The URL can be used to link to this page

1h. Minutes (J� I ' CH7NBASSEN CITY COUNCIL ' REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Bout, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Gary Warren, Jim Chaffee, Elliott Knetsch and Roger Knutson, City Attorneys Mayor Chmiel wished Councilwoman Dimler a happy birthday. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Councilman Workman wanted to move item 6(a) to 1.3 under Unfinished Business and to discuss Metro Waste Control Advisory Commission and a resolution proposal to the legislature; Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the drug awareness program and National Earth Day. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: e. Accept Proposal for Official Mapping of TH 101 Between Entrance and Proposed ITH 212. f. Approve Agreement for Deposit of Securities in Lien of Retainage, Northdale Construction. g. Review Specifications for Public Works Equipment, Authorize Advertising for Bids. h. Approve Plans and Specifications for Public Works Auxiliary Storage Building, Phase II, Authorize Advertising for Bids. ' i. Resolution #90-22: Approve Contract Amendment No. 1, North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project. 1 k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated February 12, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1990 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 13, 1990 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 8, 1990 m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Beachlots, Final Reading. n. Extension to Preliminary Plat Deadline for Laurent and Peterson IAll voted in favor and the motion carried. I 1 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 IRECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ch[miel picked a naive for the recycling prize of $200.00. II CONSENT AGENDA: (A) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FINAL READING AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Councilman Boyt: This is the item about private driveways and there's a couple things I'd like us to consider. It's quite possible that somebody will put in a II private driveway to access 4 houses, that at same point we'll want to rake a public street. I'd like to see us under Section (o) (1) . On the first page of the ordinance. It talks about if use of the private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards and then we go through a 7 ton II road. 20 feet wide. Maximum 10% grade. I'd like to see us add that the City would have an easement of standard city proportions for a roadway easement. They build their private driveway but if at some point in the future we needed that land, we wouldn't have to buy it. The City would already have the ability to build a road there. (Councilman Workman: You're saying change nothing? Add. ICouncilman Boyt: Add that the City would acquire a standard road width easement. ICouncilman Workman: Wouldn't that kind of defeat, I mean basically it wouldn't be that kind of room there would there on a flag? IIPaul Krauss: Councilman Workman, I guess I would agree with your opinion on that. There is no intent to use this type of option unless we've already determined that a public road won't be needed in the future. If we think that a II public road would be needed in the future, we wouldn't go the private drive route. In addition, when we're looking at 50 or 60 foot wide rights-of-ways, that's oftentimes difficult if not impossible to develop in these situations and IIthat's one of the reasons why we might look at a private drive. Councilman Boyt: Now Tam this isn't a flag lot. We're talking here strictly I about private drives. We've had 2 of them in the last 3 years where people have came in and said I'm developing this piece of property and I'm just going to put a house back in there and I want a private drive. I just don't think it's good planning. We haven't set up any special conditions as we have with flag lots II and so I think we're really inviting people to come in and develop their land with private driveways and that that could prove to be a problem for us with future planning. Paul Krauss: Again, I would go back to the standards that we did propose under Section (o) where the first one says that the prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. If we thought that it was feasible or appropriate to construct a public street, that is the route we would propose that you go. We wouldn't use this option. II Councilman Boyt: If you would change prevailing developing pattern to something that had to do with the geography, what I think you're saying in development pattern is if the guy next to ire has got a private drive, then I ought to be able to have a private drive. You haven't got, as with flag lots, we've got all PR 2 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II kinds of things in there about the geographic requirements that make it necessary to have a flag lot. Here we don't have any of that. II Paul Krauss: That language could be changed. It wasn't meant to infer that if your neighbor has one, that you would be entitled to one but rather that,because of the location of existing hares and property lines, it was impossible to put in a public street. We could certainly add language to the topography. That II appears elsewhere in the ordinance anyway. Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be acceptable. 11 Councilman Boyt: Sure. As long as we're putting in something that says this is truly a special situation. I'd like to see in item (2) on the second page where II it says private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed as needed. I think they should be subject to the same street cleaning regulations that a city street would have. In other words, within 24 hours of a snow storm they should be cleared. II Mayor Cxriel: I think if we just struck the as needed and left it private I driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed. Councilman Boyt: Okay. So long as we've got it in the record that our intent is that they match city standards. So those were the changes. I would move , approval of item 1(a) with the two changes being that we include language to specify that it has to be a unique geographic situation and that we amend item (2) , Section 1. There's so many item 2's on there. The one on page 2. I Mayor Chcriel: Page 2, item 2. Councilman Boyt: So at the end of the first sentence would stop at plowed. 1 Private driveways most be maintained in good condition and plowed. Then it would continue with the rest of that paragraph. Now I do have another question here seeing that. Covenants, I think in our experience are hardly worth the paper they're written on. What kind of enforcement actions can the City take if II they choose not to plow their street because that is a public safety hazard? How? They can't get the fire truck back there. II Councilman Johnson: If there's 4 houses on it. Councilman Boyt: So we need sane stronger language. The City can't enforce I covenants. Paul Krauss: That's true. Possibly, I'd leave it up to the City Attorney but II I've seen ordinances drafted whereby the City would have the right to request that the plowing and maintenance be done and if it's not done, to order it done and assess the properties for the work. II Councilman Workman: Under what situation would somebody not plow their road so they couldn't get in with their regular compact car that a fire engine couldn't? Councilman Boyt: I think you're looking at road maintenance issues. You're looking at cost issues. You're looking at things that are fairly easy to put off and you may even want to. If you don't want any traffic down your road, you II may choose to let your road deteriorate to the point where you can stand it but II 3 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 nobody else will be tempted to drive down there. I would like to think this would never, we'd never need to enforce this. I'm just saying now's a chance to 1 put into our language something that indicates that the road has to be in good condition and it has to be plowed within 24 hours. It's the same thing we require of ourselves. Mayor Chidel: Paul? Some additional language I think probably could be worked out between you and our attorney to care up with something and I guess in a may that does have some meat to it. The only reason I say that is that the accessibility of going in and,,out and if no one does create a problem and it is private property but still we have to have the accessibility of emergency II vehicles in that area could cause a problem. II Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, if I live on that neck lot my Chevette, I don't plow and my Chevette can't get through, I'm not going to get through but the fire engine probably still could get through. I just can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't plow it to where I couldn't or my 3 other neighbors Icouldn't get through and that would create a public safety hazard. I just don't know how much we want to put on. I don't know how enforceable it's going to be anyway but. Councilman Johnson: What if you don't live there and you're responsible for plowing? If you're the developer and you've got the 4 lots up there and you've • sold 3 of them but 1 of them hasn't been sold. You're still responsible for plowing it. You live off in Plymouth or someplace. 1 Councilman Workman: I'd say that's buyer beware. IGary Warren: I think it's appropriate for the City Attorney to draft up some - language that would address the fact that perhaps if the City found it I necessary, either from a snow access standpoint or a maintenance access or whatever where we had to exercise our forces to accomplish this on an interim basis, emergency basis or whatever, that the City would have the right to assess the property owners for the actions. Similarily I would be interested as to II whether there shouldn't be some condition in there and maybe it addresses Councilman Boyt's concern that if for whatever reason a city street came to be built in this area, maybe a hard thing to envision but if it could be, that the II owners would not have any right to credits or anything else by the fact that they already have a private drive. That they would have to encounter assessments for the improvements as they would without it. IICouncilman Johnson: It'd be like Teton Lane. Private drive that's almost a public street. IIGary Warren: It's obviously the reason why we don't like to see too many private drives because we have to rely on covenants and the homeowners associations which depending on the homeowners can be either good or bad. 11 Mayor Ch oriel: That's probably a good recommendation. 1 Councilman Johnson: The more we see added to this, the more it sounds like this should be tabled to where we see the specific language is written up versus saying please write up a language and this is a second reading. It's final without us ever even seeing what's written up. I/ 4 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the final reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment dealing with lot frontage and access by private driveway and the summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: I Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail: Honorable Mayor and the City Council members. On February 6, 1990 there was a public information meeting for the residents of Frontier Trail who would be affected by the proposed reconstruction of the road. The preliminary plans which were shown to us that evening included a sidewalk on the north side of the street. Several people at the meeting objected to the sidewalk so I decided to make a survey which I'm presenting to you tonight in the form of a petition showing an overwhelming majority against any sidewalk on any side of the street. On the north side there are 26 haves. 2 are vacant. Of the remaining 24 homes, 4 homes are for the sidewalk and 20 are against it. These 20 hares are represented by 38 signatures. On the south side there are 22 hones. 4 of them are for a sidewalk and 18 hares are against it. These 18 homes are represented by 34 signatures. In terms of total percentages for the north and south sides combined, there are 17% for and 83% against any sidewalk. Many of the people are angry that a sidewalk is even being considered. Several told me they specifically moved to Chanhassen to get away from sidewalks. Many are disturbed about the landscaping which would be altered and they don't want it moved or altered. Soma of the trees and shrubs are so large that they cannot be moved. Nobody wants to be responsible for keeping their sidewalk clean of ice and snow or dog feces to say nothing of the 1 legal liability in case of accidents on their properties. Many comments were made about the relatively small number of people who would use a sidewalk which starts nowhere and ends nowhere. Sane residents are upset about people being able to look into their living rooms because their homes are very close to the street. Sane of then are even lower than the street and a sidewalk would bring the walkers 10 feet closer to their homes. I also received numerous comments concerning the fact that people would rather wait with the reconstruction of the road until public funds becomes available as suggested by me last year. Several people brought up the subject of assessment if the project should proceed. I'll 11 take the opportunity to remind you of the petition presented to you on December 18th which showed a large majority of the affected residents favoring the front footage method of assessment. We understand that the construction plans will cane before you for approval in the very near future. We respectfully request that you listen to the overwhelming majority of the residents as indicated by this petition and give serious consideration to the elimination of the sidewalk entirely from the project. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation at this time? i CITY CODE AMENDMENT LIMITING THE SALE OF TOBACCO FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER ONLY. Mayor Chmiel: We have had several presentations done by store owners within the I city. Hopefully if you have something new to add, we'll be more than happy to listen to that. We do have the Council Minutes from that particular time so at 5 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 IIthis time I will open the meeting and those wishing to make a presentation, step forward to the microphone. Please state your name and your address and who you may or may not be representing. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Before they do that, I'd like to mention that due to quite a few different factors that are in our staff report and other 11 things, that there's a very large likelihood that this will be tabled tonight. Mayor C .el: That's very likely, yes. ICouncilman Johnson: And I think that in that light I think it'd be fair for the people to know that this will cane up again. As fax as I know, it probably will be tabled but we also would like to, you took the effort to come here. If you'd II like to say something, we are going to listen to you tonight too. I haven't decided completely whether I want to say anything about the actual issue tonight or not or wait until the next meeting. 11 Mayor C oriel: If we do table this, this will probably be tabled until March 12th. Is there anyone who wishes to. 11 Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor if I can speak. My name is Jim Larkin and I'm with the firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren and I'm here on behalf of my client the Minnesota Grocer's Association which a number of their members have come 1 here tonight to address the problem that is before them. I'd like to say at the outset that it is the intent and desire of my client to work with the City on this matter because it is a serious matter but they are very concerned that they became a scapegoat for what may be well intention in motives but through an ordinance which imposes an undue burden upon business in this city. With me tonight is the President of the Minnesota Grocer's Association, Mr. Joe Hoyland who is a former high school teacher and a high school coach and is quite 11 conversant with the group of people towards wham I understand this ordinance is directed. My understanding of the purpose of the ordinance is that it is to prevent minors from stealing cigarettes. That is the declared purpose and the issues to which Mr. Hoyland and those who have care to be with him, and I would II urge them to be brief and I would urge the Council to listen to them tonight because they have came and in some cases may not be able to care back on the 12th. The first issue that they would like to address is is there in fact a problems with theft my minors in the City of Chanhassen from merchants. Secondly, what would be the cost of the proposed requirements. Thirdly, whether the requirement is appropriate to the assumed problem. Again, Mr. Mayor I would ' like to introduce Mr. Hoyland and let him at least discuss with you what he has to present. Thank you. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, mergers of the City Council. It's a pleasure to be able to came before you and perhaps discuss sane of our concerns about your proposed ordinance. As Mr. Larkin indicated, I have been a high school teacher, II coach. Also directed plays and things of that nature so I've seen the high school scene fret, a variety of different roles and positions. Sate of the things that really concern me about your ordinance is that one thing is that you're really going after store merchants within the city of Chanhassen and II you're really not going after the kids and placing sane responsibility on the kids. One thing that we always placed on our student athletes and student performers was the fact that there are certain rules and regulations that you must follow if you're going to participate in various activities. Let's take 6 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 _ II IIfootball for example. I was a high school football coach. We said that if you • smoke or drink, you're off the team. We placed clear and very demonstrable penalties for students who actually violated sane of the rules. There were many others but certainly the most important one that's germane to this is if a student was caught in the possession of tobacco products or smoking, actually smoking, they had some real choices that they could make. Personal choices. If they chose to do that, here's what's going to happen. Unfortunately with your proposed ordinance, what you're doing is you're placing a severe burden on our retailers. The convenience stare operators in this city and to my knowledge you're really doing nothing td address the problem or to address the whole issue of adolescence and smoking. I want to clarify that the Minnesota Grocer's Association and retailers in this state who sell tobacco products are sworn by the laws of the State of Minnesota which say that they must not sell to minors. We've instructed our retail members, both supermarket and convenience stores to abide by the law and they've indicated to us that that is their intention and they have gone about displaying in their stores, particularly at the checkouts signs which say that if you're a manor, don't expect to be sold tobacco products. I know that same of these signs, many of these signs are here in Chanhassen. Now what they've done and then what the legislature did this past spring is they passed a law which placed a gross misdemeanor on clerks who sell tobacco products. Now what they did is they sent a clear message that if you're caught selling, you're going to receive a higher penalty. In fact it's a higher penalty than selling alcohol to a minor. But I guess the important thing is that the message has been sent. Unfortunately, the action that you are proposing to take in the city of Chanhassen is going to severely restrict a retailer's right to merchandise their store and frankly that's a pure violation of the freedom to be able to do what they feel is their God given right as a retailer. Unfortunately, as I address the whole issue of minors, I think one thing that you as a City Council should be doing is to be placing restrictions on children and children particularly who choose to purchase or to steal cigarettes. Frankly the greater issue is dealing with kids who may verbalize and say that they are stealing. That is a fax greater...going to cost and it's going to cost the consumers of Chanhassen. Unfortunately what you're going to do is you're going to, if in fact you do pass this ordinance, you're going to place them in a competitive disadvantage because frankly I know kids and you know kids and if they're going to get tobacco products, they're going to go where they can get than. If they have to go to Eden Prairie. If they have to go to Minnetonka or Wayzata, they'll go. They are mobile people. They're also very savy people and frankly anything that you do in Chanhassen, being you're close to many other communities is going to have little effect frankly on the ability, if in fact they are stealing cigarettes, it's going to have little impact on that. The whole issue of store design canes to, particularly in a convenience store type setting, service versus self service. One of the things that a convenience store does well is provide convenient ways in which their customers can get in and out quick. Another thing is if you tie up the front end of a convenient store, frankly you cause a great deal of other constraints. Sane of the other retailers this evening will talk about that. There's a situation of drive offs. If the clerk is particularly being tied down by having to deal with a lot of different front end types of activities, there's a greater potential for people to drive off from their gas stations. That's just one of many things that kind of trickles down as an affect of having to be bothered in a sense, if they so choose, to have to wait on their customers and it certainly ties down and adds to the time that's involved in the whole transaction. I'd like to address one other quick thing and that's the issue of the supermarkets. I 7 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 III'm aware that there are no supermarkets in Chanhassen at this time but I am aware that a supermarket is coming to this community. What you're going to do, if you bring this one step further is that you are going to cause a supermarket operator to develop a central customer service type area and essentially what that means for the customer is that they have to shop twice within a given store. They have to make their purchase for the regular grocery items and then they have to go to a separate counter and make a separate purchase. I don't know if you have studied supermarket flow, traffic flows and shopping patterns but I think you're going to create :a terrible constraint and as I mentioned 1 before, if customers are offended by this type of thing, they can easily go to other communities. Frankly for any kind of community to address this kind of an issue this way creates terrible constraints and I think it has a real negative affect on the consumers in your community. I'll finish by saying that I think there's a real opportunity for you as city council members to work with retailers. Frankly, we look at this whole issue and we're surprised that you're approaching it in this manner. Frankly we're surprised because we haven't seen that there's a shoplifting problem of tobacco products by minors. Frankly we haven't seen that there's a significant problem of shoplifting of tobacco products in the city of Chanhassen. Consequently, we have what you're proporting as a problem, you have not shown us factual data. You haven't shown any kind of documented evidence that there is a problem. In fact it's a solution looking for a problem. That might sound humerous but in fact that is really the situation. Our industry is as interested in prohibiting minors from ' buying and using tobacco products as you axe. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to try to work together. Tobacco products, whether we like it or not, are legal substances which can be purchased in the United States, including Chanhassen and I think we tried an experiment back in the 30's, 20's and 30's with prohibiting alcohol and we found that that didn't work. The real secret to this whole solution to creating smoking sensation is to teach people of the negative affects of tobacco use and if that's your goal, then I would urge that you work with us. Work with the State Health Department. In fact I serve on Commissioner Ashton's Health Promotion Task Force. There are a lot of other different ways that we can work to send the message that tobacco use is harmful to your health, particularly for minors. I think we stand ready to work with any of you at any time to address the specific concerns that you may have here in Chanhassen. With that in mind, there axe a number of retailers that have expressed interest to me that they'd like to have an opportunity to say a few words and if I could be so bold as to call on them and they will make a few caments on their part. I want to point out that some of these people are people that are actually managing and working in Chanhassen and some of these people are corporate people who are from the companies and can tell you a little bit about how their company operates. I think that might lend same perspective to actually how they're approaching the sale of tobacco products to minors. The first person I'd like to call on... Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, before the grocers institute takes over this meeting and conducts this meeting, could we ask you a few questions? I mean we're not going to let you get away here real quick here. Continuously you have said that we need to do something about minors. That we have to control the minors. Are you saying that the court system, the juvenile court system, is inadequate and that the prosecution through the juvenile courts, that this council has something better than that that we can do? Give us just a suggestion. Three or four times you've said that we should be doing something to prosecute these minors. What? 1 8 I City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 i : Joe Hoyland: I think for starters you can enact some ordinances which put same penalties on students. That's one thing. Councilman Johnson: So they can't be on the football team? I Joe Hoyland: No. I think the schools can adequately handle that. I would talk one about financial penalties. For starters, we already have shoplifting laws in the State of Minnesota so that's what we have. We also have sane II difficulties that you cannot publically proclaim who these kids are. I mean they are protected. Their anonymity is there. So what can you do from a local level? You can require that any student or any minor that is caught buying II tobacco products has to go through a program that talks about the disadvantages of using tobacco products much like an alcohol abuse type program. I'm not that familiar with these programs but perhaps that's something you can do on a local II basis. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask our Attorney, can we do that on a local basis? II Elliott Knetsch: There's nothing on the books right now either on the State level or on the City level. There is maybe a somewhat analogous State Statute II dealing with possession of a small amount of marijuana which specifically authorizes the court to put offenders into a drug awareness or treatment program depending on their level. How their habit is. Analogizing from that and given that the State has left the door open for cities to regulate in this area, I'd II say that we probably could look at that. We could move in that direction in addition to the State law penalties that already exist. We already have shoplifting laws. I think any judge would probably be within his rights to take II someone who has stolen cigarettes and put that in that kind of a program without having a city ordinance on that. That's just a matter of making the judges and the prosecutors aware that that's something that you're interested in. I Councilman Johnson: We could have an ordinance that advises the prosecutor, the County Prosecutor and the judge to do something like that but we could not force the judge to do anything he doesn't want to do. Elliott Knetsch: You cannot force the judge but you, I think you could have an ordinance that would make that an option of a penalty. It could be a fine. It II could be this education program. You could lay out the possible penalties. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if the parents pay the penalties, it's no fine to the kid but I do like your idea on that and if that is, I think we ought to move II that, if that is legally feasible, we ought to move that way to do that. Councilman Boyt: I'd disagree with that. I think you want to control the point II of sale. Councilman Johnson: Well you've got to do that too. 11 • Councilman Boyt: It's like controlling 5 versus controlling 1,000. We're much better off to control 5. Joe Hoyland: Councilmen, you are already controlling. II II 9 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor Chnael: If you'd like to interrupt, please direct it back to the Chair. - i ill Joe Hoyland: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt. You're already doing that. State law requires or actually places severe penalties on clerks who sell to minors so I think a gross misdemeanor, up to $3,000.00 in financial penalties plus a year in jail or something of that nature as the most extreme penalty, " that sends a pretty clear message at the point of sale. Without having to actually get into the store and say well you can't have it here. You can have it here. I think you're already addressing that. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I would be willing to help you in any way that I can. I think what you're doing here, if you can take your ideas because you're clearly ahead of a lot of other communities, take it to the State Health Department. Take it to II the Anti-Smoking groups and propose that. I think it's very important that we make a statement to young people and make a statement as public policy makers. On the local basis as well as the State basis that it is wrong and here are penalties that you will suffer. I'm not conversant in legal terms as to what we can do and what we can't do but these are a couple of ideas. Another thing that came to mind and this is something again that would have to be done on the State level but one of the things that kids cherish dearly is mobility. They work II very hard to get their license and it's very possible, if it is a priority of this community and of this state that we send a clear message, then let's work to take away kid's drivers license if they're caught perhaps after a certain period of time with tobacco products. They do that with alcohol and some people say that tobacco is worse than alcohol so send the clear message. Mayor Chimiel: The only given problem with that is that you may have 10 year olds and 11 year olds and 12 year olds that don't have driver's licenses so that presents a given problem. Joe Hoyland: Clearly Mr. Mayor and members of the Council you're concerned about a very grave problem and we share that concern. For kids using tobacco products, having been a teacher, peer pressure is probably the greatest obstacle 11 that you're going to have to try to overcame. I'm not sure how any of us overcame peer pressure but that to me is one of the greatest jobs you've got to tackle and I'm not sure, I don't have the answers on that but that seems to be one of the prime sources, particularly in the 10-11 year olds. And it is tragic that young people like that are using tobacco products. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I have a few comments. I guess to start off with I guess I'd like to say that I think we have a responsibility to protect our kids and I don't want to see our kids criminalized. And you have indicated several times here that you didn't think that there was a problem and I want to tell you again that there is a problem. I am not going to say that my children steal cigarettes but I have 4 teenagers and they have lots of friends and they came over frequently and I overhear conversations that they don't think I'm hearing and I'm not going to give you any names or turn anybody in but I want you to know that they do do it and even the owner of Brooke's was here last time indicating that he inventoried every day and that he loses or has at least 1 carton per week unaccounted for. So we may think that that's a small number but it is happening and that was only one store so. I agree that we shouldn't maybe have put too many restrictions on retailers but I would like to know how much revenue do the retailers lost from the tobacco industry and how much do they pay to put their displays in the stores? If we wouldn't allow this, what revenue I would you lose? 1 10 City Council Meeting- February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Dialer. I'd have to let the retailers address that question and I think they've heard that and they'll be prepared to II answer that question. However, I'm not sure that they're being paid a certain II amount to place it in a particular position has a whole lot of relevance to the subject here. You're talking about restricting merchandising of a product. The fact that you're talking about placement in a store has no... Councilwoman Dialer. Well I beg to differ with you because I think it's the tobacco industry that's bghind ;this. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman. Behind what? Councilwoman Diller: Behind this opposition. I Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman. I stand here because clearly you're going into a retail store and you are dictating merchandising policy. I don't care if it's peanut butter or cereal or milk. You are dictating merchandising policy. That's something that is very near and dear to our people. Whether it's tobacco products. Whether it's candy. This the first step. We do not want to have any public body dictating merchandising policy. In fact Federal statutes uphold that. I think you can honor that. You're talking about on a very select basis, restraint of trade and you have to be aware of the grounds that you're getting into. It's a whole new area. Councilwoman Dialer: Well is it true then that the tobacco industry does indeed pay the retailer to put the display in? Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman. That may be the case with same retailers. It may not be the case with other retailers. I don't think we can say blank, cold, hard fact yes they do. I would say it depends on the type of retailer. A supermarket, big high volume supermarket operator who has a considerable share of the market, it's no different than being the prime time leader in a prime time television show. They can get more money for a particular ad because they have demonstrated that they have a greater following. No difference. Mayor Chmiel: Joe, I'd just like to clarify one thing. You're saying all the responsibility should be back on the kids. Maybe it should but I think this I/ City Council is that part of watching and knowing what we feel is right within our community. From the aspects of public health and safety of those individuals, I think we're charged with that as well and I think that's what we're looking at from that aspect. Unless someone else has something else. Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple questions. When we have these people speak I to us, there's a couple things I'd like them to address. Do you prosecute people that you find with cigarettes and have stolen them from you? Then the other one is, do you have sane plan on how you're going to control or better control the sale of cigarettes? I'm not interested in what's been called criminalizing our youth. I think that the bigger problem is the police won't pick them up anyway but we have control over how these things are going to be, or could have or how they're going to be distributed. I have a question for you specifically. Did your organization lobby one way or another on the changed State penalty for sale of cigarettes to minors? 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt. We were unaware that that Pa rticular 1 legislation was even happening. We were as surprised as any. Had we known I about it, we certainly would have had sane opinions. Frankly it has been enacted. We were the only organization in the State to actively develop flyers and posters that could go at the check stands. In fact, probably the State proponent of anti-smoking, Jeanne Wiggum called us and praised us for our actions. Clearly we got that message out sooner than anybody else and certainly before the effective date of that new law. 11 Councilman Boyt: Okay. My final comment is, I'm glad we're talking about this issue. It's taken a lot of time but it's probably a good one to hear both sides on. From my standpoint and I think sane of the other people on the Council, I'm I not particuarly interested in entering into a test case to see if this is legal but I am very interested in seeing the store owners become more involved in controlling the sale of cigarettes. Thank you. That's all I've got. IIMayor Chmdel: Jay? Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up slightly on what you were II saying. I believe this is not trying to restrict merchandising. This is to define what we believe responsible merchandising is in this city and whether we believe the tobacco industry is targeting youth and people near the age of 18 or I below or whatever that is. Kind of side issues and all on this thing but what is the responsible way to market this product. It's a product that's supposed to be restricted to certain classes of people, i.e. those people 18 years old or older and therefore I think that it's sale should be somewhat restrictive. Not I set out just like candy or pop. The other, are you familiar with Tom Thumb and their policy? I was, this weekend at a Tom. Thumb store in Prior Lake and they meet this ordinance today. Right now. As is. I asked their manager, I said 11 wow. He says that's our policy. When he said our policy, that could have been his store policy or that may be Tom Thumb corporate. I haven't been to look at any other Tarp Thumbs to see if that was that way. I went to a PDQ today. PDQ I was extremely close to meeting this. They have no sales. I don't see it being that, they need a little plastic shield around their display on the counter so that it can't be reached from the front but other than that, they were in compliance with this ordinance as is. We're talking almost no cost. Here are IItwo responsible merchandisers that are doing it. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I'd like to address those because you're right. I spoke with Wally Pettit who happens to be the owner of 190 sane Tom Thumbs in the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin and I asked him what his practice was on this and he said that they in fact do put all of their tobacco 11 products behind the counter and I'm not sure if they're talking about every single thing including chewing tobacco and that type of thing. I'm not sure but he just said tobacco, cigarettes. II Councilman Johnson: In Prior Lake, the chewing tobacco and the pipe tobacco and all that stuff are behind the counter. I Joe Hoyland: The reason that he stated that they do that is because of security. Their own internal policies. With 190 stores, he can't be out at every store watching them. As a consequence, they simply say from a security, from a loss prevention standpoint, we're just going to do this. Now they made 12 ,City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 that decision voluntarily. I Councilman Johnson: So there most be some shoplifting of tobacco going on if 190 stores have made that decision. I Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman. I think what you've got is you've got a large chain doing business in this state and they're not being forced to-do that. They're making a clear decision on their own to enter into that type of decision. They've got some coristraints because they can't be at every store. - Now some other people that speak here tonight are in the same situation have the same number of stores and they could probably address why they have certain policies and why they have different ones. One thing that I would offer and this may be an alternative for you. Without having to go to the form of having an ordinance and potentially having a test case, why not go to the retailers and say, we think we've got a problem with tobacco getting into the hands of minors. Would you consider on a voluntary basis embarking on this project with us and try to reason with people. Fran our standpoint you'd be setting up same kind of a situation where you'd say we're going to work together to address what we think is a problem without going the step of having to enact a public policy that may have some negative ramifications. For us and potentially for you. Councilman Johnson: Well I'd like to publically congratulate Tom Thumb on their 1 responsible merchandising. And what was the gentleman's name? Joe Hoyland: Wally Pettit. Councilman Johnson: Wally Pettit. Thank you Wally. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, could I make same comments? I Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tam. Councilman Workman: I guess I want to ask Jim Larkin a quick question. Jim, 1 does your firm and maybe this is, does your firm represent any tobacco industry or groups? Jim Larkin: No. We represent the Grocer's Association but do not represent any tobacco industry or the tobacco companies. Councilman Workman: Isn't your law firm representing the tobacco? I Jim Larkin: We may have done same work at the legislature. Councilman Workman: Aren't they currently working at the legislature to get through some legislation that would disable our current vending machine ordinance? I Jim Larkin: They may be involved in the vending machine ordinance. I just don't know and I'm not trying to be cute. I'll find out for you and let you know by tomorrow but we have 85 lawyers and I don't keep a book on what every one of them does. I 13 11 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 11 ' Councilman Workman: Well I guess they are. Jim Larkin: Alright. If you have that information. Councilman Workman: Well yeah. I want to emphasize a little bit Ursula's comments that and I have some, I have probably 3 realms of tobacco information 1 but that in fact the tobacco lobby is very good. They will tell you they are very good and they are very good in getting your law firm which is very good. Everything is very good about that. ; The problem we have is and cigarettes are not very good and I don't think Joe' Hoyland will tell us that he thinks cigarettes are good or any retailer thinks cigarettes are good or anybody thinks cigarettes are good or that they're promoting them to their own children or their grandchildren or whoever so we've got kind of a contradiction here of profits and dollars versus what we know something is not good and it is bad but II we're making so dog gone much money and we have to continue to sell these things. The statistics that I picked up from Joel on Friday were that 15% to 20% of the sales at a convenience store are based on cigarettes. It's an awful lot of money for this City Council to be potentially with or denying it. That's I guess a bit of information for the public who's wondering why all the fuss is. If we're going to rearrange a couple of counters, why is there such a fuss? II Because it's a pretty sacred cow I think. Might not the grocers and this is going to you know, warrant two more comments. One, really what is the theft of one carton of cigarettes per store per week to a corporation. It's really nothing. That is really nothing and so what is really nothing to that corporation could very well be an awful lot to a small bunch of city council people out here in the pucker brush. But my only other comment and I'll keep it to that is, might not the Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to IIlead the campaign to say we're not interested in selling these products? They really can't be compared to most any other product that's sold in the store. Joe, you talked about completely changing the entire inside of a huge grocery II store around tobacco products. That sounds so drastic that it does tell me that obviously the dollar's there and the tobacco industry has plenty left to do that. Wouldn't the Minnesota Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to say yeah, we do believe that cigarettes are a terrible product or a terrible habit and maybe we should be making some, and I believe in compromising. obviously Joe we talked about that. I'm just getting over my carton a week habit. Wouldn't they be the perfect group of people to say look 1 at us. We're going to do something about this. Jim Larkin: I'd like to respond specifically to that and let me, and Joe can IIrespond to it too if he'd like to but I think if you want to say to them, help us. Take the position that cigarettes are not good for minors and should not be sold to them, I think that's perfectly appropriate. I think that's what Joe has II said to you but where I get, and this is perhaps a philosophical argument and you asked does our firm represent people in the tobacco industry. I also happen to believe in due process and that's a commitment I took an oath to when I became a lawyer. Over my unduly long life at this point because I've been at II council meetings where I've been threatened with close to hanging and so forth. Not here. I think it's easy to find a quick fix to a solution and then go home and say gee we did good but it doesn't always work that way. I'd remind you that in 1900 the American Medical Association was criticizing those who wanted to restrict cocaine. There's an article in this week's Financial World that talks about one of the worse addictions in society, and there are studies on this, is gambling and yet you have the State of Minnesota and this is an article 11 14 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 - I that evaluates that, sponsoring that. So if you're looking for a whipping boy, the grocers are convenient and you can say we did this and aren't we good but I suggest that the grocers are here and want to work with you to find a solution. I think that's an appropriate position for them. I haven't heard and I have read the transcript and where does theft of cigarettes cone from and I started thinking about this. You know the easiest place to steal cigarettes is if your parents smoke. If your parents don't smoke and you've got a crowd of 10-people and the statistics are that 3 out of 10 people smoke, you can steal them from the neighbors parents and what:restrictions do you have on that? Or what do you try to do to that? Again, I can go on and on about it... (There 9 There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Councilwoman Dimler: ...distinction that we're making and I'm saying that you, if you're representing the Grocer's Association, you can't say, you know it's illegal to sell to minors and here's what we're going to do to help that cause and that's all that we're asking you to do. We're not going to stop cigarette sales to adults. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman, we have done that. We have publicized the State Law which states that it is against the law to sell to minors. We have put placards together. We have provided them for our members. I stand ready to ask what more we can do. Councilman Johnson: Did you do that before or after it became a gross I misdemeanor? Joe Hoyland: Certainly Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. Certainly when the I penalty for the clerk was raised to a point where it got their attention and there was a great deal of opportunity for publicity for that type of situation. We have always demonstrated to our members that it's against the law. Our members will came before you and say it is against the law and they uphold the law of Minnesota. Frankly we didn't take out an ad campaign to declare that but there are a lot of laws on the books in Minnesota and a lot of laws on the books in Chanhassen and frankly we did not have the need to draw attention to any particular law above any other. Mayor C1miel: Maybe what we could do is just move on to have those people who are present who want to make their presentation. I would like to try and limit that to possibly about 5 minutes per each and I think we can probably do it because we heard from some of these people before. I Joe Nyland: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The first person I'd like to call on is Len Fillmeyer from SuperAmerica. Len Fillmeyer: Mx. Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Len Fillmeyer from Super America office in Bloomington and everything I was going to say has already been said and discussed but I would like to answer a couple of questions that I don't think was answered and talk a little bit about what, be it Super America. The fact that we say again has been said many times, we don't have a problem selling cigarettes. We think we do a real good job and I think we talked about what are we doing to prevent that. I think we're doing just about everything in our power and I think in many of our stores, our clerks even take an extra step. Instead of guessing ages kind of everybody that looks under 25, card them so I 15 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II • think we're doing everything we can to prevent the sale of cigarettes to minors and we're going to continue doing that. But a couple of questions that were l asked or discussed here was the fact of selling cigarettes or having cigarette I ,I displays on a floor. Do we get paid money by the cigarette companies for doing +� that and the answer is yes. Yes we do. We get paid for putting displays of Pepsi on the floor. We get paid for putting Coke on the floor. We get paid for putting Pizza's on the floor. Displaying oil. We get paid for putting many .' 11 things on the floor and openly displaying those items because that's where they sell. The public today really demands that of us. That we are what we are, convenience store and they cane toils for that reason. They don't want to be hassled in anything. We get'the average customer somewhere between 5 and 6 minutes so it isn't like they're going to shop our store and they have a lot of time so it's important to us that we have these cigarettes on the floor. Number one, they would never fit in our checkout. Number one. We choose to market them on the floor in full view of our people and in many cases there is already a security rack there and we don't lose, I mean I stand here and say we never lost a pack of cigarettes or a carton of cigarettes to minors, we're not that I/ naive. We have and we probably still will lose a pack of cigarettes here and there. It doesn't matter, things we have behind the counter we lose as well. I mean we're in that industry but our overall numbers are very, what we consider, M very manageable and if we have a problem with cigarettes as every store and SuperAmerica, they're not on the floor. Some stores they're definitely behind the counter and for all kinds of reasons. We say again, when we have in our possession here tonight again a tape, a training tape that we use. A real tape that shows the theft of cigarettes that our people all see and all live by. Not one teenager is on there. That's not by choice. We didn't cut that out. It just never showed up on there so our question is, we don't know what more we can 1 11 do. We have no way we can put cigarettes in a counter without sane massive reconstruction of many of our stores. And I would like to answer any questions you have as far as marketing cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: In my original o Po sal on this I had a remotely controlled proposal device. You have your large displays at SuperAmerica of carton cigarettes where that could be basically locked and then remotely unlocked to allow a customer to grab his carton of cigarettes under the view and the control of the store employee. Does that give you much heartburn? 11 Len Fillmeyer: Councilman Johnson, we have some of those and there are sate of those out there. There are buzzers out there on sane carton racks of cigarettes 11 that buzz when a carton of cigarettes is pulled out of there. We don't understand the need for it number one. I mean we think we can control our business to the degree that if we had a problem, we're going to be the first ones to change that and jump in with both feet and get the controls we need in order to because cigarettes in a company like ours are not a high margin item. It isn't like cigarettes are the best thing we do so it isn't like you can lose a lot of cigarettes and still make money. iCouncilman Johnson: How many? I mean what level of theft of cigarettes would turn you on? If you have, say you do a thousand cartons a week and you lose 10 cartons, would you be upset by a 1% loss? Len Fillmeyer: We don't have 1% loss there? We don't have 1% loss. In cigarettes it's probably, not probably. Between cigarettes and beer, the most 16 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 two controlled items we sell, we know every shift if we lost a pack or 2 of cigarettes. We know every shift. We count cigarettes in the stores every shift every day so there is no other it in the store other than beer that we have those kind of controls on. We know what's happening in cigarettes. I Councilman Johnson: Okay. On your counter displays. The counter displays were designed with a clear to where the people could see the displays and the' employee had straight access to thew, what's the difference? Len Fillmeyer: I'm not Sure runderstand that there is any difference. We do have some cigarettes on the counter in full view of our employees right in front of our cashiers. Now the only way somebody could steal those cigarettes is if they grab that and run. Councilman Johnson: Or you've got, in the case of TN 7/41 store, you've got 2 1 cash registers. Cigarettes on one and the employee on the other. Len Fillmeyer: That can happen. I Councilman Johnson: It's a little hard to see unless you can transplant the eyes to the back of the head. I Len Fillmeyer: But again, we're not losing them. I mean we don't understand the problem. We don't understand why we're doing this because it's a great, for competitive reasons we lose all our competitiveness with our competition right across the street. Councilman Johnson: I think part of it is what I said before. The message we are giving to the children by having these large displays of cigarettes at the same place they buy their candy is that cigarettes are good and we want to make a different message to the children. I Len Fillmeyer: Again, I say that's not the issue. Councilman Johnson: Sure it is. I Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Fillmeyer, I thank you for answering my questions about the industry, tobacco industry paying for the displays. I wonder if you would be willing to give me an amount as to what would be the loss in revenue if our ordinance indeed would disallow these types of displays? Len Fillmeyer: I don't have those numbers in front of me but it's dramatic. I Councilwoman Dimler: Is it? Is it more than or the sans as or less than the other items that you mentioned? Pizzas or whatever. Len Fillmeyer: As we said, that's been brought out here several times. In the sales of a convenience store, somewhere from 16% on up of your business is tobacco products so if you took those off the floor as Pepsi, if you took it off the floor, or candy for that matter, the sales on that product go right down the tube. The public wants them on the floor. I Councilwoman Dimler: You're losing the sales but also you get paid for just putting up the display whether you sell then or not? 17 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 • Len Fillmeyer: If we didn't have them on the floor, there would be no display money. No, there would not be any money. 11 Councilwoman Dimler: There is display money though... Len Fillmeyer: ...for mass displays. Councilwoman Dimler: And if you put that behind the counter there's no display money? • Len Fillmeyer: That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: And it's a substantial amount you say? Len Fillmeyer: A substantial. I/ Councilwoman Dimler: More so than pizzas? Len Fillmeyer: Dramatic. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Does that display money, does that include the large groups of cartons? When you have the 20 foot row of cartons, is that considered a mass display and you're paid to have that? 1 Len Fillmeyer: Yes it is. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I was thinking mostly those small displays on the counter that other... Len Fillmeyer: Well small displays pay small dollars. II Councilman Johnson: You're saying there's bigger dollars in the big carton display? IILen Fillmeyer: Sure there is. Mayor Chmiel: Alright are there any other questions? ICouncilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose some way of moving the meeting along. Can we refer this to the Public Safety Commission or in same way, I envision that we're going to be on this issue for another half hour. IMayor C1 iel: Being that we have each of these people here Bill, I think we'll adhere to that 5 minutes and hopefully they may be able to finish it a lot quicker. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, a couple of key points and one is I that the Minnesota Unfair Sales Act requires retailers to mark up cigarettes and tobacco products 8% above their actual cost. Bear that in mind. Second is that Minnesota has the highest excise tax on tobacco products in the United States. I believe the current number is about 38 cents per pack. Consequently the price 18 K City council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 II The next speaker that I'd like to call is Colleen Lapell and she's is up. spec up pe also from Superzterica. Colleen Lapell: Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Colleen Lapell. I'm a SuperAmerica area manager. Our store on 7 and 41 reports directly tome. Two weeks ago I was here and addressed this Council with 3 points on interest which tonight I am going to reconfirm those. Last week I showed you our signage package which I have again with me here tonight. This signage package can be found in all of our SupeZAmerrCa stores. Today I counted 16 signs in my store in Chanhassen posted on the sales floor and also back in our break roans. These signs are used as a tool of reinforcement not only to our cashiers but as well as to our customers that SA wants only the legal sale. Our training manual is gone through with each brand new employee. Inside this book are laws for selling tobacco, company rules and regulations and techniques the trainer can use with the new employee as far as role playing. What he or she will care across selling tobacco products. TWo weeks ago I mentioned a video tape that is an actual footage of customers stealing cigarettes. I have that with me here tonight. Leonard Fillmeyer also made mention of this tape tonight. Again, not one of the customers stealing cigarettes is a minor. We use this tape to show our new cashiers and employees what to watch out for to safeguard against theft. SuperAmerica is committed to the legal sale of tobacco. We are constantly following up and checking our stores for compliance. Thank you very much. Joe Hovland: The next speaker is Jeff Steel, also at SuperAmerica. I Jeff Steel: Mayor, City Council menders. As I mentioned 2 weeks ago that my store did not and still does not have an inventory control problem on tobacco products. One of the tools we use to control inventory on tobacco products is doing a complete inventory twice a day, once per shift. By doing this if we were to have a problem, corrective action could be taken immediately. SA has a bonus program available to it's store managers. To qualify for a bonus, inventory control is essential. A carton of cigarettes is one of the most expensive single items in my store. For ne to allow tobacco theft would be taking money out of my own pocket. If cigarette theft was a problem in my store, I would be locking them up myself but it is not a problem and I do not wish to lock them up. There would be no reason for a customer to buy a carton of cigarettes fram my store. I would lose the promotions from the tobacco company so my customers would go elsewhere to save the money on their cigarette purchases. Example, right across the street to Driskill's Super Value and Snyder's Drug that has the cigarettes both not only packages that we do not have I/ out in the open mostly except the small promotion on the counter, but also their cartons that are right out in the open and will continue to receive the promotional allowances from the tobacco company that you will deny me with this ordinance. Thank you. Joe Hovland: The next speaker is Doug Coffee, also at SuperAmerica. Doug Coffee: Mayor, Council people. My name is Doug Coffee. I work at the , Superlmerica. I manage the store on 212 at the intersection of 169. Jeff and _ Colleen have already talked about the signage and training which we also use. Currently my cartons of cigarettes are behind my counter due to the physical size and design of my store. There is however the possibility that my store would be redesigned or rebuilt someday and at that point I feel it should be up to the retailers to decide where they merchandise their products. We have a 19 1 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I display of cigarettes on our checkout counter and since I've been at this store we have not had a shoplifting problem at all. Whether it be cigarettes or any other merchandise. Thank you. Joe Howland: Next speaker is Lloyd Lenin, Holiday Station Stores. Lloyd Lenin: Mayor, Council members. I'm just going to touch briefly on our corporate policy and we do enforce the State law very dramatically. The penalty in fact, an employee does sell cigarettes illegally' to a minor, he is responsible for the fine. WO will" not cover him on that. He is also, can face 11 suspension or termination but the responsibility of the fine is going to be his and we do not compensate him for that. Our training program when people are hired covers alcohol and cigarettes very thoroughly. We have then wear badges to the fact that we check ID for cigarettes and liquor, or beer I should say. It also takes the pressure off of our cashiers that they, the customer knows he's going to be checked. We do have the peck displays at the checkout also. We have the carton displays on the counter. We have also put video in many of our stores. Much of that is for robbery deterrent but also it is at the checkout. The manager can review those,which he does everyday and that way he can observe also if sales are being made to minors by the other crew mergers. ' Space in our checkouts, as Len stated in their type of arrangement also, we do not have room in our checkouts for the carton displays. We enforce, I'm being redundant, very emphatically the policies as far as selling any type of tobacco to minors. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Jeff Hogrud of Holiday Station Stores also. Jeff Hogrud: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Jeff Hogrud. I represent the Holiday in Chanhassen here and from what I have seen, I've worked here 4 months, from what I have seen you have fine kids here. We do not have a problet, with cigarette theft or other theft at our store. Our employees are trained to check ID's. They are trained and aware of the consequences if they sell to minors. They know they are responsible for the fine and could lose their job. We have cameras that focus on the tills and the cigarettes. Again, we do not have a cigarette problem at the Chanhassen Holiday. Joe Hoyland: We're moving right along. Dennis Carlson, Brooke Superettes. Dennis Carlson: My name is Dennis Carlson. I'm Director of Operations for Brooke Food Markets. Excuse my cold. I had other things prepared. I know you want to keep this brief. I'll just say as a merger of Brooke's Food Markets, we feel we are very responsible member of the community of Chanhassen in which we do business. We are not, it is not a part of our company to try to violate laws or do something against the law. However we feel it is necessary for us to be able to operate in a manner which we can be competitive with other people in our industry. By taking away displays, you're taking away part of our competitive edge or part of just meeting our competition. Yes, cigarettes are a valuable portion of our business. They account for a lot of dollars in sales. I feel by taking the displays away, not only are you giving us an unfair advantage but you're cutting our revenues by taking away the impulse items that adult customers should have the option of purchasing. If not just a pack of cigarettes, it might be a pack of cigarettes with a deck of playing cards. It gives then an option so it's not just brand conscience, there is a promotion 11 available with then. FXam there I just would like to answer a couple of 20 City Cbuncil Meeting - February 26, 1990 II questions that were brought up regarding theft and I believe Mir. Boyt, yours was one of them regarding our policy of theft of any product in our store, we'll prosecute. Whether it's a candy bar, a pack of cigarettes or a can of pop. That is our policy and we adhere to it and I can bring numbers and I can't even give you the numbers but it's large. But I can say very honestly, in my 15 years with Brooke's Food Markets I don't rerenber prosecuting a minor for theft of cigarettes. But I will for candy and I will for pop. I Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that you haven't caught a minor stealing cigarettes in your carreer? I Lloyd Lenin: I have not. No, I have not sir. Councilman Boyt: And your stores haven't? r Lloyd Lenin: I'm not going to say that. I'm saying to my knowledge, I cannot remember catching a minor stealing cigarettes. Pop, candy, tremendous. But we do prosecute. If we do prosecute, we will prosecute. That is just our company policy. You were talking about display payments. Yes, there are display payments but I know for a fact our company last year between Coke and Pepsi, their payments were higher than they were from the tobacco companies so we are in business to make a profit. Are there any questions? Mayor Chmael: I guess not. Thank's Dennis. I Councilman Johnson: I have one small one. Most of your displays are counter displays. You don't have the large carton display that SuperAmerica has. Lloyd Lenin: No we don't. Most of then, we do have a small carton display on the floor. We have a temporary display for promotional items and then we have counter displays. Councilman Johnson: On the counter displays, would you lose your display value if a clear plastic shield was placed in front of that display to where it was still probably displayed? It's still visible to the customer. They can still say hey, grab me a pack of whatever. Lloyd Lenin: Very definitely we would. Other things we've tried behind the I counter that way, people don't ask for them. I don't know why. They don't want to bother the clerk. Whatever it might be. Whenever you take that self service advantage away, people will not ask. I Councilman Johnson: So you think the tobacco industry will take that money away from you then? I Lloyd Lenin: I believe it's very possible. I can't speak for that. Councilman Johnson: How long have these displays been around like this? I Lloyd Lenin: I've been in the business 15 years, since I've been in the 1 business. I Councilman Johnson: That's what I thought. The carton displays seem to be something new. I 21 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: The last speaker is Mike Young, also of Brooke's Food Markets. 1 II Councilman Johnson: Before Mike gets started, does he want to change anything he said last time? Make any corrections to his... Mike Young: Well actually I do Jay since I know you were in my store. - IICouncilman Johnson: Every day. 1 Mike Young: I see you. I hope my people are polite too. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. I get along. In fact they've got sane real good IIthings to say about you. Mike Young: Well, back to the issue. Actually a Po int of fact. When I said, at the last meeting I stated that my displays were within 3 1/2 feet. Okay, at the time I measured, my Camel, my temporary display was empty and I forgot it so II you were correct. I was mistaken. It is farther away than I thought it was but it is still within clear view of my cashiers as my cashier illustrated to you , when you were in Thursday. Councilman Johnson: She could see through the rack of magazines and see the II bottom of that display. Mike Young: Which is pretty good considering that display was slightly out of 1 position and should have been forward more than it was. IICouncilman Johnson: And it is forward now. II Mike Young: Yeah. It's where it should have been to start with. It got moved when the floor was cleaned. Councilman Johnson: Right. IIMike Young: Okay. I did want to address your visit last Thursday. My cashier called me right after you left saying that a councilmmanher had been in. That he I was very derrogatory toward re which does not particularly offend me anyway. I've had lots of people be derrogatory to me. But it left her quite upset and that's a condition I don't want to see happen. Right now we have a difference II of opinion. Okay? It's obvious to all of us here. The retailers want to keep their displays. They want to do business in their way. The Council wants to correct a problem that's serious and I mean I agree. I have two small children. It's a definite concern. It's a concern for me as a parent. I can understand II your concern. I also understand our concern. We're in business. We're trying to be competitive. We're trying to survive. We are willing to work with you. Now what it seemed to re from talking to my cashier was that this issue was II coming down to a personal issue between yourself and myself which left her upset. I can't afford that type of activity going on in my store. It upsets my cashier. It reduces their efficiency plus I had several, two customers comment to me on it. That they were not pleased with it happening and didn't know what IIwas going on. Consequently, on that same night, not particularly related, but about a half hour after you left two young boys came into my store with a note --- saying please sell my son such and such brand of cigarettes. Whatever it was. 1 22 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 My cashier who's very good, told that forget it. There's no way. You're not 18. You're not getting anything. I don't care if you've got a note from God II and she didn't give it to them. The kids proceeded to press her and when she told that that she would be happy to call the police and have them picked up for trying to buy cigarettes illegally, they informed her that someone had sent that in and given them $5.00 a piece to try this. Now, I don't know what's going on there and to be perfectly honest I don't care but it illustrates tome very well that my cashiers are very conscientious about keeping an eye on the kids. Watching them to make sure that they ID everyone. I mean occasionally like when Mr. Johnson was in,° he saw my cashier did not ID someone he was questionable about. Because that person canes in my store every day and has been ID'd 10 or 12 times, she knows this person. Knows that they are of the legal age. Went to school with this particular person. As for the statement that we lose a carton of cigarettes a week, I stated every 2 weeks but I won't split hairs on that. But I used to work for Montgomery Wards and they invest a lot of money into research and their research shows that 80% of all theft is employee related so that would take us down to 1 pack a week. And 1 pack a week from your 4 convenience stores that you have in town doesn't amount to much cigarettes. Thanks for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. &actly 5 minutes Mike. I Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. I appreciate the courtesy that you have extended to the retailers in the city and to myself. I remain available and willing to work with you in anyway that we can to address the problems that you're facing specifically here in Chanhassen and I'm sure that the situation here is no different than any other city around the State. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to move that we table this item because Mr. Larkin who's representing Minnesota Grocer's Association is not going to be able to make it on the 12th. I'd like to move that we table it to March 26th. Councilman Workman: I would second that. Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, I can change it but I'm supposed to be in North Carolina on the 26th but in that case I represented Medtronics Distributor and he doesn't sell tobacco honest but I think I can move that one around if it's a ratter of same urgency to the Council. Through Mr. Highland we will again make representatives of that group available to cooperate with anybody from the City who the City would want to designate to determine first of all the extent of the problem of minor theft here. I think it goes without saying, and it's already been said, that they have an inducement to stop any kind of theft. Now I happened to look the other day and see how much a pack of cigarettes cost. I mean the last time I remember looking at the price it was about a buck or less and now it's over $2.00 I think. Mayor Chmiel: It is. Some $2.25 and same $2.50 depending upon where you're looking. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the City Code Amendment limiting the sale of tobacco from behind the counter only until March 26, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 23 1 ,City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SINCr.R FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD (EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here wishing to address this issue other than... IICouncilman Workman: It was my understanding that the applicant wanted this tabled? IIMayor Chmiel: That's correct but I was just wondering if there was anyone else here who wanted to discuss this who care in specifically for it. If there's no one here to discuss this specific item, we can honor it being tabled until the II next Council meeting because the fact that the people are out. Mr. Laughinghouse would you like to please... Kurt Laughinghouse: Kurt Laughinghouse Mr. Mayor representing the Brandts. The first thing I want to say is I appreciate the extra effort that the city staff exerted at my request to get this thing on the agenda tonight and I thought I was organized and I wasn't and same of the people that I thought could be here II tonight could not be so that's what happened. We did make an effort to find the people and the neighbors who night be address it and I think apparently we've got everybody turned away so with your agreement we'd like to go to the 12th. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table the preliminary II plat for Peter and Deanna Brandt at the applicant's request until March 12, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Councilman Workman: Might I suggest for tree preservation we save this packet. It's humongous. Mayor Chmiel: That's one long branch. Let's save the information that we have so we don't have to redo it. IICOMPOSITION OF THE HRA, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to and I brought this up two times now. II Basically to get City Council input, I have received an awful lot of public input concerning and justifying whether or not in fact it might not be a bad idea for the Chanhassen City Council to in fact become the HRA or an economic I development commission effectively handling both tasks. The City Manager's ca+nlent is in our packet. This would be something of a process that would take, it looks like maybe, a couple several years to do potentially but I'm interested in hearing maybe from what the Council might think. What the public might IIthink. What the City Manager might think and take it away. Mayor_ Chmiel: Roger, I'd like an explanation from you from the legality aspect. IIDoes the Council have the authority to disban the HRA? Roger Knutson: No. First I can say that under State Statute there's an HRA in II every single city in the state of Minnesota. That's by Statute. Each and every HRA in the state of Minnesota is not organized and operating but it's there. 1 24 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II You can't 1 t dzsban it. Councilman Workman: How night, could the City Council be called the HRA? 1 Roger Knutson: No you can't. Councilman Workman: Could we be called an economic development commission? How would that affect our HRA districts? Our TIF districts? Roger Knutson: You asked a couple of questions. Can the City be the HRA? No. I The Councilmembers could all be the HRA commissioners and the terms of the HRA commissioners can coincide with the Council term so if you're not on the Council you can't be on the HRA. You're still two legally separate and distinct entities. Councilwoman Dimler: So the same body can say okay now we're meeting as the HRA and we're meeting as the Council? Roger Knutson: I work in same cities where that happens. I Mayor Chmiel: Let re ask another question Roger. If we were to ask each of the members that are existing on the HRA if they would take the position to resigning, how can that be accomplished? I Roger Knutson: You just spelled it out. Ask. Yes you certainly can. I mean you could, in whatever form you wanted to present it to them. Say we think we want, if that's what your desire, but the City Council members should act as the HRA commissioners and you could ask for their resignation to implement that and then you could pass an ordinance. You'd have to amend one of your ordinances that would basically say from now on all HRA commissioners shall be city council members. Councilman Johnson: But if they don't want to resign, they don't have to? I Roger Knutson: Right. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess to back up sae of this. All of us in one way, form or another campaigned as elected officials on the premise of accountability. Some people feel a little more comfortable with having the ability to some of the decisions that are made by an elected official rather than a ca1mission that's appointed and that's where this came from tome. I'm a Council appointed member of the HRA and I don't see that kind of accountability as a problem for myself personally. I guess I'm not sure what we as a city would lose by doing this. Again, I'll emphasize that I don't have a problem with any of the members of the HRA personally as far as their task, etc. but there is and has been ever since I've been on this City Council, a public which has asked for the potential for that to happen and that's why I'm bringing it up. Councilman Johnson: When we first, when Bill and I first got assigned here, I there were 2 members of the Council on the HRA. Then that slowly, well because of terms changing and whatever, it ended up with none eventually and now it's back to one. I'd like to see it maintained at 2. This Council and all of us on it have a lot of responsibilities beyond just this body in that I'm on the 25 1 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II - recycling committee. The Council assigned me to Southwest Metro Transit Cbmmittee. The Carver. County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. There's only so much of us to go around. I attend Planning Commission meetings when I can and ' Park and Rec when I can and all these different meetings. I personally feel that I'm spreading myself pretty darn thin for the citizens as is and while I'd like to attend more HRA meetings, they're at the same time as the bus commission I believe, or is that Public Safety? Anyway, I've got conflicts with, I couldn't do it if I had to or things like that. I think that we do need more presence on that and that should be:Council appointments of at least 2 members of the Council should be assigned to the HRA. I almost feel that each I commission should have a Council representative on it but that gets pretty tough too. As I said, there's only so many of us and there's only so many hours in the day. We're all professionals and have our other jobs to do and have our families to do plus working for the City. Councilman Workman: You don't see that accountability factor at all? I mean the HRA takes care of an awful lot of expenditures. Councilman Johnson: That's why I'd like to see at least 2 members of the City Council on the HRA. A lot of the stuff the HRA does, does end up back here. ' They can say they want the streets this way but we have to approve the construction. Any public works that's done, we have to approve the construction. We can get to a point and say no. You're not going to run that sewer there. That would eliminate the hotel or something. 1 Councilman Workman: The point that I'm trying to get at quickly is that then what we have is a situation where people, councilre hers included, end up saying I to the=mselves, well I think I made that decision or well the HRA made that decision I think or I made but I'm not sure so it's like the downtown shrubbery episode was one where I wasn't sure where the decision was made. Then the City Council talked about it and we kind of got a subcommittee to talk about it and Bill and I and Don talked about it with the Arboretum experts and then it went to Public Safety and then it went to Planning Commission and then it went back to HRA. We never saw it again. I have no idea what it is sitting at right now. Maybe I don't need to care but people are telling me about downtown and everything else like that and that's where I'm saying that I'm not interested in having that excuse to say, I don't know, you know. Councilman Johnson: That's why I'd like to have at least 2 mergers of the Council on there to where they're reporting back to us. Councilman Workman: I'm saying Jay though that all members of the City Council should be accountable. Not just me or you. Councilman Johnson: Well I don't have to worry about it because nobody's term expires before my term on the HRA. 11 Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? Having watched the HRA, City Council trade off responsibility for things for 3 years, I think the time is right. The public is confused. I don't think we do a good job of communicating to them. I don't know that very many of then, care who's responsible so much as they see it and they either like it or they don't like it and then they start looking around for somebody. Then it's been me and it will probably continue to be. I think all of us would agree that there's a real advantage in having as many people as we 26 pity Council Meeting - Febr_uary 26, 1990 - II can involved in city government. This is one chance to get them involved. The drawback is as Jay said, maybe we do vote on these things but when you've got everybody getting a vote in, there's nobody responsible. I agree that the issue's so complicated. It's like is it going to be the apartment building? Is it the hotel we're going to talk about here in a few minutes? If we can't get sane clear lines of responsibilty drawn up, I see no other alternative than the Council taking the job because that eliminates any questions about who's responsible. I think if we can get that drawn up then the issue, well somewhere along the lines we've got to get more public input into what's happening downtown. And on the one hand Tam was talking and I agree with him that we need responsibility. On the other hand, I think the way the HRA has gotten themselves into trouble is by being political and I think they've been very political. I don't need to get into specifics but I'm not sure we correct that problem. We became accountable but by the very nature of it, it's awfully hard for us to not be political. Councilwa'an Dimler: I guess I'd like to comment on that and that is, yes. It might be political but I know that all of us here get voted in by the public, not by the developers mostly or by, you understand what I'm saying? Councilman Boyt: Yes. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: So yeah, we want to be accountable to the people that vote us in. If that's what you call political, that's the way it should be. I find that I get calls, people say I don't like the way this turned out and that ( turned out and I find myself having to say, you know I know that we looked at that but I can't remember exactly what we decided or who made the final { decision. I just don't like to do that and I point at then and they point at us and we point at Public Safety and nothing ever gets resolved and I think that's one way that we can say the buck stops here. We're responsible and we're also, we're responsible because when we want those people to vote again and we want them to vote for us, we can say here's the decisions I made. Councilman Johnson: One of those was appointing the members to the HRA. I Councilworan Dimler: Only the ones that cane up that are expired. Right now I've only had say in 1. 1 Councilman Boyt: Well there was, I need to nit pick that. Mayor Chmmiel: That's inrmaterial. I think the accountability portion is ! something that we really have to look at. I've had several people approach me on this and indicate their concerns. Sure, from a political standpoint you can say well yeah. I really didn't care one way or the other. I shouldn't say care one way or the other. We really- didn't make that decision. The HRA did. That's an easy way to push things off. I think if you're going to be consistent, as we have within this Council, to take reign as to what's happening within the city, I think that that portion of the HRA should probably go back to the City Council. Not that I have any ill feelings towards any of those people on the HRA. I appreciate all the time that they did put in and they do work hard at it and I thank them for it but yet it comes back to the question, who is responsible for making those decisions. I don't think the right people are there to accept that responsibility. So I guess that's my basic comment. 11 27 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 ., Councilman Johnson: My point that I was trying to make is the HRA is a focused 1 group. They focus only on redevelopment. The small part. They can put all their energy into that. We're a very diverse group. We have to look at Dogwood ' Lane and downtown and Skunk Hollow and everyplace else which dillutes our effectiveness and our abilities. We need good strong commissions and other people to help us with these decisions. The HRA is where that starts getting away becuase that's the one body that's allowed to make their own decisions. Mayor C1v iel: Right. .' Councilman Boyt: They've got more 'money than we do too. Councilwoman Dimler: That way we could control the tax money, that's right. And as far as, I appreciate Jay's concerns about being on too many commissions and too many meetings but I wonder if Roger could address how Councils that are also operate as the HRA, how they do that. I've seen where they just at the same meeting will say okay now we convene as the ditch board or whatever, you know. Could we not do that? Roger Knutson: I've worked with lots of groups but not the ditch boards. You II spelled it out. Typically they meet in the same evening. Like if you meet at 7:30, it'd start at 6:30 but that depends upon the load of work... Councilman Johnson: The City of Minneapolis is their own HRA. The Minneapolis 1 City Council. Of course their staff doesn't like that a whole lot but that's a different story. Councilman Boyt: They're paid $18,000.00 a year too. Mayor CImiel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this portion of it? ' Clayton Johnson: I didn't even know this was on tonight to be discussed but I think you might be interested because I've spent a lot of time in the last 3 1/2 ' years. Mayor Clra.el: Just please state your name and address. IIClayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson with the Bloomberg Companies. I've spent a lot of time this last 3 1/2 years in the downtown redevelopment effort and I think that several of the comments are very germane. One is that we, you know I and most of those efforts are behind us so I don't think that I have any selfish interest here but I think it takes a tremendous amount of time and the HRA has put in a tremendous amount of time and we needed their attention. I can't imagine coming into a meeting like tonight and competing on the agenda with the concerns that we've gone through on the HRA. Now that's one point. The second point is that there is a frustration on our part of the lack of coordination. I It's very important to have 2 council members or whatever on the HRA because we don't like to have to tell the story 3 and 4 times but I guess I would take that a step further. I would say that it would be equally important to have the Planning Commission represented on the HRA because when we take these issues to 1 the Planning Commission, we're starting all over again. There's no continuity. I think you come back, I mean I understand the thing about accountability and I understand the comments that you get from the public but I think you do have 28 I K City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 - II that final responsibility when it cares to funding these projects. Number one. � g Number two, I think you're here to set policy. You can't possibly run everything and that would be the concern that I would have. Particularly in the II amount of time and the amount of effort that we've spent in these last 3 years. I think going forward maybe it's a totally different issue because the size of the projects and the frequency of the projects is going to greatly- diminish. Okay? Thank you. II Councilwoman Dimler: Mr Maycft, could I respond? Mayor Cimiel: Yeah. II Councilwoman Dinner: I think one of the things that has been frustrating to me is that you know Mr. Johnson indicated that we are responsible for spending the II dollars and that's exactly one of the things that does frustrate me is that I don't have any say in how that money is spent. Never once have we been asked do we want this project. We have'just been told this is the project that has been II approved by the HRA and we're just asked to review the plans and make comments onto the plans. We have no say in which project gets in and which project gets out and that is one of my major concerns is that we do pick projects that can be II financially successful so the taxpayer does not end up sitting here having to carry the ball when the business goes broke. They can't make it because the project that was chosen was not feasible. I Councilman Boyt: I can't think of a project that we haven't voted on though that we couldn't have stopped. Can you think of anything that Council could not I have stopped? Councilman Johnson: We could have required brick roof on the apartments if we wanted to stop the apartments. We could stop than at the site plan. II Councilwoman Dimler: I've never heard the Council say I don't want this project. It's always we've considered what they've brought before us. II Mayor Chmiel: I don't think the Council's opposed. Councilwoman Dimler: The HRA makes the decision as to which projects are II accepted. Councilman Boyt: Can you think of anything in the downtown that we didn't vote II on? Councilwoman Dialer: Did you see all the applicants for Market Square or Crossroads? II Mayor Chmael: A few things were before our time though. Councilwoman Dimler: They were all already chosen and we were just asked to 11 review the site plan. That's it and that type of thing but we were not, we had no say in who got into those projects. The HRA did that. I Councilman Boyt: I remember same of us sitting in on that meeting that night with the BRA but we could have stopped it. We have the veto power over most of what they do. II 29 1 ,City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I've never seen it exercised. }{{ Councilman Johnson: It hasn't been necessary. ' Councilman Boyt: It hasn't been for lack of trying by some of us to get some of this stuff killed but I'm just saying, when it cones to responsibility, I think it rests right here. 11 Mayor C viiel: Sure it does. Councilman Boyt: Because we do have that opportunity. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Well if I have the responsibility, I'd like to have a say in which projects go. Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with that. Councilman Johnson: I'll support you for a meter of the HRA. Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll support you. And you and you. Mayor Chaiel: Any other further discussion? What position? Mould you like to care up to the microphone please? Mike Klingelhutz: Mr. Mayor, Council people. I wrote Mr. Chaiel a letter addressing my concerns and do you think I should read it? Councilman Boyt: We all got a copy. ' Mike Klingelhutz: In addition to that, to my letter, if you look around you and look at the world today, people don't want the communist central committee l making their decisions for them. They want democratically elected officials. Look at Nicaragua, East Europe. They're more comfortable having elected officials making decisions. I'm not trying to say that the HRA is communist or anything like that. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what it sounded like. Mayor Chriel: No, we understand. We have your letter Mike. Thank you. Frank Kurvers: My name is Frank Kurvers and I have a little bit to say about what I see happening here in our community. I guess I think that the residents ' and the people of this city deserve better than what I see at the present time as far as construction of buildings. When you've got an HRA, you've got the money. You're taking it all away from the taxpayers. I think you should give them something in return that's lasting. Brick and mortar. Not just wood construction and then pile them all in one big pile. I think you need open space just like the Planning Commission wants. The Park and Rec wants. We want all those things and I think and I support the Council taking over the HRA. Mayor Chaiel: Any other discussion? Anyone else? This is the kind of input we J like to have? 1 30 r City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II Councilman Johnson: Where is this going to go? II Councilman Bout: Yeah, where are we going with this? Somebody make a motion. II Councilman Workman: Can we make a motion? Mayor Chmdel: To move in a direction. , Councilman Workman: I mean it'was on the Council presentations. Do I need to do anything special now that We've brought it back, do I need to do anything I special? Don Ashworth: Yes. It's my error that the it did not get published on the regular agenda again. I anticipated that the attorney's office would take more time than literally a one week period of time to do his research so it was not published. The Council can still act. You can overturn your own rules by basically a four-fifths vote. If I'm hearing the Council though, or at least our legal counsel, you're not really in a position to totally eliminate the HRA. You do have an appointment that is caring up in May. Chairman Whitehill's appointment if I remember correctly is up for reappointment within the next 30 to 60 day timeframe so that one will be coming back to you. And you could ask for resignations from the HRA basically informing them of the discussion that occurred here this evening. Currently the Council does act as the governing board for 2 out of 3 districts. You do have 3 districts and 2 of those are economic development districts and City Council, not the HRA, is the sole decision making group associated with those other two districts so when we approached Hennepin County, that was solely City Council. Never went to HRA. When we've talked about McGlynn, it's been solely City Council, not HRA. If I hear sore of the concerns, it deals with the HRA's decision as to who to select for developer for the downtown. Who to select as a developer on 79th Street and those are roles that are set over to the HRA. I think that in that process, maybe if staff would have perceived that the Council wanted to take a more active role, we could have established work sessions wherein your input was put into that process. I guess in retrospect I'm trying to think of how we might have better coordinated the work of the Council and the HRA in each of those areas. Councilman Johnson: If the Council wants the input, they're the most informed citizens in this city. They know about every meeting and everything that's going on. They can put their input. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, could I make a =went to that? I didn't know until tonight, and I've been on the Council for over a year, that Council was in charge of 2 out of the 3 districts as you just indicated. Why wasn't I informed of that when we came on the Council? Why is there not a better communication system that says to the Council members, this and this and this and this is what you're responsible for? I had no idea. No idea. So you're saying to me that McGlynn was approved, that was a solely Council made decision? Don Ashworth: The Council was the body that basically drew up the development plan for that. Adopted it and since that point in time implemented it. I do not believe that Councilwoman Dimler was on the Council at the point in time that those decisions were made by the City Council so for example, the establishment... I 31 3 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II ' Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but I would have liked to have been 1 II informed as to here's what you're taking over. Here's what you're responsible 1 for. Councilman Workman: Don, you and I have talked a little bit about it and the 1 role of the HRA is becoming more and more a diminished role. I certainly do not find my duties with the HRA to be so encumbering or all encompassing that I have a problem. Well, I take that,back,;'as Todd Gerhardt would tell you because the II meeting gets switched around and then I have other things going on planned but really the packet is not that large. It's really not that big of a deal. Councilman Johnson: It used to go to 11:00 at night. ICouncilman Workman: Yeah, I understand wanting to keep as many people as possible involved. I just feel that it's time that the City and the Council 11 take it upon themselves. We know most of these details anyway. Let's take all of the responsibility and take the rest and clean up the rest to...That people think that they smell a rat sometimes, whether they do or not. It might be carting from a neighboring community. But you know, there's a perception when I you have and you can tell people hey, you know I'm a city councilmenbex and geez, we've got a budget of 5 1/2 million. Wow. You know. I think it just about quadruples when you throw the HRA in there or whatever it is and so it is II a very, very big responsibility and not one to be taken lightly and I certianly don't and I've just heard it enough times that that's why I pitched the proposal that we take the complete responsibility fram here on out with what's going on ) I and I think we can accomplish the same things and do the same things without much problem. If we tack them onto our regular council meetings, I don't see , that as being... ICouncilwoman Dimler: A problem. Councilman Johnson: There's no urgency either so why don't we move this to next '; Council meeting. Get it published in the newspaper and the citizens can be informed of this discussion we're having rather than just a few people be informed of this discussion so that we might be able to garner most citizen input. Was the HRA informed that this discussion was on the agenda today? I II don't see any of their representatives here saying one way or another. I think it's unfair for us to make a decision tonight without it being placed on the, published in the newspaper. ICouncilwoman Dimler: I do want to say that I heard Tom clearly state twice that he wanted it to be on the regular agenda after he made a council presentation Iand twice it was not published on the regular agenda. Councilman Johnson: Well there's a good reason for that that Don had in there Iwas when the regular agenda gets published, which is what? The Monday before? Mayor QYmiel: The Friday before. II Councilman Johnson: So it was over a week ago on Friday when that had to go to the newspapers to get published. At that time he didn't think that the attorney was going to be ready for it so it didn't get on the agenda because he could not - 3 11 put it on the agenda and then came back and say well we're going to drop it off II32 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 the agenda because we don't think it's ready. Now that wouldn't be responsible II on his part to do that either. Councilwoman Dimler: Perhaps but we could have tabled it at that point you know. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if people came in for it and then we table it: That's not good either. Frank Kurvers: I have one que$tion. I don't know if it's real pertinent but I think it is pertinent when you talk about economics and money. As fax as the sac charges and buying down certain things, when a business comes in here, do you people know that that's going on? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Frank Kurvers: Do you know exactly how much money is used and everything? Councilman Boyt: Eventually. Frank Kurvers: For a business? 1 Mayor Chmiel: It takes time but sometimes it's done after the fact. Councilman Johnson: We know the estimates. I Frank Kurvers: Okay, you know the estimates but are you part of the negotiation of doing that? , Councilman Boyt: No. Frank Kurvers: That's a mistake. That's a real mistake. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I was trying to get at. Frank Kurvers: Real mistake. Councilman Johnson: I move we table this until the next council meeting so it can be adequately published. Councilwoman Dimler: But do put it on the next council agenda. Mayor Chmiiel: Also I think we should have some indication in the paper as well notifying the public of the fact... Councilwoman Dimler: It would be a public hearing? Mayor Cmiel: No, I don't think it has to be a public hearing but an informational kind of item for the public. Don Ashworth: I might suggest that we have same form of a worksession with the HRA to allow the Council and HRA to discuss same of these issues. In fact I think that we're at a juncture in terms of a couple of things are happening. One, at the legislature where if the Amber-Reichcod amendment is in fact 33 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 approved, this entire discussion is going to really mean nothing because they're going to insert a new board that will represent the school representatived, county and city that basically will sit over top of City Council. If HRA, City Council and the new board basically will make all decisions associated with HRA. Councilwoman Dimler: Can't the City Council still be this HRA and then have ' that board? Don Ashworth: This bill would set one county representative. One school representative. One city and:if yOu wanted to delegate a member from the HRA or if you wanted one from the City Council, that would be your perogative. Mayor Chmiel: I think Ursula's question was if the City Council being the City Council and the City Council also being the HRA. Councilman Johnson: It still would be possible. Councilwauan Dimler: Sure. We could still do what we're planning to do and have this new board above us. Don Ashworth: Oh. Yes. We're also at a juncture with the HRA in terms of kind of reviewing a number of the projects and again recognizing that the legislature is in the process of acting, again a beautiful time to have a work session. 11 Talk about things such as the Redi-Mix facility. Same of the other developments that are occurring and the potential for where the Council is coming from and should the City Council take over those functions or should they stay with BRA or however you want to proceed in that direction. Mayor Chmiel: Let's et this then on the next agenda. Benda. Councilwoman Dimler: If you have that work session I'd just like to say have it after the 8th of March. ' Councilman Workman: I guess the one quick comment about a work session. I don't know that it's going to accomplish where I'm at and where I feel about this in that I'm operating basically on a very real public perception here. I don't think a work session's going to take care of that. That's the accountability perception. We can have all the work sessions we want and that's not going to take care of that so it's going to change my mind on that. That particular issue. I don't mean to step on toes or grab power. IIMayor Chmiel: Let's get this on the March 12th agenda for discussion. Let's move onto the next item of business. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED, 620 FOXHILL DRIVE, JAMES MCALLISTER. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to cane up here and just indicate what the conclusions were reached on item 2 which is a rear yard setback variance IIrequest for construction of a shed at 620 Foxhill Drive, James McAllister. Willard Johnson: We held over, he indicated he probably could buy approximately 2 foot from his neighbor so we tabled it and gave him a 90 day extension to, he 34 7 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then he has to care I II before the board again and we'll make a decision at that time. We would hope he can buy 2 feet. Mayor Chmael: So the action for us to do is just table this? Willard Johnson: Just table any action until we get a response within 90 days. Mayor Chndel: Good. Thank y o i. 11 Councilwaran Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the rear yard setback variance request for James McAllister at 620 Foxhill Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicant requested an extension because of pollution from a leaking gasoline tank apparently from an adjoining property ' that's preventing him from building. He wanted an extension that was valid for a year past the date the PCA says the site's cleaned up. The Board was uncomfortable with that since we had no idea when that was going to occur and agreed to a 1 year extension with the possibility of further extensions if the problem's not resolved in the next 12 months. Mayor Chniel: Okay, any discussion? I Councilman Boyt: I know you just mentioned this but we do have to modify the variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is not a conforming use? Paul Krauss: Oh, I need to clarify that. , Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property. Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this problem I had heard about the leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the variance extension request for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: What were we voting on? Mayor Chmiel: Exactly what Paul said. Councilman Boyt: An extension. ' Councilman Johnson: Oh. It was passed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals unanimously. Did we need to vote too? 35 1 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Councilman Boyt: We did or didn't? Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have needed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the board approved it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll withdraw it. Councilman Johnson: Well it :doesnq matter. Mayor Chmiel: It's alright. We like to do it twice. ' REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HEMMINGER, D.W. HUTT CONSTRUCTION. Paul Krauss: As the City Council is aware, the developers for Hospitality Suites proposed some changes to the site plan that staff felt were sufficiently substantial that it took the proposal back to the City Council for action last December. The Council determined that the revised roof line and roofing materials were acceptable but insisted that a canopy over the main entrance be provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had been proposed. You did however indicate that if anymore changes were proposed, since the project seemed to be in something of a state of flux, or if any of those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go back to the Planning Commission through channels for an amendment site plan. And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being requested. Again, the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning Commission contingent upon sane issues that have to be resolved between the applicant and the City Engineer. Staff raised issues regarding preservation of a landscaped courtyard to the east of the building and a related issue providing ' minimum building separation to meet building code requirements. Staff is recc mending approval of the revised plans and that recommendation has been ' supported by the Planning Commission. Staff is continuing to recommend approval of the amended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the original approval and resolves issues that have been raised. As to the deletion of the 12 feet of the building, we really did feel it's not going to be visible. ' Unless you know where to look, you won't know that that section of building's going to be absent. It's not taken out of the residential rooms itself. It's taken out of the lobby/pool area and we really don't think it's going to be ' visible or disruptive to the architecture of the building. As I eluded to earlier, there's still a remaining concern concerning the drive under canopy. We're recormending that condition 4 be corrected to read the final canopy plans ' be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicants demonstrating that there is sufficient roam to manuever buses. We'd also like to add a 5th condition if we could to the effect that all other conditions of the original approval remain in effect. We neglected to do that earlier assuming that it was the case but it doesn't hurt to state it. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this? i36 ( City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I I : Councilman Boyt: I have a question. It might help and might shorten things up 11 too. My question is where did the 12 feet go? I know what it came off of but where did it go? i David He minger: My name is David Herminger. I represent D.W. Hutt Consultants. Along with me are Clayton Johnson and John Rice who represent Bloomberg Companies and Mr. Bloomberg who is 1/4 owner of the Country Hospitality Suites. I represent the other owners. I guess Mr. Boyt, why don't you clarify your question to me first. What do you mean, where did the other 12 feet go? I Councilman Boyt: I'm gathering that the building is shorter by 12 feet so where did the 12 feet go? Where is it showing up on the property because when I see the distance between your building and the existing buildings, it doesn't seem to be 12 feet wider there so I ask where did the 12 feet go? David Hemminger: Well the 12 feet was taken off the east side of the lobby. , Councilman Boyt: I know on the building. I mean on the lot. Where did the 12 feet show up? Do you understand what I'm looking for? We took 12 feet out of the building. It was on the main floor so I expect that 12 feet to show up someplace outside. No? David He v inger: No. It's a larger grassy area between Bloomberg's property , line and the edge of the motel at the courtyard. Councilman Boyt: Well but the courtyard was, wasn't it 25 feet and then it got smaller when we took the 12 feet off? Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that Councilman Boyt. The courtyard that you originally reviewed was a landscaped illustration on a site plan. The platting came along after the fact and kind of chopped off where that courtyard was supposed to be. Staff had a concern when that was done in that we wanted it protected but the size of the courtyard really didn't changed. What changed is the property line if that helps to resolve the confusion or I don't know if I added more. We want to rake sure that we have the proper building separation and that we have a sufficiently large courtyard remaining. When you first reviewed that there was no property line to gauge it against. It was just a site plan that was submitted to you. Councilman Boyt: So you're saying that when we were first measuring, we were 1 measuring this property and the adjoining property and counted it all as one piece? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And the courtyard was 25 feet then? ' Paul Krauss: Right. r Councilman Boyt: And now the courtyard is 36 feet? 1 David Hemtminger: 25 feet. 37 1 City Council Meeting - February 26; 1990 - Mayor Chmiel: No, it's 25 to 30 feet. It was approved on the plan as 30 feet. - -` Councilman Johnson: The 25 feet, is that on the south side or is that on the i IIeast side? There's 2 sides to this courtyard. David Hermiinger: on the east side. ICouncilman Boyt: Now that's the side we took the pool off of right? Part of the pool. , IIDavid Havinger: Right. Councilman Johnson: There's 37 feet between those 2 buildings on this drawing. IIPaul Krauss: That's right now but the building that's east of the hotel is being torn down. And what we're trying to protect is that there's a 25 foot wide courtyard into the future as that property is redeveloped. IICouncilman Johnson: Right now there's only 16 foot 8 to the property line? IIPaul Krauss: Right. David Herminger: That's right. ICouncilman Johnson: Or is that a sewer line or something? A David Hemninger: That's the property line. IICouncilman Johnson: So you need covenants into the next person's property. IIPaul Krauss: He needs to protect that portion across the line, yes. Councilman Johnson: So they can build another building later on at 25 feet over, right up against the easement? I Paul Krauss: We expect them to, yes. II David He minger: And that would meet the setback requirements for your code. Councilman Boyt: So what you're telling me is that with the pool extension, you IIcan't meet the setback? David He*minger: No, that's not what I'm telling you at all. We could meet the setbacks and we did meet the setbacks. ICouncilman Boyt: But we've got this 25 feet which was required but then we don't have it. We only have 12 feet. IIPaul Krauss: The 25 feet Councilman Boyt was not a setback that was required. It's in the CBD district and there were no setbacks implied. When the plat came 1 through last November, we alerted the developer to the fact that there's going to be a problem because you had illustrated a landscape area and fire access and stuff that is now on the adjoining property because of where you elected to put the property line. So it's kind of a self made problem and the way to fix it II 38 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 _ 1 was to preserve it through an easement. Councilman Boyt: So we have 0 setback in the sidelot? Paul Krauss: Theoretically you could but again, we have these elements on the site plan that we wanted to preserve and we also had building and fire code issues. The fire exits for the pool would actually have required that you cross over onto the adjoining property to exit that building. Councilman Johnson: So we're trying to get the easements to make sure that doesn't happen? Paul Krauss: That it's going to be allowed to be protected into the future. Councilman Johnson: The owner on the east is also part owner of this? , Paul Krauss: At this point in time. Councilman Johnson: At this point in time so it should be fairly easy to get 1 that easement. Paul Krauss: Well it's turned out to be rather complicated with we're all working together. Councilman Johnson: Did you get sane lawyers involved or something? 1 Paul Krauss: Two of them, yes. Councilman Boyt: The issue for me is we're bouncing this around a little bit up here but the issue for me is not whether or not you can shorten your building up. You've gone through the necessary procedure. You went to Planning Commission. Before I didn't like it because you were cutting all those procedures out and you were caning to us and saying make it smaller and I think sane of us had just sort of had enough of this changing everything right here at the last minute. Well, you stopped. You went through the procedures so I'm inclined to say make your building any size you want as long as you go through the procedures. My problem is just, I'm trying to figure out, as I keep saying, where did all this land go that was there and wasn't there and maybe that's where the lawyer has to get involved but I still don't understand. Roger Knutson: Do you have more green space now? Paul Krauss: No, you won't have anymore green space. What it affects is the 1 building that Bloomberg Companies would be allowed to build in the future. The 12 feet that's being removed from this building is allowing that building to be 12 feet larger. That space inbetween is fixed. Councilman Workman: This building is 12 feet shorter? Paul Krauss: The hotel is proposed to be 12 feet shorter, yes. Councilman Workman: In the pool area? , Paul Krauss: Yes. 39 1 I . City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 IIDavid Henninger: Can I go a step further here? Maybe I can answer your } question. When we moved that building back 12 feet away from the property line, they could set their building right on the property line. Then we would have a conflict with the UBC Code as far as our setback from our building to their building. So by maintaining an easement of 25 feet inbetween the buildings, we had the proper setbacks to meet the Code as far as the building fire ratings - 1 would be and it protects the City in that the City is named in the easement also so that nobody can incringe in that area while it's approved. Councilman Boyt: So what you're telling ms is you couldn't build the building ' as you planned to build it because there wasn't enough room? David Henninger: No. That has nothing to do with it. 11 Paul Krauss: Well there's an element of truth to that. Because of where the property line was placed, we could not allow this building to be constructed ' unless we protected an easement on the adjoining property sufficient to provide a minimum building separation of 25 feet. ' Councilman Boyt: I think we're saying the same thing. David Henninger: Okay, yes. Councilman Boyt: That's all I had. Thanks. Councilman Workman: I thought this was because the franchise company had a problem with the big pool area. David He►manger: Okay, that's why we took the 12 feet off. That's true. That's why we took the 12 feet off. We're not disputing that. The only thing 1 that came up is we wanted to establish a protected courtyard area and also the City asked that of us and so we came back with the mutual agreement that on a 25 foot, because that met the Code and that was originally what the blueprints were showing was a 25 foot courtyard between the properties. Councilwoman Dimler: Do we have any idea yet what that future building will be 1 that's going to be 12? Did you want to say something? That building that's going to be bigger as a result. What is that going to be? I guess I really would like to know, making the pool smaller is for a worth while cause. IIDavid Harminger: Okay. We made the pool room smaller to meet our franchisees request. Also to meet the criteria that we weren't manning the pool on a 24 hour basis with staff. That it was not totally in view all the time. That's why we took the 12 feet off. Taking the 12 feet off the hotel has nothing to do with any other building being built next to it or anything else. There's no correlation there whatsoever. IIMayor Chmael: I have a specific question relating to the, once you get the buildings permit. Are you aware of the letter or memorandum that was written by Steve Kirchman, our building official, regarding the canopy structure and the II bus routing as it relates to the canopy structure that has been resolved to the city satisfaction? Saying that in sate areas it wasn't quite high enough. That you'd have to comply with those particular requirements. Have you seen that 1 40 .1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II particular memorandum? I David Hamiinger: No I haven't. The only thing I can state to that is the architect shows the 13'6" elevation but I have not seen that particular memorandum at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think what I'd like to make sure is that the owner and the architect both get copies of this so they know what our building officials are thinking. David Hema.nger: Okay, fine.,' Cary Warren: If I could take a minute, I'd like to praise just to raise the Council I guess in the spirit of last minute changes. I think the bus routing and such is an important element here. We've been working with the developer trying to get it defined and we still need to get same further resolution but I did want to show you same inpacts on the curb cut and the routing that I think Council should be aware of as far as the use of the facility. This floor plan is in your packet but don't try looking for it. The packet is thick enough... . basically it showed the original concept that we had been working from with the developer as far as this being the entranceway and a canopy area and you'll note there's no median support here proposed in the canopy at this time. Further evaluations by the developer and he can speak to I guess the rationale and the difficulties that they ran into in trying to accommodate that necessitated from their perspective the inclusion of this median support area in here for the canopy structure. Basically what that does is segregates actual, the driver's perception here into a 2 lane configuration. Each of these lanes being approximately 14 feet wide and the median being 4 feet wide. An enlargement of that area, with color. We asked BRW, who's designing the site perimeter efforts here, to take a look at 45 foot turning templets for a typical bus and again we need to get further definition from the developer on the anticipated magnitude of the buses and such but basically applying templets to this, a westbound bus can enter the site along this green corridor. These are the wheel lines basically and make a delivery at the front of the Country Suites at this location and then can proceed to either make an eastbound or westbound movement. There's no problem with the westbound buses entering. The problem that we've been looking at has been the eastbound bus which is the blue line here because he has to make a tight hook into this lane of traffic. Again, here's the median. Makes his drop here. Cannot negotiate this radius to get back out through this access. As to continue then to exit the site by proceeding through this, the parking area basically. I'll go back to this one. We basically proceed through this way to get out. Now depending on the magnitude of the buses and numbers and such, that may not be a problem. Brief conversation that Clayton and I have had, they're not that concerned but there are impacts that we wanted to make you aware of. One is that in order to make these access movements, these areas in yellow which are existing radius' that were built as a part of the Phase I of the downtown, need to be modified to get the 36 foot curb cut out here and provide a 30 foot radius on these curbs so that these movements can be negotiated. You can see the conflict points in here. Similarly, there's a potential for at least one parking space to be deleted from this area. This one I think could be saved but in order sane buffer from this support extension on the canopy, that will probably go and we can figure that appropriately to get the radius'. And then we haven't had an opportunity to put the templets on on this outlot segment but I think also these two different areas in yellow here 41 1 . City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 may need to be modified because, just an eyeball look at then, would make this - - movement difficult with the centerline along here for a bus to negotiate without ' clipping off these corners. So those are impacts to the site plan. We're J interested, schedules of developers and mane haven't allowed us to get together to finally resolve the magnitude of the buses but it was, I think the additional bue deliveries to the site was something that was added from the original ' concept as well so we then applied or had B1 'I put the templets on here to get that highlighted. Modifications that would be done to these existing radius', except with the, I guess included in the City's public improvement project or ' could be included and then assessed back to the property as we are intending for the other side...I think it's important to understand we're bringing buses into a congested area. There are sane modifications that I think are necessary to ' accommodate that. Part of it is dictated by the fact that this median is being placed here to support the canopy structure which definitely segregates into two travel lanes. If that median weren't there, the bus from the westbound could enter the site, or I'm sorry eastbound, and pull up against this curb line to ' drop and then could make the movement out but I'm not I guess upset about the fact that the median is there. I think it's more knowing that buses probably will be leaving the site through the parking areas down to basically the bowling ' alley entrance area which may necessitate sane changes also. Councilman Johnson: Gary, are you assuring buses will stay to the right of that median? I've ridden in a lot of buses and bus drivers, sane of then, tend to believe they own the road. Whichever lane they want to be in. Gary Warren: Are you talking about here? ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. They may just pull up to that front door and the left side of that median anyway. ' Gary Warren: They may but I think they're going to have a very difficult time trying to make this cut across that center island. I'm not going to argue with a bus anymore than you would. ' Councilman Workman: Gary, are you saying to scrap it? Scrap the canopy? Gary Warren: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just trying to, as a part of this process because of the way it's cane together, to say we have a use here that was not part of the original understandings that I know for the site as far ' as buses. We do want to get defined from the developer the intentions. How many buses? How often? Mayor CIv iel: Yeah, that's my question. ' Gary Warren: We think they can be accommodated in here but obviously if you bring 10 buses...unless he chose to do a zig zag routine but I would imagine ' that these are going to be pretty popular parking spots with their access here so typically you could figure that they're going to be full. But he cannot make a 45 foot... Councilman Workman: You're assuming that he's going to hug that inside corner just as you said he might do that at the front door. I 1 42 City Council Meeting - February 26; 1990 II Gary Warren: If he tries to do this, then he would have a better chance of making it. It's still a tight call. Councilman Workman: Or if you went way wide to the west. Caring out of there. You said he could make it wide here. I'm just talking about being wide... Mayor Chmiel: Gary I guess I still have a concer. How many buses are we talking about? I Gary Warren: I don't know...,;s David Hemringer: I don't have that answer for you tonight Mr. Mayor. Clayton Johnson: I can speak from experience at the Dinner Theatre. Councilman Johnson: It's not going to be 10 a day. Clayton Johnson: The maximum number of buses at the Dinner Theatre would be 10 on a Wednesday. The hotel would love to see 1 or 2 of those but we've reviewed Gary's plan and the only concern we have is that the buses be able to exit out Market Blvd.. That's a very acceptable plan. If there are any curb cuts that need to be modified or any obviously, that would be our expense but that exit method would be acceptable. Councilman Boyt: While you're up there Clayton, maybe you can tell us about any financial assistance the City is contributing to this project. Are we doing anything? Clayton Johnson: Nothing other than the typical special assessment write down , that all of the projects in the tax increment district have been eligible for. Mayor Chmiel: I'd still like to get some numbers on those buses as to how many you think you might have even though Clayton has indicated that he'd more than welcome 1 or 2. I think where I see it coming fray, I don't expect to see 10 buses there. Each bus holds 42? ' David Hemminger: 47. Mayor Chmiel: That would fill up the hotel rather quickly. I don't think 1 you're going to do that. David Hemminger: I don't think so. 1 Councilman Johnson: Five buses would be 200 people. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else have any specific questions? Councilman Johnson: Mr. Klingelhutz had his hand up. Mayor Ordel: Yes, would you like to cane up. Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz again and if you guys were the HRA committee, you would know what the typical assessment write down would be in dollars that he was referring to. I 43 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II . Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Councilman Boyt: But what he's talking about there is capture tax money and that's what an HRA district has to offer. My interest was, are we doing what we did for the apartment building which was subsidize it with $600,000.00 or something to that effect which I think gives us a lot more leverage to come in and demand things than it does when we're giving just a standard absorption of II the utilities and that sort of thing. It's kind of two different issues. Whether we're talking about the apartment building or something that's more of an owner financed. Councilman Workman: Isn't the number approximately 650? ' Don Ashworth: No, no. No. What you're looking to is the 3 years of tax increment generated off of a site. In this particular instance, they actually will generate greater increment over the 3 year period of time. So in other words, specials off of the site will not equal what the 3 years would produce. II It's close to it and I think that again when you start looking at relative size and say 3 years of increment, that's a lot different number for a Rosemount than it is for... 1 Councilman Workman: I think the question may be that I'm leaning towards is and what the public would want to know is, how much isn't this project paying to take care of things? In other words, not what the net result will be to the City and the net result down the road would be that the City would get it's money back. Right? I'm saying, what is this project getting? Maybe that's your question. What is this project getting that, they didn't have to take care II of the demolition of the building. Preparation of the property. Utilities. Etc.. What's the net gain to the project and the builders of the project that they did not have to that they are going to be paid through the tax increments. Isn't that number here 650? Don Ashworth: There'd be a higher number associated with the HRA's acquisition I of the woodframe structure from Bloomberg Companies and the amount paid there was exactly what Bloomberg Companies had paid from Gary Kirt. They and the HRA is paying for the demolition of that building. They're selling back to the hotel people the underlying land at it's fair market value so hypothetically II whether they build there or build on the highway, they have really the same cost basis. So I mean are you talking about, see I don't see where Bloomberg really gained out of the transaction because they paid Gary Kirt and if I remember correctly, do you want the numbers? Councilman Workman: Well no. You don't need to go into details. I think that was just some of the questions that were, I mean tax increment money is being II used here. Don Ashworth: That's correct. 1 Councilman Workman: And somebody's gaining from that. I Don Ashworth: Bloomberg Companies is not. They're basically being repaid exactly what they paid Gary Kirt. Somebody is gaining from the standpoint that the building is being removed and is being, that removal is being paid for but from a developer's standpoint, they're looking at caging in and purchasing just 44 i City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 the raw land on which they're going to build their structure. That's really what an BRA is all about. I don't know if I answered your question or not. Councilman Johnson: The other thing, they're getting assistance on is paying off special assessments that wouldn't be at other properties but is unique to downtown and that again is what the HRA is about is to make the downtown, property competitive with other property even though it's got these higher costs because of the new storm sewer. The new streets and all that other stuff that's been put into there. Those arp going to be paid off through the special assessment reduction program that everybody gets. I think we ought to just move on with this. I move approval with the 5 conditions. The 4 stated here and the 5th one from Paul was the other conditions from the previous site plan review are still in effect other than as modified by these 4 conditions. Mayor CIv iel: There's a motion on the floor with Jay's recommendation accepting 1 staff recommendations of 5 its and incorporate the previous ones that were, are there duplications of anything in incorporating the previous ones? Paul Krauss: I don't believe so. Mayor Chna.el: Is there a second? ' Councilman Workman: accuse re. What is the 5th one? Councilman Johnson: That the site plan review, conditions of the previous site A plan are still in effect on this site plan. Councilman Workman: Okay, and that would include that the final decision of the canopy provides sufficient roar for manuevering buses in that? Councilman Johnson: That's number 4 here. Councilman Workman: That our engineering staff will be approving that or disapproving that? Is that what we're saying? Gary Warren: That's what was recommended by Paul in the condition. Councilman Workman: So whether there's a canopy there or not is up to our staff? What kind of a canopy? Councilman Boyt: There's going to be a canopy. It's how high... Mayor Chmiel: It's the height. Making sure there are proper clearances. Councilman Johnson: Gary's risking his job on that. , Councilman Workman: Alright. I'll second it. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the arrended Site Plan #89-2 for Country Hospitality Suites with the following conditions: 1. Provision of the satisfactory easement protecting courtyard areas located at the east and southeast sides of the building. 45 i 11 . ;City Council Meeting - February 26; 1990 2. The minimum► courtyard dimension located east of the building shall be 25 n9 feet. 3. The roof material shall be heavy grade Timberline-type shingles of a cedar or earth tone. 4. The final canopy plans shall be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicant demonstrating sufficient room for maneuvering of buses. 5. All other conditions of the previously approved site plan regain in effect. All voted in favor aid the motion carried. 1 Councilman Johnson: I've got a question. Why aren't these plans sealed? There's a place for an engineering seal on here but no engineer signed these? There's a surveyor signed the front page. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, when we receive those, normally they have a PE on those 1 right? But they're drawn just according to... David Harminger: Are you talking on just a site plan? Councilman Johnson: Anything caring before us. Mayor Chmiel: ...has to have their PE on than basically. Whether that's ' mechanical, electrical... David Heiminger: I guess that's just sariething the architect overlooked. He 1 sent then directly fray his office to here and I did not review than before that time. Chmiel: Yeah, and I didn't see anything marked on here that said draft. IMayor Councilman ohn actually J son: Well actuall_ soma pages are sealed and sera pages aren't. Gary Warren: They should be sealed by the appropriate engineer. Councilman Johnson: 2.1 is sealed but the sheet 104 from BRW isn't. Councilman Boyt: Does it make a difference? ' David Henninger: Does it make a difference because otherwise we can resubmit sealed plans. Councilman Johnson: Ch no, no. Gary Warren: Well our records should show sealed plans. Councilman Johnson: Is this BRW one added? Gary Warren: BRW is a site plan and that's being done separately. That's just for reference. 46 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO BH DISTRICT TO ALLOW BANKS WITH DRIVE-THRU II I . WINDOWS, FIRST READING. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded approving the First ' Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the BH District allowing banks with drive thru windows. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGI DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Airing recent discussions regarding proposed revisions to City parking regulations, the City Council directed staff to prepare an R-16 residential district. The reason for this direction was the belief that the existing R-12 district did not provide sufficient density to allow for most types of high density housing that are typically experienced in suburban areas around us. The district was to require 1 enclosed parking stall per dwelling which was to be located in an underground garage. There was also sane discussion about potentially raising the allowance for hard surface coverage from 35% that was allowedin the R-12 district. Staff indicated a belief that it was overly restrictive particularly since it's computed on the net density after wetlands, public streets and park dedications are excluded from the computation. Staff drafted the R-16 district and presented it to the Planning Commission. As proposed it would allow up to 50% hard surface coverage while requiring increased setbacks well beyond the R-12 district standards which we believe are cammenusary with the intensity of development that would be experienced. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance but revised staff's proposed height limitations. We have proposed a limitations up to about 50 feet. Above that would require an increased setback. The Planning Commission felt more comfortable with a straight 40 foot height limitation consistent with the existing R-12 district. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that City Council approve the first reading of the draft ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this? I Councilman Workman: I'd move first reading. Councilman Boyt: I can get us started on a little discussion. I'd second that. Why do we need feet? Why not just say 3 stories? Paul Krauss: If you feel more comfortable with that. That's the language that's in the R-12 district. Councilman Boyt: It just occurs to me that 40 feet, 45 feet. If what we're trying to say here is I guess that we want 3 story buildings. I'm a little uncomfortable with specifying the feet. The other thing is, maybe you recall offhand, what are we counting when we count covered surface? Paul Krauss: We're counting all impervious surfaces. Sidewalks. Parking areas. The building footprint. Councilman Boyt: You don't count the roads? ' 11 47 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Paul Krauss: Public streets would be taken out but access drives, private --� access drives would be counted, yes. 1 Councilman Boyt: Somehow I look at what we have across from the elementary school and I think about 35% coverage and I'm not sure if, in fact I'm reasonably confident that if I went out there and measured the green area, I'd be far short of 65% of the total land area out there. Councilman Workman: Where? - ;° ' Councilman Boyt: Across from the elementary school. The apartments over there. If you work in verse direction, instead of measuring the building and parking lots and the garages, if you go out there and measure the green space and say is ' this 70%, 65% of the total area? I don't think so so I'm just wondering what are we counting. ' Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt. I don't know that I can address that specific item. I wasn't here when that was approved and don't know it well enough to comment. The definition of lot coverage is that that lot coverage means that that portion or percentage of the lot that's covered by impervious surfaces period. I know how we calculate it now and we would calculate all Impervious surfaces. ' Councilman Boyt: okay, well. I guess maybe we can meet and talk about that in private without tying up time of the Council. The bigger issue is, I don't think we need this at all. I think that is somebody, I agree with the comments 1 made that night that we need the opportunity to build at a higher density than we currently have but what I see us doing here is creating something that in all likelihood, the next move is going to be well let's zone it somewhere. I'm quite concerned that we have nothing in here that the City is getting out of this. We're giving people higher density and I have a sense that we're not getting anything. The City doesn't get anymore out of this than they get out of an R-12. It's not that the City ought to have it's, ought to be getting ' something out of everything. It's that, if this came in as a PUD, I could see us looking for park space. I could see us looking for maybe some amenities in the building but when it comes in, when we zone it ahead of time this way, you lose that ability. I'm relunctant to see us coma in and the next logical step ' would be to map this somewhere. I'd like to see us not...approve it. I guess I'd like to see us not put it anywhere until a developer came in and said here's the reason you should change my R-12 zoning to R-16 or whatever and then we look at that and we make some sort of arrangements to do that if it's approved. Mayor Chrdel: We don't have an R-16 then to go to. ' Councilman Boyt: Now it'd have to came in as a PUD and I don't see what this gives us that a PUD wouldn't. So then I ask, why do we need it? Councilman Workman: Are you saying we get more from a PUD? Mayor Chmiel: You're saying we get more from a PUD and the same thing out of an ' R-12 as what you're getting with the R-16. Councilman Workman: A PUD is different from an R-12. 48 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: Well a PUD is anything but somebody comes in and they say;.. Mayor Chmiel: Condition more things on it. Councilman Boyt: Right. We can take each one of them individually and I would see if we passed this, that we shouldn't zone it anywhere but we should, .either we pass this and not zone it anywhere or we use a PUD process so that whenever something comes in this dense, we have the ability to treat it as a unique entity and say does it fit what we want or not. It's a thought. I don't know exactly how to work it opt. Councilman Johnson: You could almost say the R-16's are only allowed within PUD ' districts. So we could set R-16 basic standards and if somebody wants an R-16, they've got to apply for a PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Paul? Paul Krauss: There's a couple of responses to that. The way our PUD ordinance is set up right now is basically once you enter into a PUD, you're throwing out all the other standards so there's nothing to reflect back onto. You create it as you go along. Possibly the more important, I think the PUD warrants some reassessment for that reason. But I would not propose that the City Council unilaterally rezone anything to R-16. I think it's something that you should have on the map and hold in your back pocket and when somebody comes in and presents a plan that you're supportive of that requires this density that's in an area that's guided for high density use in the comprehensive plan, you can say fine. We'll rezone it at that time. I would not recommend approval of anybody saying I've got this great lot out there. It's in a high density district. I don't know who's going to develop it but why don't you rezone it for me. I would recommend that you deny that. Councilman Johnson: So we'd stick R-16 on this map under the legend. , Paul Krauss: It would be in the key. Councilman Johnson: But that's it? Paul Krauss: Right. I Mayor Qirdel: Right. Strictly on the legend but no specific location. Councilman Johnson: I think we need the flexibility of the R-16. Why you say it may not provide any lower cost housing, it provides the opportunity that somebody could come in and design same slightly more affordable. As I say, we'll never get what Minneapolis or somebody else, one of the real urban areas considers affordable housing. Something under $400.00 a month or whatever. We'll probably never see that in this town even with an R-16. It's going to be a very nice R-16 but it might not be as expensive as if we had to build it R-12. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Just one other thing. Since this is the first reading, I I would suggest that you consider taking ha'e occupation out of the permitted uses in the R-16. 49 i IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 11 . Mayor CIviiel: Home occupation in the R-16. ICbuncilman Johnson: I don't know. Cbuncilman Boyt: Well I'm personally not for home occupations in an apartment Ibuildings. Councilman Workman: What's a have occupation? IICouncilman Boyt: Well there's a whole list of them. I don't have mine. Mayor Chmael: You can have so many vehicles. ICouncilman Boyt: Right and one non-related employee. ' Councilman Johnson: It's what I'm about to set up in a couple weeks. Councilman Boyt: In your area, you have the right to do that. I'm saying we're II creating a new zone and I would encourage us to at least think about not putting hone occupations in there. Councilman Johnson: Are they allowed in R-12? IIPaul Krauss: I believe so, yes. Mayor Chrael: That would be consistent. } ' Councilman Workman: Well I'll tell you what folks Up in the twin haves in Chaparall, they're currently going through a big fight right now because I somewhere in their convenants in the Chaparall Homeowner's Association in the Twins, they're telling people they can't run daycare out of their homes. It's turning into a big battle. I'm not going to stick my nose into this particular I problem but you start to tell people they can't do that and this woman is single or divorced or a widow and that's her only income and they're telling her she can't do that anymore. I Cbuncilwaran Dimler: Are you saying you couldn't sell Mary Kay out of your house? Councilman Boyt: Actually in our development you can't. Councilman Workman: So I'd be very careful about what we discuss. Somebody's Ilivelihood could be at stake. Councilman Johnson: I mean there are same people who don't have a regular office. They work out of wherever they live. Whether they sell insurance or whatever. Carpeting. Whatever. They have no office per se. Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a new zone. It doesn't exist. That's not IItaking anybody in something and moving them out of it. Mayor CIviel: Yeah, but I don't know. If we're going to be consistent with the R-12, it should be consistent with the R-16. 50 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Workman: People move in and they don't know that. Councilwoman Dimler: That's true and it's likely to be low income people are going to move in there and they're going to need a home occupation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have this as a first reading anyway in looking at it. My suggestion is that we keep moving on with this. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create an R-16 High Density Residential District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: WEST 78TH STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: West 78th is a question that has also been raised in pretty much, sane of the same breath with HRA and who's to blame and everything else like that. It's not so much what the heck are you going to do with that downtown down there? Now the building appears closer. Whether that's right or wrong remains to be seen. I guess I'd like to, and I don't have my darn memo now because I jumped ahead but I'd like to, I don't know. Don, you memo kind of went into traffic studies and everything else like that. We do have some other things going on that I don't know that we need to discuss here now about eventual traffic patterns and everything else. TH 101. All I'm conveying with this item right now is that people are frustrated with downtown. I brought in the little bit of information that the State Highway Patrol brought up. Not the Carver County Sheriff's, that a car got stalled on West 78th and then vehicles did have to go up on the curb to go around. I came out of Market Blvd. just this week, over the weekend, and a front end loader Bobcat, a rather large one. I believe it was the City that was being used to clear sidewalks or something. I don't know what it was. It went out Market and took a left to go west and I couldn't get around it. It was moving very, very slow. It was moving as fast as it could. Traffic was building behind re but it was over on the curb and just kind of hobbling along. But some of those concerns that frustrate people. I bring it up because they frustrate people. They frustrate re somewhat. If we need in fact to look at the implications of further development downtown. If in fact we have a roadway system that's adequate. That's safe. I've had sufficient feedback from people to say that they're telling me it's not and how much we need to work. Are we going to tear down all of downtown? Again, I'm in no way suggesting that today but what I'm saying is, find out maybe what is going to be our eventuality here and what we can do to make it more comfortable for people to come into town and go through town to do business, etc.. I'd like to see that discussion on a future agenda item like that means a whole lot. , Councilwoman Dimler: Like March 12th right? Councilman Boyt: Why don't you refer it to Public Safety? I 51 IICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ICouncilman Workman: That'd be an idea too. Maybe Public Safety, maybe have their police officers on Public Safety could study that. It's definitely a 1 problem. I'm definitely- getting feedback from it and people are mad about it. III'm thus duly transferring their frustration to City staff. Jim Chaffee: There's a deputy on right now who would love to care down and talk 1 to you about that. Councilman Workman: Well have him swing by the house. IHERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, COUNCII'N WOMAN. Councilman Workman: Heritage Park Apartments. Gary, you went into sane detail II on why this all happened. My question is, and I'm going to relate this to the hotel and this is why the hotel has been getting scrutinized so much because we put so much effort, HRA, City Council and money in tax increment dollars, etc. and what happens is it starts getting built and everybody goes, did we approve that or what happened there? That's why I'm a little leery about is the canopy going to be there on the hotel or wasn't or isn't, how's it going to look? We approve one thing and we get another. What is our recourse against this? We're not going to tear down the apartment building. What is our recourse to developers who do contrary to what we approve? ' Gary Warren: The City Attorney has advised me on a number of occasions that we have the ability to make them put it back the way it was supposed to be. Councilman Johnson: That's not reasonable. ' Gary Warren: Well I'm just telling you and Roger P lease correct me if I'm • misspeaking here. Roger Knutson: Theoretical possibility. We all know it is not practical. ICouncilman Johnson: Did we approve the blueprints? The building plans? Councilman Hoyt: Yes. IICouncilman Johnson: Not we the City Council but we the staff. Building inspectors when the actual plans came in and those plans had the building now higher than it was approved on the site plan? 11 Gary Warren: These plans have a very tainted past as far as that. The developer in a meeting we had tried to protray the picture here that we had one I submittal and everything was complete and bang, it was approved and that was not the case and that's part of the problem that we've lived with on a lot of these projects is that, and you're even seeing it here with Country Suites is that whether it's the necessary process or what I don't know but we are constantly I plagued, staff is, by changing plans. By revisions. Modifications. Improvements in a lot of cases. It's not all bad, to the point where we almost don't know what...the developer who went into basically was making a utility I connection out there to Chan View and we had specifically a condition of approval that required him to submit a separate utility plan to the City Engineering department for approval prior to commencing with it. Well, that was 11 never done and with the way things went, it wasn't until after that we caught up 52 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 with the fact that he was connecting to than View and we had not yet had a chance to address the fact that we wanted the storm sewer to go down into the other part of the city storm sewer system which we did rectify at a later date by extending in fact the change order on the north side parking lot. One of the elements of that was the City extended storm sewer to intercept and we modified their storm sewer charges as a result of that. It is a sorted past and this 1'8" difference, there were some changes that went on in the shuffle there that I'm not totally clear on just how it all went down. I Councilman Workman: When we're standing out in these neighbors yards on than View talking about a fence that didn't quite work out and now that fence apparently is 8 inches shorter than they were promised and some of these little things that you're standing in their yard and they're pointing up at that thing and it is overshadowed and they're going, we don't ever remember that it was proposed to be that high. Well, they were right by 2 feet. It doesn't sound like a lot out of a project and everything else but they were right and it starts to get a little embarrassing and I'm not blaming engineering and everything else. It's a complicated business but 2 feet is way off. I mean that's way off. I thought construction was more of a precision art or did somebody purposely try to deceive us? Gary Warren: I don't mean to imply that it was a mistake in the field: It's 1 built deliberately at the elevation that it is. The plans, and Steve Kirchman in checking through the plan submittals on this after the fact, there was a plan that came in that showed a 2 foot difference in elevation from the previous set that they actually shrunk to 1'8" by taking out 1 block course of block in the basement for the parking garage and that's how it carve to 1'8" instead of 2' but that was kind of a plan submittal to Steve in the building department that was pretty harmlessly submitted and there was no big fanfare about hey, you guys we decided we've got to raise the building 2 feet. It was only in looking back that we really found that that was the case. I Councilman Johnson: Was that noted under revisions? Gary Warren: I don't recall. You mean on the revision block on the plans? I Councilman Johnson: In the revision block on the plans, when you make a fundamental change like that, whatever engineer signed that plan, without that on there, I think maybe the Board of Engineering examiners should be informed of this. Paul Krauss: Typically you don't get that kind of a notice and they hand you a sheet with a packet of 30 or 40 sheets in it as a guessing game. Catch ms if you can basically. Councilman Workman: And then the developers are all in here telling us to trust them. I don't know, I'm not going to beat this point into the ground. I'm just saying, we are, the hook is out there. Do this hotel. Do this. Do that and they snag us and then boy, it's never we're going to do better. We're going to Improve this. We're going to put brick on now rather than plywood from Plywood Minnesota. It's never an improvement. It's always you know. We need to start asking for the Crystal Palace so that we get something half decent. You know Mr. Kurver's has a point. We got to start building some quality buildings that are going to last a long time so our great grand children will see it and it 53 i 11, City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 IIwill be falling apart. __ 1 Councilman Boyt: For what it's worth, we tried. I tried to get brick on that building since we were paying over half a million dollars in subsidy to that building and I couldn't get it. I think this is a really good discussion. The Planning Commission has tried a few times to get some kind of construction - ' standard for exteriors. A number of communities around here have it. We don't to speak of. I think Eden Prairie has a brick or better. Paul Krauss: Bloomington does. Councilman Boyt: Bloomington has a brick. We could do this kind of stuff if we just lay it out ahead of time. IICouncilman Workman: The plain and simple fact and it's been my thread through this whole council meeting tonight. I apologize for boring everybody but is !' that I kind of feel like we're getting took in so many cases and that's why I load up the Council presentations. We're getting took. We took ourselves on West 78th maybe. I don't know. Or whoever was on the Council but we got to start, that's the whole HRA argument. Stop getting took and led down this golden path and then all of a sudden, we have so much invested and we're doing such a good job to help somebody do a good job but on the other side, they're kind of trying to get by as cheaply as possible and they're business people and we just kind of, oh, okay. Okay. Okay. We agree is down and then the next thing you know we've got something that's a little bit not what we wanted. I Mayor Chmiel: I think what we're going to have to do is start sticking to your guns. Say this is what we want. I Councilman Johnson: Especially on these blueprints, insist upon a written list of all revisions on new submittals. They make a submittal to correct the landscaping and within that submittal they've raised the building 2 feet and don't bother mentioning it, it'd be very difficult for staff to catch that. The 1 submittal on the West 78th Street set of blueprints for all that work was over 50 pages long of blueprints. Each Council member didn't get it to review it. We had to came up to City Hall here instead of giving everybody 50 pages of blueprints and review them. I reviewed those things and I never noticed that the darn old city hall was crooked in going through there. I missed that completely. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may just real quickly. There's a procedural issue in here as well that I would hope that we learn from and that is that we spend a lot of time in terms of the design for that entire facility and it I includes the HRA and what it would look like and I think if I showed you the original set of plans and how the architecture was established for that where literally the building moved on around it, had same real character to it. Those ' had all been approved. Were literally down to the timeframe of issuing permits and the developer came back in front of just the City Council saying well, this really isn't economical for us to do it in this fashion and they showed what would be the, I'll call it the plain Jane model that you have out there today and we approved it. I would hope that we learned from those types of mistakes too in terms of not allowing someone to literally cane in in the last minute and make those types of changes. I know Bill did fight for the brick issue but as IIimportant to me was they changed the entire architecture of that structure. It 54 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 -, was very dramatic and it would have made a major change as that project affected I ineighboring properties. 1 Mayor CYriel: I think we've probably covered the subject quite well. Councilman Workman: Can I continue on my other two items quickly before you do , or do you want me to take a break? Mayor Chmie1: What other two items? , Councilman Workman: My Metropolitan Waste Control Cbnndssion and my resolution. Mayor Chr►iel: Okay. Cho ahead. Councilman Workman: Ursula and I today spent most of the day down at the State Capital lobbying the legislators and speaking to a press conference of the tobacco free 2000 group which was very well attended by the Press, both nationally and locally, to keep the legislators mits off of our vending ban. They see it as kind of a fix it to take care of everybody and they want to pre-empt what we've done and kind of water it down to where Jay wants it. I think we did a real good job of saying no. Please leave our, number one leave it alone. We think it's a good idea. Number two, don't take away our right as a city to dictate what we want to do in our community because we think we can do a better job than the legislature can but I was presented with a draft resolution basically saying that, I won't read it to everybody but I'd hope that we could have it in our packet next meeting to send along, and that might be too late. Councilwoman Dimler: That's too late. They're going to consider it on the 9th wasn't it? Don Ashworth: We have a special meeting on March 5th. I Councilman Workman: Maybe for March 5th. Just a resolution saying, let us continue with the powers that we have as a City Council to make these decisions. If you want to read the resolution, I won't read it through. March 5th, maybe we can pitch it. Mayor Chmiel: March 6th. 1 Councilman Johnson: Or we can waive our things and do it today. I haven't read it yet. 1 Councilman Workman: Would you like re to read it? Councilman Boyt: It's after 11:00 and we've still got plenty of agenda items. , Mayor Chm►iel: Let's move it on. Councilman Workman: Well I think it's something that's important that I don't want to... Councilman Johnson: Let's get it on the March 6th agenda. 1 55 , 1 City Council Meeting - February 26; 1990 111 ', Councilman WDrkr*an: This is something that can be delivered to legislators and 11 . I will do it personally. Councilwaran Disler: It might end up on their agenda before March 6th. C IMayor Csmiel: Well just read what you have I Councilman Workman: Okay, quickly. The Council, the City of Chanhassen considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority,to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 currently being considered by I the Minnesota Legislature contains a clause that would pre-empt local goverment from controlling the placement of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the common Council urges the legislature to reject a pre-emption clause and allow I the City to join many other cities currently considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending machines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. Pretty straight forward. ' Mayor Chmael: What you're going to have to do is waive it first. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to waive the Rules of II Council Procedure to vote on a Council Presentation item. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Resolution #90-23: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following resolution: IIThe City of Chanhassen considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 currently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature contains a clause that would I pre-aTtpt local government from controlling the placement of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the common Council urges the legislature to reject a pre-emption clause and allow the City to join many other cities currently II considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending machines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II Councilman Workman: What I hope to do then is get this to every member of the I commerce calmittees in both the House and the Senate. Thank you. Lastly, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, I think maybe all of you saw it. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has got a new little committee. General I Advisory Committee. I contacted Don Ashworth and the City Planner about what maybe that's all about. Something that the City would be interested in having somebody on it. You've all got the information sheet on it. 1 Councilman Johnson: I filled it out already. Councilman Workman: Oh, you want to be on it then? IICouncilman Johnson: Yeah. II56 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Workman: Okay. I thought you didn't have enough time and the HRA would give you a problem and now you want to get on... Councilman Johnson: That also goes right along with what I've done the last 15 years. I Councilman Workman: Well what I've done is I've also filled it out and maybe we can compete one another. I've talked to Gloria Veerling. She's our representative on the Metropol#an Waste Control Commission. I've talked to Marcy Waritz and Dirk DeVries about it a little bit so they know that my intentions are there and .we can talk about it later. Councilman Johnson: I was about to talk to then too but I haven't had time. Councilman Boyt: Where do you guys find the time? , Mayor Cl iel: Okay, next item on the agenda is the updated drug awareness program which we did discuss the last time. But in detail I'd like from Jim, do you have it available there? I asked Jim to, he and I worked together to come up with proposals as to what we should have in this particular commission. Specifically why tomorrow we're also presenting this at the Chamber of Commerce along with Margie Karjalehti with, you've got to be kidding, on that specific item. Why don't you take it away and just go over it Jim. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You may remember that we did , discuss this at the last Council meeting only briefly. Just to give you a little history behind it. We look at a 3 pronged approach from a public safety standpoint in drug enforcement, drug awareness type of situations. First prong of course is enforcement. The City got involved in that approximately 2 years ago with the joining of the joint task force, Southwest Metro Joint Drug Task Force. That was the enforcement arm of it. Part of that triad if you will then became prevention and you may remember that, I think it was in October we had the Cities Fight Back Against Drug Week. That was considered part of the prevention approach. Mayor Ch iel's been very instrumental in pushing us forward in the prevention area. This is part of that, the second prong of this 3 prong approach and again in the prevention area. What we are proposing is a task force made up of 6 to 8 junior and senior high students. One public safety representative. One city attorney representative. Two council members. A county representative and that would be somebody, we're looking at from say community services chemical dependency. We're looking at a county sheriff representative. A school district representative. A Chamber of Commerce representative. One or both local legislators. In addition to, we are looking at members of clergy. This is right now in the planning stages. Mayor Chmiel: And also the media. 1 Jim Chaffee: And the media, right. Since we have 2 of them sitting over there. It will be a joint effort for this group to get together and we've talked about possibly on a quarterly basis to be a guiding force for us in the community and specifically us in public safety. Directing us to what the problems are. What they see as solutions possibly to helping us prevent the situation we are now enforcing. Just to briefly expound on the treatment approach which is the third prong of the 3 prong area. If you remember the 57 I City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 II President in his State of the Union address and the Governor in his State of the - 1 il State address, address the drug issue. Basically that address covered the treatment. Monies have not been freed up as of yet from Ms. Mavey for that area I but we are looking to possibly get some monies available for us in treatment. Once that is available, we'll have this 3 prong approach and hopefully be able to make a dent in the drug problem in the community. Right now it's just open II for discussion to see if anybody has any comments or questions or concerns regarding this. As Mayor Chmiel said, tomorrow we're presenting this to the Chamber of Commerce and then an MaxCh 6th we are meeting with members of the clergy in the community to go over same of these issues. IMawr Chmiel: Any discussion? None? I Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we not put the City Attorney on there unless he's going to work for free. IMayor Chmiel: He might do that. Councilman Boyt: We don't have him on our other commissions or task force or whatever. II Councilman Workman: Could it be a city, a person in the city who's an attorney who would want to. IIMayor Chmiel: That could be also. Councilman Johnson: It could be the County Attorney. That's where the II prosecution cares from. r Mayor Chmiel: We could have one person serve two different functions. IJim Chaffee: I think it was a typographical error. It should have been one attorney from the city. IICouncilman Boyt: Okay, I think where it says Chamber of Commerce representative. What you're really talking about is a local business representative who may or may not be in the Charmer of Commerce? 11 Jim Chaffee: Correct. I Councilman Boyt: And somewhere in here and I know it's a rather lengthy doctrent but before the task force is formed, what I'd like to have therm do is care up with 2 or 3 or 4 objectives. IIMayor Chmiel: That's exactly what will be done. But I think that particular committee should be the people to come up with that. I Councilman Boyt: Or somebody but very early on before the thing becomes official we should have sate objectives so we know what we're approving. II Mayor Chmiel: The next thing that I had too was, and I'm going to discuss it rather briefly. April 22nd is going to be National Earth Day and that I would like to see us do satething to enhance the City and see if we can get people in _ __) IIplanting trees or very possibly to acquiring seedlings. If we can get bare root 58 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 • and look at maybe getting that to see if we can get out to the community. ' Don Ashworth: I just happen to be reading on that. Mayor Qrael: Good. Then maybe we can discuss it next Council meeting. Councilman Johnson: I think the recycling committee wants to do something for Earth Day too but right now we're rather busy on just trying to get the ' containers out. a ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1 APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. ' Paul Krauss: At the last meeting of the Board of Adjustments, staff became aware of the fact that members are annually appointed and that we have not reappointed then thus far. I must apologize for the mission was mine. I've since spoken to Willard Johnson and Carol Watson. They're here tonight. They have indicated a desire to be re-appointed. We did not advertise for the position but we're not aware of anybody waiting in the wings looking to get on the board. I guess we're seeking your input tonight. If you wish us to advertise, we certainly will. Otherwise we do have two members willing to serve. Mayor Chfiael: And I appreciate the two members that we have but I think to again be consistent with what we've done, I think we should go through the advertising process. Just go and see if there's anyone else out there. I doubt whether we're going to find anyone but I think we should go through that process. Councilman Boyt: I think that when we do this, and I'd like to see us be , consistent with all our commissions when we do this, we should as part of the advertisement, indicate that the enc.vbants are seeking re-appointment. We used to do that in the past. ' Councilwoman Dialer: I just have a little technicality. I had this resolution and it said for commission vacancies. Is the Board a commission? Is the Board of Adjustments considered a commission? Councilman Boyt: Probably not. Councilman Johnson: It's under a different set of rules. Mayor Chmiel: You might have a good point. , Councilman Johnson: It's zoning. Councilman Workman: I'd like to approve these guys tonight. Councilwoman Dialer: It wouldn't be a lack of consistency. Councilman Boyt: But you're talking about the spirit of what you put into place. Although I think what I hear, and I would certainly join that, we're 59 i City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 IF ' going to vote to reappoint these people. The spirit of what we were saying is we want all these things to be open and out in the public. Personally I don't I think we should be choosing whether it's the HRA or the Board of Adjustment and I Appeals or our regular comrdssions. Everything ought to be the same. IICouncilwoman Dialer: Are you saying that this resolution did not cover the Board or the HRA...? IICouncilman Johnson: That hasn't been passed yet either has it? • s IICouncilman Bout: Yeah it has. Mayor Qnmiel: Yeah. 'I Councilwoman Dimler: Would you like to address that Roger? Are they considered differently and under different rules? IIRoger Knutson: As the resolution? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. IRoger Knutson: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is not a commission. It's maybe the wrong choice of words. II Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I agree with Bill. The spirit of it is appointments. The HRA is not a commission either. We'd be saying that we're not going to advertise HRA. IICouncilwoman Dimler: That's right though we aren't. Councilman Johnson: If it's not the council, we'd certainly want to advertise IIthe HRA. We haven't in the past because it's been Council. Mayor C viel: I think we should just go through the mechanics as I said 1 originally and indicate in there that 2 existing board members are running for their position as well. I Councilman Workman: Maybe with a brief description of what the Board of Adjustments does. Councilman Johnson: Yes. And what qualifications we'll be looking for. IIExperience in zoning matters. Mayor Chmiel: Can you condense that to small? Advertising rates are very Iminimal but. Councilman Johnson: This is not a board that you can afford to bring somebody Ion that doesn't know anything about zoning or city ordinances or anything. Councilman Workman: I think a description of what they do would deter people. IMayor Chmiel: Okay, Paul do you have it? II 60 II -City council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Paul Krauss: Yes. Under the understanding though that the members can continue to serve until we... ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I thought the ordinance basically said no. Councilman Boyt: Well get the ad in the paper. They don't have one coining up anyway do they? Councilwaran Dinler: We're just complying with the spirit of the ordinance, or the resolution. , APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE STUDY COMMITTEE, PUBLIC SAFETY. , Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, on December 4, 1989 the Public Safety presented a proposal to Council recommending the establishment of a police study committee. At that time Council approved the concept with some revisions and quite frankly with some reservations. Since that time we advertised for two citizens at large to be appointed to this committee as directed by Council which is one of the revisions that they requested on December 4th. We have received only 2 applications after advertising twice for the positions. While looking at this, I started having second thoughts especially after reading some of the comments of the Council Minutes for that night. Consequently, it's my recommendation that we re-evaluate the need for a police study committee and make recommendations to you at the Council meeting on March 12, 1990. Part of my reasons behind that, and just part of these, is that our crime rate is down. Things are in harmony with the Sheriff's Department, the State Patrol and the Public Safety Commission at this tune. We are a tool of the City and the citizens at large. We do what you want us to do. If you are comfortable with what we're doing, and I think you are at this time, then we are comfortable. I am not in a position now or do I think I'm going to be in the near future, to make any recommendations of local police department. As a matter of fact, again with the comfort level the way it is right now, the crime rate down, I think somebody's doing something right. We are. The Sheriff's Department. State Patrol. I certainly will look at alternatives within the contract system itself, i.e. :maybe an added deputy for 1991 but again this will be done through the efforts of Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry and Sheriff Al Wallin. I will propose an expansion of the contract if I see a need. Again, I think you might have even read in the local edition of the Villager, our crime rate is down. Our population is up. Somebody's doing something right. Basically I presented this as a discussion item for tonight with a full report to be brought back to Council again on March 12, 1990. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Jun. I Councilman Johnson: Sounds logical. Don Ashworth: Did the Council act then on the committee? Maybe I :massed that. Mayor Chmiel: No. It's going to be brought up on March 12th's agenda. I Don Ashworth: So it goes back onto March 12th? Okay. 61 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I " Councilman Johnson: Was it published? " Councilwoman Dimler: No. We don't have to publish it. IIDon Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the best of my knowledge. Councilman Johnson: So we could take action? Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted. IMayor Chmdel: Jim mentioned March 12th so let's go with that. IIBOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BOARD ACTION, CITY MANAGER. I Don Ashworth: We've already set the first meeting for the Board of Adjustments to occur for May 15th. I think we had a special time on that. I really do not think that you're going to have that many people in on either the 15th or the I 28th. I think last year we had a number of people in on the initial session but by the time we got into the last meeting, the assessor had met with most of the people and I think you were down to just the 2, 3, 5 people who attended. ' Accordingly, I think that we could take care of the second meeting as a part of our regular Council agenda. I would look to May 28th but in doing that, I would like to be able to work with the Mayor to determine whether or not an early start was necessary or not. I won't know for another 30 days how big that II agenda will be for May 28th and if possible, we should be able just to start it at 7:30 and be able to take care of all of our business including the Board. But if necessary, I'd like to work with Don and potentially set 6:30 or 7:00 if it ' appears as though an early start is necessary. Councilman Johnson: Are we meeting the 28th? I thought that was, because II that's Memorial Day. I thought we had modified the month of May to first and third? Councilman Boyt: No, one of them is right at the end of the money. IMayor Ctmiel: The 28th is Merorial Day. How about Tuesday the 29th? Councilwoman Dimler: We already moved it to another date. Don Ashworth: I'll report to the City Council Tuesday what night you picked out and verify with the Assessor if that night's okay with him. DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. IIPaul Krauss: On several occasions in the past... ' Mayor Chmiel: Is this brief Paul? Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it might be rather lengthy. 62 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor C3zniel: I thought there was a lot of thought put into this and I I appreciate your going through it. Paul Krauss: We're putting this on basically I should add as an informational 1 item to get some direction from Council. It's not a matter that we've discussed with the Board of Adjustments. I mentioned it to then tonight and they're interested in it obviously and they're here. Nor have we discussed at the Planning Commission sane:of the changes we're proposing would affect them as well. Basically we're bringing it to you and if you tell us you don't want us to proceed with it, we'll drop it but it appeared to us in the past that there was sage desire to have sane flexibility on it in the variance procedure that is not now allowed. Working with the City Attorney we felt that that could be offered while still keeping with the intent of the variance-procedure and not violating it. There's been a lot of discussion about State enabling legislation ' changing how we conduct ourselves with variances and it may in fact do that but it's not clear to us at this point what it's going to do or when it's going to do it. That enabling act is kicked around now for almost 3 years and it still isn't adopted and in the short session this year, it's probably not likely to either. What we propose that you look is revised language for the hardship criteria. The other thing that we propose that you look at is amending the procedures in terms of who reviews variances and when. We find that for normal variances, the one's we had on tonight. The have setback, the shed setback... one or two variances. I think it ultimately came down to one variance for a road grade but that was a variance the Planning Commission and City Council considered in the context of the subdivision. If you just take the variance out of context and put it before the Board of Adjustments, I don't know that you're giving that project a fair shake. There may be other things that you considered in developing that recomendation. Also, there's the hatter of time and how we bounce a developer back and forth or an individual back and forth for that matter. In the case of Vineland Forest, it went through the Planning Commission. There were no variances there. It went to the City Council. It got bounced back because we were looking at roads. A variance materialized. At that point we have to tell the developer, well the City Council likes it but we'll have to get the Board of Adjustment to approve it so it goes back on one of their agendas. Frankly the process is not unworkable but it's a little clunky and other communities have found ways to work around it and we propose one of those ways of doing that. And again we're just throwing this out for discussion purposes and we'll take our cue from you on this. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Roger, what is the status of the variance thing that we discussed same time ago with some of the State changes that were going to be? Roger Knutson: It's part of the rewriting of the entire land use laws. The current draft, it sits in the legislature today would not allow flexibility. That was in an earlier draft that has been now put aside. Now that's just going to hearing, will be going to hearing. It hasn't gone to hearing yet and how it finally works it's way out is anyone's guess. Mayor Ch iel: Is there anyone lobbying for the previous, for the earlier one? Roger Knutson: Yes. Me. 63 O Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor iel: That's why I was asking the question.on. 1 Paul Krauss: There's also a number of communities lobbying against it for Ivarious reasons. Roger Knutson: The only comment I have made, acting as a private individual,-is II that I like to see cities have the discretion to set standards that they think is subject to their community. Not that I think the standards for variances should be tough or weak or anything.else. Just a courtesy to City Council to set those standards. There are others who say, and I've argued at length about I it, that there's a real need 'for State uniformity on this issue. My response to that has been, anyone who has gone to more than one city council and seen how various city councils handle variances has realized that there is no state II consistency now anyway. Except same city councils like to play by the rules and a more liberal interpretation of it. Councilman Johnson: And after the next election, that changes too. IICouncilman Boyt: I'd like to mention a couple things if I might. Same difficulties I see with this. First, in your description Paul of the process, II that's exactly what we're doing today. What you're proposing. Everything doesn't go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. ,' Paul Krauss: That's true but I'll leave it to Roger, the way the ordinance is structured right now, it probably should. 1 Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't. So what you're proposing is to bring ' this in line with what we're actually doing? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ICouncilman Boyt: Which makes sense. Boy, the desire to have sane kind of reasonable flexibility, that's very tempting. What I find though in sane of II your comments here. Reasonable use is further defined as use commonly' made by other properties in the district. Mayor Qrael: What page are you on Bill? I ' Councilman Boyt: That's page 3, the second line from the top. The question that I had was, what if the surrounding properties all have non-conforming uses II which in fact our ordinances say that non-conforming uses can't be perpetuated if they burn down or whatever. Are we really gaining flexibility there? II Councilman Johnson: It certainly would have helped us clean up Carver Beach. Paul Krauss: The variance would not apply to the use of the property. It would apply to standards applied to that property. Carver Beach is a good case in I point. If everybody is on a 7,000 square foot lot, you make the new person to care in to have a 15,000 square foot lot or do you take those 7,000 square foot lots into consideration? I think the way these are structured it would IIencourage you to take that into consideration. Councilman Boyt: Well there's the advantage. I think of the Lake Riley IIsituation that we just extended here. There certainly is an advantage to say 64 II City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 well nobody on either side of the sky has side setbacks either so we're really putting this house into one that fits. And it would be nice to have someway to do that. I'm just real concerned that what we end up doing is creating, is we can't fix a problem. Councilman Johnson: It makes it worse. Councilman Boyt: So that's one issue that I'd sure like you to look at before we pursue this a whole lot further. Then under your proposed point A at the bottom of page 3, literal enfdreenent of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means the property cannot be put to reasonable use. Well, to me that means anything can fit in there because you then go on to say reasonable use because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography. Tell me something you left out? We're really saying, if I can't do what I want to do with my piece of property, then I can do it because this says I can. Undue hardship. Is it undue hardship if I can't have my deck? Mayor Chmiel: Might be. I Councilman Boyt: Well it isn't currently. Paul Krauss: No, but I think this allows you to, you've got exercise this with great caution. When we had that variance and I forget who the applicant was on Lake Riley, you and I had a long discussion about what was a reasonable use of the property. In the staff report I had recommended that it be approved because it was reasonable to think that they should have a 3 bedroom house with a deck same as other people had on adjoining lots. I remember Councilman Boyt that you had some concerns with that theory and there was another method found to approve it but I think that this wording would allow us to take those things into consideration. If you think a reasonable use of a lot is not the bare minimum's 900 square foot residence that satisfies building code but is rather what the normal Chanhassen resident probably has a right to expect to live in. This would allow you the latitude to approve those sorts of variances. Councilman Boyt: Well somewhere in here, there's two things that happened with a variance at least. One of them is that we allow somebody to make reasonable use of their property. The other one is, we protect surrounding property owners by giving them the protection of our zoning laws. All I'm saying is that we've got enough problems with our current interpretation of our variance ordinance. To now came in and say, any undue hardship for any of these reasons, I maintain that the way A is written right now, anything can pass. Councilman Johnson: I don't like the last sentence of A. Reasonable use is a use commonly made by other properties in the district. Again, look at Carver Beach. That says we're just going to perpetuate those non-complying things. Commonly the sheds are up against the property line so the one we're talking about today, under this would say that's fine. In Carver Beach there are no setbacks. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but at that time Jay when they had those right at the property line, it was permitted. Councilman Johnson: Is it but it's now non-conforming so a new guy could come in and ask to put it right at the property line today where what we should be 11 65 City Council Meeting L. February 26, 1990 working towards is, when somebody's shed's burned down, you don't rebuild it 11 ' within the setback. Kind of a crazy thing to think now but you don't perpetuate the non-conforming. Councilman Wbrknan: But in that situation Jay, it would take 200 years before people could all have their sheds off the property line. 11 Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. Councilman Workman: So why fight that? Why worry about it? ' Councilman Johnson: If you never `start, it will never get there. If you start, you've got to take the first step of every journey and this is a journey towards bringing Carver Beach into compliance. You and I will not be alive when Carver ' Beach cares into compliance. Nobody will be. If we have a nuclear disaster and it clears out Carver Beach and gets replatted. Councilman Workman: Down on Lake Riley. Skinny little lots. Are they ever going to be in conformance? Councilman Johnson: Probably not. Councilman Workman: In 400 years? Not unless all the houses burn down and they carbine the lots. Councilman Johnson: But we need to keep bringing these up... 1 I Councilman Workman: I'm not defending this thing to the hilt but we need sane discussion on it and maybe tonight's not the night. Mayor (hmiel: I think what we have to do is have a reasonable way to try to I help and assist people put in same of their basic needs that they want to improve on their particular lot. ' Councilman Johnson: It has to be an improvement over. In a non-conforming district, which I think we can call several parts of this town as non-conforming districts. The majority of the houses in the district are non-conforming... any IIvariance has to be an improvement over the general district. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul put a lot of thought into this and I really, as I mentioned before, I commend him for it. Maybe some things that are not perfect IIin here but nonetheless there's been a lot of thought. Willard Johnson: We've been working in the Carver Beach a number of years. I'll I go along with Jay. We've been trying to Hake this hold to the city setbacks and I agree with Jay. We aren't going to get the 100% down there in Carver Beach but we're working at the places that are gradually caning in and I guess I think we can do it pretty good with what we've got. ICouncilman Johnson: I've seen improvement in the little time that I've been here. Willard Johnson: You'll get one like we got down there in Lake Riley - occasionally but I feel we're doing pretty good with what we've got and you're ' 66 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 'II just going to have to work each one individually. That's from my experience - being on the Board. I realize some of these people have got a hard situation but we get a 7,000 foot lot, sometimes we tell than hey meet city setbacks and by golly they do it. It cleans up an area. Because we had a guy, that guy that we've been fighting these last 2 meetings because everything goes in Carver Beach. That isn't the truth. I realize somebody throws up a shed without the City catching it and you're going to have that anyplace in the city. I can show you a lot and I wish the Council would all go and look at it. It's just down from me in the $350,000.00 bracket. I called City Hall on it. We've got a loophole in our own ordinance.i My neighbor has discussed it and his cousin builds down behind the Cathol3.c Church in Excelsior or Shorewood or whatever it is. Councilman Johnson: St. John's. Willard Johnson: Yeah, behind St. John's. He says, look at that lot right on ' Apple Road or Yosemite. That house is built right on the creek. I told him about it and he said well go around and look where the driveway goes in. That driveway is one car width going in so I called City Hall and they says well it borders on two streets. I wish the Council would all go and look at that one. It's a pie shaped lot and where he drives in, which I would consider his front on the cul-de-sac, can barely get in so no way in the world reach the part on Yosemite. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that is a loophole in our ordinance. Willard Johnson: Where the creek is, you can't fill the creek. So I guess what I'm saying is hey, he don't have the frontage on the cul-de-sac so I hope you can clean up your ordinances on your developments. Councilman Johnson: In this case, on the side there is street frontage. This is before Paul's time and he's sitting there looking. On the side that this lot actually has street frontage, so it has street frontage. It's got 90 foot of street frontage. It's non-accessible because there's a 40 foot deep creek there. ' Paul Krauss: There's a situation similiar to that in Timberwood. ...private driveway because the public platted road isn't built and you can't access it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think I argued for both of those. I know I argued on the one over there by. Mayor Chmiel: Sane direction I think Paul is looking for from us. ' Paul Krauss: I'd like to know if you want us to pursue it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I want you to pursue it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'd like to see it pursued. At least that's my opinion. I Councilman Boyt: Sure pointed out sane areas that I think are real problem areas with it. ' 67 ' 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think it's going to be too loose with sane of this Istuff. Councilwoman Dinler: We might want to tighten same up but we do want to give sane more breathing roan. • Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to adjourn the meeting. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 ' 68 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL II REGt7IAR MEETING MARCH 12, 1990 ! , I r Mayor_ Ch iel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler roved, Cbunciliman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss tractor trailers on Lake Drive East, Metro Council lake clean-up and no parking signs on TH 101 and West 78th Street; 11 Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the HRA; and Councilman Johnson wanted to add the Park and Recreation Camassion appointments. Councilwoman Dimler wanted to remove item 1(d) off the Consent Agenda and put it with item 3 on the agenda ' and to move both items to Council Presentations. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor C oriel drew six names for the recycling prize ' for $50.00 each or $300.00. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman roved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to I approve the following consent agenda its pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ' b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to BH District to Allow Banks with Drive-thru Windows, Final Reading. e. Resolution #90-25: Accept Feasibility Study for the Upgrade of Audubon Road South of Railroad to Lyman Boulevard, Improvement Project No. 89-18; Call Public Hearing. ' f. Resolution #90-26: Approve Contract Amendment No. 2 for Lake Drive/TH 101 Realignment Improvement Project No. 88-22A. g. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Howard, Needles, Tai en ' & Bergendoff for Audubon Road South Improvement Project No. 89-18. h. Approve Professional Services Agreement with BRW for Lake Drive West Improvement Project No. 90-1. - i. Resolution #90-27: Approve Final Construction Plans for Trunk Highway 5 Expansion - CSAH 4 to Carver/Hennepin County Line; S.P. 2701-34 and S.P. 1002-51 and Request Preparation of Cooperative Agreement. j. Approve Specifications for Utility Department Telemetry System; Authorize I/ 1 Advertising for Bids. k. Resolution #90-28: Approve Trunk Highway 101/West 78th Street Crossing IAgreement with Soo Line Railroad, Project No. 88-22B-1. 1 1 I LULU J.1 1'I'E EIT19 .1r 1. Resolution #90-29: Authorize Feasibility Study for Harvey/O'Brien Sanitary - 1 . Sewer Extension. m. Approve Agreement with EOS Architecture for Public Works Auxiliary Storage 1 Building Project No. 89-23. n. Resolution #90-30: Approve Plans and Specifications for Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road, Project No. 89-6; Authorize Advertising for ' Bids. o. Approve Plans and Specifications for Murray Hill Water Tower Rehabilitation 1 and Painting Project No. 89-24; Authorize Advertising for Bids. s. Approval of Accounts. 11 t. Approval of Planning Cornassion Minutes dated February 21, 1990 All voted in favor and the notion carried. 1 A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT 1 FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: I talked to staff about this briefly. This is the ordinance in regards to private drives and flag lots and my concerns in the past have pretty match been taken care of by the latest staff report. Experience tells me that private drives have been used in the past as a way for developers to develop a piece of property without expending the amount of money it requires to 1 build it up to full public standard. The scenario would be, as it was a few years ago, we're only putting 3 houses back there and they're a half a mile off the road and we just can't afford to put in a public road to get there. That kind of thing. So what I would like to see us provide for is to have the right-of-way so that when that does have a demand that needs a public road on it, the City doesn't have to go back and buy that property because we don't have the easement so I'd like to see us get a full easement on a private drive. If 1 it's a private drive. Remains a private drive. Never becomes a public road. At some point all the property around there is developed and it's clear it won't be and we give them the property back as we have done several times in the last ' year with easements the City had. Up until then, it simply gives the City the property it may need to turn that private drive into a public road. 1 Councilman Johnson: The way I read the ordinance, we won't allow a private drive if there's a future need for it to be a public road and there's adequate space and there's no impact on wetlands. We'll make it a public road now, the way I read this. 1 Councilman Boyt: And that's why a couple years ago you voted against it being a private drive but it nevertheless passed. I'm just saying that people can make 1 a pretty strong economic argument for having a private drive at the time. By having that easement, it gives us some flexibility to deal with that situation without burdening the city to care back and then purchase easements from those property owners in the future. 1 1 2 1 t...ty LAUTIC11 Meezing P7aLCn 1L, 10 I. Councilman Johnson: See, that night be a way that they could negotiate at the time. Saying okay, your ordinance requires me to put in, see here it's even w II stronger I think. If they had that option to either do a public street. If • it's right in the ordinance they have an option to do a public street or do a private drive now and give the right-of-way, then that even makes it easier for then to come in and say we're going to build a private drive but we'll give you the right-of-way right now for a public street in the future. I see it as a carpramise in the exception to the rule. We make the hard and fast rule. If it's feasible to be a public street, make it a public street. Then if something cares up that we need to compromise on that, the compromise would be that we get the right-of-way. I don't know how to write that in the ordinance without weakening the ordinance. I Mayor Chmsel: Paul, shed a little light on this. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance is designed so that it's only intended to be used in those instances when you determine that a public road is not feasible. You shouldn't be doing a private drive unless that determination is made and the ordinance provides that the only things that you should consider, I mean you can do what you want to do but the only things that the ordinance asks you to consider in making that determination is the location of existing property lines and hares, local geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. It says nothing about economic necessity or anything else. I guess I share Councilman Johnson's concern that structuring the ordinance in the manner that was suggested opens the door to an alternate route which this ordinance was not intended to do. Also, I think you might recall at the last meeting when this issue was raised, I expressed a concern that physically it's often not possible to get 50 or 60 foot of right-of-way onto these properties. It might be a constrained penninsula surrounded by a wetland for example. You have setback issues that cane into play which you don't have with a private drive. And if we just take an easement, there's no setback fray an easement, you could have a hare that would sit a few feet from a potential road and if it has those kinds of problems. I don't know, does that answer your question? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I think it does. Councilman Boyt: Well there's no setback fray an easement. We do that all the time. Councilman Johnson: Isn't the easement considered a road right-of-way so the , house has to be so many feet? Paul Krauss: When you take a road right-of-way, yeah. Councilman Boyt: Well that's what we're taking. So there is a setback from that. ' Paul Krauss: But if we were just to take an access easement over a piece of property that may one day be converted into a road, I don't know. I Councilman Boyt: Well we wouldn't want to just take an access easement. We'd want to take a road right-of-way, or I would want to take it and the reason is an issue a little later tonight. We've got a private drive that is a half a mile long. Now if those folks had care in here off of Lake Minnewashta and we 3 1 said to them you've got to make that a public road. They, g pub The_ wouldn t have built. They couldn't have afforded to build. What I'm saying to you is we're going to - II • faced with those issues in the future as well. It's going to be 2 houses. It's going to be 3 houses. It may be 4 houses. They're going to say economically we can't put that kind of money into this road. Well, if we write it into the ' ordinance now, we've got the right-of-way. At some point in the future we want to give it back to them, fine but it's not a matter of negotiation. We have the right-of-way where it's feasible and Paul's scenario, it's on a penninsula. It's impossible. Okay. Well, it's impossible. We don't have it but where it is possible, this is a chance for the City to protect it's future. Mayor Ct'del: Roger. From a legal aspect, where does the City stand? Roger Knutson: There's a fair amoung of discomfort with having a public right-of-way for street purposes and allowing people to have a driveway over 1 your public right-of-way. First and foremost I guess because of liability. If someone is in here because of sight lines or pot holes or whatever, then there becares an argurent that the City owns the right-of-way. Is it a public street and you say it is and you say it's a private drive, well you can guarantee if ' there's a lawsuit, you'll be named as part of that lawsuit. The whole world shouldn't be concerned, be driven by fears of liability but that is certainly a concern. That's the basic problem. There are other problems but that's the basic problem. Mayor Chmiel: That's the only thing that I could see basically is the liability aspect of it because then you can be named into that respective suit. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask Ro9 er a question? Mayor ( rriel: Sure. Go ahead Jay. Councilman Johnson: Do you see a way of writing in what Bill wants in here 1 without weakening it to where we're opening a door? There could be some wording? I agree with what Bill is trying to do but at the same time it loosens something that I'd like to make a little stricter and it sometimes makes sane ' parts of it stricter. What I'm afraid would happen is somebody will care in for a variance and get a variance granted without the access so they would have something that is developable and somebody would grant than a variance on economic grounds. Roger Knutson: You're not supposed to do that. ' Councilman Johnson: I know you're not supposed to but it's been done more than once. I Roger Knutson: I can draft, it's possible to write something that would look good and says there's no liability which is not to say that when someone is injured that they won't challenge what I write. Saying I don't care what you say, a rose is a rose and it's a public right-of-way and you have a duty to I maintain it. There's also the issue, and maybe it can be drafted around, is a right-of-way or an easement to the City for right-of-way purposes is a right to use the property for a specific purpose. Once you gain that right, you don't have rights to sublet or let someone else put a private use on public property. Maybe you could draft around that. Is there a fool proof way of solving the 1 4 , ' v. cry-cvum:J.1 zw uAng NaLCU 1L, .L O II problem? No, there isn't. Is it possible to write something that will best protect you rather than other things? Yes but there's no fool proof solution when it's contested. II Councilman Johnson: You're saying if we obtain an easement for right-of-way, and we grant an easement more or less for his driveway to go up our right-of-way a private driveway, that would be... Councilman Workman: A double negative. I Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're maybe encumbering it too much because the 1 purpose of this ordinance as we stated earlier, was just that the prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street so I'm wondering if we're not just trying to do something here that we've already covered by saying the only way we'll allow this is if it's infeasible or inappropriate for a public street. Councilman Boyt: I can assure you that the scenario I just gave you would 11 generally be inappropriate to construct a public street. And it might be that way for econanic reasons. I'm mean what Paul is working off of, I have no problem with this. If the Council now and in the future says we're not going to let these go in anywhere that we're going to want a public street in the future. But I'll put my $5.00 on the table that that won't last because that's just not the way things work. When you're under economic pressure, the 2-3 houses a quarter of a mile off the road and we've still got property that's going to develop that way, you're not going to tell them they have to build a public road. I'm not going to tell them they have to build a public road. , Councilman Workman: When I'm thinking of a flag lot, I'm not thinking of a quarter mile flag. Councilman Boyt: No, this is private drives. This is different than the flag lot. Councilman Workman: Okay, because when you say in number 6 that we need at least 30 feet wide, to be located within a strip of property at least 30 feet wide, you're talking about widening that to 60? ' Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that the City would have somebody who is in control of this would give the City a road easement, if you will. A public road easement over that which would in fact be 60 feet. But they're not going to pave 60 feet. I would like to see the Attorney work on this. It may, in fact be impossible but before I think we agree that it can't be done, I'd sure like to see him try to do it. Mayor Q 'iel: Do you think you can do that about in 15 minutes Roger? Councilman Johnson: What's that little subdivision that went in with the gravel road? Jo Ann Olsen: Sunset Trail. I 5 11 City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 I . Councilman Johnson: Sunset Trail. Now there's where we built a public street I and we only built it to rural standards with. Gary Warren: Not even that. ' Councilman Boyt: Not even that. A gravel road. ' Councilman Johnson: It's a gravel road that washes out. It has a whole lot of problems. There's one where we compromised and it's been a problem. And a few others. • Councilman Boyt: I've got another. Councilman Johnson: Well we could pass this and then if we could figure out some other language we could amend it. Mayor ( r►iel: Rather than sitting on this and debating this, let's see what the ' legality aspects of it is and see if there's something that can't be addressed. Councilman Boyt: Thank you. I'd like him to look at another issue in regards to this. I think in item 2 talks about who's going to maintain it and the fourth line down says covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Covenants generally aren't worth the paper they're written on. I think we should say further, if the road is not maintained in 11 good condition, the City may maintain the road and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101. II Councilman Johnson: This should only be for multiple houses on a private drive. If it's a one person house on a private drive, we can't say. He can maintain his single driveway any way he wants to. ' Councilman Boyt: Well we have said from a public safety standpoint that we want it plowed within 24 hours when there's more than 2 inches of snowfall. I Mayor Q iel: Bill I think maybe if you just struck those covenants concerning you, just started out with a capital M on that. Maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. IIRoger Knutson: A comment. The only time you can assess is if the maintenance or the unplowed condition reaches a point where it's a public safety hazard. I mean your private drive could be... IMayor Cbmiel: What's that determination though? IIRoger Knutson: Who makes that determination? Mayor Oriel: Right. IRoger Knutson: Ultimately the District Court. Initially City Council. So if your driveway is alligatored and has a normal number of 2 inch potholes or whatever size they are, and you can still get through it even though it's lumpy, II you can't assess that. But if it reaches the point where the public safety vehicles cannot get through, then you can. 6 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I/ Councilman Boyt: That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about _ II harrassing a homeowner about whether or not their driveway's broken up but I just don't think relying on covenants is going to help us. Councilman Johnson: I think the covenants should be in there because we're not relying on it but I still think we should have, sometimes they are worth more than the paper they're written on but like you say, we've seen a lot of times they're not. ' Councilman Boyt: Well if you want to leave it in there, I think we should add this comment about the City has the ability to assess the properties if it's deemed to be a dangerous road condition. Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not convinced, I know of a situation where somebody's going to have a quarter mile private drive and there's 4 or 5 houses on it, where they wouldn't maintain or plow it. Paul Krauss: If I may Mr. Mayor. I Mayor Ch iel: Go ahead Paul. Paul Krauss: The ordinance to same extent relies on self interest. The reason we proposed setting up the covenants is not so the City could enforce them but so that individual owners, through the subdivision process, would have a mechanism whereby they could cooperatively maintain this thing themselves. We're talking about people building new hares in the community who have significant investment. 99% of the time it's going to take care of itself and we're only looking to cover that instance where we need to take same action. Councilman Boyt: That's why you've got number 2 in there though about snowfall is it's a stop gap measure that 99% of the time we'll never have to use. That's my thought about maintenance. It's a few words right now in the ordinance but it may save us a big problem in the future and then again, maybe we never use it. Councilman Workman: I don't know, 2 inches of snow on a private drive just 1 doesn't to me constitute a public safety hazard. I think it's appropriate for the City to plow that when it's on the road but if they've got a long gravel road, 2 inches and if it's not off in 24 hours, I get nervous when we start putting things on people and we're constantly heading in the direction of assessing and fining. Councilman Boyt: I think what we're talking about here is, not that somebody's going to go out with a ruler and poke it in there to see if you get 2 inches. Councilman Workman: Alright, let's make it 5. , Councilman Boyt: If there's a fire and the truck's got to get back there, we want confidence that it can make it. Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, we're going to make darn sure that everything will happen but if it's not ever going to be used but it's one more little rule where we're setting a trap for people. 7 1 I v►rj wwV�i aaV�r •sa� — aailvaa 14, iJl4 - - Councilman Boyt: Well I don't know where staff came with 2 inches. I like the II _ intent which is the City has control of a private drive from a public safety - -1 standpoint. Councilman Johnson: I think it needs to be a little more general than 2 inches. ' Councilman Boyt: I've got one more item and we're probably going to table this anyway. In item number 4, I think it's important that private drives not have a ' separate street name. It says street addresses or city approved street name signs, if required. I don't know whether we need to state that or not but I'd sure like to have in the record that the City isn't going to allow private ' drives to have their own name. Mayor C viel: The problem exists is how do you dispatch your fire department or emergency vehicles to that specific area if you don't have a name of a street or ' whatever? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, what the ordinance proposes is that you require the ' posting of street address signs out on the right-of-way by where the driveway enters onto the street. So for example you might have 3 or 4 addresses on Lake Lucy Road say with the houses being at the end of the driveway. Don Ashworth: This was a recommendation though back from police and fire. If you look off of Pleasant View, there's a number of the roads up there that are actually private drives but from a police standpoint, it's much easier to find, 1 I'm trying to think of Christmas Lake Road. The one, I'm sorry I can't think of some of the names. Teton was one of them. Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant View, but anyway there's about 4 or 5 of them up there that are private drives. Councilman Workman: And named? Don Ashworth: And they do have a street sign out off of Pleasant View so it says Pleasant View and Pleasant View Cove. If the fire truck needs to go there, they find Pleasant View Cove. Go down that road and find the house. Mayor Qviiel: I think from that standpoint we should just leave that in. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would move to table item 1(a) . Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the final reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards deadling with lot frontage and access by private driveways. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: This is much simpler. I know that a lot of this language was just lifted out of our existing ordinance. I've got, I'm assuming and I just II want to be sure that when we say under permitted accessory uses for R-16 district, when we say one dock, that that builds in with it all the controls we 8 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 have over docks. It can't be one dock with 16 boats off the end of it. _ II Mayor Qiriel: Item number 7? • Councilman Boyt: Yeah, item 7. Is that everyone else's assumption that this is under all the other limitations of docks? Roger Knutson: If that's how you handle docks in every other zoning district, that's understood. Councilman Boyt: Now when we talk about percent of coverage, I think that's in this ordinance. Mayor Qiriel: Maximum lot coverage? Councilman Boyt: Yeah. ' Mayor Ch iel: That's item 2 under Section 684. 20-684. 1 Councilman Boyt: Thank you. I would direct your attention to the apartments across the road from Kerber and staff has confirmed that's listed at 35% coverage and look at it. I mean there's a lot of ground covered there. I think 35% coverage, which is apparently good enough for R-12, is good enough for R-16. If anything it's all the more reason to have sane green space. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, as Councilman Boyt indicated, I did look up that coverage in the staff report pertaining to that development and I was frankly a little taken back because it certainly does look like it's more than 35% out there. It doesn't appear as though the future right-of-way pavement was taken into account with that but we can't be sure. In any case, I felt quite strongly that the 50% requirement was needed to support the kind of development that you would normally get in an R-16 district and the documentation that was submitted to you includes a lot of back-up information of what other communities are doing and what other projects have care in. I would ask you to note a couple things. First of all, we compute our hard surface coverage after we've taken out park dedications and whatever else and wetlands. Well wetlands we would include. We don't. So you're sort of stacking the deck against a project. You're saying you've got to knock out streets. You knock out wetlands. You knock out parks and then we'll compute the hard surface coverage on whatever is left. That's a pretty tough road to follow. We've also proposed greater setback standards than exist in the R-12 district right now. We're proposing that the yards, front yard, side yard and rear yard be increased to 50 feet so projects in this district would have greater than normal setbacks. All and all I believe that 50% requirement is pretty reasonable... Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond to staff if I might. Maybe caring from a I community where the standard 70% coverage, 50% looks good. But caning from a calaunity that's primarily an open residential area, I'd say 35% looks crowded. Edina has 35% according to your staff report. Why should we be more, have more coverage than they do? Well I take, it says building coverage and I don't know exactly what building coverage means. Councilman Workman: We're talking about total hard surface aren't we? 9 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II Councilman Boyt: Apple Valley has 25% building coverage. Bloomington has 30%. Paul Krauss: We have a much stiffer ordinance. We're including sidewalks, parking spaces, anything that's paved over. Building footprint. Most of the other ordinances just deal with the building footprint. Councilman Johnson: The parking lot can be almost as big as the building. ' Councilman Workman: I think in light of stress that these things and we're putting on the parking and everything else, I think it makes it tougher to leave it wide open doesn't it? Councilman Boyt: Well it does. ' Councilman Workman: I mean you've got to have a pretty big lot to start... Councilman Boyt: Look at what 35% looks like though. I mean it looks covered Iand now we're going to say we're going to let them cover another 15% of that. Councilman Workman: I don't think it looks that bad. ' Councilman Johnson: You don't know how far it goes to the west as far as their property. 11 Councilman Boyt: But they didn't plat the whole thing Jay. We're just talking about the part that was... 11 Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I know. We only see it from Kerber. We•only see the east side of it. Councilman Boyt: Well, I gather there's a sense of the Council here. I would i like to see this care to a vote though and I would move approval of item, 1(c) amended to read 35% coverage as a maximum. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Not hearing a second it dies. Councilman Workman: Mr Mayor, I'd like to discuss, on the first page of the Count � • I , Pa9 ordinance our preoccupation with keeping home occupations with an employee out. I'm not sure quite what home occupation would bring an employee in but where that's going to cause a problem for somebody. Somebody maybe does telephone soliticing or whatever sa'iebody might do at hccre and bring an employee in. I ' don't know if we're going to be able to stop it anyway but what are we going after here? Are you going after daycare? ' Paul Krauss: At the last meeting there was sane desire on the Council, or it was mentioned that we might look at eliminating home occupations entirely. When we looked into that, it was our recommendation that we not. That we not treat then, any differently. In all likelihood, if the building's rental, it's taken care of by the management and if it's owner occupied, there will be covenants that restrict the abilities of individuals to do anything that would disturb anybody. Given that, by way of compromise I guess, we looked at the home } ' occupation ordinance and the only thing that seemed to have any potential for impacting anybody was the outside employee which would then bring another car j into the parking lot and presumably if many people did do this, you could have a ' 10 I City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II problem. Realistically will you have a problem leaving it the way it is now? II Probably not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? ' Councilman Workman: I guess I'm still trying to figure out what home occupation would draw that person in but I'd like... Councilman Johnson: Do you want an example? Councilman Workman: Yeah. I Councilman Boyt: Almost any one of them up here could. Here's your list of home occupations. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'm going to be running an engineering firm out of my house. At first it's only me and my wife but if it grows, there might be one other employee. If it grows to 2, I have to go someplace else. You're only , allowed one employee. Councilman Workman: Well what I'm saying is, where does painting, dressmaking, have crafts. This to me doesn't, I guess if an elderly person is doing something in their home to make same income and they have somebody, one person caning in to help them, I don't see where the problem is with that. Maybe we limit it to one employee. Councilman Johnson: The ordinance already does that doesn't it? Councilman Workman: This says any. Mayor Chmi.el: Without any outside employees. ' Councilman Johnson: But there's a lot of difference between an apartment being run as a business and somebody's individual home. I've got my own private driveway for them to park in and everything like that. You can't have customers core to your place either. That's another restriction of a hale occupation if I remember right. Things like that. Some of them can be pretty intensive. My neighbor across the street ran a, he was selling for a pharmaceutical company and it was the UPS guy coring in 3 or 4 times a week and leaving all these boxes. Of course he was never there so the neighbors had to get them. Councilman Workman: I used to work for UPS. There's an awful lot of that going 1 on in cities everywhere. I don't understand why... Councilman Johnson: Well this wouldn't restrict it. I'm just saying in an I apartment it's slightly, different. Lifestyle, I have no problem with taking the one employee off and allowing it. Councilman Workman: There's a situation near my home where a woman, she's a single parent and she's doing daycare out of her home. Now this doesn't involve the City but it involves their covenants and their homeowners association. The homeowners association says you can't run a business out of your home so effectively they're telling the woman you can't do daycare in your home. There's not a real glut of daycare, in hame daycare for people and if we're kind 11 laty wuncll neet3.ng riarcn 14 1990 I . of backing that up and saying you can't... Councilman Johnson: Now many employees does she have? , j ' Councilman Workman: I think it's just herself. Councilman Johnson: Then she could do it here. ' Councilman Workman: Well she's got covenants. I'm just saying, I'm not quite sure what is going to impact this thing. If people are able to rake a buck. 1 Mayor Ch oriel: Tam, maybe if we just said hare occupations with one employee? Councilman Johnson: Well you don't have to because home occupations is designed ' in another part of the ordinance says you're limited to one employees and customers aren't allowed to care. Here's where daycare is the obvious exception. Custarers have to be allowed to care in for daycare. Councilman Workman: Well I would it 1(c) then by scratching number 6. Councilwoman Dunker: Second. ' Councilman Johnson: Wait a second. You just eliminated hare occupations altogether. You don't want to scratch it. You want to modify number 6. Put a period after the word occupation. 11 Councilman Workman: Period after the word occupation. Thank you Jay. II Councilman Boyt: There's a little discussion here possibly. We're talking about the highest density residence in our city. You're talking about running a business out of an apartment. Initially I was against that altogether. I can ' accept it but I think we're adding to potential problems. Now we're saying it's , not just you running your business. It's you and an employee running your business out of an apartment. We're talking about an intense use here. Why do we want to put this burden on people? IICouncilman Workman: Why do we want to make it difficult for people who have no other option to make a living make one? Not everyone can afford the high valued I property downtown and the square footage to run a business. We've done a lot to artificially inflat that. I'm just saying, tell me what's somebody going to do in their apartment that's going to create this problem? ICouncilman Boyt: Well I have no idea. One of our limits on hare occupations is it says you can't have more than a 220 volt system. Well you can do a whole lot of stuff with 220 volts. Another part of it, industrial kinds of things. Now II we've said that isn't supposed to happen right but there's a hare occupation in your neighborhood, I believe, a barber shop. Isn't there a barber shop in your neighborhood? Beauty shop? IICouncilman Johnson: Beauty parlor. II Councilman Boyt: Beauty parlor in your neighborhood. That's not on our have occupation list but it's going. We're talking about a situation in which we have fairly limited parking here. 12 • City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II Councilman Workman: I guess Bill, I understand. I'd like to pass it the way it IF 1 is and this is maybe a completely different discussion that we can raise as a separate and individual item. Councilman Johnson: Under the definition of haae occupation. Councilman Workman: Because you're right. If a guy's working a metal shop out of his apartment, then we've got problems. I'm not being stupid but I would say that single, female parents and elderly, this would probably affect most. Councilman Johnson: Handicap. 1 Councilman Workman: Handicap. And so if we're, there's probably quite a few people that are out of compliance in this city. I don't think a guy's going to run a tire rim shop. Councilman Boyt: Well, nobody's called ms and said this is a big issue to then. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Cinder seconded to approve the final reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create an R-16, High Density Residential District by amending item, 6 to read: (6) Horne Occupations. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. I Q. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL SITE PROJECT N(). 89-25; WAIVE PUBLIC HEARING, ORDER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Mayor Chniel: I just have one brief carment to make on that and I've had sae discussions with Gary. Is that we're accepting a feasibility study for the Country Suites Hotel site and we're waiving the public hearing. Order plans and specs. Approve plans and specifications and advertising for bids. I have just one small concern is the blue line drawings that we have with it are still preliminary and there's not a PE sign on that particular drawing. My opinion it should have a professional engineer signing off so if there's any modifications or changes that were really made without our knowledge, that at least it's certified as such. Rather than just preliminary. Councilman Boyt: Good plan. I agree with that. Councilman Johnson: So let's table this. Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Councilman Boyt: What do we do though, wait, when we table this? Maybe we just pass it with that revision. Mayor Chmiel: All I can say is that I would not suggest that we table it. Is that it proceed as such but get the PE signature for it. , 13 I IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Gary Warren: Your correct and as I discussed with you earlier. The plans, BRW has been conservative on signing the plans partly because the way the plans have been incorporated into the Country Suites building plan set and they had not been through our final approvals here. We recently got the bus issue completed and the plans do need to reflect the change in the curb cuts for the bus, the 36 foot wide curb cut on West 78th Street as you and I discussed so that will be ' added to the plans as a note here and then they will be complete for distribution and I would request the Council to consider approving it with that understanding. IIMayor Chmael: With that understanding I would so move it. Councilwoman Dinler: Second. 1 Resolution #90-31: Mayor Chmiiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept II the feasibility study for Country Suites Hotel Site Project No. 89-25; waive Public Hearing, order Plans and Specifications, approve Plans and Specifications with the understanding that the plans get a PE signature, and Authorize Advertising for Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. U. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF AUXILIARY PUMP FOR BOOSTER STATION. Councilman Workman: I believe we have raps in the City that show where this pump station. I didn't have time to talk to Gary today but briefly before the 1 meeting, that we, I believe we have maps that show a road going off the end of Lake Lucy Road and connecting with TH 41 and we're putting a pump there and I guess I'd like Gary to tell us if the road is going through there and we're going to be moving the pump later. Gary Warren: Councilman Workman, the existing water booster station does exist on the west end of Lake Lucy Road at Galpin. That is correct. The alignment 1 for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to TN 41 is a paper alignment that has not been had any engineering input except to document that we want to make that connection so we can gather State Aid needs on that on an annual basis which we I are doing. The booster pump which is on the agenda here for approval is to add that to the existing station. There's an existing pot for that pump. When the tine is right for Lake Lucy Road to be extended to the west to TH 41, which I think we all agree will happen sometime, we will look at that alignment similar to what we're doing at this point in time with Lake Drive West between CR 17 and Audubon Road for the access to the new Redmond site. We do have roads where we do have physical separation. It isn't necessarily implicit that that II alignment continue straight through there. There actually could be a physical separation where if you travel north or south on Galpin to get to the next leg of Lake Lucy Road. That's not uncommon and may be the case. On the other hand we may look at moving the full booster station at some time if it's appropriate. But right now the booster station exists and this is just a pump to add to the existing pit. Councilman Johnson: So you'd move the pump right with the booster station? Gary Warren: The whole thing would move. i14 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 • • Mayor Chmiel: Everything would go. Gary Warren: Right. It Councilman Johnson: Makes no difference? It's already there? It's already in the way? Gary Warren: Right. For this installation. Councilman Workman: When would that extension occur? Gary Warren: The MUSA extension up in that area? ' Paul Krauss: That is within the area that we're looking at for the MUSA expansion. As to when it develops and needs a road, that's anybody's guess. , Mayor Chmiel: Most things are temporary are of a permanent nature. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to authorize the purchase , of an auxilliary purl for booster station as recommended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOP DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 2. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Honorable Council. At your January 22, 1990 meeting you established March 12, 1990 as the public hearing date to hear citizen comments regarding modification in Development District No. 1 and TIF District No. 2. Under State Statute the City Council must hold this hearing to take citizen comments and review the proposed changes. Under this plan you're looking at specifically the reconstruction of the State Highway 101 and State Highway 5 interchange. The monies that care from this district would be specifically used for the reconstruction of this roadway. Notices have been sent to both Hennepin County and to Chaska School District for their review. No comments have been received as of yet. Staff recommends approval of this district. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here wishing to address this issue? This is a public hearing as I mentioned. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, Todd uses the word modification. Maybe he can explain what's being modified. I Todd Gerhardt: This last year Council direct staff and we've been working closely with Becky Kelso and Senator Schmitz in getting a special legislative bill passed in that those monies from the tax increment district be solely used for the reconstruction of TH 101 and TH 5 interchange. Right now that roadway 15 , 1 IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II _ system is very difficult for trucks to maneuver as they're heading east on West 78th Street. Through that construction we would, those trucks would be able to Hake that maneuver. We needed special legislation to extend that district for a II 2 year period of time. This plan outlines that those monies would be solely j used for that reconstruction. This is very unique. I think it's the first time in the State of Minnesota that a tax increment district has been extended and it II is extended for just the 2 year period of time and everybody should be credited for their efforts in this, especially Senator Schmitz and Kelso in their efforts. IIDon Ashworth: I should note that this is, at the Hennepin County District there was sale concern as far as spending Hennepin County dollars basically on the Carver County side which TH 101 at that particular is in Carver County. Todd is I correct, this is putting to paper the work that was done with the legislature this past year. ' Mayor C v iel: There was a lot of time. A lot of effort and a lot of lobbying that took place in trying to accomplish this. Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval. ICouncilman Workman: Second. l Councilman Boyt: Before we vote I think it's important to point out here that without that tax increment district, this road wouldn't be straighten out. ITodd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Tax increment districts get a lot of heat from the public and some of it's well deserved. In this case, this is a million dollar project and I the State didn't want it. Nobody wanted it. 3 million dollar project? Excuse ne. 3 million dollar project. So it clearly wouldn't happen without the tax increment district. ICouncilman Johnson: We'd still have TH 101 running past a grade school and two churches. IResolution #90-32: Councilwoman Diner moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve modifying. the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND ' 10.2 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Jo Ann Olsen: I'll just give a brief summary and then I'll let Gary address the I engineering aspects. I believe this was tabled 2 weeks ago at the'request of the applicant to allow the people that live nearby to be present and comment. The reason it was tabled originally was to give staff an opportunity to look at I the connection of the proposed subdivision through Crimson Bay to TH 5. Originally several years ago that was looked at briefly but then with comments from Planning Commission and Council that was not pursued. Today we have new topography that shows that there could be a connection to the south to TH 5 16 :City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II through Crimson Bay. We've also received comments from MnDot that has said that I : that would be an acceptable connection. That they would approve of that. So in light of some of the new information, we are proposing that they do provide right-of-way for connection to Crimson Bay. Not saying that this will happen but to preserve that in case that we do want to improve a street to the south. We still wish to maintain the 30 foot easement going back to the east to still provide a loop through the remaining 80 acres. I think Gary's got the transparencies from before if you may want to go through. If you have questions. Mayor Chisel: I think it might just be a good idea to put that transparency up. Gary Warren: Dave Hempel who's in Hawaii did this so I feel like it's important for me to be able to show off his work. Basically this is I guess the heart of the issue as far as considering the extension of the access. The areas in green here outline the cleared areas already. Here's the easement from the power line that was cleared and it's obviously the access area to the existing buildings. If you recall, when we initially were dealing with this topic back in 1987, this easement had not been cleared and I think that was one of the key issues as fax as the relunctance to consider extending that road further. As things happen, now with the easement cleared, I guess it doesn't provide, the damage is done so to speak from the utility standpoint. Temporary cul-de-sac would be proposed. That's shown here in yellow for access to the property. The area in brown through here would show the ultimate extension of a 60 foot right-of-way from existing Dogwood, Lake Drive as it shows here, to the Crimson Bay Road and obviously without additional 25 feet or actually 35 feet, would have to be obtained if a 60 foot right-of-way would be continued here on the Arboretum property. The concern as far as the street grades and the difficulty with that terrain had been looked at by the developer's engineer and the width of the clearing area that would be necessary... Councilman Boyt: There's an extra bulb in there. You can just flip the switch. ' Councilman Johnson: It's probably burned up too. Gary Warren: I was basically done. The width of the cut through the terrain with a 7% grade proposed by in the alternative looked at by the developer's engineer. By compromising the City's 7% standard and utilizing a 10% grade and some retaining wall, we feel that the width of the cut can be reduced considerably to help minimize that. We have done that in the past in Near Mountain and other areas on an exception basis for items such as topography of the environmental issues came into play... ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Kurt Laughinghouse, 281 Norman Ridge Drive, Bloomington. This piece of land has been before you as you know plenty of times and we appreciate your graciousness and the staff's persistence in creating these heavy duty reports. I really think that the issues have been thoroughly discussed. I'm going to let, if I might, the people most closely involved, the people who intend to purchase the property, speak to the issue specifically but generally we agree with the staff report with two exceptions. We have great reservations about the idea of building a road, or even taking an easement for a road that is going to benefit these properties, 17 II - City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 IIright straight through these two properties. That's number one. And secondly, the 30 foot easement across the north edge of the property is placed where it is ' only because it's the edge of a 20 acre lot. I think that those two requirements are in excess or normal platting, lot serving procedures. I think I should just defer to the two property owners and I know there are other people here who want to speak to the issue and then if there's anymore discussion, we ' can talk some more. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Oriel: Thank you. ' Deanna Brandt: I'm Deanna Brandt. Co-applicant along with my husband Peter for Lot 2. I don't know where that thing went. Maybe I'm here for no reason. ' Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. I've outlined briefly 5 points that I'd like to present to you. Right now our intent for this lard, for the 10 acres, are to build a house and I don't know, possibly have horses or a small hobby farm. Maybe a garden. The choices that this piece of property offers is one of the benefits. One of the things that we really like about it. The lake. The country. The rural and lake setting. The privacy that the location now offers. We also intend to someday have kids and feel that this property is ideal for our ' children to learn about the environment, animals, lakes. Kind of like growing up on a farm. I think that would be nice to have kids have that atmosphere. Our desire for the conditions of the subdivision. We agreed and agree to the ' recommendations submitted by the Planning Cbmmission. This includes providing a 20 foot trail easement on the east and south sides of our property. I can't rake reference to it, and easement for a cul-de-sac leading from Dogwood Road. There was an exception there. They didn't like it being called Lake Road. II That's okay. We don't care. That was just for demonstrative purposes only. We'll call it whatever you guys want to call it. Once it extends into our area there. We do not wish to have a road easement from Crimson Bay Road to Dogwood 11 Road across the middle of our property for the following reasons. Maybe if you can remember what the thing looked like or if you've had same previous things... IICouncilman Boyt: We have a reap. Deanna Brandt: Great. Wonderful. It roughly cuts the property into approximately a 3 acre piece and a 7 acre piece. Here's number one. I've got I five reasons and then I'll get out of here. tz ber one is the road easement provides absolutely no benefit to this particular piece, which is Lot 2, of property while it incurs a majority of the burden. Ltder the current purchase I agreement we have with the seller, Tim Foster, all of our essential needs regarding this property are addressed. We have access to both utilities and to roadways. Your plan actually places a burden on this land making it less II valuable without any benefit to the property. Furthermore, there's absolutely no compensation being given in consideration of this reduction in value and additional burdens being placed on the land. The plat approval without the roadway easement meets all of the legal and normal use requirements for a subdivision of this nature. You are essentially claiming this land today as a so called precautionary measure for future development. I can appreciate your wish to save the City money since we are almost future city dwellers here but I you're essentially doing it at our expense. If the easement were not taken, the other properties around us were to be developed and you decided a road through our property made sense, then the property of course we all know would have to be condemned, we would be compensated. The method ou're using here is to hold Ithe subdivision plat approval, you're holding it hostage while giving us nothing 18 City council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I in return. Point number two. The road easement limits our current and future 1. use of the property. The roadway easement will limit our use of the land in terns of home and garage placement. Fences. We've got 2 dogs and we don't want then running into neighbors places and their's running into ours. Any other ' buildings or gardens that we might want. We couldn't place it on that 60 foot wide swath cutting right through the property. We will also have to refrain fran planting anything in the easement area with the knowledge that anything we - plant, any trees, will eventually be destroyed when a road goes in. Essentially you've taken over a half acre of our property, which is what that amounts to, and rendered it completely useless to us. We've got nothing and also made it difficult to use the property on the other side of the potential road. Wrber 3. The roadway easement contradicts the reasons we are actually buying the property or want to. As we stated previously, our major reasons for buying this property are to enjoy the privacy the land now offers and to provide a safe, healthy environment for our family and animals. You can tell we don't have kids yet. Our dogs are really important to us. We realize that there's a perception that the current road access is considered unsafe. However, the reality is that fire trucks have been able to get in and out of the area. It has already happened. What the easement does do is to potentially take away our privacy and present a danger to our family and animals. I don't mean to really harp on this danger thing but if you own this property and you know you want to go across the street to weed your garden, I mean you have to keep going across this street to your own property. It's kind of crazy. If a roadway is built along the easement, it will present a dangerous situation for our children who would have to cross the street in order to access a barn area, stable or garden, greenhouse on our own property. I just said that. Number 4. Neighborhood opposition. We understand that our neighbors on both sides have acquired property in this area for sane of the same reasons we have. Putting a road easement in with the potential that a road would eventually be built also negates many of their reasons for owning property and living in the area. I believe sane of them are also here tonight to voice their opposition to this plan. We darn to speculate I that you would find no one fram this area that wants this plan adopted with the road easement. Finally, number 5. Lack of an overall plan for any future development in this area. Lastly, we don't know what the plans are for future development in this area. In fact in hearing and reviewing same of the previous minutes, there doesn't seem to be a plan for development, the big overall plan. Without any plan, why should we be burdened at this time for potential future development. It would seen to make more sense to decide where roads should go. When and if the properties can be developed rather than burdening us for years until it happens. Do you have any questions? Mayor Qsniel: Anyone have any questions? At this time, I guess not. Thank you. Anyone else? Ken Daniels: I'm Ken Daniels. I've been before you before. I think I've been ' out here 4 or 5 times listening to a number of things. Now I understand you want 600 feet of the property that I have on the west side of my property. That's government Lot 1. Now I'm hearing you want the 30 feet for an easement on the north side. What do you guys want to do, make an airport out of this? And who's going to pay for all the assessments that would carne in there if you put those roads in? Having an easement on the north side just doesn't make sense to us at all. There's nothing there if you look at the property. I think the concern before might have been, which wasn't brought out, with regard to the easement over the west side. I can see that. My purpose in granting her 19 11 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II ' the easement was so she's have some access to her property. That's the only way she'd have an access to government Lot 2. I don't object to that. But to take 1 the north end of this property just doesn't make sense and I think you people ought to have your head examined for doing that. You are trying to make an O'Hara field of it under the circumstances. You're saying that 1,130 feet of the north side of that property, there should be an easement of 30 feet on that. Then you're saying on the other side, 600 feet. You should have an easement for 60 feet. I don't go along with it and I think you're crazy. Now the thing that was brought up before was access and ingress off of TH 5 onto Crimson Bay. I think it was discussed that that might be a problem on anybody's left turning off of TH 5 going east. I don't know if that's been studied or not. I don't have anything more to say. I think that if you do what you're asking for, you may involve yourself in a lawsuit. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Ken, I might just add that I don't think we're crazy but appreciate your comments. Nick Dennis: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council members. My name is Nick Dennis and I own Lot 5 in Crimson Bay. I'm a little remiss on what's going on because I haven't been very active in following this. When I originally bought the lot I II got a letter with the City letterhead that was given to me along with other materials and things to look at when I bought the property but it said on the second page, line 12. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the southerly and easterly property lines. I wasn't really aware that that was going to be a road. My concerns are that there's really no planned transportation scheme overall of what's going in there and with the Arboretum across the street. With cars going in front of the lots. What's the plan? I don't really know what it is and I guess I'm concerned from the standpoint, there's some pretty nice maple trees. There's a drainfield in front of my lot that I'm concerned might have to be reworked. I guess my overall concern is I think there ought to be an overall transportation plan before this is done. That's my only comment. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, meters of the City Council. My name is Dan Herbst. I'm at 7640 Crimson Bay Road. As I reiterated the first time I stood before you, there was a great concern with our access to TH 5 with 5 lots. I'm kind of wondering where that concern has gone now. It seers like your concern with 5 properties creating egressing from that site with the busy II Arboretum traffic there, you seer, to have no concern now with bringing out the whole loop road and the people that live on Dogwood and Tanadoona. I also agree with the previous speaker, Mr. Dennis. It seers somewhat arbitrary if you're II just taking an easement without the benefit of an overall transportation plan to where you're going to service that property in the future. It seers that with 80 or 100 acres that's going to be developed sometime in the future, there's substantially less traffic on TH 41 than there is on TH 5 and we're not II compounded by the Arboretum. I think that ought to be the most logical spot. It is true, when the approval for Crimson Bay was made by the City Council, there was a 20 foot easement for trail purposes placed over the 25 foot, II additional easement that was placed on this side. I'm wondering what the plan is for that trail now. If you're going to want a 60 foot easement that doesn't even line up with the 25 foot easement. So those are my 3 questions. I'd like ' to see if someone can address those. 20 City Council Meeting - Marcn l.z, twu i Mayor C iel: Is there anyone else? Time Foster: I'm Tim Foster, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, I Council p bers. I've spoke to this issue before and obviously you've heard from a number of the residents and the proposed new residents and it appears that there's somewhat of an undue hardship I think with the number of easements. II It's just two lots that they're basically asking for and there's approximately 120,000 square feet of easements that are being asked for 2 residential lots which seems to be a fair amount. When in reality to continue the road the way II they had agreed to with just off of Dogwood or Lake Road, I think is in my opinion something that the proper time to take the necessary easements would be with an overall transportation plan and when this property is developed. So in view of the comments that I've made that are on record in the past, I think it's II just an undue hardship for just two residential lots coming in to have easements almost all the way around it for roads or for trail so I hope you take that into consideration and just let them build their haves and when it develops, come in II later. So thank you. Mayor Ciriel: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else? II Fred Hyde: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Fred Hyde. We're the owner of Lot 1 at Crimson Bay. We're currently residing in Plymouth and getting ready to move to Crimson. We're not as directly affected as a number of the people II who have spoken this evening but we did want to be heard that we're also opposed to the proposed easement. Again, not because we're directly affected by loss of property but from a practical appearance to us as layman, it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense under the conditions that are laid out right now. No plan and the future need for a road may or may not ever be used but we can see II that if a road is ever put in down there, that you have a very bad intersection II at TH 5 and the Arboretum and Crimson Bay. Currently it's a non-controlled intersection and I don't know to what limit it will be an uncontrolled intersection but being on Lot 1 which is right next to TH 5, it's not very pleasant to envision the number of accidents and what not that could occur down II there next to our property. Also, we have a concern about the safety with children and animals. It has 5 lots in there right now. It's currently set up and there's not going to be a tremendous amount of traffic but if an easement and a road is eventually put through, that's going to increase the danger to II everybody in there and there doesn't seem to be, at the outset a lot of benefit for the general public to that access road being through there or an eventual II road being through there. And we have the same concern about the future possible crime going up with strange traffic coming in and out of a residential area which there really isn't a great need or seem to be a great need to increase these risks for not a lot of reasons. So thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Fred. Is there anyone else? John Getsch: John Getsch. Owner of part of the property, the 7 lots that are II along Lake Minnewashta, right where all the green is. We're opposed to this from the standpoint that it's just kind of grabbing the land for the purposes of saying well, maybe this will take care of the problem. About a year and a half II ago a plan was looked at, I think 3 or 4 different alternatives on how to solve the problem of Dogwood Road and a mile long cul-de-sac. I don't see how running this road through is going to solve that problem. You still have how is the II land going to be developed. How is it all going to fit together so we really 21 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 don't see this as a solution to the problem. It's just kind of, well in case we IIneed it it's there. That's kind of our general feeling on it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John. Anyone else? Kurt. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, regarding that 60 foot easement. If the Brandt's were to draw a building permit on Lot 1, if it were approved with that I easement, would they have to have a setback fram that easement? Building setback. Councilman Boyt: Sure they would. IIMayor C1viiel: I would think that they would. II Kurt Laughinghouse: So now instead of occupying only 60 feet, I suppose it's a ' 30 or a 35 foot setback. Councilman Boyt: 35. IIKurt Laughinghouse: 35. 30? IICouncilman Boyt: 30. Kurt Laughinghouse: Okay. So now the City is occupying 120 feet wide. The ' City's preventing the use of 120 feet wide swath of land through there which makes it perhaps nearly an acre of their 10 acres. Let re ask this then. Those red lines were prepared by the engineer, Harold Peterson. Jim Hill and Associates and they do represent a normal way of preparing, of building that II road in there. Obviously that can be confined to sane smaller amount if you use walls. Retaining walls but first of all that's extremely expensive. The question would have to be asked, would the adjoining property owners, which in ' this case is one party, Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, would they then have to pay the easements for on both sides of that road? You're shaking your head yes. Mayor Qr iel: No... II Kurt Laughinghouse: You're saying it's a fair question? That's right. Right. And clearly they shouldn't because they don't want the road. It's not their I road. The road is for the other 100 acres or the 100 acres plus Carp Tanadoona. It's for someone else. And either someone else should pay for that road if it's ever imposed on that land, or the City should pay for that road if it's imposed ' on that land. It is not a benefit to that land. And, and I'll just leave that point and just talk about it for a second, the overall transportation plan. I'm going to ask Jo Ann Olsen if she has a chart that shows the whole 100 acre Do you have a transparency that shows that? Iproperty. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't think I do. I Kurt Laughinghouse: Let me just talk for a second even without a transparency. I think you realize kind of the situation here but look on the eastern side of that drawing. That is the edge of the cornfield. Of that whole 100 acre II property that's been dealt with here over the last couple years, sacs 30 or 35 are wooded and that ends there where you see that green line on the east side and then the balance is cornfield. It's not wooded. We don't know at all. Let _ _ 22 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 re step back and grant you the point as you all have made, and your staff members have rade, that you have to take the birds eye view of this and the II future view of this development. This whole corner of TH 41 and TH 5. I can see that. I think everybody involved can see that but if that's true, which I concede, we haven't yet taken a birds eye view of what really, where that road, where that main road that's going to serve the 100 or 200 acres to the north, should be. Perhaps it should be there. Probably not. Probably not when you look at the topo and you look at the woods on this end. I'm sure that you all have traveled Dogwood Lane by now probably more times than you care to and that is a treacherous, narrow land on the edge of a bluff. If you drive too far to the west on that road, you'll tumble down a hill. Well that's not where, I don't think, necessarily anyway, where you're going to put that main road that will serve that 160 acres or 200, whatever it is up north. You may well put it to the east of that woodline and go even further, and I hope the representative from the Arboretum isn't here tonight because he's, reading his letters his a pretty tough guy, but you may well have to go further east and properly go further east and go through the Arboretum for the best development of that property. But if you install an easement here, if you take the easement here, set aside whether it's right or not or proper, but if you do, then that's where you'll put the road. The easement's here. A developer comes in and buys Courtenoy's 80 acres and said I want the road where the easement is. Public property. Petition for the road and you put it there, even if it isn't the best. So I think that the plea that has the most power in this whole issue is here's a 100 acre property. The owner in effect sold it to 3 different parties. • They want to build 3 different single family homes. They ought to be able to do that without a great deal of imposition. But the discussion isn't heading that way, well I don't know where the discussion. Council hasn't discussed it this evening but the recommendation of the staff doesn't head that way. It says well we've got these guys here under the microscope. Now's the time to get the easement. I don't think it's fair. It may not be the best planning and it certainly may not be environmentally the best scheme for this property. Thank you. Mayor Cvniel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Discussion. Councilman Johnson: I've got a question for staff. In our old alternate B from the relocation study we spent a bunch of money on a few years back and went through a lot of heartache on, we called for making that connection to Crimson Bay that would eliminate that fairly long cul-de-sac and poor access conditions for emergency response and also would make a connection into Dogwood by going up the south side of this property and around the north side and back down basically. Jo Ann Olsen: Which one? B? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. It's Alternate B, Exhibit 3. It's right behind the staff report a ways back here. But we're not asking for any easements to the. See at that time we had thought that we couldn't rake a 10% grade or even a 7% grade up that hill but there's always been this concern. That's why we kept 25 foot roadway easement from Crimson Bay over. To give a backdoor to Crimson Bay and a back door to Dogwood. They're two long cul-de-sacs with potential problems. Rind of like Russian roulette. You know 5 out of 6 times you don't have a problem. It's that sixth time when the fire engine can't get through or the paramedic can't get through in the middle of a storm. Does it make a little 23 ' City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II I pore sense at this point to extend the easement up the edge of the Arboretum -- property versus going on the north side and going right smack through this 1 particular lot? So that in the future we could extend a road down from the east down the south property line and then intersect the 25 foot easement there. I Gary Warren: You're talking about Exhibit 6, Alternate D Jay? IIMayor Chmael: Alternate B. Exhibit 3. Councilman Boyt: Have you got a transparency of that one Jo Ann? IIPaul Krauss: Afraid not. Gary Warren: I think it shows as Alternate 6. ICouncilman Johnson: That's about halfway through. See that way we didn't cut up their property. That one lot. Our current zoning ordinance is what's I holding us back here. The lots have to be 10 acres. Or the lots have to be 2 1/2 acres. Councilman Boyt: 2 1/2 acres. It's a 1 in 10. II Councilman Johnson: Yeah, with 1 in 10 density. I mean this thing could theoretically be split. The lot to the north of the proposed street and the lot II to the south. Or to the east and west. 1 Mayor Cruel: Jo Ann, you're talking butting up to the Arboretum property. IICouncilman Johnson: That's assuming the Arboretum at soma time might, I don't see any indication that the Arboretum would ever want to leave. I think we made a mistake a few years ago and I probably said it then. Taking only 25 foot I along the Arboretum property from Crimson Bay because the chances of ever getting the other 25 foot are slim. At that time we should have gotten the full city right-of-way in there. There's an opportunity lost because we've only got 1 25 foot right-of-way and there's not much you can do for a 25 foot right-of-way. One way road. I Jo Ann Olsen: We talked about the roadway easement coming through. Turning around rather than coming right up the middle. Councilman Boyt: I remember when we discussed that. Why did we rule that out 3 I years ago or 2 years ago? _ • Jo Ann Olsen: This was more for just to look at alternatives and the cost I Ibelieve was one of the reasons and the topography. Councilman Johnson: Why are we taking the land from these lots? Why not the other lots? The third lot that's being created here. We're creating three lots I right? Jo Ann Olsen: No. This is already a separate. 1 Councilman Johnson: Oh, this is where we already created four lots. At one time we created 3 lots in here. II 24 II Jo Ann Olsen: No. It began with 100 acres. And then it came in with a 3 lot split and then that just died. Then the 80 acres was split off and because it • - II was large enough, it just went straight, it didn't have to go through the City approval process. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so the 80 acres are no longer involved with this? ' Jo Ann Olsen: No. Councilman Johnson: So now we've got a 20 acre site that's trying to be subdivided. Jo Ann Olsen: Into two. Councilman Johnson: Ah ha. And the 80 acres got away without any impact. The 80 acres split got away without any impact. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We didn't have the opportunity to get easements. Gary Warren: That alternate was shown in the feasibility study, bchibit 6 or ' close to that. I think it pointed to the fact, the reason we were thrust into the feasibility concept was to try to crystal ball if you will and keep the options open for the future. I think that's all that staff is saying at this time is that as it's been discussed by several people this evening, where's the plan? Where's the concept? It's the chicken and the egg sometimes here. When I . the land is ready for development, especially in areas of tough access and tough topography, it's very valuable to the City from a road access standpoint to have ■ options. To have easements that are available to either use or not use. You can look at the Carver Beach area for example. We have lots of paper streets and easements and things there that have never been used for various reasons. Topography and otherwise. Looking at this option that Jo Ann just sketched out, I think part of the interest, especially from a dollar standpoint or assessment standpoint against properties, is to try to take the most direct route of constructing roadways so that you are minimizing the assessments as much as possible against the property. Here we'd be running quite a long distance to get to the same point at additional costs that would be questionable as far as assessing against the rest of the subdivision, depending on how it was subdivided. I would say at this point in time it's difficult but any number of scenarios can be put together for roads through this subdivision or this property. This happens to be a direct route and a way of eliminating two long cul-de-sacs and that's I think why the emphasis has gotten to this connection here. _ Councilman Johnson: That makes a lot of sense. This particular plat has to cane in because there's no street frontage for these two lots? Is that why it's being. The 80 didn't have to come in because it met all the requirements? Why does this one have to care in? Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe Roger can explain that but State Statute. Roger Knutson: Yeah. State Statutes provide that if your property is more than 20 acres in size, has more than 500 foot of width, you aren't a subdivision under your ordinance and you don't have to see the City. You can just go ahead 1 25 c.aa.� WOa.a aacc�ar� aJaJ.% &I 1L, 1771!! I and do your division and go down to the County and record it. ICouncilman Johnson: As long as it's a straight one division? If they tried to rake four lots out of it. Roger Knutson: They can rake 100 lots out of it as long as each lot is at least 20 acres in size. ' Councilman Johnson: That's why they got exactly 20 acres. Roger Knutson: Good guess. Councilman Johnson: I understand the 80 acres is being built upon by a private individual that's putting up a tremendous hare. I haven't seen it yet but I've heard something about it. Generally that's not the type of person that puts up that kind of house wants 80 acres around their house and they're not going to be looking to subdivide and put a bunch of $100,000.00 hates around hire. I don't know where this is going but... Mayor Chniel: Yeah, I was just going to ask, what's the point Jay. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm kind of thinking out loud. Dogwood has always been a problem. Like I say, it's a gun ready to, we've played Russian roulette and 5 people have taken their turn and it hasn't gone off yet. Crimson Bay we've only taken 1 or 2 shots on the gun. With both of them there, I think it makes sense ' to me to make that connection. It did when I was here for Crimson Bay and got that through but it's a tough thing to happen to that lot. I think it's for the overall public good eventually. Then if that 80 acre ever does develop, which ' I kind of doubt it might for a very long time unless something really drastic ; happens, maybe we won't need that. But it's better to have that now than try to condemn somebody's house and move their house or garage or something like that if they build upon it. ' Councilman Boyt: Well maybe I can move this along a little bit if you'd like. ' Mayor C1 iel: Go ahead Bill. Councilman Boyt: I find there's a lot of irony in these situations with long cul-de-sacs that are being put through. It wasn't long ago I was sure fighting ' one of them. The Council has talked about this earlier and maybe this is the impetus to get it done. That we sure could use a comprehensive road plan for this city. That when Crimson Bay came through and we didn't win the fight to have that easement off the end of the cul-de-sac, I think we may have set the tale for what's going to happen tonight. If you live on a cul-de-sac, you don't want it put through. I can't imagine somebody coming in and saying they now what the cul-de-sac put through. on the other hand, as Jay has mentioned, as we ' talked about a month or so ago, there's a lot of good reasons to minimize cul-de-sacs. We have same of the people tonight saying take the big view but ' don't take it now. And this is only too natural for all of us to say not in my back yard. You ought to do it but not now and there are same very good reasons for why not now. We've heard that all. I don't think I need to go through them. I think we need a comprehensive answer and MnDot is saying we'd rather ' have you go out TH 5 than TH 41. That's in the staff report they prefer the exit at Th 5 through Crimson Bay or maybe same other place. We're dealing with ' 26 Arboretum property and they're saying not over our dead body are you going - II the P pe . . g to get and I can just imagine the challenge of trying to take land away from the Arboretum. Interesting situation to have one government body trying to condemn property from another one. So I think the answer that nobody wants, I don't li want it, but probably the truth of the matter is, we're never going to put this road through. That's not the answer I want. I want the road to go through but folks, unless you're really convinced that we're going to, that this is real II important. It is important. I guess what I would like to direct staff to do and I'd be willing to table this until we get it. I want to know how the roads are going to go in that area. I want to know how are we going to get any other II access into this besides Tanadoona and until we know that, maybe we can't give us this easement which we're probably never going to exercise but raises a lot of grief. Just a month ago the new homeowners were saying we won't buy it if II you split our property up. We've heard about a lot of economic impact and I recognize that it's another economic impact to put off the decision but if we don't have any other way out of this piece of property, we're never going to get one without a plan. I'd like to see us have a plan before we turn down the II chance. Councilman Johnson: One of the controlling factors is the Arboretum because they've only got 25 feet off of Crimson Bay and the other 35 we need is University of Minnesota property. If they ever develop, which is probably even farther out than what the guy that bought the 80 acres would be, that's one time we can get the other 35 feet and then maybe the whole 60 feet going up through II their property. Councilman Boyt: Have you been out to the Earl Brown farm? Up in the St. Paul II campus. There is development all around that place but the University isn't talking about selling it. Councilman Johnson: Universities never sell land. II Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I'd like to see staff directed to come back to II us with some sort of a plan for how to get a comprehensive road plan in this area. Particularly this area. Eventually the whole city and I'd like to see us hold up on this until we find out what that's going to be. Councilman Workman: I think if public safety had a chance to look at this, and I they didn't meet this month, that they'd probably, where's our public safety guy anyway? Upstairs. He's probably listening to us upstairs. That public safety would probably suggest that we put this through. I don't think this connection II is baseless by any sense of the imagination. When we were asking questions about the new Near Mountain, I think it's the 7th and final or 8th and final phase of Near Mountain and I asked, well why couldn't we have one connection up on that hill. That had to be one-third the length of this and I was told II because if something's blocking the road that a fire truck couldn't get to the top of the hill, then everybody would die on top of the hill or something. It II would seem tope that this is magnified by 4 at least and the connection. I too think that we need to maybe look at this thing a little bit further. Mk. Laughinghouse at the podium, you should know better than anybody that city II government does things that don't always make people happy. How tall people can build buildings next to residential, etc.. It's really tough sometimes to take the proactive birdseye view and here we are attempting to do that for homes that aren't even planned yet and we're being told it's a bad birdseye view which if II 27 I II City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 • I lived on Crimson Bay Road I'd be having a heart attack right now. I find it II - very difficult to split this lot, apparently it splits it into, it could potentially split it in and it could be sold off on the lake as something else. I'm not quite sure how that works out but I believe in a transportation plan as well as anybody and I thought we were beginning to do that with this. MnDot did agree with sane of it. There's a lot of it that's missing obviously. The entire pie that maybe we need to look at and I rarely, as Bill knows, demand ' trail easements fray, people because or roads because it is an infringement on what people want to do. This is a very beautiful area out here. But everything that I have learned on this Council about this long road, which may or may not be developed while we all live, goes against everything that engineering has ' ever talked about. So this is no deviation. I guess I might need more information. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Basically I feel that I'm not, we do need more information and I guess one of the things that I talked to Don Ashworth about today was the possibility here of MnDot making same improvements on that roadway to improve access into and out of Crimson Bay. Don, did you have any comments on that? ' Don Ashworth: No, I did not get an opportunity to relay those to Gary to find out his reaction. I guess the question was really one of would the State ' Highway Department be considering any type of a median extension as a part of upgrading TH 5. I do not have an answer for you this evening. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's certainly something I think that we should take into consideration because I do think there's a safety problem, it could be a 1 potential safety problem there. Also, Paul isn't this the land when we're now considering extending the MUSA line, isn't this land in there? ' Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, this is outside the area that we're looking at. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It is? Okay, so the potential for development is not imminent? ' Paul Krauss: Wouldn't anticipate it, based on this plan, until after the year 2000. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would favor Bill's proposal to table this until we can get a comprehensive road plan as well if that would be the desire of the rest of the Council. ' Gary Warren: Concerning Councilwoman Dimler's question on TH 5 improvements. We have a right turn lane as it exists into Crimson. TH 5, and we're seeing I this out of our current Eastern Carver County Transportation Study that's in a very preliminary fashion, but the demands on TH 5 appear to be significant enough to justify a 4 lane road all the way out to Waconia eventually but time obviously is going to be a factor and money. But interpretting the comments II that Dave Hempel received from MnDot, which he included in his earlier staff report, MnDot would entertain at this intersection, turn lanes as a minimum to address the traffic movements that are proposed for this location. I think as II you see at Market here now with our new intersection there, that's a significant safety improvement to the intersection like that without even having the four lanes all the way out to that point. ' 28 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: You said turn lanes? 1 Gary Warren: Turn lanes. Councilwoman Dimler: I would feel more comfortable putting a road through there in the future if we had better access to TH 5. Mayor Chrael: Yeah, I'd like to come up with sane kind of a solution to this ' thing but I too see sane real given problems here. Trying to address some of these concerns. I think we've got to do a little more, have a little more study and get sane more additional information or try to care up with a conclusion to do what's best for everybody. Try to make everybody happy which almost makes it impossible. Kurt you know that. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, I was going to agree with Councilmamber Workman. ' It's not the Council's duty to make everybody happy and you can't do that. I agree but I'd like to discuss this safety business for a minute from this chart. Everyone understands the situation in having a cul-de-sac that is a mile long, or however long it is down at this point. Taking this easement though, all the discussion, that portion and everything in it, that the road will not be built through there until sewer and water canes. So you're not solving a safety problem for 10 years but you are imposing a burden on this lot right away. There's a dozen other solutions to this problem and they may include, let's put it this way. When this was first brought to the Planning Commission, I went to the Planning Catmission meeting a year or so ago. One of the Planning Commissioners said, can't we deny a plat if the plat is premature I think for utilities? Something like that. You can help me with the language. That's part of your code but if the 80 acre parcel that is now Cortenoy's parcel and yes, they are building a huge home and I don't expect them to develop but as we know, things can happen and they can change their plans. If they propose to develop 80 acres and they have only one access to TH 41 over Tanadoona, there you can say to that proposed developer, that sewer and water sitting there on TH 41, there you have a right to say you can't put 160 homes on one access. There you have a genuine new safety problem. You could say to that would be developer, and there isn't a chart that we could put up here, you can say find another way to get to TH 41. Have a loop road or create sane loop road or do something that rakes that a legitimate entryway into that 80 acre parcel. Or you can require that developer to purchase enough land through here or across here or almost anything else. There you have a legitimate, that's the time to create the solution to the problem of development but just to take the easement here doesn't solve the safety problem for the current residents or the people of Crimson Bay at all until the road is put in. However, there is another solution and that is this hated NSP easement. It's really travelable. Mayor Chmiel: Not NSP. ' Gary Warren: Minnesota Valley. Kurt Laughinghouse: Minnesota Valley. Friends of mine. They do good work... ' But I think that your emergency equipment, if there's a felled tree somewhere on this Tanadoona which is a precarious road, that darn easement is probably more 11 travelable than the road. So there is an alternative there. Now it did, Councilman Workman brings this question up. The public safety approval. The 29 ' 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I public safety people did look at this and they're the ones who required this cul-de-sac be built. Originally we had designed it down here at the corner of the two lots and then after discussion staff agreed to have it designed up here at this end of these two lots so it could better serve the 3 or 4 lots in this ' neighborhood. So this is the result of current public safety thinking. Now staff may want to check me on exactly what they said and when they said it but they did look at this plat as you see it. It's not as if they haven't had a ' chance to look at it. Councilman Workman: When was that? Kurt Laughinghouse: Somewhere in the last 2 months. They looked at this plat. That is correct isn't it? ' Jo Ann Olsen: They have reviewed this. Councilman Worksan: Have they talked about this easement? Paul Krauss: We're not certain. Councilman Hoyt: What they reviewed was what kind of turn around circle do we ' need if this is a cul-de-sac. They didn't review should we put it through or not so we've got to be straight about what's being discussed. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too of Paul and Jo Ann. If we were to wait until we had a comprehensive road plan, what time frame do you anticipate you could get that done in? Gary Warren: If I could I guess respond. Council had a feasibility study done in 1987 on road access to address this question I guess. In there we looked at, I don't know, 6 or 7 different alternates for access to the site. I would ' I guess like a little better direction from Council how much further or what additional we would be looking at at this time to address that question that perhaps wasn't addressed in that feasibility study. A lot of it comes down to as we've all seen when a developer comes in with 80 acres or whatever, he comes in and he gives us a plan and then we, there are sane judgment calls here. I think we've really looked at the topography and some of those access issues in a number of different potential accesses to the site here already in that feasibility study. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have any idea on timewise what? ' Gary Warren: Timewise? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, if we were to do that, how much would we be holding this up? If we were to require a comprehensive road plan before we would approve this? ' Gary Warren: Again, it depends on the detail and I'm looking for soma direction on what we're missing from the original feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: Do you think there's anymore detail to be had? At this point, when we're talking 20 to 30 years in the future, can we make a comprehensive road plan for an area that won't be developed under current ' 30 1 City •C7ouncil Meeting - March 12, 1990 standards? We don't know what the standards are going to be in the year 2000. In 2020 if we're even driving cars anymore. If we have any old dinosaurs to stick in our tank anymore. II Councilwoman Dimler: So this feasibility study is what? That's it? There's no II need to go any further? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Bill and I went through this a year and a half ago. II Chmiel: Yeah, this is back in '88 that they had the feasibility. Councilman Johnson: The question was a little different. I Councilman Boyt: Jay, the question then, part of it was the people on Dogwood wanted to know, should we make this a public street? Should the City take I over? How much is it going to cost us? What will be the destruction to trees and so on? That was one study. Then we came in and when Tim Foster was looking at developing it, we did you know the thing Jay just talked about. One of the options was let's loop the road all around the property. But I think what we II need to look at is, we want two accesses into this piece of property someday. We want to protect that when we get the chance to, I want to protect it when I get the chance to protect it. This isn't looking like a good possibility. I'm II relunctant to let this one go if I don't have anything better. Can we find something better? Gary Warren: I would venture that we could put in any of a number of access I loop roads through the subdivision, either back out to TH 41 which would be the path of least resistence so to speak when I guess the most likely subdivision scenario would be that a developer comes in. Buys off the remaining parcel out II here and says here's my plan and here's how I'm going to put the roads in and at that time Council looks at completing the loop road back out to TH 41. Roger Knutson: A possibility I was discussing with Paul. It hasn't been II discussed before, or at least I don't t think so, is in lieu of taking an easemen t at this time you could officially map the property. The official mapping II process as you recall preserves the corridor for a future right-of-way yet does not take the easement. The only impact it has is they can't build in that corridor once it's officially mapped without coming in and getting a variance and they can't get a variance unless they can show they can't build anyplace II else on their property. Councilman Boyt: The drawback to that is it does about 5 things that these II people don't want done because when you officially map it, as you said, you can't build in there so it's basically saying to them there's a road. It's doing almost what we're doing now. The only difference is that we're saying that the City is then going to pay for the property when we need it. I Roger Knutson: That's true with the exception that if you were just to leave it, say approve this without the easement going through and just say some day we II might be back and see you and knock on your door or as long as that is a possibility and I would assume it always would be or could be a possibility, there's always that concern that you might knock on their door in the future and II say we want your property. As you can do, they can go through my house with a street or through yours. This just makes it, puts theme on official notice that 31 I City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 this is an alignment we're serious about and we suggest you not build on it and you have to go through a process if you want to. The only reason we threw it out is it's kind of a middle ground. ' Councilwoman Dimler: How long does the official mapping process take? Roger Knutson: We need an alignment study. Gary Warren: An alignment and center line survey. ' Roger Knutson: Center line survey. How long does that take? Gary Warren: A few weeks. Couple weeks. Roger Knutson: So 6 weeks. A month process. Councilman Boyt: But this is not an easier out because we're saying to those ' people you can't put your house in there. When you buy this piece of property you're buying it with the prospect that it's going to be a 3 acre and a 7 acre piece someday. 15 years from now. Whenever. Someday. The 5 things that... ' Councilman Johnson: 4 or 5. Councilman Boyt: 4 or 5 that Mrs. Brandt listed as her reasons for opposing ' this, we've still got them all if we do the official mapping. Roger Knutson: Well, sane of the reasons she was talking about, if I can jump in, were concerns about, she mentioned issues like taking. Those issues vanish if you use the official mapping. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. That's the one issue that does vanish. ' Councilman Boyt: We pay for something we don't have to pay for. That's good. Councilman Workman: How bad do we want something if we have to pay for it? Councilman Boyt: I don't think we have a good answer here and... ' Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure a study's going to give us a better answer. Mayor Qmiel: Well it could conceiveably Jay give us a better idea than what we've got existing. I think what we want to do is try to be as reasonable as we ' possibly can. I think at this particular time Bill made a motion to table it. I would second that. That we come back with a feasibility study on this and determine what we can do after that. I've looked at some of these previous I feasibility studies that we've got here now and sane of these even look logical enough to me at this time but I think it's something that we should look at and discuss at another time. IICouncilman Johnson: How much money are we going to authorize for this? Mayor C oriel: Total dollars, how many dollars do you think will cost? 32 ;City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: Excuse me but I don't think we have to spend a lot of money. I Mayor ar iel: I'm trying to find, determine total dollars. Gary Warren: I believe we spent $3,500.00 on that original feasibility study. Mr. Foster foot the bill on that one. That would be the other question I guess is who's expense would be used. ' Councilman Boyt: What we're talking about here is rethinking the issue. I think the data is there. We've got sane new topo maps we didn't have a couple years ago that might help us sort through sane of this stuff and I'd like to think that we're talking $200.00 or $300.00 or $500.00 worth of staff time and not talking about thousands of dollars to reanalyze information that's already been basically looked at. ' Tim Foster: Going back into the history of this, again it was looked at for a development of 32 lots and I think you spent a fair amount of time when you looked at that and they withdrew that prior to going to 2 1/2 acres. This study was done which was paid for. The only thing that that study didn't do, it had several alternatives but no loops. It had no, it was just two cul-de-sacs so I don't know if we need, have to be rocket scientists to understand it if we just put a loop there, that a loop would work. Okay? So therefore I think it still gets down to the point we're looking at two lots and what do we want to impose on two lots? Let's say we only wanted one lot. Then as Jay had mentioned, well how did we miss out on the 80 acres? You know you'd miss out on the whole deal if we just wanted one house on 20 acres. Okay? So therefore it's still the fact that we're looking for 1 more house, 2 lots and it seems to bean awful imposition just for 2 lots. You know because of the fact that if I was just going to build a house there personally and move from where I am now. Still stay in Chanhassen. We wouldn't even be here so we're asking for one more lot and just imposition after imposition so I would suggest and recommend that you consider not tabling it and just do it and go after the roads when it's going to care in for development. The MUSA line is beyond the year 2000. I mean how far in advance do we have to plan? And I understand Jay that well let's get it while we can but the point being is that it's an awful imposition for 1 more house. So thank you. Councilman Johnson: It's too bad that the 80 acres were able to go bye-bye without... Mayor C oriel: That's something that's gone and forgotten. We best deal with the issue in front. - Cbuncilman Boyt: But that is a case where we might go back in and officially map the 80 acres if we decide that that answers our comprehensive road plan. I guess I'd take issue with Tim and say the best time in the world to do this is when the pieces of ground are big. When they get to be 5 acres, it gets tougher and when they're 2 1/2, it's tougher. Now is when it's the easiest time to do it. It is an imposition. It's a very important imposition for the City to be planning. II 33 I Councilman Bo v yt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 20.9 acres for Peter and Deanna Brandt for further study on the access 11 - situation. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the notion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. I Mayor Chisel: Gary, with the discussions that we've had, can you see if you can pull something together so we can have something? Do you have a timeframs that you're going to need? IIGary Warren: We'll be hard pressed to get it back at the next Council. I would say the... IMayor Ch iel: The first Council meeting in April is what you're saying? Gary Warren: Yeah. April 9th. IIMayor Chr►iel: Okay, we'll bring this back on April 9th with hopefully some conclusions. Thank you for caring. Appreciate it. IIWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST, 7007 CHEYENNE TRAIL, CHARLES HIRT, LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION. IIJo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lotus Lake. The property is 1 of 3 that filled a portion of the wetland last...without first receiving -a wetland alteration permit. We went through the process with the Corps of Engineers and 1 the DNR to verify exactly what the DNR wanted to have removed since it was in violation of the DNR regulations also. The DNR has agreed with the applicant to II remove a certain area of fill that's shown in the heavier dark area. What the City staff did was go back through the history to try to determine exactly where the edge of the wetland was to begin with and to require the applicant to remove all the fill that was placed illegally on the wetland. So we are recommending I beyond what the DNR proposed for them to fill and instead of a 25 x 36 x 30 foot area, we are recommending that it be a 25 x 45 foot in depth area to be removed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendation adding ' that it had to be removed by June 15, 1990 and that the applicant, adding condition 5 that the applicant has to submit the plans for city staff approval prior to any grading of this site. ICouncilman Hoyt: I'd move approval. Councilman Workman: Second. IICouncilman Johnson: What about the other two lots? II Jo Ann Olsen: They're coming through. They're going to be seen by the Planning Camdssion the next meeting. The applications came in separately. Staff will be making the same recommendation for them. IIMayor andel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workzran seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #89-1 with the following conditions: ' 34 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 1 II 1. The applicant shall remove 25' x 45' x 30' of fill measuring from the property line adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill will be removed by June 15, 1990, using the typical cross section provided by the DNR. 2. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the restored wetland to provide access to the dock. 3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural state. 1 4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service manual, "Spread, Impact and Control of Purple Loosestrife in North America Wetlands". ' 5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit for City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan. , All voted in favor and the motion carried. S AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FRONTIER TRAIL UPDATE IMP APPROVE PLANS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT J 89-10; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Gary Warren: What would your pleasure be Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmdel: Very lightly. We've gone over this enough times. 1 Gary Warren: Plans and specifications have been prepared as directed. A neighborhood meeting was held February 6th which we were able to discuss and review the plans in the draft form with the interested neighbors who were able to attend the meeting. The controversial item that appears in the plans is a sidewalk along the alignment which as directed by Council we looked at in detail in locating it with the understanding that it was to be brought back for consideration as a part of the plan and spec package. Current engineer's estimate for the project is about $716,000.00. That's without the walk. The walkway is estimated to be approximately $52,000.00 cost. That's with our overhead applied to it. We've been able, we've taken the input from the residents and concerns about the magnitude of the storm sewer improvements that we were looking at in the feasibility study and we have been able to reduce that cost by about $40,000.00 by our detail look at the topography and such. Similarly, through rehabilitation strategy we've utilized has also reduced our sewer rehab estimate by about $63,000.00. On the other side of the ledger, the road sections out there and the soil borings and such that we dealt with have indicated a need for a little bit more significant road section and the costs for the road section have increased. Net bottom line is that we are close I think to the feasibility study estimate. A little bit above it. The elements of the project that were proposed for assessing however are pretty close to our original estimates. The item is before the Council for consideration and approval for authorizing advertising for bids. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, if I may start on that one. Mayor Comael: Yes. Go ahead Ursula. 35 City UUfC11 meeting - Narcn 12, 1990 I II - Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in order to make this simpler and move it along, since 83% of the homeowners on Frontier Trail do not want the sidewalk on either the north or south side of it, and since it is my intention to vote with what the majority of the people on Frontier Trail want, I would move that we remove the sidewalk from the plans and specifications for the Frontier Trail upgrade project 89-10 at this time and we can discuss it clearly and move the rest of it. Mayor andel: Is there anyone else here wishing to address that issue? ' Councilman Workman: I would second her proposal at this time for discussion. Mayor C mdel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Hearing none, is there any ' discussion by Council? Councilman Boyt: Sure. I take issue with the thought that the majority of the homeowners don't want the sidewalk. I think it depends upon what the conditions ' are in which the sidewalk is being proposed. I certainly don't have a comprehensive petition to offer you but what I do have I think is a significant piece of information. If we make sane assumptions about the sidewalk, which I think are pretty reasonable assumptions, all along I think the City assumed that the cost of the sidewalk would be carried by the City. There is, as the original plans were first drawn by Mr. Engelhardt, they showed a 5 foot buffer which I think is the preferred plan of the engineering, probably for same good reasons. But it doesn't match the neighborhood and the fact that there are existing homes. If we eliminate the buffer zone and pat the sidewalk up abutting the curb, which by the way would have been a better idea on Laredo than ' what we've got there. But if we do that and if as the staff report says the trees can all be saved, then I think you're going to find there are a good many people who no longer support the initial petition that they signed. When you II pull those names off of that petition, you find that there is a good bit of concern in the neighborhood about this issue. I don't think it's particularly resolved in the neighborhood and I'd really like to see the neighbors have a chance to think this through same more. This is another one of those decisions ' that's going to be with us for an awfully long time. Yesterday in going through the neighborhood and asking people, given those assumptions and another one about snow removal, which based on our conversation of a week ago at the I Council, I think it's a fair assumption in 20 years of experience in this city with what little sidewalk we've had, the City is not going to require anybody to shovel the sidewalk. The exception would be if the City comes down and shovels II it, or plows it or whatever but we're probably looking at a sidewalk that for in a normal winter is going to be not of use. But 9 months of the year, in all likelihood would be very much of use. There was the homes, the people that were home and unfortunately I didn't get out with this thing until Sunday evening but I of the people that were home, I had 3 homeowners who said they were against it and if there was an overhead or something I'd be happy to show the locations of those. I had a few homeowners who said well, I'm kind on the line either way. I And I had, as you can see, if you go down through, let's see here. If you stop with the Arons, I think that's at the point, well then you go down to the bottom of the list there, you can pick up 7195. But where I try to reach people with the most diligence was on the side with the sidewalk because I felt those were I the people who were going to have the greatest impact. I think put simply, there are a good many people in the neighborhood that if we look at how we can 36 I City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 1 build it rather than how we can make it difficult for people. If we look at how we can make this sidewalk acceptable to people, I think you're going to find a majority of the people that live on Frontier Trail support the sidewalk. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I guess I'd just like to point out that I'm looking at Mr. Loebl's petition here. Has 72 signatures on it. Then this one you just handed us Bill, and I see your nacre is at the top of it. You do not live on Frontier Trail. Councilman Boyt: Well don't count mine. That's fine. But I think people probably expected me to support my own petition. Councilman Dimler: Okay, so you are the initiater of this petition? Okay. When this work was originally done, I would just like to know why you as a councilmember that is listening to what the people want then would go out and go contrary to what they have already told you they want. Okay? I don't understand why this petition was solicited. And even if these 15 signatures now II are legitimate, then that still leaves 56 or 55, no 57 that are on this side and that means a majority, and I had stated that I intend to vote with the majority. II The majority still do not want the sidewalk. Councilman Boyt: Well, I don't know if you want me to answer that or not. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I just don't understand the reason for all this. And the other thing is, where do you come up with the idea that there's not going to be a boulevard? That was never approved by any of the rest of the Council. Councilman Boyt: There was, what I said to people when I went around with the petition is let's make some assumptions. If the assumptions aren't true, then you can forget about the names on the petition. What I was looking at is how can we build a sidewalk to improve the safety on one of the most dangerous residential streets in our community and to do that, we need to eliminate that buffer. Can we build it without the buffer? I'm sure Gary will tell you yes we can. If you look on Laredo, there's only a foot there. That's ridiculous. I mean you don't have a buffer zone. What you've got is 12 inches of grass that you've got to fool with. So we're talking about here is building the sidewalk right adjacent to the 6 inch curb which is a big improvement over putting people on the street. It's not as good as a 5 foot but we're talking about an established neighborhood and a 5 foot buffer zone just isn't going to go in an established neighborhood. And Ursula, if you think that the signatures on that initial petition were fully informed about this, then maybe we don't have anything to talk about. Councilwoman Dimler: Well they didn't know because these plans themselves show the 5 foot buffer so how could anybody know that you were proposing no buffer zone? Do you understand? Councilman Johnson: That's why he did his petition? ' Mayor Chriel: Jay, this is discussion between the two right now. Councilwoman Dimler: But he only got 15 signatures. Okay? I'm saying there's still 57 on the other side so that's the majority. I 37 Councilman Boyt: Well I doubt that. ICouncilwoman Dimler: How can you doubt it? Councilman Boyt: I don't have any problem doubting it. When you go to people ' and consistently they change their mind given these assumptions, I think it raises doubt about the initial petition. I didn't cane in here with the prospect of being able to say to you I now have 78 signatures that want it. I ' don't have the time to do that. What I came in here showing you is I believe, given a different set of assumptions than the initial petition laid out, that people are interested in the sidewalk. And I don't think we're in a position tonight to know that. All we're in a position to know is that this is an issue ' that the neighborhood, I think would like more time to talk about and work through. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you assume that you were one-fifth of the Council and you assumed that we would all go along with the no boulevard. ' Councilman Boyt: Are you not going to go along with that? Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I don't know if it's a good idea. Where are you going to put your mailboxes? ' Councilman Boyt: The mailbox issue is a good issue that needs to be worked out. However, to think that we can't came up with a reasonable solution to where the ' mailboxes go, I'm sure we can solve that problem. And the reason I'm sure we can solve it is Edina has sidewalks and they've got mailboxes in their sidewalk. I haven't taken a good look at that but I'm sure that the engineers can solve that one. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, the other issue is snow removal. The public works cares through, takes it off the street. It goes onto the sidewalk. Okay? ' There's the only place it can go. Then we want to go and the neighbors have to go and shovel it. Where are they going to put the snow? They're not going to put it on their grass. Councilman Boyt: They're not going to shovel it? Councilwoman Dimler: Why not? That's a safety issue. They have to shovel it. We have an ordinance that says they have to shovel it. Councilman Boyt: Ursula, we have never enforced that ordinance and we talked just 5 days ago, and I don't think you were there. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you telling ire that if an ordinance isn't enforced, ' that means it's okay? We've got a problem. Then we don't need that ordinance. Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that a meeting that the City Council held just 1 week ago. The 4 of us who were there said we do not want an ordinance that ' requires people to shovel their snow. Am I right? Councilwoman Dimler: I wasn't here so someone else has to address that. ' Councilman Workman: We all agreed to what? 38 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: That we were not going to require people to shovel the snow off the sidewalks in Saddlebrook. Off the sidewalks in Lake Susan. Councilman Workman: I don't remember agreeing to a comprehensive sidewalks. I I remember standing up when the meeting that I attended had all sorts of other things on the agenda. It didn't have sidewalks. I put on my coat to leave. I don't remember to agreeing to that. Mayor Chmiel: The position that I took to that at that time Bill was that you indicated that the City could plow those particular sidewalks. I wasn't in favor of having the City do that. Councilman Boyt: Well, this probably isn't the time in which to discuss that. that I said to people was, if you sign it, you're signing it with a certain set of assumptions. You're not signing it with a carte blanche, no matter what I want the sidewalk. And what I would maintain and I still maintain this, is that none of you will vote to enforce that ordinance to shovel sidewalks. You won't do it. I'm sure you won't. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I'm going to tell you that you can not say that we have an ordinance but since it's not being enforced we'll just forget about it. There isn't any other ordinance that we do that with. Okay? And also, I do want the citizens to be informed that we do have that nuisance ordinance and in Section 13-2-C(1) it states that all ice and snow must be removed from public sidewalks within 12 hours after the snow and ice have ceased to be deposited thereon. This implies that the homeowner is responsible for that clearance. Okay? Failure to do so is a misdemeanor and is punishable by $700.00 fine and/or 90 days in jail. And at sane point we may not enforce it all the time because we don't need to because most homeowners are reasonable and the public safety officer goes and says, you need to clear this off, they will do it. However, in the case of a personal injury, you can bet that when that case goes to court and we say yes, we do have an ordinance but it wasn't enforced, that the City is in big trouble. Councilman Boyt: Let me ask Mr. Ashworth. Have we ever enforced the ordinance to your knowledge? Don Ashworth: Not to the best of my knowledge. You have to realize that you have, up until this point in time, sidewalks within the downtown area which were plowed by the business. Well really by the City as part of the snow clean-up. The only other section I can think of was right in front of St. Hubert's church. There's a 2 block section and I believe the church has cleaned their section. I'm not aware of anyone cleaning the section that would be the next block down. Councilman Boyt: Well I would suggest to you, as I did a minute ago. If you're determined that people will clean their sidewalks, then we need to take action to enforce that and I suspect the sidewalk on Frontier Trail is a dead issue. However, you haven't demonstrated you're willing to do that and I'll bet you won't. Councilman Johnson: Are we willing to change the ordinance? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Any ordinance has to be enforced. II 39 Councilman Bout: Well not if we change it. We have to get it off the books because you're not going to go into Saddlebrook and tell those people they have II to shovel their sidewalks. I'm not going to. Councilman Johnson: If we're ready to do that, then we can leave that ordinance ' on the book. If we're not ready to go in and tell everybody to do that, then like any other ordinance that's not being enforced and we don't plan on enforcing it, we ought to take it off the books. Roger, what's our problem if ' we take that ordinance off the books? Mayor Chmiel: You don't have an ordinance. ' Councilman Johnson: Besides your firm earning sane extra money for doing the paperwork to do it. ' Roger Knutson: I don't see any. Someone could put together same sort of crazy notion about liability because you're making people walk on the street or something I suppose but you're no worse off there than there are lots of places ' now where there are no sidewalks so I don't see it from a liability or legal perspective an overwhelming problem by not requiring people to. Councilwoman Dimler: There are same neighbors here. Perhaps they would like to ' speak their piece again. Councilman Workman: I'd like to rake a comment before we let the neighbors. Basically what you said was if we're going to enforce an ordinance then we should either remove it or not make it. ICouncilman Johnson: That's right. Councilman Workman: The very next 'item on the agenda is basically a pooper scooper law, which you proposed, which is going to be very, very difficult to IIenforce. Councilman Johnson: No it won't be. IICouncilman Workman: I'll tell you what. I just drove up to the elementary school and there's a dog sitting out there and it was a good looking dog but. And I'm not going to argue... - ICouncilman Johnson: We'll wait for that until the next one. II Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, I'm not going to argue for letting dogs crap on the park but I'm just saying... ' Councilman Johnson: The pooper scooper's going to be a lot easier to enforce than this. This we could enforce this too. I mean this would be very simple to enforce. You just drive around and take house numbers down. 1 Councilman Workman: And I appreciate Bill's continued tanancity with this sidewalk issue because there, it's an issue that will dog us the rest of our days. But we have a situation here where, and I do remember this part of our ' discussion at the special Council meeting we had last Monday night. Sidewalks were not a part of it. I do remember saying that what we are doing with ' 40 I City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 1 sidewalks is we're building another set of infrastructure akin to roadways, I : miniature roadways which for the test of their lives are going to have to be maintained and repaired and cleaned and everything else and it's an additional huge budget item. That was one of the problems 28 new miles or so of trails was going to do and a comprehensive trail plan was going to be, in 15 years we're going to have replace 28 miles of trail. Bill mentioned we do that with roads but I contend we need roads and in sane places we need sidewalks. I'm leaving it to the neighborhood to decide if they need a sidewalk. Mayor Ctrdel: Is there anyone that wishes to say something? ' Councilman Boyt: Before they do, I think... Mayor Chmiel: I think we've had enough discussion Bill. I think we should turn it over to the people. Councilman Boyt: Is that you don't have any way of knowing what the neighborhood wants. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, you're out of order. Is there anyone wishing to say something? Jim Mady, 7330 Frontier Trail: I'm glad to see Mrs. Dimler that you're concerned about safety of the streets 3 months of the year and where the snow's , going to go. How about the other 9 months of the year? The 9 months that kids are out there with their bikes. Their roller skates. Where are they going to be and that's in the street. There were problems with the first petition that came through. When it was presented at my house, it was said that the City wanted to put a sidewalk through. The request didn't care from the City. The request came from Joel Jenkins. He's sitting here tonight. He's a resident on Frontier Trail. Actually owns 2 houses now. The concern was that yes, the City's going to force you to shovel your sidewalk. That was told to me. I know at the Park level, Park Commission level when we look at trails, it has been the • Park Commission's discussion for the last 4 years that I've been on it, that certain areas of this city with trails/sidewalks we would want to have snow removed. Those are areas specifically where kids have to walk to school. They have to walk so those have to be cleared. There were specific areas on trails and sidewalks where we would want then left with snow so that cross country skiers, snowmobilers, what have you, winter sports would have the opportunity of using that public access. That public right-of-way. Last item was the 5 foot median strip. I was told that the neighbor across the street from me would have his beautiful maple tree removed from his yard just to put the sidewalk in. That's not true. I don't know anywhere where the City has removed a hardwood tree for any purpose. What Bill did and I simply haven't had the time to do it this last couple weeks with my involvement in a very good cause that I'm involved with usually this time of year to go out and do it but what he did on Sunday was simply go around and try to find out if there was a way in which the residents of the neighborhood could core to a compromise to get those of us who are very, very seriously concerned with the safety on the street. If we can answer our concerns and those people that live on the roadway who are concerned about the implication of having same of their property eaten up. Those are our concerns and Bill was trying to find the middle ground. I don't believe your earlier petition reflects the neighborhood accurately. I would like to see the City put out, either hold a meeting here or else do a survey or a mailing or , 41 11 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I some sort, have all those people there so we can come with a compromise. Kids safety is an issue that will be with us forever. All we have to do is remove the snow ordinance or rewrite it so that it is specific to the downtown area or to a business area. I don't see a reason why we have to remove the snow 3 II months out of the year. Kids aren't walking those streets. There are very few people walking the streets that time of year. There are a lot of people walking when it's nice. Tonight the temperature was about 65 degrees. My wife was I driving down Frontier Trail from our house down to Riowa Circle. There were 8 people on the street at 6:15 today. There's a lot of useage on Frontier Trail. There always has been. There always will be. It's a major corridor in this I city for people to walk. They get the views of the lake. It connects to a number of places in the city. I think the City is missing a tremendous opportunity and making a very serious public safety mistake if they do not find a way to compromise on this issue. Thank you. IICouncilwoman Dinner: I guess I'd like to tell Mr. Mady that I am concerned about safety 11 months and 29 days out of the year. Okay? So it isn't only a 3 I month issue for re. Also, we've had that argument over and over and over again. Everyone's concerned about safety and now Frontier Trail has been there since what, '63? Tell ire. 1963? Or before. Okay, 1957. And you know our statistics as far as accidents and that sort of thing, and many children have II grown tip there. Many continue and many will continue I'm sure. It just has not been that much of a hazard. I think people are careful and I think parents are more concerned about safety for their own children than anyone else and if they I don't want the sidewalk, then that's what I go by because I feel that parents tore than anyone else knows what's best for their children. So again, I'd just like to say that safety is an issue but sidewalks don't necessarily equate safety. I Pat Pevelko: Your Mayor, City Council members. My name is Pevelko. I live at _ 7203 Frontier Trail. If you're familiar with the area, my house is situated II right on the curve on that Frontier Trail road that we're talking about. It's a very dangerous curve and safety is a very concern of mine too as I do have 2 children 7 and 3 years old. But as I look at it, if we did place that sidewalk I and especially with no buffer, we are now creating a playground for children in that area to ride their bikes on. TO ride their hotwheels on. We are now creating a space for them to be in a danger zone and living on that curve is a I very, very dangerous curve and we've seen that this winter as, if you drive down there and it is icy and it is snowy, you can easily slide into our driveway. And if there was a sidewalk there and kids playing on that, I think we'd have a serious problem. My second concern is, as we talk about the removal of trees. II We do have eight 30 foot to 40 foot pine trees in our yard. In order for those to be removed, they are approximately about 14 inches and the trunks are 14 inches. Now the only machine that can move those trees, okay and replant them, I there's only one in the continental United States and that's down in Florida. And so in order to remove those trees you're going to have to cut them out and take them out. Now in talking with tree people, that's at a value of about I $4,000.00 per tree minimum so we're looking at a $32,000.00 cost to us in removal from our property and that's a major concern of us. I guess those are my two major concerns is that those trees cannot be uprooted and placed back. Even if they could be, the chances of them surviving are 50-50 and as you see I many times, trees that size are not green but they're brown. So those are my two concerns. Thank you. II42 II City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 5 Councilwoman Dialer: Can I ask you, do you feel that your children are safe ' without a sidewalk there? Pat Pevelko: Yes, absolutely. In fact, with the trees that we have there, it serves as a buffer from the street that we have and with the removal of those trees and the addition of a sidewalk, it would create again a playground for the kids to take their bikes on. To go up and down that curve and it would be a very fun ride for the children down the hill and around the curve but as a car cares by and the kids lose control, I think we'd be looking at major disaster. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: So a no median sidewalk would require the removal of those trees? Pat Pevelko: Pardon me? Councilman Johnson: A no median sidewalk would require... ' Pat Pevelko: Any sidewalk would cause the removal of those trees. Any sidewalk there. With a buffer or without a buffer. Those trees would have to be removed. ' Gary Warren: Staff is not proposing to remove those trees, just for Council's clarification. The road is going to be slipped to the inside of the radius on that curvature and we have designed it and believe that we will get by those trees without having to remove them or get under the drip line. Councilman Workman: Even with the sidewalk Gary? ' Gary Warren: That's correct. We're shrinking down the width of the sidewalk and maybe favoring the curb line as you saw on the details for the 5 properties ' where we have landscaping issues. We would be favoring the curb line to get past some of these tighter areas but we're very sensitive and would not propose removing 12 inch spruce or pines or anything of that nature because of the cost. Councilman Workman: I don't know. I do see that we are removing 12 inch spruce. Councilman Boyt: Not removing therm. Councilman Workman: Well it looks like the sidewalk goes right through them. ' Councilman Boyt: Remember that the sidewalk-is 5 feet over from what you see on your map and as Gary just said. ' Councilman Workman: And how wide is the sidewalk? Councilman Boyt: 5 feet. ' Gary Warren: 5 to 5 1/2. The concept plan, if I could Mayor, on sheet 3. If that's what you're looking at Tam, is not consistent. I mean it's an overview plan. The actual details on getting past some of these, the restraints will be field fit with the contractor. There may be other areas where we're going to move it in and out. The details for the 5 properties show, in the back, the , 43 I IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I - accurate locations and in this area we also would be favoring the curb line. Not planning to do with those trees, no. Mayor C2vdel: Anyone else? Joel Jenkins: Since I was, Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail and I think the ' other one is 7305. I do have a have for sale. Mayor Chmael: You can't plug it on TV. ' Joel Jenkins: That requested that at least the sidewalk be put in the feasibility study since the engineering drafting work by Bill Engelhardt was not going to be any additional cost. I guess I'm still very much for the sidewalk and I think that since the initial discussions with Bill indicated that it was going to be on the side of the street where my existing house was, and then they moved it across the street to the house that I bought. Even though it's going ' to take 10 feet out of my front yard, or 15 feet, because I think they're probably going to slide the street over a little bit on that side as well, I still think that a sidewalk is a safety issue. However, I think that we're totally missing the point of the fact that we look back at the history of ' Frontier Trail. Now until last year that was a dead end cul-de-sac with only our friends and neighbors traveling it. Even during that time there were 3, according to my understanding, tragic deaths that happened on Frontier Trail. I would not want my 3 year old or 5 year old to experience that. Nor would any of the other younger children in the neighborhood. Now I think that the point that Bill brought out here, by the way, since I have two residences and we were not hare, there needs to be 4 additional signatures on his petition. And I think II that there should be some kind of a compromise and I think initially the petition was the fact that our neighbors were not here for the February 6th meeting in mass like we are this evening or in the past. The neighborhood I meeting that discussed the plans. There were about 12 people here. And there were possibly same misconstrued ideas that were in the initial petition. And I do think that snow removal is a big concern because I'm not excited about having I myself out there trying to shovel the sidewalk. However, it's interesting because Laredo sees to be plowed by the City down to the last house on the street, which I still haven't figured out why that happens to be the cut off. And it doesn't go all the way to the end but you know, it would appear to me I that if Frontier Trail is a trail, that maybe there is a potential for that to be plowed when it needs to be but this year we maybe needed it twice at the most and I don't think that the children on the streets are anymore better than on a II sidewalk that's 5 feet in necessarily. But I guess my point is, maybe what we should do is go back and revisit what happened prior to Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel's joining this on Council and say why don't we close off Frontier Trail. Let's make it safe again and then I wouldn't be I pushing for a sidewalk. I would just bring up the attention for those people who were here before about the long cul-de-sac and the safety issues. That one of the big reasons why Frontier Trail was opened up was because the fire I department needed to get down there to service the hares in than Vista and Shadowmere. There was a major fire there a couple weeks ago. They didn't come down Frontier Trail. My understanding is they went around and that was our ' point all the way through in our argument about we did not need Frontier Trail opened up. The traffic has more than doubled. In my opinion, we need a sidewalk or we need same type of safety... Thank you. 44 i city Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II Councilwoman Dimler: I have several points I'd like to. I guess since Joel II brought up the 3 tragic deaths and that always shocks everybody, I've lived in the neighborhood longer than you have Joel I believe and I think the one death I know you're referring to was a DWI, a drunk driver so that has nothing to do II with sidewalks. The other one was a sledding accident. Also had nothing to do with sidewalks. A sidewalk being there would not have prevented the death and I'm sorry, I don't know about the third one, if you care to expand on what that one was. I don't know what it was. But anyway, that's just the points. II Rather than scaring the people about these safety issues and bringing up those things, I would ask for full disclosure on the details of the accidents and that the sidewalk really wouldn't have saved the two that I know about. ' Mayor C rt,iel: Anyone else? Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail: '!b further explain my original petition, I II would like you to know that I visited every single home that is affected by the sidewalk. In other words, my numbers represent 100%. Of the 100%, 83% were against the sidewalk and not just for the reason of having to shovel snow, II although that was a major one as you brought out in your package to the Council. A number of people moved to Chanhassen to get away from sidewalks. They came from Minneapolis and one of these I believe came from Hopkins and said we don't II want sidewalks. That's why we moved to a city which has a rural delivery route on the mail and no sidewalks. Sams other people were concerned about their landscaping. Not to mention Mr. Zumbronto who bought the Friedlander's house. He has same beautiful landscaping and if the sidewalk is put in, he would lose II most of it and if he was promised that it would be moved, it would be moved so close to his house that it would spoil the looks of the place. A number of users, and I'm retired now and I've watched the street all day long, is not II greatly increased. I'm one of the users. I do a lot of walking and I don't see many people except perhaps on weekends and some people in the evenings who walk their dogs. The fact remains, if a sidewalk goes in, it starts nowhere and ends nowhere because no sidewalk will ever be put into Chan Vista because there isn't II enough roam. And no sidewalk will be put on the other and of Frontier Trail past Hills... Councilman Hoyt: Highland. II Bill Loebl: Highland. Sorry. Thank you. The legal liability remains whether II it's being played down or not. If somebody slips, a kid falls off his skateboard on your property and breaks his leg, I would think that his parents would sue the property owner because maybe there was a little rock there or something or a bananna peel, and he could easily sue the City because it's on I the City's right-of-way. A number of people have told me they don't want to lose the privacy that they now enjoy. Same of the properties, mine is not one of them, have only 30 or 40 feet between their living roam windows and a street. II If you move the street over 5 feet, it still doesn't make enough difference because on same of these houses they are actually lower than the street and if you move the sidewalk on that side and move it 10 feet inside their present II property line, they can look right into these people's living roam. If the sidewalk is there and as Bill proposes to move it right next to the street, the mailboxes will have to remain. People walking on the street would be more inclined to give the mailbox a whack with a stick or a cane than they would when II they're driving by or walking in the street. Then of course there's the possibility of theft. Now all these are more than one reason that the majority II 45 II IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 of people signed my petition. If you poll the ones that signed both my petition and Bill Boyt's petition, you will find that sane of them have changed back to ' my view. Thank you very much. Mayor Ch del: Anyone else? Tam, Pzynski, 7340 Frontier Trail: On the safety issue for sidewalks. It seems like there's two different things happening here. People are concerned about safety year round but in the winter time when we do get a lot of snow and a couple years ago we had 100 inches and typically we do get 60 sane odd during the year, that we don't have to shovel sidewalks so we don't care about safety during the winter which to me seems to be more important because during the wintertime the roadway gets narrower. You get ice build-up in the curves and ' stuff so people have to walk more into the center of the road. So it doesn't make any sense. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too on the sidewalk safety issue. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? ' Dick Pearson, 7307 Frontier Trail: I'm probably the seniorest citizen here and have lived here longer than anybody else and we've gotten along very well without sidewalks and I signed the petition and said well we really don't need it but I've talked to other people and I bring back something that my son who spent many, many years here. He's in the Planning department at Coon Rapids and he said in Coon Rapids they feel if they really need a sidewalk, the City puts it in and the City maintains it and I felt the same way. I don't really know if we do but if we do, I think it should be up to the City to do it. As far as I ' can see, it would be nice for the people from Sunrise Hills to walk down to our j beach but that's about the only good it would be. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dick. Is there anyone else? Larry Leibens: I'm sorry to delay this. My name is Larry Liebens. I live at ' 7201 Frontier Trail and I didn't come here to talk but I feel a need to now. First of all I want to thank Councilman Boyt for taking the time and the initiative to go around and find out if all of us did understand the issues. If ' there were some alternatives and if there were sane ways to take care of this problem in a different manner. I was one of the people that originally signed the first petition and talked to Bill and found out that yeah, there were sane other ways that we could do this. I didn't have to have it run through 5 feet into my yard. There was a possibility that maybe I don't have to shovel that. That the upkeep wasn't what I thought it to be. I think that there's been enough questions raised to say that we need to take another look at it one more ' time. 7 people came in here a few minutes earlier and questioned you people and if you had voted with the majority, how those 7 people had wanted you to vote to not accept that road but you decided to take another look at it because there ' were same good questions raised and they deserved to have another look at it. It might be a majority issue but the majority isn't clear right now I don't believe. I think there are enough questions right now that we have to take another look at it. The second point is, I live on that curve that we've been ' talking about and I teach so I'm there, I'm out during the summertime. I get a chance to see the kids playing on that curve a lot. There have been many times I've had to bring children of this community home in my car because they've slipped on the curve. Have gone over on their bikes. Done their skateboards. ' 46 :City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 The fact is, they are there. They will play there. They do get hurt. They come around those corners on that sand that's in the road and they spill. There have been many times I've sat in my front yard and watched near accidents occur with people walking. Walking their dogs and the question comes down to me is, I don't want that sidewalk in my front yard but what's worse is to have sareone walk up to my front door and ask for an emergency situation to use my phone to help someone who was hurt in my street. And to me that's the worst alternative and I don't want that to happen. ' Mayor C viiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If hearing and seeing nothing, we'll bring it back to the Council. We had a motion on the floor to remove the sidewalks with the issuance of the proposed Frontier Trail upgrade and a second. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we table. Councilman Johnson: We've already got a motion on the floor. 1 Councilman Boyt: I'll defer it to Roger but the motion to table has precedence. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Councilwoman Dimler: No it doesn't. , Councilman Boyt: Robert's Rules. Roger, are you familiar with Robert's Rules? Councilwoman Dimler: No, because that motion was made, it's on the floor and it ' has to be removed before another motion can be accepted. _ Councilman Boyt: No, that's not right. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes it is. Councilman Workman: Is that Council's rules or Robert's? Mayor Chfiiel: Roger. , Roger Knutson: We use Council rules and Robert's Rules... I didn't happen to bring may Robert's Rules with me. Councilwoman Dirtier: If there's a motion on the floor, it has to be acted on. Councilman Boyt: The motion to table always has to have precedence. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: No. No. Not if there's a motion on the floor. Roger Knutson: The Chair makes the decision. 1 Mayor Chmiel: My opinion that we have a motion on the floor with a second which does not allow a tabling issue to care in. Councilman Boyt: I'll appeal the Chair. Roger Knutson: The Chair can be appealed and it takes a two-thirds vote to , override the Chair. 47 ' \ City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Well, if we're going to follow Robert's Rules,9 ng les, we should follow Robert's Rules. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Well I want to see a copy. ' Don Ashworth: I have a copy in my office. Mayor Chmdel: Want to get it? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: While we're doing that, I would like to have maybe rake another point here on discussion and that is, the way that Bill went around and presented the position was with the understanding and I brought this up before. I I don't know how as being only one-fifth of the Council how he can cane to the conclusion that the rest of us would go along with the no buffer zone and present it in that way and also make the decision that the City would upkeep the ' sidewalk when that is not the present ordinance. I think that is very presumptuous and I think that the rest of us, the rest of the four council members certainly should have a say in that. And then also, because he presented it in such a way, I have a letter here from a Therese Berquist who ' signed the first petition and then she signed the second petition because she felt that, she would like to have the no buffer zone and not maintenance but since that isn't the case, or nobody's made that decision, she then again wrote I a letter here that I have in my possession saying that she now wants to go back to her original petition that was circulated by Mr. Loebl. Councilman Johnson: Did you talk to her and tell her that Bill's petition was ' wrong? Why did she change her time this time, do you know? Councilwoman Dimler: I have no idea. This letter was handed to me. IICouncilman Boyt: I'd like to respond. What I said when I went to people with the petition is if these assumptions aren't true, you won't be held to, and I nobody's held to this anyway but I mean your signing it with a certain set of assumptions in front of you. Now the assumption that I was making is that if we could work it out so the neighborhood wanted a particular type of sidewalk, that I the Council would support that. If you're telling me that the Council wouldn't do what we could do to get a sidewalk in there, then that's a different ballgame. I was assuming, because my kids go down this street. Because I know that it's dangerous, that if we could make it safer and if the neighborhood 1 would accept that, that we go with it. Now I'm not representing this as saying that the neighborhood, the majority says they want it. What I'm saying to you is that in the few houses that I was able to reach, enough people changed their I mind when given this set of assumptions that it causes re to wonder if the initial petition accurately reflects the neighborhood. That's why we moved to table this is to find that out. I'm not going to sit here and say... ' Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but one of the things, I have... Councilman Boyt: Can I finish? IICouncilwoman Dimler: You may. Go ahead. I 48 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: I'm not suggesting to you that if the majority of the neighborhood doesn't want the sidewalk, we ought to have it. I'm not saying that. What T'm saying to you is, let's find out. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and what I'm saying to you is that you are saying that the original petition was based on assumptions and so is yours. That's what I'm trying to point out. I can't understand why you think your petition has more weight when it's based on assumptions and you're accusing the first one to be based on assumptions as well and yet that one has infinitely more i signatures than yours. Councilman Boyt: I agree with your point about both petitions make assumptions and I don't take issue with the fact that the Loebl's are much more effective at canvasing the neighborhood than I am on a Sunday afternoon. What I'm saying to you is that there's reasonable doubt and let's clear it up. 1 Councilwoman Dialer: Okay, and the other point I want to make is if we table this, this holds up the entire project. It is now getting towards spring. It's going to increase the cost. Gary Warren: From a timing standpoint, if I could Mr. Mayor, the project could be and I would suggest in fact that the project go ahead and advertise for bids and that we set the sidewalk up as a bid alternative. It's no added expense to the City. The bids would came in. It leaves us time because we'll at least have 21 days basically bidding period, or a month basically before we get the bids to where this could be hammered out further and when the bids cosine back in, then we could at that time choose not to include the sidewalk. Councilman Workman: Bill, how did you get the assumption of no individual 1 assessment? Would that wean the City would pay for it? Councilman Boyt: Right. I Councilman Workman: Do we have a cost on that? Gary Warren: $52,000.00 with 30% overhead. , Councilman Workman: We've said that even if it was no buffer or not no buffer? Gary Warren: $52,000.00. The raw construction cost estimate is $41,000.00. ' Mayor Chniel: Yeah, $40,100.00 is what we have in here. I Gary Warren: And when you apply our adminstrative and overhead expenses, we came up to about $52,000.00. That's a generous number. Councilman Workman: Well this argument is definitely nothing new. This neighborhood is just like Curry Farms and every other neighborhood. We've argued, believe it or not, you can't tell, but we've argued this sidewalk issue many, many times and Bill's been in that chair and I've been in this one and I've been between these two guys who actually really like each other I know. And we've argued this and argued this and this is a philosophical. It's cosine down to a very strong philosophical question of an overall picture and an overall plan. Bill fought very hard for a comprehensive trail plan. Bill cares, 49 1 .City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II - I think, I'm making assumptions. I guess you get in trouble doing that, where you have sidewalks. I grew up on a street in a town where you didn't have sidewalks. I'm living proof that you can live but this larger issue of where II does the sidewalk go? Who cleans it up? Who's got the liability? When people are faced with that and they start to weigh things about their, I'm not through, you very rarely get somebody that's really, really fighting to have a sidewalk because it's a high impact thing. One of Bill's other issues is trees and now Iwe're going to be moving trees, potentially killing trees and I think you, did we pass the ordinance for around the base? ICouncilman Boyt: No, but he just mentioned it. Councilman Workman: ...but maybe we're not. I see trees all over here that as I you constantly tell developers, the drop area around a tree can seriously affect a tree and when you put 5 feet of concrete near it, it may not live. So unless you can guarantee everbody out here that their trees are going to live and then I we can move ahead. The issue of safety always comes up and we've had that argument of safety in Curry Farms and the people in Curry Fars were basically told that they were not very good parents because how could you be if you wanted your kids to play on a street rather than on a 6 foot wide bituminous sidewalk. I I disagree with that theory. I think that issue is always used to raise the specter of what, a false hope of what a sidewalk can accomplish for people. If somebody came around that corner, and I do see the speed on this road increasing I somewhat if it's a nice road. It could become something of a race track but there's no way I'm going to get behind the issue of guaranteeing people or children that are on the sidewalk that they're going to be safe and they're going to be totally safe. I have no idea to what degree they are more safe 5 I feet over here. Last year in Milwaukee or wherever, 5 girls were killed walking on a sidewalk. Cars go over curbs and over sidewalks. I think that's where the Council takes the view that if these people who have to live with this high 1 impact piece of concrete want that or don't want that, it's not going to fit into a comprehensive plan that we have and it's up to then. II Councilman Boyt: Actually it does fit in the, it's on the existing comprehensive trail plan. Councilman Workman: Which the voters have voted down twice. ICouncilman Boyt: Let's not get into that. ICow cilxian Dimler: Yes, let's do. Let's talk about what the people want Bill. Councilman Johnson: They voted down the financing for it. ICouncilman Boyt: We've got enough going 'without getting into the comprehensive trail plan. The issue about Curry Farms was, if you'll recall, having gone through and talked to the neighbors in that area, that in spite of my I philosophical desires, I voted to take the sidewalk out of Curry Farms because they said they didn't want it. All I'm saying here is, I think there's good reason to believe we don't know what the residents want and let's have staff sit ' down and talk with the residents about what can really happen and then have them decide. If the majority of the people don't want the sidewalk, I can accept that. What I have a hard time accepting is that we don't have the facts out in front of people from an objective source. 50 wty wurICII nee-Ling - riarcn 1L, Iwo t Councilwoman Dimler: We do. We do. I Mayor Ch iel: It's been discussed quite a bit. I think everybody knows what the situation is. Bill's table does take precedent. All those in favor. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Was that a seconded motion? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Who seconded it? Councilman Johnson: I seconded it because I want the people to have a chance to tell us what they want under all the information. Councilman Boyt roved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the P lans and specifications for Frontier Trail Upgrade Improvement Project No. 89-10 for further citizen input regarding the sidewalk. Councilman Boyt and Councilman ' Johnson voted in favor. Mayor C niel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dialer voted in opposition and the motion to table failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Dimler: The motion is to remove from the project of Frontier Trail Project 89-10, to remove the sidewalk from either the north or south side. Roger Knutson: Are you also roving to approve the plans and specs along with that? Councilwoman Disrler: No, this is just to remove the sidewalk. 1 Mayor Clm►iel: Just to remove the sidewalk and then we'll discuss the other portions of it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to speak to it one time. It costs us absolutely nothing to have the contractor's bid the sidewalk in this project and it gives us 21 to 30 days to get the issue resolved so I speak against your motion. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, that's what you said when the first study came up. You said it cost us absolutely nothing to do the study so we did. My intention was to not split the neighborhood and this hair splitting is exactly what has occurred. I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind in 21 days. The issue is pretty well, people have made up their minds where they are. It's not going to change in 21 days. I still believe the majority and I think we should ' go ahead and vote. Mayor C oriel: Is there a second? ' - Councilman Workman: I seconded it. Jay Legler: Excuse me I think the issue can change and I'm not on either side at the moment. My name is Jay Legler. I live on 7193 Frontier Trail and I came 51 1 city council Meeting - March 12, 1990 here for the sidewalk. I really don't know where I am right now. I didn't know ' sidewalks were such a hot issue. I had one for 5 years in Eden Prairie. I don't know if there was a law to shovel it or not. It never got shoveled. The city came through about twice a year with a big Bobcat. The streets were wide. ' It was a straight street. We didn't need them. I've lived here for 2 months so I don't know whether we need them, or not. I took iv first walk tonight but I do know that from Laredo west to my house, which is up by the circle, since December there's been 5, including ourself, there's been 5 houses on the market and there's only probably 25 or 30 houses in there so it can change in 21 days. Councilwoman Dimler: You think they are going to sell within 21 days? ' Jay Legler: That's not the point. In 2 months there's been 5 houses listed and/or sold. That's 5 people and we've had, I don't know, 3 or 4 or 5 people change their minds. That's my point. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but we still have 57 to 15 right now. That's quite a majority. ' Jay Legler: So in a year you take some numbers like that, throw them around and in a year we can have a complete turn over in the whole neighborhood. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It's still quite a significant majority is what I'm saying. Jay Legler: I'm just throwing it out. It can change in 21 days. Councilwoman Dimler: It can change but probably not enough to change the majority. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? What I see is that Bill took, sampled the ' neighborhood. Not a random sample. It was scientifically a biased sample but a very large portion of this sample switched their votes which says, statistically speaking, that if you he had continued and was able to contact everybody that was contacted in the first time, that he would have still had a large number of ' people change their votes. I don't know how many because of the bias within the technique of doing it, he only did the people that were home that day but I have enough feeling within me that given all the options, that there is a possibility ' and a significant possibility that a majority of the people along Frontier may end up saying they want a sidewalk under a set of conditions. I don't know what those set of conditions are. There are same people out there that under ' absolutely no condition do they ever want a sidewalk. And that's true but I'm not convinced right now that a majority, absolutely don't want it or a majority absolutely- doesn't want it so I want the time to find out what our citizens want. I don't want to use this on 3 month old information where there's been new information come up and new considerations. I'm hoping to swap 1 of the 3 of you to give our citizens a chance. Councilwoman Dimler: That's been my point Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, let's give the citizens a chance to restate what they ' want. Councilwoman Dimler: And they have spoken. ' 52 1 %..1.1. JLUL.1.t L L).Jty PKiJLLI 1L, 1.7710 II Councilman Johnson: They spoke 3 months ago under a different set of 11 circumstances. Give than a new set of circumstances. Let's see what they want now. Let's not restrict than. Handcuff than to what they said under a different set of circumstances. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, at this point then I would like to have someone II Gary or saneone address the feasibility of having the sidewalks only without a buffer zone. Is that feasible? Is that done? What are the problems? I Gary Warren: Yes it's feasible and it has been done. The City of Minneapolis has sidewalks all over the place basically and road signs, they have house to II house delivery of mail so they don't have the mailbox issue but they have actual road, they have inserts built into the sidewalk for replacement of street signs and poles and such and I guess I haven't done a survey. It's not an II insurmountable problem from an engineering standpoint. Councilwoman Dimler: Mailboxes are not an insurmountable problem? What's • likely to happen to them? II Gary Warren: I guess we all can use our own imaginations. I don't know. The signs themselves, from a maintenance standpoint, can be done with inserts. We II can put those in so they can replaced if a car hits a road sign and they have to be replaced. The same thing we face with the downtown situation. Bill Loebl: One more brief comment Mr. Mayor and Council. The neighborhood I ' that is under discussion is an older neighborhood. The number of people with small children is, if you want to be blunt, in a minority again. This is why i most of the people that I spoke with are against the sidewalk. They don't need I sidewalks. They're careful. If you make 100% survey, I think you will find that the number of families with small children at the present time is probably fewer than 10. The rest of than are all adults. Thank you. II Mayor Ch oriel: Thank you Bill. Okay. Discussions we've been having back and forth and throwing the ball around. It appears as though it comes time for us to care to decision making. I know that we've discussed this many times at nany II meetings and even though there appears to be some people here who are undecided, I still see where the majority is still in the rule and I would call a question on the particular issue at this time. - I Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to remove the sidewalks IIfran either the north or south side of Frontier Trail. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, in addition, let's get a motion for Frontier Trail upgrade excluding sidewalks from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. i Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I do have a few other points on this, as soon as we settle down. Don't all leave. We're not done. We only did sidewalks. I have j a question of Gary and that was, I believe that the original cost was based on a II 31 foot roadway and now we're proposing a 26 foot. Is that correct? 53 I City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 11 ' Gary Warren: 27 wasn't it? Bill Dhglehardt: 27, yes. IICouncilwoman Dialer: 27? Okay. Also, I see that you've added about $120,000.00 more to the cost and the explanation that was given that this was I due to poor soils and a conservative estimate. I guess I would like you to expand a little bit about on that. I can't see that improving the soil is going to cost $120,000.00. Is that what you're saying? IIGary Warren: I've asked Bill to look at his cost estimate to justify that number. II Bill Engelhardt: Gary and I have talked about this over the last week numerous times and looking at the numbers, what we've tried to do is take into account through the various homeowner meetings, some of the concerns about in and out during the construction zone. One of the potential problems we have up there is if we get rain, if we get a wet season for example. The last couple of years have been very fortunate and had dry years. If we get a wet season, we can't allow those roads to just sit and dry out and work them back and forth. We're I going to have to do certain things and the things that you're going to have to do is take out the wet area. Put in dry material, which would have to be hauled in. Put down a fabric material and then put your rock base on it so what I've I done is I've included items like that in the bid. There was about $65,000.00 worth of items and that includes excavation. Bringing in the borrowed material and putting the fabric down. Now if we get good weather this construction I season and we find that a contractor is proceeding very well, those items would not be used and they would not be paid for. They're bid on the per quantity basis so it's kind of a thing where you want to be conservative and maybe in this case we might have been a little bit too conservative but I think it gives I our chances up there of having a good successful project a little bit better and the odds of getting it completed a little bit better by doing things, putting the things we put in there. IICouncilwoman Dialer: So you're saying you added the $120,000.00 that you may not use at all? IBill Engelhardt: I've added $65,000.00 worth of extra quantity in there that we may or may not use. I feel that we have to have something like that in there from the nature of the project so if we have problems with rain, we have I problems with mud getting people in and out, we have to have the ability to use those quantities versus coming in later on and saying oh my gosh, the project over ran by $120,000.00. IICouncilwoman Ditrler: Okay. Thank you. Gary Warren: This would be a unit price contract as you're familiar with so I we'll have to pay as we go so if we don't need the fabric and other things, as Bill mentioned, we won't pay for it. IMayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: There's a citizen there and I'd also like to discuss this. ' 54 City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 Arlis Bovey, 7339 Frontier Trail: I would just like to have sane reassurance , that when this new road is tore out, that I have same protection down on my corner because on two different occasions when the road was being worked on. I've been there for 28 years. Once they take those curbs out, I'm wide open for the watershed caring down the hill and I have lost a lot of property on the hill from this happening before. In 1987 when we had the big washout, I had my own engineer come down and check it out as to why it happened. They specifically said that it was because there was no curbs. The curbs were flat in front of my house and I took on all the water. This in turn cost me $7,300.00. I can't take that again. I can't stand that loss again. I'm going to have to have sane protection down there so when he's speaking of extra materials, I hope that I'll be included. Our area will be included to be sandbagged, anything at the time that it's being, the road is being torn out because this leaves us wide open and it does happen. ' Mayor Chmiel: Gary, what precautions do we take in a situation as such? Gary Warren: Well we've done I guess 2 things to address Arlis' concern. One is that we have added catch basins into the design to intercept water further upstream. That's one of the part of the problems is that the water to this point in time has been allowed to come down stream until it hits the bend and pops the curb there. The storm sewer system that is in the plans extends upstream to catch the water. Tb get it off the street earlier plus right at the tangent which is just adjacent to Mrs. Bovey's residence, we've added double catch basins and we've increased the size of the storm sewer proposed for that area from 18 inch to a 21 inch diameter storm sewer so we basically, our traditional design is to accommodate a 10 year storm. I don't know Bill, with a 21 inch, we must be up to a 50 year storm? Yeah, so we've gotten very conservative at sane additional expense but we think that's been appropriate to allow storm water to be captured in this area at that time. During construction the first elements that will be done as we proceed through the construction will be the removal of bituminous and the establishment or removal of the subgrade and start working on the deepest utility first and work our way up. So we will require the contractor as a part of his erosion control plan to be sandbagging or accommodating the existing road runoff as this window of construction moves to the roadway. So what we will be working with them daily to see that he is both protecting the environment and the homeowners as far as runoff events. Arlis Bovey: Weekends are a time, twice I've had it happen on weekends also where I've been flooded out. They'll tear out the road and they leave for the weekend and then the hard rains will come and well, no one is around. So these are things that I really have to be very, very concerned about. Thank you. Mayor Cbmiel: Justifiably so. Thank you. ' Bill Loebl: One more quick question. During the construction, which apparently is going to proceed now, what arrangements will be made for emergency during day and night? I'm concerned because we had this fire right in back of our property a few weeks ago and if there's a construction in front of our house, how do the fire trucks or the ambulances get through if the road is blocked for a certain length of time? ' 55 , \ 11 II Gary Warren: It's a day to day control that our inspectors and engineers work with the contractor to see that access is made available to the sites in the 11 ' evening. That the road is made passable for at least an emergency vehicle to get in. We also are including in the spec that the contractor be required to provide access on a 24 hour basis for emergency vehicles. So if that means that 1 he has to have a 4 wheel drive vehicle on site or something to see that emergency vehicles can pass, that's what he will be responsible to do. We also are not looking, fortunately we do not have the long cul-de-sac issue such that II we only have one access into these properties. At the most we will have one residence that will have the construction in front of it at one particular time so if a vehicle, if a fire truck couldn't get in say from the south, he can come in from the Big Horn Drive area and get in from the north and that will be I coordinated with the fire rescue people on a daily basis to let them, know where we are with our construction. IMayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? Arlis Bovey: I didn't quite understand how they're going to get in touch with this 4 wheel vehicle if there's a need to get out or get in. IGary Warren: Wt will coordinate through the public safety department Pa rtment and the Sheriff's office. IIArlis Bovey: In other words, we call the sheriff? II Gary Warren: Right. You still use your 911 if there's an emergency and he will know where our construction is and who to contact if there's any difficulty. Our public works staff also will, I mean we're closest in the neighborhood typically II and we also, Dale Gregory our Fire Chief is also our parks forerun and we do a lot of sharing of people to see that we can promptly respond to emergencies. Arlis Bovey: So we would be protected? IGary Warren: Yes. IIMayor Qriel: Any other questions? Hearing none, discussion. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I was just about to bring that up. Of course I'm bringing it up to the opposite of what you want so you'll probably want to talk I afterwards. Any time I see an assessment that, you know there's 2 ways to assess. By unit or by front footages. When I see as big of a gap between the two methods and where it is so overous upon such a few houses, I have to think I that the front footage is unfair to the few. There are sometimes in this world you have to be, you can't just say oh, it's better for the majority so we can be unfair to this few. This is one of those places where those people who are on a I curve and have a very large amount of land front footage wise, are going to have to pay a lot for having the street improved in front of their house and they're not receiving 3 times or 4 times the amount of benefit the person that has a very narrow frontage is. To me this seers to be a type of project that we can I justify going on the unit basis to all the benefitting hones. That would be the group on Kiowa Circle there because they're benefitting because that's the street, one of their primary streets. Now they're off of the exact street. I IIthink they should be assessed but maybe at a different rate because they're not I56 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 exactly right on the street. Maybe a half assessment or something to that group of homeowners. Councilwoman Dimler: Then when you use the street we'll assess you. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We are assessing me because a lot of this is being 1 paid for out of the general funds. Okay? The whole city is being assessed. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah but so are we but you're talking about another... ' Councilman Johnson: I'm talking about the people who use it everyday. In order to get out of their houses on Kiowa Trail, they have to use Frontier. Councilwoman Dimler: We go out the other way. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but you still go on Frontier. Is it into Kiowa? , There's not going to be anymore construction once it gets... Councilwoman Dimler: Frontier ends right there at King's home and then it , becomes or it goes off into the new development. Councilman Johnson: So you never go to the school? You never go the other way? Councilwoman Dimler: I go the other way. Councilman Johnson: Okay. But anyway, I still think the unit is more, a fairer ' method even though it is prejudicial against the majority, it is fairer overall. Councilwaran Dimler: I guess I have a comment to make to that. I would agree ' with reducing the cost. However, instead of, you know the petition has already been circulated that most people, again the majority wanted the front footage assessment. I would propose to go along with that but there are two proposals to reduce the cost. One, now that the sidewalk is out. The money that would have been allocated to the sidewalk, let's add that to the project to reduce the cost. That's to the tune of about $50,000.00. And the other one would be that we go with the split. Instead of the traditional 40/60, that we go with the 70/30 since we have evidence by Mr. Scholler. He testified to the fact that the City did approve this substandard road and also the Brown report testified to - the fact that this was a substandard road to begin with. Therefore, I would propose a 70/30. That would reduce the cost to all the owners and also put the $50,000.00 in that we would have used for the sidewalk to reduce the cost. Councilman Johnson: Are you saying Ursula since the minority of the people in this town are black that we shouldn't let any of them because the majority may not want? I mean that's the same arguments. Exactly same arguments. We are prejudicing this project against a minority because they own on a curve. Councilwoman Dimler: No. Not at all. Tom Pzynski: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a comment. Rbm Pzynski again. 7340 Frontier Trail. I was unaware that the assessment issue was going to came up at the meeting tonight and I was preparing same information for that at a later date but I've contacted so far 2 real estate appraisers. One that did my house last time when it went up for sale and another one and 7 realtors that are in I 57 I I . this market, that that's what they do. They appraise real estate for sale and categorically all of theta say it doesn't make a darn bit of difference by square foot what kind of road you've got in front of your house. It makes no difference. They don't assess a market value of your house based on the square footage of road you have in front of your house. They just don't do it. So if that's the rationale, it's a market value thing. It adds to the market value of your house. Yeah, it does but it's even across the board as far as I'm concerned. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure what we've done historically but for my comfort level and again, we don't have much history on this but we need some historical basis for making this decision rather than, I mean because another road is going to came up and another road's going to came up and we can't keep changing it. While this road isn't quite as curvy as Frontier Trail so we should go with this. I don't know what's, how we should. I think we should set a standard and apparently we don't have any standard Don Ashworth? Really. Councilman Hoyt: This is the first time. Don Ashworth: You're talking about the amount of GO... Councilman Workman: I mean how to go square foot or unit. If we've got that, I ' think the only thing we can do is go by what we've historically done in fairness to prior projects and in fairness to future projects to do. You know personally I don't care but it's something that I think we have to have a basis for. Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not want to set a precedent for other roads in the city with the 70/30. However, since it is proven here that this was substandard to begin with... Councilman Workman: No, I'm talking about a square foot versus unit. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh okay. Yeah. Councilman Workman: And that's another argument that sounds like half good and I don't know what to base that on but I'm saying... Councilwoman Dimler: Well we've always gone by... Councilman Johnson: Not always. Bluff Creek was by unit. Councilwoman Dimler: Because it was what? ' Councilman Johnson: Because of the situation and it was more fair by unit. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It was State Aid wasn't it? Councilman Johnson: Well, State Aid and also because of the huge sizes of them. ' Gary Warren: We had off line units. We had Hesse Farm off street frontage that was benefitting. That was their only access. Councilman Johnson: Right. Similar to what I was saying for Kiowa. I think you have to take it, each one. It seers that you can defend maybe front footage 58 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 easier in a court which shouldn't be what we're looking at is what we can defend easier but what is the fair thing for that situation. Not every situation is the same. It's up to us... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but again the survey has already been done of the neighbors and it came out in favor of the front footage. Councilman Johnson: Of course it would. I Councilwcp an Dialer: Yeah, because of the few. Right. And also I don't see why you should institute Kiowa Circle in there anymore than anybody else. You know, just go with the Frontier people then if you're going to go per unit with Frontier. Why include Riowa Circle? Councilman Johnson: For the same reason that we did it at Bluff Creek. Councilwoman Dimler: Who did you include that wasn't right on? Gary Warren: Hesse Farm Subdivision. Councilman Johnson: Hesse Farms. ' Gary Warren: But that was because that was their only access. Bluff Creek was their only way. Councilwoman Dimler: We have other access. Kiowa Circle does. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me. You know, the meeting's getting to be fairly lengthy for sane good reasons I suspect but this particular issue isn't going to get voted on tonight. We're not going to vote on the assessment tonight. We can't even if we wanted to so I'd really like to see us move further ahead. i Councilwoman Dimler: Although it was in here in the recommendation that the front footage assessment... Mayor Chmiel: This is just authorizing the advertising for bids. Basically is what it is. Councilman Boyt: Right. Whole different topic and that assessment thing, I'm ' sure that's worth a couple hours and this probably isn't the best time to do it. Mayor Chmdel: I agree. ' Councilwoman Dialer: Otherwise, I move the approval of the plans and specifications for Frontier Trail upgrade and authorizing advertising for bids I project 89-10 with the removal of the sidewalk which we've already voted on. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman WbrkRan: Second. i i 59 i City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I Resolution #90-33: Councilwoman Dimler moved, councilman Workman seconded to approve Plans and Specifications for Frontier Trail Upgrade Improvement Project 89-10 without the sidewalk and authorize the advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER ANIMAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CLEANING UP AFTER ANIMALS ON ' PUBLIC GROUNDS, FIRST READING. Councilman Johnson: This is a proposal to have a pooper scooper ordinance in town making it, mostly watching. There's already a rule against having dogs in ' city parks and on school grounds but people still do it. I think that when somebody brings their dog and does a job in my yard or in the front property in front of my yard, I'd like to see them carry that along with them instead of ' just leaving it behind. It doesn't take anything other than carrying a plastic sack with you. If you're bright you put your hand inside, invert the sack, grab it and you're done. This is extremely easy to enforce. The only thing is you ' have to see the violation occur. Our animal control people are out there enough that other cities enforce them. I think it's enforceable. I've lost my opposition here to it. I think dogs have rights but they have rights only in their own yard as far as I'm concerned. When I used to have a female dog and go ' in heat, boy I'd have all kinds of dogs around in my yard. I know it wasn't my little Pekinese or my Shelton Sheep dog. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Sure. I think it's a good idea. I know it's probably not going to pass but and I say this as a dog owner who is going to be put at ' some inconvenience but it's a justified inconvenience. What the heck. We ought to have it. I mean we have it now but we don't have it clearly stated. I'm sure that through one of our nuisance ordinances, if the deputies were so ' inclined, they could enforce that but I like this because it cleans it up. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see us, related to this, get out there about ' 6:00 in the morning at the grade school and nail those folks who go out there every morning at 6:00 in the morning. I've said it before. I'd like to see us bring our CSO's on a little earlier so we can get it or in the evening. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, let's talk about violations then. How do you go about enforcing and prosecuting? Councilman Johnson: Well you hand them a ticket. Same thing you do with any misdemeanor. You write them a ticket and then if they protest the ticket you go to court and it's the CSO's eye witness version of it versus the dog owner's. ' Councilman Boyt: I suspect what would happen would be a little more generous than that given the way we generally do or don't enforce our ordinances. In all likelihood an owner would be warned. It would probably be as a result of a ' known problem area would be my guess and we've got one of those that the City's working on right now. councilwoman Dimler: Jim, do you want to address this? �I ' 60 ,City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II Jim Chaffee: Yes I would. I just have one question and maybe it's for Roger. The way I read the ordinance as proposed would mean that any homeowner also would have to clean up the feces from his yard. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Even if it wasn't their dog? Is that what you're saying? I Jim Chaffee: Well the way I read it, it says that every occupant of a dwelling unit shall clean up the feces in his yard so I just wanted to point that out. Councilwa*►an Dimler: Okay, does that mean though if I don't own a dog but a neighbor's dog does it on my lawn, that I'm responsible to clean it up because I can't prove who's dog it was? , Jim Chaffee: The way it reads right now, yes. Councilman Johnson: Well it's either that or you get to leave it. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Well I don't want to get a ticket for leaving it in my own yard if I decide it makes good fertilizer. You understand what I'm saying? 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And then there's a lot of discretion going there too. In the middle of the winter after a snowfall, you don't know what was put there during the snow. You know, you let the dog out. You can't go out and find it when you've got a fenced back yard or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Well you know Jay though, same of you feel this is almost a ' necessity. I feel that there a lot of people, well I shouldn't say a lot but just recently on Lake Lucy Road there were same people walking with their dog and they did pick up behind their dog. Councilman Johnson: Well I'm sure there are people out there doing it but there's a lot of people out there who aren't. I saw a gentleman over in than Hills, whatever behind McDonalds there and he was carrying one of those little pooper scooper jobs you know that you can buy in the store. So I stopped and talked to him about it and told him he's the first guy I've ever seen in Chanhassen with that. I've seen it in Minneapolis. I'm not too, the Lakeville ordinance where they talk about the private owners resident, I had a little problem on that side of it in that how often. It becomes kind of a problem. If you've got a dog run and do you have to go out there every evening and clean your dog run or it depends upon how many dogs you had, lots of things as to how much of a nuisance it is in your backyard. But I definitely, you know we've gotten our neighbors now that keep track on their dog when they let him out. In fact because of enforcement from our CSO's, there are several dogs now in our neighborhood on leashes that the new people that moved in on the next neighborhood over didn't think there was a leash law or something but they have finally enforced the leash law and we have a lot less dogs running loose now than we've had for years. This is just one more piece. I know people who don't own dogs and they find in their yards are very upset. Councilman Workman: Are you talking about yards or public places? 1 61 cxty councxl meeting - riarcn 14 1990 Councilman Johnson: Both. The Lakeville ordinance will cover other people's yards the way it's written too. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a public place, it's doing it on the City property and if it's in a private yard, that's even worse. ' Councilman Workman: We already have that law don't we? Councilman Johnson: Just under general nuisance. ' Councilman Boyt: I think we'd have a health hazard if it was very serious. ' Roger Knutson: You have the leash law so it shouldn't be getting on other people's yards probably. Councilman Johnson: Sure. You walk a dog. Councilman Workman: You walk them on the sidewalks. ' Councilman Boyt: Our leash law is under control. I don't think it's a matter of on a leash. It's under control. Councilman Johnson: No. It's under control? Councilman Workman: Yep. As long as the dog is within so many feet of you I think. As long as you can call the dog back. Don Ashworth: If they're walking on Laredo right here and the dog stops by the apartments and goes onto basically private property and I still have the leash in my hand, the owner has in that instance done nothing wrong. We can't cite him. ' Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Johnson: If a dog's trespassing on my front yard and the owner can call him back, the owner standing on the street. Councilman Workman: The way I've read it. Councilman Johnson: Now if he does something on my yard and then the owner's, right now does the owner have to go clean up? Councilman Workman: No, you're in violation then. ' Councilman Johnson: My kids have to clean up, to tell you the truth. ' Roger Knutson: If you own property and I see you walking up and your dog is walking across my property, I can say get off my property with your dog or you're trespassing and you have to leave. Don Ashworth: Right but if in the meantime the dog has left a deposit, that's my problem? Roger Knutson: There is no ordinance on the subject. ' 62 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Because he's no longer trespassing once he's done his job and left. Councilman Workman: You could get up and throw it at your neighbor. Councilman Johnson: Most of my neighbors are bigger than me. Councilman Boyt: If the sense of the Council is that this would pass if it was limited to public property, I think I'd like to see us start somewhere. Councilman Workman: I do this now so. I have a dog and when I go to a park, I have a baggy and whatever and I clean it up. I was trained in Minneapolis. Councilman Johnson: How does the Council feel about once we have something like this that right now there's a restriction that dogs aren't allowed in city I parks. Councilman Workman: I would vehemently oppose it. , Councilman Johnson: Allowing a dog in a city park? Councilman Workman: TO allow a dog in a city park, you bet. Where am I going ' to throw a frisbee with my dog? Councilman Johnson: In your yard I guess if you can't do it in a city park. I Councilman Workman: I need more roan. Councilman Johnson: You just said you opposed these going into city parks. ' Councilman Workman: Going. Going and leaving a deposit in the city park. Councilman Johnson: Oh. See right now dogs are not allowed in city parks by city ordinance right now. Councilman Workman: They aren't? Well I'm in big violation. Councilman Boyt: And you're admitting it on public TV. ' Councilman Johnson: Did you take that down? Jim Chaffee: I did. I'd like to caution the Council on just one thing. I'd I like not to see our CSO's become pooper snoopers. That's a joke. Councilman Johnson: I'm not saying they're going to go out and patrol in particular. When they're on patrol and they see this, as in any other violation, they should write a ticket for it. Sams as a dog not on a leash or anything else they do. Jim Chaffee: We can certainly handle it. Councilman Johnson: They won't be out there hiding behind bushes saying, hey is that dog going to, you know. So I guess what we'd like to do tonight is give directions to Roger either to continue this effort or to stop the effort. I 63 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I ' , like the Lakeville ordinance better than the Bloomington ordinance. The Bloomington ordinance was pretty vague. I think that we can handle an owner's own problem... Mayor Chma.el: Is this just going to be dog and cat or... Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'd like to change it to animal too because we've got ' horses and stuff around here. When somebody cares riding their horse down Lake Lucy, whatever, I'd make this not just dog but this would be an animal. I mean if somebody wanted to do their boa constrictor, I'm not sure whether I'd try to enforce it. Roger Knutson: Have you thought about the problem with cats? Councilman Boyt: Yeah, let's shoot them. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well they have to be on a leash. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Who said that on public television? ' Roger Knutson: ...require cats effectively to be leashed. Councilman Johnson: I'd like this just to read animals per se. Cats too. I've got a sandbox out there. My kids go out and play with. When they go and play in the sandbox, they find out how many cats are loose. Councilman Boyt: Well we tried to change that one time about... ' Councilman Workman: We don't need this animal feces law in a park because no person shall be permitted to take any animal, including but not limited to dogs and cats into a park. So if they can't go in there, they can't go in there. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm not just worried about parks. Street right-of-ways. The City Hall. The school. They're not allowed on the school property either. ' People doing it on other people's property. Or not people doing it, dogs doing it. Animals doing it. In Texas I had the other problem but it was a little 3 year old. So I'd like to move this forward to the next stage which is I guess ' to have an ordinance drafted for the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmael: Yeah, I'd like to get input from the citizens too as to what they think about this ordinance. IICouncilman Johnson: You can see how many showed up tonight for this one. Councilman Workman: Well get the word out because Minneapolis was discussing this, they had a heck of a tire. It was unbelieveable. ' Roger Knutson: That's when you talk about cats. Councilman Workman: And they had people specifically patrolling the parks looking for this and there were $50.00 fines. ICouncilman Johnson: But there were a lot of joggers, there's a lot of jogging and stuff around those lakes and whatever. My wife and my kids went out to the ' 64 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 grade school one spring and cleaned up the grade school from what was left over from the winter before. It was amazing how much they picked up. Mayor Chnael: Well let's drop that subject. Councilman Boyt: Let's move, moving forward, why don't we direct staff to do this. I would make a motion to direct staff to clean up the dog litter ordinance and bring it back to us. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to draft an ordinance regarding cleaning up after animals for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I EARTH DAY, PROPOSED 1990 PROGRAM. Todd Gerhardt: This is a real appropriate item after the last discussion. At the last Council meeting brought up the issue of Earth Day. Attached is a quarterly news letter regarding Earth Day Revisited. Earth Day was established 20 years ago in 1970 and it was done in recognition of preserving and beautifying our Minnesota environment. Before the meeting started tonight I handed out a resolution establishing April 22nd as Earth Day. If it's Council's wishes, staff would recommend passing that resolution tonight and that we create an Earth Day/Arbor Day celebration on April 27th at which time we would give away 3,000 tree seedlings. Councilman Johnson: Don't we do that every year? Councilman Boyt: Not every year. ' Todd Gerhardt: I've done it the last 3 years. Councilman Johnson: That's not really what I'd call celebrating Earth Day is doing the same thing we've done on Arbor Day and doing it on Arbor Day. Councilwoman Dirler: I think it's a good idea. I Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see a little more. I'd like to see our Recycling Committee get involved and use sane kind of recycling theme. We're just starting a new recycling program. Mayor ChRael: Clean up our rivers. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Maybe have something about non-point source pollution. Maybe we could get somebody to come in. Of course nobody would show up but the...non-point source pollution is a big thing but I'd like to do a , little more than pass out the trees. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought one of the objections here was to get public involvement too and I don't think we're going to get the public to came and listen to a point source pollution. 65 1 I City Cbuncil Meeting - March 12, 1990 II I Councilman Johnson: But the recycling part. If we can maybe get something through the schools to do a, have the kids makes recycling posters to be displayed here at City Hall or something. IIMayor Chmiel: That may not be a bad idea all through town. Councilman Johnson: Yeah and see if we can post them at various businesses II throughout town. Get the Chamber involved. Whatever. A little more than what we've done every other year for Arbor Day. IITodd Gerhardt: Should we run a contest? Mayor andel: I think that would be a good idea. And each specific grade within the City. Todd Gerhardt: than Elementary? IIMayor C oriel: than Elementary. St. Hubert's. Councilman Boyt: We'd best go up to the Minnetonka end of town since half of ' the students live there. Mayor Chmdel: Yeah, any school within the school district. ICouncilman Johnson: Just the elementary, 1 through 5. Councilwoman Dimler: No, 8. St. Hubert's has 1 through 8. Are you going to Iexclude the 6, 7 and 8th graders? Councilman Boyt: We won't be able to judge the quality of their artwork when they start getting that good. Mayor Chmdel: I've 7udg ed those. ICouncilman Johnson: I like the kindergarters the best. Councilman Workman: What do we got to do to move this here? ICouncilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying that that age group is important to be involved in recycling right now. II Mayor Clviel: Yep. - Councilwoman Dimler: They're the ones that are going to help with the curbside Istuff. Councilman Johnson: Talk to the recycling committee. They may already have some ideas and we're getting...coordinator. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move item rnirber 8 as discussed. ICouncilman Workman: Second. ' 66 I j City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 II Mayor Chmiel: Also to include the resolution? , Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a Resolution declaring April 22, 1990 as Earth Day in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DRUG AWARENESS PROGRAM UPDATE, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: I'll go over this one real quick. So as to keep the Council aware as to what has taken place. You see before you a letter that was sent out to the clergy within the City. We all attended a meeting was held on March 6th and it was well attended. We had the clergy from Assemblies of God, St. Hubert's, Family of Christ Lutheran Church, Colonial Church, Lutheran Church of Living Christ, Westside Baptist Church and Holy Cross Lutheran Church. Councilman Johnson: That's about everybody isn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Tried to and if we missed anyone, we're sorry. I'll be more than happy to sit down with thee, individually if they'd like to. Margie Karjalahti also gave her specific presentation on, You've Got to be Ridding. Everybody was in agreement and concurrence that they thought it's a good program. That we should proceed with what we're proposing to do in relationship to the Drug Awareness Program and hopefully getting them to assist us, all the clergy to assist as well, in one of them or an appointed representative to sit on that specific board. There's going to be a press release in the newspapers indicating our concerns from the Council and asking people to serve on this specific committee and setting out who we're looking for. Other than that, hopefully we'll get same people who will be interested in participation and the elimination of drugs within the City of Chanhassen. So other than that, it's just strictly as an informational kind of item just to let you know where it's at. I don't think we need any action. ' Councilman Boyt: I guess I think we do. I think the City, as I recall, you certainly deserve credit for spearheading this thing but I think it's a city effort and I think the press release should be approved by the City Council. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Councilman Boyt: It's his deal, why don't you move it. , Mayor Chmiel: I'll move approval. 1 Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded approving the press release to be presented in the newspapers regarding the Drug Awareness Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 67 City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 I ' . COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chiriel: Bill? Tractor trailers, Metro clean-up and TH 101 and West 78th Street. ' Councilman Boyt: On the tractor trailers. In talking to Jim Chaffee about what I perceive as a problem, tractor trailers. In Gary's report earlier he motioned that McDonalds is going to be going through the Planning Commission to IIchange their lot and access to their lot to accommodate tractor trailers. When I asked him what's happening to then now, he said well they're parking on Lake Drive East. I would suggest that we need to post no parking signs on Lake Drive East because that's clearly not appropriate for then and when they park there, we should warn than to move their trailer. Councilman Workman: Where are they going to move then to? Councilman Boyt: They're going to move then probably to TH 5. There isn't a place to park a tractor trailer on Lake Drive East and they shouldn't be Iencouraged to do that. Cbuncilwaran Dialer: Do you want then to park on TH 5? ICouncilman Boyt: They're not. ' Councilman Johnson: They're just not going to go to McDonalds. Councilman Boyt: We don't have currently. Now maybe given it through the Planning Commission and such we will have but currently we don't have a place to IIaccommodate tractor trailers and we shouldn't have then park on that road. Councilman Johnson: There's not much room once a tractor trailer parks there. IIMayor Caiel: No, I agree but. ' Councilwa*an Dimler: They've got to stop for lunch. Cbunci].man Boyt: But they have to pick a spot that's reasonable to accommodate a tractor trailer. ICouncilwaran Dialer: Where is that? I Cbuncilnan Boyt: Well Ursula, that's not my point. My point is it's not safe where they're currently doing it. Councilman Johnson: If it's not safe for the City, that's another possibility. ' Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're saying is that safety is a factor with us. There's not enough room to get through with other vehicles or it could be a ' problem. In the event that these people want to stop to get something to eat, I don't know where TH 5, there isn't any place for then to stop. And I agree that that's not the place for the to be is on Lake Drive either. IICouncilwaran Dimler: They can't pull into McDonalds? 68 f City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dimler: They can't make the corner? Councilman Boyt: But the point is, we don't want to create an unsafe situation so they can get a McDonalds hamburger. I don't know what Eden Prairie's doing but I know that in Chanhassen that's just not a good plan for us. Councilman Workman: Do you have any idea how many trucks this is? McDonalds is proposing to expand their operation to service trucks? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor if I can address that. We've been working with McDonalds over the last two months. They're proposing several expansions. One is for their parking lot to the east basically to accommodate tractor trailers and the ability to have them turn on site which they can not presently do now. Apparently one tractor trailer did try to go through the drive up and there was a huge boulder that, they pushed a huge boulder out into the street and required a bulldozer to push it back. McDonalds is also looking to expand seating in the restaurant itself so it's a comprehensive proposal. We expect to have that on the Planning Commission I believe on April 4th. Councilman Boyt: But in the meantime I'd like to see that posted no parking. , Gary Warren: As part of the consent approval this evening for the Lake Drive East project, Council did approve no parking on the south side of the road which is required by the State Aid criteria so we do have that side that we would post. They do park also on the north side. You can just go out there and see where there isn't grass basically. That's where they're parking. Councilman Johnson: So they're pulling off onto the grass? Gary Warren: Right. I Councilman Workman: Where are they exiting, on Dell? Gary Warren: No. They're exiting at Dakota. ' Councilman Johnson: They're probably going to DataServ. Councilman Workman: Are they going down to DataSery and turning around? How I are they getting back out? Gary Warren: Same of them have actually, they could go through DataSery parking , lot and this way. I've never observed that myself but that would be possible. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor? The only time I've seen semis there, they've been , parking on the north side facing west so however they get. I've never seen them came in and turn around but obviously that's what they're doing but the ones I've seen have been parked on the north side just on the east side of MCDonalds. ' Councilman Johnson: I would suspect that they're trucks that have delivered something to DataSery and they're on their way out and they pull over and grab lunch versus somebody coming actually off of TH 5 because most of those 69 1 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 ' truckers, if they don't know it, they're just going to go to someplace they know. Mayor Chmael: I've seen truckers just directly' � t pulled d�rectl� off on TH 5 on the shoulder and go get sarething. Gary Warren: When 184th is opened up obviously they'll be able to get in either I direction then but I think Jay is right. DataSery from our work on the Lake Drive East design project does have a reasonable number of tractor trucks that are going in there. IICouncilman Johnson: I had a friend who stopped his locomotive and went to McDonalds. It blocked 4 intersections. II Mayor Chmdel: Bill, I think that aspect of what Gary said on one side is already in effect with our Lake Drive/TH 101 project. ICouncilman Boyt: Well, but they shouldn't be parking on either side Don. Mayor Chmiel: Well I know. Maybe if they see it on one side they're not going ' to bother... Let's see what happens. Once we get the signs up. - Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to give the owner of McDonalds an opportunity to care in before we pass something to take business away. IMayor Chmiel: I think we'd better see what's happening with their proposed plan but we've got signs on one side right now which is better than no signs. IIGary Warren: We don't have them right now but we will based on tonight's action be installing those on the south side. ICouncilman Boyt: So the sense of the Council is to allow tractor trailers to park on Lake Drive East is what you're saying? ' Councilman Workman: No, I'd say the sense of the Council is before we take business away from a business in town, we ask for his input. I Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see how big the problems really is. Is it 1 a week or is it 1 a day or is it 2 a day or what? I don't have a real good sense for this. I might get a better sense now being in town more. IIJim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, we can survey this between now and the next Council meeting and care back with a survey for you and let you know just what the problem is and how extensive it is. IMayor Chmiel: That'd be a good idea. ' Councilman Boyt: In the meantime you might as well take, of course -there isn't a public safety meeting before the next Council meeting is there. I Mayor Criiel: Yeah, I was going to say take it to the Public Safety Commission. Okay. Metro Waste Control. 70 -City council Meeting - March 12, 1990 11 Councilman Boyt: In the Admin pack, which is always fun to read, I don't know if you noticed but this time the Metro Council took on the City of Chanhassen and the Watershed District. I had to read the thing to see where they were hitting us. Councilman Johnson: I didn't read it close enough to see that. I saw they were really going after... Councilman Boyt: But what they said was, they basically said that we lost the , funding for the Lake Riley clean-up because of the political struggles of local government. Metro Council is telling the Watershed District to take this out of the hands of local government and I'm not interpretting anything in here. That's what they said. If I can find it, I'll read it to you. They also, as the cover letter said, the Chair of the Metro Council I believe comments that he has not seen a report from staff that has been this derogatory of a watershed district. He says to the watershed, the staff report says, that the watershed district should take action to vigorously implement plans and regulations to clean up that watershed. They talk about, it is imperative that the district begin planning for non-point source pollution reduction and assess the impacts of non-point source pollution on all surface waters. It goes on through here to say, ah here's a comment, and there's no page numbers on this so I can't refer you to it but it says unfortunately, due to local disagreement regarding the public access to Lake Lucy, the grant was withdrawn. We might take issue with that but I would conclude that since federal funding was withdrawn due to lack of local support, it is unlikely that this project will be reinitiated. This is clearly inconsistent with the Watershed District policy and then they go on to state what that policy is. The Metro Council's concern that the water quality impacts observed at Lake Riley are occurring generally, therefore the Council believes that it is urgent to manage surface water quality in more effective ways. Now another point, it says no comments regarding anticipated changes to the local comprehensive plans were received from local communities. I don't know exactly what they mean there but if they mean that we didn't give input, someone's confused. They mentioned several times in the staff report that they're basically putting it on us and the watershed district and what I would like to direct staff to do is send a letter to the watershed district telling them that we would like them to fund the public access on Lake Lucy and get on with the show. And they have, as has been pointed out, the authority to tax to do that. They can raise the $200,000.00. Put the access in a place where people can live with it and since they're being directed by the Metro Council to get off the dime and do something, I think the City Council should be very aggressive in pushing the Watershed District to do just that. Councilman Johnson: Non-point source pollution is more than just Lake Riley , clean-up. It's how do we manage fertilizer within this watershed. Now do we manage the old turkey farm within this watershed. Etc, etc.. Councilman Boyt: A good bit of the money in that grant was to non-point source pollution. What we're talking about here is in fact the Lake Riley-Purgatory, whatever watershed districts and so, Lucy is a big part of that. Pram what you said about muck depth, the local effort is in my opinion is doomed. They're not going to be able to afford to be able to attack that kind of muck depth and clean that lake up. We need big money to get this project done. 71 1 1 �.aLy wuru:�t neezang !natal 1L, IVVO Councilman Johnson: The other thing is, if I remember the letter from the EPA ' which took the funds away from us, I don't even remember that letter addressing Lake Lucy. It seemed to me it addressed, their delay in getting, it's 3 years ago we gave than this money and we don't even have an approved work plan after 3 years. We're pulling the money from you. That money was gone before Lake Lucy really got going as a heavy issue. They were already working on pulling that money. ' Councilman Boyt: Well would it be the sense of the Council to... Mayor Chmiel: I think what should be done Bill is to, being this is under Council Presentations, be brought up next meeting or whenever it goes on the next agenda and then move from there. Councilman Johnson: Staff can bring back some suggestions as to what we can do ' along the lines of what you've been talking. Councilman Boyt: Whatever. I just want to see us. I think we've got an ' opportunity here. The Met Council is pushing than, I think we should. Don Ashworth: I should make the Council aware that, and I think it was in this ' same packet, there are differences of opinion that exist between the Watershed District and Metro. In fact, Metro is basically looking to take over a number of the powers of local watershed districts. I don't know how much that disagreement is interferring with what I'll call good policy but we may very well be faced with an issue of two agencies kind of fighting each other and using us as a tool. ' Councilman Johnson: You may see similar reports for all the watersheds corning up because it's a political fight of Met Council trying to get more responsibilities. They're trying to get more responsibilities in a-lot of things. ' Councilman Workman: I'd like the City Attorney's opinion on Met Council's water plan, if he has one. .1 Roger Knutson: Just a brief comment. One of the reasons the Met Council, my understanding is very excited about water quality is their battle with the EPA ' and their effulent discharge limit. Mayor Ch iel: That's the problem right there. That's it Roger. I Roger Knutson: And rather than, they would frame it differently. Rather than deal with the quality of their effluent as it canes out of their plants and we've had better which they say is extremely expensive and I'm sure it is, their solution with the EPA is we'll solve the non-point pollution problems. We'll lower that. Therefore the quality of the effluent coming out of our plants won't have to be quite as good and the net result will be acceptable to the EPA ' and that's, as I understand it, the genesis of the thing. Councilman Johnson: And they've been arguing that with the EPA and the courts and everything else but I've not seen the cane forward with any plans on how to ' implement this other than telling other people why don't you go implement something. They give no guidance in this letter as to what they expect to see 72 city eounc:u meting - March 12, 1990 • II the Watershed do. They just said you're not doing it. You're not addressing it. ' Roger Knutson: I should also point out what the Metropolitan Council is doing here is cementing as all other state agencies do on the 509 plan of the Riley- Purgatory watershed. They're just making comments. Those comments will go to the Board of Soil and Water Resources and they review the actual plans. Based upon past experiences, it's very comment for the state agencies and for the Metropolitan Council to care down very heavily on a watershed and the Board of Soil and Water Resources still to say your plan is acceptable. Councilman Johnson: If it meets their criteria. I Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Chniel: I'd suggest that we put this onto future agenda item and have , staff address that. TH 101 and 78th Street Bill? Councilman Boyt: Okay. Back to the sign issue. We have had repeatedly had cars parked there for sale. That is a dangerous corner and I think that the City staff should be directed to work with posting that so that stops. Councilman Johnson: MWDot owns that right? Do we have to get MnDot's , permission? Councilman Boyt: No, that's a private owner. I Gary Warren: MnDot right-of-way but the public safety did sane checking I believe, Jim on the ownership and it turned out he's actually parking on private property. Councilman Johnson: Yeah but if we posted the right-of-way they wouldn't, most of the people park. I don't know if all the people who park there actually have permission from the property owner either. The van and boat that showed up there Sunday, they had been down in the parking lot at... Councilman Workman: Who owns that property? , Councilman Johnson: The Hardware store. , Don Ashworth: Scott has written a letter several times to the owner. My recollection of the response we received from the owner was yeah, I know they're parking there and they can continue parking there and as far as I'm concerned the city shouldn't interfere with me. Councilman Boyt: I think that was one instance. I don't think the property owner has been very supportive of the others has he? Jim Chaffee: No. That was correct in one case. Tb my recollection, Scott has been getting cooperation from the property owner. In fact the property owner wrote a letter back to Scott and asked for Scott's help. The problem is it takes time. 73 1 I City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 1 ' Councilman Boyt: Well not if we put a sign up there. Then we can tow then. You two a couple cars out of there and that will be the end of it. ' Mayor Chmael: I think if we were to just notify the sheriff or public safety to police that and upon seeing then notify those people immediately. Councilman Boyt: But it doesn't work. ' Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I may. That's typically what we do. We can call. Every car that's there has a phone number and we call the phone number and tell then to move their car. If we don't get compliance that way, then we go through the criminal procedure. The route. The letters. The certified letters. That's what takes the time. I think that we can by and large get cooperation fray, the people once we call than and ask then to move their vehicle. Councilman Workman: Under what basis are we calling these people can telling then to move their cars? Jim Chaffee: There's several, I think there's 2 at least. One that comes to mind right now is under the zoning is outdoor display of merchandise for sale. 1 Councilman Workman: In a residential district. ' Jim Chaffee: Right. Councilman Workman: I think that's 3 or 4 times tonight we're trying to keep people from making money. ' Councilman Boyt: What we're trying to do is keep people from creating a safety hazard. ' Councilman Workman: Well we don't have proof that there's a safety problem there yet do we? Specifically has there been an accident? ' Councilman Johnson: Do we have to wait until sa dbody gets hit and killed? Does somebody have to have a wreck there? ' Councilman Workman: Well has anybody had a fender bender? I don't know. Jim Chaffee: What we're trying to do is prevent. Last year during the summer we ' had quite a few vehicles parked there and then on the weekend many, many people would come by and park to get out and look at those other vehicles created quite a traffic jam. That's what we're trying to prevent. ' Councilman Workman: Let's go after those farm produce sellers. Cbuncilman Johnson: We already handled them. ' Councilman Workman: I know. We're handling everybody from making a buck in this town. I don't know. Okay. Well if there's a problem there, let's take care of it but let's not, it's a prime spot for selling a car obviously. People are selling cars there. 1 74 1 ViGj WW IL.LLCL LlAi1Gj P1dLCi1 II Jim Chaffee: I guess I would seek direction from Council on how you would like I : ne to proceed on this. , Mayor Ch iel: Well I don't know. I think by going through the processes that you have and notifying then. Requesting then to remove their vehicles. I didn't notice a car there this morning. I Councilman Boyt: There was one. Mayor Qzniel: Was there? t Councilman Boyt: There's been a car there every day for at least 2 weeks. ' Mayor C iniel: Same car? Councilman Boyt: Well up until the last 3-4 days, it was the same car. Now , today it was a new car. Driving by their twice a day, there's been a car there almost constantly. That's why I'm saying it takes, as Jim will tell you, if the owner doesn't comply, the it takes forever to work through the zoning ordinance violation which requires long waiting periods between steps to get some compliance. Councilman Johnson: It'd be simple to post it no parking. , Councilman Workman: So no parking on that strip? Gary Warren: It's not our right-of-way. Roger Knutson: The private person of the private property could post it. , Councilman Boyt: Well it sounds like if staff volunteered to put the sign up, that the property owner would allow then to do that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to put my fruit and vegetable stand there this sl uTer. Councilman Johnson: Which nobody can stop. You can only have walk up business. Mayor Qytiel: Okay, let's get a little direction quickly so we can move on. ' Councilwoman Dimler: We can't act on it really. Mayor QYniel: No, we can't really act on it but we can put it on an agenda item ' and go from there. Councilman Boyt: Well can't we ask staff to contact the private property owner and ask if the property owner would support us in putting a no parking sign on his property? If he does, we can do it. Mayor Chmiel: That's logical. , Councilman Workman: And if the property owner doesn't agree with that then we'd have to put it on another agenda. , 75 I II 'City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 ICouncilman Johnson: I think there was another letter to them saying you're creating a public safety problem here by allowing cars to park on your property. If I remember the letter that we sent and the City will have to take legal I action to prevent you from doing this. I think it was more a bluff than anything else but. I Councilman Boyt: Well at this point we're asking for permission to work with them. Everybody okay with that? I Councilman Workman: That'd be okay but if he has a problem with that, it's got to be on a council agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You got that Jim. 4bm, HRA? 1 Councilman Workman: Just when are we going to talk about it? I think the thing is getting, I'm getting a lot of healthy input from it. I'd like to continue to I get input. I merely suggested that there were people and many people out there that want to discuss this issue and look at this issue more closely and the suggestion that the City Council become the HRA and I'd like to continue to do I that. I don't know Don Ashworth if we have any kind of a plan to discuss this either with HRA or make a firm final decision or what are we doing with this? Don Ashworth: I've been under the impression that the Council members were I going through a process of getting feedback from the community and during that feedback period, staff was basically doing nothing while you had kind of followed your own route. I guess at this point in time what I'd like to do is ' talk with the Mayor about when and how we could put this onto the next agenda and what type of procedure you'd like to follow. Councilman Johnson: Why not have a joint meeting with HRA and discuss it with them? Mayor Chmiel: We did. ' Councilman Johnson: A joint meeting with them? ' Mayor Chrdel: Yeah, when was that. Councilman Workman: At the HRA meeting. ' Councilman Boyt: Well it wasn't a joint meeting. Mayor Qi del: There were 1, 2, 3 of us there. That was a majority. ' Councilman Boyt: It wasn't a formal one? ' Mayor Chriel: No. Councilman Johnson: Was it on their agenda? ' Councilman Boyt: What did they say when you did it? Councilman Workman: Whatever you want. 1 76 Mayor Chmiel: They didn't really have anything to say at the particular time. They were thinking about it. Maybe that's a good idea to just down with them again one more time and get their input. Councilman Workman: I just would like to move on it. I know there's people out there that want it discussed. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Get it on their agenda and make the availability for us to be with them at their specific meeting. Councilman Boyt: When we do that, I'd like w , I sure e to know, maybe staff, maybe Todd can help us with this, I'd like to know what, if anything, the HRA has approved that we couldn't have stopped because the other night we couldn't think of anything. Councilman Workman: Again my emphasis, and I'll re-emphasize it, is a perception. Very strong perception right or wrong, many people in the community have asked me to do this. I've done it. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Okay. Prior to going into that, I'd just like to , interject something under Council Presentation with an addendum to it and I'd like to get a motion. This is for the Girl Scouts for a Proclamation for the 11th thru the 17th. Can I get a motion? 1 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to add discussing the Girl Scout Proclamation under Council Presentations. All voted in favor of amending the agenda and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: The Girl Scouts of the United States of America recognizes that ' today's girls will be tomorrow's leaders, and Whereas, Girl Scouts of the United States of America is the largest voluntary organization for girls in the world and draws upon a large resource of positive adult role models, and Whereas the Girl Scout movement contains emphasized leadership, personal and carreer development for girls, and Whereas our community world will be the direct beneficiary of the skilled young women who are Girl Scouts, Now Therefore, I Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the Week of March 11-17, 1990 to be Girl Scout Week. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded proclaiming the week of March 11-17, 1990 as Girl Scout Week in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 APPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMIISSION AND RECONSIDER POLICE STUDY COMMISSION. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess due to the lateness of the hour, I'm wondering if we can, the Public Safety Commission does not have a meeting this month anyway. I'm wondering if we could postpone it to our next Council meeting because it's going to be a long discussion. Councilman Johnson: Do you think so? 77 •City Council Meeting - March 12; 1990 Councilwoman Dialer: Well yes I do. Councilman Boyt: What about the appointments? Can't we do the appointments and 1 get that? Councilwoman Dimler: No, because it's tied up. My concern with the Public ' Safety Commission and the Police Study, they're tied in and that's going to be a long discussion. Councilman Johnson: They're two separate issues? Councilwoman Dialer: No they're not. ' Councilman Boyt: I would ask, if we're going to do this, I'd like to put this off until the first meeting in April and not the next meeting in March because I'm going to be out of town and I'd really like to vote on this. ' Councilman Johnson: I kind of thought 2 out of 3 were a shoe in and the third one was where we ' Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's not my concern. My concern is mostly with the study committee and how this ties in. I don't want to see, after we rake the appointments, my main concern is that we don't make the Public Safety Carimission the police study committee as well because it's so heavily, you understand we're adding mostly policemen to it. Councilman Johnson: Well we have no choice. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah we do have a choice. That's what I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: Well all four of the candidates are policemen. Councilwoman Dialer: Well maybe we should look for sane more candidates. Dave Bloomer is the only one who isn't a policeman. Councilman Johnson: Well could we move on 2 out of 3 so we can put these guys ' back together and then on the third one? Councilwoman Dimler: Well there's not a meeting in March anyway so there's no need to. IICouncilman Johnson: I hate to have these people hanging fire for 2 months. Councilman Workman: Jay, Ursula explained to ne some of her concerns about it. I do concur, we're going to get this thing going to 12:30 anyway, but I think she's got same valid concerns and I would respect that. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula made a motion to put this on the April 9th meeting. Councilwoman Dimler: Mine was the next but he wanted the, Bill wanted it in April. Mayor Chmiel: Since Bill won't be there let's move it to the 9th. -- - 78 wcua.;LJ. 1•CC r1CU.LLI 1L, 17VS0 Councilman Workman: I would second that motion if it needs one. uncilwatan Dimler moved Councilman Work seconded Co ►and sec nded to table appointments to the Public Safety Commission and reconsideration of the Police Study Commission to the April 9, 1990 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Chmiel: We have gone through the process of reviewing each of the applicants. We've had 5 applicants came in and I don't know if everybody's ready to go through the process. In going through each individual one and maybe Don can keep a record. One, being the high score. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Councilman Boyt: Are we going to do it that way? Councilwoman Dimler: We were just going to discuss who we're for. , Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Alright with me. Councilman Workman: I'll make my recommendation first. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: My three picks for Park and Recreation Commission would be I James Andrews, Jan Lash and Wendy Pe rick. Councilman Johnson: You had to get the insurance guy on there huh? Okay, I'm on Jan Lash, E3 Hasek and Kevin Kinnear. Even though Wendy's really close there. Ed, he's the most unrepresented portion of our town. Ed's one of the few representatives. We've got one of the Planning Commission and one of the Park and Rec. Mayor Chmiel: I would go with Jan. I would go with Wendy and I would go with Jim Andrews. Bill or Ursula? Councilman Boyt: Okay, while it still might make a difference. I like Kevin Kinnear. I guess nobody's mentioned why they like people but I like that he deals with the public a lot. I like that he had an opinion but yet he was still open to listening to folks. I think that one of the things I saw about several of the candidates is they're pretty naive about what's involved in the job but that's probably to be expected. I'd go with Kevin and I like Ed's desire to stand up for what he thinks is important. Now, I know Jan is a done deal because I can count the votes like anybody can on this thing but in all honesty, I don't think she represents your neighborhood very well. There aren't many people in your neighborhood that talk to me and I'm not surprised but the ones, I actually got several calls about why there was no park equipment allocated to your park. Those folks should have shown up at the Park and Rec meeting. They should have voiced their opinion but Jan, against the interests or the wishes of several Park and Rec people said that she didn't want it in there. So there's no need to go further here but my three were Ed, Kevin and Wendy. I 79 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 I Councilwoman Dinler: Okay, I'll go along with Jan. I like Jim Andrews and Wendy Patrick. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, as I go by what I see here. It would be Jan Lash, Wendy l Perxick and James Andrews. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Jan Lash, Wendy Parxick and James Andrews to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Cbuncilworan Dimler: I would move that we adjourn. Mayor Oriel: No, we've got two other quick items. 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATION, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Our allocation this year is pretty close to what it was last year. II We're looking for proposals on how to allocate that. We've got a request in from South Shore Senior Center for a slight increase over their last year's budget to account for inflation and that's basically the only prior commitment ' that we have. I've discussed our position on the senior study, the ongoing senior study with Larry Blackstad from Hennepin County and I basically told him we're doing the senior study but would not have results until July. Is there a way we can park the funds for a senior program or senior projects that remains ' unspecified at this particular time? He indicated that we probably could do something along those lines but we're looking for sane input from you as to what sorts of things you'd like us to investigate for funding. I should also point out that we allocated or we have allocated in the past funds for low and moderate income housing rehabilitation loans. Virtually none of the money was spent last year and we still have $17,000.00 left. It's only speculation on his ' part but Mr. Blackstaf thinks that we may have satisfied what little demand we had in the City for those sorts of funds and we are eligible to reallocate those. In fact we could reallocate them for some planning efforts and one of the things, or a couple things we might like to look at. We may have same ' things we may need to have same additional consultant assistance relative to the Caiprehensive Plan or we've also talked about a wetlands program. Allocating some of those funds to start that work. Just throw that our for your ' consideration that those could be reallocated. If you have anything you'd like us to pursue, I'd be happy to do that. Councilman Johnson: Any way we could pursue non-point source pollution with same of these funds? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my main comment there was that I'd like to see us I pursue something that the most residents would benefit so for re that was number 3 and number 6. Public facilities and improvements and various... Mayor C1v iel: I have the same ones, 3 and 6. Councilwa►an Dimler: Good for you. We agree. 80 I 1 .City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 • II Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add a couple for consideration. One of than I think, we ought to look at a mobile library or improving the mobile library if we've got one. Maybe even do something with getting shut-ins to the library somehow or another. I'd like to see us look at spending that money on summer programming for the handicapped. I would like to see us... Mayor Chmiel: Don't we have that already Bill? ' Councilman Boyt: No. We have next to no programs for the handicapped. Mayor Chmiel: Handicapped accessible. Oh, that's for Lake Susan Park. Okay. Excuse me Bill. Councilman Boyt: The other one is a transportation to than Elementary for our shut-in seniors. I think that the City should also take sane of that, if we've still got $17,000.00, we should take some of that and aggressively advertise for people who qualify and my guess is that most of-the people have no idea that that money's available. Councilman Johnson: It was published in our official newspaper. ' Councilman Boyt: Yeah, well there is plenty of opportunity to spend this money in sane parts of town if they knew it was available. I Mayor Chmiel: And I sort of question about your South Shore Senior-Center thing. Councilman Boyt: Well that's an editorial. Councilman Johnson: They may be losing their facility and one of their big needs will be a new facility. Mayor Chmiel: But are our people there? Councilman Johnson: Yes, there are Chanhassen residents. Mayor Chmiel: I've been there several different times. ' Councilman Boyt: Well and I have too and they're nice folks and they live generally in that end of town. We've got a fair number of seniors that show up at than Elementary and might have some more if they thought there was sane way they could get there once in a while. Councilman Johnson: Plus if there was something else to do besides play cards , and gossip. Councilman Boyt: We've spent a lot of money on the South Shore. I don't begrudge then that but maybe it's time we started doing something down on this end of town. Councilman Workman: We could use the money to start a zip code fund to get all of us one zip code. 81 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 IICouncilman Boyt: Boy you really know how to garner votes out there guy. Mayor th del: I'm still not getting your direction. IIPaul Krauss: Well yeah, I think we got sane. Why don't you let us do sane more work on it. IIMayor Chniel: Fine. GIL LAURENT PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: At a recent meeting you approved a preliminary plat extension for I Laurent, Peterson and Jeurissen. They had qualified for 2 1/2 acre zoning and they were supposed to came in with a plan before TH 212 or within 3 months after the official mapping of TH 212. I've had sane discussions with Mr. Laurent and the situation is that his property is going to be so chopped up by the new TH 1 212 that it really is impossible for him to develop it and he's pulling out of that coalition of three. I indicated I would bring this before you so we would get sane record of this in the Minutes so that at some point when he needs to go ' through an acquisition process with MnDot for his property, that there is sane official record of the fact that you had approved a concept for 2 1/2 acre lots. Even though he's not going to be going for that, the value of his land should be based on what he could have done before the highway came through. I guess the ' only reason again for bringing this before you tonight is so that it was in the Minutes and we acknowledge that situation, that he is withdrawing. II Mayor C2miel: Okay. One thing Paul that I see here in the first paragraph as opposed to the second paragraph. I see a little bit of contradictory discussions going in here. Here you indicate that they will not be pursuing I development of their property. That they're withdrawing their preliminary plat application. The last paragraph says as far as staff knows, Peterson's and Jeurissen's are still pursuing their preliminary plat application. IPaul Krauss: Yes. The other two parties are. Mayor ChTdel: Okay. Great. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. II All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. I Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager ' Prepared by Nann Opheim I 82 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting at 7:35 p.m. . COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Don Ashworth, City Manager; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Todd Gerhardt, Administrative Assistant. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel , Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LINE ON LAKE LUCY ROAD. Public Present: Al Harvey - 1430 Lake Lucy Road Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Al Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road: We did have failing sewer systems due to the dry weather this winter. Our system did freeze. We have been pumping it to meet satisfaction to the City. My question is, we are ready for sewer. We built in 1965. We told we'd have it in 1975. We would like to have it. My only question is, I own additional property to the left going out to Yosemite and if I've got to bear the cost of extending this, I would like that property to be included so if in the future time I would rather feel I 'd want to develop that property. Or at least I would like the condition of the extension to be so that it would adequate serve our properties. We have 11 acres there. The north line is the Metropolitan Sewer south line up at Yosemite there so I guess I would just like to see, rather than piecemeal just do this little, to satisfy our needs right now, I would question if we could have it extended to take care of the total property there. Conrad: More than likely that, as I 'm sure staff has told you or if not, all that area is going to be included in the MUSA line we think relatively quickly. I think that' s what Mr . Krauss was saying. We are extending the MUSA line fox service. We believe they' ll accept our proposal. Would bundle in all your property and we wouldn' t really have to go through what we're doing right now with you. We really think that that's going to happen. It appears to me that going beyond the immediate problem, solving the immediate problem would be sticky. Planning Commission Meeting March 7 , 1990 - Page 2 Krauss: Mr . Chairman, I think you're assessment is probably accurate. In the past the Metro Council has been rather relunctant to grant these sorts of requests. They've often asked the City to delete a corresponding amount of acreage from the MUSA line which we think is an inappropriate' thing to do and they often establish a requirement such as we saw on the Shively Addition where no further subdivision is to be allowed that' s accessed to sewer until the MUSA line is :expanded. You're right, I think bringing in additional properties at this time is likely to raise a lot of eyebrows at the Metro Council and probably muddy up the request. Al Harvey: It did state in the thing that we signed our life away to get here, did state that our properties would be encompassed with this extension. Krauss: If I could clarify that. There' s two activities going on here concurrently. One in which you're not privy to tonight because it hasn' t been done yet is the Harvey/O'Brien request for a feasibility study to extend utilities. Under the feasibility study, the engineering department' s going to look at the best way of serving the entire area, not just the two lots that are in this request. That's because we want a system in there that can be extended in the future. However , we didn' t feel that we should extend the services to serve anymore than those two lots at this time. Conrad: Thank you for your comments. Any other comments? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: I can go along with the staff recommendation on this one. I don't think it' s appropriate right now to, it seems to me that this whole thing arose originally out of failing sewer systems and I don't think it' s appropriate at this time to expand beyond the needs of the houses that are there right now. But as far as what's before us on the table right now, I 'd go along with the recommendation. Wildermuth: The house was built in 1965. When did our ordinance require 2 on site locations for a septic field? Olsen: 1987. Wildermuth: What is the cost of putting in a new septic field? Olsen: I think it can run around $8,000.00. Krauss : To $12,000.00. It' s probably roughly equivalent to the cost of extending utilities to the property which, if we were going to do that in a year or two anyway seemed rather redundant. Wildermuth: In view of the emergency situation, it certainly makes sense. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 3 Batzli : When you put the MUSA line in, how soon do you have to convert from your septic field to the urban service? Krauss: The moving of the MUSA line doesn' t in itself require that you convert. The requirement kicks in when the utilities are placed I believe within 150 feet of your home. Batzli : So that even if they were, if this doesn' t go through and they have to put in the new septic fields and then a year down the road this portion is included within the MUSA line, that wouldn' t necessarily mean that they have to hook up. The report seems to state that they're going t. save money by doing it this way but that' s not necessarily the case. They may be on their septic sewer for years within having to hook up to the urban service. Krauss: Commissioner Batzli , that is a potential . The applicants though have indicated to us that they'd like to develop the property at some poin in the future which is one of the things that we took into consideration. But yeah, there is a potential for redundant service. We don't have any assurance that that' s going to occur but there is a good potential for it. Ahrens: How close is the sewer line right now? Isn' t it within 150 feet? Krauss : No. It' s several hundred feet to the east. It terminates, I thought we had it illustrated on one of the illustrations. It would terminate right there. Batzli : If in fact the Met Council comes back and says you have to take 1 acres somewhere else out in order to get this through, do you still recommend this? Krauss: I'm not sure Commissioner Batzli . That gets into an equity issue In the report and in the Metro Council application, we've tried to tell them that we think that that' s inappropriate to do. If they want to force that issue I supposed we' ll have to deal with it but I really have no idea where those 10 acres would come from. Batzli : I agree with the earlier comments due to the emergency nature of this. I don't think it' s appropriate to bring additional acreage in and i. in fact the Met Council wants to take 10 acres somewhere else out, I think we should review this again. Conrad: Someplace 10 acres out and then where? What did you mean Brian? Batzli: If the Met Council says no you can't service this without taking an additional 10 acres out of the MUSA line. Conrad: The current MUSA line as it stands, okay. Emmings: I kind of agree with Brian' s comments. I think it makes a difference to me. I kind of go either way on this one so I decided I was going to support the staff ' s recommendation here but I tink this one could be handled either way. The only thing I didn't know that I learned tonigh _ Planning Commission Meeting March 7 , 1990 - Page 4 is that they wanted to develop the property which makes me want to see the sewer come or make me think that the sewer should be extended. Is there anyway on these kinds of things to get any kind of informa indication from the Met Council ahead of time or is it real unreliable? Krauss: The Met Council is a big bureaucracy that doesn' t like to give any indication of anything. Emmings: Some people look at us that way. Krauss: Yeah. I don't know. I 've called over there to find out the procedure and see if there would be any difficulty with it and I've had differing opinions. Emmings: Do you think that doing this now would have any impact on what we' re doing in terms of the big expansion we're going to be requesting very shortly? Krauss: I don' t think so Commissioner Emmings . We' ve prefaced the whole report by saying that we' re relunctant to do this and we've turned away others. It' s only the emergency nature of this one that causes us to act a little differently. Emmings: My only other comment isn' t really related to this thing but it' s more related to the point that Brian raised about whether or not they'd have to hook up if sewer were available. I thought we had sort of, I know we' ve discussed in the past the fact that if people have good functioning septic systems, it may not, we may not want to have a policy whereby we require hook-up to sewer even if it is available until there' s division of land or the systems fail or whatever . Do we actually have a policy on whether or not people have to hook-up to sewer if it's available? Olsen: Yes. There' s an ordinance that states that with sewer and water . Emmings: Okay. Water I understand and what does it say in terms of sewer? That you have no choice but to hook up within a certain. . . Olsen: Right. I think it's within, like Paul was saying, within a certain number of feet that you are supposed to hook up. Emmings: I think we should probably, that should probably be something that we review at some point. Krauss: It certainly can be. That issue is going to be confronting us probably quite a bit with the expansion of the MUSA. I 've seen some ordinances that were worded that you didn' t have to hook up until your system failed or you had to pump it once. You were allowed to pump it once and that was it. There' s an equity issue with that and maybe we should take a look at that. Emmings: Otherwise I guess , in balancing all this out, I'd support the staff' s recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 5 Erhart: How often do you have to pump it now? Al Harvey: It's in the winter now it's been every 2 weeks . Erhart: How much does that cost you? Al Harvey: $65.00 every pump,. I might add , why we would like to see the sewer come through is, when we did build we extended our system to the front thinking that sewer would be coming through along the road. Now we have no accessible area to extend the system that' s in there now. In fact we've got drainfields everyplace of ground that' s available to us to the front so that is why we would have liked to have slipped a pipe in when they put the waterline through. Erhart: When did it stop working? When it froze? Al Harvey: It' s been much worse this winter because of the lack of snow. It does function considerably better in the summer. Erhart: So it' s also marginal in the summertime? Does it work properly then? Al Harvey: It takes in some surface water. To clay around it, it' s rathe , a unique system. It was a filter bed and a drainfield and the clay around it has really kind of saturated or absorbed the. . .and stuff so there isn' t { much runoff from the system. So what filters through the filter bed that gets away but it' s probably served it' s need in 25 years. Erhart: I guess I agree with staff that we ought to go in and see if we can get in a certain kind of emergency hook-up where they have to do a formal MUSA line amendment. I guess you know better than us on that but i , would seem to me that someway to do this without creating too much effort . I assume it' s automatic. If Met Council would come back and ask for 10 acres, that would automatically require a major discussion for both the staff and Planning Commission so I assume that's automatic. In that case, we probably would have to live with the situation and try to go for the bic MUSA extension. Conrad: Okay, thanks Tim. I'd be real disappointed if the Metropolitan Council didn't grant this. I agree with the staff report. Is there a motion? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request 90-1 to include properties located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road into the Metropolitan Urban Servict Area and that the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line be amended to include said parcels. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND ARTICLE XXVII, MINERAL EXTRACTION PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF GRADING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES. Public Present: Name • Address Mike Dwyer 1600 TCF Tower, Minneapolis Tom Zwiers 9390 267 St. West, Lakeville Jerry Rypkema 18601 Panama, Prior Lake Leon & Delores Mesenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive Diane Beauchane 240 Flying Cloud Drive Jason & Tara Beck 240 Flying Cloud Drive Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Conrad: How would we know how this ordinance impacts Moon Valley? Krauss: I would defer that to the Moon Valley operators. We've asked them to consider that? Conrad: It' s hard, there are separate issues Planning Commission but yet we do know that there is a definite impact apparently with the ordinance on Moon Valley operation but tonight we literally are looking at an ordinance that governs all of these activities in Chanhassen. We are looking at an ordinance. We' re not looking specifically at Moon Valley. As Moon Valley gives us some items to consider, we may want to modify the ordinance or take a look at those considerations a little bit closer . It' s a public hearing, we' ll open it up for public comments at this time. Michael Dwyer : Mr . Chairman, my name is Michael Dwyer . I'm an attorney representing Moon Valley Aggregate and it's president, Tom Zwiers. I practice at the law firm of Mackall , Crounse & Moore in Minneapolis. Our firm has represented Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley in a number of actions. As to why I 'm on this particular file, I think it' s also due to the fact that I'm on the Planning Commission for the City of Mendota Heights. Presumably I know a little bit about land use laws. Mx . Zwiers is here this evening along with his assistant Jerry Rypkema and Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Rypkema can fill you in on some of the details in how Moon Valley gravel pit is operated. I understand that several of you folks have taken advantage of Mr. Zwiers' offer to tour you through the site. I think 4 or 5 or 6 of you may have done that. We are here this evening in opposition to the ordinance and we have a number of reasons why. The first one is, I think if we cut through all the semantics, there is no question but that this ordinance targeted to Moon Valley. If you read the City Council Minutes, if you read the staff report, this thing is being generated just for Moon Valley alone. Moon Valley is the only mining operation in the City of Chanhassen. I understand sir your attempt to make a distinction between reviewing separate ordinances apart from Moon Valley but I think that' s an Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 7 impossible task for you folks . You have to look at this ordinance in ligh • of the Moon Valley operation. So we oppose it on the grounds that it' s targeting a pre-existing , legally existing, non-conformity. Mr . Krauss indicated that it was a non-conformity to a certain degree. Well there aren' t any degrees about it. It' s a legal non-conformity recognized by Chanhassen' s ordinances. It was in existence long before the City of Chanhassen, laid over the City it' s zoning ordinances and it has the force of law behind it. It' s a legitimate operation. This proposal , the proposed ordinance seeks to take away from Moon Valley the legal right of being a non-conforming entity. Take it away and not give anything in return. That' s inappropriate. Beyond not giving anything in return, it demands compliance by going through a permit process that Moon Valley estimates may cost as muph as $35,000.00. Now as Mr. Krauss said, we have met with representatives of the City. The City told us they had absolutel, no concept as to how much it would cost to comply with this permit and whe we threw out the figure of 35 we were told, well get a different estimate. Go talk to someone else to see how much it would comply with. The permit process is expensive and I think it' s darn uncertain whether a permit woul• ever be granted to Moon Valley. That is inappropriate. It' s just unfair . We further oppose this ordinance because the City has not presented any evidence, and I 'm not sure it can, that this ordinance is required. It's not necessary. It is couched in terms of an exercise of the City' s police power but the City hasn't demonstrated the necessity to exercise and interfere with an existing land use. As Mr . Krauss indicated , there had been rumors and I 'm using his word of an expansion on the part of Moon Valley. That has been since proved to be absolutely wrong. Moon Valley has absolutely no plans to expand it's mining operations and never did hay-4 any plans to expand it' s mining operations by purchasing additional land. There have been no automobile truck accidents involving Moon Valley trucks We are unaware of any incidents of citizens or visitors or anyone being endangered by the operations of Moon Valley. As I understand the law, there' s got to be a need before the City can flex it' s muscles and try to take away from someone or an entity something that the City has already recognized. To the contrary, in terms of the way this operation is run, I think those of you who have viewed it would agree that it's being run in a very responsible and far sighted manner . Mr . Zwiers has operated the mine , in such a manner that he is terracing or stepping the mining operation so that when the deposits are exhausted, there will be terraced area available for future homes. Particularly on the bluff area, I think those of you whc were up there would agree that it's a magnificant site up there and the only reason and all the reasons Mr . Zwiers and Moon Valley need not to destroy that property. He has a vested interest in making sure that that beautiful property remains so. His long range plan is to have it submit ii to the City for subdivision for residential lots. To that end he has purchased land on the top side off of Pioneer Trail so that access can be gained to the top side of the area for those residential lots. The top soil is being preserved. There' s a huge mound of black dirt there. The dust and erosion is under control. Moon Valley has worked with MnDot in terms of putting up truck signs. Has requested to expand the shoulder at the entrance without much success. It's a responsible operation contrary to I think the assumption that got this whole ball rolling that it was an irresponsible operation. We further oppose this ordinance because the Cit: already has an ordinance dealing with mining operations contrary to what i; Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 8 represented in the staff report. The existing zoning ordinance dealing with mineral extraction, and I 'm reading from Section 20-1351 to Section 20-1384. There is an extensive mineral extraction ordinance on the books and it deals with everything. It talks about fencing and noise.- Appearance and screening. Hours of operation. Explosives. Fugitive dust . Slopes during excavation. Top soil preservation. Water pollution. Equipment. Processing . The %application process is all set out there. The permit process is set out. That there would be a public hearing for the permit. There is a section here on the surety bond. You've already got a darn extensive ordinance that deals with mineral extraction. Now the big difference and the principle difference between what is on the books as the City has indicated to us, and what is now being proposed, is the new ordinance takes away from the grandfathered status of Moon Valley and that's the essential difference. The language is a little bit cleaner in your new ordinance. I think that' s probably because Mr . Knutson drafted it and I don ' t know who drafted this first one. But clearly the intent of that new ordinance is to deprive Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley of the grandfathered status . That' s not right . This is still America folks and you can't take away from him something that is a vest property right. You can ' t without a real strong showing that he and Moon Valley are operating in a dangerous manner. Finally, Moon Valley opposes this ordinance because if adopted, under the proposed ordinance it would be put out of business. As Mr. Krauss eluded to, there are setback requirements and Moon Valley has operated in such a manner that it' s in violation of those proposed setback requirements. So for all those reasons in addition to the fact that it' s going to cost, it would cost Moon Valley an awful lot of money to go through the permit process, we would request that you folks recommend to the City Council upon findings that there is no demonstrated need for a new ordinance. That the new ordinance is unduly burdensome to Moon Valley. That the measures sought are not reasonably necessary. That you recommend to the City not to adopt this ordinance. If you folks accept the recommendation of the Planning Director, to have the City adopt an ordinance that you already have, we would ask that you continue the grandfather and exempt Moon Valley from the provisions of the new ordinance. Turn over this section to Mr. Zwiers if you folks have any particular questions as to how Moon Valley has been operated and the future scope of Moon Valley's operations and what Mr. Zwiers' plans are in terms of using that land in the future. I'd just like to reiterate that the best security that the City has in terms of how that operation is going to be used is the land itself. There' s absolutely no need for a bond or a letter of credit to be posted because he's not going anywhere. He wants to live out that land . Conrad : Michael there are 4 things you said. The cost was extensive. You didn't like the setback requirement. It basically constituted a taking or a taking of rights. What else? Is that it? Are those the key factors? We're really interested in specifics in the ordinance that we see in front of us. The impact on you and I 've only seen, the cost is one thing obviously. The setbacks is another. I 'm curious what else? Mike Dwyer : Okay, I can address some other ones. Under the proposed ordinance the City Engineer would have the sole discretion to require that this entire 85 acres be fenced. I don' t know what the cost of that would Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 9 { be but it would have to be enormous. The ordinance requires that any slope, existing slope that has a degree of greater than 1: 1. 5 be fenced. Your existing ordinance has that and also has an additional requirement that this new ordinance doesn' t pick up and that is that you'd have to fence any pool of water that' s deeper than 1 1/2 feet. There is a requirement that Moon Valley .give to the City for it's consideration the routes that the trucks hauling this product would take. Presumably just the roads in the city. There's a requirement that all the haul roads be paved with asphalt or concrete. That is an additional expense. Well , I have not gone through the entire ordinance to direct it toward the particular operations but we could do that at a later time if you'd like to. I can pinpoint. . . Conrad: I guess I 'm not as concerned and maybe other people are, how the operation is running today and maybe we411 hear some neighbors comment about that. I am very interested in the specifics with the ordinance. We have to decide how it impacts you based on how you tell us it's impacting you and obviously the 300 feet versus 50, that' s a problem. But you know, I think we need to hear and obviously some of these things cost money and we have to figure out if it' s worth it on our part but until we hear the problems, we really don't know. The general things, it costs a lot. Everything , businesses cost a lot. That' s just an absolute. There is a cost associated with running a business. We need to know what those costs are. We need to know if they' re excessive and we have to make some kind of decision. Mike Dwyer: Another one that comes to mind in terms of putting Moon Valle out of business would be the requirement that the processing equipment which consistent in Moon Valley primarily of a screening operation, cannot be within 500 yards of adjacent land that is not dedicated to mining. Well , we'd be in violation under that provision of this proposed ordinance The hours of operation. I can't remember under the old ordinance or the new ordinance how that is dictated. I think those hours of operation woul• be negotiable. Moon Valley hauls a great deal for the State and local governments. They have their own requirements as to when, they prefer that these trucks be on the road during the evening as opposed to heavy private passenger use. The principle point though sir is this ordinance, if passed, would put costs, unreasonable costs on an operation that has existed before the ordinance did. That' s our concern. It' s a non-conforming use. Your ordinances recognize it as a non-conforming use and now you' re taking that away. There' s no difference between a non- conforming use that is regulated and, it disappears. A non-conforming use becomes regulated. It' s not a non-conforming use. If you do have any questions of Mr. Zwiers, I 'd invite you to ask them. Perhaps while he doe: that, I' ll flyspect the ordinance again and point out further . Perhaps it'd be best if I submit to you in writing a detail of how this. . . Conrad : That'd be appropriate. Let' s see where the hearing goes. Mike Dwyer : Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 10 Leon Mesenbrink: My name is Leon Mesenbrink. I live at 250 Flying Cloud Drive. Right across from the Moon Valley pretty much. I 've been here since 1959. In that area. Long before there was the little, still a ski tow there. Little rifle range. Ma and pa gravel pit. Didn' t really amount to anything . I didn' t think much of it. About a couple years ago I started walking around the hills across from the house taking the kids for walks and I couldn' t believe vas I was seeing. Holes in the ground like you wouldn't believe. • Well this person, they' re saying that they' re terracing it. Right across from my house, if I take a small child. He falls down that terrace, that'd be one heck of a fall I ' ll tell you. A bank is undercut. If a small kid would go to the side, they don't want to put a fence up. They want the best of both things these people. They want to have an ordinance for everyone else that' s going to start but they don't want anything, they want this grandfather to do what they want to do here. They're within 50 feet of this property here with this grandfather gave them kind of right to go anywhere they want to go. What's going to stop them from going north , south, east and west to within 25 feet with this grandfather clause? Absolutely nothing the way it sounds to me. We' re not only talking about myself and some of these other people. We' re talking people within 80 acres all around here. In other words, that they could, any other operation that starts would have to obey by these rules but these people wouldn' t? I certainly don't think that's, you' re talking about taking rights away. That's taking rights away from everyone else. It' s giving these people the right to go do anything they want with this grandfather clause? I don' t think so people. I think you'd better take a long look at what we' re doing here. These people have a right to run an operation. I have no problems with that. I would like to see some controls put on it. If it has to be fenced with a drop that's just now so a small child wouldn' t fall and hurt themselves, there should be a fence. If that' s an expense, like you say, any business there' s expenses to business. It' s an expense that those people have to bear but are you going to put all types, are you going to tell any young kid 5, 6, don' t go up in those hills because they could fall down because these people have a grandfather clause? You people have a responsibility here to everyone. To be fair with them but to be fair with everyone. I think that's what you should do before you decide anything. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you for your comments. Other opinions? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Roger Knutson: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to make some comments? Conrad : I was thinking of asking you and I just wasn' t sure when. Maybe it's appropriate right now Roger. Roger Knutson: As Mr . Dwyer said, we had a meeting and we had some discussions. We emphasized to Moon Valley that we recognize they are a non-conforming use and we recognize they have the right to continue in existence so there's argument about that, at least there shouldn' t be. We tried to make clear and we think is correct, that even though they are a Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 11 non-conforming use, you have the right to regulate non-conforming uses which different than putting them out of business. Obviously if they' re already within 50 feet of a property line, you can' t make them stay back 300 feet or 500 feet or 200 feet because that' s an impossibility and there's a provision in the ordinance that acknowledges that that says for existing uses, variations will be granted as appropriate to recognize what's already there. The idea of the ordinance is not to put non-conforming use out of business but to regulate it so it does not cause problems and that's the purpose of it. I don' t see any taking issues or anything else. It's strictly a matter of fact that I think we can regulat- a non-conforming use. There are all sorts of existing businesses that hav- to come into compliance with new rules. Environmental rules, what have you. Factories have to put in scrubbers on their chimneys and do all sort of things they didn't have to do when they started but times change and rules change and you have to comply with those rules to protect the public good and that's what we're asking. Unless you have questions, that's all i have. Conrad: We probably will . Batzli : If you amended the current ordinance to include language that current existing uses would have to enter into a permit within 6 months, would they have to come in for a permit under the current ordinance? Roger Knutson: I 'm not sure I understand your question. Under the Curren ' ordinance they don' t have to come in for a permit but if you amended the zoning ordinance right now and said you have to come in? Batzli : Yeah. Roger Knutson: I think you could do that. I think it' s cleaner having this in a separate ordinance. In the gravel ordinance to make it clear that you' re acting under the police powers , general police powers rather than specific zoning. That's why it was set up that way. For example you did that with contractor ' s yards. You required existing contractor' s yard - to come in and get a conditional use permit and although it was suggested they wouldn' t get a permit, I would tell you what my recommendation but I can't tell you that you would grant him one but I would certainly say you should grant him one because there a non-conforming use and they have a right to continue in existence but you can attach reasonable conditions to protect the public. Conrad: Tim, we' ll start at your end. Erhart: First I' ll respond to the Moon Valley's attorney' s comments and sometimes these kinds of comments may disturb me so. Number one is that I absolutely don' t agree that this is entirely targeted at Moon Valley at all . I happen to live adjacent to another mining operation in the City of Chanhassen and have the same concerns about that operation as the gentlema over here had, Mr . Mesenbrink, that today it' s small but it certainly woulc grow to within 50 feet of my property if we don't have some kind of regulations on it. They were already out there working on Sundays removing clay. Next they' ll be working at night and I can hear it and it hasn' t III Planning Commission Meeting March 7 , 1990 - Page 12 bothered me so much so far but I think it's time to get a handle on these things so in addition to that I also know that there's one other large property owner close to where I live who is also considering and has been talked to by somebody that's interested in mining clay off his property. So I take exception to your contention that this ordinance is directed specifically at Moon Valley. Two, your statement that we cannot regulate these things I believe is wrong in that I think we have not only the right but the obligation to protect the health and safety of the people and the property owners of Chanhassen. Despite whether or not that you consider yourself grandfathered in or not. I think that's simply what we're trying to do here and that' s our concern with this ordinance. I agree with the other comments here that in the first place I don't know what you meant by the $35, 000.00, if that' s the permit and if the legal cost is that high or whatever it is but like any business in this city, including mine, there' s a cost of operation and when I see that, certainly your annual revenues exceed $800,000. 00 since that' s the size of the contract with Eden Prairie, $35,000.00 might be , seems to be minimal so I guess it doesn' t really sway me one way or the other. Last, or at least fourth, to say that you' re not interested in expanding the operation, well I think your actions, not wrong actions but I think your statement is totally incorrect because you've already expanded operation so from what you were when you just bought the property and now you' re mining clay up by Pioneer Trail. I expect that the other mining operation to my west, they're going to expand and we might have some others starting. And last, 'your comment about no accidents so far . That doesn' t mean there won' t be any accidents in the future and so I personally think your comments were inappropriate for what we' re trying to get accomplished here tonight and that is to write a good ordinance that protects the safety and the health of the citizens of Chanhassen and we' re not trying to put Moon Valley out of business at all here. I guess I don' t have to repeat what Roger says there but, so with that, I guess I 'm not sure we' re prepared to move, well I 'm sure some of us are prepared to talk about the ordinance but I think Moon Valley ought to get the specifics and if they want to draft a document that itemizes what things that bother them, we can do that. But anyway, just proceed with the ordinance. So I ' ll go with that. Just a couple things I have here. Help me understand Brian's question in that how is it that this ordinance is going to require Moon Valley to come into compliance where they haven' t in on the old one? Can you help me there Paul? Krauss: Well a couple things. The standards here are different and we believe a little more comprehensive than the ones we had but I think the key section is, and Roger correct me if I 'm wrong but is on page 2, 7-32 that says that mining and excavation operations that predate this chapter that do not have a permit shall obtain a permit within 6 months after the date of adoption. That really is the key as to whether or not you could lift this section out and overlay it onto the existing statute. I'd defer that to Roger. Erhart : That' s fundamentally the issue. One of the issues here is whether we can force them to do that or not. Roger Knutson: When I was drafting it, I sat and scractched my head a good deal trying to figure out what was the best place to put this. Whether in Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 13 an excavation and gravel ordinance or whether to put it just strictly in the zoning ordinance. I divided it up the way I did because I think you have a bit more authority to do this. I think you could do it either way but I think it's more authority to do it as a separate permitting process under your police powers than under 462 of the zoning statute. I think you could argue it either way as to which way is the best way to do it. Can you require a non-conforming use to get a permit and be submit to new regulations? I believe you can. Erhart: After restoration, are we defining, I didn' t see here. Did I miss it. We're defining the slopes after restoration? Krauss: No sir . We didn' t specifically what slopes we'd be looking for after restoration. What we'd be looking is when somebody came in for a permit, to give us a restoration plan that made some sense. I mean maybe give us a concept development plan to show that it can, the resulting terrain's going to be useful for what they' re proposing. In the case of Moon Valley, we' re not quite sure what the use would be because that area' s all agricultural right now so apart from 10 acre zoning, that' s the only thing that would be allowed in there. Erhart: I was thinking that in the case of Moon Valley or in that area or some of the other areas, I think what you're going to have a lot of, is a lot of steep slopes afterwards and even if they put black dirt back on top and reseed it and whatever , it's not going to look. I think it could easily happen that it' s not going to look natural . I think you could have some 1:1 slopes remaining. I don't know if it's practical to control that but that was one of the concerns I had is how do you, when you get it all done, make it fit into the surrounding areas? The other one is, I 've noticed that you have allowed your possibility of when you remove minerals is that it could be convereted to a wetland if that was part of the plan u• front. Is that my understanding Paul? Krauss: Yes sir. We would want to have a complete and comprehensive drainage plan. The rehabilitation plan would show the finished grade. Th: existing features, we'd want to have a preservation plan. Erhart: Do you see that potentially is that you could design in essentially a wetland or something in the end? Krauss : Sure. A lot of restored gravel quarries have water amenities in them simple because they wind up being big potholes. Erhart: The other thing , on your condition 5 on page 9 there. You state that no part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for uses other than open space, ag, shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to sanitary or storm sewer. Does that mean gravit flow? Krauss: That's true. You can pump anything . We should make it clear that we're looking for gravity flow. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 14 Erhart: The question I had, is that even, should that even be a requirement? What happens if it was required that it had to have gravity flow even before they started to hook into a sewer? You might be imparting a constraint that they didn't start with. Krauss: That' s true. I guess the thing you' re avoiding is a situation where you have a crater with ;homes at the bottom of the crater and everything has to get pumped up the hill . Erhart: I 'm just asking you to look at the sentence there. Krauss : We can take a further look at that. Erhart: It may be a little bit too constraining. Anyway, I know Steve's got a whole list of things so, regarding the ordinance so I ' ll just pass it to him and if I 've got some more. Emmings: I guess I 'm comfortable that the City can enact an ordinance to regulate a deal with this subject generally for the City but I 've got some real serious concerns as to exactly how this ordinance winds up being applied to Moon Valley. Although it's been said several times here that all businesses have costs and obviously that's true. It' s one thing to have a business, to plan your business and plan those costs in and decide if you're going to go forward as opposed to having your business up and running on some kind of profit margin and then having regulations imposed on you that may threaten your existence so I think there' s a difference there. While the staff report says it' s not punitive. I can sure see that if I were the operator and it were true that these new regulations would in fact cost me more than my profit margin. I 'd sure view them as punitive. But like I say, I think we can and should regulate this activity. We ought to have a good ordinance in place for these kinds of activities. I 've got a solution in mind maybe so we can maybe accommodate everybody I would hope. I 'm curious as to whether or not the operation of this gravel pit has generated complaints to the City? Krauss: Commissioner, I 'd have to say yes it has. But the applicant or Mr . Zwiers, the future applicant possibly, has asked us repeatedly to tell him how many complaints we've gotten and that's tough because you know there were individuals there who were making a lot of phone calls and we got a lot of phone calls from other agencies. Emmings: I don' t care so much about the numbers as the type. What have people complained about? Olsen: About the expansion recently. How far it' s going to be going. . . Emmings: Now if we move back in time to when all of this activity started, the complaints about the expansion. What kind of complaints were we getting prior to that time? Olsen: I don' t recall any. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 15 Emmings: So we weren' t getting complaints about anything? Okay. I have specific things on language in the ordinance. Do you want me to go through that? Conrad: Yeah, I think so. Emmings: Okay. I think in Section 7-30 where it says, it would be the sixth line down, it says cubic yards of material. It says shall be processed adminstratively. In Section 7-35 (a) it says they may be. Here it says they shall be and I think it should be one way or the other in both places and I think it should be may because I think the staff may elect not to process it adminstratively. Krauss : I would agree with that , yes. Emmings: So I think that shall should be changed to may. And then following up on that point, in 7-34 (a) . Instead of saying it may be approved, I think the approved should be changed to processed adminstratively again just for , you don' t want anybody thinking you only have the power to approve. You have the power to deny as well but I think if you say you have the power to process them, that keeps all your options as open as possible. Under the definition section, 7-31. It defines the word grade and you already have a definition in the Code of the word grade as a noun and here it' s being used as verb and I think that' s real confusing. Or here it' s being used as a verb or a noun but anyway, the definition we already have in the Code is different than the one that' s here and I think that word should be changed to grading. Batzli : Is the definition in the Chapter 20, Zoning section? Enimings: Yeah. Batzli : So it' s in a different section. Emmings: Yeah, it's in 20-1, Definitions. Batzli : And this is going to be Chapter 7. So it' s going to be in a different chapter. Emmings: But I think nevertheless , I think it should say grading because the ordinance is called excavations, mining and grading so what we're defining as grading , not the word grade and the same with mine. The next one down. It should be mining. Batzli : Excavating? Emmings: No, because look at the title. Just to keep it consistent with what the name of the ordinance is. Now grading, would this ordinance covex a situation where someone is hauling in dirt or some other material into their property and just laying it on top of the ground? Because that'd be changing the contour so that would be grading? Do you think people think of that as grading? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 16 Krauss : We could add filling. . Should we add filling? Emmings: I don't know. It's just something that occurred to me when I read , grading to me means kind of shoving around dirt on the same site and I don't know. I ,don't know if that includes hauling in dirt from off site and then shoving it around and whether you'd want to expand that definition to make it perfectly clear that we' re talking about or removing soil from the site or adding soil .to the site or pushing dirt around on the same site might make it clearer what we' re talking about there. I don't know. Under 7-33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements. I was wondering why we're exempting (a) and (b) . I 'm wondering, are we doing that because that really is looked at as part of the building permit process? Krauss: That' s correct. Emmings: Okay. Under application for permit under 7-34 (b) . Under number 9 it says that there has to be a landscape plan and I 'm wondering what, I guess I was thinking it didn't make much sense to me but I guess I was only thinking about it in terms of like an operation like Moon Valley. A mining operation as opposed to, this might cover a lot of other circumstances where you would want a landscape plan so that would be right? Krauss : Arguably you'd also want one with the Moon Valley type of operation. We get into buffering and screening later in the ordinance. That' s where that information will be provided. Emmings: Alright. That section I would add a 15. Under 13 there' s an (f) that says other information required by the City. I think that ought to be just moved out to number 15, the whole list. So if there' s any kind of site specific or other information that was needed that could be required under this Section then. On page 5 at the top under the paragraph that starts with a (b) there, the third line down. It says , again may be approved and I would change approved to processed administratively again. Then in that same paragraph, sixth line down it eludes to a subdivision 10-154 and I think that' s a stranger to our ordinance. I think you mean 7-34 (b) but I don' t know. Then in (c) there, I'm not sure, it says implementation of the overall plan. Batzli : Did you try to rewrite that? Emmings: Well , first I tried to understand it and I don' t know. It says implementation of the overall plan. I think what we' re talking about there is the operator ' s overall plan. Is that right? I wasn' t sure what overall plan meant there. Krauss : I think that' s a reasonable modification. Emmings: I thought maybe it ought to say compliance with permit approval or something like that, shall be by means of a renewal annual permit. That doesn't make me entirely happy but something. I thought maybe that got more at what you were trying to say. Meeting Planning Commission q March 7, 1990 - Page 17 Batzli: Can I give him my shot while he' s on there. Any approved permit shall be valid for a period of 1 calendar year and may be renewed for an additional 1 year period upon renewal in accordance with this section. Emmings: Sure. I think that's better. Then I thought the last half of that paragraph where it talked about the City Engineer being able to process this. Either ought to be under Section 7-37 where it talks about renewals or at least there ought to be a reference in 7-37 (a) at the end back to that paragraph where it talks about how the City Engineer does it. One way or the other . Otherwise you look under the heading for renewal and you don't find the procedure there. Under termination of permit 7-36, in (a) it talks about material extraction permit. What we' re talking about here is mining, extraction and grading so this one seems to be written too narrow to me. We should change that. It should be as broad as the ordinance itself is. In 7-42, vertical was misspelled. Then when I got over to 7-43 (6) it says the perimeter of the site shall be planted coniferous trees or otherwise screened. Again, it was hard to stop thinking about Moon Valley through a lot of these things. That would be nuts up there to me. To require a site that size to be planted in coniferous trees around it when it sits up in a place where you can' t see it kind of anyway. I hope we' re going to be reasonable when we apply this stuff. Then I thought maybe, I've got two things I 'd like to throw out as possible additions to the ordinance. One, it seemed to me that if a person didn' t do the rehab in conformance with their rehabilitation plan. I ' ll read the paragraph I wrote here. If rehab is not completed in conformance with the rehab plan, rehab standards or permit conditions within 30 days of written notice of violations by the City to the permit holder, then the City may enter the property and complete rehabilitation. I thought there ought to be some provision so that if they walked away from the -site, you can have the City give a notice for them of the specific violations that there have been and then let the City go in and do that so that it does get done. And then I thought the written notice of violation shall contain a list of specific violations and the City may enter only to remedy those violations specifically included in writing. If the City must complete rehabilitation, it may recoup it's cost by one, resort to any financial security posted by the permit holder . Two, collection proceedings against the permit holder . And three, assessment of cost against the property described in the permit. I thought that would give us a real potent tool for making sure that these properties get rehabilitated because to me that's the most important part. Or one of the most important aspects of the whole thing . I also thought that, or throw out for consideration a provision that if the landowner is a person other than the permit holder, that we get landowners to join in the permit application and also sign a statement that the landowner and his successors in interest be bound by the permit conditions and grant the City the right to enter the property at any time to check for permit compliance or to complete rehabilitation. That way avoiding any problems later on of the City trespassing . You can give the permit holder, I was thinking then after I did that that maybe we also ought to give, if there' s a notice of violations under that other section, it ought to go to both the land owner and the permit holder if they' re different people. What happens to our present Section 20 that deals with mineral extraction if we pass this ordinance? ' Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 18 Krauss : We would have to drop it. There should be a concurrent. Emmings: Shouldn't that be part of this that that would be revoked or repealled or whatever it's called technically? Now as far as, if we assume that this operation is grandfathered in or becomes a non-conforming use, which I guess is the same thing, is that the same thing Roger? To say something is grandfathered in, is that the same thing as simply calling it a non-conforming use under the ordinance? Roger Knutson: Yes. To just point out, taking care of the existing Chapter 20, we do that. If you look on page 9 of the draft ordinance, Section 7-46 (2) there. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by amending Article XXVII in it' s entirety to read : , so we've taken care of that. Emmings: In it' s entirety to read: and then what? Roger Knutson: Turn to the next page. Emmings : Oh, alright . Roger Knutson: So everything in that chapter right now will be eliminated and replaced with that. Emmings: Okay. So that's already taken care of. You know you' re not supposed to be able to expand a non-conforming use. Is that right? Roger Knutson: Yes but. The Supreme Court recognized that certain types of uses such as a gravel mine cannot continue to exist unless the hole gets bigger so they have said that even though non-conforming uses cannot expand, call it an exception or this is not expanding. This is continuation of the business so they have the right to continue to make the hole bigger . Emmings: Okay. And what limits that right? Roger Knutson: Of making the hole bigger? Emmings: Yeah. Now they're up to within 50 feet of the property line at least in one point that we've heard discussed here tonight and I guess, they can' t go so close to that property line that the next fellow' s land collapses or something like that. They've got to leave support there for his property but is that all that really restricts there? Roger Knutson: Currently in Chanhassen? Emmings: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Yes. We have no regulation of the non-conforming use other than nuisance which is kind of not a very great instrument for handling these sorts of things but they can create public nuisances . Depending on what they were doing, that could come into play. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 19 EYrmings: I went out to the site and was shown around and Mr . Zwiers told me what his plans are for the property and so forth. As we were standing up by the office area , I asked him what was underneath my feet and he said more clay and more sand. I asked him why he didn't plan to remove everything right down to the road level and he said that he just felt the property had more value if he didn't do that. He showed me that he had the top soil segregated and set aside on one part of the property and he described to me what his ultimate plan was, at least at this point in time for completely the mining of the property and hopefully maybe building houses up there someday. I guess I feel pretty strongly that, while I think the ordinance is fine and reasonable, I wouldn' t be happy if this ordinance operated on his property to put him out of business which I 've heard stated is not our intention. There seems to be a lot of latitude under the ordinance in the way the provision and so forth for taking into account what he' s got. The fact that he was there before we had an ordinance but if someone wanted to get real literal with the ordinance, it could do him I suspect a lot of harm in terms of the way it affects his operation. I think that having, I 'm all for some of these things such as him having fences up where there' s very steep slopes that could cave in if children got up there or something like that. Those kinds of stories you read in the paper on an all too frequent basis . I think there' s some real dangers there that need to be addressed but when I see things like having the entire site screened or trees put around it, that' s I think a good example of one if people got too literal with the ordinance, would be devastating to his business and kind of silly besides. My proposal , and I don't know if it would be, I just don't know if it can be done but it would seem to me that there are provisions in here such as, Mr . Zwiers when he talked to me told me he had very specific notions about how the property was going to look when he was done. He stood there and said, this level ' s going to stay where it is. I 'm going to take out these areas. I 'm going to have another level up here. I'm going to do this with these slopes and he told me, he seems to have a very specific plan and I guess if that plan , maybe the way to handle this, or one way of handling this probably of this existing entity under our ordinance would be to reduce that to writing. Get him to put down what it is that he' s got in mind for the property nigh now and considering our ordinance, making sure that he has a rehabilitatio plan. He told me he does and he described what it was and put that down a this point in time and just make an agreement with Mr. Zwiers that he' s going to ultimately have the site in such and such a condition. Then as the. . .maybe relieve him from some of the obligations under here that if enforced literally would cause him problems. There may be some things in the middle like putting up fences on steep slopes that he might not want t• do that we might want him to do that maybe could be compromised. Or maybe there are things that we' ll just plain want him to do. But it seems to me those aren' t the big things if the big things are to everybody like they are to me, making sure that the site is safe. That it's not causing a nuisance to neighbors and that there' s a rehabilitation plan. An ultimate plan for the property. That' s all I 've got to say. Conrad: That's the longest you've ever talked. Ermings: Sorry. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 20 Batzli : I agree with Steve. I was out there with Jim and I ' ll admit I got the same tour, or close facsimile and he explained to me what he was going to do. I don' t have a problem with what he' s going to do. I'd like to see him be able to reach an agreement with the City that allows him to do that provided that fits in with the planning staff and our view of things when it's kind of reduced to writing but I think he's got a good plan for what he wants to do out there. I think some safety things do have to be addressed. If it was a 'rain' season and there was actually water in some of his sumps, maybe fencing around that. Around some of the steep slopes. I agree that the safety considerations and nuisance things need to be handled and should be regulated but I don ' t have a problem with being flexible in regards to a lot of the things that I see in this particular ordinance given the fact that obviously for instance on the setbacks and things, he' s already exceeded those and prior to his expansion if you will , it doesn' t appear that there were any complaints . So I like Steve' s idea if there's some way to do that. I also liked his additions to the ordinance and I had some things throughout the ordinance too that I ' ll talk about but I 'm in general agreement. Conrad : Do you want to talk about the changes? Batzli : I don' t know. Do you want me to talk about them now? The one thing I would like to see added is the fencing around the water . I 'd like to see that back in there. The other thing is, the one thing that bothered me throughout and some of the other things are less important is the definition of the word earth. To change the contour of the earth. I don' t understand if it' s being used as a planet or, the legal definition of earth is soil , alone is distinguished from soil rock. I mean that 's the legal definition of earth. So I don' t know quite how it' s being used and if it' s a proper noun, let' s capitalize it or what are we doing here. That bothered me. I'm not an English professor so can we get help on that one? The only other minor one is in 7-30. It should be 1,000 cubic yards of material or more or else you' re stuck at 1,000 cubic yards. You don' t know what to do. Take out the word more than right before the second use of 1,000 cubic yards. My proposal for Moon Valley actually before hearing Steve's was going to be that they would be allowed to phase in some of these things over a period of time so they could take them into consideration when bidding on future jobs and so you don't nail them all at once with the cost that is a burden to them. At least they know it' s going to hit over some period of time rather than boom, it's passed. 6 months from now you have to have all this implemented or at least be the permit in process because actually it says I guess, shall obtain a permit and that' s questionable whether they could actually do that in 6 months given that it's kind at our option how quickly we proceed. One last thing. That is on the 50 cubic yards, how did we arrive at that number? I mean that' s basically 5 dump trucks of black dirt on somebody's lawn if they' re going to correate, put some black dirt on there. Wildermuth: Probably a little low. Krauss: A little low like we' re regulating too much? It could be raised. It came from experience in working with similar ordinances elsewhere. 5 truckloads of dirt is probably enough for somebody to get black dirt down Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 21 to sod a lawn which is fine. Nobody cares about that. When you go over that, you tend to have the ability to impact drainage and wetlands and you' re starting to get into the area that we'd like to look at. If you wanted it raised to 100 yards or some other number, we wouldn' t have a problem with that necessarily but that' s basically where it ' s derived from. Batzli: Wasn't one of the exclusions in the previous ordinance residential lots though? Krauss: Relative to building permits. With the building permit. Batzli : With the building permit? Okay. Krauss : And that' s still an exemption. I had a couple of other minor things that I' ll just show to Paul later. Wildermuth: As far as Moon Valley is concerned, I 'd like to see some kind of a development plan arrived at between the City and city staff and the mine owner so that he could obtain a permit and probably would not have to meet requirements on the new proposed ordinance. I think the ordinance is a tight one. I think to some degree we' re sending the message out that we don' t want mining operations in Chanhassen. Which brings up another point. Roger , one of the things that does bother me a little bit is that there seems to be kind of a mingling of the idea of excavation, filling and grading of minerals. I guess I'd like to see a little clearer distinction between the two. I think they can be combined in one ordinance but we talk about, first we talk about landscape plans and then we talk about labeling trees and under the same heading we also talk about rehabilitation plans and distances for processing equipment from, somewhere it said 1, 500 feet. 1,500 feet from the boundary of the adjoining property and that brings up another point. I think we've got to look at specific kinds of processing operations. A washing operation, 500 yards would be quite a distance for a washing operation. For example, in the Moon Valley operation you couldn' t go 500 yards almost in any direction except maybe the west. Roger Knutson: Just to point out . You' re looking at the second draft and quite frankly the first draft which was produced 3 days before this draft is dated, didn' t address filling at all and Paul and I talked and we agreed that filling should be addressed and we did, kind of quick and got something in here on filling. I agree with you it can use. Wildermuth: A separate distinction between mining the grading, filling and excavation. The other interesting thing that I 'd like to point out is that wherever mineral extraction is used, I think we should replace that terminology with mining. Extraction means separating metals from their ores and we' re not talking about that here. We're talking about mining clay, gravel , sand. We' re not really talking about mineral extraction in a mining sense of the term. Conrad: Should we be? Wildermuth: I don' t think so unless somebody knows something that the experts don't. Unless we're sitting on a lot of iron ore or copper or Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 22 something like that. Silver. Gold. I think that the ordinance in general is appropriate for future operations. I think it gives us a good handle and good control of future operations in Chanhassen and I think that' s what we want and that' s what we need. I agree with what has been said about Moon Valley. I was very impressed by the mine site. I 've been in a few mine sites. This is very orderly. Very neat. The man does have a plan and his ultimate goal is to aevelop the property. The equipment that I saw was pretty impressive. The office was first rate. I don' t think there' s anything shabby about this operation. I'm sure that we can come to some understanding recognizing that the grandfather status and so on, we can come to some agreement, some understanding, some basis on which a permit can be granted for the Moon Valley operation but I do like the strength of the ordinance for any new operations. Any fresh operations. Ahrens: Well I may have a slightly different opinion because I didn't get to go in the office Jim. I got a different tour. I had to go outside. Wildermuth: How many mines have you been in? Ahrens: A lot. All the Eden Prairie ones. I agree with some of my fellow commissioners here and I have a couple comments to make on some of their comments. First of all, I agree with Roger in that I think there are a lot of ordinances adopted by cities and states that affect existing businesses and that lots of times require those businesses to comply with various health and safety and environmental laws and ordinances that cities may think are necessary for the public safety and interest of the communities. I think we have to, I think that' s just something we live with in a modern age and we never know when there may be something new that' s required to protect the public. I think that this ordinance does address several public health and safety issues. When I went on a tour of this site I noticed that there were, Mr . Zwiers ' pointed out a deer, I don' t hunt deer so I don't know the technical term for it but. . . Batzli : A tree stand? Ahrens: A tree stand, yeah. There are people who are not working there who are walking around on the property. I don' t know if they' re kids or adults or whoever they are but they are walking around on the property. I think that it may be infeasible to fence the entire property but I think that some fencing has to be done. I 'm a little confused about, we've been talking about the expansion of Moon Valley that's when the complaints started and I 'm not sure if that means the expansion of the mining operation or the excavation of the clay over by Pioneer Trail. Krauss : Commissioners Ahrens, that' s a good question and there are actually two separate issues. There were rumors in the neighborhood and we've never substantiated them and spoke to Mr . Zwiers about it, that an additional parcel was going to be acquired. One that would have brought the Moon Valley operation closer to residential homes in the area. We found no indication that that was accurate but that was the rumor that was going around. Now it may affect, Mr . Zwiers indicated that it was a consideration, I ' ll let him explain that but there was some consideration to that but it' s not actively being considered now. As to the one up on Planning Commission Meetin g .1 March 7, 1990 - Page 23 Pioneer Trail , we've considered that as an expansion in the past because it's a separate, it's physically removed from the original pit. However, we've also found some information out about what' s being mined up there and we were under the impression originally that it was a different,, that the material they were excavating up there was clay, which it is but we were under the impression that there was no clay in the pit itself, the main pit and it turns out that there i.s so the distinction' s getting a little more blurry than it had originally been. But we were looking at it being an expansion because it was physically removed. It was up in a different area. It was up near Pioneer Trail and not 169. Emmings: Is it on a different parcel of land? Mike Dwyer: No. Olsen: It' s all under single ownership but it was on a piece that was purchased that at one time was separate but everything was purchased and under single ownership before the ordinance it' s subject to. Mike Dwyer: That top side has been mined as well . . . Ahrens: The top side? What are you talking about? Mike Dwyer: The level top, Pioneer Trail side has been mined at different times. Other than, the Moon Valley operation has mined in phases. It has ( mined the top side. Ahrens: The area where the farming area was? Tom Zwiers: On the bottom side. We mined on that, like they' re talking about that same parcel and we shaved down the front. . . Ahrens: I wasn't talking about that area. I was talking about where the clay is being removed right now. That hasn' t been mined up there? Mike Dwyer: Other than the excavation you've seen. Ahrens: Is the excavation of clay, is that all part of the same use as the gravel mining? Tom Zwiers: We mine with blades. . .all types of materials out of it other than gold. Wildermuth: Would any future activity on the top portion off Pioneer Trail require a separate permit or would the whole parcel be under one permit? Krauss: I guess ideally the whole parcel would be under one permit that would all be controlled in some sort of comprehensive manner. Ahrens: Now if this ordinance is adopted and Mr . Zwiers' operation is grandfathered in, does that mean if he ever changes his mind about his intentions for the property or if he sells his property, that that property could, that anybody could do anything they wanted with that property? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 24 Continue to mine it to within 25 feet of all the adjoining property owners? Roger Knutson: No. The idea is, he gets a permit. The permit runs with the land and the permit lays out conditions which he will now have to comply with. The owner of the property will have to comply with. Ahrens: But if he keeps the property and just changes his mind and he doesn't want to develop `it into housing. He wants to continue to mine it. Roger Knutson: It' s part of the permit process. Once you issue a permit, you have a land use plan with that. He can change it but he' ll have to come back and see the City to get it changed. Wildermuth: One of the reasons for an annual update right? Roger Knutson: Right. He can change his mind . I mean if he goes on mining for 100 years and who knows what's going to be appropriate 100 years from now, he can come back and say, you know people aren' t building apartments now. We want something else and come to see you and has to have it changed . Batzli : This actually extinguishes then the grandfathered non-conforming use? Roger Knutson: No. He still has. . . Batzli : If for instance he was to come in and get a permit and then cease operations for 2 years. Sell the property. The new person would not be able to continue? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Batzli : That' s extinguishing the use then on the land? Roger Knutson: That's correct. If he stops doing it for a period of time, that' s right. Wildermuth: Is that in here too? Batzli : No, that's not in here. The abandonment. Roger Knutson: That' s in the zoning ordinance. Krauss: That's today. That's under the non-conforming section of the zoning ordinance. Ahrens: In general I think this is a well written ordinance. I have some changes too that I don't think we need to go into right now. Some of them have already been covered and I can talk to Paul about it afterwards. I don't think it' s the intent of anyone to put Moon Valley out of business. I don' t think even this ordinance, if applied to Moon Valley would probably put Moon Valley out of business. At least I haven't seen any evidence of that. There is in 7-46 a waiver that the City Council may allow deviation Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 25 from the standards set forth herein for mining and excavation operations that existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance which seems to give the City Council power to exempt Moon Valley from whatever they want in here, if I 'm not mistaken. Roger Knutson: That' s correct. The idea is, we can' t anticipate in writing an ordinance what all, the different variations are and existing uses so we just left that open. Ahrens : Right. I think that if some kind of statement is made by Mr . Zwiers like Steve said, I don't know what the legal affect of that would be but if some statement were made and it was clear with the City Council exactly what his intent was and I don't think that he can be as rigid as it appears. It doesn' t sound like Mr . Zwiers wants to fence anything in and wants to comply with a lot of the safety issues that are addressed by this ordinance. I think that he has to give on some of those. I think that the City, I mean I hope the City will cooperate with him and allow him to comply with the Statute as reasonably as possible but I think it' s a pretty good ordinance. I guess that's all I have. Conrad : Okay, thanks Joan. I ' ll be real quick and brief. There' s a couple things that are real clear to me. One, we need the ordinance. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind . Two, we have the right to do it. No doubt. Specifically, in terms of the ordinance itself, I 've got two concerns. One is the cost and what we are imposing. I have no idea Paul. I don't know if we' re talking $15. 00 or $35,000.00. I guess I need somebody to tell me what we just did. It certainly would be site specific but again I just kind of, I need to know what the cost implications of this area. The second thing, in terms of there' s a section in there talking about paving for 300 feet. I 'm not sure what that does. Maybe it makes sense but it doesn' t do a great deal for me as I look at different applications, specifically in this particular case, it doesn't make much sense to me. The paving requirement and I think I'd have to be persuaded that it does. The 50 yards looks kind of small . It looks like, but Paul you're saying you're willing to, or that' s enforceable or that you can get control on 50 yards of earth or whatever. It seems like a low number but if you think that' s enforceable and we can get a handle on those people moving 50 yards of earth, I guess I can go along with that. Specifically for Moon Valley. So those were my comments on the ordinance. I generally like it. I like the comments that I 've heard and the changes. Specifically on Moon Valley. I'm real interested in the restoration plan. Not in terms of pointing and we may do this and we may do that. I think we need as a city a plan. We simply have to have that with that site. In my mind that's an absolute. There are safety requirements there. As people move into that area, and we've all said it so I won' t belabor the point. There are safety requirements, absolutely that have to be implemented there. I think the owner has a lot of good intent and my comments are not intended to slander his intent because I think they' re all good but I also believe that we have some reasons to maintain the bluff and the vistas and I think that's the reason we need an ordinance like this. I don't want to see the bluffs harmed. I don' t think the applicant does either but I 'm real curious as to how bluffs get restored and so those are my specific concerns with this particular site. They' re not as much in terms of operational Planning Commission Meeting March 7 , 1990 - Page 26 although somebody may bring those to light. I think we have restrictions on contractor's yards and I think those same restrictions should be applicable here. As somebody else said on the Planning Commission, I think there' s got to be a way to deal with, to put this ordinance in, number one. But then as we relate to Moon Valley, I think there' s a way to require us to have specific standards for them immediately. Obviously that ones I 'd be concerned with are some sai'fety issues and some planning issues. I think as somebody else said, there are some other things that could be phased in over a 5 to 10 year plan and then there are some other things I don' t think apply at all . I 'd like to see, I think we have some things to do tonight. We can either table this commissioners and bring it back or we can send it through but I guess my direction is to table it for at least a couple of things that I was talking about. One, the cost review I 'm intrigued with. I really, I think we need to know as a commission what we' re asking a business to do. Therefore, we will be sensitized a little bit to a later on process when Moon Valley may have to come in for, apply for a permit or whatever . I'm also interested in getting a response from Moon Valley in terms of what the ordinance would do. Some of the specifics. That they believe are totally detrimental or harmful to your operation. I really don't want to hear, I don't want to make this a thesis but I want to know the real things. The things that we can' t see. You've heard us talk about safety. We're concerned with safety. We' re concerned with some of these things. Some of these things you just have to do. You just have to do it and I 'd really rather not have you rebuff us on some of the things that we've got concurrence here unless you say, that' s a $20,000.00 task. I want to hear about those things. So again, it's not a long exercise but I want to be a little bit brighter than I am right now on some of those cost impacts on your operation. And there will be, if this goes through, there obviously are cost impacts but I think they' re worthwhile for the community. Our job and I think as you've heard everybody up here feels really strongly that you're running a pretty good operation in most respects and feels that we' re not trying to put you out of business and we' re not. And then I 'd like to see the ordinance rewritten with our recommendations and staff respond to some of the comments. Is 50 yards the right one and what have you. That's where I 'd go. To table it commission members and to have it brought back. There' s another way to do it. There are other ways to do it but that would be my direction. Any comments? Any motions? Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment dealing with excavation, mining and grading for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Let' s specifically talk about when this would come back. What type of time do you need to respond? Mike Dwyer : We'd like to be responding to your staff' s next draft. Conrad: Okay, that's fair. Paul , what do you think? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 27 Krauss : This is an ordinance that' s composed by a committee of two, Roger and myself. I would suspect we could go through your comments and get some changes out at least in a revised draft format probably by the middle of next week. End of next week. Roger Knutson: For the simple ones where you just said change this word and that, Paul and I can be on the phone tomorrow and compare notes and I' ll have it out tomorrow. For the more substantative ones like you were talking about, is paved roads for 300 feet appropriate? I ' ll let Paul handle that. Krauss : I still think we could have it by next week. Mike Dwyer: We could respond to that probably. . . Conrad: A week? Okay. To Zwiers: I have a question. On the safety, on the fencing . Something to think about, if we change it, what do you think about changing the slopes to a 2: 1 slope? We have to, when we bring black dirt in for our restoration on the south side, some of you were there, you see. . .that bank already, we could bring in the black dirt and slope those banks and get a 2 1/2: 1 slope. I don't know if these people, a little kid would have an awful time to crawl up the bank on the other side because he' s got to be a strong little kid. Believe me, I 've got grandsons and I 'm very concerned myself but the bank is as steep going up one side and it' s full of trees and brush right now as it is coming down the other side. Conrad : Well yeah. Talk to staff about those rational type of things. I don't like fences. People can climb over fences and I don't know. Wildermuth: That' s another thing. I think we've got to say something about what kind of fence. What are we talking about? Are we talking about chainlink or? Conrad: But specifically as I look at the bluff, and I 'm looking at the very top, there's nothing you can do at that one point. There' s absolutely, you're not talking about making the grade change unless you take down the bluff and we don't want that. We like how that looks but that is not a safe site and something has to be done. That' s specifically what I 'm looking at. I think there's some other areas where again, I 'm not a proponent of fences just for fence sake but there are some hazards there that we just have to resolve but that's really specific to your particular location. Those of you who came in today, thank you for your comments and this will be back to us probably 2 sessions , 4 weeks from now. Thank you much. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 28 MODIFIED PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 90-1 finding Modification Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen' s Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION OF LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Conrad : Bill and Don, thank yo for attending. Jay, I see you back there. You didn't fall asleep on us. Appreciate that. You won't have to ask some of these same questions when the mining thing gets to you. As you know we're now starting to crank on the Comprehensive Plan. You've known that for a while. We' re getting close to public hearings and the thought was to make sure that the City Council had a review and provided us with any insights that you may have at this point in time before we take this to the public. So with that I think Mark will probably or Paul will kick it off and maybe with some support by Mark we' ll review where we' re going. Paul Krauss and Mark Koegler presented the staff report on the Land Use Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Conrad: Again, maybe I ' ll mossey out here. I ' ll turn it this way so people over here and see. If you want to go over there. I really want to make sure that the City Council members kind of get a feel for some of the things we've been doing. As Mark just described to you, we took these out for a variety of reasons and I think they're pretty good reasons for not zoning right now. We also decided that with our residential block of unsewered area the direction we had, that we felt comfortable with, it wasn' t the direction that staff proposed immediately, was to buffer that neighborhood as much as we can. No matter what we do, we' re not going to really buffer it. It's such a unique situation that it won't totally be buffered , especially with the creek down here in the valley and the road and whatever. With the woods over there, it sure made sense to keep this residential even though you can see there' s a whole lot of logic for keeping it industrial. The purple color all the way through. When we did that, that sort of put some of the industrial that would have gone there, that pushed it down south a little bit. Again, kind of taking Mark's wisdom and the numbers that Mark and Paul came up with in terms of what we believe was a conservative estimate of growth over the next 10 years and I think the Planning Commission felt it was a reasonable method of expectation for growth including industrial and residential. So we kind of surrounded that. I think we've got some higher density stuff closer to TH 5 but I know the neighbors in this area will be real concerned that they don' t want industrial surrounding them and in our minds this was one way of doing it. Another one that I 'm sure the TH 5 Coalition will come in with, Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 29 talking about the rationale for keeping industrial entirely on TH 5 simply because there's a transportation corridor there. But again, keeping industrial pretty much consolidated there. I think Bill you brought up a point the other day a while back talking about the high density area. I think are those brown Mark? Koegler: Yes. Conrad : What' s the impact of high density? So it' s a spot on the map. How many units is that and what are the implications? I think we haven't resolved that, or at least I haven' t. Is that too much high density or not? I guess we haven't done anything more, Bill after we heard your comment other than we kept the brown, the high density there but it' s there and again the logic was to keep our higher densities clustered closer to downtown where there are services and easier to get to and what have you. We also clustered the higher densities around the park. Supposedly we' ll have enough park space to accommodate but I don't know that for sure. Not totally positive. The balance I think, anything else that' s unique that we've been playing around with that I should highlight? Krauss : You might want to touch on Ladd, well we' re showing now. We had projected a demand for industrial growth. When the area around Timberwood was excluded from consideration for industrial use, we started to look for other sites. Now for a number of reasons the Planning Commission suggested going south of the tracks. The primary reason being is that it helps to take traffic off of TH 5 and put it onto TH 212 which will make the most appropriate use of the new facility and hopefully avoid some problems that we have now. We looked at that land. The land is relative flat except for a centrally located wetland, it' s all cultivated and is probably relatively easy converted into industrial/office use. There's a similar problem or concern that there needs to be some buffering for some single family homes down in the southeast corner but they' re generally on top of a hill and we' re more to the south away from the area that would be developed so that would help. But it also opens up the door to future consideration of continued , potential for some continued non-residential development in that 1995 study area in the future if the City determines to go that way at that time. Conrad : A couple other things or one other thing for sure. Tim is real concerned about our red little district down here on 212 that I think we' re going to talk about that. We had enough little problems down there, not for sure we're not talking Moon Valley. We're talking some other cases where the wisdom of 5 or 10 years ago when we made it a zone specifically to accommodate existing uses, for some reason that really hasn't achieved what we thought it would achieve. It seemed like, I remember why we did it and who suggested it and whatever but I don't know that we've solved anything down there and we may be creating more problems. So we may as the Planning Commission do something down here. Make a different recommendation. Anything else that is worthy of talking about on this plan? Again, I 'm not letting the Council members speak yet. I just want to point out some things that we think might be controversial or you could go a variety of ways on. Anything else? Okay. Jay, any? We' re looking, you know there' s so much background and you' re going to hear this over and Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 30 over again in the next couple months so I don' t want to bore you with stuff tonight but we're looking for glaring deficiencies. Things that the Council would say geez, don' t present that to the public. That' s definitely wrong or you haven' t considered something. Before we start fine tuning this thing , we' re kind of interested in your reaction in general on this map. Councilman Johnson: Some of' my reaction, along the TH 5 corridor putting residential along what's going to be a 4 lane highway. I 'd like to buffer the residential some from that highway. What fairly low intensity use, I'm not talking any Target stores or anything like that. I consider that' s too high a density but something to buffer . You put an apartment building next to a highway and it's a lot of noise for the people living i-n that apartment plus as you look at the apartments that we' re putting in and that people will be going into apartments lately, especially Village Heights or whatever they are over here, you're talking a lot of young kids and stuff. That's not the type of families you want to be putting in next to a 4 lane highway. Kids get out in the streets. A 4 lane highway is not a place for a kid to play. Conrad : So if I hear you Jay, you'd be more prone to an industrial use? Councilman Johnson: Well , it has to be a very light industrial , which our industrial parks are fairly light with the exception of the big places. The McGlynn Bakeries and the Rosemounts and stuff like that. I wouldn' t want to see any of that type of thing in here. The lighter . . .type use. It wouldn' t have a second shift and that type of use to where it doesn' t create noise and hazards and the problems for the residential behind it and I do believe that the next phase in should be your medium or your high density. . . Conrad : So really there' s very little opportunity for transitions other than the one between this line and TH 5. Councilman Johnson: Put a transition of single family in there and then you went to medium density and then a highway. Where I 'm not sure if we want to ring that place completely with single family. Whether that' s the way to do it or even if you have access to do that. The big lot to the west that' s all single family all the way up. Again, I'm not sure that single family adjacent to TH 5 is a good idea. Conrad : This one is in the bag. For sure down here that' s really appropriate single family. There's no doubt from here down there. It' s treed. It's good looking. Councilman Johnson: Let' s follow the purple from Chaska down and that starts playing some games in there too. I can't see the roads too well. Right now actually we have some purple where you've got it yellow. The Volk property being actually industrial operations. Contractor 's yards and stuff. Is that bottom corner now and it' s solid purple to the west from there and to the south from there so all that single family is completely surrounded by the west and south by industrial in Chaska. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 31 Conrad: Yeah, but this is still buffered quite. The buffering here you've got a creek theoretically that's doing it. Visually you're not buffering much. It makes sense to, at least in my mind and I think some of the commissioners, that residential be put in here and not cross the creek, or industrial not cross the creek area. My thought was the wooded land here is really quite nice and that' s a nice buffer no matter what. I really don' t care what' s over there., It' s still a pretty good buffer and I think somebody, a landowner there would get good value out of converting that residential . Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it stay large lot as it is now because there's some unique properties. There's some wetlands tossed in the inside of there. In those woods there' s some wooded wetlands up in there. I would have liked to have seen Chaska do some better archeology of the area when they proposed a composting plant in that corner . There' s some areas where I highly suspect we would find some significant indian artifacts and stuff. There' s some very unique natural features in that area that we' ve got single family residential that I might want to protect more. Conrad: But you really can't do it, how do you want to do large lots? Councilman Johnson: Well what' s there? Conrad: We really don't have a 2 1/2 acre zone. With the MUSA line extended out, we no longer have. It' s zoned residential . Our largest lot is 15,000 square feet so are you suggesting we look for another zoning district? Councilman Johnson: I don' t know. If you look at the current land uses, some of the houses there are already fairly small but when you get back to Jerome' s house and Johnson' s house, there are 4 or 5 properties back there. I would hardly see them changing actually. It's not the type of property that may develop. People that buy that kind of large wooded space with corrals and horse stables and everything, it's probably. . . I don' t know. Conrad: If you're the property owner , that may not be the way you'd like to do it. Councilman Johnson: Just knowing the current property owners, that's probably but we know one of them is selling to move up to the other side that you' re talking about. She plans to subdivide. . . Conrad: Bill or Don, what are your comments on the Timberwood? Mayor Chmiel : I agree. I agree with Jay to a certain point along TH 5. Some of the buffering that should be there rather than have residential abutting and I 'd also like to say the fact that you've put a lot of time into this. We appreciate it and appreciate the opportunity to have a 1 review of it now. I think what I 'd like to see done too before I come up 1 with any finalized comments, I sort of like what I see now but I 'd like to get citizen input into this . I'd like the City to come forth and voice their either senses of opinion of saying yes it's the way to go or what Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 32 objections they might have. Conrad : Typically we do that in a public hearing form. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I 'd like to see this advertised enough so people are fully aware as to what we' re doing within the city. Erhart: That's our plan isn't it Paul? Krauss : Yes it is and I think we'd like to do it both informally in a • series of meetings possibly on a neighborhood basis. Mayor Chmiel : Informational basis? Krauss : Right. To encourage some discussion and then officially in the public hearing which they certainly require. Timberwood Resident: Mr . Conrad, I happen to live in Timberwood. I thought I 'd give you a little information. Maybe first just a little bit about my background . First I 'd like to say I 'd like to commend you. You've done a tremendous job. . .working on this. This is real informal at this point and I understand that but I thought I 'd just give you a little bit of background as far as what some of the residents are thinking at least now, at this point and I know it' s going to be open for discussion later . My particular background , just to give you an idea, I am Vice President of North Star Title. I receive appraisals for 3 states and I've been an appraiser for 16 years. I oversee about 300 appraisers right now so I have, in some way I'm an expert on this kind of stuff yet I also have a built in bias and because I 'm a professional obviously I want to state that right up front. But there's a couple, most of the residents that we've talked to, and I represent of course everybody in Timberwood and people north of TH 5 and the people immediately south of TH 5. Pretty much the consensus there was they wanted of course to keep it all large lot. At least that' s what they're telling me. That they like it large lot. Where I 'm coming from, of course I know that is a little bit wishful thinking. Some of the immediate feedback that I got was that they would like to see McGlynn of the industrial stop at anything proceeding further than McGlynn going to the west. They thought the site where TH 41 and 5 intersection, as far as industrial , that they can see that pretty much, obviously they would like it to stay residential but I think some of our feeling is that they would like to see that maybe not quite as much industrial . But as much as possible keep the industrial more, as it' s going, it seems like a little bit more south of the tracks there. That's kind of the feedback I 'm getting from them. I think the other thing, just from a professional standpoint. This is just something for consideration and I just throw it out. As you move along TH 5, and just kind of the feeling I 'm getting and again, the common theory right now is that put as much industrial/ commercial along the basic highway truck. What we're seeing though, you have to be careful as you do that because one thought, you may have a situation, it looks nice sometimes now. The first 10 years but you don' t want to have a situation where when people drive through Chanhassen where it gets, have you ever driven along Hwy. 13 going through Savage or Shakopee, there is a possibility and I 'm seeing it again as an appraiser , Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 33 seeing it in Eden Prairie and Edina. In other areas where they' re putting residential, sometimes twin homes, a little higher density right up to the highway and having no problem developing it. It gives a little bit of a break. We'd be talking here about 3/4 of a mile really or less that would be residential on both sides of the highway for that one area as they go through Chanhassen which would give a feeling that it's just not constant industrial park and commercial all the way along the highway. So it' s, what I 'm finding is that people are willing to own houses and maybe more twin homes right up to the highway but even the single family, I'm seeing it in Minnetonka as well where they don't seem to mind. Conrad : Paul, these 2 1/2 acre parcels in the sewered area, is that financially feasible? I 've always considered that just. . . Krauss : Realistically when sewer's available and the availability to 15,000 square foot lots, it would take an extraordinarily expensive home to that particular lot. That' s not to say it couldn' t be done. . . Realistically you'd find something smaller. One thing that needs to be made clear and it was discussed earlier . The ordinance that was in affect that Timberwood was designed under no longer exists and we don' t have the authority to do that any longer . Timberwood Resident: This is where I was thinking , even though all the people are saying that they'd like to see that in large lots, once that' s sewered and water , I don' t see how, as you say it' s a little bit. . . Conrad: I think the only thing you can do is to not sewer. Or you create a 2 1/2 acre zone and I ' ll guarantee you, I don' t believe there will be any houses in the 2 1/2 acre zone. Krauss : If we did that, it would have to be 2 1/2 acres with sewer . Conrad : That's what I mean. . . Erhart: Can I address the other issue. . .because I think I was probably the I strongest proponent to mix up the highway 5, I ' ll respond and agree to what your comments are. I was very concerned and against the idea of having a continuous strip of industrial along TH 5. Eventually, all the people that ' live all out there drive that twice a day. Not considering even those people that pass through Chanhassen and get an impression of it. And you drive in Eden Prairie you' ll find, as you say, you do find homes right along the highway and I think the mix of the type of use is much better appearance, those of us that drive it as well as others, than having a continuous strip. Lastly, those areas are not populated now so any homes that would go in there, both the developer and the home buyer would be fully aware that TH 5 is going to be a 4 lane highway. And where we have the case down east of TH 101 and south of TH 5 where some people are surprised, I don' t think there's going to be any surprises. They' re fully aware of what the situation is. Lastly, to address your concern, wouldn't TH 5 be fenced when it gets to 4 lane? Or what is the plan on that? Krauss : I don' t believe the other sections of TH 5 are fenced . Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 34 Erhart: I think that's a legitimate concern. I don' t know, what do they do in Eden Prairie? Krauss : Mark has an concept that' s on the corner there that theoretically we' ll propose as one layout of how development of that area to occur. In meeting density development in Chanhassen, it' s convenient for us to regulate that sort of stuff because it has to go through site plan review. During the site plan review we would look for , even if the developer didn' t want to, I can' t believe he wouldn't, is very extensive buffering, berming. If a fence were deemed necessary for either noise or safety, a wood slat fence of some sort we would look at that at that time but you're looking at an area, and the Planning Commission. We played devil ' s advocate a little bit with the Planning Commission when they wanted to go residential in that area. We said look, you're looking at a non-amenity piece of ground . Whoever builds on there is going to have to force it go and they're going to have to build the amenity with that project. That' s not an impossible task. It' s just something. . .and I think the Planning Commission. . .and thought we could do some legitimate residential developments in there. Conrad : Bill , what are you thinking? Councilman Boyt : Well , two different areas on this one. I think that the plan really turns on how well we establish buffers. So I think somewhere in here I 'd sure like to see the Planning Commission do something with our attempt to buffer the size of lots that abut one another. That's been sitting around for a year . Conrad : Yeah, we've been. Let me just real quickly. This is obviously the logical one to buffer. It can't be done. Literally, you can' t buffer 2 1/2 acre lots with a compromise between. Councilman Boyt: Ladd, we've never proposed to abut 2 1/2 acre lots with 2 1/2 acre lots . It' s simply giving a chance to say 20,000 square foot lots . Something bigger than the average which might pull in a more expensive home which might serve say the developer . You have to do some planning with this. You can't just slap a standard size lot up against one of these others. Conrad : I'm going to take you, I'm going to challenge you on that because I 'm interested in what you would do. In this particular case, we'd have to make a new zoning district. We don' t have a larger zoning district than 15,000 square feet. We tried one and nobody supported it. Councilman Boyt: Well I take issue with you on that and we couldn' t get it out of the Planning Commission. It went back to staff and died there. Erhart : Before this new ordinance in 1987? There used to be a 1 acre. Wasn't there a 1 acre district? Olsen: That was proposed. It just never went through. It was around Christmas Lake. Erhart: That did not exist. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 35 Councilman Boyt: Steve, says we' re not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the blending ordinance but that's just one example. What I 'm saying is, if we can buffer single family residential from the highway, then we probably can put them in there. If we have landscaping. If we have berm possibilities . Likewise with, to me a very real possibility is if DataSery came in and said I want to take 50 acres and I 'm going to put my building dead center In the middle of it, that' s a heck of a buffer . You look at, yes you can go down and look at Savage and say, they surely fouled up their business highway but you can go look on the north end of 494 where it meets 694 on the west side of town and I think you see some very clean , well kept business , light industry there that is a heck of a buffer and I think it looks pretty good and protects a lot of open space. So what I 'd like to see, I guess I 'm not so concerned with what you do with TH 5 in terms of industry or residential. I 'm much more concerned with what our zoning ordinances give us the power to build into those developments. Do we have the ability to provide that screen or do we have to just trust to the way the developer does it? I 'm not very comfortable but if we have to trust the developer , then it becomes a much bigger issue to me whether that' s light industry or whether it' s R-4 . If our zoning ordinances give us the ability to screen, it seems reasonable to me what you've got. Conrad: Mark, how many people will fit into these two brown squares? Koegler: Let me think about that for a second. We've got probably, how big is that Gorra designated to? Is that 30 acres? If we take the piece west of Lake Ann that' s the Gorra piece at about 30 acres, depending on the type of development. It' s not uncommon, what do you want to label it as? 8 units per acre? 12 units per acre times 30 so, depending on scale of development, 250 to 500 people on that piece. Conrad: 250 to 500. Koegler : A larger number there. The issue of high density has been brought up a number of times and Paul just raised a good point. The plan really doesn' t call for any new high density areas outside of that example that we're talking about right now. If you look at the zoning map, everything else really is identified right now in a high density configuration or is part of a PUD that was approved down around Lake Susan. In fact there' s been a little bit of retrenchment in exchange for that in that the piece immediately south of Rice Marsh Lake, north of the Lake View Hills apartment complex , used to be high density all the way to Rice Marsh Lake and that's been pulled out with the mapping process of TH 212 and their realization that that north piece there is an ideal open space property. So the numbers haven' t changed significantly in terms of land designations in that regards over the last 10 years. There is no medium called for on this plan however. J Conrad : But we've got the high density right here basically. A few little J pockets around the city but basically right there. There's a logic to that but it' s really clustered. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 36 Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can kick it off on this. I think you go up north of Lotus Lake where we have high density and the developer came in and said I don' t want it. We took it out . The thing that that had going for it was it wasn't, it was a fairly small area of high density. When we tie together , separated by the park, 150 acres of high density plus, I'm very concerned about that. I 'm concerned because of the demand it puts on city services. It' s nice that it!'s there by the park in terms of open space for people. I like that but' I'm equally concerned about is the demand it puts on our elementary school . I would be much more comfortable if we had the high density broken up rather than clustering it so tightly. Conrad : We feel there' s justification for that amount of high density. The logic seemed like we were able to justify it. Krauss: On a percentage basis , it' s still a very small component of the proposed land uses in the city. It' s kind of, it' s a little bit of conjecturing on our part to tell you that that' s going to get filled up in 10 years. There was a part on here. . .that ended in 1985, a change in tax laws. Chanhassen didn' t get anything out of that. We just weren' t in the position at that time to satisfy that market demand. We're not really dramatically changing the percentage of land in that designation with this new plan. Frankly, it's kind of like a nimbulous approach to establish high density you might perceive. We' ve often heard some of the City Council meetings where some of the people were saying we didn't provide opportunities for employees of some of the plants in town. I don' t know where else we'd do it. Councilman Boyt: Now Paul, and I ' ll stop on this issue, but I 've never had a single family resident who didn't own a major business in town come in and say, you know we don' t have enough high density and I want it in my back yard. What I see us doing here is by, and this is a very small part of the city of Chanhassen but it' s a very big part of that part of town. Conrad: You want to cut the high density down Bill? Councilman Boyt : I do. Councilman Johnson: I don't. - Mayor Chmiel : I think we need some high density in order to provide the opportunity for the businesses within the City to house their people here rather than driving from all over . Councilman Johnson: The other thing that' s not in there is, they' re talking a new middle school in Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel : That' s a high probability. Councilman Boyt: There's no zone there for it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, and there' s no zone there for it. Mayor Chmiel : That's something we should look at. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 37 Krauss : Don Ashworth talked to me about that quite a while ago and I gave a little bit of thought in trying to designate a site. The problem is we don' t know where they want to put it exactly. Councilman Johnson: They want to put it where they can buy the land as cheap as possible now and theh tell you where they want to put it so the price of land doesn't go wacky on them. Krauss : Theoretically you can put a school anyplace, any residential district. We don't have to preordain where it's going to be. Councilman Boyt: We could though. Now is the time to do it. Mayor Chmiel : The time to do it is now so people are aware once that areas develops around there. Emmings: Who decides where a school can go? Mayor Chmiel : The school district itself. Councilman Boyt : They said in the past , in fact they said 2 years ago. Tell us where we can build it in Chanhassen and we never told them. Councilman Johnson: There was some discussion. More on the staff level before Paul and kept under wraps waiting for the land pricing. Emmings: Couldn' t we contact the school district? Conrad: I think that'd be the sensible thing to do. Emmings: Ask if we can pick a place as long as we' re mapping now. Krauss: I know Don' s talked to me about the north side of TH 5 in the vicinity of Gorra' s property as being one of the sites. Where that high density area is. There's a problem though in, we' ll certainly. . . but if we designate a school site on this map and the person that owns it comes to us and says I want to develop my property and we're going to say well , don' t 1 because the school district may buy your property one day. I mean we have to allow development to occur . Councilman Boyt : The school district came to the City 2 years ago and said I we want to know where we can put another elementary school in Chanhassen and we never got back to them. They probably weren' t going to put it here 1 anyway given the other pressures that they had to bear but we never gave them a site and I don' t want to be in that position when they come around looking for our middle school . Krauss : Well we can certainly give some more information on it. I Councilman Boyt: I think the thing that we'd better, if we' re going to try to do this so we can staff Jerome Carlson' s operation, we better figure out some way to build an apartment that somebody at $5. 00 an hour can move into . Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 38 and we don' t know how to do that so far . Conrad: In terms of the amount of industrial , just two other things. We really tried to keep commercial right here. It makes a lot of sense to me. We are allocating enough industrial to meet the demand projected from today' s market based on historic demand . I think residents will come in and say well we don' t need to;. I think the neighborhood would say well why should we. Councilman Johnson: Ladd? One thing. . . 2 years ago a session we discussed what type of business should be, certain types of cities. Without doing a detailed analysis of our city, our ' s seem to fit into a slot that I haven' t seen us do. . .which is the research and development and headquarters where you' re looking for the, you know we've got a fairly expensive school district. Good education. Fairly expensive lots. Higher taxes so you' re not normally looking for the United Mailings and that kind of development but more of the development where most the salaries are fairly high. Your corporate headquarters where you've got the general managers and all that kind of good stuff there and research facilities where you've got your senior scientist working . I don' t know how you work that into a land use plan. I think it's almost an HRA type deal. Conrad : Usually that' s more of a strategy on the residents of your city versus the zone. A different zoning district. You have your city go out and your development director seeking that type of business more than they're seeking the more industrial thing. Councilman Johnson: Those guys , that type of thing , they want parklands. They want the amenities, they're more worried about and things which really describes Chanhassen. The other one is, I keep hearing commercial at TH 41 and TH 5. It seems that the busier the intersection, it seems more obvious to become eventually a commercial area. Whether we may want to delay that a while. I kind of feel we probably want to delay that if we have a chance. Maybe not tie up industrial at this time at that location. I don't know why we don' t have the planning area to the south there too. Conrad : I think Paul and Mark can explain that better than I but it' s simply the proximity to Jonathan. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that does make sense. But how do you sewer it? Krauss: Well we' re looking at that right now. We have a consulting firm that is going to tell us that answer . There' s several alternatives but clearly that property at the corner is at the end of the line and it' s going to be quite expensive to serve it and it probably. . . Councilman Johnson: Unless there's big enough money. Emmings: Do we also worry about losing that property to Chaska if the owner decides . . . Councilman Johnson: To service with sewer now. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 39 Emmings: Whereas if we have a plan to let it go industrial in the future and plan to get services out there eventually, I don' t think they can detach so easily. Maybe not at all so I think if we preserve that property in our tax base instead of letting it slide away to Chaska and I• think that's appropriate too. Conrad : I feel a little bit,1not much to do there but it' s just a beautiful site and we are, we' re surrounding them with industrial . We call the green area a buffer but visually it ain' t no buffer folks . It' s really an unfortunate deal. Erhart: One of the things about those houses already though, they already overlook the industrial buildings in the Chaska park. If you stand in their yard, all you can see is that big concrete hill . Councilman Johnson: That's a long ways away though. Erhart: It is a ways but. . . Conrad: It's very visible. Koegler : You look through the electrical substation. That' s the fact of the matter down there. Paul mentioned, fortunately to the north there ' s a significant ridge there and there' s a break that that property is basically in the watershed that drains south so the impact is entirely southward . Conrad: Anything else? Resident: Can I ask a question? How many residents live in Timberwood? Timberwood Resident: 38 owners . Resident: There aren' t 38 houses? Timberwood Resident: Not yet but they're all except for 2 or 3 lots that I are still owned by the developer. They're all probably, I think there' s about 10 or 12 houses up already. Probably some of the concerns that the residents will have is the sound, light and odor. . . I don't know where it' s coming from but the different odors such as butterscotch. I don' t know where that' s coming from. But there' s sounds already from the Chaska industrial park. They're aware of it and the extra lighting that comes in at night and stuff like that. Those are probably some things you' ll hear . Conrad: It' s the toughest area that we've found. I think if that wasn' t there, this configuration would be fairly different. Councilman Johnson: Do you believe the Met Council will give us this much more MUSA line between now and 2000? Conrad : I tell you, when you follow Mark' s logic, which is relatively conservative. We haven' t gone out overboard. You've got to follow the numbers through Jay but when you take a look at it. In fact, I would have upped the numbers in terms of projected needs over Marks. That was my gut Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 40 reaction based on recent history but he' s really taken some relatively conservative numbers. Councilman Johnson: Any kind of phasing plan to follow in the proposal for Met Council to where we' re saying we want to phase in so many between 90 and 95 and 95 and 2000 so much more? If we plopped all this in right now, I see another land rush. I see another swamping of Planning Commission like it was 3 years ago as the real development bloomed. You had 10 different housing developments going all at once. I 'd rather see it phased in so staff isn' t swamped as badly and the whole city growth is more regulated. Krauss : Jay, one of the things we' ll be looking at the phasing , when we get to the utility information back, asking them to structure that in some sort of way that makes sense. Phasing is a good concept and the intent. . . On the other hand, I would prefer in representing the City that the City direct the phasing and not phasing that we have to go back to the Metro Council on our knees and beg every 2 years. Councilman Johnson: Our phasing plan, not theres . Krauss: Yeah, and we' re trying to lay out a 10 year growth pattern here. There's like a 1 or 2 year overage with our numbers and that' s using a conservative projection. They' re telling us we should have a 10 year growth ability plus 5 year overage. We' re coming in with less than they indicated. As to whether or not Metro Council 's going to approve this, Jay that' s always been the $64,000.00 question. We don' t know. We think it's reasonable. We think that the Metro Council has a very difficult position to uphold because as recently as 8 or 9 months ago, they were publishing statistics that in the year 2000 we'd have 10,000 people and 400 or 500 jobs and we exceeded both those numbers a year or two ago. They recognize that. I 've talked to their staff. They recognize that something happened out here that they never anticipated . Whether or not they buy this , we hope they do. At least it may put them, hopefully we can develop a cooperative posture with them on this. I'm very hopeful of that. Councilman Johnson: So then the Blue Lake Treatment Plant crosses into the middle of this and availability of, not trunk sewers but being able to do something with the sewage once it gets down there. That' s going to be a major problem with this because I don' t think the 10% or 20% increase or 10,000,000 gallons a day increase from their 90 now up to 100,000,000 gallons or whatever it is, that' s already spoken for . There' s other restrictions in this that while the logic says we should have 10 years, we've got to have some place for the sewage to go. Koegler: Jay, we' ll address that specifically too in terms of flows that are resulting from this 2000 land use pattern as well as maximum flows for each of these areas so you're absolutely right. That has to be entered into this whole equation. Conrad: When you calculate a site, these high density areas, what do we look at in terms of that impact? Impacts on parkland. Putting 1,000 people here, do we know that Lake Ann can accept 1,000 now? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 41 Koegler : The philosophy that I think historically has driven the property in Chanhassen that results in that map pattern and the philosophy extending that westward is one of locating those types of uses adjacent to a number of things. One is commercial and service retail . Second item is major street patterns. Just for transportation ease, ingress and egress out of those sites and the third is parks that you just related to. The park element I can' t answer you spcifically. Have we looked at and can Lake Ann Park absorb this much use? We have shown a 30 acre expansion of that park on the east side. That' s part of the City' s overall park plan which calls for another community park to be implemented over the next 10 years in the southern portion of the city around the Lake Riley area. So again it gets down partially to programming and Lake Ann is used a lot for organized team kinds of activities which can be handled in a lot of sites. The property that was large enough now we think with the expansion is large enough to provide the type of passive open space and play opportunities that that volume of people will need. That's a long winded yes answer to that but we can' t tell you we've studied this and we know we've got so many square feet per anticipated resident of those high density areas. A general sense, it is deemed to be adequate. Councilman Boyt: I 'd take issue with that. Lake Ann Park as it stands today is filled . Conrad : And Mark' s saying they're adding 30 acres . Councilman Johnson: That's not much. Councilman Boyt: I think, what did we buy just down south? Did we buy 30 acres? Koegler : 30, yes. Councilman Boyt: So it' s a pretty sizeable piece of park property that we'd be conceiveably adding to that. You' re also adding 1,000 people. We have, I think right now we' re in an overuse state on our parks . All you have to do is go out there and look. Wildermuth: One of the things I guess I 'd like to see is that high density area right on the corner of, that one there, move up closer to the Minnewashta Park. Maybe across the highway of that overpass or something because the piece that you just had your finger on, there that high density piece, would be such an attractive commercial area for extension of the commercial area. It's almost contiguous with the downtown area so it wouldn' t detract from the CBD, central business district. Conrad: Why did we decide not to do commercial here? Councilman Boyt: Let me suggest to you that we just had the school poll people that had a real interest in that piece of property. If we make it easy for that piece of property to develop in certain directions , I think we'd best put on our hard pants because we're going to be spending a lot of time sitting listening to people who want to develop it. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 42 Wildermuth: What are you saying Bill? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that that' s a particularly sensitive piece of property and that the way we zone it may very well impact on how, the current owner builds. Wildermuth: Sure it is. Well , Eckankar owns it. Conrad: What do you see that site being used for? Councilman Boyt: Well I could only guess that they'd come back in with what they had 4 years ago which was approved, which they decided not to develop and then the zoning was changed. But if we want to change it back and see if they come in again. Councilman Johnson: If they went commercial on that piece of property? I could even see high density. . . Councilman Boyt: I think Jim is right. I think this property is one of the best pieces of property in the center of the city and we should zone it with that in mind . It' s sitting next to the park. It' s a nice piece of property. It'd probably be pretty easy to develop. Emmings: What specifically do you want it zoned to? For what? Councilman Boyt: For whatever one of the better pieces of property in town ought to be zoned for . Conrad : Public space or are you talking about commercial use? Not residential . Councilman Boyt: I don' t know. I'm just saying that when we zone it that way, we had best be ready for some excitement when the proposal comes in on how they're going to use it. Doesn' t that make sense? Emmings: It doesn' t give us a whole lot of guidance. Councilman Boyt: I ' ll leave it to brighter minds. Conrad: Don't trust that Bill. Councilman Johnson: That would be a good spot for a middle school . Councilman Boyt: It'd be excellent. Councilman Johnson: Next to the park. Councilman Boyt: I think the school district has already said that they sort of covet that spot. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but not at $30,000.00 an acre. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 43 Councilman Boyt: No. So they might like the Gorra property or whatever that is on the left. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if they can still buy it while it' s still unsewered and not $30,000.00 an acre. Krauss: Well the cat may be ,'out of the bag on the Gorra piece. I 'm not 100% positive but the City Manager showed me some correspondence from Metro Council/Metro Waste. Gorra was in a condemnation suit. It' s my understanding that the settlement of his suit is that he' s to be considered as being in the MUSA line now. Councilman Johnson: But he' s not going to be allowed to hook into anything there. Mayor Chmiel : For 5 years . Conrad: Okay, so we' ll play around a little bit with the schools. We' ll figure out what kind of impacts there. Emmings: Even if we decide for example that a school ought to go on that corner or something . . . , how would we indicate that on the map? We don' t have a zone called school . Conrad: We have public, what do we have? We've got a color for it Steve. Mark's got a crayon. Koegler : Schools are classified under the public under the public category on the land use map. Emmings: What color is it? Koegler: Kind of an olive green. Conrad : Second priority on that site would be. . . Wildermuth: I think we've got to be real careful about what we do though. Having in the central business district. We've got it boxed in. It' s bracketed now. I think I heard some people talk about how we'd be making a serious mistake if we put any commercial on the south of TH 5 because it would detract from the central business district. It may be extending the red on the other side of. . . Koegler: High density behind it. Wildermuth: Yeah. CR 17, maybe a little further north on the Charlie James property. Conrad : We've had it zoned different ways . That' s been a problem parcel for a long time. It used to be campus business. Councilman Boyt: What about the possibility of moving some of that high density residential up by Minnewashta Park like. . . Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 44 Emmings: It' s not a bad idea but then we always want to keep high density, there's always a desire to keep it close to the downtown because people will have easier access to services that downtown will offer . Councilman Boyt: But remember we've got 3 downtowns. We've got Chanhassen and we've got Minnetonka or TH 101 and TH 7 and we've got Excelsior . And that at Lake Minnewashta. is very close to TH 7. Emmings: That' s true and that corner is developing . Conrad: That's adjacent to a lot of parkland. Krauss : Then you sort of wind up with a land use anomoly. It' s kind of incongruous to be going. . .single family neighborhood that one, would probably be one of the more attractive ones in the city because of the rolling terrain and the trees and come onto a 400 unit apartment project. It might be a very nice apartment project but you have access considerations to be running all those cars in front of all those other single family neighborhoods. Conrad: You've got that now. Emmings: You' re also telling the. . .owner in downtown Chanhassen. . . Councilman Boyt: We've got a local entrepreneur that's building a center on TH 7 and 41. 400 apartment units in one location, we may build it but people are going to look at that and they're going to say, who did that? The residents who are here now, because that' s what they' re saying about the little amount of apartments that we just built across from Kerber Blvd. and that' s, how many apartments is that? 40? Koegler: 68. Councilman Boyt : 68. So 4 or 5 times that amount, people will notice. Conrad: I think you' re going to hear citizens complain about everything literally when it gets close to them. There' s a real issue here. Industrial , going back to a different issue, but the industrial, we' re planning based on meeting demand . I think that' s a real issue. I think residents are going to come in and say hey who cares what the demand is. Who cares. This is a residential community and let' s just cut it off right here. We don't need that. Ed Hasek: I think what Bill was saying is if you do decide that that' s exactly where you'd like to put high density and you make that decision, that you'd better be prepared to defend it. That' s it. You' re exactly right. No matter what you do, somebody' s ox is going to be getting gored and they're not going to be happy about it but you have to be ready to defend a plan to give it some credence otherwise you might as well give the residents these little colored squares and let them put them where they think they see them. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 45 Conrad : Well the map would be yellow. Ed Hasek: The map would be yellow. The taxes would be through the ceiling and they'd be unhappy about that as well . Conrad : They wouldn' t see it at the time. Ed Hasek: Not until they had to open their pocketbook. Councilman Johnson: What is the tax impact of the high density? I know that single family costs us more than what we have taxes for generally to provide public services . Is high density? Krauss: High density is taxed at about 3 times the rate of single family. In terms of making revenues , it' s the next best thing to industrial office. Councilman Boyt: That's not what Roger ' s study said. You guys should get together with Roger . When we looked at Eckankar Roger came back with a study that said residential breaks even. When you build an average sized home, it breaks even. Krauss: I think Don, since you just walked in. Don Ashworth: I overheard it and yes. ( Councilman Boyt: Tax impact of development. The tax impact of apartment development was actually negative as I recall . Don Ashworth : That' s generally true, yes . Commercial/industrial property will carry the tax load. Single family residential, especially the closer you get to estate type of developments will actually pay for their share. Generally there's fewer children per home, higher valued home and then as you start moving down the ladder , it will move from a positive position into a negative. So multi-family. . . Conrad : So high density Don would be a greater tax load burden for Chanhassen? Don Ashworth: You have to put that again into context. For your businesses and what not, they like to take and have people who can live and work within the community and the same way with the grocery stores and what not. They have closer transportation. Can walk and what not. Usually be able to create a situation in the downtown area, it' s good to take and have multi-family in those types of areas because they help support each other . Commercial/industrial/residential. Councilman Johnson: It' s a necessary part of the picture. Councilman Boyt: Just don't put it all in one spot. Conrad: Okay. Thanks . Appreciate you coming in and talking to us . } Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 46 Bill Miller : I'm also a resident of Timberwood . My name' s Bill Miller . I work downtown and I 'm likewise concerned about what' s going to happen to the land just north of the Timberwood Estates . Especially on. . .purple. I 've talked to several of the neighbors and they' re. . .I 've talked to at least 12 or 14 and. . .and there are a couple of concerns . One of the concerns. . .and what impact that's going to have on their property. Their lifestyle. Secondly, what impact that land will have on the city of Chanhassen. We generally feel that they, like you said, people don't want industrial . I understand that. I don' t understand why that has to be. . . here and there. . .isolating that little square there. The second thing is, they're concerned that if something happens to that land that is undesireable, that perhaps the land that you have now may not be developed . . . The other point I 'd like to make, there are people outside that little square, both to the south and to the west that are likewise concerned about what happens . A dinner party I was at earlier this evening. . . 12 people, all residents of Chanhassen, they too seem to be not in favor of continuing additional industrial development down TH 5. . . Councilman Johnson: But they also want their taxes reduced. Bill Miller : I've lived in 8 different cities in my life and everywhere I go it's a different. . .taxes are always high. Services in general are generally in excess of what they are here and there was no industrial and taxes are high. . . Everywhere I 've lived seems to carry it's weight. . . Also, as a final note . . .number one , it seems that the general plan of what you're planning, I happen to be in the investment business. Number one is the assumption of growth you' re making. That you' re coming up with some amount of land. . .last 3 years. It's all been incorrect to look at what happen the last 2 years . . . I wonder if people are planning , thinking about gee we've just been through a major expansion in the world. Minneapolis has some problems. Companies are in trouble in Minneapolis. Control Data is in trouble. . .Cray is not growing anymore. They' re seeking industrial land elsewhere. . . There may not be as much growth industrially and the fact that. . . The second thing is looking at short term versus long term. You' re obviously looking to the year 2000 but there are, things come up. If you own this land and . . .but people criticize the investment business for focusing in on short term. . .and that's the problem with this country. It' s the same way with planning communities and land . You eliminate the short term, the irritations to. . . I think it's valid to look at communities. . . Conrad : We' re trying to. We' re looking out 10 years and there' s no crystal ball. You know there's nothing to say that anything' s going to continue but you use the best data you have and you try to forecast. You try to put something out there for 10 years so new residents to the area know what we' re thinking of. This is not a zoning map. It' s a comprehensive plan right now but it will convert to a zoning map. If we don' t put something out, new neighbors don' t have a clue and that' s far worse than just doing it on a day to day or short term basis. There's a lot of logic , and a lot of failures obviously in that too but to be real direct, the property that you' re on, there' s not a good way to buffer it and we've looked at it for a long time. You' re on 2 1/2 acre lots. You put residential around there and our biggest residential lot is 15,000 square feet. It' s going to be hard to keep your neighborhood happy. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 47 Bill Miller : Well , they're. . . We've looked at all those things and we're telling you it's this and I 've heard comments and I 've talked to several of you on the phone and what not and I know there' s been substantial amount of thought on this on your side. . .but I say that we were talking earlier. . . there really hasn' t been a lot of input from everyone concerned yet. Conrad: That's why we go through the public hearing process. Emmings: And we sure aren' t talking about this in terms of absolutes. Anybody's who been on the Planning Commission for any time at all , we pick out one little piece of property over there and it's been 3 or 4 different ways it' s been zoned in the last few years. This is really kind of an abstract exercise. It's really kind of arbitrary in a lot of ways. I think. . . is disillusioned about that or carries around and illusion about. . . Bill Miller : Well I was just told there' s. . . Conrad: That's just from many years of watching residents come in here and they' re concerned with 30,000 square feet going up against 20 and your lots are 75,000 square feet and I don't know how to buffer you so you'd be happy. Bill Miller : Well I just want to make sure I get the overall alternatives I guess before I 'm told there' s no. . . Conrad: I think we talked about it. We talked a lot of about it tonight. Councilman Johnson: No matter what you do on these zoning maps and everything , a new landowner can come in with a petition to have it rezoned . We see it every year. We have rezonings every year. Councilman Boyt: I'd be curious as to Clark, what do you think about what you see up there? You' re the seasoned veteran here. You've seen your shares of City Council battles . Clark Horn: First of all , the process that they're looking to here is not something that was generated in just reaction to the last 2 years of growth. The comprehensive planning process started over 10 years ago with the last plan we had. The plan we put in place at that time, even though we went through some very tough times shortly after it was put into place, it well exceeded projections that we were even allowed to put in at that time. I like some of the things that were done here. I think the Planning Commission has been very sensitive to the somewhat anomolies that have occurred because of the MUSA line that was placed on us in the past. I also think that there has been an attempt made to break up some of the zones along the highway. I think. . .see a continual industrial park along the highway. The other thing that makes a lot of sense to me is what I see as a long term response to what' s going to happen in the future when a major highway being shifted to TH 212 from TH 5. It's very easy to put your blinders on and say look at TH 5 and all the traffic it has. TH 5 will always be a problem but a majority of the traffic is going to go down Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 48 to TH 212. . . long range trend towards that happening. So in general I think it' s a pretty good plan. I think there' s some minor issues that might be worked out. I 'm a little concerned about the lack of commercial space . I don't really know where else we could go with commercial . We' re pretty limited. We've got a lot of natural breaks that prevent it from really expanding too far but in general I think it' s a pretty good plan. You've put a lot of thought into it. It' s not a short term reaction to the last few years growth. I think it' s something that' s real and you just have to look at the growth that' s coming this way. Sure, we go through economic cycles but in general this makes sense. Conrad : Anything else? Wildermuth moved , Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Diretor Prepared by Nann Opheim