD IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE CHICAGO-MILWAUKEE RAILROAD TRACKS. Mayor Hamilton: The reason I asked to have this off is I would like to see us develop some type of a plan to review areas that may be proposed for land swaps within and without the MUSA. I'm not convinced that this would be my number one ' priority if we're going to take and swap some lands inside the MUSA and then take others out. We're nearly out of single family residential property. That would be a concern of mine. We're moving ahead with a project here that I guess I question what it's going to bring the community but yet we refuse to hardly even talk to people like Mills Fleet Farm who could bring a facility here and to the Merle Volk property which could have generated a great deal of funds for this conunity. I felt, in reading this, that we may be applying a different standard for this than we have to others and I wasn't too happy to see it on here. Primarily again is if we're going to swap lands, I'd like to see us come up with a plan of how we're, what lands would we put in the MUSA and what lands would we swap them with and how do we go about designated those lands? Anyone ' , else have any comments? rx Councilman Geving: I think the vehicle for doing that is the housing plan that we're working. You talked about single family. Wouldn't a Mark Koegler involvement in the Comprehensive Plan be a part of that kind of arrangement Barbara? ' Barbara Dacy: As a part of our Comp Plan update process we are looking at all of the lands directly adjacent to existing MUSA area to see if they can be served by gravity sewer so you could include them into the MUSA. The land swap IL on this piece took place in 1984 so we are finding as we are developing there are these small chunks of property that can be added to the MUSA but we are undertaking that study. ' Mayor Hamilton: The commercial development that may take place here does not require 12.2 acres. The commercial development that's going to take place on ' this property does not require the 12.2 acres. Is that right? Councilman Johnson:" There are two outlots. ' Barbara Dacy: You need to add in 12 acres in order for the industrial subdivision to apply. Mayor Hamilton: Why? Barbara Dacy: Because 12 acres is outside of the existing MUSA at this point on this site. Mayor Hamilton: But what I'm saying is, they're talking about doing some single family housing on the south end of this piece of property. The whole piece of property is not required for their development. Barbara Dacy: The single family housing, they can only develop at a rate of 1 Iunit per 10 acres so they would not need sewer and water at this time. Mayor Hamilton: But if it's inside the MUSA why would we do it that way? If we're putting 12.2 acres inside the MUSA then you can have sewer and water to 3 ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 it. Why wouldn't we do it? Why would we say okay, you can divide into 10 acre lots? Barbara Dacy: The single family area that you're referring to is way outside the MUSA. It's about 1,000 feet to the west of it. The parcel is 60 acres in size and the single family area covers the western 40 to 50 acres of that piece. The only area that can be serviced by gravity sewer is the 12 acres that we're proposing to add. Councilman Geving: I think you've got a good idea though Tom. There could be some areas where we need either single family or commercial or industrial and Tom has got a good point. Let's build it .into the Comp Plan. Mayor Hamilton: Cr develop some type of a scheme ourselves so that we know when someone comes in and makes a request such as this that it's a prioritized piece of land that we want to have inside the MUSA or we don't. Me or Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following consent agenda item pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Development Site Limited, Located West of and Adjacent to Audubon Road immediately North of the Chicago-Milwaukee Railroad Tracks: 1. Resolution #88-56: Lane Use Plan Amendment to amend the City of Chanhassen Year 2000 Land Use Plan to add 12.2 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to change the Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Industrial. 2. Rezoning of 5.6 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate to IOP, Industrial Office Park, First Reading. 3. Preliminary Plat Approval to create 5 industrial lost and 2 outlots on 62.86 acres of property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (P) APPROVAL OF ARCHITECT'S AGREEMENT, FIRE STATION, EOS CORP. Mayor Hamilton: The next one is item (p) , I asked to have off because I merely t II wanted to have the City Attorney review the standard form of agreement between owner and architect to make sure that we don't end up in the same situation that we were in previously with another architect we dealt with. I'm just asking that the City Attorney review this and if there are any changes that need to be made, that they would come back to us on the consent again. Does anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Johnson: So you're approving pending review by the City Attorney? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Boyt: I have another question as long as you pulled it off. Jim, I have a question for you on this. I see that when we went back and fine tuned the drawings that we added a parapet and I'm curious as to what that is and what it's function is. A $10,000.00 parapet because of the higher doors. 4 ..d) II 'City Council Meeting - June 13; 1988 I!I Jim Chaffee: We're talking about the fire station, additional apparatus space. They were originally designed in there right from the very beginning. Because I of the difference in size in one bay to the other one, to make it look even, we had to add a parapet over the existing bays just to make it look even otherwise you're going to have to step up where the new one is going to be. ICouncilman Boyt: Is a parapet like a false wall? Jim Chaffee: Well, it's a wall. A real wall. II i Councilman Boyt: It's a wall but there's nothing behind it. I ; Jim Chaffee: Right. Councilman Boyt: I have another question on what's the 5% contingency fee for? didn't understand that. That's $2,000.00. II ;Jim Chaffee: That's for any contingency that may arise. IMayor Hamilton: Foreseen problems. Councilman Boyt: So we're saying on a $45,000.00 contract that they want I ! $2,000.00 float in there? Jim Chaffee: Yes. I _ Councilman Boyt: Is that fairly typical? Gary Warren: Yes. ICouncilman Boyt: It's a nice business. ICouncilman Johnson: They have to spend it to get it. Don Ashworth: That's our money though. That's our contingency. That's not being paid to them. IICouncilman Geving: It gives us a little float. I Gary Warren: It covers the bidding climate. Unforeseen changes in the field which is typical. Sometimes it runs even up to 10%. I Councilman Boyt: My last comment on this item is I would like to see that color renderings be minimized. So when your architect comes in and says we want to give you a two perspective color rendering of this with people standing out front, I would like you to turn that down. IMayor Hamilton: That shouldn't be necessary I wouldn't think. le Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't think so but I can assure you that they will get the opportunity to buy one of those. I 5 266 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Architect's Agreement pending review by the City Attorney for the Fire Station. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (Q) APPROVAL OF FORMAL COMMITMENT, LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN-UP PROJECT. ' Councilman Johnson: In the resolution, the second Whereas, it says whereas public access is required, I'd like to change that to desired. I'm putting some must words in here a little bit. The second paragraph, Now Therefore be it resolved the City of Chanhassen will commit to this attached schedule and instead of saying so as I'd like to substitute in, to attempt to provide public access to Lake Lucy and Lake Susan. You don't think it will fly? ' Councilman Geving: No. Councilman Johnson: We're committing to attempt to do it? 1 Councilman Geving: That's what they want is a commitment. Councilman Johnson: We're committing to attempt to do it. If it's not feasible, if it's not possible. We'll do everything in our power to do it but. Mayor Hamilton: They want us to Mayor y provide it period and that's all they want. Councilman Geving: They want a commitment Jay. And it is required, not desired. Councilman Johnson: Under what laws is it required? It's desired by the DNR and they are holding us blackmail to do it which is, I'm just trying to drag my feet a little bit against it. I don't like a gun stuck up my back. Councilman Geving: I think if we are wishy-washy about this particular commitment the project will fail and we'll go through a lot more comments on this thing. Councilman Johnson: I'm looking to protect us in the future. Councilman Geving: I think we all understand what you're getting at but I read it too and I had the same feeling but I do believe that if we go through and are , not totally committed to this, they'll back off of the total project. Councilman Johnson: Are we fully committed to providing a public boat access to Lake Lucy? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. Why not? Why shouldn't we be? It's a public lake. Councilman Horn: All lakes are public. Councilman Boyt: I think that Eden Prairie was smart in protecting their money and saying they wouldn't make theirs available unless we indicated that we were [!! going to provide public access to Lake Lucy. There are some possible ways we can provide public access and have minimal impact on Lake Lucy. I think that 6 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 267 those need to be worked out and Lori you were going to go to a meeting or you haven't gone to it yet. ' Lori Sietsema: Yes, we did and basically the meeting involved finding out what would qualify as an access and there are two things they said. It has to be equal to whatever the riparian homeowners have rights to on that lake. If they can have a ski boat, than you have to have an access that will launch a speed ' boat. The other one was one car/trailer parking space for 20 acres of lake surface. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the questions that we have to ask ourselves is are we prepared to limit boat use on Lake Lucy as we have on Lake Ann. If we are than we have an access possibility that has minimum impact on ' the shoreline of Lake Lucy. If we're not, than we're talking about something that's going to be quite a bit bigger. I think that's an important issue. Councilman Johnson: How many acres are we talking? ' tiLori Sietsema: It would require 7 car/trailer parking spaces which they're willing to deviate a little bit. Some of those could be on the street. They ' wouldn't all have to be off-street. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill has a good point. We're going to have to have a ' ,public hearing to have the lakeshore and the people around Lake Lucy come in here to see if they'd be willing to do that type of thing. That's a good idea and I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that. We can attempt to move ahead with that type of a thing. I think it would be really neat. Councilman Boyt: What's our constraint as far as paying our $8,300.00? Do we have a deadline we have to pay that by? Jo Ann Olsen: They're just waiting to start. They're looking for this and then when they get the go ahead. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're not saying that we have to have a public access that is going to launch speed boats. We're just saying a public access. ' Councilman Horn: That's exactly the procedure we used on Lotus Lake and it turns out that enough people use Lotus Lake and live on Lotus Lake were not willing to give up or limit their horse power so this is the type of thing we go through everytime we have an access issue. Councilman Johnson: A lot less people on Lucy. ' Councilman Horn: Yes, I'd say we have a much better chance on Lake Lucy. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to see us pass the motion or pass the resolution with ' that idea in mind that the Park and Rec hold a public hearing and take comment from the people around Lake Lucy. They seem to be willing to do the same type of thing as we're doing on Lake Ann. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask another question of Lori. Did we look at or talk to the DNR on the alternative of us doing the treatment of Lake Lucy? Part of the cost that they're giving us is for them to come in and do the fish 7 268 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 kill on Lake Lucy and for them then to restock Lake Lucy with non-rough fish. Did we talk to them about whether they'd see us do that for them? Lori Sietsema: They said that it wouldn't be possible for them to do the fish kill if we did not provide access. They couldn't kill the fish and they could not restock it and they couldn't install the aerator so that would have to be done by the city. Councilman Johnson: Would it stop the whole project? That sounds like they are relenting a little bit if they say... Lori Sietsema: They wouldn't give us a firm, I don't know. Jo Ann do you remember? Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting a little off the track here and I don't 1 want to. We've got a long evening ahead of us and we're talking about things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about right now. Councilman Johnson: We're committing here to giving public access and we're not sure yet whether we have to make that commitment is what they're saying. They're looking at an option... ' Mayor Hamilton: They are. We do have to make that commitment to have a public access on that lake. How that public access functions is something that we have to determine yet but it seems, to start talking now about us doing a fish kill, which we have no capability of doing and restocking, which we don't have the capability. Councilman Johnson: We're not starting talking about this Mr. Mayor. I talked about this a month ago or whenever it was when this last came up and I asked staff to look into this. They have and now they're presenting us an option. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but it's not the item that we're concerned about tonight. We need to pass a resolution stating that we will provide public access on Lake Lucy. Councilman Johnson: Even though we have an option that staff is still pursuing. Jo Ann Olsen: It's not a favorable option. Councilman Johnson: I guess you can believe staff or not but we need to move ahead with this. Any other questions on item 1(q)? Councilman Boyt: What we're voting on then is we're really saying that we're committed to putting some sort of public access on Lake Lucy and we are going to then go through the appropriate process to decide what sort of public access that will be? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well, this is a major decision we're making. This might be something where it would be helpful to have public input since all we're talking [!! about is delaying the project for a few weeks. We're not talking about killing the project. , 8 'City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IFDon Ashworth: Are they not considering a PCA reshifting dollars and they consider this has been held up a year. .. PCA, I think is the one who is taking ' the strongest position. DNR is the one who talked about potentially we could do the kill. Maybe not but it's PCA that's saying, we have our money involved in this. It's been going on for a long period of time. We need a commitment from ' you people. If it's not made within the timeframe that we're talking about, those dollars will be reshuffled somewhere else. Mayor Hamilton: I think they recall what's happened with the Lake Ann access ' and we hassled them for years on that project and we still continue to hassle them, or some of the neighbors do. I think they're sick and tired or screwing around with us. ' Councilman Horn: I think something we can't forget either is the DNR always has the right to go in and establish their own public access on any lake. We're not going to stop them from doing that. ' r;lMayor Hamilton: We can go through the process and put in an access like Bill had said and if the neighbors agree to make it a quiet lake, that's samething we can do. Otherwise, they can put in their access and they will do it. They'll buy the property, put their own access in and they'll run it the way they darn well please. Those are our choices. Councilman Boyt: But aren't we saying that we're going to buy the property and put in the access if it has to be a power boat access? ' e Councilman Geving: We haven't said that. That's what I thought would come out of the public hearing. ' Councilman Boyt: But I'm saying Dale, if it does, aren't we saying that it will. If they say we won't give up our motor boat. .. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think we're saying we'll provide a public access. How we provide it hasn't been determined yet with who's funds. Like Lake Ann. We provided the public access. It was with their funds. We went through the condemnation of the property but we bought it basically with their funds. Don Ashworth: Staff tried to protect the City in here as well. I know the time table requires that a LAWCON application be received. There are ceilings on ' those. It limits the City's participation to 25%. If we get into a situation where the only land that's available is $300,0001.0101 or some other type of option, we have a reasonable basis for why we could not complete it. Similarly we have a caveat regarding Lake Drive East which is a major heart of the decision of Lake Susan. ' Resolution #88-57: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt the resolution outlining the City's commitment for public access on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project and at the I same time directing the Park and Recreation Commission to develop a public meeting schedule date. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 9 ... _ - 270 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' CONSENT AGENDA: (S) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CHARLES ERICKSON SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 3621 IRONWOOD. Councilman Boyt: Having read the Findings of Fact, I think this is an ill advised variance. Even though the Attorney finds that the City could defend it, we're basically putting the burden on the adjacent property owner when that piece of property developed. I just don't find an overwhelming read to support this variance and so I would like to see us turn it down. Mayor Hamilton: I still think it's a good variance for all the reasons stated. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Findings of Fact for the side yard vaiance for Charles Erickson, 3621 Ironwood. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion caZ' ied with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITORS PRESENTATION: 20(C) UPDATE ON SPRINKLING BAN, REQUEST ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, there are really two parts to this. There's an update and then there's the requested ordinance amendment. On the update, as most of you might be aware, on Saturday, June 4th there was a critical water shortage that occurred in the City and the Fire Chief was so notified by water personnel on duty. After consulting with the City Manager, the Fire Chief did implement by his authority under the UFC a complete and total sprinkling ban in the City of Chanhassen. That was Saturday evening. Sunday during the day the Fire Department was out in force enforcing the total watering ban that the Chief had put on the day before. On Monday everybody got together and decided on what the best course of action was to take in light of the emergency that was occurring... (A tape break occurred during Jim Chaffee's presentation.) ...enough water capacity to suppress a fire. Those were the emergency ' conditions under which Dale Gregory made his decision. Once we had the total ban in effect, we started looking at an easing of those conditions under a permit system. We got control of it under the total ban and then we ease into a permit system whereby we would issue permits to people who came in with special considerations such as newly seeded lawns or newly sodded lawns or some special conditions requiring watering of their gardens. To date we've issued over 125 permits for those conditions. We are keeping a relatively good handle on the water capacity and we seem to be in control at this point in time. Pretty much that's where we stand right now. Mr. Mayor, do you want to get into the amendment to the ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we want to complete that while we're on it. 10 2771 • City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Jim Chaffee: Okay. One of the problems that we found while researching the different avenues of restrictions was that under our present code we have provided for what amounts to civil penalties. I think Roger might be able to ' address this better than I. That because of the way our Code is worded, once we provide for civil penalties under our Code, it takes away any kind of criminal violations or criminal penalties for that section whereby we can not then, as Code Enforcement Officers, issue citations. We can only handle it through a civil process which would be a little bit time consuming, especially in the case of the sprinkling ban. Instead of issuing a citation and hopefully putting a stop to it immediately, we have to follow it through what I would consider even ' a monthly process of $50.00 a day penalty and if they don't pay we add it onto their bill and it really wouldn't in effect prevent people from watering their lawn at that moment in time. Roger, is that basically it? Roger Knutson: Exactly it. ' Jim Chaffee: Okay, so what we're asking is that the Council consider just eliminating that total mention of having any kind of civil fines in that Particular section of the Code. That's all it is. Just eliminating that one section and leaving the rest the way it is. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of Jim on the sprinkling? Councilman Geving: Just one comment. I think the biggest thing is notifying people in the community as to what the status of our sprinkling ban is. When it went on it was kind of by word of mouth by the firemen going door to door. The I1 next I knew the firemen came to my door and told me and then I saw it on the TV. Now we're in it. The question is how do we now inform the people and I think the best thing to do is to just exactly do what we did this week. Get your comments into the Villager where everybody in the community will see it in print and also use the electronic media. Go to the TV stations. I think that was very effective and I suspect in order for that to happen we would have to do it ' with the publication of the Villager. The cycle would have to be something so that Mary could pick it up in the Villager and carry it so that's the only thought that I have is when we get finally to the point where we're in pretty good shape and we can come off the total ban and go to some other level. Jim Chaffee: Those are good thoughts and we learned last year that communications is the best tool that we have and we're going to try and keep ' that up with Mary's help. Councilman Horn: Who makes the determination of who gets granted a permit and who doesn't? Jim Chaffee: That's up to Dale Gregory and Scott Harr. Councilman Horn: So if somebody has a garden that's dying, will they get a permit or who decides when they are a significant enough garden to be dying? Jim Chaffee: To my knowledge they have not denied a permit yet. It Councilman Horn: I can't imagine anybody's garden that isn't dying. 11 272 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Jim Chaffee: That is correct. Councilman Horn: So it would seem to me that anybody could come in and request that. Jim Chaffee: One of the other restrictions we had is that even under the permit system you can not leave an unsupervised sprinkler system. You have to hand hold the hose and water that way. That's another way we gain control. People aren't just going to leave their sprinklers out and forget about then. I don't know how long you can sit there and hold a. hose. It depends on how dear you are to your garden but those are one of the other restrictions that we put on. Councilman Horn: What about, I don't think you mentioned anything in here about ' watering from buckets. Is that okay? Jim Chaffee: Yes, you can water with buckets. Councilman Horn: So can you wash your car with a bucket? Jim Chaffee: It's one of those things where we don't think we can enforce ' somebody from filling up their buckets in their house and going out and dumping it on their trees anyway. I guess it would be a judgment call for the people out doing the enforcement and if they see somebody washing their car with buckets of water, I don't know that that's going to happen all that often where it',s really going to crimp our water capacity. Councilman Horn: I guess my point is, I think we're getting a little too fine in detail on what we're restricting. The major use as I see it is the unattending sprinkler. I think we could accomplish what we're trying to with that without getting into such great detail of what we allow and what we don't. You can have buckets but not this. Jim Chaffee: That could very well be. Hopefully, Gbd willing we'll get some rain and we'll get out of this just as soon as we can. Mayor Hamilton: I think I had asked once before that we somehow or the staff come up with some type of a method to have different levels of sprinkling bans so that when you go to Level 1, if we have a total sprinkling ban like we have now, you could tell us what that includes. If it continued to stay bad and we were still losing ground, what's the next level that gets shut down and then the next. We've never done that and I think it would make our job a lot easier if we knew at each step as we go along who's going to be shut down next until we get to an ultimate, you get a glass of water a day or something but I think we need to have something that gives us an outline so the public will know where we're at. That ties in with what Clark's saying. Gary Warren: The difficulty in that and I guess we have internally set up, ' tried to be systematic on how we approach the ban, is that up to this point and our reservoir certainly will provide us a little bit better buffer to the system but up until this point the three-quarters of our users, depending on 100,000 gallons of elevated water here, we've gone down very rapidly and we had the luxury of a lot of transition time to get to that point so we should be able to be better at that with the larger reservoir on line. 12 2 0 3 ' r City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 I Hamilton: My comment too that the public has responded extremely well to the emergency and we've been able to gain ground rather than continue to lose it. It's the use of all the medias. The South Shore, the Villager, the Herald. We need to use them all to get the word out, not just one, to be most effective. ' Councilman Boyt: I would propose, since we're considering an ordinance change, that we also look at changing the wording, to follow up on Clark's point possibly. As it reads now it goes, determining which water may be used from the ' City's water supply system and then it gives the specifics that Clark just talked about. I think we should strike the specifics. That gives us flexibility to restrict whatever needs to be restricted at the time rather than .:saying we're going to particularly limit lawn, garden, irrigation, car washing and the list goes on forever so there's no real need for a list. I think in the ordinance we need to also address that on a temporary emergency basis the City , Manager and Fire Chief can decide that this does not have to be strictly a City ' Council action because as we've demonstrated, we don't have the ability to kj espond that quickly. I would suggest those two things be considered when you submit the change. ' Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to just also change the title from sprinkling restrictions to water use because we're not necessarily only talking ,sprinkling. If we have a water use emergency, we're restricting water use. If ' that includes shutting down Gary Brown's car wash so I can't drive down there and wash my car since I can't use my bucket in my front yard. That's a 'suggestion for the change there. The other thing is the current total ban was put on as an emergency under the Uniform Fire Codes emergency procedures. As ' I understand it, the emergency has somewhat passed. We're now into a watering ban that has been put on by City staff versus an emergency watering ban that was ' authorized. For a continuing watering ban, I see that the Council has to pass, right now the Council has passed a resolution, an even-odd watering ban, not a total watering ban. ' Councilman Boyt: No, we did. Councilman Johnson: At what point did we pass the total watering ban? ' Mayor Hamilton: Last Monday. Councilman Geving: We had a special session. ' Mayor Hamilton: Last Monday after we met with the Board of Equalization we talked about it and we passed a watering ban. Councilman Johnson: We didn't pass a resolution. We just discussed it with staff. Nobody ever voted. We weren't in a formal session. It was not a legal ' meeting at all. Mayor Hamilton: What do you mean it's not a legal meeting? We were certainly in session weren't we? It's a legal meeting. Councilman Johnson: We had closed our Board of a Equ lzzatxon meeting. Mayor Hamilton: We were still convened. We were not adjourned. It's a legal ' 13 ... . :.:. . CitCouncil Meeting - June 13, 1988 II meeting. We're dealing with an emergency issue. The emergency has not passed. I haven't seen it rain here. Councilman Johnson: TO my recollection we were adjourned. Mayor Hamilton: We did adjourn. Not until after. Don Ashworth: Staff recorded that as a Council action. Councilman Johnson: I didn't realize that. Do you want this voted on tonight? These changes? ' Mayor Hamilton: We need the ordinance amendment voted on. This would be the first reading. Councilman Johnson: Do we need a first reading for this ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: For an ordinance amendment you need to have two readings. This ' woulyi be the first one for this one. , , Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that the City amend Section 19-28, the water use ordinance and that we amend it to read, whenever the City Council or on a temporary emergency basis the City Manager and Fire Chief shall determine and then it shall read as it now reads through the fourth line down which says city water supply system. We'll put a period there and strike for lawn and garden sprinkling, irrigation, car washing and other uses specified therein. Then we'll strike the section that indicates what the penalty will be. Is that in accordance with your recommended changes? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Horn: I'll second the motion. Councilman Johnson: Just one little item. You're putting a period after system. I'd like to have a resolution somehow say uses as specified in our resolution so that our resolution, it will be obvious that we will specify what water restrictions we're going to put on. So we can't just say water restrictions. I'm saying, city water supply system uses specified therein. Talking about the resolution I guess it would be. Councilman Boyt: I'm alright. It's okay? Mayor Hamilton: Read it again how you want to change that please Bill? Councilman Boyt: I'm suggesting three changes. The first change is that we ' include, on a temporary emergency basis the City Manager and Fire Chief as being able to make the decision to put us on a water use restriction. The second change is that in the fourth line it says, city water supply system. I'm suggesting that we put a period there and strike what's between that and the existing end of the sentence, specified therein. The third change that we strike the $50.00 for each day of such violation so that in fact people can be fined $750.00 a day. Mayor Hamilton: I have a question where you say, limit the times and hours 14 _. .:_x_..;11 275 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' - during which water may be used from the water supply system. I think if we don't, I think people are accustomed to a normal ban now of sprinkling and washing cars. Those two things I think are the most normal. If you just say ' you can't use the water supply system, does that mean I can't flush or do dishes? I think we need to be, you want to make sure that they understand that it's sprinkling of yards that really draws the water down. ' Councilman Boyt: Well, then let's get to Jay's item where we indicate in the resolution what would be restricted. I think Clark makes a very good point of let's keep this as general as we can and if there is a concern that we're going ' to create an unncessary wariness on the .part of people, then we need to loosen that up. ' Mayor Hamilton: If you're not so specific then you're going to have an awful lot of questions and it makes it more difficult for the staff to enforce it. Councilman Horn: Let's be specific. Let's put it as to an unattended water ' use. i� Mayor Hamilton: That'd be fine. Unattended watering use is that would cover ' anything you could think of probably. Councilman Geving: We already provided for a permit basis. Don't you think that should be built back in here? We are providing for a permit to be acquired from City Hall for specific purposes such as the lawn, seeding and the new sodded lawn. I think that should be put in here too that the City may provide 1 permits in cases where new seeded lawns, sodded lawns and whatever, extreme 1 1- emergencies, a permit can be provided by the City for that. I think that could be put in here. As long as we're already doing it, let's make it part of the ordinance. Don Ashworth: Listening to each of these things, if you had something that would say, it may by resolution limit the use, times, and hours during which ' water may be used. We would then develop three different resolutions that you literally could pick out which would gradually get more restrictive in terms of the use. The first use would be an odd/even type of allowance. The second one would be unattended and the third would be a total ban. You could go that again ' by resolution. Mayor Hamilton: You'll incorporate that into the Section 19-28 then right? ' Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Are we going to change the name? ' Councilman Boyt: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Water useage restricted. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend Section 19-28 of the ' City Code to read as follows: 4 Section 19-28. Water Use Restricted: 15 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 • Whenever the City Council or on a temporary emergency basis, the City Manager or Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the city, it may by resolution limit the use, times, and hours during which water may be used from the city water supply system. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM. Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order. Being there were no comments , from the public, Mayor Hamilton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. Comcilman Boyt: A good bit of this may be more relevant to item 14 and if it is, just tell me and I'll be happy to wait until then. I think that we have to do this in the context that we're living with a school system that refuses to acknowledge that they're going to have increased class sizes. Along with that, we just accept that as a given for a second, then I think the other thing that we have to look at is that we're actually subsidizing some housing and if we're going to subsidize the housing, I think we should insist upon the very best construction and to me that includes a building exterior. It includes the relative sound proofing of the building and I think the issue of fire resistance is important but that's been addressed. So there's really two issues that I think are in our control that need to be addressed as we look at this whole plan. One of those is that we're building the best possible building that we're going to be happy to see there for the next foreseeable future. I guess incorporated in that is that the building be as quiet as possible, which is always an issue in an apartment building. Mayor Hamilton: So you're saying that there perhaps should be different ' standards for housing of this type than for anybody else? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying if we're putting the City's money into it, I want II to put the City's money into the best possible project. I think it gives us some leverage. Mayor Hamilton: In other words, use potentially different standards for this , type of building than for others? I guess I would see some problems with that. Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has placed a priority on the housing project for the past two years. One of the difficulties has been financing. Financing for any type of a housing project is very, very difficult at this point in time. One of the vehicles that was found to potentially help them, or there are two vehicles. One is by obtaining tax exempt financing and to obtain tax exempt financing you need to designate at least 20% of the units as elderly and low and moderate income. That subsidy is really coming from the federal government in terms of the lower bond sale. The City is taking no risk on those bonds. They are in no way pledged by the good faith of the community. The second form of subsidy that's being provided is from the Housing and 16 n City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Redevelopment Authority and it represents an amount being offered to the developers to insure that x number of those units, in this case 12, would in I Tfact receive a $200.00 per month subsidy. To the extent that that falls within the pervue of the City Council, I'd almost have to ask the City Attorney. I think though that the Council has authority in terms of the general powers to I approve or deny the request for the federal subsidy which is really again, not something directly out of our pocket. In other words, through the lower interest rate. The third point though, as I believe the answer will really come in item 14. I think the developer is prepared to stand in front of you and to I go through the quality of construction that they are proposing. This also is an issue that the HRA will be addressing this next Thursday night. Councilman Horn: Just a concern. What typically happens, as we found out when I , we've gone through governmental agencies to get assistance on things, they sound like a good deal up front but there are so many restrictions going in that you end up spending more money than what you get back from it. I want to be careful Ithat this doesn't become that type of a program. That we put so many It t restrictions on it that no one would ever use it. We looked into HRA type of subsidized housing before when we had the economic housing crunch going on as a II means to develop this city and we asked all of the developers to come in and we talked about a program to set that up. None of them were interested. They didn't want to get involved in a government type of subsidize even though it wasn't what we consider the typical subsidized housing. They didn't want to be I ' involved in a government program because of the concern over escalating costs If once they got into it. Just like our Lake Riley Chain of Lakes things. The further you get into these programs, the more restrictions keep escalating. I 7 think we have to be very careful not to contribute to that. Ilt- Don Ashworth: If there is any concern that the quality of construction is not I going to be at the level that you want, maybe you should table the item until you hear number 14. If you approve this and then end up trying to deny 14 because of architectural concerns that you have, I think you'd have a problem. 1 Councilman Boyt: So you're really saying vote against this if we've got any architectural concerns? 1 Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Geving: Just to do item 14 first. IICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the proposed housing plan and program until item 14 has been discussed. All voted IIin favor and the motion carried. IIREVIEW LANDSCAPING PLAN, CURRY FARMS ADDITION. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've looked at this many times. You received a letter II from the Kerber's this afternoon. Perhaps each of you had an opportunity to look at it. Do you have any comments Barb on the comments made by the Kerbers? Barbara Dacy: I haven't received the letter yet that you're referring to. 1 278 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11 Councilman Horn: It was only addressed to councilmen. Barbara Dacy: Unless you wanted me to run through what's in the report, I can do that. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I see you've got an overhead. Why don't you put it on and perhaps we can just talk about a few of the changes that the Kerber's would like to see made. I think basically what they're asking for is a little increased density in their trees. Councilman Boyt: If the developer doesn't have any problem with that, maybe that would be a question to ask and then we could just do away with this. Mayor Hamilton: Did the developer receive the letter? If you're going to communicate with people, you've got to do it with everybody. Larry Kerber: I think my wife dropped a couple letters off at City Hall here. 1 Don'Ashworth: I'll take the call on the City Hall one. I got the letter. I talked to Karen. I said, did Barb make copies of this for the entire Council? I went to Barb's office. She was in a meeting. I simply went ahead and made copies. I was convinced that Barbara is the normal relay person so therefore I made the copies just assured that she already had it. 1 Barbara Dacy: Well, I can go through the letter. As far as the right turn lane and the berming versus the screening. The Kerber's are correct in saying that during the original Council meeting approval of May 4th of 1987 that a representative from Centex stood up and said, we will look at either berming or screening of the area between the contractor's yard and Devonshire Drive. The Council is fully aware of the process that has occurred since then. Then at the May 9th, 1988 meeting when the item was up to interpret what the condition of approval was, the Council did ask for staff to come up with a reasonable solution to look at screening of the corner from turn lane and some type of screening along the south and west lot lines. Berming in the area in front of the turn lane, because of the ditch section there, I did not propose that because I thought we could take better advantage of the evergreen trees by wrapping them into the Kerber property and matching where their existing elm trees now are at the moment. Secondly, a berm up in this area right next to the ditch section, they may be able to achieve some of that height anyway because I understand that you did agree to put in some fill in this area for the ' evergreens to match the street grade so if you wanted to increase that with fill a little bit, I think that's fine. Because of the amount of trees that we're proposing in here, 16 - 8 foot berms and you have a fairly narrow strip of land in this front area, berming, I did not propose that but took advantage of what the applicant had already indicated that they would plant. As far as the evergreens along the south and west lot lines, again the direction was to try and put to a reasonable solution so went to the ordinance to use as a guide for commercial and industrial properties. The ordinance requires 1 tree per 40 feet and that calculated out to 15 trees. Upon the Kerber's direction, tried to cluster them in the southwest corner to provide maximum screening ability possible but recognizing that there's a large expanse here and changing grades. There's no way that you can screen the entire backyard of the Kerber's property or vica versa. The intent being is to try and establish something right-of-way 18 _City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 27 Illr- so we can get a growing stand of trees there. I know the Kerber's expressed to me that 15 trees is not a reasonable solution and they have obviously indicated that here also. Mayor Hamilton: The developer is here. Did you have a chance to read the letter? ' John Speiss: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any comments? John Speiss: Right now we accept the plan. Larry Kerber: I have a few comments. First of all I'd like to, I guess you're ' always looking at this as just screening for a contractor's yard. This is really three issues. There's an entrance landscaping. There's a right turn lane that starts somewhere up here, cuts across my driveway and all along my property. That's the issue that I'm saying is not addressed. I think that at ithe last meeting Mr. Mayor, you indicated there should be some type of berm or something on the right turn lane. This is the issue that I'm saying is not addressed yet. I've got, I don't know how long the turn lane is 250 or 280 feet long. I have nothing other than this little bit that's going to wrap on this corner. So we got a right turn lane issue that remains. We've got their entrance landscape planting. We've also got some type of plantings to cover up 1 a contractor's yard. They could be affecting three different people. In this situation they just all happen to be affecting my property. Another point I'd like to make, of the 15 trees here, when I talked to John Speiss, I have 13 trees planted down here that will be destroyed when they fill my property. I said you don't have to plant them back for me I said as long as you're going to provide some screening. He said at that time they were talking about, he mentioned something about 10 foot on center trees. I said fine. Don't replant my 13 trees, put them up in there so take my 13 trees out and we've got 2 that are actually theirs. Of the 16 trees here, their original plan called for 11 - 12 footers. I suggested cutting the amount of trees down using the same dollar figure. That's how we came up with 16 - 8 footers, serving the height. The trees are going to grow. I'm going to take care of them. They're going to grow so that's how I come up with, this plan over the first one only gives me 2 trees ' more. I would just like to see something along hers and I'd like to see some more trees back here. This is not drawn to scale obviously yet. I stuck stakes out there and a 40 foot tree on center, or a 20 foot. .. another poing I'd like to make is from here to here their property is now in some points 10 feet higher ' than mine where it used to be lower. I have 150 trees that I had planted putting on my line that are now 3 feet tall. It will take them 7 to 8 years to even reach their height. Another 10 to 12 years to get 5 to 6 feet above it so ' screening on my part is going to useless in these areas here. I've already got these areas screened. Further screening from my part is just almost going to be useless. Another thing I'd like to point out, these trees are not mine. ' They're not giving me trees. They're not giving me anything. They're putting them on their lots. They're going to become the property of these homeowners. They're not my trees so I just wish you'd consider that in determining how many extra trees we can get here. Also, I'd like to see something done here. ' Something definitely stated. Mayor Hamilton: You've got a line of poplars along there now. ' 19 280 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Larry Kerber: Yes, Chinese Elm and they are dead and dying. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that's what I said. They're a little thin right now. Larry Kerber: Yes, and in the winter everything drops on them. There's no protection. ' Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't expect them to replace the trees that you had attempted to plant there and haven't made it but are those trees that are there, those Chinese Elm, are they going to have .to be replaced? You're asking them to replace those with something? Larry Kerber: No, I'm asking to put some type of buffer out on the property line. The elm trees I have are back in. I'm asking them to put something out there because the trees I planted, like I say over the winter they go bare and now they're starting to die and before it was no problem but now with, I would say 50% or more of the traffic using this entrance, I've got all kinds of start algt stop traffic here. I've got more noise. I've got more visibility to my yard than I had before. When people drove 45 mph past my place, it wasn't that much of a problem. Now it will be. ' Mayor Hamilton: It will also be a problem, I don't know how close you can get the trees or how much room there is to plant trees on that turn off because as that's plowed and you throw snow up with salt and all that, it's going to kill whatever is planted there I would think. Larry Kerber: It would have been nice, I agree with you, to hold that road over I further and I think I asked to have that done and nothing was considered or if it was considered I never heard. Yes, I agree with that. John Speiss: Carver County won't allow any trees to hang into that 100 foot right-of-way. No green can hang into that area period. Mayor Hamilton: It can't hang into it but it can be up to it or something. Larry Kerber: I talked to I assume the same person, maybe you talked to somebody else. Apparently you didn't. I can plant or anything can be planted II up to the lot line which is 10 feet from the edge of the blacktop. Barbara Dacy: Just to clarify a couple of things. I guess when we were out on site Mr. and Mrs. Kerber, I didn't understand that you were meaning all the way along the front of your property. We looked at the wrapping of the evergreens to resolve that sight distance issue with the County and we can still wrap the evergreens up to the property line and you had indicated that you were going to remove the first four. As far as berming along here, I just want the Council to be aware that there is a ditch section between those trees and the edge of the pavement. What Mr. Kerber is saying, you would have to remove all those trees and start grading in there. Larry Kerber: You don't have to move. Those trees are back so far. I've got 20 feet on the side of those trees for new trees to be planted before I get to t!! my property line. 20 J r' , l3 II r•� -City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IT— Barbara Dacy: But you're also saying that you wanted to berm i.n this area and I'm just saying that you've got a ditch section on one side and then you're into your gravel area and so on. I'm just saying we didn't discuss that. ILarry Kerber: I know we didn't and I think I mentioned it and I didn't know you didn't understand it. I thought you just didn't want to address it. I'm sorry II about that. I'm not saying I'm going to berm there. I'd like something there. Planting something. Planting some type of that allows for all the noise and the traffic and sight into my yard. IBarbara Dacy: The way I understood it•was that you're going to put in the fill area here. We would take advantage of those 8 foot evergreens. Allow Centex to go on your property and make a screening in that, what I would call a II little hole as you turn into the proposed new street. I don't know what else to say to the Council. Councilman Johnson: I think that Centex has been awful generous to a point. I They've really done a lot of negotiating with you. The back lot line is your 1t;backyard, not your contractor's yard. I consider your contractor's yard up front. As I understand your conditional use permit, you're supposed to be I keeping your equipment and stuff in that big building up front and as a contractor you're required to keep screening yourself, which are your elm trees that are dying that you're going to have to replace to maintain your contractor's yard. I don't see why they don't, there seems to be a big gap in here where the trees aren't in this Lot 1 where the outlot ends and then there's T a gap there. Why is the gap? 1 IL Barbara Dacy: That's where the model home is right now and the side of the garage faces north so there are not any window views of the property. The primary view from this home here will be in this direction. IICouncilman Johnson: Okay, the primary view isn't towards the contractor's yard at all? IBarbara Dacy: From this house. From the rear of the homes along the west lot line they will be looking into the back of Kerber's property. II Councilman Johnson: So what do those 5, the bottom of that L there, there are 5 trees. Those 5. That's protecting the view into the contractor's yard for who? IBarbara Dacy: For the folks who will eventually end up living here on Lot 1. Councilman Johnson: But you said they don't look towards the contractor's yard. I They just look across a corner of Larry's backyard. That view isn't towards the contractor's yard at all. So if they could take those 5 trees and put them along the west line and give him some more screening along the west line. Those trees don't seem, the screening is not to protect Larry's view but the other I people's view of Larry's contractor's yard, as I understand contractor's yard screening and what we pass in item 14 was to protect, was because there was a contractor's yard there, not because of Larry's backyard which is a tree farm as i I'm hearing 150 trees planted back there. It sounds like we can take and just move those. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good plan. II Councilman Geving: I believe that in all of the developments that we've seen, 21 x y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 this developer, Centex Homes has been more than reasonable in attempting to work out a landscaping plan with the Kerber's. I don't believe that I have seen at any time a better plan because if I were living in one of those homes of Centex and I was looking into the Kerber's area and it was objectionable to me, I would plant my own trees. I've done it. If I lived in an area and I didn't like the view that I had, I changed it. I didn't expect that someone would change it for me. So I think what's being proposed here by Centex Homes is very reasonable. We're talking about a dense cover. The Black Hills Spruce is a very dense, nice tree and it will grow. I've got several in my yard and they grow to about 30 to 40 feet. They're probably 10 to 15 feet wide. You eventually will get nice cover. As far as having to have Centex Homes put trees or some kind of berming onto the Kerber property, I don't think that's appropriate at all. I think that that's a natural function of your right-of-way for any State or County highway. That's why you have right-of-ways and I wouldn't want to see a bunch of trees on the corner there that might obstruct the view. It would be a dangerous situation. I believe the plan that's been laid out here and shown to us on the screen is appropriate and the developer has been more than reasonable. At this point I think it's a personal issue between the Kerbers and the developer and t'!tpy can compromise and work this out. I don't believe it's a Council action. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I think Larry's pointed out that there are really two issues. , One is the screening issue which I think both parties share responsibility in. Just as this is a conditional use area. What that means in my mind at least is that we allow a certain use until development surrounds it to the point where it's no longer practical to allow that use to continue. I can certainly empathize with the Kerber's trying to maintain that use as long as they can. I think, at least in my mind that would be my reason for requesting screening, to cut down the complaints and to continue the conditional use. The other issue though, as Larry pointed out this evening is the screening to the right turn lane. I believe in his mind he believes that that is directly as a result of this development and I take a look at when right turn lanes are put in. We just installed a lot of right turn lanes along TH 7. Those could come in any time whether development happened or not and they may not happen at the time the development happens. The Highway Department can always come along and make those requirements so I don't necessarily think that a right turn lane is something that we find fault with the developer for creating. I think that's a fact of life along any type of major highway. As Dale said, if they're in a right-of-way area for that, that can happen anytime so in my mind I think it's been right to take a look at these issues and try to mitigate as many of the problems as would happen. I think we've done that. I think we're trying to continue a reasonable use here of a contractor's yard for as long as it's possible. Sometime it may not be possible but at least at this point, I think we've taken reasonable assurances to allow that. Councilman Boyt: I have a question of the developer. One of the Mr. Kerber's requests is for some 6 foot spruce trees on the west part of the property line. Some additional ones. I would think that would be a reasonably minor expense. You've shown quite a bit of flexibility so far. Would that seem like the last thing you could do? John Speiss: I guess the plan as shown now is something that you can call it the third compromise. It's one more tree. One more berm. One more, one more, one more. You can go on into the night. At some point you just have to, the 22 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 I _ only ordinance is 1 per 40 feet. We taken all the trees and put them into the 1 per 20 the 1 per 40, there's no other ordinance. This is something that nobody, that the City would require to do here is in the ordinance for. It's just something that seems like just one more and just one more to us and one more I like anybody else. Councilman Boyt: Well, that is half an answer but let me pose a different possibility to you. I think that part of how we got into this was in working through the development with the City we created some problems for Mr. Kerber and you as the developer and we as the responsible party in the City have worked ' to see if we can't minimize those problems. That's how we got where we are tonight. Part of how we got there was that our language was somewhat vague. We said screening that will meet the agreement of both parties. I think what we're ' looking at tonight is getting pretty close to having that sealed as to just what that means. In a sense I don't feel that it's one more, one more. It has been kind of a slow death in coming here. I think we're at the point though where we're making some final decisions. I personally thing that 40 feet on center is a pleasant diversion but hardly a screen. If 5 or 6 more 6 foot spruces is what takes to settle this thing, given all the land that's been moved around. A11 the trees that have been planted. The roads that have been regrarded. It seems ' like a pretty minor sort of thing. John Speiss: Relative to 5 trees, yes. If you had to buy 5 trees, how relative ' would that cost be? Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a different frame of reference here I 4 think in a sizeable development but gentlemen I would suggest that we have, through our work with this developer, flooded Mr. Kerber's back lot this spring j which would be a rather unusual spring to flood anything. That yes, the developer has worked well with us and I would suggest that we put in a request that 5 more 6 foot spruce trees be put in on that west line where the trees are now. I think that the right turn lane is an issue that really needs to be resolved between MnDot and whoever has the concern with them. I don't really ' feel, although the developer led to that lane being put in, I think that's an issue that the Kerber's are going to have to work out some way or another. I would strongly recommend that we reduce those on centers from 40 feet to 20 feet. ' Mayor Hamilton: To pick up on what Jay was commenting on, those 5 trees that would be on the back part of the lot there Barb. Where that home, that would ' be, it's facing kind of northwest. They don't seem to really be screening much either for the home or for Larry. If you took those 5 and interspersed them along the right turn lane instead of having them there, it would seem to be a better use of the trees to me. Then I had a question of Larry. You said you had 13 trees that you're going to lose. What I want to have clarified is, are they transplanting your trees someplace or you're just losing them? ' Larry Kerber: No. They're gone. I said well, I'll forego those trees, don't put them back on mine. Put them up on your berm so 13 of those 15 trees are trees they're not going to replace on my own property. Therefore it makes 2 of ' those trees are theirs. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you again, those 13 trees are yours that are on your property right now? 23 284 • City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 • Larry Kerber: Exactly. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's what I was trying to figure out. If those are actually your trees that are going to be transplanted into their property. Larry Kerber: They're going to be gone. They're going to disappear. They're - going to excavate over them. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't they transplant them? Why kill them? Larry Kerber: At this point in time I don't think it's, the trees are all leafed out. I think it's more expense to take them out of the holes, put them in a temporary hole or ball than and then put them back in than it would be just to level them. Barbara Dacy: They're small deciduous trees versus evergreens. Maysgr Hamilton: How about the 5 trees there Larry that would actully be at the back of that home? Larry Kerber: Okay, those and I don't know if Barb remembered this, when I got ' my original contractor's use permit, we walked down and I showed you my garage that I was going to build. I showed you my road down. I showed you my lower garage and I showed you my stockpiles where I keep my supplies. You said fine. This is fine, that's no problem. I keep stockpiles down there along the lot line of that house. The house on that property, it's deck overlooks mine. The house is tilted at an angle towards my property line. I'd definitely like to keep those 5 but those 5 are kind of drawn out of scale. We're trying to cover a line 235 feet long here by trees and we're omitting the garage which is 24 feet deep is all we're really doing. ' Mayor Hamilton: What difference does it make if those 5 trees aren't there? Are you afraid someone is going to see your stockpile? I don't know what differnce that makes. Larry Kerber: I worried about that guy in that house objecting. Mayor Hamilton: If he knows it's there when he buys the house, how can he object? I would think those 5 trees would be better for you to be along the right turn lane wouldn't they? Larry Kerber: Sure. Fine. As long as I'm not confronted with problems with this guy here which he's now sitting 10 feet above my property. Mayor Hamilton: If that guy doesn't like it, he can plant some trees on his property so he can't see it. Larry Kerber: That's fine with me. I just want to avoid trouble with these ' people moving in because they're all sitting so much higher than me now where that land used to lower. Mayor Hamilton: That would seem to me to be a better solution. If whoever buys that home doesn't like what they see out their backyard, they can put their own 24 97 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II darn trees in there and then take those 5 and put them along, intersperse them with what's there now on Larry's property which would be Chinese Elm. II Barbara Dacy: Up in here, so we would have the 8-8 footers plus the additional 5-6 footers up around here. I Gary Warren: The turn lane Barb, maybe you could show them where it starts though. It really isn't up near the house at all. It's in front of the garage. Larry Kerber: It starts 20 feet north of my driveway. At least that's where I their stake is. That's where the line-is supposed to be painted. It's supposed to run diagonally across my driveway. When it hits my driveway it starts grading out. 1 ' Gary Warren: So really any of the plantings along a turn lane however are really screening more your garage aren't they than the house? I Larry Kerber: It's going to cut down on noise. The view into my yard is what t,csI'm looking at. When they slow down to make a corner. I Mayor Hamilton: It would protect that whole yard. Looking into his yard there where he's got his big garage and your equipment and stuff. It would seem to be well placed plantings. It would make that look better from the road and it II , would certainly cut down the noise for the Kerbers. Barbara Dacy: Cr what we could do is just alternate 8 and 6, 8 and 6 all the 3 4 way. 1 Larry Kerber: As long as they give us a number, I'm sure we can work with that. Placement is no problem. It's just a number I guess is what we're looking for. IIKathy Kerber: I was going to say that there is also still right here between this garage, unless you drive down the road and you don't see it, actually the II garage for this house kind of sits on an angle and right in here it is open and coming from down here, you can see in there. I do a lot of work in my gardens and I don't enjoy people stopping and watching me and pointing at me. I've seen a lot of that. IMayor Hamilton: Do people do that frequently? I Kathy Kerber: It's right in between this and the corner of the garage. I'd like to see a little more fill in there somewhere so I get some kind of block from that. IICouncilman Boyt: I think we can resolve this very simply by tying it down to a certain number of trees and let them put the trees anywhere they want to put them but we've got to walk out of here with a decision once and for all that I this is the number of trees that are going to be planted. So how many is that going to be? Councilman Geving: Right now do we have 15 and 16? Is that the number? 31 trees? Larry Kerber: Yes. II 25 286 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11 Councilman Geving: And all we're talking about is moving them in the right places? Are those 5 on the west, are they already planted? Larry Kerber: No, there is nothing planted. Councilman Geving: So the 31 trees are just on the plan? Larry Kerber: Yes. Councilman Geving: I agree with the Mayor. Put them wherever you want them. Mayor Hamilton: Is that a motion? 1 Councilman Geving: Let's make a motion and I'll make the motion that we agree that 31 trees as decided here tonight. They're 6 and 8 foot spruce I believe. I have a note here that says they are 16-8 foot Black Hills Spruce. In the smith, what are those Larry? On the south � y. property line, what are those 15 trees? Larry Kerber: Those are supposed to be Black Hills. Councilman Geving: Black Hills Spruce as well so we're talking about 31 Black Hills Spruce total? Larry Kerber: Yes, I guess. Is that what you're going to vote on. I wanted to see a few more trees. Most of those 15 are mine. Not mine but what they don't have to replace for me. I would just like to see some additional trees. Councilman Boyt: Let's make it 35. That's 4 more trees. That's as many I I wanted. Councilman Geving: That's almost $200.00. ' John Speiss: A tree. Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a sizeable development. $200.00 is not going to... Mayor Hamilton: Plus Larry is losing 13 trees that they're just taking of his and not replacing them. Councilman Geving: My motion is for 35 6 and 8 foot Black Hills Spruce to be ' planted near the site. I don't care where you put them. Mayor Hamilton: That can be an agreement between the developer and the Kerbers. Councilman Geving: Placement is up to the developer and Mr. Kerber. Councilman Johnson: Dale, you want to include the rest of those trees on the tree schedule that they agreed to? [!! Councilman Geving: They're already agreed to the other, everything else here is agreed to. Is that correct Barbara? The plantings and the landscape plan so 26 a 1:. �Y r.�.. ...n... .. .t IICity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 really only intending for the Black Hills Spruce. The total is 35. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Councilman Johnson: How is the 6 and 8 split so we don't argue? John Speiss: One question then and that is, as to the placement, there's Carver County who is concerned about where we place those trees around the right-of-way and with spacing. We'd like that determined just to make sure that everybody is satisfied being 10 foot on center, wherever or 5 foot on center, wherever it has to be. We need to work that out. You don't want to plant them next to that right-of-way so that Mr. Kerber ever decides to develop his property, we're cutting down trees to get access into his property or cutting down trees so we get the proper sight distance from that Devonshire Drive onto CR 17. That's a very important concern. ' Councilman Johnson: And that's controlled by the County. John Speiss: That's correct and it states so in that letter from Bill Weckman. Barbara Dacy: What we can do is revise the plan and have Carver County review it and sign off on it as to placement around the intersection. ' Councilman Geving: On those Black Hill Spruce, using that same formula that you had before, that will be 18-8 foot and 17-6 foot. That's coming right off the landscaping plan. 1 Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the landscaping plan for Curry Farms Addition to include planting of 35 Black Hill Spruce trees, 18 - II 8 foot trees and 17 - 6 foot trees with placement to be agreed upon between Centex and the Kerbers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 21-1251 2(A) TO PERMIT LARGER ON- PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, FIRST READING, ' DATASERV. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission acted on this way back on May 4, 1988. The Commission felt that a sign ordinance amendment was not appropriate as ' requested by the applicant. Staff had suggested a sign size of 9 square feet. The applicant has proposed a sign size of 12 square feet with a number of directional signs for on-premise signs. At minimum though the Council should be ' aware that the ordinance should be amended to provide for a maximum height of the directional signs on site. The applicant is here. Dan Ryerson: I have a couple of things I'd like to show you. It was brought up ' at the Planning Commission that there weren't any similar signs of 12 square feet. We felt you're zoning for a large industrial office park and assuming that the large sites.. is 40 acres. Our original request was for a variance on 111 the DataSery site is 70 acres but as an ordinance amendment, we'd like to propose a threshhold of 40 acres to allow a larger sign. We did find same, if I could borrow your projector, I have about 5 pictures of signs in nearby 11 communities that are very much like what we're talking. This is, as you can see 27 "tat Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11 from the top of the sign, this is Eaton Corporation which is right down TH 5. They have a number of signs like this on the premises. They are very much like what we're talking about and almost exactly the same size. Councilman Horn: The same number of employees and deliveries? Dan Ryerson: Probably a little less. This is the present DataSery sign. The one at their Eden Prairie center. This is just about exactly what we've proposed here. Jonathan. Again, a bigger sign actually. That is 8500 Normandale in Bloomington. Here's another one there. Again, this one is a little bit bigger than 12 square feet. I think to answer some of the questions that Planning Commission had raised that we wanted to show that either by ordinance or by variance, on larger office park, industrial sites, there are many examples of signs this size for directions. Finally what we did was, just by way of illustration on relative size, using just a plain sign board which we stood up on the DataSery site and it is, you recognize the building there, this is taken up by Lake Drive and TH 5. This little square right down here and along this street which would be one of their turn intersections, is that sign. , T1 s is just to illustrate that such a sign from the nearest public right-of-way and anywhere off of that is almost invisible. Councilman Horn: I have no problem with considerations such as this. My only question is, why is this suddenly a problem when CPT had no problem? Dan Ryerson: I don't know why CPT had the signs that they did. Some of them ' are still up and they're really small. I don't know what their volume was. DataSery right now has a truck deliver and coming and going of 40 per day. These are large trucks. That is in addition to employee traffic which is increasing and eventual employee occupancy on that site is estimated to be 750. There are also plans which I apologize, I came into town late today and wasn't able to pick up the drawings but DataSery does have some future plans for expansion on this site which will probably coming to you at some future date. If that happens than there's going to be an even greater need for on-premise directional signs. I know it's been suggested that the ordinance that a 4 square foot signs talks about increasing the number of signs. As a design consideration why we don't think that would work, because we have a number of points of entry into this site or intersections inside the site where we need to direct this traffic. If we increased the number of the smaller signs, we'd have II to put several of them around at each of these points. To our way of thinking, that begins to look like clutter as opposed to one nicely laid out sign that contains various directions. This way to parking and this way for trucks and receiving and shipping. The actual number of signs would be kept down to a much more aesthetically pleasing level and we think the present number of four signs allowed in the ordinance is good. The height restriction that's been proposed by the Planning Commission of 5 feet wouldn't be any problem at all. Really , what we're asking for is an ordinance that would allow us, instead of simply displaying a message on the top 1 foot of the sign that's 5 feet high, that we be allowed to fill in a little bit in the bottom of it and give several directions. We don't think that would have any cluttersome appearance to anybody who would be looking at the site driving by it and our planners tell us there's a safety and convenience... Councilman Johnson: Barb, do you have an overhead of this? You're requesting three signs from us and you show in your illustration a wide angle picture of 28 II - City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Ill_ the farther away sign and say this is what it's going to look like where there's two signs right on the public right-of-way and you don't show us a regular angle picture of those signs. Photographic trickery to minimize the impact of that I sign by sticking, in other words I'm a little perturbed at your little illustration here where you throw that little further away sign and say this is what it's going to look like. Mention the 12 foot sign that you want to put 1 right on the public right-of-way. We've got Ma Bell coming in and asking for something that nobody else wants to ask for. Dan Ryerson: No trickery was intended. For example the Eaton signs that we showed do have that appearance. They are right by the public right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: You're asking for signs right by the public road but you IIshow us a picture of the sign that's a couple hundred feet back. , Dan Ryerson: The Eaton signs and the others that we showed in the slides were not. They were right up... ktouncilman Johnson: They're not in Chanhassen. What's the second size of sign. II You showed us your main sign at the DataServ, Bell South, whatever you want to be called, facility in Eden Prairie but what about the secondary signs such as these are at your site there? They are smaller. II1Dan Ryerson: That was the secondary sign. ;Councilman Johnson: But the one down the drive. That one was on the corner jthere wasn't it? iDan Ryerson: The main sign had the big DataSery name. This was one that has the several directional indicators on it. UCouncilman Johnson: I'm not opposed to a large multi-unit complex having some signage to discern this company versus that company but when there's only one I company, I don't have a problem with putting the company name on top of the sign but I don't see a 300% increase in the size of sign to do it. I have no problem if there's a multi-unit area, large industrial area which is not what we're asking for here. They're asking for each sign to have 12 square feet versus 4. II'm going to have a problem to go to 6 square feet which is a 50o increase in the size of sign. If there was more companies that we needed to put the company logo on so that the truck drivers would know which company they are entering at. I Right now there's only one company on the road. There's no need for the truck drivers to be terribly confused. As written, I totally agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations and we just keep it the way it is right now and I'd I like them to look at how we would discern when you have multi units within one area. If you had CPT and DataSery and the Press and several people where there is a possibility of confusion, those directional signs I think should, especially if two or more companies share a driveway, that there should be U someway to look at those but that's a totally different issue than we're being asked to address here tonight. I'm really upset on this one to tell you the truth because I just see a big company coming in here trying to push a little II town and let's change our ordinance because we feel we need a bigger sign and I don't see any justification for it. My company I work for has probably 4 to 5 square foot signs. I went out and looked at them and truck drivers haven't had a hard time at all. We've got three docks and quite a few trucks everyday. Not 29 Ba 0 ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 40 but we have drivers that come in routinely to pick up some of our materials that have never been there before and the 4 square foot signs are fine for them. That's the way I feel about it. Councilman Geving: I really don't have any comments on this. Councilman Horn: I just wondered if staff has done any looking at other businesses in the City to see what works for them. If similar type of employee counts and similar amounts of truck traffic. Barbara Dacy: No, we did not. We did look at, for example the directional signage with the Press and some of the one in the Business Park but we did not specifically analysis the truck traffic and so on. We did check with other cities. Our main concern was on the sign size was that how much ability is there to provide a number of directions. Our concern was the larger the sign theoretically you get more directional messages on there. More arrows. More ability to direct traffic so we came up with 9 square feet based on the ability to get at least 3 or 4 messages on a sign and tied it to a threshhold of a mifl.mum of 40 acres. We did a minimal amount review of other businesses. Councilman Horn: Are there known problems at this site? Were they brought to your attention that known problems to date at this site? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Horn: I guess the only other comment I'd make is I see we have a member of the Planning Commission here tonight if he wishes to comment. Councilman Boyt: I would gather that the sign ordinance is there because we want to minimize the impact of signs on the neighbors. If that's the rationale I would think that there should be some room to allow for some sort of signage that had minimal impact. That the impact of the sign should be taken into account as much as the size. If you're putting a sign on the back end of 40 acres it could be a heck of a big sign and I'm not going to read it. I'm not going to be able to read it so it'd be nice to have some sort of flexibility to take into account where the sign was in relation to the people around it. When I look at the actual layout of the sign and look at what you have out there now, what I see from TH 5 looks fine to me. In other words, your sort of logo sign if you will is nicely done. It seems to be large enough so that people should have no trouble finding it. I agree that you need some means of getting people to the right location. It doesn't seem like your road layout is all that difficult to direct people to. I have a little problem with the sign that's out by TH 5. The directional sign that's on your interior roadwork but looks like it will be quite visible from TH 5. It seems to me like that would detract from your illuminated sign out there. ' Dan Ryerson: The one that we showed in the enlarged photo? Councilman Boyt: You have the nice illuminated sign but then you have off to, I guess it would be the east side of it, your directional signage. So it's also going to be visible from TH 5. Dan Ryerson: That would be certainaly visible from TH 5. Any of them. The [!! point is, the proportion to the site which actually is ...million square feet, 30 .City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 i ' the visual impact of the sign basically the size of a card table is almost nil. ' Councilman Boyt: I guess to make it simple, I see no overwhelming reason to not grant this change in our ordinance. To me the difference of up to 12 square feet seems like it's still talking about a fairly small sign and as a business you should have some flexibility to decide the best sign size for your - operation. My concern is signs like the one facing TH 5. I think that from a . city standpoint, I want the front of your building to be unobstructed unless maybe it's trees and as few signs as possible. So from that standpoint, the ' , prospect of a 4 square foot sign looks pretty good to me if it's going to be fronting TH 5. If it's well back on your property as the two are by the building, than I have less trouble with the 9 square foot sign. It's back where it's unobtrusive. I think we need some means of controlling the visual impact of a sign when we write this ordinance or change it. Mayor Hamilton: I have absolutely no problem with changing it. I think often ' . times signs can be an asset to the way a building looks and they are obviously ,dtsomething that you're going to maintain and keep up well because you want your building to look good. I'd be more concerned with the way the front yard looks ' out there with all the weeds growing than I am about the way the sign looks. I think you have a beautiful logo and we're proud to have, at least I'm certainly proud to have your company in town and I'd like people to know that you are here. Consequently, I am very much in favor of your having signs and ' ' advertising yourselves. Not a billboard but certainly signs that are the size you're talking about. I'm always kind of miffed when we go out and try to ;recruit people to come into our community and we tell them how happy we are that they're going to move here and then somebody asks for a sign and we're just about telling to move out of town again because we don't want anybody to know you're here. I just don't quite understand that philosophy but at any rate, I'm ' glad you're here. I'm proud to have you a part of our community and I would like to see you put some addition signs so irregardless of how difficult it is for your truckers to come in or people to come in and visit you for whatever purpose, that they can find where they're trying to go to so I'm going to move ' approval of an ordinance amendment to Section 21-1251 2(a) to permit on-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of 40 acres shall not exceed 9 square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet from the ' ground. The number of signs shall not exceed 4 unless approved by the City Council. Councilman Geving: I'll second that motion. Councilman Boyt: He wants 12 square feet. ' Councilman Geving: The recommendation was 9 from the staff. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting 12. Staff's original recommendation was 9 so if you want the applicant's request it should be 12. Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem with that to 12. I guess I didn't see that here. ILCouncilman Geving: I'll second the motion as changed. 31 i _ 9 0 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 Councilman Johnson: I do have some discussion on it. As far as Bill's point about being next to public right-of-way being smaller and as you get back in I: there, his picture does show that. The picture he shows us is that when you have your sign interior to the property than it's not intrusive. If you put the 12 square foot sign up at the front of the property facing TH 5 as proposed, it gets more intrusive. My counter would be that going with the 40 acres and all and also adding that within 150 feet of the public right-of-way signs should be II limited to 4 square feet. Interior to the property by 150 or greater feet, signs should be only 9 square feet. Up to 9 square feet. So when the sign is further away from the people so you can still get than in. As far as this goes, we still can't put their name on this sign. We haven't changed to allow them to II place their name on directional signs. Barbara Dacy: That's our interpretation of the definition of directional signs. I Councilman Boyt: I'll second that amendment. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not amending my motion. I B Councilman Boyt: You don't have to amend your motion. We have an amendment to it that's seconded. II Mayor Hamilton: I didn't hear him move that he wanted... Councilman Johnson: I so move. II Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded an amendment that on-premise III directional signs within 150 feet of the public right-of-way may be up to 4 square feet. On-premise directional signs greater than 150 feet from the public right-of-way may be up to 9 square feet. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt II voted in favor of the amendment. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving voted in opposition to the amendment and the amendment failed with a vote of 3 to 2. I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend Section 21-1251 2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, first-reading, to read as follows: , On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of on-premise I directional signs shall not exceed five (5) feet. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) feet unless approved by the City Council. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried I with a vote of 4 to 1. BROOKSIDE MOTEL, JOSEPH NOTERMAN, 789 AND 790 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE: II A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT, TO [!! ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES. I 32 II ' ? City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Joseph Noterman: All I really requested was four temporary spaces from May 1st to November 1st but I guess in order to accomplish this we have to go through all this rigamaroll. We're located on TH 212 on the corner of TH 101. The State has a piece of property to the west and then there's a fruit stand right ' to the west of that which hasn't been mentioned in these findings. Than you're familiar with the property that you rezoned to a trucking company. Well, that's a garbage company and they're parking tanks there. At the time I didn't know ' they were garbage. I thought it was a trucking firm so all I'm asking really is for these four temporary spaces. I'm at the mercy of the Council I guess. ' ; Tony Noterman: I'd like to address the Council if I might just for a couple of minutes regarding the request. I'm Joe Noterman's son, Tony Noterman. In going through the report that has been apparently submitted by Ms. Dacy to both the ' Planning Commission and the Council, there's some conclusions that are in error ' in here. Apparently when they were going through this thing they were thinking that these were going to be one night stands on these campers. They aren't !going to be. He rents to the track workers and the seasonal so they're at least ' a month, two months, three months at a time so the portion that she says there's going to be increased traffic, it just isn't going to happen. You're going to get them coming in, they're going to stay for lengthy terms of time. He's only ' asking for four more spots. He's not asking for all year. It's just going to Abe the May 1 through November 1. The system, on-site sewage system that he has right now is, by the admission of I believe Ms. Dacy or some other gentleman from your City Council, the system is adequate to handle it. One point on page I 3 of the presentation given by them says, and I quote, "based on the location of the BF district and because the proposed use is not compatible with the intent of the district." I guess I fail to see where this would not be compatible with ' the intent of the district when you're going along a major TH 212. There's a number of conditions that I thought were supposed to have been presented to the Council tonight as alternatives by the direction of the Planning Commission. We haven't received anything of that nature at this point in time. Do you recall ' were there any conditions or alternatives done up by the planning staff? Barbara Dacy: No, there was not because we wanted to determine whether or not the Council would in fact be agreeable to amending the ordinance. If they so act on that tonight than it was going to be staff's recommendation that if they want us to develop conditions for a conditional use permit review, that they direct us to do that. We just wanted to wait and see how the Council would react to this. Tony Noterman: Didn't Mr. Conrad though ask you to prepare some different alternatives to present to the City Council tonight? Barbara Dacy: Okay, that must have been different alternatives other than the ' zoning ordinance amendment process. Tony Noterman: Right. ILBarbara Dacy: There is none. Tony Noterman: There is none other than this? 33 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right. Tony Noterman: Well, one other final thing gentlemen. We pay approximately $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 on a year on a piece of property that has no other use. He's 67 years old. This is his sole income and we would appreciate giving some fair consideration to this matter. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: My only comment is this is an expansion of a non-conforming use and I don't see any reason to expand a non-conforming use. Councilman Geving: No comment except to say that had this not existed prior to 1972, it probably wouldn't be allowed in our city at all. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll expand the scope a little bit. We're talking ' about a change in our ordinance which doesn't just apply to this one operation. I don't think that a recreational vehicle sites are something we want to endorse so I would be opposed to changing the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I have no additional comments. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-773 to allow recreational camping facilities as a conditional use. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT, KK DESIGN. Councilman Geving: We granted the variance and it was a rather unique situation. They've done a nice job on Red Cedar Point. Actually the building is not going to expand anymore than what is there now. There is a patio there and the variance was granted unanimously. The two conditions requested by the staff were passed. WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A STABLE, DALE COLLINS, 3931 ASTER TRAIL. Councilman Geving: This again was passed unanimously by the Board with the ' condition, several conditions actually. One is that we wanted to make sure that there was an effective way of making sure that the manure was removed from time to time and Dale Collins indicated that the had an agreement with Mr. Brose that that would be done. Also, we determined based upon the site review and in looking at the site that really the best location for the stable was exactly where it was placed on the exhibit which we entitled Exhibit 1 shown on the third page of your handout and also we relied heavily upon Mr. Dave Headla and his input as the stable permitting process so we did approve this unanimously and it's been passed. It's a new stable and it's not for retail or commercial purposes. SUBDIVISION OF 5.5 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED EAST OF TH 101, 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF CR 14 AND ADJACENT TO HALLA NURSERY, ROBERT J. BURESH. [!! I 34 1t, City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: This subdivision was first applied for with the January 15th deadline so it does come under the 2 1/2 acre requirement. The main issue with this is the easement which serves the property, the David Halla property and ' Paul Graffunder's. The issue is whether or not to improve this to a public street or maintain it as a private easement. Mayor Hamilton: That was to be resolved by the property owners. Has it been, do you know? Jo Ann Olsen: What we are having done is having them determine, the applicant's Attorney write us a letter. Roger Knutson: We asked for an opinion that both property owners in the new ' plat approved would have the right to use that property. It would be on record and then would have appropriate disclaimers for the development agreement. Mayor Hamilton: Do we have that yet? We don't have that yet? ttJo Ann Olsen: No, we do not have that yet. That could still be a condition of approval. Other than that, the lots they have acceptable septic sites. They ' meet the minimum acreage required so it meets all the conditions of the ordinance. We are recommending the City Council to choose whether to be improved to a public street or maintained as a private easement and then we have ' specific conditions under each choice. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything you would like to add to that Mr. Buresh? ' Robert Buresh: Other than I was just reviewing this. ..I noticed that staff's recommendation talked improving it to a public street or a private road and if it be a public street the Halla's would have to do a new subdivision and they did go on record, at least Don Halla went on record on May 18th at the Planning Commission meeting and Don Halla states that he's not going to replat. I just wanted to point that out. They have no intention to replatting to help it become a public street. Other than that I'm available for questions. I would like to move this thing along. I asked by Attorney to work with the City Attorney in anything that is necessary to resolve the issues. . .when I first became involved in this property that I have the right to the easement and these ' questions keep coming up and my Attorney keeps assuring me that everything's okay and he is now putting this in writing. So I'm just available for questions. ' Councilman Johnson: How long ago was it that, it was May when it went before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission gave condition 1 that you verify that you have the right to use the easement. How far along are you on this a month later now? Verifying whether you have the right to use this easement? ' Robert Buresh: My Attorney has submitted a letter to the City Attorney verifying this. Ii Councilman Johnson: Okay, so this is verified now? Roger nutson: I know there's a letter from �-- a his zs Attorney on my desk. I have not read it. I've been in meetings since 8:00 this morning. It arrived this 35 1 6 qty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 morning. Robert Buresh: I have a copy of the letter with me. Mayor Hamilton: That can be a condition of approval. That's not a problem. Roger Knutson: I think that'd be fine. Just make it a condition of approval. That doesn't have to be taken care of until final plat. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm glad that you've got it. I'm in kind of ornery mood this evening you've probably noticed, to say the least and I'm glad you've come through here. A lof of the people tend to'wait to the last minute to do these things so we've got this. I don't think we're ever going to get that public street straighten out because this is as much of an argument here as what we had earlier this evening between two folks and I don't think we'd ever get to that compromise. I'm in favor of going ahead with what the Planning Commission has recommended here. Councilman Geving: I want to ask Roger one question. Roger, on this sketch shows this easement line in here. That would be the only access that we would have to a public street onto TH 101? Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Geving: And it's my understanding we can not landlock the Buresh's. ' They can not be landlocked. They have to have some access out. Isn't that correct? Roger Knutson: That's the last thing in the world you want to do is landlock someone, that's correct. Councilman Geving: So they certainly have some rights to the use of that ' easement to get to TH 101, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's one of the things that's being resolved. It appears that ' they do. I just wanted some further guarantees. I think that can be worked out. Councilman Geving: That's the only question I have. It seems like it's a straight forward deal to me. They have to have access and the only feasible access since we're not going to be able to deal with the Halla's, at least I don't think we're going to be able to. I can't see why the Halla's would agree to replatting just for this purpose. They have no need to. We can't force them to do it. I would say that the private driveway is probably the only way we can go. That's the end of my comments. ' Councilman Horn: I think that we don't have a choice unless we ask the developer to wait until the next yearly review of the development. As I recall mentioning the last time the review came up with the Halla's proposal that I was concerned by the fact that everybody had submitted these proposals because of the commitment that we had to make to get the Lake Ann Interceptor of 1 in 10 so everybody jumped in to get their 2 1/2 acre plots in with no intention of ever [!! developing them. However, we do review those once a year and have to extend them. It appears to me that that would be the appropriate time to ask for a 36 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1111— L replot and a public street. Unfortunately the timing is not right with what the developer is requesting. What I would like to see happen, Roger can confirm whether we can do this or not, would be to give a temporary easement to let them start developing his property. At the time that their review comes through for the Halla property, we ask them to replot, make this a public street before the time runs out on this proposal. Is that appropriate? ' Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I understand. They already claim they have an easement there so there's no temporary easement we'd be giving them. ' Councilman Horn: The question as I understand this is to whether we allow an 'easement, private street or whether we ask for a public street. We have no way of asking for a public street because it would require a replot so at this time that's not even an option for us. Unless we would force this gentleman to work out an agreement with the Halla's to provide a public street. Roger Knutson: I don't know if this is feasible but the City Council could order that that easement be condemned and make it into a street right now. You ;have that authority. I'm not suggesting that you want to do that but you can do that if you want. ' ,Councilman Horn: I don't think we want to do that. ' ' Councilman Geving: There are two homeowners. That's pretty tough. ;,Roger Knutson: I didn't think you wanted to do that. Councilman Horn: No, we don't want to do that but I think when the timeframe comes up again for the development that has not occurred, it would be appropriate at that time to ask for the replat? ' Roger Knutson: We could put something in the development contract that says, if and when the City Council exercises it's discretion to make this into a public street, take it over or whatever, they will fully cooperate and they will agree to their half of the assessments and stuff like that. We could certainly put that into the development contract. ' Jo Ann Olsen: I just wanted to make a quick comment that the Halla's already have preliminary plat approval. It's just final plat that they'll be coming through and I don't think we can force them to replat at that time. Don Ashworth: Unless they wanted an extension. ' Councilman Horn: Do you think they're going to develop it? Councilman Geving: I think they got the message loud and clear the last time we met. They had one year. I think they're going to do it. ' Councilman Boyt: Gary, I have a question for you. When this is a private drive, what's the quality of the road surface that they have to put in? ' Gary Warren: A gravel surface basically. Councilman Boyt: How long is this private drive? 37 298 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Robert Buresh: In front of my property alone it goes 300 feet on the north side and another 300 feet on the east side. Councilman Boyt: 1,600 feet? Robert Buresh: The Teich's and Graffunder's have at least another 600 feet in total there and mine is well over 1,000 feet. Gary Warren: It looks like about 1,400 to 1,500 feet. Councilman Boyt: I think that's a real dilemma that we're goin g to put two houses on the end of a 1,400 foot private drive and we need the best possible road surface from a public safety standpoint. I don't know how we go about getting that but I would certainly think that we want something better than a gravel surface. Recognizing the tremendous cost problem, I don't know how to overcome that. The other issue is maybe we want a 60 foot easement instead of a 30 foot easement. 50 foot easement instead of a 30 foot easement. What's tpical? 50 feet? Gary Warren: 60 feet in the rural. Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that if we're thinking about long term development. We have, in my opinion, a driver's nightmare down in this part of town that we've created with long cul-de-sacs. We apparently have no way out of it given our commitment in that area. I would ask that we consider two, I'm sure we're going to make this a private drive so when we do that, we consider a 60 foot easement and we consider a better surface than a gravel road from a public safety standpoint. Councilman Geving: Where you going to get the 60 feet? You've got to buy that ' land from somebody. You can't make a decision to say we're going to make it 60 instead of 30. You have to buy that easement from someone and it's probably Mr. Halla and he's not going to give to you reasonably. You can't just make that decision. Mayor Hamilton: The problem is it's a private driveway basically and I don't know that we can require anybody to make that wider than what they want to make it nor can we require them to put any kind of surface on there other than what they want to put on there. If you're going to buy a house in Mr. Buresh's subdivision, that's what you're buying. You're buying a gravel road, whatever happens to be there in that easement and I think you clearly understand that when people purchase that. That it's not the greatest road and if they happen to have an emergency and the emergency vehicles have a difficult time getting through, they know that ahead of time. Councilman Boyt: It's buyer's beware is what you're telling me? Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. Councilman Boyt: What about all the concerns we heard here about upkeep on the road? Now you indicated you're willing to contribute to the upkeep of the road [!! but it's a bigger issue than two people. 1 38 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' Mayor Hamilton: It's not our problem. It's a private drive. Councilman Boyt: This is going to be the problem of the people who move into that development and are they going to be wary enough to know that before they build a house? ' Mayor Hamilton: I would certainly think so if they're building a house in there and if they don't, than they shouldn't be considering looking at property like that. ' Councilman Boyt: Isn't there some sort of consideration we can put on, actually on this development that makes that obvious? That indicates you are at the end of a private drive? That you're responsible for maintaining? Gary Warren: Covenants. Councilman Boyt: Can the City put those on? ;ioger Knutson: You can put it in the development agreement. ' Mayor Hamilton: The Abstracts is going to indicate that anyways. You're going to have an easement agreement in the Abstract on the property. Roger Knutson: Anyone who is checking the title always checks access. It's one of the first things you have on property when you get to it. Councilman Horn: I don't think there's any in herent safety issue in a gravel ' road. Councilman Boyt: We don't need to debate it I guess. I'd like to see something ' in the development contract that calls attention to those issues. That's all I have. ' Mayor Hamilton: I haven't any other comments. Councilman Johnson: Just to follow up on one thing. Mr. Halla still claims that they don't have the right to use his 30 foot easement anyway. Mayor Hamilton: That has to be resolved. Is there a motion to handle this item? Councilman Boyt: I move approval. ' Mayor Hamilton: With the conditions? Councilman Boyt: Right, as stated by staff. ' Councilman Horn: And the development contract saying that they will allow... Gary Warren: What was that last thing? IICouncilman Boyt: And a development contract that will allow us an easement at a future date should it be required. 39 3SIR Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Johnson: You're doing it per Planning Commission recommendations? Mayor Hamilton: Six conditions. I'll second your motion. Barbara Dacy: Just point of clarification on the future easement. You realize that the easement area that I think the Council is talking about between TH 101 and the Buresh property is not part of the plat. Are you getting back to the Halla extension idea? Is that what you're talking about? That the applicant should be aware that if the Halla plat, his extension expires and replats, the City would be looking at a public road in that area. Councilman Boyt: So this current developer isn't repsonsible for that? Gary Warren: So that would be in the development contract? Councilman Geving: Not in this one. It's a note for the file. Councilman Horn: And it goes to the future property owners here so they're aware that they could be assessed at some point for a street. ' ig Gary Warren: The point that I was jotting down on the development contract was to put something in regarding notification that it is a private drive and maintenance is the responsibility of whoever... Councilman Geving: That would be good. Councilman Horn: This is really on the flip side of that saying today it's a private drive but at some point be aware that it may become a public street. Mayor Hamilton: If some conditions are met someday. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request #86-32 for the preliminary plat for the subdivision of 5.6 acres into two single family lots to be serviced by a private driveway with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide documentation which verifies that the subject property has the right to use the 30 foot easement. 2. The applicant shall provide a driveway access plan which shall address a II turnaround as requested by the Fire Inspector. 3. The approved septic sites must be staked and roped off prior to construction on the site. 4. Type I erosion control shall be installed along the south and east sides of Lot 2, Block 1 prior to the commencement of any grading. ' 5. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 6. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction or construction traffic from this site. 7. If and when the City Council exercises it's discretion to make this into a public street, the applicant will fully cooperate and will agree to their 40 • City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IF half of the assessments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. iSIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 SQUARE FOOT PYLON SIGN, 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER. Councilman Boyt: I thought that the idea of allowing a non-conformance, , grandfathering in, was that when it was changed, it would be changed to comply i with the ordinance. The ordinance says 64 square feet and suddenly we're saying well, but that's okay and any changes we certainly want to protect the person at ,78 square feet. We don't want to change the ordinance or we want to get the i ;signs in agreement with the ordinance. Can somebody help me out with that? Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you can help me out with that. I'm not sure I ''understand. i Councilman Boyt: Maybe I confused you on the item. My understanding is this ' sign was grandfathered in. It was a non-conformance. Right? Jo Ann Olsen: No, it was approved by a sign committee? The 78 square foot 'sign? That was approved by the City. i Councilman Boyt: When it was installed but when we wrote up the sign ordinance, ;,wasn't the maximum then 64? Yes, says Barbara. Alright, so this was a non- ''conformance that was grandfathered in and now it's coming up for a change and at that point I would think that we would want to move it in conformance with the ordinance. Either that or the ordinance is wrong. i Mayor Hamilton: That's why he's asking for a variance because he can't get in conformance. iCouncilman Horn: Why didn't he ask that the ordinance be changed? Mayor Hamilton: I think when you get to signs, if we did that we'd changing the ordinance every other week to conform. Try to get everybody's sign in i conformance. I think if you read the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, there's a standard size sign for that particular business and that's all he's trying to do is put up the smallest one that they make. Consequently ihe needs to ask for a variance because he can't meet our specific requirement. Councilman Boyt: They did mention that they do make those signs where they can't have them 80 feet or 120 feet, they do make a smaller version of that isign. They have to special make it but it's available to them. To me it sounds like the ordinance needs to be looked at. If this person is saying it's not appropriate for his business, than maybe it's not appropriate for the other ibusinesses. Mayor Hamilton: You're probably right. Especially based on the comments made by the applicant that the size of their signs in taken from an average of communities around the area or wherever they deal with and that's how the make their standard size sign. Isn't that what the comment was that you made? I 41 Z1City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 • Roman Mueller: Yes, that's correct. I'm Roman Mueller with SuperAmerica. On it, when I was going through the staff report, I'd also like to point out that in your ordinance, the most restricted for that area is called out, states that there's also a 80 foot ground sign available to us in addition to the 64 square foot pylon sign. We're only asking for the 80 square foot on the pylon sign. No ground sign and yes, this is based on from around the country of what size signs we generally deal with. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why this is a variance request. To me it looks like the ordinance covers it under a conditional use request. It's 80 feet and as I read the ordinance it said from 64 to 80 was a conditional use. 1 Jo Ann Olsen: The reason we did that is because the ordinance for non-conforming signs states that it has to meet the district with the most permitted use and the permitted use is 64 square feet. That's why we're going for a variance because the permitted use is for a 64 square foot sign versus having to put than through a conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: The most restrictive rules apply and that's the 64 square feet. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. If it can't be a conditional use. If the ordinance says you can have a conditional use between 64 and 80, why isn't it a conditional use? Jo Ann Olsen: Again, because we went with the most restrictive permitted size. I Mayor Hamilton: Then we need to change our ordinance I guess. As Bill says, we need to look at doing some adjusting there. Councilman Boyt: That's all I have. I like the idea that it's 20 feet high and as far as that's within our ordinance without any changes. Councilman Horn: Does staff have any knowledge of what other oil company signs are? In other words, what's the square footage on Standard and Holiday? It seems kind of strange if there's only one gas company out there that has signs that are larger than anybody elses. Barbara Dacy: As far as the ordinance is concerned, I really remember a lot of discussion with the Council that one week that we went through the zoning ordinance and we really looked at the sign size issue for 64 square feet and the Council's determination was if it's going to be larger than that, than we establish the conditional use permit process. I think we did a fair amount of study to that through the zoning ordinance. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have a problem with larger signs but to me the reason seems kind of flakey. Because our company doesn't build a sign that size. I'd like to hear the answer. Roman Mueller: I'm afraid I don't have an answer directly to your comment but I do have a statement about what we are required as a petroleum company retailing gasoline on the street. We have to post our prices to the public. We are then handicapped in our sign sizes because we have to put that down below and in that 80 square foot is our pricing as required by law. ...is the issue but that is one of the reasons that service stations have larger signs on them. 42 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Horn: My question was your company relative to Standard and the Holiday. They have the same restrictions. Roman Mueller: Yes, they do. I don't know what their sign sizes are. I honestly don't. I only deal with our signs. I know in many locations they're ' larger. Many locations they're smaller. Again, depending on the local ordinances as in this situation. Councilman Horn: To me that's a key issue to making a decision on this. What do we allow other similar businesses in town? If we don't know that, how can we have any data to base this decision? ' Mayor Hamilton: That's why I think Bill's saying our ordinance needs to be reviewed because we apparently have the wrong size signs. We need to go out to the people who make signs and ask them what the standard is. I don't think we did that last time. ' BBarbara Dacy: The Amoco and the Holiday stations had their's installed prior to the ordinance. If you want to table the item until we can research, that's fine. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know why we should have to do that. • Councilman Geving: Roman, is your sign a standard 80 square feet? Is that what the company makes for you to go out and put up? 1 Roman Mueller: The 80 and the 130 square foot signs. Those are our two standard sizes. Councilman Geving: So 130 is your next size? Roman Mueller: That's right. Councilman Geving: Nothing lower than that? Roman Mueller: Nothing lower. Councilman Geving: What would the 4 foot reduction do to you if we drop the height from 24 to 20 feet? ' Raman Mueller: We have no problem with dropping the height. We would actually prefer that. Councilman Geving: Site location down there, it seems like you could see a sign for quite a ways so I don't think the 20 feet would bother us. I have no other comments. ' Councilman Johnson: I think if you drop that bottom third of the advertising section off where you're advertising your Instant Cash or if we changed to where we allowed 64 square foot of named logo sign and for gas stations allow so many square foot of pricing information, that that seems reasonable. As I read and read and reread this Section 20-1260, Non-conforming uses, I don't see why we can't issue a conditional use permit here. It says it would then be conforming 43 �. .. 4 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 r to the size provisions of the most restrictive zoning district. The signing provisions of the most restrictive zoning district allows a conditional use permit up to 80 square feet. Can we issue a conditional use permit as if this was the most restrictive zoning district? I'm confused. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we can have Roger clarify that seeing you don't believe what the staff has to say. Roger would you please clarify that? , Roger Knutson: I guess I have to ask a question of Barb? What is the most restrictive zoning district in which the use is allowed and what signs are allowed? Barbara Dacy: The Business Highway District. Roger Knutson: And in the Business Highway District, what can you have for sign size? Jo Ann Olsen: They're under the same one, the BG and the BH and that would be , 64 Oguare feet or 80 square feet in conditional use. Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1303. 1 Roger Knutson: I think it's not 100% clear but I would suggest that perhaps I would have said get a conditional use permit. r Barbara Dacy: If the Council obviously feels that the variance is not appropriate and wanted to have the applicant withdraw the variance application, he would have to readvertise and start over with the conditional use permit if you feel more comfortable granting a conditional use permit versus a variance. It just delays the applicant. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a motion. I move that we table this matter. You have an existing sign. I think it must be functioning and I'd like to see us do this properly. To do that we need more information as Clark and others have pointed out. Councilman Horn: I second that. II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the sign permit variance request to Section 20-1260 to construct an 80 square foot sign for the SuperAmerica Station at 615 Flying Cloud Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I hope this isn't oin to g g cause you any problem. That's not the motion I would have preferred to have seen but you can function temporarily with the sign you have. Roman Mueller: Is there a time on this study? Councilman Boyt: Sure, the next Council meeting. Roman Mueller: Are you going to canvas only service stations in this area or r 44 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 are you going to look at then more. .. I Mayor Hamilton: I think our question is more internal right now as to whether it should be a conditional use or a variance. I don't think at this point we're going to start talking to sign manufacturers to find out what standard ' sizes of signs are. That's a bigger problem we need to deal with down the road. Councilman Johnson: During discussions I didn't get a chance to ask a couple questions. - ' Mayor Hamilton: Save them for next time. We're going to see it again. Councilman Johnson: If he already knows what the questions are then he'll have the answers? What is the cost to make it 64 square feet? ' Roman Mueller: A 64 square foot sign would cost me about $5,000.00. Councilman Horn: As opposed to? ' Roman Mueller: The one I have now? 8 by 10, 80 square feet? Premanufactured for about $5,000.00. Having one customed made or purchasing one premade is about the same amount. If I was to buy the 64 square foot mass produced, I 1 could probably buy it for about $3,500.00. Councilman Horn: So the cost would be the same? Roman Mueller: About the same cost. Councilman Johnson: So where's the hardship for a variance? ' Counci.lman Boyt: Did you say you already have the 80 square foot? Roman Mueller: I already own the 80 square foot signs bought them in bulk by our stores. So actually it would cost me $10,000.00. Councilman Geving: I think it would be fair to answer your question Roman. You ask for a date. Let's say the first meeting in July. That gives us a month. Councilman Boyt: Do we need that? Mayor Hamilton: That wouldn't be until July 11th. It could be on as early as the 27th of June I would think if you could work this out. ' Barbara Dacy: Yes we could place it on the agenda on June 27th. If the Council at that meeting determines that a conditional use permit is necessary, we're talking not until August until he can get heard by. Mayor Hamilton: It would seen to me that you and Roger and the ones who are going to determin whether it's going to have to be a variance or a conditional use. I don't think that's up to us to determine. You're the one who's going to recommend to us which one we're going to go with. Barbara Dacy: Okay, my recommendation still stands as a variance. 45 r 6City Council Meeting - June 13; 1988 II Mayor Hamilton: There's some confusion on that issue and that's what we're trying to clarify I think. That's the reason for the tabling I believe. Councilman Horn: That's part of it. The other part is finding out what current sign sizes we have in this city because if we're way out of line than we should change our ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Roman, the 80 square foot sign you currently ' g n Y ly have, is there a possibility that some other station, is the same sign used nationwide? I mean you're not going to eat that sign and just let it sit in the warehouse. I'm sure you'll find use for it. Roman Mueller: I'm down to three stores in the State of Minnesota right now. I That's it. This is one of them. The other one is in Mankato and the other one is downtown St. Paul. Councilman Johnson: Could they use an 80 square foot sign in either of those? ' tt Roman Mueller: St Paul I have three faces on two sides for a total 6 faces and each one of them is well over 80 square feet. The other one is in Mankato and that's getting a 10 by 13 sign. Right now we're just going to adjust the placement of it with the City. Could I use it? Potentially yes. At what time I don't know. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENT PARTNERS. Mayor Hamilton: We also tabled item 3 to go along with this item. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this item. One of the major issues of discussion at the Planning Couutission meeting was the traffic issue and those concerns were voiced from people that live in the neighborhood to the north of the proposed site. The concerns were about regarding the removal of the stop signs at West 78th Street and Great Plains Blvd. and as we noted in the staff update, we know that the Council is well aware of MnDot's position on traffic control along this stretch. We put a note that this only confirms that the City's intent to try and realign TH 101 as soon as possible and get the north/south traffic out of downtown and on it's own realigned roadway. In a nutshell, this overhead reflects the original building location and building configuration on the site. What is now proposed is more of an "L" shape building which is located on the site approximately 70 feet now further south of the lot line to the existing 2 1/2 story apartment building but it is 10 feet closer to the west lot line. The applicant has submitted a good landscaping plan to maximize so that the yard areas around the building is providing for good yard space. The Planning Commission also adopted the previous conditions of approval that were imposed during the 1987 review as well. I know that the Council is concerned about the design and exterior quality of the building. I now see that the architect is here for the applicant that could probably better address those questions. [1!Brad Johnson: I thought maybe first of all we could review the process that we're going through to get everything in order since we did change them around a 46 ' City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 little bit. You have before you two decisions to make. One is the inducement ' resolution for the bonds that we plan on using to finance that and that's the part that you tabled. Inducement resolution will allow us to use housing III revenue bonds to finance the project and those of course have no on-going direct obligation other than to the project for payment. In addition to that, as you also have before you a housing plan, the city has no updated plans. Is that right Barb? We had to redo the housing plan as a part of our condition for the ' bond so that's also in there. I think both of those are somewhat formalities in bonding processes. The second thing is that we've been asked, we formed a new partnership to own the project and we were asked by that partnership to redesign the building to fit with what they perceive is a better plan and design. That's , what we're submitting to you. It's been approved by the Planning Commission with their recommendation. We've had basically no neighborhood, we had a ; meeting on our own with the neighbors and the Planning Commission meeting and in ' both cases their only concern was 78th Street intersection so you guys can take care of that on item 19. I'd like to introduce Tom Zumwalde who is the architect for the project and then back in the corner is Jay Weiss. He ' represents Weiss Construction who will be a general partner in the project. Tom Zumwalde: I understand there were some questions or comments concerning the elevations. Let me first tell you why we're going through this process. Brad mentioned...and what we found is we did some marketing ...Maxwell of Minneapolis and also got some input from the contractor in terms of cost and both of those were important factors in taking another look at the design and configuration. ''The original building was kind of a question mark shape with a lot of angles in it and what happened as a result of that is you end up with a lot of pie shaped ;,units with minimal exterior wall and a very wide space in the inside of the building. Marketing felt that was not very desirable. It also a lot of pie I shaped rooms. Another thing was wherever you hit one of those angles you have some real severe structural problems. It's very costly so we looked at those and we looked at the costs that it would take to accomplish that and could that money be better spent elsewhere in the building? Looked at a new design and a new design that is virtually the same square footage as the original. I think it's perhaps 200 square feet bigger. Something like that but almost identical. The same height. The same unit count. Everything. The big difference is that the average unit size increases 24 square feet. The units are much more marketable. The building is fully sprinkled now. The units have washers and dryers in them. A lot of amenities that we weren't or would not have been able to originally offer in the program. Those are basically the reasons why we've taken another look at it. In terms of the exterior, we're looking at pretty much the same pallet of materials that we were looking at originally. Certainly the same type of character. The original building was a combination of brick and horizontal lap siding. What we're looking at on the proposed building and unfortunatley I don't have it colored for you but I think you can see pretty much the configuration. Again, we've got brick and we've got a series of two different types of lap siding breaking at the third level. You can see the darker divider. We also have balconies in all of the units now versus the original proposal which had either balconies or bay windows. The balconies will project from the facades of the building so they break up what is perceived now as a longer plan and I think will be successful in bringing down the sale of the building. We had the tower initially. We've maintained that element. That's still the focal point of the building. That's pretty much it I guess. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill had some concerns about the construction of ' 47 8 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II materials. Councilman Boyt: Let me deal with probably one of my bigger concerns. Soundproofing that's going into it. I would assume that this is probably built as a typical apartment is built and that's not soundproof enough. Tom Zumwalde: The guidelines for an apartment building are party walls...which are standard. You find that pretty much in...housing. Apartments. It doesn't matter. It's kind of an industry standard. There are ways of increasing it slightly but again the cost of it is considerable to do that. We're certainly going to meet all the standards. There's -no question about that. Councilman Boyt: Tell me what this rating of 50 blocks in terms of sound intensity. Does it block my neighbor's bass from their stereo? ' Tom Zumwalde: Probably not. Councilman Boyt: One of the things, when we take 60 people and we put them td they and if this was your apartment building without city assistance, this would be an interest of mine but it wouldn't be as concern but the City is becoming involved in this and as such, I think one of the things that we could do is we can say to people, there are 60 people living in here but once you get inside your doors, you're a unit. You're not bombarded by people from the outside. That makes your place very attractive and I think that it's worth the possibility of say for instance double sheet rocking which is fairly inexpensive really since you're only putting a finishing coat on the outside surface. Tom Zumwalde: Let me explain it a little further. Party walls that you have to use in an apartment project have to have tests run on them... Double layer of drywall is certainly one of them. .. What we can do if you have something specific in mind in terms of an STC. .. Councilman Boyt: It's been a while since I've seen those ratings so the general idea is let's block stereos for instance. I know that a total block is completely unrealistic but we can probably block 90% of it and so I'd like to see your work on that and with the prospect that we're going to go above the industry norm for an apartment building. The other concern I had was really more a maintenance of the exterior. I recognize this is certainly a cost factor but what is going to something like an all brick do to your cost? You currently have about a third brick now and the rest of it is lap siding. Tom Zumwalde: It increases it. Perhaps Jay could address that. Councilman Boyt: Give it to me over like 30 years. When we consider maintenance of the lap siding versus the brick. Jay Weiss: There are maintenance costs incurred. However, as a reserve it is set up manually that we pay for those expenses of exterior maintenance so that'a requirement of the lender to have a reserve set up so without it the dollars sit there and just accumulate. This program better uses the dollars for the intended use. I never looked at 30 years to be honest. We can only give square foot costs in terms of installation. 48 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 9 I Councilman Boyt: I look at the apartment buildings that are there by the ' railroad tracks off of TH 101. Don't those have brick exterior and we don't have any city money in that building do we? So I think there is an advantage in having an exterior that's going to last at least 30 years or longer and it would be nice to know how much that's really going to cost us in terms of rent. Eventually all these things get reflected back into rent and I think we have a lever from the public money standpoint that we wouldn't normally have. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think you also need to consider who's going to, what market are they attempting to reach for people to be in there and the more you continue to add in such as brick which is very expensive, if you're going to require that, than you to continue to cut out the bottom level of people who can afford to be in there. If the City is going to be, as you say involved in the funding of this through tax increment financing, it would seem to me that we may want to have as broad a base as possible. People who can afford to rent in this building. ' Councilman Boyt: Yes, I agree with you and it's my understanding that there are i1.0 units that we're providing for senior citizens or how many units Brad for ;senior citizens? ' Brad Johnson: This building is designed for 24. It's an adult building and the target market is over 55 years old. We also set it up so that 24 of the units have been set aside for low to moderate income at the expense of the developer. 1 That's the kind of building. We can not do an FHA building that's specifically for seniors so if we can target the rent to seniors initially. Their concern is we don't build it for seniors than what do you do? We don't have a true senior building where you've got a ruling senior, they just don't do that right now. They used to do it. ' Mayor Hamilton: So are your rents flexible enough so as the cost of this building continues to go up, the people who are going to be able to rent in here will remain the same? ' Brad Johnson: The problem that we have is we can put an all brick exterior on this and we're already capped on our rent. That does not increase the rent. In other words, the lenders say you can rent this for so much in Chanhassen but the ' amenity package and the exterior package does not increase the rents. They take out the dishwashers too...so washers and dryers and things that we're putting inside the building but things on the outside do not. We added another $60,000.00 worth of exterior, there's no way that we could be reimbursed for ' that building cost. The money that the City is assisting this project, I might also say the building was previously approved as the same type of siding it has. Wood and brick. The money that the City is assisting this project on is going ' to directly to the tenants. Not the developer. In other words, we're going to develop, how we're doing it is that the other issue is the tax exempt nature of our clients and by providing 24 units for low and moderate income qualifies us ' to offer this at about 2% lower interest rate. We have an agreement with the City that the money that they give us in assistance, that we've requested will be repaid to the City in addition to all of this so that's how it works. The additional funds that have to go back in the district, the agreements that are involved. The first agreement had to do with additional land. The second one the City is advancing us approximately an additional $40,000.00 a year of tax revenue that will pay for this and that will be used then to basically subsidize 49 J1y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II those 24 tenants. However, the developer is required also to pay back those funds over a 12 year period. Don Ashworth: I was just going to basically say the same thing. Maybe just a slight twist on it. The performer that the HRA looked at in establish a subsidy level considered two portions. One to the developer and one to the units themselves. Set up to try to turn this and reduce the number of years. The subsidy level right now turns positive in the 6th year or from the 6th to the 7th year. The total agreement though is written over a 12 year package. We have been pushing for the performer to maintain that 6th to 7th year position. Additional costs that we may put into the project, what that will do is keep the project from turning positive to the 7th, 8th, 9th year. In other words, reduce the monies that Brad was talking about that would be repaid to the City so there is some benefit to us in not pushing through additional costs. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for the best materials and the best project. I'm just saying, you can not look at those as though they're dollars that they're just simply going to absorb. We probably will absorb them. Courililman Boyt: I think that if we're looking at 12 ' basically, as I understand it, the building is years here and then like any other apartment n9 privately owned. It's operated y partment building. Is that correct? And I'd like to think that we have a building that's going to be standing and as pretty as it looks like it's going to be today, 20 to 30 years from now. There's certainly plenty of examples of buildings that are of this nature so that's why I'm a little concerned about a wood construction exterior. Tom Zumwalde: I know what you're saying about brick...it's a major, major cost. If you look around at a lot of what I consider newer luxury developments around town, they are for the most part wood sided. It's not a cheap, chinsey material and this is... I think to put the brick on it would push it way into the cadillac realm and that's really out of the realm of... ' Councilman Boyt: I've got just a couple of questions and then I'll stop. There are 24 units that are low to moderate income. There are, I saw the figure 5 units that are handicap accessible? Tom Zumwalde: Three units. Councilman Boyt: Isn't that set by the size of the building? Okay, well I II would think that its well worth the City's money to improve the sound barrier. That just makes it a better place and it's not all that much more expensive and I will give up on the brick. Councilman Horn: No comments. Councilman Geving: I think this is certainly something we've been wanting in Chanhassen for a long time to increase our housing base with a major complex such as this. I'm certainly all for it. I'd like to know a little bit more about where this lies in relationship to Chan View. How much further back from Chan View is this location now than it was previously? I'm quite surprised that we didn't get a lot of homeowner input on this but apparently it's also the fact that we have a buffer there now. We already have apartments on those corners and people are used to them and I don't think that they feel this is a threat. It's actually a major improvement. How many feet would you say that would be? 50 • City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11) ''Tam Zumwalde: The original proposal was approximately, almost the same distance from Chan View. IBarbara Dacy: It met the setback in the front which is 25 feet off of Chan View. ' Councilman Geving: Then the street will be lined up with Huron. The street I live on so I could come right into the apartment complex when I get to be 55 and ready to occupy it. I'd like to know are these units, are these units that are going to be sold? Strictly a rental arrangement. Strictly rental and you are marketing for an age group in the 55 seniors, let's say rather than young married with children? Brad Johnson: Yes. The building has been basically designed as an adult building. One bedroom, den. One bedroom and then two bedroom swingle units which means they've got a living room in the middle and a bedroom and a bath off ' of two, each bedroom and a bath are off on either side. Generally speaking Chose types of units are designed more for adults. One or two adults living in It. I won't say that we won't get a lot of children but we've got quite a few ' and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just the building isn't limited to that. The other thing is that we've got quite a bit of new units that are coming abroad that are more designed for families. Two bedrooms. Three ' bedrooms in different configurations. Young families don't tend to like to have their children not next door to them. Councilman Geving: Brad have you thought of any security measures in the parking areas? Is there going to be a parking garage for each of the units? Will there be a security type of arrangement that you'll have there? Brad Johnson: There will be a push button operator for each person to get into the garage. It's a fully secured building. You just can't get in. Councilman Geving: Okay, so you thought about all those angles. Brad Johnson: What we're trying to do is fulfill, we've listened with the neighborhood over in that area and they would like to see this, at least one of these types of buildings go in put in there. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you a question about your landscaping. I don't ' see too much about the landscaping plan or what I would see as I drive down Huron and look at this facility. What kind of shrubery? How's it going to look to the viewer? ' Tom Zumwalde: Through your ordinance you require so many trees planted around the perimeter of the site and that was volunteered. A fair amount of buffer type of... As you get out here along Chan View, there is berming along this side and again the trees every so far with a shrub lining. Then again a perimeter landing along this side. We'll have to develop that patio area in here and ultimate connect it to trails... Councilman Geving: What about the recreational facilities? Is there anything in the building itself designed for the residents? 51 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Tom Zumwalde: Yes, in this corner of the building there's 3,000 square feet on the first floor that is a party room, community kitchen, bathroom. Councilman Geving: Where they could put on an open house type thing? And there's a kitchen in there? Tom Zumwalde: Yes. ' Councilman Geving: Just another quick question. What are one of these units going to cost to be when I get to be 55 and want to move into it a single unit. Brad Johnson: Let clarify that. Through the City participation we're setting aside 24 units that will go to low to moderate income which means that the people living in that unit will have to or 60% of the median income for a single or family. That's in the range of $12,000.00 to $16,000.00 a year and they can spend a certain percentage of that money for their income. That's just for the 24 units. We've also set that aside primarily for the senior citizens. That's the 55 and older group. If we can't find that group in town, than we have to reek it to everybody else. The other 36 units are open to all adults at our market rate and our rate of rental runs something like $350.00 at the low end and up to $675.00. Now the units themselves we can not, this is another rule, we can not take a two bedroom unit and not rent it as a subsidized unit. There's no special units. It's just the individual. Each unit will have it's own thing and we'll have a base rent period. If a person qualifies for a unit, there's no, it's not like a Section 8 housing or something like that where we've got a certain kind unit. We'll basically have the same kind of units available to everybody. Councilman Geving: That's the kind of questions I'm getting from the residents in the community now. How much does it cost? What are they going to look like? What are the amenities? I'm hoping that you'll be providing the newspapers, we've got all the papers represented here tonight, with that kind of information. Brad Johnson: We've got to go through this process first. Councilman Geving: You'll get it. One other question since you did indicate that you're going to have balconies, are those going to be cement balconies or are they going to be wood? We had a big problem over in Eagan I believe with a fire on the balconies and that kind of thing. What are the balconies going to look like? Tom Zumwalde: In fact I was reading the Minutes from last year. They are wood. The construction of the building above the garage is wood frame and the balconies will also be wood. As I recall in the Minutes last year, I believe the City has an ordinance... Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of questions on this. I see where 1 Bill's coming from. I can't support you right now Bill on this because I can't get a grasp. I don't know what that cost differential is. From where they're coming from the standard building thing going up to the next step and how much noise reduction you get with that next step. If you said the base noise there's not much that stops it. My neighbor who lives 200 feet, more than 200 feet away from me, his base goes blasting through my walls and I've got extra sized walls 52 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 13 and everything. I see where you're coming from but in this case we don't have enough information to go with. I can't put something on here that's going to kill this project. I think this project's important to the City and potential cost increased to this project, like you say a double layer drywall, when you ' start talking 60 rooms, you're talking a lot of money. I'm not sure if you're going to have a significant increase. I think apartment management can control sound in an apartment. Just like the apartments I used to live in in Texas, it ' took the management to do it. There was nothing I could do about it. We had a rock and roll group four apartments down. There was nothing I could do about them as far as construction wise. Otherwise, I see this as a benefit to the I City. Mayor Hamilton: When you build your walls, I guess just to follow up on what Bill's saying, are they 2 x 6, 2 x 8 construction? Do you do a single wall for two sides or do you actually build 2 x 6 walls? Tom Zumwalde: Typical would be a 2 x 4 stud with some...on one side and 5/8ths ' on the other side for sound insulation. There are 6 plate 2 x 4 studs t;staggered on that plate. .. There are a whole variety of them. Some of them increase the fire rating more than they increase the sound deadening so I would ' have to go back to the book and look at... The increase in sound deadening isn't that great even in a really significant wall. It only goes up to perhaps 55. .. It costs more to do it than you realize. Mayor Hamilton: I know some of them do a double wall which I would think would improve it a lot or go through a 2 x 6 wall so you get additional insulation in there would help I would think. ' Brad Johnson: I guess the best thing is there has been a tremendous increase, since many of you live in apartments, in apartment sound proofing and if anybody is really interested we have one that was built to this spec that is currently ' being rented if you want to go visit one, we'd be more than happy to buy you lunch and drag you over there. It's in St. Louis Park and it's basically the same standards as this building. It's designed for seniors. Councilman Boyt: I think this is an issue that if there's a way that we can put a condition on this that leaves the issue open so we can look at the cost trade- ' off, quiet is the most thing we can buy anywhere. This is an opportunity to build some more into the building if it's at all economically justifiable. I just think to make that decision without the chance to examine is to miss an opportunity and I'd like to see us create a window so we can look closer. ' Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. Is quiet the most expensive thing we can buy or the most precious? ' Councilman Geving made a motion to approve the PUD amendment as presented by staff and Mayor Hamilton seconded the motion. ' Councilman Boyt: What about adding something on the sound? I don't know exactly how to word that but do we need. .. Barbara Dacy: What they were discussing is that condition 4 requires that the facia plan come back. If you wanted to add something in that condition to address the sound proof issue. ' 53 14y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II Mayor Hamilton: You'll get another shot at that review of their building plans specifically. Councilman Geving: We'll see that again so we won't have to include it tonight. You understand what we're trying to do so come back to us with that. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve , pprove PUD Amendment Request #87-1 subject to the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" and the following conditions: ' 1. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. ' A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the additional ,plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. fR 3. 'A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and ' east of the parcel. 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission 'and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance. 5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. ' 7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing. 8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department memorandum ' dated May 25, 1988. 9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, = II specifically #6-#11 on pages 1 and 2 and #1 on page 3. 10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated May 27, 1988. 11. Items referred to in BRW's letter be specifically spelled out regarding storm sewer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM. Resolution #88-58: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Housing Revenue Bond Program and Housing Plan for construction of the Chanhassen Heritage Square Apartment Complex. All voted in favor and the motion [!! carried. 54 II .City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 15 II Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to discuss item 16 before item 15. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IFINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH. Barbara Dacy: The applicants are requesting final plat approval and the first II two pages of the staff report identify that most of the conditions, of I should say all the conditions that were required to be addressed prior to final plat have been addressed. The other conditions will be incorporated in the engineer's review of the plans and specifications which will follow later. The primary issue of concern for the applicant and staff is clarification of Council's action on April 11th regarding the road easement. This is the lot ,, where the road easement was required by Council to be located. The applicant I , had originally intended to submit a letter to put forth his position but he preferred to make a presentation tonight. Quickly just from Staff's standpoint, we had interpretted Council's action to be that an easement should be reserved I through Lot 3 for possible connection into the Halla subdivision. What we ��twanted to do was look at if the Halla subdivision was to be finalized within the next year and final platted, we wanted some questions answered so that we could come back to the Council with some type of means to construct the road if and Iwhen Halla ever develops. We did determine that we could carry out road construction from the road into this subdivision, into Halla's subdivision through special assessment public improvement process. If that occurs, we are Irecorrmending that this portion of Lot 3 be given to the City as an outlot so we have control of the land and that the development contract provide that Lot 3 d :,will waive their rights to object to any future special assessments. If Halla II does not file his final plat nor if he does not develop our concern was that you would have a 60 foot easement existing through the middle of Lot 3 with no possibility of it being constructed and the Council is well aware of those II issues where we try to connect streets 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road. It just creates a lot of problems so in any case, the applicant is here and is basically asking the Council not to require the road through on Lot 3. We have prepared recommendations as to how to proceed depending upon Council action and IIclarification of their motion from April 11th. Mayor Hamilton: Didn't we discuss the Halla's subdivision after we discussed this one? I Councilman Boyt: No. I Barbara Dacy: Right. Halla's preliminary plat was approved prior to action on this plat. We did discuss the Halla plat during this item on April 11th. ICouncilman Boyt: He was here and talked about it. Mayor Hamilton: George or Jim, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? IIJim Peterson: Not necessarily anything to add. I don't know that we ever really stated our position...staff and Council recommendation and made every effort to work with staff and Council on this. Originally when we went to the IL Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommended that we work with staff to try and create an emergency access for this project. Since we have worked so closely with staff it was my impression, we knew we couldn't back onto CR 14, II 55 lefty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II Pioneer Trail. We had the ravine in the back and west side and geographical...work with staff to try and find a solution. Then at Council we were requested to provide an easement, which we did. I got the impression that Mr. Halla held the key here to this and my opinion has been all along, or our opinion as the developer of this, that action is now unnecessary and could be ill! detrimental. In reviewing his original staff reports, we find that Mr. Madden the Fire Inspector had said that we are in compliance with the Fire Code. Scott Harr, the Assistant Director of Public Safety has said that he sees no specific II need for a second access road. Larry Brown in one of his original recommendations stated it is recommended that the right-of-way remain as shown on the plans stamped "January 7, 1988" which included no secondary easement for I access. So with those staff recommendations in mind, when I personally think about the road connection, I have concerns for our neighborhood and the traffic would short circuit or try to circumvent the stop sign out on CR 14 and cut through here and this connection will in fact increase traffic into the II subdivision. Also provide traffic that's not indigenous to the local neighborhood. That if Halla's plat is ever developed, all of his traffic will come through our neighborhood. I've heard from the neighbors that traffic at II the stop sign on CR 14 will back up all the way to their house which is right aci3ss from Lake Riley. People back up that far at 5:00 and 6:00 and know that this road is here and they can cut through and turn south, I think they're going to use that. These are people that are...and I think their concern is how fast II can they get home. Thirdly when I look at the cost for that particular piece of road, just the cost of the road construction itself I would estimate if I were doing it at $50,000.00 to $55,000.00 plus the land cost. I personally can't see ' how that piece of road is worth the economic impact. If I look at the further economic impact, what it would do to the neighbors buying property from us who all of a sudden have road on two sides of their house, if I were a consumer looking at their house I would pay $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 less for their unit III easily just because they have a road on two sides and a possible road where people are going to be shortcutting. To me it would make a lot of sense if we're connecting two neighborhoods, for greater ease of road maintenance, II snowplowing but I don't see where it really does any of this. If the Director of Public Safety doesn't have a problem with it. The Fire Chief doesn't have a problem with it. The economic, if we provide Lot 3, we waive our rights to II object assessments on Lot 3, you've given us an unsellable lot. I can't see where anybody would buy that lot. Your original directions provide an easement that would cause the least amount of cost and damage for both those... That's basically our position. One, we don't think that the economic cost potential ` II and the inconvenience and hazard it would create for the neighborhood is worth it. I would have no objection to a connection that makes for a smooth flow provided as a secondary and a lot of developments we looked for that secondary II access because it save us a lot of road cost for one thing but it also creates smooth flowing neighborhoods. I don't think this is the case so from all of us... If we have to give the easement as a condition of plat approval, we're II basically hostage. I guess we've stated our opinion. We don't feel that it's of benefit to us, the neighbors or to the community. Originally like I say, I just went along with the Planning Commission and the Council and I appreciate the opportunity to state our position. II Councilman Johnson: I'm still for the easement here. I don't fool myself to think that we're going to actually have a road going through there for a [!! considerable length of time but if in 20 years from now we are resubdividing this area into 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots, this 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots 56 II . a.• City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 7 II putting more and more houses on it, that easement becomes extremely important. II ] That gives us the ability to get that. Right now you have, I forget what the number of lots are, 15 or 16, so you have 16 households being serviced on this fairly long cul-de-sac. Now you're going to, in the future when sewer and water I comes through, you're going to have 30 or 40, if they do ever subdivide. It may become such a neighborhood that nobody would ever change their house and always leave it 2 1/2 but we see lots of these 2 1/2 acres that are legally subdivided I or gone right down to 15,000 as soon as I want to retire and move in town to the new apartment building, I subdivide my big lot and create a little more profit to it. That's what we'll see in 10 to 20 years. I'm not as much for the I iimiediate connection here as reserving for future Councils and for future people the ability to get that street in there when there's a lot more people there. As far as waiving the rights of special assessment to that one lot, that one lot is not the only benefitting. You're giving a second access to all 16 lots for I emergency purposes. I believe all 16 lots benefit from this street. Not that one lot. In fact that one lot, if anything, is hurt more than benefitted because of having then two streets on the side of it. I'd hate to put the cost II of that street against that one lot. If I was going to spread the cost it would be spread against the whole subdivision. I think that's the extent of my ;comments. IICouncilman Geving: There seems to be some confusion on whether or not the City Council opted for the easement and after reviewing my notes on it, I thought it was pretty clear that that's exactly what we did. That we reserved an easement I for future use so I want to lay to rest any thought that there was some confusion on the part of staff in interpretting our Minutes from the night of 1 April 11th. It was very clear to me that that was the vote and I too agree that I1 many times when we request these easements, not for today but we're trying to 1- look ahead as best we can in the future. There's a lot of if's here of course because the if is the connection to the Halla subdivision and we don't know where that's going or whether that will actually happen but the preservatiof of I the easement I thought was a good decision on April 11th and I still feel that way. I Councilman Horn: I think we have to be reasonable as to how far in the future we look. I don't see the scope of this type of development changing. I think it's going to stay this way forever and I think it's much more desireable as a I development for these people to have a cul-de-sac. If we're going to screw up a lot at least, potentially a whole development for some future down the road which I don't think we're going to see for 30 years or more in this area, at that time when people do come in and they want to have more building permits and I subdivide these areas, we can put a requirement on them at time that they have to amongst themselves come up with some type of secondary access road but I think we're looking too far in the future to put this kind of requirement on II today. I agree at some point we may want to do that but I think the whole purpose behind our subdivision in the unsewered area was to provide enough area to allow that planning to occur when the subdivision occurs and I don't think it's necessary at this point. ICouncilman Boyt: Dale I agree with you. I don't think there was any question that we approved that easement. However, I also feel that we don't want to have li this easement hang out there for 20 years. I think what we're really trying to do is, what I'm trying to do is clean up the road connections with the Halla development and if that comes in the next year so we don't get a chance to 1 57 1 1 8ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II replat it, than we don't need this road easement because we've got nowhere to take it. But until that happens I think we definitely do need it and I'll say again that I am shocked if the Fire Chief recommends the approval of an 1,800 to 2,000 foot cul-de-sac. Dale Gregory: I'd like to make a clarification. The Fire Chief has never seen this plat. It's the Fire Marshall... Mayor Hamilton: It was never stated that the Fire Chief had anything to do with II it. Councilman Boyt: Pardon me. I misstated. - Thank you for clarifying that. I Councilman Johnson: The applicant misstated it earlier. IICouncilman Boyt: I think that we've all talked about cul-de-sacs and kind of know where we're coming from on these things. I think protecting the easement for the next year is not an exceptional hardship on the developer and I'd like II to see us protect this until we can see how the Halla development is going to cold, out. Chris Brandle: I live adjacent on the property to the north. Would the cost of II that road ever be assessed against my property? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I haven't any idea. II Councilman Boyt: I don't think you're going to connect to it. III Mayor Hamilton: Is it abutting? Gary Warren: Are you fronted on CR 14? Chris Brandle: Yes. II Mayor Hamilton: It's hard to say. It depends on how you develop your land. I You've asked an impossible question. Chris Brandle: It means a lot of me right now whether this road gets pushed through and if I'm assessed for it in the future. II Mayor Hamilton: We can't answer your question right now. If you had a proposal on the table of how you're going to develop your land and how it's going to to II fit in with the Halla's. Chris Brandle: My land is developed. II ped. My land is as is. They're putting a road up the back side of it. If there's a chance that I'll be assessed when that road goes through, I'd like to know now so... Mayor Hamilton: If you're not benfitting from it, I can't imagine you'd ever be I assessed for it. The only comments I have, I don't think it was a unanimous vote that we keep the easement and I'm sure I was not in favor of it simply for the reasons stated by Clark. It's not necessary and as I recall it just didn't fit in with Halla's. Although we don't have all of Halla's plat here yet to 0! deal with so it's not something that I'd like to even retain for right now. If 58 II II 19 IICity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 III-- it was a subdivision within the community, 15,000 square foot lots, then I like I to keep neighborhoods connected but when you get out into the rural areas where you've got 2 1/2 acre lots or larger, I see no reason to connect one to the I other. It's the same thing as across the street when we had Lake Riley Woods and Dave Hanson's. It's the same thing. It didn't make sense to connect those two and it still doesn't to me to connect this one. I see no reason to connect Ito it at all. So from my standpoint I don't see any need for the easement. Councilman Geving: I think Tom this is another one of those areas where Mr. I Halla's plat is going to trigger some things and we should be putting those notes in the file. If it doesn't happen a year from now and we don't need this, I'd agree with Bill to let it go, until we see what that plat looks like. I Mayor Hamilton: Except it makes it harder for the developer to try to go ahead and he's going to have to, how does he sell the adjoing lots. Try to tell somebody you can buy this and maybe there will be a road next to you and maybe I : there won't. It's hard for them to put a value on a lot because it may be of jtiless value if there's a road adjacent to it. It just makes it a more difficult ; process for them. I Councilman Horn: I think you're talking about more than just that one lot. You're telling several other lot owners that they may not be living on a cul-de-sac which makes a terrific difference to them. You're telling 9 other property owners out of the total 16 that they may not have a cul-de-sac and I think that's a significant impact on the development. Mayor Hamilton: I just can't see any positives to having, even if we had Halla's plat here I just can't see a positive of connecting the two. I just don't see how it could be a positive impact. Let's see, Barb needs final plat approval and you also need just clarification on what was on the 11th, is that Icorrect? Barbara Dacy: If you are going to reconsider the easement, than you need to 1 move to reconsider it. Councilman Horn: Since I wasn't here can I make that motion? ICouncilman Boyt: No, you weren't from the prevailing side. I don't think any one of the three of us is interested, from what I heard. II Councilman Geving: I think I disagree with Mr. Boyt on this. I think that a person who misses a meeting on a crucial vote can bring it up for reconsideration. I'd like to have the Attorney's advice on that. We have done 1 it in the past. I think Clark has a right to vote on this or bring it up for reconsideration. II Don Ashworth: You've taken that position before. In fact the Court tested it in the McDonald's issue and you were the one Councilman Geving who had brought that to the forefront. Again, it went through the Court process and the Court sustained the position that you had that right so if you are not present at a meeting, you can vote to bring up that motion. Councilman Boyt: I want to be sure I understand this. You're telling me that IIany item you vote on when I miss a meeting I can bring up for reconsideration? 59 29ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Geving: I would say yes. That's my opinion. I!! Councilman Horn: I would like to reconsider this item. Councilman Boyt: If the Court's tested it I'm sure not going to contest it but Robert's Rules would contest it. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the easement in Lac_ _oley Woods South. Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor. Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Johnson moved, ed, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat for Lake Riley Woods South as shown on the plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: ka 1. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 2. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3. .A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway alignment as discussed previously in this report, shall be submitted for approval by the 111 City Engineer as part of the final planning review process. 4. An 18 inch minimum diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the proposed access onto Pioneer Trial, CSAH 14. 5. The proposed road file shall include a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the access onto Pioneer Trail. 6. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all distrubed slopes greater than 3:1. r 7. The typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3 inch bituminous wear course as per the City standards for rural construction. r 8. Trail and park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of trail and parkland and if the road or an emergency access is connected to Great Plains Golf Estates, the Park and Recreation Commission shall review it for the trail along the proposed road. 9. Submittal of stormwater calculations to determine predevelopment rates. r 10. The City will not sign the plat mylars until Carver County has approved the construction drawings. 11. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the proposed street into the subdivision. 60 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IfAll voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss item 19 at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW FINAL CONFIGURATION FOR TH 101/WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTION. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know Gary if there's really anything you need to present us. It's pretty clear off your drawing what you're going to do. Gary Ehret: I don't know if you have any questions. I did not bring a larger ' exhibit than that which you have. You may have a question, one thing I want to offer as a revision to this. There was some confusion at MnDot, I called than on this again after this came up. The correction I'd like to make is that on the westbound, that yeild sign can not in anyway be a yeild sign. That's got to 1 be a stop sign so that will not be a yeild sign. Mayor Hamilton: Why did you call that to their attention? Gary Ehret: It would have come up sooner or later. Legally they can not in a condition such as this where they have to stop that turning vehicle, particularly the one that would go southbound, they have to have a stop sign on the right side of the vehicle. Mayor Hamilton: This thing here that appears to be 4 feet wide. What is that going to be? Gary Ehret: That is going to be similar to what you see on a typical freeway type application. It will essentially a median, concrete median. It's curb and gutter. ' Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be any taller than a curb though? Gary Ehret: No. This is not a huge, obtrusive. I would propose to put in surmountable curb so you don't have a problem with snowplows, that kind of ' thing. If a semi for some reason got in there cockeyed and his wheels would conveniently roll up and over so it would only be a typical mountable curb that you might have in a subdivision. Mayor Hamilton: It appears like that's going to extend far enough back so you won't be able to, coming from the south to go east on TH 101 you can't cut across and go in the driveway to get into Kenny's. You have to go down to the corner of Great Plains. Gary Ehret: That's correct. That would be a problem movement. The other thing is we have to pull it up to the point of curvature so that the driver as they approach westbound can see that median approaching. You see them typically they're a little bullet shaped and an arrow to the right to keep than to the right and that's a part of what you're seeing as a problem right now. Councilman Johnson: I've actually got two things. One that entrance to Kenny's is too small. I was trying to get out westbound, somebody was trying to get in 61 2 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 the eastbound and my little Horizon and their station wagon, we both couldn't make that existing opening. Is that going to be changed? Gary Ehret: You're talking about the Cenex station there? Councilman Johnson: Yes, where the Cenex station and the Kenny's. Is that the final or is that just temporary? Gary Ehret: No, we just left those two in right now so the Cenex station could continue to function while they're in business. When they would come out, there would be one driveway there and it would be bigger than what you're seeing right now. There's two in there right now. Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's two in there and the one most eastward on it, I believe is non functional and that one definitely is going to have to be made larger to be fully functional. The other problem was something I was going to stick on Council presentation and when I saw this here it fit in real well with this one and it fit in with number 14 in that further down this road is the old inkersection and we can't put stop signs on that intersection because this is TH 101. I've talked to Barb on this and a few other folks. Actually my wife came up with a very interesting little idea which is down at TH 5 and TH 101 by Gary Brown's turn TH 101, take it east along TH 5 to where we have it on TH 5 so TH 5 and TH 101 become the highway and then at the next intersection go back north again so this becomes a city street and we can put the stop sign down there again. I would like to get the other councilmen's reaction to rerouting. We're going to be rerouting TH 101 in the future to get a new intersection to the east of this anyway and this will become a city street. We have the opportunity in the more near future to reroute TH 101 and regain control of West 78th Street and be able to put the stop signs up there like it should be. I just bring it up here because it's related to this whole series of intersections are all interrelated. Barbara's told me there's a lot of things but staff needs some I direction before they start looking at that. They may even have the legislative approval do that. Gary Ehret: The one thing I can offer you is this is a legislative trunk ' highway so it actually would, I'm not saying you can't do it but I think this body would have to pass a resolution requesting that be carried through the legislature. It could be done.- Councilman Johnson: Otherwise I think this looks pretty good. My wife would rather see it look more like the regular rest of downtown with some little trees and stuff in there but I like it just as a curb myself. Councilman Geving: Was there some reason why you had that median at 4 feet. Was there a standard for that? Gary Ehret: That's MnDot's. They actually wanted 6. Councilman Geving: Another question is, when I'm driving east and I get to this point here where I want to turn left onto West 78th, is there going to be any other signage there other than that pull over to the left lane and than make your maneuver? Gary Ehret: There will be for the driver who's making the left, there will be 62 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 I . left turn sign at the start. It's not on this plan but there will be, in fact it's in there right now. When he gets up to this point, there will be nothing in here for that driver. This driver as he turns will see the keep right symbol. Councilman Geving: It's kind of a free-for-all, I guess that's the best way to continue because that person turning left could possibly meet the person coming north from the Amoco station at that point and there's no yeild sign there. I've got to ask the Mayor a question, talking about signage. What are we going ' to call main street? Is that another issue for another time? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Geving: Okay, I don't have•any other questions. Councilman Horn: What happens to the yeild sign here that was right on the ' corner by the Pony Express? Gary Warren: It's still there. ' Councilman Horn: It's not on this drawing. is R Gary Ehret: It will still be there. I intended to show just the critical changes. Councilman Horn: My next question is, when TH 101 gets rerouted, that would seem to be appropriate but what you're really doing here is you're giving left ,_ turning traffic off from West 78th Street priority over TH 101 with that yeild sign there. That doesn't seem right. I'm surprised the Highway Department would let you do that. Eastbound West 78th Street making the left turn gets priority over TH 101 traffic. Gary Ehret: That's a good point. One I'm going to have to review. ' Gary Warren: Because of the yeild sign? Councilman Horn: Yes. Don Ashworth: You can't have it any other way though can you? ' Gary Warren: You can't stop that traffic there because that would back up into the intersection. ' Councilman Horn: So we've got to get TH 101 out of there? Gary Warren: Right. ' Councilman Horn: The problem I have with Jay's proposal is not only would we be making every northbound traveler on TH 101 to make a left turn and drive TH 5 but on the whole, I think this really cleans it up a lot. I don't like this 4 foot layer either for different reasons. That's the last thing to thaw out in the spring so your road stays sloppy for a long time. Apparently MnDot doesn't care about that. Gary Ehret: The reason for that width is rimaril due p y to signage. You have to have the clearance for the sign. You can't make the island as wide as the sign. 63 2 4ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II Councilman Horn: Could you make that black at least so it melts at the same rate as the road because that's the last part to melt and it just keeps your road wet. I Gary Ehret: You're correct and that's pretty typical. Councilman Horn: I think it would be a great improvement over what we have. ' Councilman Boyt: First, thanks for this rendering. i love it. The other part of it is, what about making the 6 inch curbing sort of a rolling curb so that it's not that difficult to be driven over. Gary Ehret: What I propose to make that is a mountable curb like you have in your new subdivisions. Councilman Boyt: I can see why you don't want to encourage traffic to turn in where you've got that turn in there to the Cenex station. Is that in the long telip plan? Is that where we're going to actually have a turn in? That close to that particular corner? Gary Ehret: That location is pretty close, yes. Councilman Boyt: Doesn't that invite complicating an already difficult corner? Gary Ehret: To be quite honest with you, I'd prefer to have it completely gone but there's a lot of opposition to that. There's a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want a driveway on that side of the road or that part of the site rather than just the one off of Great Plains Blvd.. We can look at, we have looked at moving that a little further to the east. At some point we get to the point where we then again encourage the crossing traffic plus we're too close to Great Plains Blvd. so it's 6 to 1, half a dozen of the other. Councilman Boyt: So it's a problem that we're going to have to live with is what you're telling me in some shape or form. Gary Ehret: Well, we can not move it too much further east less we again invite cheating around the end of our island. _ I Councilman Boyt: Is that a problem out there now? Is it? Okay. Gary Ehret: I think there's quite a bit of that going on. Councilman Boyt: We're taking 4 feet out of the roadway that's already narrow. Alright, there's no need to delay this. I think that it's an i.mprovanent over what we have now. It will probably work. I'm all for it. Mayor Hamilton: One other thing Gary, I'd like to see you in the right turn , lane going westbound on West 78th to put a turn arrow in only going that way to keep some people are going to get up in that lane and they'll say, oh yes I wanted to go left. So you've got an arrow only to the left and an arrow only to the right. Gary Ehret: I would propose also that you add a stop bar in there. 64 95 ' City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IFCouncilman Johnson: What's a stop bar? ' Gary Ehret: It's the big 20 or what are they? 12 or 24 white striping. It just tells a person. As a drive I personally think they help. It's kind of like the crosswalk. You kind of know where you're to go. ' Councilman Geving: Did you go down to the Church with the striping and all of that too? Any signing there in front of Pauly's? ' Gary Ehret: We'll have the transition striping in there. I did talk to MnDot. What's your specific question? ' Councilman Geving: Well, we had gotten several letters from Pastor Nate about the crossing there and how we might try some different things. I just wondered if you had any ideas. ' Gary Ehret: Yes, I do. We talked to MnDot and basically have their blessing on ;'either of two options. There was a lot of confusion on where the no parking zone did or could stop and start in that area. I talked with them again today ' because I knew we were coming and I wanted to make sure of their position. They basically have taken the position and it was in that letter to the Pastor, it was hard to read in there. Essentially the position is they will allow parking to start 100 feet from the east side of the Pauly building which puts it very ' close to the west edge of the church. It does essentially pull our ability to park people on the south side of the road almost back to the front of the church. The other alternative they said they would consider or agree to would be just east, if you move just east of the Pauly building by Heritage Park there, they would allow us to put in a one car pull off parking bay. That's about all we could get in there before you start to interfere with the corner of ' the church but that's the second alternative that they said they could agree to is a little one car pull in bay there. Councilman Geving: That was your idea Tom. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I thought it was important to do that for handicaps or elderly to be able to get off the flow of traffic to drop them off. Gary Ehret: I guess I would want some direction on that. Councilman Geving: Let's try that first alternative and see how that works out before we do any major landscaping. The second one would require... ' Gary Ehret: Would require a little extra cost. The first one is just some striping and a couple of signs. Mayor Hamilton: You might do up a little drawing. Nothing fancy, just kind of give us an idea of what it would look like with the one turnoff. Councilman Johnson: What would it cost to figure the cost to do the turnoff and draw the little drawing? Not color of course. Gary Ehret: I've got most of that done. It would take me an hour or two to put together a little memo that could get into the next administrative packet or 65 Ly Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II whatever. JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO WEST 78TH STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION: ' A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. ' B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 LAND USE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE 1.7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. C. REZONE 1.7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. Mayor Hamilton: Jay's probably still in Washington right? Barbara Dacy: He couldn't make it to the meeting but he still would like the ' Council to go ahead and act on it. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a good idea for that area. Probably fits pretty ' good but I just didn't want to rezone the whole thing. Barbara Dacy: Maybe we should take each issue at a time because the Commission raised those traffic and land use concerns with items B and C. They really had no problem with the garden center use in the district as a whole. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-7 to amend Section 20-714, Conditional Uses in the BH District as follows: (5) Garden Centers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 LAND USE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE = I 1.7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. Councilman Geving: Couldn't we get two lots out of that? Barbara Dacy: Yes. The total parcel size is 3.7 acres as now zoned and on the Land Use Plan, the west half of that is zoned BH and the east half is IOP. The applicant wanted the entire piece zoned as Business Highway number one to look at some site plan designs for his proposed garden center and number two, he still wants to reserve the possibility of creating another commercial lot in that total 3.7 acre site. I should note that the northerly half of that site, the City is looking at retaining an easement for a retention pond to be consistent with the Barr Engineering storm water report so the affected use of the property is probably about 2 1/2 to 3 acres. Councilman Horn: Why do we need Met Council approval on that? 66 ' 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IIBarbara Dacy: Because the Land Use Plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council. It's a minor amendment. They're not going to have a problem with it. ICouncilman Johnson: Is this parcel owned by the same person and his parcel is split half IOP and half, this is what, about the second third time? The auto II service came up this year. No matter what seems to go to this property they want it either industrial or commercial. Barbara Dacy: The auto service proposal wanted to keep basically both 1 industrial and commercial zoning designations on it but just flip flop it but after we showed them our storm water management report that said that we should create a pond in the back of the property, that killed that idea as well as the ICouncil did not amend the ordinance to allow mini-warehouse in IOP. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you can explain the difference between (b) and (c) and how they fit together. I understand the land use plan and what we're really I saying is we're taking some of that land is already zoned commercial and we're r;proposing to zone 1.7 additional acres of commercial. I Barbara Dacy: The west half is zoned business highway and it's designated on our Land Use Plan as commercial. The east half is designated as industrial and zoned IOP so what they want to do is take the industrial, the Lane Use Plan, the II , IOP and the Zoning Plan and change that all to BH and commercial. Just the east half of the site. Councilman Boyt: And both (b) and (c) then address that one issue? I'- Barbara Dacy: That's correct. So that we have our Land Use Plan and Zoning Map consistent. ICouncilman Boyt: Okay. Now we're at the heart of the issue to me. If I might, I think Brian Batzli on the Planning Commission made a good point in that it I makes sense to have this probably to be all one zoning district but we have some leverage when it comes to changing zoning in terms of the kind of development that we allow in. That we lose once we grant this. It's sort of playing backwards with the whole arrangement but it's reality. I'm a little concerned, II even though staff has indicated to us that their study show there's no traffic impact by what we do. That's a very difficult corner to manipulate and this unknown 1.7 acres out here of additional lot, we don't know if it's going to be I a fast food restaurant. A gas station. There's any number of possibilities. I'm wary of allowing the whole situation to be dealt with when we don't know about that 1.7. I think a garden store fits there nicely and I'd like to see him put it there. If we can arrange it so he can do that and still retain Imaximum control over this unused land, I'd like to see us work that out. Councilman Horn: How would we do that? With a conditional use under that zone? ICouncilman Boyt: Once we grant the zoning to the whole piece, it's my understanding that we're governed by our own ordinances. Councilman Horn: I'm saying as an alternative would we want to go with a conditional use for that piece instead of a total rezoning? II 67 II ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II Barbara Dacy: I think what Mr. Batzli was suggesting is, you've now approved the ordinance amendment to allow a graden center as a conditional use in the first place so his suggestion was hold off on the Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning until he files his conditional use permit application. Then you would act on the whole ball of wax together. Councilman Horn: Grant a conditional use permit rather than rezone it? Barbara Dacy: You would have to really take those actions simultaneously. Y Councilman Boyt: How do we deal with this dangling lot that we don't know ' what's going to be developed on that one? Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting that you have the whole thing rezoned to Business Highway Commercial. In order to decide on the rezoning issue the Council has to feel satisfied that all of the uses in the Business Highway District, you feel is appropriate for that eastern half of the property. If you rezone it to BH, you can expect we could have an application for any permitted user; in that district or potential application for a conditional use. Councilman Horn: Isn't this the same thing we ran into with McDonalds? We were concerned about a strip food area but we rezoned a larger area than what they had requested so in effect we have a whole corner down there that was rezoned? Barbara Dacy: Thankfully I wasn't here for that application. Councilman Geving: Yes, we split it into just that one lot. Mayor Hamilton: We just own that one lot. Councilman Horn: Couldn't we do something similar here? Get rid of the dangling portion? Barbara Dacy: It's already, the western half is already zoned as BH and what you're saying is you would prefer not to act on the rezoning for the eastern half until you... Councilman Horn: Until we know what that use is. ; I Barbara Dacy: In effect what the Council is doing would be tabling action on the Land Use Plan and the Rezoning. Councilman Geving: He still could go ahead with his garden g center. He's got approval for doing that Barbara. There's already a zoning ordinance amendment to permit the garden center. Barbara Dacy: Yes, he can still go ahead. He is in the process of preparing that site plan. I think his preference was to try and get the whole site zoned so he could possibly not have to be bound by that zoning district line running right through the middle of his property and issues about setbacks and parking area and so on. Mayor Hamilton: I'd rather see him come in with a plan then so we have some idea of what he's doing. He don't have any idea what he's doing. 68 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 29 II Councilman Geving: He wants the utmost flexibility but at the same time he wants to be able to bend that property to his liking and maybe we won't like what he's planning to do. Mayor Hamilton: Since we haven't even seen a plan I'd move that we table items 15(b) and (c) until a plan comes in to us. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the Land Use Plan ' Amendment to amend the Year 2000 Land Use Plan to redesignate 1.7 Acres as a conditional use in the BH, Business Highway District and to table rezoning of 1.7 acres from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District until a site plan is submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION REQUEST, MERLE VOLK. .61Don Ashworth: Staff is recommending that two councilmembers from the Chan City ;Council be given an opportunity to meet with two members of the Chaska City Council to discuss this issue. I have a feeling that they have pretty much determined what they'd like to do and I see this type of a meeting as being an opportunity for each of the two sides to say where they are and if there is any hope for salvation, it would come out of that type of thing. Otherwise, I think Itheir coarse of action is pretty well set in talking with their administrator. ,Councilman Horn: Co you know who their representatives are? Don Ashworth: No, I do not. r� Councilman Geving: I think it's the Mayor. I talked to him briefly, Bob one ' night and he was very much in favor. Wasn't it your impression too Jay? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Councilman Geving: We talked to Bob one evening and he would very much like to sit down and talk. Councilman Johnson: Dale and I meet monthly with two members of the Chaska City Council because we're on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. ' Councilman Horn: Who are they? Councilman Johnson: The mayor and... ' Councilman Geving: Gayle Kincaid. ' Mayor Hamilton: She's not on the Council. Councilman Geving: But Bob was the one that mentioned that he would like to sit down on a personal basis. I think the Mayor should be involved and one of the councilmenbers. Councilman Johnson: The Mayor's previous and I don't know if current business 69 3() City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 ' as representative of Merle Volk where he represented Merle before us and all I think eliminates him from consideration on this one. I hate to say that. Councilman Geving: I disagree with you. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have anything going on with Merle. Councilman Geving: I disagree with you on that point. Maybe there was some historical background on it. I think the two mayors should get together on this if Tam is willing spend the time. Mayor Hamilton: I have no interest in his property financial or otherwise. Merle is just a friend of mine. Councilman Johnson: I know you came and represented him before the Planning Conwission. Councilman Geving: At one time. ti Councilman Johnson: This year. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. That's because he was in Arizona and he to do that. It doesn't matter. a asked me Councilman Geving: Personally I think the two mayors and two other council- members, whoever they are. Mayor Hamilton: It makes no difference to me one way or the other. I'll be glad to meet with them. That's fine. I don't care. If I don't, that's fine too. Councilman Boyt: Who wants to do this meeting? I think Dale, I've heard y ou talk about not giving up one square inch of Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: I still feel that way. Councilman Boyt: You might be a good person to be in that if you understand we're negotiating. Councilman Geving: But I feel differently about it. I don't want to give us anything that we don't get an equal g goal amount in return. That's my view. It's not a question of giving something away. I want something of equal value and equal potential for development. Councilman Boyt: I think that represents the common feeling here. I don't think we should be necessarily limited to two. I think if other people want to go. I'm not going to be here so... Councilman Geving: I'm not opposed to the deannexation. Roger Knutson: I think two is a good idea. If you have 3 or more council [!! members you have a meeting. You have an official City Council meeting and you have to go through all the requirements of Statutes on the subject. If you keep it to 2 or less than you can just get together whenever you please. 70 31 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: How about Clark and myself? Maybe we can work out a time. Does anybody have a problem with that? Clark's here a lot of the time. ICouncilman Boyt: I would suggest that we probably have one thing to negotiate with here and that's time. We can offer them the opportunity to clear this up ' quickly or the opportunity to take as long as we can drag it out. That's not a tremendous lever but it's worth something to all the parties. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not even sure that we have that. I think if it goes to ' Court they just act on it immediately. . There's not much of a time delay. It just goes boom, it's in. Roger could probably address that better than I but I don't think there's much we can do to stop it. Roger Knutson: The first step is the municipal commission and it depends on if they get together. It's usually pretty fast. If the party doesn't like the results there they can take it to Court after that. iGCouncilman Boyt: And that means time. Roger Knutson: Sometimes. Councilman Johnson: We could take the northern 40 acres and straighten out the ' , property line as easily as deannexing the southern 40 acres. , Councilman Boyt: Don, I assume that they weren't interested in talking to us about the Reuter Composting Complex? ' Don Ashworth: All of those issues again go back to Metro Council and whether or not the City of Chanhassen could serve those properties with sewer and water and Metro Council just stays very firm in their position that Chanhassen can not in any form allow the development of those parcels. As this issue might head into the annexation commission, the issues will be one of what it is that Chanhassen ' can't do and what it is that Chaska can do. That's the real dilemma. Councilman Horn: Would it be appropriate to have Marcy Waritz? Councilman Geving: Why? Councilman Horn: As Met Council is pulling the string on this thing. Met ' Council is the one that's saying that we can't provide than service and Chaska can. She's on Met Council. Mayor Hamilton: Yes from that standpoint but just the annexation/deannexation she doesn't. Councilman Geving: I think what the mayor of Chaska recommended here was a ' small congenial meeting of the minds. Not to get a lot of people involved. Councilman Horn: I think the Met Council should be aware of what they're getting our cities into. It makes sense for one city to do this and it doesn't make sense for another city to do it just because of some rule they have. Mayor Hamilton: What we should do is just ask Chaska if they want to have her. 71 3421 Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II If they don't care, that's fine. Let's invite her. Councilman Johnson: One thing Chaska wants out of this is to be able to complete the road system through their industrial park. I have no problem with Chaska building a road through that 40 acres. Councilman Geving: Just the way it is now? ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. If they want to come in and pay for a road and put it through... ' Councilman Geving: It's a bigger issue than that. Mayor Hamilton: Why would the owner want to do that? 1 Councilman Johnson: I didn't say the owner would want to. That's what Chaska wants to do. nt Councilman Geving: But that's what the owner wants. The owner wants to develop that property. ' Mayor Hamilton: Well, we'll meet with them and see. REFERENDUM RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS: AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AERIAL LADDER FIRE TRUCK. I Don Ashworth: I think all of these items are interrelated. I presented them under one. It's late in the evening, I'll try to go through them quickly. The ' Fire Department is asking for authorization to move ahead with plans and specifications for the aerial fire truck. It was approved. I don't see in terms of other types of bonding options where this item really affects any other options that we have. Staff is recommending to authorize the preparation of plans and specs. Councilman Johnson: So moved. _ I Councilman Geving: Second. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us look at these more as a package since , they affect our bonding rate or our ability to cover them costwise. Mayor Hamilton: You mean you don't want to take each one individually? ' Councilman Boyt: I mean I want to take all three of them. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I said, you don't want to take them individually. Councilman Boyt: Yes sir, that's right. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know that it makes any difference. 72 x44-1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 z0 Don Ashworth: I was wondering if maybe I just answer questions rather than to ' repeat each of the sections. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask, as I understood it, the community gave us the authority to go out and purchase parkland. I don't see it on here. Don Ashworth: There's no reason why the Park Commission can not start the effort to look at that parkland. If you want to include any form of motion encouraging them to do that. I do not see where that could in any way be a bondable item for this year's bonding program. That's the reason I did not. ' Actually though, one of the options does show it as bonding for that this year even though the actual acquisition would not occur this year. Mayor Hamilton: Along with that I think Bill, one of the things in the and I ' don't remember where the heck it was it showed some of the grant applications that we could potentially apply for. One of them included requesting purchasing funds to purchase property in the southern part of the city. I thought gee, seeing how we don't have the dollars to bond for it this year why don't we submit a grant for that portion? If we were to get a significant portion of as that or all of it, we would then have those dollars available to use for something else I would think. We may as well try it first and if we don't get it, fine. We still have authorization to go ahead and buy it even though we don't have the dollars this year. ' Councilman Boyt: I like that idea. I look and I see the fire truck and I see the Lake Ann Park expansion but I don't see the park in the south and I think the situation about that parkland is maybe we don't need it today but I like IL getting it located. I like the possibility of going out and maybe getting some purchase agreements lined up or at least getting the right to purchase that property in the future. We might be able to seal up a piece of land with very little actual money changing hands. ' Mayor Hamilton: Buy an option on it. Councilman Boyt: Sure and I think it's important that we begin moving in that direction. I don't know if we need to add that to your referendum related authorizatons or not Don. Don Ashworth: Only to the extent that if you feel that clearer direction should be given to the Park Commission so that they start that search process, you could so do that. Councilman Geving: I thought we had already given that direction when we passed the bond issue. That they would start looking for a piece of ground. ' Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission has been.. . I haven't pushed them because of all the things that have been going on this spring but I was ' prepared to put that on the agenda towards the end of the summer or early fall. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see them develop the objectives they're going to use in finding this place and run those by us before they go out and look. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think they should look rsonall . They should have � � Y Y staff or somebody should be looking for land for them and have some options of ' 73 s ity Council Meeting - June 13; 1988 what lands are potentially available. Councilman Geving: Get some realtors involved too because they sometimes have some insight on some of this available land that we don't have. Councilman Boyt: Can we get that started pretty quickly? I'd like to raise another question. Lake Ann expansion. I thought that Jay had a hot idea about 6 months ago. You got your letter off to the Corps of Engineers. Are we going to spend money on an engineering fee when we might get this contributed to us? Councilman Johnson: They don't do engineering. Councilman Boyt: We have to do this anyway? Councilman Johnson: This is the grunt work. , and that is not until 1989 or 1990 because they couldn't do anythingfthis e year as their letter came back in December, I got in January. It's gone gout in the pericet sometime or another but the Lake Ann issue is, to me very hot in that we are in desperate need of more ballfields here. We don't have regluation Little League field. We have Little Leaguers who want to play Little League and we can't play Little League in this town. More softballers want softball. We've got more Pee Weers that want to play Pee Wee and everything else. Don Ashworth: I should note under that item and that's the selection process. If we go through some type of a review process let's say with the Park Commission, we would not get that project going in 1988. It would be 1989 so if you want to give staff authority to move ahead with that selection process, I think we could start work in 1988. If not, in 1989 and that just comes back to the point you raised of what importance is it to have it start in 1988 versus 1989? ' Councilman Johnson: We've got a design. We've had a feasibility study. Are we pretty well ready to go on Lake Ann as far as now we've got to calculate to move the dirt? Don Ashworth: At this point in time, almost any engineering firm could pick up the planning work that's been done and turn that into a -specific set of plans II and specifications. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following referendum related authorizations: Resolution #88-59: Authorization to prepare plans and specifications for an ' aerial ladder fire truck; Resolution #88-60: Authorization for Lake Ann Park expansion, consider engineer ' selection process and preparation of plans and specifications; and Consider initial bonding of 1988 election authorizations including potential 1989/93 Bonding options. 0.1! All voted in favor and the motion carried. 74 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 35 SELECT TASK FORCE MEMBERS: TRAILS AND COMMUNITY CENTER. Mayor Hamilton: Unfortunately Don pointed out y po same difficulties of moving ahead with the community center and rather than trying to get a group together and than tell them that there isn't anything to talk about, which would seem kind of ludicrous at this point. As much as I hate to put it off I guess we're going to have to. ; Councilman Horn: Maybe we could get a group together to explore alternative funding sources. ' Councilman Geving: But can't we at least get the group started and start doing some preliminary planning and the possibility of looking at locations that may not be available to us in another year? I'd hate to miss an opportunity if ' Lthere's a site out there that is there today and it would take an option to Oecure it and tie down for us if it were the spot we wanted that community icenter. I think we're missing an opportunity if we don't form the group and ' 'start looking at sites. That's my feeling. I just know there's a number of people in our community that are anxious. They feel a little cheated that this thing got beat down the last time and they're confident that they can proceed. These people are just enthusiastic enough to want to get together and start this ' 'ball rolling and I don't want to inhibit them. It's hard to turn people off. You can't get that back if you do. Councilman Horn: We had a window of opportunity that's closed. Mayor Hamilton: A few people in town slammed it. That's the problem in trying ' to get people back together. If you're on a committee and they tell you, well you can be on the committee and we're really not going to do anything. You can look at some land and there's no money to really accomplish anything. I'm not so sure you're going to get a whole lot of enthusiasm. ' Councilman Geving: I'll tell you one thing, if that's true we better tell them officially. Not just these few people but I'm talking about the community. There's a lot of people out there that are interested and I get calls from time to time and I know you people do too and they'll say what's happening with the community center? Is it going to be a referendum item this fall and I get another crack at it so if there is information here that we should pass along to the people officially, we should do so. Put the chips on the table. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I don't think though that these people were misled. They were told all during the campaign for the community center that this was a one time shot and that we didn't have the slightest idea how we would fund a similar center at a different location. A lot of people chose not 11 to believe that. I like your idea of identifying a site but can we identify a site and lock it up without going back to the voters for some sort of approval? Mayor Hamilton: For 3 to 5 years. Councilman Johnson: Option money? What does an option on a site cost? 75 4y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II Councilman Boyt: I don't know that it's that expensive but I think that the IIFI reason that it lost last time was some public concern about location. So this committee gets together, they choose a location, they say this is the one. Let's spend some option money on it and 5 years from now for some reason what happens if people don't like it. Councilman Horn: It comes up for referendum and they say, hey you didn't give us any choices. The site was already picked before we had the referendum. ' Mayor Hamilton: Plus you option money could be very expensive because what you're doing is telling that person to take the property off the market for a 3 II to 5 year period of time. I'd want plenty to do that if I had a piece of property that was prime development property. Don' Ashworth: You'd never get it. I don't think anyone would give you like a 5 II year option. That takes away their potential for so many years. On the other side, I think the two sites that you have as alternatives are the Eckankar site adjacent to Lake Ann. You're going to get a second crack at that as a part of II anyk eplatting of that property so we're going to know. Before they really can do something, they've got to bring something in. At that point in time you say, in whatever year we want you to change this and we start the negotiation at that II time. That's the best chance to get a best price for that particular property. The other one is the Charlie James property and that would really be the residential property on the north side there. He's got literally a number of sites as he goes across that northern boundary. I just can't tell you is that II going to all be sold out in 6 months. 1 year. 2 years. Charlie would not III give us a 5 year option, I know that. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to just keep it in mind and notify everybody and reconvene when we have an opportunity. Councilman Horn: I think the people would like to get the word out that we're II not moving forward. Councilman Geving: I really would like to have something go in the papers. I Councilman Boyt: I think the City should prepare something. Don Ashworth: We'll prepare an article. I'll send this report to all of the II members and I will invite them to discuss this and potential options at some date. Tuesday at 7:30 or something like that. Mayor Hamilton: The trails are the same way I suspect. You I Y P can't put in any trails if we don't have any money for that either. Councilman Boyt: Sure we do. We're talking about a lot less money there. II Mayor Hamilton: Yes but we're talking about a timeframe that's a ways away I also. Councilman Boyt: I don't think so. I think the trails, we're in good shape 0_1 there. Don Ashworth: Let's understand. I'm not sure if we're working in the same II 76 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11purpose.) The idea would be to establish a task force which would determine whether or not this issue should be re-presented to the voters. If their recommendation is yes it should be re-presented, than to literally go out and ' sell it to the community. It lost by 2 votes. The question becomes one of can this committee find out what went wrong the last time around, resell it to the community and put it back on the ballot. A secondary question is going to be when would that go onto the ballot? For the fall election first or would a special election be held in 1989? If you do fall that really takes care of a real funding problem that I have but I can tell you it's going to have a much more difficult time in passing. Councilman Boyt: More people are going to vote and you think it will bring more voters out against it? Councilman Johnson: I don't think it will be more voters out against it. There was some .miscommunications. It was not advertised. The entire western, around Lake Minnewashta was under the impression because somebody was passing the word ' around, misquoting Tom and they were passing the word around that there were no Iltrails designated to be built on Lake Minnewashta. I talked to a number of people who said yes, I would have voted for that if I had had a trail in my area. Mayor Hamilton: So we can get the trails together? ' Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, get the trails committee together. Maybe readvertise. ' Councilman Johnson: The only two wanting to get on there are special interest on horses. ' Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you can encourage Don, when you notify these people who had asked to be on the community center to expend some of their energies working ' on the trails commission. We can certainly use that. Councilman Johnson: Someone in the Minnewashta area that is pushing for trails there. 1 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ' Councilman Boyt: What about the merry-go-round? Let's take care of that. Mayor Hamilton: If you remember the Excelsior Amusement Park, there was a ' merry-go-round and a carosel building there. The carosel is currently at Valley Fair and the building is in Victoria. It's the original building and it was moved when they tore down the Excelsior Amusement Park. A person bought it and they were going to make a horse ring out of it. The owners of the land are developing it into a golf course and housing project and they want to get rid of that building. They're either going to burn it down or knock it down and when I heard about this, as a kid I went to Excelsior Park and I remember that building so I went out there and looked at it and it's in pretty good shape and I said gee if there's some way we can get that moved into Lake Ann or someplace in Chanhassen that would be, I think just a great thing for a park. I mean to 77 eb ey Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 II tell you I've been working like all my spare time that I have trying to figure out how we can move this thing. I've had structural engineers out there and movers and contractors and everybody trying to tell me if the thing is worth moving and if we should do it or can do it or can't do it. I've been working with Don trying to figure out if we have some funds to restore it and put in some footings to set it on once we get it moved. I do have a contractor who's willing to help us move it. We can use his equipment and he'll donate time and energy and materials to help us move it. I haven't heard back from the structural guy yet. He was trying to get a hold of the guy who moved it the first time over to it's current location just to figure out how it was done. Councilman Geving: How big is it? ' Mayor Hamilton: It's 80 feet across. It must be about 30 feet high. It's a round building. It's just a beautiful building. I think there would be so many uses for it in the park. Did you go out to see it Jay? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I went out and I had my mother and dad were visting and we all went out there Sunday night. It is beautiful. It is the type of thing that you'd hate to see anybody knock down if you could save it. It's a piece of Americana that if they burned that thing down it would just be a loss. To get it, like Tom was saying, in the winter we could pour water in there and have an enclosed ice skating. Right now they teach lessons out here in the wind at these open rinks. They could teach than in there just as easily. Councilman Boyt: It could be a band shell. Councilman Johnson: It's huge. Tall. 30 to 40 foot tall. It's good structure. There's some rotted wood on it here and there but in general it was pretty solid in places that I could kick and hit and see. Councilman Boyt: It needs a new roof. ' Mayor Hamilton: It needs to be reshingled. Councilman Johnson: Yes, it would need to be reshingled and stuff but in ' general, for a building of this age, it was in good shape. I'd like to look at historical preservation monies from the State Historical Society. County II Historical. Donations. Whatever. I don't know what is this guy's schedule though? Mayor Hamilton: He's on a real tight. He calls me daily. What are you going to do? Are you going to take this thing or not? I keep putting him off. Councilman Johnson: Because that's our problem is time to get all this arranged. Mayor Hamilton: The thing is if we tell him we'll take it, then he'll leave us alone and he'll give us like, he said then, as long as I know you're going to take it, that's fine. He said than I won't worry about it until say August or so. I think we can arrange it by that time. Councilman Boyt: What do we need to do tonight? 78 ' City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 39 II Don Ashworth: Council should be aware that you're talking about, this is just a '; general figure, I did send BRW out to take a look at it, we're talking about a total cost estimate of about $50,000.00. It could be the total cost. Now how much of those can be offset by grants and other things. Can we get some lower costs through donations? That could all help. Cost of new construction probably would not be significantly more but you have this whole historical site thing. What I would suggest is that staff be authorized to try and negotiate a ' moving contract that would be $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. That would be coming out of literally the proceeds associated with the improvements for Lake Ann Park. What we would have to do then as a part of developing the overall improvements ' for Lake Ann, would be to put this structure up and to carry out all other improvements associated with Lake Ann within the total bonding authority that's been granted to us. What that does is a whole bunch of things. It gives staff the ability to move right away. We can give him the go ahead. We can literally carry the structure over here if we wanted to and not reassemble it until we had everything else in order. If we absolutely could not find that we could resurrect this and also carry out all other Lake Ann improvements, which I do ' not believe that that would be a problem but we would always have the option at It-.hat point in time to burn it or... ' Councilman Boyt: Not for $50,000.00. Don Ashworth: I'm not saying that but I mean if the worse of all things occurred, I see that's the limit of our liability, $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. ' Councilman Geving: Let's move that we authorize $10,000.00 for this project. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to authorize $10,000.00 to move the Excelsior Amusement Park Merry-go-Round building to Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: In a related issue, we've been offered Kerber's barn. I've got a soft spot for barns. That building is I gather pretty sturdy and I've looked at it several times. It's a nice looking barn. We can get it moved for about the price it would cost us to build a typical park shelter and we've got a ' better building. We should be looking at that. Mayor Hamilton: I brought that up quite a while back and I couldn't get any support for that. Councilman Boyt: You got my support. Mayor Hamilton: I wonder how that one would work out at Herman Field? I bet that would be a good thing to have out there. Don Ashworth: I do have a cost estimate on that one. I'll bring it and include it in the next adminstrative section. a ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: REUTER COMPOSTING FACILITY, CITY PLANNER. Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Commission passed it? 79 4(5ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right and it's going to Chaska Council June 20th and I thought if you had anything that they wanted to tell Chaska Council. Mayor Hamilton: Tell them to pass it. It's a $10,000.00 project. SOUTHWEST COALITION OF COMMUNITIES, COMMENTS ON TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: Just a reminder there's an official meeting this Thursday here in the Council chamber between 5:00 and 6:30 and Don Bolling will talk more about the traffic comments in your packet and Tom, you've been noted that you've been asked to make the welcoming remarks. Councilman Boyt: Should we talk about the grocery store think that it's somehow we need to differentiate the City for just a minute? I HRA takes action on the grocery store, that's not the City Councilttaking eaction on the grocery store and people need to be told that. I'm thinking of Thursday. nx Don Ashworth: That item will be back to the HRA this Thursday and I have tried to keep the Council abreast of that. If I'm hearing Councilman Boyt, you'd like to see more information going out to the public that this is a Housing and Redevelopment Authority action, not necessarily the City Council. Councilman Johnson: Most members of the public don't see the differentiation between the HRA and the City Council. Mayor Hamilton: I have every confidence in the HRA. I think it's a good group. Don Ashworth: Realize and the Council should keep abreast of this because one of the otpions there is for bonding and the bonding approval requires City Council action to authorize that. Mayor Hamilton: I think we talked about this when I was first elected, we ' talked about whether the HRA and the Council should be the same body. We kicked that around a lot and at that time there were no councilmenbers...on the Council be on the HRA which we had done ever since then. That's always something we can consider again whether or not the HRA or the Council should be the same body. II In some towns it is. In some towns it's completely separate. In other towns it's like we have. It's something we've considered several times over the years. Councilman Boyt: I'm not opposed to our current system. It's just that I know that people look at us all as one group and if the press could do something to help us indicate that it's not the City Council that voted to bring a hardware store in competition with our existing hardware store it helps a little maybe. Councilman Horn: I think through the development of the downtown, the Council would be probably be happy that they were not the HRA. [!! 80 I K_ ro _ r City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 41 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I k i , 1 I 1 I 81 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14 , 1988 - Page 2 barrier for access/egress . Mark Koegler : To be honest with you, we didn' t specifically look at it when we were out there. Mady: We talked about doing the gravel in the bottom part of the existing parking area. I 'm looking at all the rest of that gravel that exists there down to the lift station , the lift station that is in private beachlot that I belong to does not have gravel going to it. The City doesn ' t have to go and work on that thing , it' s not that often. I'm wondering if it's possible to take all that gravel out of there and make it a green space. Are we going to be gaining anything by that or would the street department have a problem with that? Sietsema: Dale might be able to answer that better than I. Dale Gregory: Utilities is down there just about every day. Mady: I know they look at it just about every day but they don' t actually have to drive up to it. Dale Gregory: I really don' t know how much maintenance they' re doing or how often they' re working on the lift station. Boyt : At our beachlot they drive down the hill and walk to get to it. Mady: It would be about the same distance I think with ours . Hasek: Even if they do have to pull maintenance on it, do they have to go right up to it? Dale Gregory: Yes . They have to back their trucks right up to the lift station so they can pull the pumps . Hasek: What ' s the possibility of maybe lightly overlaying the gravel with top soil and seeding it and leaving the bed in place? Dale Gregory: With the gravel underneath you' re not going to get very good growth in your grass. Hasek: I know. It' s always a little spotty. Dale Gregory: And this year it would really be bad. As soon as it' s dry II it' s going to dry up. Hasek : Have you ever tried that in the City? Mady: Another thing I was thinking, I would not go up extending the trail into the street. If we had all this extra gravel there, being used for that gravel . . . What would you use for underneath the path? If you have a paved path? 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 3 Mark Koegler : Class V. To answer your questions , presumably this also would take the gravel out completely. It hadn 't been considered before and I think that' s something ultimately we could refer to Jerry Boucher and see what his reaction was but there' s no steep grade in there or any ' reason they couldn' t conceivably drive across turf areas . The concern obviously also is in the wintertime when they have to provide any maintenance to that and if so, what does that do to the grass. Will it ' get dug up? If they' re willing to walk in just to check the lift station and for the very infrequent occasions they'd have to actually pull up to service it, I wouldn' t think that could be any problem. ' Boyt : I think they plow all the way to ours . They plow the grass . Dale Gregory: During the wintertime they plow up to just about all of ' them so when they' re broke down they can go right to them and get them up. Otherwise, if they get a lot of snow, it takes a long time before they can get them plowed out so they try to keep them open all the time. ' Boyt: It's never affected our grass. Mady: Dale, do we seed up here where the hockey rinks , the skating rink is every year? Dale Gregory: We seed all of our family rinks every year . ' Mady: That would be a possibility. ' Mark Koegler : I think the main value to that would be returning the green space to the park more so than using the Class V. It may or may not be suitable for use. Mady: I 'm looking at green space in the park is all . Hasek: Do we want to take advantage of the possibility of talking to the ' maintenance or other people to see if we can. . . Mady: I think the discussion in making it green space, the problem is going to be whether or not the street department or maintenance department feels it' s acceptable for them to get to . Sietsema : Your discussion will be reflected in the Minutes that will go ' along with your recommendation and I can ask Jerry Boucher and talk about that in my cover memo to Council as well . Mady: There' s no reason for us to have a road going down into the park. As long as it' s a park there I 'd like to see green space. Hasek: I guess my comments are that I think it accomodates what we had intended without disturbing the park. . .that it did before with the parking spaces in place. The site has been checked and rechecked and some of the items that were of concern to us before and I 'd like to make a motion that we send this to Council for approval . 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14 , 1988 - Page 4 I Lynch : Is there identification on that sketch that we can refer to? Sietsema: I ' ll have it dated . Mady: It' s dated June 10th. ' Hasek: That one 's revised. Sietsema: I ' ll have it dated June 14th. ' Boyt: Do you know if they' ll put, slow them up for this stop sign? Mady: Does this plan include the bollards? That' s a gate post but that' s not going to prevent cars from driving out over the gravel area . Sietsema: No, it doesn' t. Do you want us to put the bollards on the plan? Mady: Yes . As long as we have the money available in the budget I 'd like to see it done otherwise they' ll just end up driving around it. Schroers : . . . that requires lighting? , Sietsema: There is a light down in the park. Hasek: But it shines towards the beach . ' Schroers: I know where that light was. My question is , is there 11 additional lighting that goes into the parking lot? Sietsema: Not automatically. If you want to include that in your recommenadtion, you could. , Hasek: I guess I would just as soon the lighting stay out of it. All it does is just encourage people to stay and park later than they should anyways . Hasek moved , Lynch seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission ' recommend to approve the Parking Plan for Greenwood Shores dated June 14 , 1988 with bollards and stop sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , Sietsema : I will be scheduling this for the July 11th City Council meeting and I will be notifying everybody who signed up previously and was on that petition that you gave us and that is on tonight' s sign up. REVIEW PARK MAINTENANCE STAFF NEEDS, DALE GREGORY. ' Sietsema : I put for your review a memo that I received from Gary Warren on Friday after the packets were already out. It addresses some of the issues that I brought to his attention and I also had talked to him about Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 5 your concern about enough maintenance staff . Dale' s here to discuss any questions that you might have and let you know what his needs are. Gary indicated that your recommendation would be appreciated. ' Mady: Council approved our revised budget which included placing a trail along Laredo and Carver Beach Road . How do we stand on being able to get to that? ' Sietsema : Our first two priorities this summer were those two Lotus Lake parks. I believe Dale will be working on South Lotus now that North Lotus is pretty much in good shape. I would anticipate that the trails could come right after that. We have to figure out what the street people are doing as well because they' re help in needed in putting in trails. Do you have any idea when a trail could be ready along Laredo? Dale Gregory: It' s going to be a while. Jerry' s got his guys so busy right now. I got them into North Lotus . Boyt : Like fall? Dale Gregory: It' s so hard to say. It depends on weather . It depends ' on how much work they' re got going now and like I say, right now they are busy. We pull both of the maintenance, heavy pushing operators into North Lotus Lake and we've got them there for just about 3 weeks and ' Jerry wasn' t too happy that I took those 2 guys for that long but it' s going to be a while. I really couldn ' t say how long. It depends on how much work they've got. I did get one back into South Lotus Lake. He did ' a little bit of work in there today and I think he ' ll be back in there tomorrow to clean out the retention ponds so we can start working on those. ' Mady: I have a question Dale . On the trail on Kerber Blvd . , driving by that, how long do you figure it will be before we ' re going to have to resurface that or sealcoat it? ' Dale Gregory: The one right alongside of Kerber? Mady: From the street anyway when you ' re driving by, it ' s starting to ' look pretty worn. Dale Gregory: You' re looking at probably within the next year to two ' years . Mady: Will we be able to do that in-house? ' Dale Gregory: We don' t even do the sealcoati.ng of the roads anymore in house . Mady: When they go to do that in two years , let ' s include that on the bid. Dale Gregory: That' s basically the best . That ' s what we did with Lake Ann Park a year or so ago. They just included it in a bid and had it Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 6 resealed with their mat . Watson: The ones along Kerber now, is that been in a specifications for how often they have to be sealcoated? That hasn't been there that many years yet. Dale Gregory: The thing of it is you've got to watch them and as soon as they start cracking up and that, you want to seal them and that will keep I the water and moisture from running into that . You can look at Lake Ann that was sealcoated I believe a year ago, a year or two years ago and that has got a lot of bad cracks on it. That park, after looking at an overlay, in the very near future before it' s completely breaking up bad. Watson: Is there anything we can do to make those last longer? Dale Gregory: The trails aren' t so bad because you don' t have the heavy equipment on them. What hurt Lake Ann is all the construction in there. With the building of the boat landing where we started running building trucks in there and all this sort stuff and it just tore the heck out of that blacktop. I 'm surprised that it held up as good as it did. Hasek: It's also on some pretty unstable soil . Dale Gregory: Right. It' s got some spots that are really getting bad. Mady: Where do we stand on some maintenanc items such as totlot , equipment and we've got some already sitting that needs installing . Dale Gregory: We ' ve got two of them that were purchased and didn ' t get here until late last fall and we were out of help. Pete and I were back to ourselves again and we weren' t able to get them in. They will basically be the first ones going in now. What' s helped, they sent out II Lori this year and we' ve got everything ordered for this year early so it should be getting here. In fact we've already picked up the border for all of these places . Basically schedule wise , I ' ve got, in fact I 've talked with Todd and we' re working on getting the barbed wire and everything out of between Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores . I 'd like to get that done first and then we' ll basically be starting on the playgrounds and getting those in . I ' ll talk to Lori or Todd and see if they' ve got any preference on where they want to start with. Mady: I know we' ve got some that we 'd like to see some things would be taken out and some repair. As far as I 'm concerned, I guess I 'd like to see those repairs being made first . There are some safety situations . Dale Gregory: We've got the one in the Estates . We' ll probably just pull those because they've got plenty of other playground equipment there. Lake Ann down by the beach, the swings are going to be replaced . The ones that are there will hold up until the other ones get there so I hate to take those out because there is nothing else down there for them at that point but the ones like in the Estates where there is plenty of other equipment, there would be no problem. We could go in there first and pull those and at least get them out of there. r Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 7 Mady: Teeter totters , we' ve got a couple of those sitting around . The totlot equipment up by the ballfields at Lake Ann, that needs to be screened off. ' Dale Gregory: It was worked on today. I had Dean up there today. He was working on that. Mady: How are they coming with the structure at Lake Ann? Have they poured the cement floor yet? Sietsema: What happened with that is I called up the Legion to see where they were at. They were going to have the interior completed by Memorial Day and the week before I called them to see where they were at and I ' don't think they really knew so I asked them if the City could just take over the project and complete it and I would get quotes and they could approve it and we would oversee it. Since that time they've had ' difficulty with the State with their pulltab business and they don ' t know if they' re going to, right now they have no pulltab business for the last two weeks and they don ' t know if they' re going to get it reinstated . If they don' t, they can' t expend any more money. The quotes came in at ' $10, 000. 00 to finish the interior . To pour the concrete, stub in for electrical and put up the walls and the counters and the roll-up doors and everything . It came to about $10, 000. 00 and they don' t have the ' money on hand right now to pay for that and if their pulltab business isn ' t reinstated , they aren' t going to have the money in the future . They are having an emergency meeting tonight to make a decision on how ' they want to handle this . If they' re going to walk away from it and the City has to pick it up or what. I don' t have any answers for you right now because they' re meeting right now too to decide what they can do . Hopefully, I think what we could hope for is that they would be able to approve one of the quotes and add it to their bill . We would need the City to front them $10,000. 00 more. They've already expended about $11,000. 00 and we allowed them up to $15,000. 00 but they've paid ' $7,000. 00 in construction costs . Hasek: Will you pay back their front money? ' Sietsema : No. They were supposed to provide the labor, the volunteer labor to build the building and they decided that they couldn' t get that done so they hired a firm to do it and those bills came in at about ' $7 ,000. 00 so they paid those but they haven ' t paid for any of the materials yet. ' Boyt : So far it' s cost us $18 , 000. 00 and it ' s going to cost another $10,000. 00. Sietsema: Right and to get electrical to it is another $10,000. 00. Dale Gregory: It ' s getting to be an awful expensive building for what you' re getting . For a small building you' re spending an awful lot of money. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14 , 1988 - Page 8 Watson: Considering we stood over there and nonchalantly walked around and asked, well heck we' ll build another one right over there one of these days . Hasek: It should be able to be built for half of what we're going to spend for this silly thing. Watson: Obviously they' re not going to be putting up several of these things. Hasek: Can I ask a question? How did this project begin? Did the Legion come to us with it? Sietsema: Yes . Hasek: Have they done this before to us? Started projects and not completed them? Sietsema: No . Hasek: This is the first time? Sietsema: Right . Hasek: What is the reason that they've had such trouble with this particular one? Sietsema : As I understand it, Tom Klingelhutz was the commander when this all began and they started thinking about it in 1985. They came to the Park and Rec and to the Council and said, we have this pulltab business. If we don' t spend the money on charity things , we lose the money but we would like to build a shelter because they at that time were doing the concessions on the 4th of July and they wanted to have tournaments out at the park and that kind of thing so they wanted to have a shelter out there that would accomodate concessions. They didn' t have the money in their budget to go ahead and build it and buy all the materials so they came to the City and said, if you front us the money for the materials , we' ll provide the labor . At that time they said the building would cost between $20, 000.00 and $25,000. 00. The City said we can only afford to give you $15, 000. 00. They said okay, that ' s fine. Well , Tom was no longer the commander by the time they got all that approval . I don ' t know if they were have legion wars or what but he dropped the project. He decided he didn' t want to have anything to do with it and it fell to other people within the organization and I don' t think there was really a leader , someone who was carrying the ball . I think everybody was kind of, it was like a hot potato within . Once they were committed, Tom bought all the materials , all the building materials and everything and then he decided he wasn' t going to be involved in it anymore. He was down in Texas for 3 months and I don' t know if it was business . I don ' t really know why and nobody else picked it up. A couple of times somebody has attempted to and that' s when they decided to hire Bosser-Christianson to construct the building but at one time they had volunteers from the Fire Department and a lot of people willing to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 9 ' help but they never got it all together . Lynch: Once we were going to pick it up and they told us no. We' re going to get a handle on this and we' re going to get it completed . Sietsema: Then last August Bosser-Christianson came in and said they were going to do it. Our building department said they had to have a ' structural engineer look at it and sign off on it. That took a while before they got someone hired to do that. They finally got their building permit and Bosser-Christianson didn ' t get out there until December to start building the thing. They finally finished it this ' spring and again , the Legion wanted to have it done so they could have a big Memorial service our there for Memorial Day and it never happened. I thought I would hurry up and take the ball and run with it and get it done by the 4th of July and now we' re into money problems. So 3 years later we' re still looking at an incomplete building . ' Boyt: Is the Rotary interested in taking this over? Sietsema : I don' t know. I know that there is some money that ' s becoming available through the Lion' s club has made a couple more donations and ' that money would be available . Boyt: The Chaska? ' Sietsema : Yes . ' Boyt : I don ' t want to use the money for that . From the Lion' s to cover up, to take care of . . . Sietsema: They did make a donation , it wasn ' t to the Park Department as ' I understand it. It was $7 , 000. 00 that Don said that he would earmark for that project and he talked to the Lion ' s and they were interested in having it earmarked for that. I just got another donation to the Park ' and Rec Department for $4 , 100. 00 so what we want to do with that donation we still have to decide. Hasek: How much of the cost of that structure that ' s there right now has tbeen from. . . Sietsema : $7,500. 00. They paid for the Bosser-Christianson bills which ' came to roughly $7,000.00 and last summer they made two months payments , the monthly payments of $250. 00 and they made two payments last summer . So towards their bill they've paid $500. 00. You can expect to see this ' on the next agenda . I don' t know if I ' ll be able to come to you to get approval for quotes. I might have to just go to the Council so we can get this thing done but I will have something on the agenda to update you on what the latest is . Mady: This isn ' t the only group that ' s looking to get money out of our pockets. The Hockey Association owes $4, 000. 00 to the bank for putting ' in the lights for the little arena down behind the Dinner Theater and I 've been approached to see if the City, the City has co-signed the note Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II June 14, 1988 - Page 10 at the bank and they haven ' t made a payment on that note yet outside of I interest. Apparently the Hockey Association has changed and the current orgranization is instituting putting money into Chanhassen. There are more Chaska people involved or something. In any event, there are other people who can burn our donated funds. I Sietsema: I haven' t been formally approached on that yet. Mady: I 'm surprised because I was about 2 or 3 weeks ago . I Schroers: As far as we' re sitting right now with that structure at Lake Ann, it would be unrealistic to hope to have that in operation before the I 4th of July? Sietsema: . . .surface so we can put up some tables in there and use it I for concessions that way but there' s no way that the concrete will probably even be poured . Mady: I wouldn' t have any problem, if we could get a guy out there with I a little Bobcat and just level it so they get a lot of those bumps out of there, we can live with it I guess for the next year and a half. By the 4th of July it would be nice to see that done. I Dale Gregory: The crushed rock is already there. It ' s a matter of grading it up and we've held off in doing anything out there until the ' cement was there so we could take and grade it off nice. We can do the best we can right now and we ' ll have to redo it once the cement is in that ' s all . II Mady: Because it looks like it' s probably going to be a while. Boyt: So you and Dale have a list of this year 's projects of everything I to be accomplished with the staff that ' s available? Depending on the weather . Dale Gregory: We' ve gone through and basically I picked out the things I that we felt that we could handle. You've got things on there like ice shelters and things like that . . . Sietsema : I haven' t gone over with Dale the revised capital I improvements . Ice shelters have been deleted . Boyt: One of our real high priorities is the Laredo trail before school . I We'd like to , if it looks like your department will have trouble getting to it, we'd like to make a recommendation that you need extra help so you I can get to that project . Dale Gregory: I guess I 'm lost because I don ' t know what you want done on Laredo Trail . I Sietsema : Along Laredo Drive. Mady: An off-street trail . I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 11 I Boyt : A sidewalk. Dale Gregory: From Laredo to? ' Boyt : Frontier Trail to West 78th Street. Mady: Basically from the Fire Station down on the west side. Dale Gregory: That' s going to be a tough one for us to complete. Boyt: That' s what we need to know. If it' s not a project that you should be undertaking , than we need to be getting another source. Dale Gregory: Right, because something like that, it' s a matter of we' re going to have to get into the maintenance department again to pull their men for that. Boyt : Are they working on the downtown? Dale Gregory: No, they' re working on their own streets and everything else and they' ve got their own projects that they've got to get finished . I 've got about 4 of them blacktopping or different projects unless they' ve changed with Lori , we can get ready ourselves but again, we' ll be calling in the maintenance department for blacktopping that to complete some of these projects . That one would be tough for us to get to this year . Like I say, with the five structures we've got to complete, the playground structures we have to complete. Boyt : Will you have time to do the playground structures? Do you need more part-time college help? ' Dale Gregory: Right now I think we' re sitting pretty good . I 've got two high school kids that just started last Friday and we picked up another ' CETA boy this week so we should be sitting pretty good . What I 've got planned for , if we get back into the rainy season where we' re cutting grass a lot , I ' ll be able to take one of the high school kids and the CETA boy and put them out for cutting all the grass and keep them going and then the rest of us can work on the projects . Boyt: Do you have that list too? The list of projects for this year? ' Sietsema : The revised? No I don' t. I will be going over that with Dale. Boyt: One of them is building a basketball court , Carver Beach playground. Things like that. Dale Gregory: We' ve got a basketoall court too we 've got to put back in in Chaparral now that they' re through with the tennis courts . We' ll have to decide when that ' s going in. Boyt: It says fencing around property? Is that for here? r Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 12 Dale Gregory: That was one I talked to Lori to yesterday. We haven ' t r decided how we' re going to attack that one. I really don' t know what we' re going to do on that one. Boyt: You said space to drop sewer . Are they going to run the sewer . . . Mady: This would be on top. ' Boyt : The ballfield at South Lotus Lake. Sietsema: Wasn't that deleted? 1 Boyt : South Lotus Lake, we talked about a ballfield. Dale Gregory: Nothing can get going on that until they've got a large pile of clay. That all has to be out of there and then you' re getting back to the whole park is going to have to have a final grade done. Sietsema : I think that was taken out of the final revision. Dale Gregory: We' re looking at quite a few large projects that they' re I going to take time. Where we' re running into trouble too , I 've already had trouble this year is with I 've had two high school kids that can drive and I can send them out to go to jobs and I haven' t had vehicles for them. I 've got 2 pick-ups in the park department and I need them myself. I gave my pick-up to the kids today and the last two days so they can be out working in parks and I 've driving around in the dump truck. We don ' t have the vehicles anymore. We' re just out . It ' s really I/ sad but even the maintenance department in the morning, when they get all their crew out on the job , every pick-up is gone and we don' t have the vehicles anymore for summer help. Schroers : At one time we talked about a Cushman type vehicle for doing work in the park. Since the trail proposal was defeated, did that vehicle go out along with it? Sietsema : That was never put in any budget and for the amount of trails that we have. It was planned for when the trail system was really in place. Schroers : Do you have more of a need Dale for a regular pick-up truck or for like a working sized vehicle? Dale Gregory: I need a pick-up . I need a three-quarter ton pick-ups . Something I can hook up trailers to and send these guys out working in that . Boyt : One or 2. You couldn' t get 2 but . . . 1 Dale Gregory: If I could 1 it would be great because I could put 2 guys together and they could go out and work and this type of thing . But like II I say right now we' re down in pick-ups . A Cushman would be fine staying I 11 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 13 ' in the Lake Ann Park and when that expands and going to the neighboring parks real close to that but it isn' t going to do me any good for hauling lawn mowers around and stuff like that . We' re spread out so much in the City with our parks and that that we need the vehicles to get our ' equipment there. Schroers : I think that I 'm probably sort of responsible for having you here tonight. It didn' t appear to me that when we' re sitting here making a lot of the plans for the parks in the City of Chanhassen and maybe not talking to you enough about whether or not you have enough help to get ' all this work done. I guess that' s what I was wondering . I just wanted to, in looking at this memo from the Public Works Director, if you agree with that and if you feel that presently you have enough help or if, in your opinion you would like us to make a recommendation to Gary Warren to provide you with more help, be it full-time or seasonal . Dale Gregory: Right now for this year, like I say again, for the amount ' of people I ' ve got and the equipment I ' ve got, we' ll be fine. With the 2 kids I 've got and the summer help. As long as Jack' s can hold up there, Jack Curtis basically takes care of Lake Ann for me all the time and Jack ' is , he' s getting up there in age and I don' t know how long Jack is going to keep cutting grass for us . But with the downtown coming in next year , I 've been informed from Gary that that' s going to be park too. That we are definitely going to have to look next year for a full-time person . ' Schroers : Knowing how things typically go , just using that structure at Lake Ann as an example , we expected that would have been operational a ' long, long time ago. I think that now is the time to start working on it. It takes a long time to get people hired . I know that and I think that we should probably be making a recommendation to start looking to adding staff. Sietsema : This is the right time to be doing it because we' re going to be receiving our budget sheets for 1989 probably next week so your ' recommendation will be very timely. Mady: From what I 'm hearing , I guess I 'd be inclined to ask staff in ' putting their budget together to see if it 's possible of adding a pick-up truck to the park equipment list for next year for just the current staff and then adding another full-time person with a vehicle also so he' s not going to be short . There are a lot of little things that we'd like to do ' that we know that we can' t get done. A lot of things seem to get, it always seems that our stuff because you have to give the street maintenance people so much and this is the busiest time for everybody and ' we like to see our stuff done right now. Well , we know that we can ' t but we know that it can get done while the kids can still utilize the equipment before winter sets in the better so I guess I 'm kind of inclined to. . . ' Sietsema : The vehicles go as a recommendation to Gary Warren because all of the park maintenance equipment and staff is under public works so that should be included in your recommendation to Gary. r Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 14 1 Boyt : Next year in our CIP we have some major projects that will take a lot of time. More than just one more person. Schroers : If we were to make up a recommendation right now that we look at acquiring a pick-up truck for the parks department as soon as possible 1 and then start whatever process is necessary for hiring an additional full-time person for 1989 park season and whatever , if you think another vehicle is necessary at that time. Do you think that would be adequate? ' Dale Gregory: We' re going to be looking at, not only the vehicle but we' re also going to be looking at a lawn mower for sure too. We've got the 2 Toros right now. One is tied up strictly at Lake Ann just about all the time. The other one , one of our smaller mowers is out doing the other parks. We' re going to add North Lotus Lake and we' re going to add South Lotus Lake plus Curry Farms is coming in and we' re definitely going I to need another full time 72 inch Toro so we can send 2 of them out at a time. It's just getting to the point where, like I say with all these parks we' re adding and it' s not just 1 or 2 acres . We' re talking 10-15 acres at a time we' re adding. Schroers : Do you want to come up with a list of equipment and personnel that you think you would need full-time and part-time and give that to the Commission and then we' ll make a recommendation off of that? Dale Gregory: We could do that and like I ' ve been talking with Gary. I We' ve been working together and we' ve been putting some of these projects together and trying to come up with how long we' re talking about for doing all of these projects and basically seeing how much more help we' re going to need . Lynch : If we can stage this Dale , if you can come up with something that says now we need this. When Curry Farms happens, when Lake Ann expansion 1 happens , we' re going to need this . When Lake Susan opens up, we ' re going to need. If we can get some of these things in a little easier feel for Gary and Don, if they've been told it' s coming . 1 Sietsema: Chanhassen Hills will probably be graded within the next year so that will be a park that we' ll be looking to develop within a 1 to 2 year timeframe. Curry Farms will probably be developed next year . As Lake Susan Hills West develops , that' s 36 more acres of active parkland there in the next 5 years . Mady: Do you ever need equipment such as , I 'm sure you borrow from the street department like the Bobcat or tree spade or things like that? Dale Gregory: Basically we' ve got our own tree spade. The Bobcat , the maintenance department just bought a new Bobcat last year so we've got a little more flexibility. We' ve got one that we try to keep out at the park department. We've got our own Bobcat. Dump trucks and stuff like that , usually always the City we can borrow from them and get that type of stuff . 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14 , 1988 - Page 15 I Schroers : In relation to your budget Lori , how soon do you have to have a recommendation? • Sietsema : I recommend that we have a recommendation by next meeting . We ' could wait and have Dale make a list of what his needs are going to be looking at all the new parks and everything and get that back and make a recommendation off of that at the next meeting . Schroers : I think that makes a lot of sense because it ' s difficult to sit here and think of everything. ' Dale Gregory: I 'm going to get a handle from Lori as to what you ' re all talking about. Sietsema: We' ll hopefully be approving the 5 year capital improvement program and that will also give us a handle on what our needs are going to be and what projects we' re anticipating in the next 5 years . You ' talked about a truck being purchased as soon as possible. We can make that recommendation. I doubt that there' s going to be funds available in the 1988 budget to purchase a truck. You might know more about the public works budget that I don ' t know. I certainly wouldn' t have in my budget an extra $10,000.00 or whatever you ' re talking about. Schroers : We' re talking about the money like the $4 , 100. 00 that came ' from the Lion' s and that sort of thing. It' s in a different budget and that money can not be earmarked towards the purchase of a vehicle. Sietsema: No, that has to go to a capital improvement project. They want to see improvements in a park. Something like the bleachers or like the park shelter or like new totlot equipment or something. Not maintenance . ' Hasek: So we' re just going to have you and Dale put together a list . Why don' t you try and put together your thoughts and ideas as to how that might be phased in. . . Mady: Any other thoughts? Boyt : Are we talking about Gary' s letter? I have something about the Novak-Fleck. I would like to recommend that the City pull the housing permits if Novak-Fleck doesn ' t clean up instead of just badgering them. ' I think it's important that we take steps that have an impact on them. I didn ' t bring my pictures tonight of stuff that was down there. ' Schroers: I ' ll support that . I think that' s almost standard operating procedure for construction companies and developers . . . If they don ' t have the time to clean-up. . . Boyt moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend pulling housing permits from Novak-Fleck if they do not take measures to clean up their construction debris . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 16 REVIEW REVISED 5 YEAR CIP. Hasek : I have a quick question here . Herman Field . We have $38 , 000.00 for that , $35,000.00 of that is for this year. Do we know what' s II happening with that development and how things are shaking out and if the plans that we even proposed are going to happen? Sietsema : What happened with HSZ is that they put the cul-de-sac through I the Gary Reed property and it ended in the middle of his property so it did not bring that street down to the corner of Herman Field . That leaves the park entrance back at Forest Avenue where it was so we can now proceed with revising the park plan now that we know that. Hasek: I was wondering if they had a trail easement or something that connects that cul-de-sac to the park. Sietsema: No. What we could do is retain . . . Hasek: There' s a road easement in there right now. Sietsema: There' s Oriole Lane is a street right-of-way in there and the residents there are now petitioning to vacate that and before that would happen I would hope that the Park and Rec Commission would recommend that we at least obtain a trail easement along that right-of-way to get down to the park. Mady: Should we do that tonight? Sietsema : Sure . If you want to make a motion to that effect and to direct staff to go ahead with the revised plan. Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to obtain a trail easement along the Oriole Lane right-of-way to Herman Field Park and to direct staff to go ahead with the revised plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Boyt : We had talked about a revised master plan for City Center . Is that on here? Did you talk about that last time. A revised park plan? We were talking about how we could make additional space up there by redesigning where the ballfields are and the hockey rinks . Hasek: I think the problem with redesigning the ballfields is that if you relocate them, you 've got two years without a ballfield. The question is can we afford that. Boyt: Why? , Dale Gregory: If you can get them seeded in in the fall you' re going be working on them to seed them in in the fall , you should be able to use them the next summer pretty much so you' re looking at about two years by r Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 17 ' the time you tear it up and reseed it and leave it sit for the next year . Sietsema: That'd be ugly. We'd have people in here like crazy. ' Mady: Retaining the two ballfields where they exist and just adding to. . . ' Schroers : I thought our main focus on City Center was the hockey rinks . Mady: What I was talking about last time, here' s how the park sits right ' now. We've got all this space in here . All this space over here. There' s 100 feet between this tennis court and the park boundary. Schroers : You' re talking about a total redesign of the entire park? ' Mady: Yes . I want to put the community center on one. ' Hasek: So what are we talking about at the City Center? The possibility of looking at a design? ' Mady: I tell you, if we' re serious about that we ought to get it to Mark and let him take a look at the topo and everything and see what ' s possible in there. Give him some direction. . . ' Lynch: The City Center was really not planned. It occurred over the years . ' Boyt : There ' s some real nice plantings out there. Hasek: Do you realize you could put all of this inside. You 've got ballfields inside your buildings. A dome . Boyt : Speaking of domes . . .it looks a lot like the dome. It used to cover the Excelsior Merry-go-Round. Did you ever see that? It ' s in ' Victoria. I think they decided to take it last night didn' t they? The Council did . Sietsema: Yes , they allocated $10,000. 00. Hasek: Now we've got a dome and a railroad depot. ' Dale Gregory: Have any of you had an opportunity to go look at this yet? Boyt: I did yesterday. I thought it would be nice for a farmer ' s ' market . I don ' t know where they'd put it . They talked about Lake Ann last night. Dale Gregory: It' s a huge building . The Merry-go-Round used to be in it. I figured out the day Jerry and I were out there, you've got 1, 700 windows in this thing . Everything is all windows . Lynch: You' re looking at another Legion project. 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 18 Schroers : They've had horses under it or something? ' Dale Gregory: Yes . They were using it kind of as riding arena out there. He used to have a merry-go-round in there at one time. Schroers : Right on the farm there? Dale Gregory: Originally when they moved it out there, it used to have a II merry-go-round in it. I used to live just a quarter mile from there and he bought it and used it as a merry-go-round . Sietsema: We could even go out to that before the next meeting and look at it. We probably will have that on the agenda within the next two meetings to decide where we'd like to put it as long as the Council ' s decided we' re going to have it . What they' re talking about is taking the windows out and putting in some screen or some different things . Schroers : Contracting it out to someone and not sticking. . . Sietsema: Yes, it would definitely be contracted out. Hasek: There' s a. gentleman that owns 40 acres up by Herum that takes old II barns and houses . We might give him a call find out exactly how we place these on the land . Sietsema: We might want to mention too that the Kerber barn issue isn' t ' dead yet because Councilman Boyt loves barns and he'd like to see if we can ' t put it somewhere . They talked about that at the Council meeting last night too so Hamilton and Boyt want the barn. Hasek: I think this old building is really considered a legal collection. Boyt : If it' s 25 years or older . Sietsema: The thing with the carosel building is we might be able to , qualify for some historical money for refurbishing it but if we get that kind of a grant, there are certain stipulations on how you retain it' s original flavor . A tape break occurred at this point in the meeting . Hasek: . . .a park shelter , $100, 000. 00. Sietsema : That ' s the community park shelter with the boat rentals, concessions and I don' t know if you remember the plan from last year but it' s got the community room with the fireplace in the upstairs . Hasek: The land acquisition was the other question I had there. ' Sietsema : The land acquisition was . . . Hasek: In 91, yes . , Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 19 ' Sietsema : Actually that could be moved to beyond because that was if the land all the way around the lake should become available so we have money. We can keep moving that back until it becomes available. ' Lynch : Lake Susan? ' Mady: Are we hoping to get a road next year? Sietsema: Yes. We' re still waiting on Opus. There' s another proposal in and we don ' t know who the company is but we' re again in the running ' with Chaska for this corporation, whoever it is . They' re being kind of hush hush about who the company is . We lost to Chaska on the IDS . If we would have gotten it than we would have had a road probably this year but ' if we get this one , they' ll be putting in the rest of Lake Drive East. If the company does come in, that gives us 2 1/2 acres extra at Lake Susan to move that boat access proposal to the east of the stand of trees down there. Mady: North Lotus Lake. I had a question on the boardwalk. Last week we were purchasing the boardwalks for the Estates . . . On the orange, can we wait until we get it, get it installed before we look at it. . . Sietsema: Yes. Did we approve it for Chan Estates too? No. Just North ' Lotus because it ' s a lot further out at Chan Estates . Mady: South Lotus Lake. Didn' t we talk about the fishing pier at South ' Lotus Lake? That it was going to be difficult to do one down there? Hoffman: South Lotus Lake? ' Mady: Or was it just the fact that we wouldn' t be able to get it under a grant loan at South Lotus Lake? ' Hoffman: Parking availability. Space at South Lotus Lake. I don' t know if you want to attract that many people. Where they' re all going to park if you' re going to put that size of pier out there and how favorable they would look at, they don' t like putting fishing piers , in part of their ' requirements they don' t want to put fishing piers in a high activity area which they would consider a boat access . They probably would not . ' Sietsema : Just from what ' s been happening this year , I 'd like us to not even consider the boat access portion as park. That' s just boat access and not attract any other uses at this point . We had the first weekend ' it was open we had 125 boats launched in one day on South Lotus . Boyt : And I heard that the Sheriff ' s department had lost the people who patrol lakes. They quit. ' Mady: They were out there two weeks ago . Boyt: They weren' t out this weekend . Park and Recreation Commission Meating June 14, 1988 - Page 20 1 Sietsema : They probably don' t get out every weekend because they only had a couple guys for the whole County. I hadn' t heard that they quit. Jim hasn' t told me that but that doesn ' t mean that it isn' t. . . Lynch: Were there any enforcement problems with that? Have there been any? Sietsema : Our parking has been pretty much, they are parking at the Apple Valley Redimix and at the Taco Shoppe and I don' t know where else. They' re not talking along the street too much because they are getting ticketed. We had a problem with people driving around the gate when it was closed to launch early, early in the morning or take their boat out late at night if they didn' t get out in time. We only own about 15 feet on either side of the pavement so Bloomberg Companies put in a split rail fence and we' ll see if that works. They may just take that down and drive through anyway. Hasek: Is 125 boats launched in one day create a problem on the lake? Sietsema: It' s kind of a safety problem. I have a hunch that a lot of those boats might have been people launching for the first time of the season. But the next weekend we still had 75 people. Boyt : There ' s a lot of ignorance. People driving boats that don' t know that you shouldn' t drive your boat right next to a swimming area. As close to the bouys as you can get . Hasek: It doesn ' t matter even if they do know. What is it supposed to be, 150 feet? Boyt: Yes . But they were pulling some water skiers right next to the beach. ' Hasek: We' ve got a floating dock out probably 125 feet and the skiers go between that dock and where the kids swim on Lake Minnewashta. You can' t II tell me that common sense doesn ' t tell you that that 's inappropriate. It' s not that they don' t know. It' s just that they really like it. Mady: Do you have a bouy? Hasek: No, but that' s part of eventually. . . Mady: They $70. 00 a piece. Hasek: If you do think there' s a problem, you should get somebody out there to dock them and if there is a problem than maybe we can do something to limit the number of boats that go out. Sietsema: There' s no way we can. ' Hasek : We could always go to the other park to see if we couldn' t convince those people not to let them park there and eliminate some potential places to park. Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 22 1 ' Lynch : What ' s going to happen eventually is, and I don' t know how long eventually is going to be but this is what I first felt for 10 or 15 years that the horsepower needs to be regulated on that lake. This is boats with. . . on the lake and it' s awfully easy to say that the landing ' is the problem. It' s not the landing that' s the problem. It' s the people that use it and have always used the lake. We've had two bad accidents out there. We have many inappropriate boats . We have some ' that are 150-190 horsepower on a 73 acre lake. This is like the bad corner in your neighborhood . We have to have a few more people killed there and then they will limit the horsepower . Boyt : We can make a recommendation to the Public Safety Commission that our lakes be patrolled more. ' Mady: That would be a good idea . I know it' s going to be a very difficult thing to restrict horsepower on Lotus. Sietsema : What we could do is restrict it at certain times of the week or day. Sunday afternoons from 10:00 until 6 : 00. Boyt : The problem is you don' t enforce . . . Sietsema: Exactly. It would be enforcing the speed limit, not the horse power . ' Lynch: The problem there , if all the boats were trailered in , that would be fine. You could do it in that manner but when the boats are already ' docked on the lake with your larger horsepower and you try to prevent them from pushing off to take you around the lake, you've got to have water patrol sitting there in right numbers . . . ' Boyt: They used to do that in Rhode Island on the highways . They'd sit there with 10 cars at one junction and they just grab every single car . If they do that once people are going to remember that. If they would patrol Lotus and Minnewashta thoroughly a couple of times , it would have an effect for a while. ' Lynch: I don' t believe that. It' s too easy to look out on that lake to see if they' re there. You know whether they' re there. Mady: I know the problems are increasing and I know a lot of them are ' coming in through the access. Lots of the boats out there, the horse power is just getting , and the size of the boats coming on that lake is getting astronomical . It's just society in general , the people I know ' who own boats , they buy a new boat they always get a bigger one. They add 2 feet to it and they add about 50 horsepower . We' re getting some boats out there that would be inappropriate for almost any lake outside of Minnetonka for this area. I 'm very concerned. I think there are a ' number of people that live on the lake that are very concerned about the quality of the lake. I have a feeling that in two years we' re going to send a recommendation to Council to restrict the horsepower on the lake. ' I don ' t know how the DNR' s going to do that with the public access and all that stuff . 1 Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 23 1 Sietsema: They will be all in favor of it as long as the homeowners , the I riparian people have the same restrictions . Lynch : We talked about this years ago during the lake useage ordinance. 111 What you can do and can' t do and so forth. You can have any horsepower that you want . It can be sailing kind of lonely, you can say anybody coming through with an electric motor , like Lake Ann, they can use it there. They also. . . Mady: The only thing we need to talk about there, let ' s go on. Greenwood Shores . The land acquisition is take it when it becomes available for around Lake Ann. Boyt: Are we going to do the canoe launch? ' Sietsema : Yes . That may be an Eagle Scout project. Schroers: Actually that canoe launch is going to be directed towards ' Lake Lucy rather than Lake Ann . Sietsema: Right. That' s the clearing out. Schroers : I think in conjunction with the parking lot that will . . . Mady: At Carver Beach, the $3,000.00 for off-street parking. Have we determined where that' s going to be? Sietsema: No . 1 Mady: Because I know right now when I go over to watch my daughter play ball , parking on that road and back out of the park, it' s a very narrow street. Maybe as off-street putting a lane in for parallel parking . I don' t know if that' s public road there or if that' s . . . Dale Gregory: It ' s public . Mady: Because it' s so narrow. Hasek: I think parallel parking would be good , or a parking bay or something. Mady: Lotus Trail . Is this the trail and the beach? ' Sietsema: It' s the linear strip all the way. It' s all one long big park. Mady: Including the trail and the beach? Sietsema: The general improvement in 1989 was landscaping. Landscaping the old boat access area and also landscaping around the parking area . We' re going to be doing some this year but there was possibly more that we might want to do . The thing is there is potential Eagle Scout Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 24 I ' projects within that park and I wanted to have some money in the budget to be able to do those without having a budget adjustment in the middle of the year . ' Hasek: When we were out there , didn' t we notice that the old access , is that where people had been backing in and across the grass and stuff there? ' Hoffman: We've got reports on that activity also. ' Dale Gregory: There is a sign out there now that says the boat landing is closed and asking people to launch their boats at South Lotus Lake Boat Access. ' Mady: It' s pretty good . You can do it with a 4-wheel drive if you really had your mind set on it. It's a challenge. Dale Gregory: They' re wearing off the top a little bit. It was more of a berm and now it' s getting a little bit rounded. Lynch : Do you have any nice rocks that you could put out there? ' Dale Gregory: I don' t have any great big ones , no. ' Hoffman: That ' s a long strip too to cover . Boyt: Speaking of signage, we need signs that have just general ' information at all of them. No dogs . Is there liquor allowed? Hasek: I don' t think it is, is it? ' Sietsema: It is allowed. No intoxicating liquor except malt beverages is the ordinance. ' Mady: If you ' re of age. Sietsema : I 've got a memo coming on the next agenda that addresses some ' of those ordinance amendments that we've been talking about. Finally make a recommendation on those . Hasek: Are we addressing the glass? Sietsema : Yes . That' s next. ' Mady: I spent 10 minutes picking up one shattered beer bottle. Schroers : We' re having the same problem. Sietsema : It' s unbelieveable this year . Boyt: It' s a public safety thing too. Todd and I were both down at Lake ' Ann at different lunch times and the amount of liquor that' s down there, the teenagers at lunch time. I Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 25 Sietsema : I don ' t know if it' s going to decrease a little bit now that the senior parties are done with. I know that towards the last couple weeks of school . . . Boyt : . . .knew where those parties are going to be and they stayed away from those parties. Sietsema : The Public Safety? 1 Boyt: Yes . Sietsema : I tell you the Carver County Sheriff' s department hasn' t been as cooperative in our parks as we would have liked them to be. Lynch: Drinking in the parks has always concerned me. It' s really impossible to police only malt beverages . Just to rib me, when I had my Little League team down there , we were scheduled for 2 to 4 on the field . II At 3 : 30 the guys show up with the tackler in there saying let' s have a party. So they' re all there starting on the keg ahead of time. The boys felt that that kind of activity was not real conducive to family use of the park or young junior leagues at the park. My wife felt that if you' re going to have beer there it should be on a license basis , that you' re going to have to go down and you' re going to have to get a permit. Without a permit you' re going to get your butt arrested and hauled out of II there. Sietsema: I' ll add that to the list for next time because we will be talking about a number of other ordinance amendment things and I ' ll add that to the list for discussion at the next meeting. Mady: Rice Marsh Lake and Chan Estates Park. A question on Chan Estates II Park . We have the road that goes down into the park and the parking area. Then there' s a road that goes off that back around . Dale Gregory: That' s the Metro Sewer Waste Commission. Sietsema: Did you want to put boardwalk in here for 1991 or something like that? Boyt: Yes . Lynch : We don ' t have a boardwalk down there. I ' ve looked at that for a lot of years. I still concerned about safety of a boardwalk in that area with the kids. I really am. You go out on that soup and I 'm an old I duck hunter and I 've portaged through enough muck in my life to know how dangerous it can be. That floating bog out there can really be a trap. Sietsema: That' s a good point . Lynch : You go and wade through it, you' re finished unless you ' ve got somebody who' s got the knowledge and ability to pull you out of there. It' s worse than water . One little drowning kid and the next little I Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 26 i drowning kid is going to go help him out and he goes down too . The floating bog is worse than that. Schroers : I went down in there and the landowner told me, when he asked ' who I was, he told me several times to stay out of there. . . .try to do whatever they' re going to do out there and he just never came back. He claims that it' s quicksand. I personally have never seen any quicksand ' down there but I agree that it could be potentially a hazardous area . Lynch: The problem with a floating bog is that it has a generous number ' of root sections that form a Chinese bubble. You go through it, you can' t get back up through it. If you go completely through it, you' ll find that hole where he went down. I've gone through and the only thing that kept me from going all the way through was the canoe yoke. I was ' walking along and I stopped and all of a sudden bam, you break through and I grabbed the yoke right up to here. . . You can' t get out of it yourself. You have to have somebody to come along and get you out of there. I pulled waist up boots off out hunting because my feet stuck down in that muck and pulled them both right out of the waist up. It' s real scary stuff. ' Sietsema: You want to take out the boardwalk in Rice Marsh Lake? Lynch: I think you'd have to be darn careful where you put it. Just to ' shoot out across Rice March Lake, like go over the lake with a long skinny floating trail , that's really asking for a neighborhood problem. Sietsema : So you don ' t want to put the boardwalk in there then? Lynch: If we want two and try a very down scaled boardwalk someplace like North Lotus Lake and see how it works and see what the complaints are and if the parents are worried about it. Hoffman: The purpose initially was to get people out there to drop in a canoe and go fishing there in the bummer? Is that what we' re thinking? Sietsema : Yes . I won' t put that in there . Mady: Bandimere Heights. Was there anything changed in Bandimere Heights? Bluff Creek. Hasek: Where' s the land acquisition for that at? Just additional . . . Sietsema : That was to add land to either end to get down to the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and then up. Purchasing easements more than land acquisition. Boyt: Jim, when we do the basketball courts , I ' ve had some parents saying, when we put up the normal height basket, will you also put up a junior height for the kids because the little kids use. Sietsema: For what park? 1 Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 27 1 Boyt : They asked for Bandimere. I think at any of them. If you put one ' basket up at the junior size. Hoffman: Better make it strong . Hasek: That is my biggest concern right there because I think they' ll I get torn down. Every adult in town will be pulling that thing down. It will be so much fun . I can dunk the ball in a 9 footer . An 8 footer I II can get my elbows into the thing. It 's fun to do. You go up and jam it down and you pull on the basket. They' ll be down on the ground before you can. . . Mady: If we do that we' re going to have to put a sign up right by the court or on the court stating that there is no dunking. That way the City doesn' t have the liability problem. The guy who goes up there and jams the ball through and breaks his arm. Hasek: I think I 'm even more concerned about replacing the baskets all the time. I understand it would be nice to have them a little bit lower but I think we'd be asking for trouble if we started lowering baskets because I think they' re just going to get torn apart. Lynch : Besides that , I started out at full height when I was 8 years old. Boyt : But you guys are 6 feet tall . I Mady: Until I came here I never saw them at 8 feet tall . When I was a little kid, that' s why I can' t play basketball . Sietsema: The design of the stuff is , we just want to know if you want the money in there or not. I Hasek: That' s fine . I think really if you want to try that we should try it at 1 or 2 parks just to see. I guess I 'd like to try it at 1 or 2 I parks so we know that we' re going to get some heavy use. Boyt: They have them at the school and one of them is a real mess because someone had broke it down. , Hasek: I know for a fact, I have friends who used to have them for their kids and then moved them back up to 10 feet because they couldn' t stand the neighborhood kids there . Boyt : Bandimere is a pretty small area . Pretty small park. Light use . Mady: We could try it. The cost to put a sucker up would be about a couple hundred dollars . Dale Gregory: If you put a decent backboard up and pole like we've got at Chaparral Park, you ' ll probably be looking at $600.00. Sietsema : Were there any other changes on Minnewashta Heights then? ' Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 28 1 Mady: I don't think so . Boyt : City Center Park we have some money set aside for totlot equipment ' next year . Chan Elementary is planning on putting another $10, 000. 00 towards totlot equipment with us. I 'm going to contact Betsy Gross in District #112 and her job is to write up proposals for grants . I thought she could use our CIP to apply for a grant for matching funds for totlot equipment. ' Mady: One thing at City Center , once we get a park plan and we go through a major, we' re not a major totlot setback for kids. We need to address the shade. It is barren out there. We' ve got to install some sizeable trees that we' re going to have to go out and probably buy. Maybe some artificial shade . When I was up there 2 weeks ago Sunday, my daughter and a couple other kids, I thought they can go up there and play on the swings. After 5 minutes they were in the car it was so doggone ' hot up there and I 'm still trucking around the park. . . Make a comment to that when we put playground equipment in. Having shade available. Sietsema: Do you want to put money for landscaping in here then? Mady: Yes . I 'm not sure what those big trees cost . A 10 inch diameter tree or something. ' Hasek: You can ' t get them that big. Boyt: Halla Nursey donated two 10 inch diameter trees to our silent auction. I think they were $1,500. 00 a piece but we sold them for $500. 00 almost a piece and they donated more to us so they could sell more at $500. 00 so they might be willing to work with us . Dale Gregory: Unless you get a good deal from Halla, Halla is one of your most expensive nurseries around . ' Boyt: For the publicity he was willing to. . . ' Dale Gregory: Yes , but your $1,500. 00 trees would probably have gone somewhere else for . . . Boyt : $500. 00? rMady: Shouldn' t we put for like 1990 money for Curry Farms? ' Sietsema: Yes . Watson : That thing is going up fast . We' re going to have kids from that 1 area . Boyt : Are we going to pass this onto Council? Sietsema: It goes into the Comprehensive Plan and it does need Council approval but it will go in as a whole package with the Comprehensive 1 Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 29 I Plan. Boyt moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of the revised 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' REVIEW REQUEST TO SEED HOCKEY RINKS. Boyt : Two more years? Hasek: You don' t need two more years do you? 1 Dale Gregory: Oh yes, at least. They were treated with. . . to keep the weeds down. ' Hasek: That' s a 4 year deal? Dale Gregory: About 5. You' re starting to get a little bit of weeds 1 growing occasionally. Hasek: Are they still using it for soccer? 1 Mady: It was so dusty. Dale Gregory: If you wanted to get it into grass and that, the ideal ' thing would be to get rid of some of the clay that' s in there and get in some decent dirt. Hasek: How would that affect the ice in the wintertime? Dale Gregory: Grass? ' Hasek: No, if you changed the soil to accomodate grass . How would that affect the ice? ' Dale Gregory: It wouldn' t be any different than any of the family rinks around. Like the family rink along side of it, that' s just on a dirt base . Hasek: Do you get better quality ice on clay than you do on dirt? Dale Gregory: I don' t think it makes a difference. It really doesn' t . You see like Shorewood and some of the other ones , some of them in Chaska leaves theirs into grass. It takes them longer to get ice because of the grass and everything . Schroers : I think what' s more important there is if you have the surface level so you don' t have to come up with dirt . . . 1 Dale Gregory: The bad part of this thing here is if we could have it as nice and level as we wanted for the freeze up and everything else and we started flooding it, after a while. . .boy we get those bumps and Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 30 everything . We don' t know what to do with them. I don' t know how to get rid of them. Mady: We ' ll just have to let nature take it' s course and hopefully Dale can reduce the weeds in the park in both of those hockey rinks . Hasek: So really what we' re looking at if we want to do that for soccer would be we' ll have to treat it and just try and establish seed in there. My kids play in there and it' s an ideal thing for kids . They don' t have to chase that ball around. REVIEW CARVER BEACH PARK. Hasek: I guess the interesting thing about this was that the main beach was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in the mid-70' s so it was established on approval . The only problem that I have with it is the way that it' s acquired sand . It was put in there, it was my understanding the staff put it in there. Sietsema : Street maintenance . It wasn' t for a drainage problem. It was ' because it was washed out during the big storm last year . The sand that was there was washed out so they just put more sand to replace it. ' Hasek: That's just in-house maintenance. If we have a problem with that park we shouldn' t allow that to happen. Lynch: My problem with it was just like maintaining a private park. Hasek: It ' s not really. It ' s not really private. It' s certainly less public than some of the other places but it' s on the street. The access is right off the street . Hoffman: If you had parking there , there would be a continuous shore ' fishing there. Lynch : I ' ve been told several times when I was over there that I was standing on private property. They tell people to split. There' s no parking . There' s no boat access and in view of the Council ' s recommendation that in order to maintain park property be accessible. There ' s never going to be anyplace to park there. I 'd like to see this ' thing, if we heard from the residents out there and the letter from Lori May 31st that outlined a lot of the problems. I 'd like to see those passed up to the Council . I 'd like the Council ' s recommendation on what ' they would like to have done. If they say that okay, this is going to be a park. It' s alright to have that park there.. I don' t think the Council is in a position where they can say well , in this instance we ' re going to let some of the citizens maintain a private beach on our property. The ' Council is going to have to either say the City is going to have a mini- beach or the City is not going to have a beach on that property. Sietsema: They have said that they will . Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 31 Lynch: The Council? Sietsema : Yes . There' s a recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission back in the mid-70' s to approve that mini-beach and that was approved by City Council . ' Lynch: So it is an official park property and officially to be used for that? ' Sietsema: Yes . Lynch : Okay. That I never knew. ' Sietsema: It was established and approved by the City. Lynch : Okay, then we' ll say that we better sign and maintain it better than it is now. Boyt : We haven ' t treated it like it was our beach because I can remember II standing there. . .up a ways. Mady: It ' s closer to them. , Boyt: It' s also at a bottleneck. The way the drivers go along that lake, they must be coming real close to that swimming beach. ' Sietsema : It' s actually safe for swimming . Lynch: Our official swimming area should be moved to that position ' because of the lay of lake. It is dangerous where we maintain the present beach. I guess for now I would like if we could make a motion, I will make a motion that it has been brought to our attention that that is ' officially slated as a beach. That it be signed as a public beach and maintained as beach property in accordance with our park maintenance guidelines because now it looks shabby and I know now it' s being used as a private beach and represented as such by people who live near there so I think we better bring it up to standard. Sietsema: I didn' t get all that. , Lynch : Bring it up to park standards with signing and maintenance . Boyt: And bouys . Lynch : Anything to do with normal maintenance. Mady: I 'd like to see the Council allow us to open up the parking on that street on the lake side or at least 4 parallel parking spots with proper signage on that street. We talked with one of the neighbors there . He indicated he would have no problems with parking on that street there because people are doing it anyway. This way they can do it legally and utilize it . I Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 32 Watson: If you can park at Greenwood Shores Park, you should be able to park at here. I maintain that these people aren' t going to be real pleased that there ' s suddenly going to be a swimming beach. ' Mady: This is true but we need to address the problems with the boats being stored on that park property. The reason it ' s such an old problem is because it' s now added to the beach. ' Sietsema : It has but it' s like the minute you turn around , you turn your back, they know that you' re going to be gone for a couple of weeks and they' ll put their boat back there . Mady: What you do is you confiscate their boat . We' ve got a request somebody who wants to put a boat down there at that lake and we've got to ' tell him no, you can' t do it . Why can' t I do it, you 've got 4 of them sitting down here now. We've got to clean it up. This city' s always been kind of lax in their enforcement . Now they' re starting to get a little tougher but we need to get tough on everybody. If you've got the law, you've got to enforce it . Just because you live across the street from it doesn' t mean you get to go by a different set of rules than somebody who lives down on Chan Estates . Watson: What constitutes having a boat on a public park? As long as it' s out in the water a ways it' s alright? ' Lynch: It can' t be on the parkland in excess of 24 hours . Watson : As long as it' s completely in the water it' s alright. Lynch: That' s what we' re being told . ' Sietsema : The boat that' s moored there on the very, very northern end , there' s nothing we can do about it. There' s nothing we can do about that raft because we have nothing on the books that prohibits mooring a boat or a raft out from park property. That' s on the memo . . . Mady: I tell you what , when we go to bouy that , putting bouys out there, ' I 'm going to make part of the amendment of the ordinance is we' re not going to allow people to put anything out from park property. To me putting a raft out on a public beach is no different than somebody else coming in and deciding to put their own play structure in a city park and saying that' s theirs. You just don' t do those things because once it' s there, the City has the liability. That' s it . It ' s ours . Sietsema : It' s on the list for the park amendment issues for next time. Lynch : Okay, I made a motion , Carol seconded it that we add four parking ' spots . Mady: Signed off-street parking . Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 33 Lynch moved , Watson seconded that the park along Lotus Trail at Carver Beach be brought up to park maintenance standards with four parking spaces , proper signage and swimming bouys . All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST TO REMOVE SEAWEED AND WATER LILIES AT CARVER BEACH. Mady: Lori , did you ever find out what part of the lake this was? , Sietsema: It is at the Carver Beach. The designated beach. The main Carver Beach. There are lilies that are encroaching. Mady: Are they lilies or are they those . . . Sietsema: I don' t know. Mady: I do know that I don ' t want to see us do too much weeds. There are a lot of residents around that lake that if you start removing vegetation from the shoreline, they' re going to be real . . . Lynch: Do you have to have DNR approval? , Sietsema : You have to have a DNR permit and there is a cost involved in having the weeds removed. I still don' t know what that cost is . ' Schroers : I have some personal expertise in that. We hire every year a private company to come in and remove weeds at our park and it' s very II expensive. It ' s time consuming . There are a number of problems involved with it. Their equipment is very large and very bulky. They have to have an adequate place to load it and unload a very good launch facility. They need a place to discard the material after it' s harvested and that stuff gets rank. Sietsema: There would be no way they would be able to get their equipment down that hill then to Carver Beach. Schroers : Besides being expensive, it' s not 100% effective. They don' t II get all the weeds. Propelling their machines through the water creates a wake out in front which pushes some of the weeds away from their cutters so it' s difficult. They do get a majority of it but it' s lot like mowing your yard . It comes back. Not quite as bad but it does come back. ' Hasek: Don' t they only go out 4 feet or something too? Schroers : Yes , 4 or 5 feet is probably as far down as you can do it and the main reason that we do it is to eliminate swimmers itch because the swimmers itch actually comes from the snails and the snails live underneath the weeds. They remove the weeds and that eliminates the environment for the snails and eliminates the swimmers itch. Mady: How extensive is the problem? I 've seen a few weeds and it' s kind I of bothersome when you walk out or is it choking the beahc out? Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 34 Sietsema : I know that this is all she wrote. Please remove seaweed and lily pads from public swimming access on Lotus Lake off of Carver Beach Road . Over the past years it has always been free of such particals but ' since people are back swimming they've noticed the seaweed. It would be a great help and make swimming there much more enjoyable. That' s all I know. ' Schroers : It' s roaming vegetation. It ' s not seaweed that' s floating in that' s been cut up by motors. Mady: I know from my experience on the lake it' s a bad year for them. The water got warm real fast. The lake levels are down. You didn' t have a lot of snow cover so the lake vegetation was going earlier so light ' penetration was in there. The weeds are growing fast here but I know swimming in the lake and walking through the weeds is a problem. ' Sietsema: The other thing is that the lake is so far down you' re a lot further out than you used to be. Where the swimming area is , where they had the weeds controlled, is now swimming out further . At my folks house , is the same thing . I said mom you' ve got so many weeds this year . ' What' s the problem and she said I don' t know. We've never had this many weeds and the thing is the lake is down 8 feet. We used to swim where there is all this nice sandy open space. We' re out in the weeds that ' we' ve never been able to touch bottom before. Schroers: The other thing with the weed harvester is that they are ' presently in very high demand and to be able to call them up and have them come over and take care of your weed problem, you' ll probably be waiting for months . ' Sietsema : The recommendation was to wait a year and see if the swimmers don' t, if you do have a lot of swimming and a lot of people swimming , that sometimes will take care of a small problem. And if it doesn ' t, then maybe put some on the end of the budget for next year . Mady: . . .a policy of ours to see how the lake handles it. If the lake level comes up. Hasek: Is there anything that' s on this that ' s absolutely mandatory for tonight? Do we have to finish these up? ' Sietsema: I need a schedule for City Council meetings. SITE PLAN REVIEW: CHES MAR FARMS. Sietsema : This is the proposal being proposed by Lotus Realty, Brad Johnson. It' s located just off of TH 41 about a quarter mile north of TH 5. There are no parks in the area currently servicing the area but it is a rural part of the City and it' s not a high priority for parkland . ' The trail plan calls for trails along TH 41. You can see in the staff report, it' s pretty short and the recommendation is to request that Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 35 payment of park dedication fees be requested in lieu of parkland and a 20 foot trail easement along TH 41 with the trail fees requested instead of trail construction . Hasek: This is not being affected by what we' re proposing along the , south side of Lake Minnewashta is it? The trail through that new development that' s down there . Hoping to tie in . . . You know when we talked about trails . ' Sietsema: It' s south. Hasek: The question is , is the trail go through or does it go up to the Regional Park? Sietsema: We don' t have anything going through. The trail goes through the development to the south and then up to the little Tanadoona Drive and out to TH 41. Watson : So you pick up there at TH 41. ' Sietsema: It' s just a small section along TH 41. Mady: There ' s not a lot of space for us to do much . You've got a park on one side and a camp on the other . Sietsema: This area here , this Outlot A, they are proposing as a , recreational area. I think they' re hoping to get a beachlot to it . Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend payment of the park dedication fees in lieu of park land and to request a 20 foot trail easement along Highway 41 and request payment of the trail fees in lieu of trail construction for Ches Mar Farms . All voted in favor and the motion carried . SITE PLAN REVIEW: HIDDEN VALLEY. Sietsema : This proposal lies on the north side of Lake Drive East just east of Q-Superette. It' s zoned business neighborhood. The neighborhood in this area is served by Rice Marsh Lake Park and the sidewalk is already in place along Lake Drive East. Due to the size and the nature of the development , staff is recommending to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction. Boyt: Do they pay trail dedication fees if there' s already a trail , existing? Sietsema : Yes . ' 11 Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 36 ' Hasek moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction for Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARK NAMING CONTEST - WEEKLY FEATURE PARK. Mady: This is real quick. There is no handout. I called Lori about 2 weeks ago. I drove by the park that exists next to DataServ. No one knows there' s no sign. There exists right now a road, no park benches or picnic tables or anything but there is a road there and I believe there are 2 swings. It' s mowed. It' s a nice looking spot. It' s not real big. We don' t have a name for that park. ' Sietsema: It used to be the sewage treatment plant site. Mady: No one knows it exists . We need to name that park so we have something to go by. Maybe what we need to do is get a whole publicity thing going with the Chanhassen Villager and see if maybe she would be ' willing to go in every week or every other week and write a little blurb on a particular park. This week they' re going to talk about Bluff Creek. Next week Chan Estates and work with staff and find out about them and get some information into the hands of the public. In line with that go with a name the park contest of some sorts and start doing some things for publicity. I don ' t need a motion but maybe just mention it to Mary and see if she has any interest in doing that. ' Sietsema : I did talk to her about the weekly feature and she didn ' t know. . . Mady: If she could give us a couple of columns every couple weeks . Watson: Especially right now. Sietsema: If there' s an event tied in with it. If there' s some development going on in the park or there' s something happening in the ' park, she said that would be fine but to just say here' s the park of the week and it' s got this , this and this located there. She said no. She didn ' t actually say it in those words. ESTABLISH COMMISSION SCHEDULE TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. July 11 - Ed Hasek ' July 25 - Sue Boyt Aug. 8 - Jim Mady Aug. 22 - Carol Watson Sept . 12 - Larry Schroers Sept. 26 - Curt Robinson Park and Recreation Commission II June 14, 1988 - Page 37 II Sietsema : If I could just over a couple things that I handed out . The II referendum related authorizations. Engineering will be proceeding with getting plans and specifications for Lake Ann Park expansion. We hope to be doing grading this fall . Hasek: That ' s another park that' s not going to be ready for at least two II years, maybe three? Sietsema : If we get going this fall than we should be able to get it I done next year and maybe have it done by 1990. Hasek: But it won' t be ready for the season anyway. I Sietsema: No, I don' t think we' ll be able to play on it that first year . The way it sounds. The other big thing on that was that the community II center task force will not be because as we told everyone during the referendum process , it was a one time deal . We aren ' t able to afford a community center and after the little auditing business and Don' s gone II through all the finances , we don' t have enough money to put a community center anywhere else so we' ll be contacting the people who wanted to be on. . . He said that we should be able to afford the trails so we ' re still II planning to go ahead with the trails on the November ballot. I will be forming that task force. There were about 5 people that were interested in being on that. Schroers : I think we should form a task force of those people that said I we could afford to build one out at Lake Ann and . . . Sietsema: The other thing was that the chain of lakes clean-up project. I The City Council did commit to that. I put that in front of you too. Making a commitment and if you read through there, that outlines , specifically says that the Park and Recreation Commission will be the I lead agency in holding the public hearings for these boat accesses in the next couple years so just keep in mind that that may require some extra meetings. That may require some meetings that are dedicated solely to II that topic. Especially in Lake Lucy. Mady: Are you going to start then looking at Lake Lucy and kind of II figure out how we do it? Sietsema: I have been. Mady: Is there anything we should know about the 4th of July II celebration? Anything that we' ll be asked to do? Sietsema : Yes . Just a minute . II Boyt : I ' ve been talking to people about it because. . .and they don' t want to be in the celebration. II Mady: On all of that asphalt? II II Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 38 I Boyt : Yes . Are you going to tak, a family of kids up there and sit on the asphalt and watch the fireworks? No . They'd rather not go. They don ' t want to go . There' s no place for the kids . They don ' t want to sit on the asphalt. They can bring their lawn chairs and sit on those. It doesn ' t appeal to them. I talked to Craig Westerman who owns a business in town. He says he wasn' t interested . . . I was trying to get people to work up there and when they find out where it is , they' re not interested anymore. Since we' re asked to be a part of it, I think we should have some input . Sietsema: The reason that it is where it is is because the HRA is going to be involved and a good portion of what goes on on that night, they' re having their downtown lighting ceremony so similar we had the ground breaking last year . They are going to have the free hot dogs again this year and that whole bit so they thought for the lighting ceremony, instead of having people being moved all over the City, they wanted to have it all downtown so they could flip the big imaginary switch and all the new lights downtown go on and that kind of thing. That was the reason why that spot was chosen . Boyt : I know it ' s the HRA and lighting the downtown lights but I think it 's going to hurt the 4th of July celebration. I 'd like to see it back up behind City Hall . Sietsema : We haven ' t got a place to shoot fireworks . Boyt: You can shoot them off the same place you' re going to shoot them off here . You can shoot them off right back over here and watch them from the lawn up here. There' s nothing back there. Schroers : What would be wrong with having that part of it down at Lake Ann and then just having. . . Mady: The fireworks? Schroers : The fireworks and the dance and the whole program down there and then have the lighting ceremony up here. Sietsema : It' s a matter of shuttling people back and forth and the traffic and what not. The other thing about having everything out at Lake Ann Park is that the traffic . Where are we going to park cars and then once the whole thing ' s over , getting cars out of there onto TH 5. Directing traffic in the middle of the night like that is a dangerous situation. We' re going to have to be looking at Lake Ann as our future spot for the whole thing because we ' re running out of places elsewhere where we can shoot off the fireworks. It ' s getting to the point where . . . Schroers : Aesthetically it would certainly be the nicest spot. Sietsema: I agree with that and I agree, I have the same arguments on the downtown. Park and Recreation Commission I June 14 , 1988 - Page 41 Sietsema : Yes . I ' ll talk to Jim. About the trail along Lotus Drive . I We will have to hold public hearings before that happens because it does affect people. Even though it may be going in the right-of-way, they' re going to want to have their input. I Mady: Can you have Larry Brown give us information for our next meeting . We're looking now at July. There 's only another two months left before I school starts and I don' t want those kids walking on the street next year . Hasek: How are we going to affect that if we haven' t got the easements? I Are you going to buy them? Mady: My understanding is we' ve got enough right-of-way to do it. Sietsema: But we need to hold public hearings though. Mady: We' ll have to do that in July. I want a trail along there. Hasek moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned . Submitted by Lori Sietsema I Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim l 0/24-f-t `-7 04;tci t(LcALP144-4-calit-e-u 0 A , 74.A.k4A.A4k4A, 4 ' /vvZ 9k. /L 4 L,(/LC-tlC.L 1/),(4, 4.4,1_12"44, a a Na C-- ? V,(41 %J1 ' -L1 Iviteuz-Gc;6.4 t/L —� 01-ALA,U ' it kit-eL,t-t--gt-f-c_ /A-73-7 _ 24.t, tiui iatteA_> 2. 17-ke_ , 1.6-ce„e(' .V,V 1, --- i �! � /j1 / J\rr , i A 1 aArL, --e+e_e_L-124 - ek,ta / 1