Loading...
CC 1995 01 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING '.. JANUARY 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened xvith the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashxvorth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Scott Harr, John Rask, and Diane Desotelle APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the amendments: Mayor Chmiel xvanted to add onto the Consent Agenda item 1(1). Set Meeting Date for Springsted to come in and discuss $5.5 Million Bond Issue; under Council Presentations, Mayor Chmiel wanted to give update on Highway 212 toll road and update regarding reviewing of investments, Councilman Mason wanted to discuss the January 30, 1995 work session. All voted in favor and the motion carried to approve the agenda as amended. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the folloxving Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approve Amendment to Grading Plan for Bluff Creek Estates 4th and 5th Additions, Project Nos. 93°22 and 94-10. d. Resolution #95-13: Accept Utility Improvements in Minnewashta Landings, Project 94-4. e. Approve Addendum to Development Contract for Minnewashta Landings, Project 94-4. f. Preliminary Plat Extension Request, Hiscox Addition. g. Approval of Accounts. City Council Minutes dated January 9, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 4, 1995 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 13, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated Janua~~ 12, 1995 Resolution #95-14: Approve Change Order No. 2 to Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Trunk Utility Improvement Project 92-5. Resolution #95-15: Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Upper Bluff Creek Phase IIA, Trunk Utility Improvement Project 91 - 17B (1). 1. Resolution #95-16: Set date for Springsted to give presentation regarding $5.5 million bond issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COMMISSION~ JASON THOMPSON & SUSAN HUR1VL Susan Hurm made a presentation to the Ciw Council updating them on what the Youth Commission has been doing this .,,,ear. Jason Thompson: Recently we looked at the curfew policy that's going up in front of the Carver Count3, Commissioners and Jeannie Strauss and I revised the policy to allow for students to read it easier and we passed out...and they took a survey on it and we got an idea of what their thoughts were. And over a past meeting we looked at them and we sorted them out and we sent all the serious ones to the County Commissioners so they could consider them and look at what the students thought of the curfew. And most of the students really liked it. They thought it xvas a good idea so that was kind of cool. And we went to the Middle Center and we talked about, with the teachers about us taking a survey. Or giving a survey to all the students and it was generally, it was used to find...behavior in District #112 and if there are any needs, you 'know for the students and stuff. We also did a winter survival project and...was donated last year by Target and we raised clothing for individuals in need. Examples are scarves, mittens, blankets, jackets and we also received a sizeable donation from Target again so that was nice. And we decided to start the Adopt a Flower Bed at the High School because the flower beds were getting really decrepit and so a student group will take care of the flower beds during the school year so that will help spruce up the school a little bit. And I talked to Jeannie Strauss and she had talked to a Mirmetonka Youth Commission and the3, really didn't xvant to get involved talking to us or anything. That was odd but so, we want to -know if you have an.,,' additional input of the uses for the new school, that you can contact me or Jeannie, and our numbers are in the report. So if you wanted to give us an3, more input, that'd be great. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Jason. Susan Hurm: I just wanted to add about that survey. The survey was a...survev that identifies risk behavior. It lists attitudes about...about parent involvement. It's a survey that xvhen we get the results back, hopefully some...identi~' some of the needs for addressing the problems that the kids feel are there. And it also...with cornmuniw values and anything in the cit3,' that...City of Chanhassen is already looking at to help address some of those problems...so we'll be back. Mayor Chrniel: That's neat. Thank you. Appreciate it very much. Jason, I'd like you to carry back to the rest of the students that are in this with you, and I think the language that you can understand, it's cool. You're doing the work as you should and we really appreciate it. Jason Thompson: Thanks a lot. City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 SELECT ALIGNMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ARBORETUM BOULEVARD AND TO APPROVE THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO LANE ACCESS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILES IN LENGTH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH 5. Public Present: Name Address Peter Coyle Dan Cook Nancy Mancino Mr. and Mrs. Paul Wolf Jack 9. Dawn Ronningen W.J. Ward Ron Erickson Evan R. Green James Unruh Mike Gorra Jeff Oberman Julie Wojtanowski Susan & Charles Markert Cinda Jensen Joan Joyce Virginia Bell Peter Olin Ray & Lisa Notermann Mona J. Kerber Rep Pat & Lee Kerber @ Bloomington Edina 6620 Galpin Blvd. 7701 Chanhassen Road Minneapolis 7471 Tulip Minneapolis MnDot MnDot Barton Aschman 1680 Highxvay 5 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. 2145 Brinker Street 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. 2173 Brinker Street 2043 Brinker Street 7476 Crocus Court MN Landscape Arboretum 1450 Arboretum Blvd. 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the CiBr Council. As you recall, back on March 28, 1994, you held a lengthy meeting to take input on selecting a preferred alternative for Highway 5. This was after lengthy, a lot of work done by a task force that you helped select and the Planning Commission... After that March 28th meeting you selected the southern alignment for your preference for this EA document. Dick Wing, who used to be on the City Council, really was one of the catalyst in looking at having Bill Morrish come out and do a design in looking at what this area could be in relation to the expansion of the Highxvay 5 and xvhat that meant as far as design for the city. Bill Morrish had a plan and from that plan we hired Barton-Aschman who helped...study of what land uses we could get in that area in conjunction with looking at different road alternatives. Since the Council made the decision in March to go the southern alignment, Dick felt strongly that xve needed to go back and revisit the reasons why Planning Commission and the Task Force had recommended the northern alignment and what the purpose and what the vision of that...work session back on May 18th where Bill Morrish and Barry Warner who was the consultant wor'king on the land use document...to kind of go back and capture the vision of why plan was being done and why we wanted to take a little bit different look. Just to reiterate some of the thoughts...And it appeared at that meeting, in a straw poll, that maybe Council would consider going to the north... Again the purpose of the meeting tonight is to get a final selection...before you gave us a preferred alignment and what that is... Some things have changed since that March meeting. We were hoping actually to have this before you some time in August. Unfortunately...all the agencies that need to review. Here with us tonight from Barton-Aschman, who worked on the Environmental Assessment document City Council Meeting - Janua~, 23, 1995 is Deb Porter. Also James Unruh who worked on the design... And also from MnDot here is Evan Green and Ron Erickson and they'd be happy to answer specific questions you have about the...Highway 5...2002 so some of that revenue may be quite a ways out so some of the decision making process ma.,,, change based on... In addition development is occurring north of that so staff felt it `,vas critical that the Council make a decision... Just for summar3.', for some of the people that may not be familiar with the process and... There are two alternatives that... We're not going to go back through the document itself. We'll be happy to answer specific questions if you want to address those but...guiding towards a narrower driveway just with a bike path. I think one of the other...looking at both alternatives. It seemed like, this was a comparison of all the right-of-way acquisitions, wetlands and all the mitigation, environmental issues and the bottom line is they seemed to be pretty close...for both alternatives...so really we felt and the Planning Commission and the task force really felt that it came down to...and we put those reasons in this report. What we felt that the northern alignment was the preferred. That again being an extension the main street. If it were to go...south, we felt that maybe an additional...and in addition we felt like this environmentally seemed like the best way to locate the road.., if you do select a different alternative, the northern alignment, then we do have a different resolution that you have to adopt that solidifies your findings and your reasons...you did adopt the Highway 5 overlay standards. Design standards. Again we're kind of waiting to see which alignment ,,vas selected before we went back to the land use. We still haven't adopted all the components of the corridor stud.,,' itself. Once xve select the final road alignment and we get through all the requirements and get an approved document, EA document, then we ,,`,'ill bring back over to you some of the land use recommendations that... So at this time we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Again, it's not a public hearing... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. I had many mixed feelings xvhen I had discussions today with staff in regard to this, only because of the fact that I felt that we had already chosen a specific route as far as Council `,`,'as concerned. I guess at this time ,,`,,hat I'd like to do, I 'knox`,.' there's some people here in the audience who probably would like to say something. But I would ask this evening that you limit your time to approximately 5 minutes. We have gone through this process before. We've heard it. We've read it. We probably are in a position to already make that particular recommendation at this time. But I would like to extend that courtesy to you and if you would please come forward. State ,','our name and address and who you're representing. So with that, who would like the first opportuniU' to come forward? Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is TenD.., Forbord. I'm Vice President with Lundgren Bros in Wayzata. 925 East Wayzata Boulevard. I have a question for the staff... Mayor Chmiel: Have you had an`,' discussions with staff prior to Council time? Ten5..' Forbord: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: Have vou had an opportunity to speak with staff prior to this evening? Ten3.' Forbord: Not pertaining to this question. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ten5.' Forbord: I'll address the Council and the Council can... Is there any land use decisions associated with either alternative? I mean if alternative 1 is adopted by the City Council, is there a land use on a specific property...because I have not been able to determine that. CiS, Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Kate. Kate Aanenson: Part of the document there was to be given a land use alternatives. Those selections have not been made. I think you wanted to see some alternatives...decision making process but no, the final determination has not been made. Terry Forbord: The reason for the question is, from a planning perspective, remember last time I appeared before this body and shared with you Lundgren Bros preference for an alternative that was based upon a planning perspective on a particular site that we had the opportunity to acquire within the corridor and from a planning perspective solely, it makes a big difference to us what can be done on the site and what can't be done on the site. If I 'knew that a specific land use '`vas attached to a specific alternative, that may change how we look at it but it has always been our thought, from a design perspective, that the northern route provide the greater degree of planning flexibility on the parcels that we have. But I have not seen again, any land use decisions on either one so that's difficult...but as far as what's presented in the northern route did allow for that from a designing standpoint... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Virginia Bell: Members of the Council, my name is Virginia Bell. I live in the Windmill Run area which is immediately north of... I have a couple of concerns .... notice of this meeting. We're in a relatively new development and I 'know some of my neighbors didn't get noticed and there's some question as to whether or not this was a decision making action tonight or whether it was just an informational meeting... I wanted to speak in favor of the southern route...As you probably know there's a great deal of controversy going on regarding development immediately south of us. Between us and Highway 5 and one of the things that's being proposed is a txvin home development and people have a great deal of concern about that. One of the things that has been discussed at the Planning Commission regarding that development is the need to transition between our neighborhood and that proposed twin home development or a similar type of development...neighbors from a common sense standpoint, that with the southerly route we have more room for that kind of transition. And the other thing that concerned me about the northerly route is that, as I look at it, it seems to me we're creating islands there between the northerly route and Highway 5 and we're forcing a high density development in that area. One of the concerns that I have and what my neighbors have had is that...high density development next to Highway 5. And I wonder if we aren't forcing our high density development there, that being an island between the access road that goes to the north and Highway 5 and thereby forcing high density development there and pushing a medium density development up to us and creating islands of densiB' there xvithout having a continuity in... The other concerns that some of my neighbors share is the noise level. That we are going to have a much greater noise level with the northerly alignment, and I saw in the EA report that the noise levels are much greater with the northern alignment. The other concern that I share is if we use the northerly alignment to go through these storage... I know Chanhassen has been committed to preserving...resources and the northerly route seems to go through one of them. Those are our primary, or my prima~ concerns. I also wanted to raise a question regarding funding and it ,,vas clear to me when I talked with staff today, how is this going to be funded. And if funding is all coming from developers...and that is a concern. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Christopher J. Eastland: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Christopher J. Eastland appearing on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. I'll limit my remarks by referring to a number of letters that we have already made part of this record, the most relevant of which is a letter dated March 28th of 1994. We ask that that letter as City Council Meeting - Januau, 23, 1995 well as the others be made a part of this record. I'd like to make a couple of points and that is that we have submitted alternatives that do not as severely impact our property as either the northerly or southerly alignment affects the Mills Fleet Farm property. And as the Council is well aware, xve have appeared on man.,,' occasions expressing our concern that the project renders the Mills Fleet Farm property largely undevelopable. At a task force meeting going back as far as June of 1993 we had submitted Mills Alternative numbers 1 and 2, xvhich were largely disregarded by the task force and have not at least been formally considered as far as Mills Fleet Farm is concerned. It's been our position that as a result of the consideration of either the northerly or the southerly, you will severely impact our abilit3.' to develop, specifically the northerly which is apparently being seriously considered tonight, that due to the city's proposed road alignments, the potential wetland limitation and the city's stated desire to preserve all of the on site vegetation on the property, that the northerly alignment would render the property largely undevelopable for a Mills Fleet Farm site. In that event we think that if the city does adopt the northerly alignment, that the ci~' should be prepared to acquire the entire Mills Fleet Farm properS' because we will not be able to use it as we had proposed and as were part of the discussions when it was acquired with the conversations with the city. We would, as a second matter, like to note that in reviewing the staff comments which we received tonight and discussions, the four discussion points regarding the task force and Planning Commission's reasons for Alternative 1, which I've been calling the northerly alignment, that we have not, in the hearings that we've been involved in, heard any factual support for those reasons. If the Council adopted the southerly alignment and moved it slightly to the south, that would still be and in so far as the Mills Fleet Farm properS' is concerned, some 600 to 700 feet from Highway 5 and we believe the evidence xvould support that offers a sufficient visual distance between Highway 5 and that project. We would urge that the Council not approve the northern alignment but rather that Council consider either of the two Mills alternatives. Alternatively, if the northern is adopted, that the Council be prepared to condemn the entire parcel Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Joan Jovce' My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2042 Brinker Street in the Windmill Run development and have been to a few of these meetings and my experience so far with the city of Chanhassen is...quite confusing to me as a homeowner...because when we first built our house out on Brinker Street we were told by some people xvhat was going to be developed south of us. Now Lake Ann Highlands is looking at single family detached homes. There are several people from my neighborhood xvho are extremely concerned about this and they've kept a close watch on the development as it's going on. And I understand that there have only been a few people in the neighborhood that even received a letter about tonight's discussion. If I think, I strongly believe that people in my neighborhood were to understand, including myself, that this xvas going to be a meeting in which a decision was actually going to be made concerning the road, I'm positive that...because there are people here concerned about what sort of impact this has on our neighborhood. Several of the people I 'know are attending a School Board meeting xvith regards to the Bluff Creek...and therefore couldn't be here. But again, the letter that I received did not state anything about making a decision. From xvhat I understand it was more open discussion and an informational meeting. So I would like to show my support based on the small amount of information that I've been able to gather on my own, that the southern route makes more sense because in terms of what it's going to be the effect on my neighborhood, I don't see how you could continue to accomplish a single family neighborhood anyxvhere north of this northerly frontage road. Again, my concern is over the traffic and the possibility of a higher densit3,' housing in the pocket between Highway 5 and the northern alignment. So again, I think there's been a lot of confusion with the people in my neighborhood, I don't think that they feel as though they've been informed properly. And based on our knowledge, we'd like to see the southern alignment but we'd like to get more information on what the future plans would be for the development around... Thank you. CiB' Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Susan Markert: Hi. My name is Susan Markert. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard and our property butts up to Mills Fleet Farm propert3.'. I have, I '`vas on the task force studying that...and the Mills Fleet Farm was asking for some factual support to you 'know, to make recommendation. I am not...but I do have...support that supports the road to the, the northern route which would be closest to our house, would be the only workable way that the traffic can stack on coming across Highway 5. It is backed up almost to our house or actually in fro~t of our sometimes and this road here, if some of you aren't able to go out...but even when I look out the bedroom window I can see the traffic right almost equal with our houses. Almost going past our house but not, you know not quite. So if your route was to go to the south, I can't see how it would be possible or workable... that in itself should get that point across. Whether it be south to CR 117 from Lake Ann or whatever, that's the other thing. But when it comes to Highway 41, just that fact in itself is, I -know for a fact, you 'know looking out my bedroom window. You -know you've done a lot of studies before but if you're out there every day in the morning and you're trying to get out of your driveway to take your child to like daycare and the traffic's backed right up, well that's...road was to the south, it just wouldn't be working. And also my husband and I are both, you 'know we're both very private people and if the road was to the north, I think that would at least give us some privacy as to whatever happens to the south. I would rather see nothing happen but that's not realistic you 'know. So whatever happens, whether it be commercial or whatever, just you know having the road to the south would be a transition for us I believe that would just allow us to still be ourselves and still have whatever's happening to the south. But you 'know... just for factual information, the stacking of the traffic would be impossible with the southern. That's all I '`ranted to say. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Jeff Oberman: I'm Jeff Oberman. I live at 7450 Hazeltine Boulevard and that is exactly where the northern route would butt into Highxvay 41 and I would like to agree with Sue's comments regarding the traffic at that intersection. It often times backs to the north of Highway 5 from Highway 41 all the way to and past my driveway. A road, the southern route butting into TH 41 south of that would seem to be a confusing or maybe unworkable situation...needs to be further explored as to whether or not that made sense for the road to butt in there. I don't really have any comments of the north or south routes to the east of that but where it comes into TH 41, I think there's a real issue of the south... Mavor Chmiel: Thank you. Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay Dolejsi. I live at 6961 Chaparral Lane. I own the property right by the Mid American Baptist Social properts.'. I had been supporting the southern route but after discussions with some of the people interested in developing that, and with the uncertainty of land use in that area, I believe the northern route probably would provide greater flexibilits.' and offer opportunities to give some type of transition for the different uses that have been suggested by the Council and the Planning Commission. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Mike Gon'a: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. The southwest side of Lake Ann, and I would just like to comment that I think the Council's action of March choosing the southern route ,,vas a correct one. It appears there are a lot of people here that feel the same way. In fact I don't even think that people from the Mills development would even be here if the southern route would have been adhered to, because the northern route xvas closer to their development and usually high density roadways will bring high density City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 development with them and that's the whole purpose of their concern. If the southerly route would have been adhered to, we wouldn't have had the last 3 or 4 meetings up here on the Highlands and Windmill development. Also I'd like to comment on the cost. I saw on your chart there that staff had cost comparisons was almost equal for Alternates I and 2. I don't think I agree with that because Alternate 2, you're only taking a sliver off one end of most of that propert3;. That's not life threatening. You go through the center of a piece of property, that's a whole different story. I've already had appraisers and developers...and they're willing to testify in court that the northerly xvill cost the cit3.~ approximately 3 times, in acquisition costs that the southerly route would cost. Also I'd like to remind the city that a road usually, unless it's the North Shore Drive or, is not usually a thing of beauty that some people have been claiming up until now. It's really a necessary evil. Nobody likes the sounds, the traffic and the dangers associated with a road and therefore it should be built where it will do the least damage and be the most cost efficient. That is not the northerly route. The last thing I'd like to say, and I don't like to open old xvounds but I'm sure we all remember what happened in downtown Chanhassen, West 78th Street .,,.,ears ago when it was built. The main street doxvn there when it xvas built, basically because it looked good. Little islands with trees. Narrow roadway. What happened there was a disaster. It had to be rebuilt at great costs. Let's not make the same mistake. They're both following the same procedure. Build something because it looks better. Therefore I'm asking the Council to go over their original resolution from March and take the southerly route. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Cinda Jensen: My name is Cinda Jensen and I live at 2173 Brinker Street in the Windmill Run development. And I'd like to just reiterate my neighbors concerns with the lack of 'knowledge provided about this meeting and the intent of what was to take place at this meeting. We felt that this was an input meeting and not that a decision was going to be made on the road. Secondly I'd like to just say that I would have to pretend that I have a lot of knowledge on either road right now but common sense to me just, it doesn't make sense that you'd take an area that seems to be an area that Chanhassen has been trying to develop for neighborhoods. In fact...a lot of neighborhoods between downtown Chanhassen and out to TH 41. And divide that up with two high traffic roads. You've already got Highway 5. I would see the alternative route to the north as just another high volume road and it takes...situation where you're going to have two high traffic roads running through as opposed to pushing those two particular routes together and forcing that high volume into a narrower corridor. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Charles Markert: I'm Charles Markert. Susan's husband. I live at 7461 Hazeltine and...and making a decision for the north or the south. It's difficult, like the other gentlemen who had spoken as far as we don't know what land use, what we're going to do with the property. Whether it's going to be commercial. Whether it's going to be residential. I think if we do that, it will make it a little easier defining which road we ought to have. If Mills Fleet Farm wants to come in, that be turned into commercial, that's fine with me. If they come in, I wouldn't really want to live there. So I realh' think that the whole area from TH 5 up past my home to the wetlands will be turned into commercial. I can't see a hodgepodge of commercial and double housing, and the difficult.,,' of deciding where that road goes if you were to go single family, I can see the northern route. The other southern route, if you're going to have commercial...how can you make a decision if we don't 'know xvhere the land is going to be. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? If not, xve'll bring it back to Council for additional discussion. Maybe even a determination. We either change it or we don't. Mark. City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: Well I guess to tell you the truth, I'd have to say I was a little taken back to see this item on the agenda tonight the way that it xvas because I guess if there was a straw poll vote taken after Morrish's presentation, I xvasn't aware of it. I listened intently to what Mr. Morrish had to say in trying to convince us to move our decision from the south to the north but I'm son3,, I still could not see any, I'm not going to say moving facts that have changed my mind. I feel very strongly that the southern route is the way to go. I disagree with the premises 1, 2 and 3 that are on our staff report and I continue to do so. The fourth one I think is a land use premise that we have yet, or issues that we have yet to deal ~vith. I think, you know I've been through this several times noxv. Not in Chanhassen but in some other communities and it seems to me that the false impression you create is that, one thing I hear a lot is well we need to create this island. Well I think that's a real false impression because when you create the island, the premise of the island is basically going to be the buffer and I think you're wrong. It's not going to be the buffer. I think the island, what happens then is once you set this island up and you make the road, let's call the road the barrier, or the buffer, then it becomes a tug of war as to what happens on both sides of the xvar. Or both sides of the road, which is war I guess is the easiest way to put it. It's going to kind of be who's that person, who's road is it and what type of use should use that road and everything else. I think the road itself is basically a buffer but I think it's a buffer from the highway and I think it belongs as close to the highway as we can put it, leaving room for some natural landscape amenities, that sort of thing. I think beyond that, I think we need to deal with land use decisions to the north of the frontage road which will provide adequate buffering and I think those responsible land use decisions are something that we need to deal with yet. And I guess I really think it'd be a mistake on our part to kind of establish a road as the barrier let's say, because I don't think it's going to be very productive at all. So I continue to support the southern alignment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike. Councilman Mason: A couple of quick questions. With the southern alignment, Kate refresh my memoir -,,,,ill you. That means we have to take Swings, right? Yes? No? Mayor Chmiel: A portion of the chip and putt area, right. Councilman Mason: But it would not be a total condemnation then necessarily? Kate Aanenson: We have to back up. There's no motivation to build the road at this point so, how long it sits there in that use, xve're not in a position to. Originally we were tracking this Highway 5, and as we indicated, it's out past the year 2000. Is that 10 years from now, I don't 'know. I guess when the frontage road gets officially mapped... Councilman Mason: Right. So at this point realistically, anything west of Galpin Boulevard is conjecture at this point? Kate Aanenson: I would sa3', unless the developer's willing to put in the road as part of development. But the city's not going to do anything. Councilman Mason: Right, right. Okay. Also refresh my memory please. We chose the southern alignment with the exception of the western portion, right? We wanted to just go north there, just because of the stacking problems and what not? Right? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: Just at TH 41. Councilman Mason: Just at TH 41 there, yeah. Kate Aanenson: No. No, that wasn't xvhat I got from the meeting. The southern... Deb Porter: It'd be...on these drawings it'd be the yellow alignment. Mavor Chmiel: Okay. To the best of my 'knowledge, xve looked at the route with number 1 being up in that particular area because of the stacking problem, as I recall. Kate Aanenson: It wasn't part of the official... I think you probably discussed it quite a bit but it wasn't part of the record... Councilman Mason: Well we may need to talk about that a little bit. I've got a bunch of stuff written down here and we have been through most of it. Cost. Impact to environment. Impact to citizens. Implications to and for development. I also have in big capital letters, I want to make a decision tonight so I hope this doesn't get tabled. I believe I said last time, and I think I'm going to stick with that. If my only concern were the natural resources in the city of Chanhassen, I would strongly support the northern alignment. I think it looks nicer. I think it would be nicer. I k_now we're talking about whether a road can be pretty or not, and I think those are just some aesthetic differences. My heart is with the northern alignment but I voted for the southern alignment before for reasons that we talked about. I think Mark hit upon a lot of them. The environment Cit-3; Council has to deal with is what we think is best for the whole city, and again I think the northern alignment would undoubtedly be prettiest, notwithstanding, and there are real concerns of Windmill and the other people, but I, unless I hear something different tonight, as I stand right now I'm going to continue to support the southern alignment. I do want to have some discussion about the tail end though. The west end. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like to address first the residents here from Windmill Run. We've had a problem, I don't 'know if it's a problem, there's an issue with noticing, particularly with the newer neighborhoods. It takes a while to get on the mailing list and I'm not sure how xve do that Kate, and all of city staff, we need on issues like this, we need a better way of notifying the residents, particularly the newer neighborhoods, because this is something that we hear frequently. Whether for whatever reason. And we didn't have what the notice was so I can't comment on xvhether it was unclear as to what we were deciding tonight. But having said that, I'm not sure that, I don't agree that the alignment that we pick is going to determine what the land use is. There are alternatives for land use regardless of xvhich alignment we choose. I was xvondering why I wasn't here at last March's meeting. It occurred to me that it was my son's birth date. So fortunately I don't have to reverse or affirm anything tonight that I, a decision I have made. I guess I see my role, one of my main roles on CiB' Council is to provide that vision for the ci~,~, and as Mike said, what is best for the city long term. And one of the first issues, major issues that we faced when I first came on Council was the Highway 5 study and the thought was, let's plan ahead for what may happen instead of just letting it happen and let's do it right. And the reasons we wanted to do a frontage road, or as I told Kate today, it's the F word. The access boulevard, is to pull traffic off of Highway 5 and to give short routes, or neighborly routes a different way to go to get into town. To get to Lake Ann, to whichever. And I see the northerly route achieving that big goal of providing an extension of Main Street. A nice serpentine way of getting to place, as opposed to a frontage road. Something that you need to get on and off and this is, the northerly route to me provides a higher use. Not 10 Ci9' Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 volume wise but a higher use in terms of making it a more pleasant experience to get from one place to another, and we're putting amenities in this road, with the trails on either side, with the tree planting that we're proposing, to make it more of a main street. Not just a frontage road, and I think if we pull that closer to Highway 5, now that we don't have the issue of help with funding from MnDot, I think we're getting further and further away from our original goal, which was to provide that higher use. That more pleasant experience. And again I don't see either alignment as predetermining what land use is going to happen with any given pocket. And I see some kind of artery having to go through neighborhoods to the north, regardless of whether we put a road, a frontage road to the south. You're still going to need some main thoroughfare through neighborhoods if it's developed and residential family. So I really see the northerly route as achieving our original goal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Steve Berquist: Well I xvasn't here last March either, and I wish that this had been put to bed in August, but since it wasn't. I ,,vent out on, I mean I'm in favor of the southerly route. Reaffirming the decision that was made last March and the biggest reason probably is because of the cost. The cost of doing a northerly alignment I think is going to be astronomical compared to a southerly alignment. I went out and walked from Lake Ann to Galpin on Friday and then on Sunday I went from Galpin to TH 41 and in standing in some of the various locations along that corridor and looking from the northern alignment south, there, you definitely create islands. I think you're going to force development in those particular areas. You're going to force high density. You're going to force, there are areas in there that won't support any kind of a footprint xvhatsoever. And as a consequence of that the entire piece of land is going to have to be taken. I just think from a cost point of view, the southerly alignment makes the most sense. Put myself out there 10 years, 15 years from now, living on the piece of property that the group home currently occupies. I'd much prefer to have a northern alignment to take into Chanhassen, but making the decision now and really we're making no decision. We're simply saying we'd like the road to go here. I go for the southern alignment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. I'm looking at something here on a map and I'd like to ask Charles a question. Where the terminus off of Powers Boulevard to Lake Ann Park, when are we looking at that specific piece of road going in? Charles Folch: Well, at this point in time that's not officially programmed. Mayor Chmiel: How can we get it officially programmed? Charles Folch: We're probably taking a lead role in the past, in a couple years...cooperative work with MnDot...project. I think at this point, given the... Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have a real lot of concerns with Lake Ann Park. Now that you're a resident of the community I think you're going to find that out. If you're going to Lake Ann Park and try to get out of Lake Ann Park, it's rather difficult. Threatening, dangerous, any descriptive word you want to use. I would like to probably at some time maybe sit down with MnDot and try to come up with some kind of a demonstration kind of project for that. But there's a real safety factor there. Numbers going in and out of that park is astronomical, and I sat there many times last year just trying it out. I sat as much as up to 15 minutes before I ,,vas able to get out onto that highway. Some people don't sit there with that intent to wait until they get a break. They take chances and those chances are the things that bother me some. So I'd like to see us look at that as soon as we possibly can, if not sooner. The other portion of this with the southern route was one of my choices as well. I see that southern route going from Audubon Road, just to the west of that, and extending up to Galpin 11 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Boulevard. I have concerns there because of two pieces of property, and I ,,vanted to make sure that we somehow miss those two pieces. In looking at another part of that for the Alternate 1 or Alternate 2, from Galpin Boulevard to TH 41. I went back out and revisited the site one more time to look at Sxvings, and if xve were to stay on that Alternate 2, which would be away from Hennessy's and the other property there. Let them extend from Alternate 2 onto Line A, which would then swing it up to Alternate 1. That ~vould be approximately what acreage? Deb Porter: Now you're speaking of which portion of'?. Mayor Chmiel: Right from where Swings is at. Right at Galpin Boulevard. Extending west. Okay, and then you have that slashover with A and B. Going up with A, up to 1, what is the distance from that point to where Alternate 2 meets xvith Alternate 17 Deb Porter: Where they merge? Mayor Chrniel: Yes. Deb Porter: Well according, to use this rough scale on here, that we have about 2/3 of a mile. It's a little less than a mile from Galpin to TH 41. Mayor Chmiel: Right. So then as we, as Michael had said too, my understanding xvas that we xvere going to go, then eventually to Alternate number 1 and extending farthest to the north rather than Alternate #2, because of the stacking problem that we envisioned with problems in that location. Is that right? Councilman Mason: Yeah. And I'm just, I'm going through the Minutes on this right now and the comment is made, we moved and seconded the southern route but the discussion prior to that ,,,,'as. Mavor Chmiel: Not picked up. Councilman Mason: Well, it's in the Minutes here but we approved the southern route but we were still continuing discussion about which way xve wanted to go with the west end. It's on, in our packet it's on page 47 or 48. The bottom half of 47 and the top of 48. So maybe we need to address that before we're through here. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's something that I wanted to just bring up right now. Councilman Senn: Don, I brought my Highway 5 file and it'd be interesting, or at least xvhat I had in my notes that one of the discussions we had was to use the southern route with more of a, we talked about more of a southern route xvith more of a turn up to the north hitting TH 41 at the more northerly location because of the stacking but we were talking about the potential, I mean it didn't have to be a straight line this way or this way necessarily. That there could be turns, you know something else involved in there. To kind of...both ends so to speak. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, this was my understanding, that's why I'm bringing it up. And even looking at the Minutes, I know the discussion was in there. Councilman Mason: Yeah, it's not clear. 12 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: But it didn't carry through, and more probably was the motion as clear as it should have been. Councilman Mason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: So that's just something I xvanted to throw out. I'm still in favor of Alternate #2 but as I looked at Sxvings, with that going up on A, that would give them still that opportunit3~ to keep that piece of property as such. And going through 2 in that area, you're sort of cutting that right into the main frame of some of his business there. And I thought if we were to just swing that to A, up to that Alternate 1, then follow through and come back and take Alternate 1 all the way to TH 41. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm concerned that, I mean least of all Council members, I'm not going to say cost is not an issue, it is but I don't see making a decision on this solely based On cost, and that's a concern that some of the Council members, that you may be making it based on that. I see more pockets, more smaller unusable pockets with the southerly route and more need to completely take pieces of land along here where it's axvfully tight, than I would see having a future developer having to put a northerly road in. Maybe I'm off base here but it would seem to me that you're incurring higher cost if that is a big consideration, in taking the southerly route. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we did look at that. That question was raised... We also looked at... Deb Porter: You're looking for a... Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well what would be the. land acquisition difference between the two alternatives? Deb Porter: In our past estimates of this, the acreage actually acquired with either alignment, just the alignment and the trail development was... We totaled up all parcels that we thought would be a probable taking because of the...for Alternate 1 and 2. Alternative 2 looks to be approximately 54 acres, and Alternative 1 would be about 47 acres. Again, we didn't take into some of the speculation that was talked about here tonight about Alternative 1 possibly creating in some people's eyes...south of Alternative 1 all the way to Trunk Highway 5. I mean we didn't get into those type of iterations. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, that's horse hockey to me. Deb Porter: ...at property as they exist now and what looks to be probably takings... It's not as vast a difference as you might think between Alternative 1 and 2. A lot of edges of property...and one of the statements made earlier here about Crossover A possibly not affecting the Swings golfing...I'm not sure that we can comfortably say that right now. We'd have to look at the property, grades in detail. We have been out there walking it also and xve feel...Alternative 1 and 2 make that whole property somewhat...Can you still hit golf balls 250 yards down there with either alternative. Probably not. Mayor Chmiel: Sure y.,ou can. Deb Porter: ...Alternate 1 or 2 or Crossover A, it's a complete taking of his property in it's current use. It's been my experience. Mayor Chmiel: I'm just thinking about 394 and the golf course in Golden Valley there where they put nets all the way around that and they moved that right as close as the)' could possibly have that. And yet they're still 13 Cits., Council Meeting - Janual3' 23, 1995 experienced in keeping that workable, so. Let me ask a question of you Colleen. When you're saying, were you talking about, because of the pockets here, are you saying that there might be another road needed to the north? Of those, besides the existing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Some internal streets. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But some of that I think can be done by an interconnection as such with that coming down through here and coming on down. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So a north/south? Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes. Yeah, sure. I don't see that as a real problem. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My other concern is that the further, the closer we pull it to Highxvay 5, the more it becomes a public road. The city should build it. It's all of their cost incurred where if you keep it a northerly alignment, it becomes part of a neighborhood street and a future developer incurs some of those costs of building it. Councilman Senn: I don't think that's a correct premise at all. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No? They're going to need some kind of artery. Councilman Senn: If anything it would border a neighborhood, but it's going to be a major feeder any way you look at it. I don't know how we escape the cost of developing that. That's not something developers are going to build as houses build along that northern tier there. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if there were nothing, if there was not an access boulevard at all, wouldn't they need to build an artery? Kate Aanenson: The plat you're going to see on the Conway piece, they are building their stretch of that road. They need to have that road to service their property, so Colleen is correct. The City's not motivated to develop and the developer's ready to go forward, he has to provide access to his property... Councilman Senn: If he chooses, yeah but I mean, if he has a small section that may be cost beneficial but. Kate Aanenson: They're building their segment on the entire stretch of that road. Councilman Senn: Which is how much? Kate Aanenson: Well that runs through the Conway property. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which is a good chunk of land. Councilman Senn: And no interior? 14 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Kate Aanenson: They have other interior streets, sure. Councilman Senn: But no interior east/west? Kate Aanenson: He needs the west connection... Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Which is my point. The further you pull it south, the less it becomes necessary to any future development in a neighborhood. So if it keeps to the north, it becomes the artery through the development and therefore could be argued the cost should be incurred by the developer. Councilman Senn: Which one's Conway? MayorChmiel: That xvould be just beyond... Kate Aanenson: Obviously you have to... Deb Porter made a statement that could not be heard on the tape. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I guess I still am in favor of the southern route but I wanted to just interject that portion of it into discussion. I don't 'know what Council's opinion would be but. Councilman Senn: I guess what I'd like to try is moving reaffirmation of the southern route with the exception of the far west end. And I guess what I'd like to propose is that the west end take the southern route and a more northerly swing so it impacts TH 41 at the point of the northern route. Mayor Chmiel: Further to the north from what the existing would be. Councilman Senn: Yeah, except the impact point would be right there where the north is. I'm just saying the route should be more, a little more preferential or I mean a little more soft on this parcel of property. I think that can happen without having to draw the straight angles from here to there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Before I call the question, I 'know that we have a couple people here from MnDot and Evan, you probably didn't think I was going to call on you did you? Sure nice to see that you're up and around and back on your feet and I'm not going to give you any static, but do you have anything additional to provide to us in regard to MnDot's position? I know as well as you do, being that I serve on the Metropolitan Council, on the advisory portion for transportation, and 'knowing where some of the problems are with funding but I understand that there might be some additional dollars available and can you comment anything on that? Whether it comes to us or whether it goes to out state as well, that's another question too. Evan Green: Yeah. I'm Evan Green and I. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up to the mic, would you please. Evan Green: My name is Evan Green and I've been out here manY times in Chanhassen working on Highway 5 and Highway 212. In regards to the funding, I guess I'd have to defer to my partner here, Ron Erickson who is in the Division of Predesign to comment on that. One thing about the High~vay 5 frontage road. We were happy to see that type of development go on so that the local traffic does have a local road rather than to come 15 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 out onto the Highway, like the Lake Ann Park situation. They're totally dependent on the trunk highway with all the thru traffic going through so this tvill be a great benefit I think to the community for the local. Maybe Ron wants to comment on... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ron and I were in a meeting just a couple days ago. Last week. Ron Erickson: My name is Ron Erickson. I'm the Metro Predesign Engineer and basically I have the pleasure of supervising Evan which makes my job a lot easier. The funding situation is definitely rather bleak...xve have a schedule here that shows obviously a lot of projects, a fairly long list of projects that are proposed for 2000 and the funds that the Mayor is speaking of I believe there's about an additional $30 million that will be coming to the region. We feel that that money primarily will pick up projects like Highway 10. Get that completed. That was a starting project and we want to complete that before we start something new. Also...212 is being considered under that investment and the... Some of that is tied in with the general funds that we're assigned to in Minnesota. And we've got to match those funds so basically...and I'm real nervous about leaving that section on TH 5 to TH 41 the way it is. Obviously doing something temporary now at Galpin is not what we want to do...definitely should be a permanent fix there but...but just trying to establish our priorities and tvorking with the area partnerships and getting their advice in doing this and basically this would be the order of things. Right now...2000. I don't see it coming much more quickly at this point. Mayor Chmiel' Unless we get some additional legislative taxes back on gasoline, as to what they're talking about. Ron Erickson: Right. Mayor Chmiel: But whether that goes through or not, that's going to be another question. Ron Erickson: I know that...engineer has indicated to me there's quite a concern. He's asking what the cost of this project is and we see it being somewhere about $7 1/2 million to complete. He definitely wants to figure something out to move that up... Steve Berquist: Can I ask a question? If you were a betting man, would you bet on it coming 2000 to 2005? 5 to 107 10 to 157 And you've got more insight than anybody here. Ron Erickson: I don't think I do I'm afraid...there's been a lot of issues discussed and basically it's a real, I want to bet and sa.,,, it would be around 2000...t don't want to be overly optimistic. Mayor Chrniel: Hopefully it was to have gone in in '96 but it did move back the additional 4 years. Ron Erickson: Right. In '98, I think next vear we'll be able to resubmit for STP funding and this project rated ,,'er3' high at the point where it was almost within that categor3,. I would see it making it the next time and hopefully that... Mavor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay, I'll bring it back to Council. Do we have a motion? Councilman Senn: I think so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to give it a shot. 16 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: Reaffirm the south alignment with a redesign on the west end to stick more with the southerly alignment but intersect TH 41 at the northerly alignment location. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #95-17: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reaffirm the south alignment with a redesign on the west end to stick more with the southerly alignment but intersect TH 41 at the northerly alignment location. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: And I think you gave some of your concerns about that. The vote is 4 to 1 for the southern alignment with some considerations done with coming up to Alternate 1 for exit onto TH 41. Thank you. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,8 ACRES OF LAND INTO THREE LOTS LOCATED AT 6240 RIDGE ROAD~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CHRISTMAS ON THE SHOREWOOD- CHANI-IASSEN CITY LIMITS~ W1VL PATRICK CUNNINGHAM~ CUNNINGHAM ADDITION. Kate Aanenson: I passed out the letters from Mr. Cunningham... This application is to subdivide into three lots. One of the lots, the most northerly one...There is an existing cabin on the properg., located on the middle lot. We did ask...the cig.' code does require that sewer be provided to this lot. In the letter that Mr. Cunningham... that was an issue before the Planning Commission... There are variances...requested that tree preservation areas... We are requesting, because of the sewer and xvater... All the lots meet the city requirements as far as square footage .... there is another variance that is required. We've put the findings in there and we are recommending approval of that...and we are recommending approval of the applicant's subdivision and a variance with the 15 conditions in the staff report. Number 4, the Planning Commission added that staff...rationale for the variance and that is, that has been accomplished... Mavor Chmiel: Thank vou Kate. Is the applicant here? Is there anything that you'd like to say in conjunction with this Pat? Pat Cunningham: Yes. I'm in agreement with even'thing that they did with the exception of the 30 feet in front of the three lots. I agree that the people who buy these lots from here, and two of them that are for sale, should have it now and in their deed that should they ever make the street up, that they would be required to furnish, free of charge, 30 feet. And there's a reason for that. One reason is the fact that people don't like... The second thing is, I don't think the city should lose all that taxes that would happen in the next 20 years by taking that land now xvhen it will be written right into each one's deeds that they will be required to furnish that at no cost. That's the only thing different than what... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Pat. Councilman Senn: Kate, did I misunderstand something here? 17 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Kate Aanenson: What we're requiring is that there be dedication. You 'know this is a private street. We are requesting dedication...public street in the future, we're requesting dedication at this time...that there's another alternative, we're recommending...Our position is that when a subdivision comes before you, that's the appropriate time to get the proposed additional right-of-way. If it does become a street in the future, that means we would have to go back and have to pay for it. We're saying that since he is subdividing now, this would be the time to take the property. Councilman Senn: And that's what sets all the lines for the setback and everything else then. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Presently it exists as a private road with accessibility in and out from there. I remember a few years ago I was going through and doing a little door pounding during election time and I found a chain across there and I couldn't quite figure out why a chain was there. But it was a private road and stopped from one portion of the city to the other. And I think that xvas put up by Shorewood more than anybody else, if I remember correctly. But anyway. An), discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Roger, is the option of writing it in the deed about giving it to the city should it ever become a road, is that a viable contract item? Roger Knutson: I think there is a, they're all viable alternatives to dedication on the plat and getting an easement into a separate document sort of accomplishing a bit of what the property oxvner wants and at the same time is protecting us so that if xve ever wanted to use it, we could do it. What I would suggest is if you just want to turn that issue over to us and if you decide to approve it subject to us working that out, I think we can work that out to eveu, one's satisfaction. And if for some reason we can't, xve'll certainly bring that back to you. But I think we can work it out. So we get the street if we need to build the street and we can respect the properts: owner's wishes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And Charles, do you ever see a need for that to be anything but a private street? Charles Folch: I'm son3.', I just walked in. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Have you had a chance to look at this project? Charles Folch: Yes I have. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you see the need for that ever to be a public street as opposed to a private street? Charles Folch: At this point I can't foresee it. Mayor Chmiel: And I think that's a good point you're bringing up Colleen, which leads to another. How many total parcels are on that particular street? Kate Aanenson: Total parcels? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 18 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: On which street? Mayor Chmiel: Well all the way up and doxvn. Even on the upper road portion of it. Councilman Senn: On Carver or. Councilwoman Dockendorf: On Ridge. Mayor Chmiel: 8.9 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Currently. Mayor Chmiel' Okay. If we xvere to make a requirement that Cunningham's go through that particular process and at the same time there are the other people within that area, they xvould probably have the ci~~ pay them for those rights? Kate Aanenson: If we needed the right-of-xvay, what we got on the Cunningham's as part of the subdivision process... Councilman Senn: We had one up here already did we not, too long ago.9 Kate Aanenson: There were lots of record in the area. Councilman Senn: But I mean wasn't there another one that we had an action on.9 Kate Aanenson: A variance? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: It wasn't a subdivision. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, do you 'know when it's going to be in front of Shorewood.9 Kate Aanenson: No, I don't. When was this supposed to go to Shorewood.9 Applicant's Representative: It's been approved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, it's already been approved, okay. Councilman Senn: Well I'll move approval with Roger's stipulation. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? 19 Ci~f Council Meeting - JanuaD~ 23, 1995 Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Preliminary and Final plat for Subdivision #94-20 with an 11 1/2 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition, subject to the plans dated December 6, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: All structures shall be built within the Shorewood city limits for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition with the exception of fences and the driveway. All appropriate permits shall be applied for from the responsible jurisdictions. The following contours are designated as the top of bluff: Lot 1 - 974 contour, Lot 2 - 978 contour, Lot 3 - 980 contour. A minimum 30 foot building setback must be maintained from these contour lines. When building permits are applied for, the applicant or future builders shall provide a survey showing the appropriate contour elevation and the minimum 30 foot setback. The following conservation easements shall be recorded over the properg/: The western 100 feet of Lot 1, Block 1; the western 140 feet of Lot 2, Block 1; and the western 180 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. Within this conservation area, only minimal shoreland alteration as provided in Section 20-482 of the Chanhassen City Code shall be permitted. Staff will review the easement to ensure that there is an appropriate area for building sites, particularly Lot 1. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction to protect all trees that are to be presel-ved. The existing dwelling on the property must connect to city sewer and water or demolish the structure. This shall be done prior to the issuance of any building permits for Cunningham Addition. The applican~ will work with the DN-R and the city to evaluate other alternatives as detailed on page 3 of the staff report and also on the letter received from Mr. Cunningham dated Januau~ 3, 1995 to look for alternatives other than demolishing the structure. The applicant shall inform the builder of Chanhassen permit and inspection requirements. This shall be done prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 1. The applicant should revise the garage floor elevation on Lot 3 to 996.5 and/or employ the use of retaining walls to minimize grading impacts. A variance to the 10% driveway grade is recommended on Lot 3. The maximum driveway grade shall be 12%. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the ci~' for each lot. The City Engineer shall review and approve the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall be required to pay the surface water management fees in lieu of constructing downstream stormwater improvements. 10. ll. The applicant shall enter into a joint powers agreement between the cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen for providing utility service and billing for Lot 1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat one-half of the necessau' street right-of-way for Ridge Road, or provide a conditional easement agreement for the right-of-way necessary that will be invoked if the 2O City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 12. city upgrades Ridge Road from a private to public street. The easement agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording. The final plat shall also dedicate the necessary side, front, and rear drainage and utility easements per city ordinance. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. 13. The applicant shall verify that there are no wetland impacts to the site. 14. Staff shall document the rationale for the variance. 15. The applicant must receive approval of the subdivision from the City of Shorewood. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who was not present during the vote, and the motion carried. AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO SPREAD APPROXIMATELY 5,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCAVATED WETLAND MATERIALS ON THREE SITES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTI-IEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BOULEVARD~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Diane Desotelle: Mayor, Council members, staff has been working on a surface water management project. That is going to entail the excavation of this xvetland in order to help water qualiB:. About the 20 acres that drains into Lotus Lake. As a result of excavating this wetland, we're going to have about 5,000 cubic yards of material and it's been to our fortune right now that we found three landowners that are xvilling to take some of this material, that are still north of Highway 5, which will save a great deal on trucking expenses. One of the landowners is here on the corner of Powers and Lake Lucy and the other two are over on Lake Lucy and Galpin Boulevard. As a result, the Planning Commission had a couple concerns that I wanted to bring up at this point that we have addressed. One is they said, well we want, what is wetland material composed of?. In most cases it's going to be peat or clay like materials, but it's hard to tell until you actually get in there and dig it out. So they xvanted to make sure the landowners were aware of what these materials would be. Each of the landowners have signed a license agreement and in that license agreement it's stated that these are ~vetland materials. That they're all aware of where the materials are coming from and we're estimating that the depth of these materials is not going to be any more than 2 feet. So as far as that being a concern, I don't foresee it. If the future land use would change. One of the other concerns that came up was if there would be, if odors would be a problem. Well they may be a little bit of a problem but would dissipate quickly. You might have some of those sulphur smells... We also decided that xve would put a deadline on the permit to end July 1 st. Actually we'd like to get in there and start excavating the wetlands as soon as we get approval from the city. If we get approval for the interim use permit and one of the other concerns is to make sure that the drainage patterns of course will not be altered as a result. So with that I recommend that Council approve this permit so that we can begin to do a portion of a very, large surface water project that we...for your information, this is just the beginning of it. We also are going to be working our way downstream into this wetland. That water table will be raised and we'll be doing some really interesting erosion control and ravine rehabilitation of the creek that runs through there. There's a lot of erosion...that go through there and we're looking at doing some natural restorations of that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. You know I looked through here and I maybe passed by it but are we doing an.,,' testing of those soils prior to final placement? 21 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Diane Desotelle: No. It's our understanding that we're not required to. In the past, the PCA I 'know has tested various materials and have...concerns about, if you're concerned with a hazardous waste. Mayor Chmiel: Well I would like, and I don't know what those costs are but I think I would like to see a test be taken prior to thin spreading to wherever we're going to put it, on these locations. Only because of the fact that if there were something, we would protect ourselves before xve got to the point of spreading it and having any laxvsuits come back from what was there. Just as a precautionary. Diane Desotelle: There's a wide range of things we can test for. The first thing that would come to my head, is you might want to have a lead sample if you're concerned about children. As far as...I'm just trying to think off ihe top of my head what would be the appropriate thing to test for. We could do a variety of heavy metal. Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be the only thing that I think we could look at. Diane Desotelle' Is the lead? Okay. Mayor Chmiet' Okay, Mark any questions? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Councilman Berquist: These are, I just want to get a little background. These are outlots? This is, tell me about this property again. Diane Desotelle: There are three properties. The first property is owned by Larry Kerber. Councilman Berquist: No, not the ones where we're spreading. Diane Desotelle: Spreading the dirt? Councilman Berquist: The other's. Where you're pulling the materials from. Diane Desotelle: It's a wetland that's located at the intersection of Yuma and Woodhill and it's actually a very nice wetland. It takes so much storm v`'ater directly into it right nov,, though because it's in one of the older developments where we didn't pretreat this water like we do now. So what we're trying to do is create more holding volume within this wetland to try to take out some of the sediments. Councilman Berquist: Prior to going to Lotus. Diane Desotelle: ...eventually work their way downstream into the next wetland and then into Lotus Lake. Councilman Berquist: I see. Alright, thank you. 22 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Hoffman's appeal and affirmed the staff order to have the shed moved at least 10 feet from the side property line or have the shed removed from the property. The vote was a simple majority vote. Therefore the votes serves only as a recommendation to the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal. To give you a little background on this situation. On December 2nd the applicant submitted a building permit application for a 12 x 16 foot shed. At this time the applicant discussed setback information with the city building inspectors. The applicant alleges he was informed by the inspector that the setback would be 5 feet from the west property line. The applicant did not receive approval or obtain a permit for the construction of the shed at 5 feet. On December 7th the city planning department reviewed the permit and discovered that the shed did not meet applicable setback requirements. The applicant was immediately notified of the situation at xvhich time it was discovered that the floor of his shed had been constructed and a stop work order was then issued on December 7th. On January 9th staff conducted an on site inspection to determine the exact location of the shed. At this time it was discovered that the floor of this shed was approximately 18 inches from the lot line and was in a drainage and utility easement. The applicant's appeal is based on the following: (a), proper application and plans were submitted; (b), incorrect information was obtained from the Public Safety Department; (c), the applicant proceeded to set level base work before actual approval of the permit based on good faith that the building inspectors 'knew the applicable city code; and (d), Mr. John Rask made an agreement that xvas not followed through with. Staff then directed the applicant to move the shed at least 10 feet from the side property line and submit revised plans so that a permit may be issued or have the shed removed from the property. Staff finds that the applicant proceeded to construct the floor of the shed without first obtaining a permit. Discussing applicable requirements with city staff does not abrogate the need to obtain a permit. The applicant was instructed not to proceed without first getting a permit. Therefore staff would recommend the City Council affirm the Board of Adjustments decision to deny the appeal and have the applicant move the shed at least 10 feet from the side property line. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions of staff?. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have. If I can succintly say what happened. They're required to put it 10 feet off the property line. He thought he was told 5 feet, but it is currently 18 inches. John Rask: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there an)' way that the floor of the shed can be moved currently or is it like poured concrete? John Rask: No...the floor of the shed is on block. There's no concrete. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it could be moved. John Rask: Yes. Councilman Senn: Could I maybe add something, since we did have it on the Board of Adjustments or whatever. I guess I'm the reason it's here tonight, because the other two people voted to den)' it and I voted to not deny it. Maybe I have an overly simplistic way of looking at things but if you read the ordinance, the guy got some erroneous information so in my mind he is, and I don't think anybody's disputing that either. I mean there was erroneous information given out. So I think at that point I think he's entitled at least to be here and ask that the exception or the variance be made. The moving factor in my mind, and I don't know how man), of 24 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. And that's to include the review of the hca',5' metals. Councilman Senn: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Interim Use Permit #94-3 as described herewith and shown on the attached figures, subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place, where necessary, prior to site grading and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the City. 3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessar3r permits from the regulator3' agencies such as the Watershed District. 4. Since the applicant is the Cits', all fees associated with the permitted shall be waived. 5. Haul routes xvill be designed and approved by Cits, r staff. 6. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved entrances only. The City xvill be required to keep haul routes clean of dirt and mud, etc. Any damage to streets, curb or other public facilities shall be repaired by the City. 7. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday with no work occurring on holidays. 8. This IUP shall terminate on July 1, 1995. 9. The materials taken from the wetland shall be tested heaD, metals. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason was not present to vote, and the motion carried. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED 5 FEET FROM THt; SIDE LOT LINE, 931 SADDLEBROOK TRAIl,, MATTHEW HOFFMAN. John Rask: Matthew Hoffman, the applicant is appealing a decision of the planning process denying a building permit for a shed. The appeal is based on a alleged error by city staff. The property is located at 931 Saddlebrook Trail in a single family residential zoned district. Just to give you background of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals last meeting. Januar3' 9th the Board.of Adjustments and Appeals denied Mr. 23 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 you got a chance to go out and look at it but basically this is a comer lot. You -know being on the comer like he is, he's basically abutting two other parcels. Two other properties. What it all comes down to is the neighbor where he's putting the shed doesn't mind the shed being there. In fact he'd just as soon back another shed up to it so they can both put their sheds there, and quite honestly it makes their yards a lot more attractive and a lot less impact because, and to me the whole thing just really a lot of sense as to a way to proceed. The deck is not permanent. I mean it can be picked up and moved to the 5 feet or whatever and I sat there and I looked at his yard and I was just out at the road and I paced off like 10 feet and said, geez it's kind of like putting a shed in the middle of your yard. Now I could really understand that if again, if the neighbor wanted it that way or objected but the fact that they're kind of really together on this and it's not going to impact anybody, it just seemed to me that again it really made a lot of sense to go ahead and okay it and do it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Does it have an affect on the drainage and utility easement at all? John Rask: No, it doesn't impact the easement. It's right on the edge. Councilman Senn: And if it ever did, I mean. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Move it. Pick it up and move it. Councilman Senn: Move it, yeah. Councilman Berquist: Well knowing that it's 18 inches from the property line, I mean to me it would seem to make sense to come in and ask for a variance to get it within 5 feet. Councilman Senn: That's what he's doing. Councilman Berquist: No. Didn't he, did I misunderstand? Councilman Senn: The 18 inches is an error. Councilman Berquist: Okay, but he's saying fine, I'll move it 5 feet away? Councilman Senn: That's my understanding. John Rask: Correct. He may want to verify that. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to clarify one point. He's not in for a variance. Staff discussed with him getting a variance and he said, no. I'm quoting staff. He did not want a variance. There is no variance request being made. Councilman Berquist: So he's asking for it to be left there? Roger Knutson: Right. He is saying staff, he is appealing the decision of the staff. The staff is telling him to move it. He is appealing that decision and saying staff is wrong. Staff, Council should be instructing staff that the building should not move. That the staff is wrong. There is no variance request. There has been no variance advertised. 25 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: But my understanding in Board of Adjustments and Appeals xvas, I thought the issue we're dealing with is that everybody was xvilling to put it 5 feet away and everybody was happy with that. Roger Knutson: That could be. I'm just clarifying what the procedural posture is here. There is no variance before you. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is, this was just picked up by the building inspection department.9 Roger Knutson: Staff has told him move it because you're not in compliance with the zoning ordinance and he has appealed that decision ordering him to move it. Councilman Senn: My understanding from the Board, when ~ve heard it is the 18 inches was accidental because it was a matter of xvhere everybody thought the properS' line was, did it not, and that's why it's 18 inches rather than 5 feet. The original plan was always for 5 feet, as I understood it. And that's what eveD, body kind of just said geez, that's fine. Or I mean that's what I xvas saying. Councilman Berquist: Well what's right? I mean are you applying for a variance? Or do you want the thing left there? Matthew Hoffman: I guess if you take my opinion right now, I'll give it to you and you guys can... Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone. Matt, would you come up to the mic please. Matthew Hoffman: I'm the applicant I guess. John was right. It's pretty much the way he's got it. The whok problem here has been since December 2nd or there abouts, discussing with staff the ground xvas going to freeze. They told me it was going to be 2 weeks before they'd get that permit process. I said at that point in time the ground is going to be froze too hard. I don't be able to set any kind of a base work for it that I had intended on doing the work necessary on what they told me. They proceeded to tell me that the applicable code xvas 5 feet. They looked at the plat. They discussed it between the txvo inspectors. They are the enforcement of the ciw code and ordinance. They should know. That's my whole final thing. You should be able to at least ask and take into consideration...work that needed to be done and I stopped. Went no farther. Waited for the rest of the permit. Then at that point in time is when xve started having problems with this. Staff has admitted that they told me 5 feet. Both, I think the inspection department and John are in agreement with that, aren't you John? John Rask: Yeah I. Matthew Hoffman: Everybody's pretty much in agreement that they've admitted that that's the way it is, right? John Rask: Yeah I. Matthew Hoffman: It's on top, it's noted on top of the building permit application if you look at it. When I was in for the original application. I guess this is all started from December and I haven't done a thing about it. Councilman Berquist: Could I ask you a question? Matthew Hoffman: You bet. 26 City. Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Berquist: What do you want? Do ),ou want to leave it there or do you want to move it 5 feet from the property line? Matthew Hoffman: I have said from the start it could be 5 feet. I'd just as soon leave it where it is. The neighbor would just as soon leave it where it is. If it needs to be 5 feet, it will be moved to 5 feet. It's a perfectly capable of it. There's a sandbox in the wa), right now but it can be put to that point. It may involve a little extra work in the spring but it's not going to go anywhere until then anyhow. Councilman Berquist: So then this is a variance request right? Mayor Chmiel: Well, it would have to go back for a variance. Let me clarify something, hold on. Legally if you were to sell your propert3.' and leave it at that 5 feet, and a variance has not been granted, whoever ma), come back in and may find what that ordinance is would then, would the), have quarrel with that propert?, owner to move it back? If technically we have not granted a variance for 5 feet. There's nothing there. Roger Knutson: He could have a problem with the title company saying it's an encroachment on an existing easement. Even if you grant a variance, that easement remains there. That in and of itself could create a concern for some title insurance companies or some lawyers reviewing the title. That's one issue. And the second issue xvould not be in conformance with the setback requirements or the zoning ordinance. And he's never been granted a variance. Just to comment briefly on the variance issue. Under our zoning ordinance, if you xvant a variance, there has to be a hearing proceeded by published notice and mailed notices before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and that has never happened so I think. Matthew Hoffman: It has been published though before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Roger Knutson: Not for a variance. Mayor Chmiel: Notification of adjacent property owners have not been notified. Roger Knutson: If you want to grant a variance, you have to start the process over again. So yeah, there'd be 2 concerns. First, that he's in a drainage and util!ty easement and second, because no variance has been granted. But those are again private concerns. Councilman Senn: But the property owners were notified of what came to us at the Board of Adjustments. I mean it's not that they're unfamiliar xvith the issue. Mayor Chmiel' Was there a notification sent out to all adjacent property oxvners? John Rask: No... Councilman Berquist: Well mx' interpretation of this is, I mean I'm reading this and rm thinking why are you here? Matthew Hoffman: I'm here because cit).' staff gave me the wrong. Councilman Berquist: Now wait a minute. I'm reading, when I read this on Thursday when I got my packet, I'm reading this and I'm thinking why are you here. You built. 27 CiD' Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Matthew Hoffman: I'm here because. Councilman Berquist: Wait a second. You built without a permit and you built within 18 inches of the property line. Now you're telling me this was before the Board of Adjustments and you denied it but he's here telling, he's here asking to build, to move the thing to 5 feet axvay. Well. Councilman Senn: Until Roger just said xvhat he said, I xvas confused too because I'm serious. At the Board of Adjustments we sat there thinking we were deciding between a 5 foot or a 10 foot variance. Or I mean a 5 foot variance or no variance. Okay. And that's really what we thought we were acting on. I would say now given what Roger has said, I think he ought to just go back and apply for the variance to the 5 feet and come back through you know maybe with some indication from the Council that xve don't see maybe a big problem with it. I don't know. I mean either you do or you don't. But it just, to me it was one of these things and Board of Adjustments was kind of getting out of hand because I mean let's face it, there was mistakes on both parts so okay, so I mean you can sit up there all night and do a finger pointing contest and vou 'know you can say well staff told me this wrong and staff can say yeah but he started construction before the building permit and I mean like I sa3', I mean you can sit and argue about that all night long and my xvhole, tonight when I saw it on the agenda was to kind of avoid that whole argument again and just say what really makes sense here and let's do it rather than get into arguing over who did or didn't do what. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, if I max'. I'd just sa3', leave it where it is and it's vour future concern when you sell your piece of property.' with the title company. Matthew Hoffman: As far as I'm concerned, it's got no footings. It's perfectly unattached. I'm perfectly comfortable with it and so is all the attached and unattached neighbors within a reasonable distance. So I have no problem with where it is and the neighbors are all...and I've been waiting for 2 months to clean my garage out some. You 'know whatever the staff, whatever Council. I guess mv thing out of the Board of Appeals and A4iustments is you guys...whether it's a variance or just whatever. I really don't 'know what. Mayor Chmiel' Yeah, it could provide a hassle for you when you sell that house. And if you have the legalities to it. Matthew Hoffman' Yeah, and if I need to, if it needs to be picked up and moved, it's my problem at that point in time. I'm aware of that and fully confident that it can be done and will be done. Councilman Senn: I have no problems with what Colleen is suggesting, but I guess if we do take that route I would prefer that we stick a stipulation on there that we get a letter from the immediate neighbor just saying that it's okay with him. Since public notice did not get mailed directly to him, and make sure that that's in the file and you ~know basically then we're set for now and in the future he may have to move it and he knows that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea. Mayor Chmiel' Well if it's easy to move now or easy to move later, why don't we do it now? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because it may not be necessary later. 28 City Council Meeting - Januar)' 23, 1995 Matthew Hoffman: I feel it's in the right place for the yard. For the way the layout of the land goes, I feel it's where it's needed to go and where it's best for everybody. I think, you 'know Mark's been out there and I think he's kind of in agreement. Councilman Senn: Yeah. During Board of Adjustments I kind of likened it to wonderful, I mean I kind of went back to the old example, ordinances I think are nice guidelines but they don't always cover every situation and I love to think of my own front yard which has I think about 4 or 5 neighbors' sheds bordering my front yard and I could care less whether they're 10 feet back or 5 feet back, I think they're an atrocity to my front yard. Okay, but the ordinance allows them. Whoopy. You know in this situation what they're talking about doing in terms of' backing their sheds up to each other and the way their lot sits and where they're on, I mean to me it's exactly the solution that should be there. It's xvhat deserves to be done to you know, I'm going to say, treat both of their yards nicely or the neighborhood even nicely and from that standpoint it was real hard for me to sit there and start worrying about the finer points. Mavor Chmiel: Okay. Yes Kate. Kate Aanenson: ...John brought up another issue. There is a...requirement to stay away from propert3~ line building code issue. I don't 'know if the applicant's aware of that. We were told by the building department that if you're closer than 3 feet, than it has to have a fire xvall on it. Those are things that are outside of our jurisdiction...but just so he's aware of that. There are other building code issues that... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who's jurisdiction is that? Kate Aanenson: Building department. Building code. Don Ashworth: If I ma',' Mr. Mayor, I don't think the Council has a right to waive a building safety code.. If there's a requirement. And I 'knoxv that associated with sheds, you've got gasoline and all the rest, what you're really doing is saying you can put that closer and potentially it becomes a problem for the neighbor, so they want to have a fire wall there. And what you're talking about is, it's an extra sheet of sheet rock. They have to go to like 5/8 versus whatever. But that's fine, if it has to be 3 feet, we can just... Kate Aanenson: I just wanted you to be aware that there is a building code issue. Councilman Senn: But can't we just say then, as far as we're concerned it can stay where it's at as long as it meets applicable building code regulations and then at that point he's going to have to slide it over to meet that and who cares. We don't have to go through a whole big process. Are you shaking yes? That's fine. Okay. Roger Knutson: You wouldn't want to waive the building fire safety code issues. If something might be were to happen and you did. Mayor Chmiel: We're liable. Councilman Senn: Well he said he was willing to slide it back 5 feet away from our previous discussion so I mean I don't see why that shouldn't be an easy one to accomplish if we move it back. Matthew Hoffman: It just won't be done until spring. 29 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be the most advisable. Just to move it that 5 feet. Matthew Hoffman: It will take out the sandbox. Mayor Chmiel: Or relocate the sandbox. I know I've done that a couple times myself. Councilman Berquist: I guess the way I look at this, you're asking for approval for your screw up. Matthew Hoffman: I'm asking for approval because I received the wrong information. Councilman Berquist: You're the one that put it 18 inches from the property line sir. Matthew Hoffman: Yeah but if you look, the only construction...is at the final and that's the only place that really comes into play. Councilman Berquist: You still put it 18 inches from the property line. Mayor Chmiel: Setback, yeah. Matthew Hoffman: Yeah. But it's not, it was like do I take the machine and dig up the 6 piece to find a pin on my neighbor's property and my property. I have two comers and then replace it. Or do I take about where it is and put it in place for the file. Councilman Berquist: And err to the inside of the property line. Matthew Hoffman: ...property line then, if I needed to err, then the sandbox is going out and I'll deal with that in the spring and... That was my, I mean my whole thing was that 2 weeks to be given approval for a building permit where...seemed a little extensive when I was saying that there was some other...and evel3'thing else and I was velw up front with them on what we needed to do and xvhy we needed to do it and xvhat the reasoning was and I guess I'm being reasonable. I'm here tonight. Councilman Berquist: But you are willing to move it within 5 feet away. Matthew Hoffman: I'd like to move it, you know I'd like to leave it where it is...but if you're not going to allow that, then I've got to do whatever you... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, Michael. Councilman Mason: I've been unusually quiet because I just got hammered like I never got hammered before for a decision I made but that's part of the deal I guess. Question for Roger and a comment. If xve let all of this go and say well, that the homeowner's going to take whatever chances when they sell it, what will the liabilities be for the city if someone decides to sue because all this stuff is here and there were no variances granted and somebody screwed up at the city so I don't like that it, when he goes to sell, if he goes to sell. Can this in some arcane and bizarre way get back to us? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or a neighbor? 30 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Mason: Or a neighbor. Councilman Senn: I can't wait to hear this answer from Roger. Roger Knutson: ...people's ability to find reasons for suing cities is incredible. It's hard to speculate some homeowners dream up with. I frankly get a bit more concerned about, is a neighbor who also wants to be xvithin 18 inches of the property line and that's down the block, the neighbor comes in and says, well you approved this one 18 inches off. And it looks fine. It's great. It fits his yard. Me too? And then. And maybe that's not bad but I think that's something you need, if you're going to accept it, to have the whole block with sheds in the back, I mean so be it. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I'm concerned about that and I do not deny Mr. Hoffman that you were given some incorrect information. My concern is I don't think two wrongs makes a right. And you did start building that shed before your permit went through. Right, and I -know you're not denying that. I'm not, you k. noxv I'm not going to get into that. But I hear what Steve is saying on that too and I, you 'know I think we're in a time in histors., or whatever, that eve~,one needs to take responsibility for their actions and I p~rsonally am concerned about leaving it where it is just for some of the reasons that have been stated. But and I don't -know. I don't Matthew Hoffman: Then I guess if the Council looks at it that way, I'd like to see some...I mean that's what it all boils down to. Councilman Mason: You know that's true. However, had you xvaited and. Matthew Hoffman: Oh definitely. Councilman Mason: Well but see, had you waited until you had the permit, that would have been caught and it wouldn't have happened. And that is where I think the responsibility of Cit-), Hall lays there. Had you waited until you were supposed to, none of us would be in this fix right now. Matthew Hoffman: I mean I've had so much time in this... Councilman Mason: Well I understand that. I agree with you. You -know and again I'm saying, had you xvaited you xvouldn't be here. Matthew Hoffman: ...and had staff not commented, that's my. Councilman Mason: Well I'm not going to deny that either but I think just like you need to accept some responsibility, you 'know I'm not going to deny that staff does too. Matthew Hoffman: No, I've said all along that, you know if I had started without the permit and no information from staff, I ~vouldn't have a leg to stand on. I fully realize that and comprehend that. But being that staff did comment, I feel like I have a right to be here tonight. Councilman Mason: Well of course you have the right to be here. I'm not disputing that. But the fact remains, even if you were given, well granted that you were given misinformation, none of this would have happened if you would have waited until you have permit in hand. 31 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: Well but, I'm son5.'. I don't want to be the whatever here. I mean this all happened at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and that's not true because Steve sat there and said they probably still would have missed it. I mean the whole issue wasn't the.,,' would have caught it just because he had a building permit, one way or the other. The other information. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't want to get into who did...but you guys let's do what makes sense here. Alright, let's just get this over with and do what makes sense here. Move the shed 5 feet please. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Matthew Hoffman: 5 feet, do I need the variance then or do I need to go 5 feet and not going to sweat it? Councilman Senn: Let's approve this thing with the stipulation that (a), he gets a letter from the neighbors sent into us and secondly that he agrees to move it back to 5 feet. Is that okay Roger? Mayor Chmiel: You know I don't want to suggest that we go through that process. Waive the fee for the variance. Let him proceed with that. Bring it back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and I think it's a done deal. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Make it clean. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. We'll xvaive that application, or that fee for a variance, which is $50.00. Don Ashworth: I don't know what it is. Mayor Chmiel: Or whatever it is. Councilman Mason: That should be waived, I agree with that. Councilman Berquist: Did you get double fee'd for the building permit? Matthew Hoffman: What's that? Councilman Berquist: Did you get double fee'd for the building permit? Matthew Hoffman: Not yet. Hope not. The only thing I've gotten so far is just a copy of the building permit from John. That's all I've gotten. Mayor Chmiel; Let's proceed with that. Go back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Get the variances. Either approve or denial and come back to Ci~' Council. Councilman Senn: So do we need to make a motion to actually deny it tonight on that basis? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. 32 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion? Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the appeal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Senn: I'll second it with the understanding we all have. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to deny the appeal of the administrative decision denying a building permit for the eonstmetion of a shed on proper0' located at 931 Saddlebrook Trail, and direct the applicant to apply for a variance to construct the shed 5 feet from the side lot line, and that the variance fee will be waived. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: So now Matt, I'm sorry. I just want to make sure now. You understand you need to. Matthew Hoffman: I have to go through the xvhole process again. Councilman Senn: No, you just need to get the application in, at no fee. You'll be on the Board of Adjustments. If they deny it, you'll be here before the Council and the Council's already told you what they thing. Mayor Chmi¢l: And the reason for me saying we are not going to have a fee is because of staff indicating that 5 feet was fine. Councilman Senn: And we'll have it all done by spring when you're going to work on it anyxvay. Matthew Hoffman: I'm fairly uncomfortable with the time frame but I guess I have to live with that. Councilman Senn: Well we should have it all done b}r spring when he wants to go anyway. Matthew Hoffman: Well I want to build it now, that's the only thing. That's the whole point in setting up the base...and being able to use it... Mayor Chmiel: I know. I 'know exactly what you're saying. I might want to put one in my yard. Okay, thanks. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL, FIRST READING. THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES $500.00 CASH ESCROW OR LETTER OF CREDIT TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED TO GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN~S EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. Diane Desotelle: Mayor, Council members. As you all 'know erosion is a real problem in the city right now with all the...In order to t~' to prevent some of the poor water qualities from happening, we're trying our best to enforce erosion control on construction... With the lack of staff and the difficult3' in t%~ing to enforce this, we're trs:ing to come up with a means...something to put our teeth into the ordinance. We looked at citations. We 33 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 looked at stop work orders. All these things might work but they're in...and building inspectors are already stacked up. And so as you put a stop work order on, it backs up... Citations, again they may work but they have to go to court. It's something down the road. What the fines xvill be. It just became more of a question than the idea came up to maybe require a cash escrow so when a building permit is pulled, something.., erosion control is no longer needed. That way if we find a problem, we have some contractors ready. We give them some notice. Although it's not required for us to do so, we try our best to try and give them notice and then follow up if they don't get their erosion control up or at least give them, in some cases it's just a maintenance thing. In other cases it's just not up. We can send someone out there to get it up and pull from the cash escrow. In all cases I hope that the funds would be returned. Unfortunately it seems that monetary means is always a way of trying...so with that we're asking that the Council consider the amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning erosion control. And then also there would be an amendment to the development contracts. We'd also propose changes within the development contract that would require the developer to be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system for 2 years after the public improvements are in place. And then also that we also put in information on the cash escrow too in the development contract, and those are attached. The red line copy is attached in your packet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. An',' questions with that? Councilman Senn' I've got one. Mayor Chmiel' Go ahead. Councilman Senn: This you 'know all seems to come together and make sense and be enforceable and work in situation such as a Lundgren Bros development where you have Lundgren putting in the public systems, building the houses, more or less doing eveo;thing. Okay. As I read through this, part of what was bothering me about it was where, you know xvhere do you go and how do you fix responsibility and how do you avoid the finger pointing that's- going to occur in a situation where you have say a land developer who is then just selling lots and you end up with individual builders coming in. Putting houses on those lots and you knoxv, each of them then responsible for their own erosion control measures and then you kind of back up the other way and sa,,,, yeah but the developer's responsible for taking care of the sewer system for 2 years xvhen we all 'kn~w there7s only going to be one reason that's a problem. Because if one of those is going to break doxvn over there one way or the other, my only problem with the ordinance is it just seems to me we're kind of leaving this big hole for finger pointing and I'm just xvondering if there's a better way we can plug it right up front to deal with that. Diane Desotelle: Well one of the means that we've been using is right now is going back to the developer and saving, get the street sweeper out there and get it cleaned up because it's all the individual builders on your development aren't, you know so xve're still going back to them to try to...one of the problems is we can't go to the individual builders and ask them. Councilman Senn: But see that's my point. Why can't we? It seems to me we're setting something in place that's kind of a joke if we can't. Diane Desotelle: We could with the amendment because they would post the cash escrow, right? Each builder who pulls the building permit, each of the individual builders would have a building permit so they would have to supply the cash escrow. 34 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: So they supply the cash escrow. Diane Desotelle: Not the developer. Councilman Senn: Okay, and well maybe this is the point that's missed in the ordinance then. If there's a problem that occurs, it tums around and makes the developer have to do something, then does he have a right to go, I mean can we get at those escrows then to remedy the problem? Kate Aanenson: I didn't quite follow what. Diane Desotelle: Sure. Councilman Senn: Rather than just say, developer go fix it, which seems to me a little bit kind of unfair. Diane Desotelle: ...developers fix is the utilities. They have to clean the storm sewer system and the ponding areas. Councilman Senn: Right, which was caused by what this home builder did. So I'm saying. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chrniel: Roger. Roger Knutson: Sometimes I feel I've spent my whole professional career on this issue. Councilman Senn: You've spent that much time on it. Roger Knutson: This is a constant issue with every community and I don't think there's a perfect solution. If there is, I wish someone would tell us what it is. And I don't think it's possible to end all the finger pointing but some of the things we're tr},ing to do here is saying, developer fix the storm sewers. They silt in because of the erosion, and it costs money to have them cleaned out. This says, developer. For 2 years I don't care why the silt got in that storm sewer. You're paying for it. Now life ain't fair but when you sell, you own all this propert3r right now. You own ever}, lot here when we start the process, or you control it all. So when you sell a lot to a builder or a homeowner, whoever, you'd better have something in your agreement with that person. Otherwise, if they screw up, yeah you might pay the consequences developer. But that's between you and the homeowner. As far as the storm sewer goes and cleaning out the ponds and the catch basins and all that. We're holding the developer to keep in compliance regardless of how it got there. Councilman Senn: Roger, I understand what you're saying but what's going to happen is, if the home builder's the one who caused the problem and we let the home builder basically release his escrow. Roger Knutson: We're not. Councilman Senn: Well wait now. His escrow, once he gets it vegetated is released. Roger Knutson: Yes, that's correct. 35 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Senn: Regardless of hov'r much silt he put into the sewer because it may have broken down in the process or whatever. Roger Knutson: The developer has to clean it out. Councilman Senn: Yeah, the developer has to clean it out because his erosion control fence broke down 4 times or something like that. Diane Desotelle: That's the case right now. Roger Knutson: The developer's got to clean it up. Diane Desotelle: We still require him to clean it up. We just didn't have a time frame. Roger Knutson: No. It wasn't clear how long that obligation lasted. Councilman Senn: All I'm asking is there a way we can tie the tWO together so that if it happens that the developer has kind of an equal avenue of using those funds as we do as the city so to speak. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you'd hold the escrow for 2 years? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Hold the escrow for 2 years. Roger Knutson: To me, we don't want to get, the idea is, developer if you have a problem with the home builder, and you're saying the home builder caused the siltation, and you want to get compensated. Before you sell the house to the home builder, make the arrangement with the home builder on that issue. We don't want to get involved. We don't want to decide, resolve the issue. We're just saying for 2 years you're responsible. Period. Councilman Senn: Well I agree it's impractical to hold it for 2 years, and I'm not suggesting that but what I'm saying, and the problem wouldn't show up in 2 years. I mean either they're vegetated or not vegetated. I mean at the point that their vegetation is gone, or I mean is in place, that should release them. But at the same time the3.' could have caused a problem in the interim. Why are we holding the purse then2 Roger Knutson: Well xve're holding from the builder the $500.00. That's to make sure they have the silt fence up and they have the curb side sod down and a few things, to give us more protection than we have now. But the ultimate protection as far as the storm water ponds and that is the developer. And what we have nov,', and we sat through these meetings last fall where you have 4 or 5 homes and you've got one builder and they're saving, no this comes from this house. It comes from this house. It comes from that house and I don't 'know wl~ere it comes from. It's dirt. And so we can't decide. We can't figure it out and then the builder says, it's certainly not mv fault because the only open area on my subdivision is this little bit here. There's more open area ca~ised by'the building of the homes. So we said no, we don't want to resolve that. We don't 'know' how to do it. So we'il make the developer responsible and if he wants to get compensated for someone else, then he should make his agreements with those homeowners. That's the best we could come up with. Councilman Senn: So what do we use that $500.00 for? 36 Cit3r Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Roger Knutson: Make sure the silt fence is in place and the sod gets down. Kate Aanenson: And when...anything is down, which happens xvhen they deliver trusses. The3; back over it and know them... We send them letters. The inspectors go out now you have to keep rechecking and it's a way to get immediate response...sending letters and trying to find the builder. Trying to find the person responsible... Roger Knutson: What this says. here also, if we go out and we see your silt fence down and we know it's not your fault. It's the subcontractor xvho doesn't give a darn, we can say this is tough. We can say stop work. That's tough. And we understand that ultimately that person that may be hurt could be the homeowner, who knows nothing about silt fences. This is a constant area of complaints we get. Mayor Chmiel' Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: Is this really a problem? It seems like there's a escrow, there's landscape escrow and now you're asking for this kind of an escrow. How many other escrows are there in the building process? Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission struggled with that same issue. What we require is $250.00 for a tree. Now if there's...you're not required. And then $500.00 would be for sod, unless seed or sod is in place. And staff...but it's not alwavs...but $500.00 would be on top of that. Diane Desotelle' The $750.00 is required...$500.00 would be required at the time vou. Councilman Senn: Issue the permit. Diane Desotelle: Building permit. Actually some of that may be. Kate Aanenson: Right, so actually there's $500.00 there so when you're ready to close, you put your tree in and you've got your sod in, then there xvouldn't be any requirement. So one is up front with the building but the other one is... Councilman Berquist: How many headaches are being caused by poor erosion control? How times does it come up? Kate Aanenson: A lot. Councilman Berquist: You say lots. Okay. You 'know the reputation of the city building department is not all that popular with a lot of buil~ters and if in fact this goes towards making them, there's less hassle involved. If for instance they're going to get it fixed as opposed to issuing a stop work order. Diane Desotelle: ...now having this escrow but... Councilman Berquist: How do other cities handle it? Roger Knutson: With difficulB'. Councilman Berquist: TheY've all got the same problem, you said that. 37 Cit,',' Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Roger Knutson: Yes, the.',' struggle in similar ways you do. I haven't taken surveys for all the communities but most the communities I work with have similar situations as you do here. Some of them have escrows. Some of them do not. Some of them say, here are the rules and if you don't abide by them, you stop work until there is compliance. Councilman Berquist: Not many of them have that. Vers' few of them have the volume of construction that this town does though. Diane Desotelle: Well and again that's the problem with the building inspectors who are backed up. Councilman Berquist: Well they'll get shot is what will happen. Roger Knutson: I mean you aren't real popular when you tell someone who's about to pour their footings, stop. You can't do that until that silt fence is back up. I mean people get irate. Councilman Berquist: Well when I first read this I thought, you 'know something else but I understand. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well and speaking as someone who tacked up many an erosion control fence xvhen we were building and having to finance the building, I'm concerned about the financial impact. Yet another escrow on the homeowner as opposed to the builder or developer, which you know probably are fairly few and far between but in the interest of a higher good. A higher purpose I can agree with this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: How does this impact the smaller developer? The gu5' who builds 5 or 6 homes a year as opposed to the company that's building 1,000 homes a year. Kate Aanenson: There's still a development contract in place and he's 2 ,,;ears responsible for that. Mayor Chmiel: Good for one, good for all? Kate Aanenson: ...sometimes what happens is the individual will take out the permit and pay those fees themselves. Sometimes the builder does. We see a variety of how that's handled. Sometimes the person buying the home relies totally on the builder to do it. Sometimes the homeowner will come in and pull the permits and take those out...but as Diane indicated, one will take the escrow up front and the other will be at the time of closing. It will depend upon... Councilman Mason: And then when does this, when do they get this $500.00 back? At closing then? Kate Aanenson: As soon as it's seeded or... Diane Desotelle: It would have to be after the landscaping is done so they get everything back at once. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'm not going to put mx' two cents into this because I think we've discussed every part of it that we possibl}7 can. I agree with Colleen that $500.00 cash escrow is probably hard for most people when they're building new home, because some of them do it on a wing and a prayer. Sometimes you've got to 38 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 allow for additional prayers to come along and to accommodate those basic needs so I guess I would ask for a motion. Councilman Berquist: I'll motion approval of the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Amendment of Chapter 20? Councilman Berquist: Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning grading and erosion control. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first n~ading of the amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning grading and erosion control as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and thc motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: I just want to touch rather briefly. Hopefully you got the packet of all the information on the updating of 212 toll. They're still pushing that particular issue. I've done a little bit of checking. The legislature is not too accommodating to thinking about toll roads either so where it goes from here, who knows. And I think what they would be looking for is a resolution from this City Council to support that 212 if they all get ready to go in that direction, and I said you've got problems. Councilman Senn: Could xve send a resolution to them right now the opposite xvay and tell them to quit wasting money? Mayor Chrniel: No, I don't, well. I don't disagree xvith that statement to a point but if you don't go through the process to understand what it is and xvhat the costs involved are, you're not going to 'k_now much to make a decision. So I think those dollars unfortunately had to be spent to where they're at right now. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they're going to keep going as I understand it. Mayor Chrniel: No, they're not going to go too much further than where they are right now. In fact we just had a meeting just last week Thursday. That was over at the Chaska Community Center. The other update is regarding our investments and I indicated that I'd have some answer after meeting with Prudential. We did meet with them. I still have not received some answers back from that and I am hopeful to, I sat down with Don today and asked to get that particular information. I think it would be of interest to Council. And we will be getting that. He indicated he will be getting that from them. Councilman Senn: Will we have that for our work session on the 30th? Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully so. Councilman Senn: Which we're now going to probably move so maybe it's immaterial. 39 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: But anyway, the additional one too is the other that I'm reviewing right now is...and hopefully we should come up with some conclusions bY then. It's taking a lot more time than I anticipated. So xve'll go from there. Mike. Councilman Mason: Well it's just, we had talked I believe at the last Council meeting that xve wanted a ~vork session to discuss how, what. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Our committee appointments. Councilman Mason: Thank you. Our committee appointment procedures and now we end up with, and that's fine, with just an interview process and we can't reschedule all those interviews, and I don't wish to do that. But before we make any appointments I xvould like to have a Council discussion on how we select our committees. Councilman Senn: I mean the 30th, as I understood it, we were going to talk about the financial policies and the commission appointments. Can we just reschedule that? Don Ashworth: How about February 6th? Councilman Mason: That's a Monday right? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. February 6th. 5:30? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's hard for me. Mayor Chmiel: What time? Councilman Mason: Can we make it after 6:157 Mayor Chmiel: Alright, we'll make it at 6:16. Don Ashxvorth: 6:15. And so do you still want to have pizza or something? Councilman Senn: I guess I would if it's 6:15. I'm not going to have time to go eat. Don Ashworth: Yeah, earlier you...this bond sale thing. Or at least setting the date for that for February 13th. Would it be possible for me to have MacGillvrau' in on the 6th to just kind of go through what he's looking at as a part of that issue? And I can guarantee you it won't take more than 15 minutes. Councilman Senn: If it's that brief. Don Ashworth: It really is because this one is really a manila envelope type of thing. Councilman Mason: Now wait. What is a manila envelope type of thing? Don Ashworth: It's vers.' plain. It's very ordinary. 40 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: No glitter. No gold. Okay, 6:15 at the, where will we do this? Don Ashworth: Courtyard. rm making the assumption I can get it. Councilman Senn: Since we're going to do the financial stuff there too, could we put 8(c) on that same agenda? Mayor Chmiel: What was that? Councilman Senn: Since we're going to deal xvith the financial stuff in that work session too, which we've kind of been waiting for, can we put 8(c) into that too please? Mayor Chmiel: 8(c). Oh! Do you see any problem with that Don? Don Ashworth: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Berquist: That was 5 issues on the 6th? Mayor Chrniel: Yeah, I think we should probably have everything pretty much resolved... Councilman Berquist: No talk about construction management? Don Ashworth: I guess that should really be a separate agenda. We should really have that going along with Cit~' Hall expansion. Those two kind of go together. And that would be too big for this agenda. It should be some other night. Councilman Senn: You lost me there. What's construction management? Councilman Berquist: Oh just the city expansion. All that stuff. Don Ashworth: We had that on from I think a xveek ago's agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Mark has a puzzled look on his face. What's your puzzle? Councilman Senn: We had it on what? I'm sorry. Don Ashworth: We've been talking about work session items and it was identified, there's two items identified from staffs standpoint for work session. One would be, kind of latest update and go through City Hall expansion. And then I wanted to discuss with the Council, what do you think about potentially using a construction manager for that type of project. And kind of what the construction manager does. If we were going to do that, that person should be brought on very early in the process. But again, that would be some other agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Or something like that. Okay. 41 City Council Meeting - JanuaW 23, 1995 Councilman Mason: Don, when will we be getting a list and a time for the meeting on the 30th? I 'know it said 5:45 but. Don Ashworth: I thought Karen had that, I've seen it. Councilman Senn: It's not in our packet. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We didn't receive it. Don Ashworth: I'll make sure that we send that out tomorrow. I may have been in error. We ma5, have set that for 5:30. I thought we tried to gi'`,e a little bit of time at the beginning. Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I have 5:30 written here. Councilman Mason: I may be a little late but I'll be there. Mayor Chmiel' Alright. Don, 8(a). AD M[NISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. PRESENTATION ON BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED PLAN~ WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR. Mayor Chmiel: Is that Diane? Don Ashworth: Yep. Diane Desotelle: I actually put some information in your packet about... As you all know, we've designed Bluff Creek as an environmental recreational resource in our comprehensive plan but at this time we really don't have anything documented to give people...and say yes, we 'know this is how wide we xvant our corridor. This is a wetland we want to restore. This is where we might want to do some prairie or forest restoration of sorts. This is where we want to have the trail. I think we need to tie some of this down and in order to do it, I've been working extensively with the people at the DNR who have been doing similar watershed design projects and they hire watershed coordinators to try to put the plan together...about how we can get together... Involve the cip,'. Involve the watershed district, the DNR, Fish and Wildlife Service...and so on. And putting task force together to get people's input. The private sector as well as the public sector. We did try about a year ago, we tried to...That did go through but as we progressed and we...DNR currently has $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 that the',' are willing to put towards getting a watershed coordinator on board just temporarily...through the DNR. Not the city. It would be a temporary position for a year to just get this planning going. Get the meetings organized and get something implemented. I'd like to see something by this summer that xve can take a look at. We are...information in working with...do some compiling. It's not that the information is there. We just need to get it together and get it into a plan. The watershed district also has funds and I've been really working hard to tr-5' be more cooperative with the xvatershed district, tn the past...some political pressure and I'd like to see some of that change. I think there's a lot of resources there. The5' could actually...efforts, there's up to 100% funding for some of these water projects. That would be wetland restoration projects. It would be culverts or other types of things, or anything that has to do with the water part. And they have up to 25% coverage for land acquisition. And 50% for trails. And enlisting the staff through the Watershed District. But as a part of that you have to petition for the project and as a matter of fact on Wednesday, Roger and the attorney for the 42 Cit-5, Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Watershed District, Ray Haik and myself, we're going to...get together and go over exactly what the petition means and next week, February 1st at the Watershed District meeting xve're going to present the project to them and hopefully get their support. We do have their support for the project. We just need to go over some of the legalities and...and how they can help us. And as part of this process, they do have some up front seed money to get this watershed coordinator going now. And I think they might have some available for us. Recently the DNR, there's two people that I've been working with in the metro office. Their names are John Pauly, he's a planner, and Sherry. Fox who is the Watershed Coordinator for the Phalen Chain of Lakes. They've also put together a grant application, believe it or not, through the Forestry Division. There are funds available and they will find out in the next couple of weeks if that's a possibility. If it is, we could get up to $50,000.00...so I'm not trying to, what I'd like to see is part of our funds, maybe about $10,000.00 go towards this Watershed program and it will be...and the rest from other sources. The DNR, the Watershed District. There's also Met Council talking that would be a possibility...has offered to join me at the Watershed District on February 1st and I ask any other Council members to join us and I'd like to hear of your...or opinions on how you'd like to see this pursued. Mavor Chmiel: Good. Okay. An3' other questions? Councilman Senn: Do you view this as a one year project? Diane Desotelle: To get the financing in place. Councilman Senn: Which is the extent of the project? Diane Desotelle' No. Then as we move through and as development comes in, and the part of the project xvould be the talking phase of what should be done as we xvork our way down the corridor. Right now we've got developments already knocking on the door right at the head waters and I don't know, do we want to have this whole corridor system and what he and the xvatershed...if you're tying ),our resources, it's kind of a 90's term, it's ecosystem planning. You're trying to tie in not only your water sources but you've for your corridors for wildlife and fisheries and so on to be connected. You've got Minnewashta as the head waters and through the chain of wetlands and the Bluff Creek corridor going all the way down to the Minnesota River. It's a very valuable resource. It could change drastically in the next couple of),ears if we don't -know how we have... designs in place. Kate Aanenson: Let me just add to that. It's kind of a development framework. You know Diane's loo'king at it for watershed. The Planning Commission also has it as one of their major tasks... What we're trying to do is develop the framexvork for when...what should be the appropriate setbacks. What should we be telling developers...we feel proud about preserving so what Diane is saying, there's going to be implementations that may not be part of this plan but they're going to set out the frame work. These are the things you should be looking at. Maybe they're going to recommend some different ordinance standards... What we're looking for is standards that xve can adopt or to use to measure against development standards. Right now, as you know, we're trying to... Councilman Senn: Well in relationship to xvhat you're doing and what you're trying to' accomplish, I just think we really need to do it and I'm in full support of it but at the same time I guess I'd really like to understand what the city commitments are here more because I've gone through this several times now before tonight and I've now listened to your explanation and I still have a big question mark in my mind. I mean what's the short 43 CiD, Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 term? What's the medium? What's the long term funding requirements of the city? More or less what are we getting into and at what rate are we getting into it and what's the commitments as we go doxvn the road. Kate Aanenson: We don't envision hiring somebody currently on staff. What our commitment level is, as Diane's indicating, is what we'd like to see is take $10,000.00, which we already have allocated in the Storm Water Management for planning purposes. Take that $10,000.00 and use it as seed money and use that to try to leverage additional dollars and that's what the watershed... We xvere going to try to leverage that. Councilman Senn: But we won't be leveraging any more of our own money out of parks or anything like that? I mean we will only be using $10,000.00 of city money. Kate Aanenson: No. Part of that recommendation may come back and say, you 'know you may want to look at .... correct. That's all we're looking at right now. Diane Desotelle' Right now xve're looking at tl3.'ing to get together about $50,000.00 to get a Watershed Coordinator to get this plan in place. Kate Aanenson: $10,000.00 will be our seed money to leverage additional money. Diane Desotelle: Yes, it wouldn't be the city's 50. It'd be part of the 50. Councilman Senn: And the $50,000.00 you're talking about is the cost of this temporal3' person for one year? Diane Desotelle: This position we figure, and that allows for probably... Mayor Chrniel: But ,`,ou're looking for funding sources outside of the city to take care of those costs. Diane Desotelle' Right. Councilman Berquist: And you're assuming that those funds ,,',,ill come through. Kate Aanenson: Right. Diane Desotelle: Well and we've got, with the Watershed District, if we go for this position, and again that's why we need your support, there's a lot of funding capabilities through the Watershed District that I think the cit~' should take advantage of. They've included Bluff Creek in their plan as an area they've designated. The Ci~' of Eden Prairie has gotten a lot of money for projects in the past from the Watershed District. Mayor Chmiel: In fact Conrad Fiskness has indicated that there are funds that the.,,' would be willing to help with the city. Diane Desotelle' It's just a petition process. It might be the timing as far as when the money starts turning around and coming back into the city... Councilman Berquist: Pardon me for being ignorant or sounding ignorant. Just paint me a quick picture what happens with this person in place. Let's put it 5 or 7 or 10 years down the road. What happens xvith this person in place and the potential down side if this person or this project does not get completed in the same 44 City_ Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 time frame? Difficult to do? Do you understand what I'm saying? What's the long term benefit? And maybe Mark asked that question and you explained it. Kate Aanenson: What we're doing is taking $10,000.00 of our dollars and leveraging more money. What we're doing is taking...to get a plan or get a framework in place. I guess we can't explain it, if the money runs out, then we'd be picking up the rest of the pieces. But xve need a development plan so we don't have the time in house to try to finish it. Or to get it started. We'd have to finish it. That I think we can do but we're trying to get someone else to at least get it started because that's where the momentum is great and it takes a lot to get it going. What we're saying is we don't have the time in house, and it's critical...so we'd like someone outside ahead of time to really gather the...and put together... Diane Desotelle: And hopefully it will be more cost efficient... Councilman Berquist: ...Heritage. How would this individual have started that? Or have changed that. Kate Aanenson: No, what I'm saying. What the intent of the plan is, to have a development frame work and say this is an area where we want to re-establish, as Diane indicated, maybe improve the wetlands. If there's an area where there's significant forest that has value and probably try to preserve. To get those design things. Diane Desotelle: So we 'know...we want the corridor can go down to 50 feet wide where in other cases it would really be beneficial if it was 100 feet wide. We would 'know if there's land we need to acquire because of it. Councilman Berquist: Okay. So if I look at a plat map, all these clouded areas where we've got these creek areas are all nebulous? We don't really 'know? Diane Desotelle: Right. We xvorked a little with Bill Morrish's group. They gave us a short...talked about some ideas but we don't have them in a plan. We don't have anything approved by the Council to say, okay let's go xvith this. Mayor Chmiel: As I read in your letter in the last sentence it says that you'd have this pretB, much pulled together by July of this year. Diane Desotelle: Well, I like to be optimistic. Mayor Chmiel: Overly optimistic? Diane Desotelle: I don't think so. I think if we get somebody on board now. A lot of the data is there. A lot of the information is there. The big thing is getting these task force together so that everybody feels that they're giving their input and... Councilman Senn: Where we're talking about spending $10,000.00 then to do that, but we're not talking about spending $50,000.00 and hoping to get reimbursement for part of it? Diane Desotelle: No. We have $10,000.00 from the DNR. The Watershed seed money, that's why we...so we can get another 10 to 20. 45 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Councilman Mason: Yeah, and this $10,000.00 is already in the SWMP budget for this. Diane, we'll need to talk before Wednesday. What do you want me to say? No, no. Diane Desotelle: Actually the meeting on Wednesday... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion needed on this'?. Diane Desotelle: No, it's just... Mayor Chmiel: Just an informational item? Okay, good. B. CHANHASSEN PAST~ PRESENT AND FUTURE, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Kate Aanenson stated that the incorrect information was included in the packet by mistake. The item would be placed on the next agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and we've already addressed item (c). Don Ashworth: Well you're going to. Mayor Chmiel: We'll address that at one of our meetings. Well it looks like that's the end of our agenda. Is there a motion for adjournment? Councilman Senn: We've got Consent items I think. CONSENT AGENDA: B. AUTHORIZF, PROPERTY ACQUISITION, CONDEMNATION AND QUICK TAKE OF PROPERTY FOR WELL NO. 7, PROJECT NO. 94-3. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm concerned about, and maybe I just don't get it but I'm concerned about this and I don't remember why. Can you explain what's going on here? Charles Folch: Sure. We've been trying to work with the developers to...to locate the well site. We've done testing work, we have through the fall, and it appears that initially through the platting process there was a lot of talk going on, a lot of cooperation on both sides. And it may be just a matter of coincidence but it seems like either the correspondence is...seems to be falling if you will and we're really in a situation here where we've got... We want to have them all operating by next summer to meet the demands we think the city's going to need, especially if we have a summer with precipitation like we're experiencing this winter, we're going to need a lot more water. So we expect to tq' to line up a meeting with the property oxvner hopefully within a week and try and at least come to some resolution on this matter...talking about price for the property. They're bringing it back to you for observation... Otherwise we need to start that 90 day process of condemnation. We need to serve papers immediately. That would basically, the clock would start.., drill the well, develop the well, and put a building and structure around it is probably...closer to 5 months. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That's the piece I xvas missing was the 90 days, and that's why xve need to do it. 46 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Charles Folch: If we don't receive cooperation, we can serve papers... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright. I would move that we authorize property acquisition, condemnation and quick-take of property. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion? Resolution #95-18: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the CiD' Council authorize the Ci~' Attorney's office to acquire the property necessary for Well No. 7, Project No. 94-3 on Brenden Pond plat and that the Ci~' Attorney be authorized to effect negotiations and, if necessal3', institute condemnation and quick-take proceedings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS/QUOTES ON 1995 EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE PURCHASES~ FILE NO. PW-016CCC. Councilman Berquist: I pulled that. Real quickly. I don't know a darn thing about tar kettles but I did notice that we're proposing to purchase a new tar kettle and we're trading in a 1993 SBF-300 tar kettle in order to buy a 1995 tar kettle? Charles Folch: The reason we're looking to replace the '93, not that there's anything ~vrong. It hasn't deteriorated...but we're looking at getting a safer model. The 1993 is a propane fire and that's been basically the type of tar kettle that's been in the industry for many years now. But we're starting to see a change in the marketplace for diesel fire ts'pe kettle, which is less flammable. Since xve've had another tar kettle, we had a rental unit the summer of '92 which we had...and the '93 that we had, we also had a minor explosion with that one where no one was hurt but we did elect to go with the diesel model to try to avoid this problem. Councilman Berquist: So safety is driving this? Not xve want a new tar kettle? Councilman Senn: Can xve sell the old one? Councilman Berquist: Well they're giving us $12,000.00 as a trade on the old one. I'm thinking what does this thing cost. But now xve're spending $8,000.00 in addition to the 12 that was spent. Or that's traded. What was the value of this thing 2 years ago? Charles Folch: Initially I think we paid $14,000.00 or $15,000.00 so now we're seeing about a $3,000.00 depreciation from the original. Councilman Senn: Doesn't the manufacturer have any liability on this if they're all blo~ving up and exploding? Charles Folch: Well, there's a lot of factors involved to what can be happening. Often times it can be, well it could be anything from generally just an operation to just bad... In one case we had a situation where we were firing up the kettle and the wind happened to be blowing from the wrong direction and we had the fumes going over...caused the problem so again, it's just a matter that at least the fire .... much more safer. 47 City Council Meeting - January' 23, 1995 Councilman Berquist: It will stink worse. Charles Folch: Actually we haven't heard any feedback. Some of the other communities we talked to, no one's complaining about smell. Councilman Senn: You can smell the tar over diesel. Councilman Berquist: Well I was going to say. You still got the tar and now you've got diesel fuel. How come the other two proposals from the other two companies did not include any trade? Any idea? Charles Folch: Well the one xve're trading is actually a Stepp model. They probably don't want somebody else's manufacturer's trade in. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, is there a motion2 Councilman Berquist: I'll motion to whatever here. To approve l(c). Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize advertisement for bids/quotes on 1995 equipment and vehicle purchases, File No. PW-016CCC. All voted in favor and the motion carried. K. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1-4~ CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/RECREATION CENTER PROJECT. Councilman Sen_n: On the change orders. This is $35,000.00 of our $100,000.00 contingency. What are we guessing for additional change orders? I mean I look at these change orders and these are all fairly early on type change orders. You know how man),,.' more of these are coming at us and where's it going I guess because these seem ver3.~ early on and they're big numbers. Don Ashworth: Todd Hoffman's been sitting in. Have you been sitting in on any of those meetings with Gockel? Todd Gerhardt: I'm not aware of any other larger ones coming up. I mean the biggest ones were adding the sk3,1ight. Changing the... At the last meeting we determined to hopefully have the building construction completed bv June 1 so I'd say the major change orders are done. Councilman Senn: The biggest bulk of this just happens to be one item that xve pa), 50/50 on versus the lower percentage on. Over $20,000.00 of this was for the filler, or what was that? Filler for soil. Todd Gerhardt: For balancing out the site on the athletic fields that we're going to benefit probably more from than the school district. The softball fields, soccer fields. There was additional grading that had to take place. Taking down some of the dirt along Highway 5 that was laying there that...build a retaining xvall... Councilman Senn: Some of that was caused by the movements of the things on the overall site. Todd Gerhardt: ...did not take into account the grading. 48 City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995 Don Ashworth: As a part of the approval, MnDot required an additional let's say 50 feet of right-of-way and when HGA went in they said okay, where does the property start and they picked out the new line and they did . all of the grading. But in the process they left this strip inbetxveen. I mean there's just no way that you could leave that dirt there which means then we had to get a hold of MnDot and say, hey nobody wants this little mound of dirt here. Give us authority to take it out of there, which they did and if I'm hearing Todd, that that's part of the cost. Todd Gerhardt: And there was also some dirt work that had to be done with the road. Councilxvoman Dockendorf: A related question. We had said the',' had to pull the road further south a bit and we were going to be compensated in additional landscaping. That's not part of our $100,000.00. That's a different deal, rightS. Charles Folch: That's all in the actual Highway 5... Councilman Berquist: And the other, I don't expect you to know eyeD'thing about these obviously but the, I was going through here. I mean I go through a lot of this kind of stuff, as you can imagine. Fire hydrants being moved for $9,000.009 $9,500.00. I mean they're not even in. And if they're being moved, who's ordering them to be moved and why? And then the other question I had, we had some additional costs to lower the step footings. I mean we're not talking a lot of dollars here. The total change order was $1,640.00. 12 hours of backhoe time plus the foreman for 12 hours to watch him. The foreman does other things in those 12 hours. I mean as an owner I would be, I question those sorts of things. Councilman Senn: Well, I want to go back to my original question again because I'm not hearing the answer I heard was right. You know one of my, my question was is we made a number of changes in this project and where things sat, including the school building and eveu'thing else to save the school district money. Now it sounds like some of those decisions are turning around and haunting us and now costing us more money. Don Ashworth: Why don't we have Mr. Gockel prepare just a brief description on each of the items that you . have. He's the construction manager for the school district. He's the one who negotiated, on behalf of the school district, and us, for these. He should respond. Do you have all of them marked? Councilman Senn: Okay. I move to table that then. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table approval of Change Order Nos. 1-4 for Chanhassen Elementary School/Recreation Center project until Mr. Gockel can prepare responses to questions by the Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Bentuist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.rm Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared b',' Nann Opheim 49