Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2o. Minutes
::)©, d CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR 1MEETING AUGUST 9, 1993 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, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman ' Senn and Councilman Wing COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Tom Chaffee, and Betty Eidam APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: Mayor Chmiel had a public announcement regarding shooting /hunting boundaries in the city of Chanhassen public hearing; District #112 Youth Commission report; and adding to the Consent Agenda item (j) TH 101 and Pioneer Trail, Mrs. DeJoode conveying a piece of property of 8 acres to Worms; and under Council Presentations, ' Chanhassen Volunteer Fire Department concerning adjustments to fire pension plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS : Mayor Chmiel: This is regarding the shooting and hunting boundaries within Chanhassen. As it reads here, I'd like to make a public announcement that the Public Safety Commission will be holding a public hearing on the issue of ' shooting and hunting boundaries within the city of Chanhassen. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers on Thursday evening, August 12th at 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.. If you have any thoughts or concerns you would like to bring to their attention regarding the issue of the shooting and ' hunting boundaries within the city, please plan to attend the August 12th Public Safety Commission public hearing from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. We have had one public hearing on this. The response was very minimal and we've had an awful lot of concerns with shooting so we decided we ' would hold one more public hearing and make that additional announcement. It was also put in the newspaper. At this time I would like to call on Natalie Rosini to provide to us the status of District #112 Youth Commission, including an overview of their year end report. Todd. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Chmiel, Natalie called late last week and due to a change in plans with both herself and the adult representative, they would like to reschedule until the second meeting of the month. ' Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, Project No. 93 -5. b. Bluff Creek Estates: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Construction Plans and Specifications and Development Contract ' d. Resolution #93 -66: Approve Infiltration /Inflow Matching Grant Agreement with the MWCC. 1 1 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 f. City Council Minutes dated July 26, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 1993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 22, 1993 ' g. Consideration of Granting Trail Fee Credits for Trail Construction and Amendment to Development Contract, Chanhassen Business Center (CBC), Audubon 92 Partnership. i. Resolution #93 -67: Approve Change Order No. 4 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement, Phase I, Project 91 -17A. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who was not present, and the motion carried. (Councilman Wing arrived during discussion of item (e).) ' E. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Senn: On (e), I think I just had one question. I didn't get a chance to ask before. On page 6. There's an expenditure of $2,572.62 to Hammel Green for fees and services on the Entertainment Complex study. I thought that was being done by the HRA. And if so, I was wondering why it was paid out of the City. Mayor Chmiel: Don, could you clarify that? Hammel Green's fees being paid. Don Ashworth: I'd have to pull the invoice but I'm sure that it's associated with the School property and so it is being paid by the tax increment district but it's Tax Increment District #3, which is under the purview of the City Council. Councilman Senn: Then we have a wrong entry here because it says, Entertainment Complex Study. ' Don Ashworth: I think that that's what they have referred to it as if they're going to incorporate a recreational element into the elementary property. So we have 22 acres and the school has 20 acres and the question, which will be ' later on this agenda is, is should we be adding blocks to that such as an additional height on the gymnasium. Soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. And this billing represents their work efforts to date to analysis the cost associated with those options. It's basically the report that you received ' from 2 -3 weeks ago. Councilman Senn: I just don't understand how we're meshing the school site with the entertainment complex. I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at ' all. And both of them are TIF districts and both of them are HRA. Don Ashworth: The downtown is within TID #1 and is under the purview of the HRA. The McGlynn district is an Economic Development District and it is under the purview of the City Council. The work that they're charging us here for is the study that they came up with to, what would it cost to have the elementary gym go to a full sized gym? What would be the cost associated with a field house? What would be the cost of adding a fitness center to that, etc? Councilman Senn: So is it a correct statement to say then that okaying this expenditure is not for the entertainment complex study but is for the school study? I mean if we can just say that, then I have an answer but I'm not getting an answer. 2 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 Don Ashworth: It is not for the entertainment complex that had been considered , in the downtown area. Councilman Senn: What other entertainment complex do we have under consideration? Mayor Chmiel: This is basically, I guess maybe what I'm trying, as I'm listening to both of you here, there's sort of a misnomer that rather than having the entertainment complex study, it probably should have been for the school. Councilman Senn: That's what I'm asking. That's all I asked but I keep not getting a yes answer to that. Mayor Chmiel: That's what it reads there. Councilman Senn: Is that true? Don Ashworth: Right. If you would prefer to change that to be study elementary school options, that would be a clearer definition. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions on that? 1 Councilman Senn: Nope. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that? ' Councilman Senn: I supposed yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. ' Councilman Senn: I'm really sure but. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Accounts amended to clarify that a check in the amount of $2,572.62 payable to Hammel -Green should be for the study of the Elementary School Options. All voted in favor as amended and the motion carried. H. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT AND DOWNTOWN ' IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92 -3 FOR EXTENDED WORK HOURS AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION. Councilman Senn: Item (h). As I understand what we're being asked to do is okay in effect an overtime premium or expenditure of $25,000.00 to accommodate the Target time lines. Mayor Chmiel: That's good, because it's one of the same questions I asked and I got a very good answer so hopefully he's going to answer you the same way he did me. Charles Folch: Bottom line is, yes. We do not want to end up with another project going through the winter as we did last year. We all I think are fresh in our memories of what we went through last winter and early spring with a project that didn't get completed before freeze up so that's yes, you're correct. Councilman Senn: So it's not to accommodate the Target schedule but it's to make sure that we don't we hit winter construction? 1 3 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Charles Folch: It's actually a combination of both. We need to accelerate the remaining time schedule on the project to make up for at least 3 weeks that have been lost this year already due to poor weather conditions and additional work on the project. So it's a combination of both. Target is ' integrally a part of getting this project completed yet in October. Councilman Senn: Is there a reason why there's not a cost sharing on the $25,000.00? I mean why is the City paying the full $25,000.00 in overtime? ' Charles Folch: There is a cost sharing. Basically on all overtime work, the contractor would pay the, let's say the time. Of the time and a half premium wage, they would pay the full 100% of the straight time of that overtime and then the City and the contractor would split the premium share of that time 50/50. And basically we estimate it might be around $25,000.00 so there is sharing between the contractor and the City on that. ' Councilman Senn: But the sharing I'm asking about really isn't an issue between the City and the contractor. It's an issue between the abutting property owners who are supposed to be paying for part of the project. I mean why is the City being hit for the whole difference? I mean why isn't Target, why aren't the other abutting property owners paying a share of this ' additional project cost? Charles Folch: Actually it is, you're correct. It is considered a project cost which does go in, when we finally do the totals and tallies for what this project costs and what we propose to assess, it does affect the assessment to the abutting properties that are benefitting from this project. Councilman Senn: So this will be included in that? Charles Folch: Absolutely. Councilman Senn: Okay. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: My questions were basically the same but I also have a question about the soil correction work. Is that because of the rains or is that just something you discovered when they started digging? Charles Folch: That was something we discovered once we got into it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you can't find that out by soil borings beforehand? Charles Folch: We did do extensive soil borings before the project. It's one of those unfortunate situations where you missed it. Bottom line, you missed a bad spot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my other question is, is it going to get done in time? ' Charles Folch: We're going to make every effort and that's why we're trying to come up with creative solutions like this to try and do whatever we can to get this thing done this year. Yes, that's bottom line is we want it done. ' Mayor Chmiel: As I've been talking to many of my neighbors and a lot of people that utilize CR 17 to get onto TH 5, I'm hopeful it's going to get done too because I don't want it to be like Minnewashta. Receiving calls as to when it's going to get done and let's get rid of the mud. 4 - - - - -- -- -- -- -- — -- - — 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, I noted you letter on the Administrative Packet and I don't recall if it was to this contractor or the TH 101. Charles Folch: It was to this contractor. He's actually the same contractor. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, okay. So they have gotten their act together. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I was concerned about the mobilization as to the timeframe that they indicated they were going to start. And I thought they were probably behind a good 2 weeks when I discussed this with Charles and after discussion I find that that probably was not too close but because of all the rain again that we have had, which is causing problems just like we have with snow. I'd rather have it rain right now and move on with this thing and get it completed. So is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with the caveat though that this cost is being split amongst the property owners. Mayor Chmiel: There's another thing within that too and there's some discussions we're doing with the County to see if some of that's not going to be picked up as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Resolution #93 -68: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Contract Amendment to West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown Improvement Project 92 -3 for Extended Work Hours and Overtime Compensation with a note that the costs will be split between everyone concerned equally. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. J. HIGHWAY 101 /PIONEER TRAIL, MRS. DEJOODE SELLING 8 ACRES TO WORMS, ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. Our ordinance allows administrative subdivision if a parcel fronts on a public right -of -way. This is one of the parcels that is involved in the subdivision and does not front on a public right -of -way. It's actually land locked. We have, Mrs. DeJoode owns 5 acres here and 8 acres just north of that 5. What she would like to do is combine this 8 acres with the neighboring 2 acre part of Lot 2 of Jeurissen Addition. This parcel is a metes and bounds. This one is a platted lot. You can't combine a metes and bounds with a platted parcel under a single PID number. What we would do is combine them under a single ownership and at the same time we would make sure that no building permits be issued on this portion. On the 8 acres unless it is platted in the future. Again, it is such a simple subdivision. Or actually it's just changing ownership of the parcel that it doesn't warrant being platted, and with that we're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Mayor Chmiel: Mrs. DeJoode is here. I don't know if she'd like to add anything more to that. To what Sharmin has really brought up. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilman Senn: Sharmin what is the, it says here there'd be some type of a document prohibiting the 8 acre parcel from being sold as a separate parcel. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Here's the document and it will be recorded against the property. 1 5 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay what if the, let's say it's not sold and let's say the current property owner tries to use it as an 8 acre parcel. Sharmin Al -Jaff: We won't issue a building permit for it. Mayor Chmiel: You're going into a total 13 acre combined total there now. DeJoode's are cutting their's from 13 acres to 5 which is required as opposed to the Worm's who are acquiring the additional 8 acres and will be giving them a total of 13, is that correct? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: So Worms will be in conformance? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: And DeJoode's will not be in conformance then with the 5 • ' acre parcel? Sharmin Al -Jaff: However the density will not change. So we're not changing anything in essence. This is what we have right now. Councilman Senn: You have 2 parcels now. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. And this is what will result from what you will ' approve if you approve it. Councilman Senn: And what's happening with the other, the one with 750 written on it? The other part of the parcel. Sharmin Al -Jaff: It is an existing platted lot. Councilman Senn: It is? Okay, that one is platted. Okay. • ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If hearing none, I'll make a motion to approve item (j). Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Administrative Subdivision of property by Mrs. DeJoode located at Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail as proposed by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jim Andrews: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This afternoon I did drop off a copy of a letter which I hope you all received for your packets tonight. I'd just like to read what the letter says and ask for the Council to take a leadership position in making it clear what their intentions are, and I'll ' read the letter now. On July 21st, 1993 I attended a Planning Commission meeting. On one of the agenda items a Planning Commission member had played an active role in a special interest group interested in a certain outcome of the Planning Commission. The commission member never publically disclosed his involvement with this special interest group. I believe that the City Council needs to create an official city policy which necessitates public disclosure when a city official, Council person or Commission member has played an active role in any special interest group lobbying for a specific action before the city. If such a policy is already in existence, I suggest the following 6 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 remedial actions. Number one, provide a written copy of such policy to all city officials, Council members and Commissioners on an annual basis. Number two, have the Council make a public statement of such a policy and as a sub item, make the same statement at the first meeting of every new Council. And number three, take whatever appropriate action may be necessary related to that specific incident at the Planning Commission meeting. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I think there probably has been some procedures already established but have not had the opportunity to review this in the past and was probably done by a resolution or something. If there has not been, I would say that the city will take it under advisement and try to come up with something to alleviate any given problems that could come up as such. Richard. Councilman Wing: I'm not, I may have been at this meeting and I guess, if this occurred I didn't read it the same way so I guess I'd like, this is assuming that a Planning Commission member acted inappropriately. I guess I'm at this point not accepting that as fact but I'd like to know more about it and if that's the case, I think we should we react to it and it pertains to all of us. I guess I'd like this particular incident or the Minutes reviewed and see if there was any discrepancy. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was at the same meeting and I don't recall anyone on the Commission advocating a particular position strongly. However, maybe I was oblivious to it. Jim Andrews: As you both know, I'm the Vice Chairman of the Park Board. Also the Chairman of the Highway 5 Task Force. I also seek this direction from the Council, not just for the Planning Commission but for all our acting commissions. I don't think this has been clearly stated as a policy. Not in the 5 years that I've been part of the Park Board. So there may have been a problem with the Planning Commission. That is not really the issue to me. It's that I think the City needs to provide leadership for all commissions, ' officials and Council people. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I think it's excellent idea Jim. Just wanted to make a point that I didn't see it at that meeting but as a matter of course we should do that. Councilman Senn: I think we should look at establishing an ordinance. I thought we talked about that in the past. An ethics ordinance or something like that. I'm not sure we've ever done anything about it but it's probably a good idea that we go ahead. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it was something that I brought up many years ago regarding that as well. And somehow I was reassured that we had something on the books so I didn't carry it any further. And I think everybody should be well aware as to what the ethics are within their own judgmental decision making. Sitting at this particular table or any of the other commissions. So I'd suggest that we do review this and if we have one, let's get it established. If not, I think we should set something up. Okay. Anyone else for Visitor Presentation? PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY EASEMENTS OVER LOTS 33 AND 34, BLOCK 4, HIDDEN VALLEY. Mayor Chmiel: Once again I'd like to say, as I've mentioned, this is a public hearing and I'm opening the public hearing for this. Todd Hoffman. , 7 11 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The subject easements represent old easements. In fact the new easements have already been recorded. This particular trail from Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Susan has already been constructed. The change in the easement locations allowed the trail to take a ' more natural line and create an additional separation from the Lowdermilk and Meyer residences. Both the Lowdermilk's and the Meyer's were receptive to this change and work with the City in that regard. It is recommended that the attached resolution in regard to the vacation of pedestrian walkway easements over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley be adopted. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this issue? Again, this is a public hearing. It's an opportunity to address it. If seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public ' hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this? Hearing none, I'd ask for a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval of vacation of pedestrian walkway easements over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley. Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution #93 -69: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adopt the resolution in regard to the vacation pedestrian walkway easements ' over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ' ALONG THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MINNEWASHTA HIGHLANDS, KENNETH AND GLADYS BLOMOUIST. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you'll see on the Figure attached to the staff report, there is a narrow strip of land which ran along the north side of Lot 3 which was originally reserved for the plat of Minnewashta Heights to serve as a driveway access for Lot 1, which was a flag lot. However, the builder of Lot 1 chose to take driveway access from Minnewashta Parkway and no longer needed this space reserved accordingly. So ' this piece of property was recombined with Lot 3 and now the property owners on Lot 3 are wishing to build a home and just as a matter of housekeeping, we no longer need the typical 5 foot side lot drainage easements over that piece so the vacation is recommended as requested. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address the Council? If you could come forward and please state your name and your address. Kenneth Blomquist: I'm Kenneth Blomquist and the address of which we speak is 3900 Minnewashta Court. I have a prepared statement which isn't very long. May I read that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Kenneth Blomquist: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. In the title here is a statement and need for the City to vacate the right -of -way of the said property. We were shown this Lot 3, Block 1, Minnewashta Highlands who's 8 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 address is 3900 Minnewashta Court. We were very interested in this walkout 11 lot but it was very narrow in the front, only 44 feet. We then learned that the owner of this lot also owned the unused driveway on the northerly edge. At one time this would have been given access to Lot 1, which now has other access. We then entered into agreement to purchase this lot along with the unused driveway along this northerly edge. We know have warranty deed for the same. Our plans are to complete. The plans are complete and the contractor ready to begin building our new home which extends a few feet over into this anticipated driveway. We then learned the City would not give us a building permit because of the right -of -way which the City has on this anticipated driveway. It is our opinion that the City should vacate this easement, or right -of -way to us because the City has little, or no value in retaining this easement. What future would the City have in retaining it? If you will grant us this request, the development of this property, our new home, may proceed for which we will be grateful. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have a question Richard? Councilman Wing: I'd move we close the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: A motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Sure. Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Wing: I would move we approve this vacation of Lot 1, Lot 3, Block 3, Minnewashta Highlands as requested. File No. 93 -4. Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution #93 -70: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the 11 City Council approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements as dedicated on the recorded plat of Minnewashta Highlands lying 5 feet on either side of the north line of Lot 3, BLock 1, and lies easterly of the 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 along Minnewashta Court, as dedicated on said plat. And lies westerly of the 5 foot drainage and utility easements as dedicated on said plat, over the easterly 5 feet of said Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 at its northerly and southerly extension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Kate Aanenson: Colonial Grove was approved in 1956. In 1981 they were granted a non - conforming use permit from the City. At that time it was not specifically spelled out, the boats should be docked overnight. Staff informed the applicants as part of the process. I mean the Association as part of the process of all non - conforming beachlots to go through, that they would need to come in and get a permit based on the fact that a survey in 1981 showed 3 boats docked overnight. This went to the Planning Commission twice. The first time it went there was an error made by staff so the applicants did request to go back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitehill, who is representing the Association, has provided 5 affidavits stating that they believe that the number of boats at the dock were 8 in 1981. I've attached in your packet the affidavits and also from the Planning Commission a letter from the Lotus Lake Association petition stating what they believe to be the level 9 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 of use. In addition there's Minutes from when the plat was approved. The second phase with the beachlot that stated that if they were to have boats or canoe racks of the like, they would have to come back and get a conditional use permit. That's where the staff came up with the interpretation that it was maybe not the intent to have boats docked overnight. The Planning Commission did on their Wednesday, July 21st meeting recommend that 3 boats be docked overnight. Again the Association's requesting, based on what they believe the level of use to be is 8 boats to be docked overnight. That's all I had. ' Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone here representing the Colonial Grove? Yes Roger. 4 ' Roger Knutson: Maybe I could give my short introductory speech... This is our, I believe 14th recreational beachlot that the City has dealt with in this process of registering a non - conforming beachlot. Just so we're clear on what the ordinance requires. The ordinance requires the City Council to decide ' what was there in 1981. That's all. Not whether that use is appropriate. Not whether there should be more or leas than there was in 1981. Not whether taxes are going up or down. Not whether there's trash there or other problems there. Just one issue. One issue only. What was there in 1981. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Cliff Whitehill: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Cliff Whitehill, 7001 Dakota Avenue in Colonial Grove. I think the City Attorney ' has stated succinctly and accurately what the issue is before you and that is, what was the use of the dock in that particular outlot in 1981. There will be a lot of statements tonight about what the use should be today or what it shouldn't be today or why it should be this or that or something else. In 1981, because I was very much a part of the formation of the Association and participated in the drafting of the request for the non - conforming use permit, it was not the practice of the city at that time to specify the number of boats to be moored, and moored is a very important word and that's the word ' that is commonly used. As to the number of boats that could be moored at a dock that was authorized for the outlot. Clearly the non - conforming use permit specified that there would be allowed a 100 foot dock. And in the memorandum of the City to the Council this evening there are a number of ' statements and sentences there that do need clarification. First, what was addressed? For instance on page 2 of the memorandum that you received. It did state that under item 4, "no boats are to be moored ". Unfortunately that is incorrect. That is not what the permit specifies nor what the Minutes addressed at that time. What was specified was that there were no mooring buoys to be added to the use of the outlot in addition to the 100 foot dock. It did not say anything about the number of boats to be moored. The Minutes of the Council at that particular time did address, and was very specific as to uses that were not permitted and the uses that were not permitted was that no overnight parking or overnight storage, not the word moored, storage of boats were to be allowed on the outlot. Again, not addressing the question of the number of boats to be moored or moored overnight on the dock. When we received our use permit I specifically inquired of staff at that time as to the number of boats that would be allowed and the answer back, and which has been the consistent answer back, well whatever a 100 foot dock can normally accommodate. That is what is to be allowed. And that's why the issue before you is what was the number of boats that were being stored or allowed in 1981. The survey that was taken shortly after the granting of the use permit, which is an unsigned survey, was for a particular moment in time. Nobody knows whether or not that early June '81 survey indicated that there were other boats that were at the dock that were out at the lake at the time. That was 11 10 1 l _ 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 early in the summer. Nobody knew whether everybody had put their boat in. 11 Most people don't even put it in by that time of June, etc and staff has said that the, again staff, quoting from your memorandum has always stated that this survey is based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a true representation of the level of use of the beachiot. You have been furnished with affidavits of 5 individuals who were all residents of Colonial Grove in 1981. Were concerned with the building of the dock, the use of the dock and other matters associated with the use of that particular parcel. One thing that the survey clearly indicated of course is that the outlot has always been maintained in excellent condition. It's the pride of the neighborhood and certainly I think should be a pride of Chanhassen. And there has never been one complaint of anyone that were aware of, or certainly from the City to the Association, as to the maintenance and upkeep of the outlot. You'll probably also hear from the Lotus Lake Association people that were really not familiar with the useage of the lot in 1981, about what they think may or may not have been the use of the dock and the number of boats. Even in the Planning Commission they indicated an aerial survey taken more or less at the same time was "inconclusive ". Although the issue as again stated by the City Attorney is not how many boats should be allowed today under today's useage. I think you know, obviously you probably should have that somewhere in the back of your mind, and that is that limiting the number of boats to 3 is counter productive. First of all it will just cause additional congestion at the ramp. The people who have boats in the Addition are going to use those boats and so all you're going to do is irritate a number of people that have to drive down TH 101, clog up the ramp which is already overused in any event, and just cause them to put their boats in and out rather than having the number of boats that was in 1981 being utilized at the dock. Over the years the Association has faced the issue that can the dock accommodate everyone who wants to use it and what we have decided is that in such events that the number of spaces will simply be either drawn by lot or allocated. You get the first half of the summer and the other person gets the second half of the summer. So we have faced the issue of how we deal with 8 docks or the ability to moor 8 boats at the dock. At the Planning Commission also there was a statement that when people bought their property in Colonial Grove they asked about them. I mean it's always been advertised as one of the favorable attributes of our Addition. That there is an outlot that allows the mooring of boats of course and the tennis courts and other things that go with it. And one of the comments was, well you may have been told that by your real estate agent but you have the duty to inquire at City Hall what was the appropriate, correct and allowed useage. Well, what would one have been told had they inquired? They would have been told exactly what's happened and that is, well the number of boats that are down there, presumably that's what's allowed. If the use permit did not allow boats to be moored overnight, then the Association has been in non - compliance since 1981 in spite of so called three surveys. Now that's just impossible that the City would have had notice of non - compliance for 12 years. Never notified anyone of non - compliance. What happened was simply this. That as stated, in the late summer and fall of last year, where it was omitted from these use permits specifically as to the number of boats to be moored at these docks the City is now, appropriately, attempting to clarify the record and also specify as to the number of boats that can be moored at these particular docks. We were told that that was just a matter of clarification. We're not applying for a new use permit. We already have that. What was asked for is that we simply clarify for the city the number of boats that were moored at the dock in 1981 and that number would be the appropriate number that would be approved for today's useage. We could, a 100 foot dock, it's a T dock, could actually accommodate more boats than that. Well we've said, we'll just have to live with what we had back then and so we're, whether you call it grandfathering or just in conformity what was granted at the time, is simply the request of the Association. ' 11 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Nothing more. Nothing less. The last thing is that a number of other people ' will speak as to whether or not the affidavits that were given are the best and most appropriate evidence. Well, to me there just can't be other than a photo taken, here are sworn, signed affidavits of people that were residents at the time. Were intimately associated with the use of the outlot and the ' dock. Were always interested in the ongoings of the Association and the well being of the Association. That's the best proof that's available to you. There's no aerial survey that indicates any differently. The surveys, the one survey that was taken by the city in '81, as I said, was early in the summer ' contemporaneous with the time that the use permit was granted. The other two indications of a survey have no attached, even the basic information that the '81 survey has. It's just a list in two other years as to the number of boats in that year. Nobody knows what time of day. When during the year. Any such survey was taken because there's no background information on it. It could have been taken literally at any time. So again, in conclusion and in summary, the Association is simply asking for comfirmation by the Council that in 1981 8 boats were moored at that dock which is an appropriate number of ' boats for a 100 foot dock and that our use permit be clarified to that extent. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this ' time? Jeff Kvichaug: You'll have to excuse me. I get a little nervous at these things so if my voice cracks or. Mayor Chmiel: Just think you're sitting at your coffee table and we're sitting there with you. ' Jeff Kvichaug: Okay. I'm a resident of Lotus Lake. I was also present at the Planning Commission meeting and my name is Jeff Kvichaug. I reside at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. I'm not as eloquent or as silver tongued as Mr. Whitehall but as a resident I believe I have some information that conflicts a little bit with some of the information Mr. Whitehill has presented. My goal tonight is just to present this information and clarify certain statements that may have been made to date. I agree the key issue here is the number of boats that were moored overnight in 1981. The issue is not deeded access. The issue is not real estate values. The issue is not the maintenance and e upkeep of the common area and the issue is not the use or overuse of the public access. The issue is the number of boats that were there in 1981. When this matter first came up and I became aware of it, I took the opportunity to discuss this matter with various members of the City staff. • Past and current board members of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. Various residents on the lake. The DNR. The Ag Extension Service. Certain past city staff members and selected County officials as well. While I'm sympathetic to the concerns of the Colonial Grove residents, I feel that ' certain information that's been presented is inaccurate. I have been a Lotus Lake user for 6 years. Most recently I've been a homeowner on the lake. I've enjoyed the access to the lake, both from a trailer boating perspective through the public access and as a homeowner. I can certainly understand why they're upset about the possibility of being limited in their mooring rights. But certain information is not consistent with that of my research or our research. Number one, the number of boats that were docked at that dock in 1981, Mr. Whitehill made reference to some information that a Lotus Lake Homeowners Association had presented. I believe you probably have a copy of this letter but I'm presenting another one for the record. That's a letter that was signed by the past and current Board members of the Homeowners Association that were very active at that time and were also residents on the lake. I believe in your packet of information there should also be a note 12 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 that there were going to be several affidavits submitted. That because of time constraints we couldn't get into your packet before the meeting tonight. I have a total of 8 affidavits regarding the use of the boats from homeowners on Lotus Lake as of 1981. There were some questions made at the Planning Commission whether our letter was sufficient evidence or whether their affidavits should take precedence. As a result we followed up to make sure that they're weighed equally, or had equal value. There's also been several questions about the accuracy of the 1981 survey. And specifically Mr. Whitehill has referred to it as an unsigned survey and that nobody knows about the boats under use at the time of the survey. I took the opportunity to talk to several of the people involved in the lake study committee which the City Council appointed in 1981 specifically to address the beachlot ordinance that was proposed in that year and the water surface useage ordinance proposed in that year. The lake study committee was commissioned or charged with the responsibility to work with city staff to, for one thing survey the number of boats moored at common areas in 1981 for all the various lakes in Chanhassen. The city staff was responsible for conducting this survey and the individual that was responsible for it was a person by the name of Scott Martin. I don't believe anybody with Colonial Grove took the opportunity to talk to Scott Martin and I spoke with him today. Scott Martin served from 1981 to 1984 as the Community Development Director for the City of Chanhassen, and as such he is responsible for supervise the city planning department, as I understand it. He also was personally involved or personally performed a survey. He indicated to me that the surveys were performed on weekdays when there was little or no useage for all the various Chanhassen lakes. It was performed once during 1981 for each lake. But it was clear to him as a member of the city staff that this survey would be used as a benchmark and I'm going to quote him as closely as I can here. And he said therefore it was done, and I quote, the accuracy and integrity of a reasonable person. Now certainly that doesn't mean that 3 is the exact number but it does mean that his count was done when there was very little or no useage and it was as reasonable and accurate as possible. Further, the original conditional use permit does not specifically allow mooring rights. In fact there are certain Minutes or notes that indicate another application process would be required for mooring rights. For your information we also talked to the County to determine the number of houses that were even built at that point in time, as it has expanded significantly since then. According to our research there was a total of 28 houses that were built in that Association in 1981, 10 of which were lakeshore properties, meaning a total of 18 non - Lakeshore properties resided in 1981. Finally there's been some comments tonight, or in the • Planning Commission meeting about deeded access and the rights that that conveys. Deeded access does not necessarily mean that you have deeded mooring rights and again, as Mr. Whitehill stated, mooring is a very important term here. What deeded access right means is that you have deeded rights to use the lake. With this, whether there's 3 boats allowed or whether there's 8 boats allowed, no one is taking that right away. It will be less convenient, I agree. But the right to use the lake is not infringed or limited. In fact they can all use it and all use the dock but only 3 can be moored overnight under the proposal as accepted by or recommended by the Planning Commission. In conclusion, there's been no unequivicable data presented by Colonial Grove. There's been conflicting affidavits presented which I sympathize with the Council and the Mayor to have to sort through. The City survey, as inaccurate as it may be presented to be, I believe is the most accurate information we have from that point in time and that supports 3. The city Planning Commission recommends the approval of 3 mooring rights. The city staff that conducted the surveys, they conducted it with reasonable accuracy and the variance between 3 and 8 seems too large to reconcile for a reasonable person. And finally, limited mooring rights does not mean limited use. As a final note, I have one further affidavit and it's from a person who was involved in the lake 13 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 11 study committee, and specifically charged with conducting a survey of the number of boats moored at the various common areas and it discusses the charge of whether the accounts were correct or accurate and deals directly with the accuracy. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Chuck Hirt: My name is Chuck Hirt, 7007 Cheyenne Trail. I have been a resident of Colonial Grove since 1971. I am one of the parties that signed an ' affidavit and had a boat on there in 1981. There's a couple things I want to address. I don't quite understand the survey idea that if someone goes down to the lake one time during a summer and sees 2 boats, that that's the survey for the entire summer. I mean there can be 10 boats down there at one time. ' There could be no boats. Yesterday we had 2 boats. The day before we had 4 boats down there so that I don't quite understand. The Lotus Lake Homeowners Association survey, it's kind of interesting. I was trying to rack my brain and think 12 years back exactly who was on the dock. I know I have about 6 names and I can't remember the others, and it's interesting that the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association in 1981, 12 years ago, can remember how many boats were on our dock. I was there all the time and I can't remember exactly every person that was there, and they can remember 12 years ago that we just had 3 docks there. That's pretty hard for me to believe. The other thing I want to address, he mentioned how the Planning Commission had approved the 3 boats. I wouldn't say it was an overwhelming vote. It was 4 to 2 and one of the things I remember specifically, and I don't know how the person was that was standing there but it was the first person that talked and I wanted to say something after he talked but the public hearing was closed but the first thing he uttered almost, well in all fairness and he went on to talk about 3 boats. This has nothing to do with fairness and the City Attorney spoke exactly about it. It has to do with how many boats were there in '81. Not what is fair. If that person was voting on the idea of what is fair and 3 boats is fair because others got 3 boats, that makes no sense whatsoever. So I wouldn't call the Planning Commission vote a very conclusive vote as far as overwhelmingly approving 3 boats. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Chris Engel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Chris Engel. I'm presently the Acting President of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. I have been in that position for the last 3 1/2 years and simply the points I would like to make, an emphasis of Mr. Whitehill's comments surround, I would ask that the Council try to separate, if they will, our particular permit from the others that you've ' dealt with in the past. The point that needs to be made, quite honestly is that our Association, if you will, was one of the only associations at the time that the ordinance was developed, that was I guess approximately 2 years ago that had a non - conforming beachlot permit from 1981. Our position is quite clear, and I think we've made that position clear that we felt all along that we have a permit that's withstanding. Quite honestly I have acted over the last 2 1/2 years when Jo Ann Olsen was still involved with the city, I approached the Planning Commission at the initial meetings where I was asked to show up as the President with our permit in hand. And in fact at that point talked specifically with Jo Ann and I said, do I even need to be at this meeting. We in fact do have a permit and is it valid. She said yes, and I'm quite surprised you have one because I don't know of any other Association in all of Chanhassen that has one. Well I thank the founders of our Association for getting that piece of information and I guess I would ask that we not be lumped in with the other associations that you've dealt with in the past that have in fact asked for a new permit based on what they've used in the past or 11 asked for more boats or were at 16 and we're now down to 8. We in fact are 14 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 i asking for what we had in 1981 when we had a permit. A very valid permit. And at that point, for whatever reason, there was no specification to the number of boats but only to the length of the dock. 100 feet. I think there is an implication that if you're going to have a 100 foot dock, that you're going to put boats on it. I've been involved in the Association since 1986 and Mr. Whitehill also makes a very valid point. I've also worked on the dock in coordinating parking places. If I'm not mistaken in 1986 they did a survey. I have had a boat at the dock since 1986 and we had 7 or 8 boats on the dock in 1986 yet the survey says that we had 3. Again, I have to emphasize from the survey's point of view, what is the validity of the survey when they're not even signed. There's no testiment as to who did it. What time of day. Where in fact does the information come? We have 5 affidavits that in fact specify that we have the 8 boats. Have had the 8 boats since 1981 parked at our dock and we had asked that the surveys be upstanding, be thrown out and actually the affidavits be the upstanding evidence in this case. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring this back to Council and come up with some kind of conclusion here, hopefully. I might add this is not one of the best things we enjoy doing, believe me. Makes you sometimes sit up here and think you're God and we're not. But to come up with a conclusion. I must say that we have been rather consistent in all of our decisions that we have done, specifically going back to what was there in 1981 and there's a lot of arguments on both sides of the aisle on that particular issue. But with that I'd like to start with Mark. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Councilman Senn: I started out I guess real, we've got this thing kind of torn on it primarily because of all the, I guess other ones that we've had through with it. The more and more I looked into it though I really started to think that this was really a lot different than the ones, at least that I've seen since I've been on the Council. Most of the ones I've seen at least since I've been on the Council have been very ill defined. No permits. No rules, no nothing in place. No deeds reciting what is or what the rules are or aren't. In fact I think most of them I've seen come into Council we've had two sets of people in the same neighborhood arguing over what was and what wasn't. I think after really, looking through all the history on this, again I think this one is different. I think in 1981 before this ordinance was put in place, this neighborhood in effect did have a permit. I've looked very closely at the permit and the closest thing that I can see that relates to boats is no mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A. There is not any more specific reference than that that I can find. Something that even resembles an issue of a boat. Likewise look very specifically back at the Planning Commission Minutes from 1980 and those Minutes I think have kind of a key word in it and that is where it talks about, it says here Mr. Merz stated that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not specifically talk about overnight parking, overnight storage of boats or erecting structures. However it was explained that any, and I'll underline this word changes requesting any of the above would be required to go, or to undergo a public hearing for conditional use permit. And what really starts to tear me at that point is you have a neighborhood here who thinks they have a valid permit and you know the right to put 8 or 10 or whatever number of boats there was down there, and the reason they need to come into the city is if there's a change. And they've never changed so I mean I think they've been operating down there on that basis for all these years and maybe we've been kind of derelict or neglectful of our duties but if we haven't called them on it for 12 years, I think it's kind of hard now to come back after 12 years and say, you've been doing a no no for 12 years. Especially when you look back at this type of wording in the document. To me if there was a problem we should have 1 15 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 been enforcing it a long time ago. Not now in 1993. I look back and I say, I think the documents could have been a lot tighter. I think they probably should have been a lot tighter. I look at all the Minutes and again the issue of the number of boats I don't ever see referenced anywhere. I live on Lotus Lake now. I happen to feel the lake's kind of a natural resource for the community. I'd like to see as many people in the community who want to use it, use it. I'm going to have to say, I've even used Lotus Lake I think most of my life. As well as Christmas Lake and I can't remember exactly what was down there in 1981, even though I probably used the lake frequently then. I remember there were a number of spots around the lake that had a fair number of boats docked there but that's the best I can remember. I think, 1 talked with the neighborhood and I talked with the Association and in fact, you know basically they have records at least going back to 1986 showing the people and 1 the use up to that level. At the same time I guess I wish they would have kept better records further back but I guess I wish the City did too. So I guess anyway I look at it, I keep coming back to a not so clear answer and I think in this particular case given the agreements, given the language and I 1 think the key point here is given the agreement. I walk away and I think if we don't, how would I say this. I get bothered by the fact that I don't think the neighborhood association really has to be here. I get bothered by the fact that I think they have an agreement dated in 1981 with the City which doesn't specify a number of boats. I think they could very clearly be taking a position far more, be counter productive than the one they are taking. It seems to me that if the neighborhood is willing to agree to 8 boats, I think given the documentation, given the circumstances, I think we ought to agree to 1 the 8 boats and run to the bank with it so to speak because it seems to me we're getting a good limitation that we don't have now. And I think that the contention could be made that we don't. So I think we ought to go with that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the 5 or 6 of these, 4 or 5, I don't recall, that we've dealt with this year, we've always tried to be consistent with our prior decisions. However, in looking at this one it is different because there is a non - conforming permit and basically it just doesn't deal with the issue. I'm going to go with the 8, not because of Mr. Whitehill's issue of mooring or storage. I think that's just semantics and does absolutely not address permits. Not because there's 100 foot dock, because the City survey says it was 35 feet. But more because we have been, we have tried to be fairly liberal with these with the understanding people's rights to use the lake. Somewhat because the validity of the city survey is in question and they have been in all of these. We've relied on them when there was a lack of evidence ' to the contrary but I think in this case there is evidence to the contrary. Because you did have a permit and you were acting under the understanding that your permit was valid and that you did have the right to store as many boats I believe as you thought would fit. When you get to the affidavits, that's a tough issue. You like to think that people, when they sign a sworn affidavit, they you know, memories get twisted, etc but I do believe that at Colonial Grove Association members probably do have a little bit better memory of it, albeit it's probably a little bit biased. But for those reasons and for the ones that Mark iterated, I believe 8 is fair. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard. 1 Councilman Wing: Can you address this permit issue? You know we're talking about they had a non - conforming permit and it doesn't address numbers of boats. What does any of this got to do with the '81 useage? 1 16 ,1 l _ 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Roger Knutson: That non - conforming use permit they received, they received prior to the enactment of the 1981, 1981 or '82 recreational beachlot ordinance. The current ordinance was not in effect... Under what basis it was issued, the City in fact was looking, we don't know. But it's relevant to the extent it documents what was there in 1981, and only to that extent. Obviously the Planning Commission and Council at that time looked at the issue and said, here's what you've got. We're registering your non - conforming use but for whatever reason they didn't mention boats. Well when the 1981 ordinance regulating recreational beachlots was passed, that became a very II important issue because it limited the number of boats you could have. So what you do, you have the non - conforming use permit that tells you, answers quite a few questions but you •have a big blank as far as that permit goes. As far as how many boats were there in 1981. From looking at it, you can't tell whether there was one boat. I can't anyway, 1 boat there or 100 boats by looking at that document. So you have to look at people's memories or whatever other evidence they can come up with as to what was there in 1981. Again, it comes back to the same issue. With the agreement or not agreement, what was there in '81. Councilman Wing: That's why I lost my compatrients point here where they're talking about this being different than the others. I'm granting that they had a non - conforming use permit and I'm going to say allowed the use of boats. I don't have an issue with that so let's go back to the number of boats that was there in 1981, because there is nothing different. They had permission to use boats. So I have 5 affidavits here that say they had 8 and I have 5 over here that said they had 3. And those people aren't just up on Horseshoe Curve, or any one group. They're scattered around the lake. In fact one of them is real close to the Association. In fact one of them that was signed by, I'm not going to get into that. I guess I have information where the affidavits aren't totally accurate, at least coming from Colonial Grove. Considering a neighbor that was concerned about his signature on this and the fact that he wasn't comfortable with it. So we get back to what was there. The Planning Commission went over this twice. Not once and in both times the majority of that group voted 3 boats. And two of those votes were over the I/ issue of affidavits. They did not have offsetting affidavits at that time so I'm not going to rely on that issue. So I'm trying to decide here,in fairness to all these other 13 we've done, what was there in 1981. That's all I care about. It's irrelevant of property values or whether there was a permit or non - conforming permit or whether you had boat use or not. Obviously you had boats there so I'm going to grant you that. I'm trying to be fair here with the other 13 and decide what was there. During the summer of 1981 the affidavits claim that there was 8. Other affidavits claimed it was never more than 3. And what compells me to favor those is the fact that the Association, Lotus Lake Homeowners Association in fact had a complaint that year reporting a violation of the subdivision. Well, even if I assume they had the right to have those boats there, it still claims that there were 3 boats that were in question, and 2 or 3 boats continued to be present at various times that summer. No one has come forward tonight, or at any Planning Commission meeting and justified any more than 3, and there's all sorts of documentation here saying there was 2 or 3 boats there so I won't question that. But other than the affidavits from this side, which are offset by this side, who both seem to be real familiar with the lake. All were there in 1981. Some of them again are neighbors. 3 boats comes up. 2 to 3 boats so it seems to me the Planning Commission allowing 3 boats was somewhat of a compromise and I think was reasonably fair. And I cannot find any documentation for more than that number of boats. I also get concerned that by permitting any boats there with the 25 foot beachlot, and then applying our dock setback ordinance which takes 10 feet off each side automatically for all neighbors, that leaves 10 from 20 that leaves 5 feet to work with for a dock. Well that's access for swimming 1 17 1/ ti 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 11 and other issues but when you start adding boat lifts and docks to that, now 1 you're in the dock setback zone and we have not allowed anyone else to have that violation. But in this case, to impose that ordinance we'd in fact take your use away so that's not going to work. The other issue I wanted to ask about was this dock length. There's mention of a 100 foot dock but yet all these surveys talk 35 feet. '81, '86 right on through. Why are we approving 100 foot dock if they've never had more than 35? Haven't they lost that right? Roger Knutson: I believe they say they have 100 foot dock there now. Councilman Wing: Is that correct? Resident: Yeah. Councilman Wing: The permit says 100 foot dock. What's there is 35. And what's the actual use this summer? What have you noted this summer as the 1 actual use? I haven't checked it. Kate Aanenson: I haven't checked it this summer. Councilman Wing: Okay. So I guess I'm going to support the Planning Commission's recommendation because I think they listened to this through two meetings and I think that the 3 boats was a reasonable compromise. It doesn't issue, argue the issue of permits or boats. It only tries to address what was there in '83 and the, or '81 and the preponderance of the, sitting here as a jury member of the covenants says that there was no more than 3 boats. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. A lot of pros and cons to the issues. We're debating this right now and some of the things that I have said at other association meetings that we've had here is that that buyer beware situation. When homes were being sold by real estate people, it often times enhances a position by them to say you have boat right ability and utilization of that property. And some of it's true. I look at it from the standpoint of the 1 Association's the pull together these specific lots was the intent I think really behind it as a swimming beach. Period. And it has grown from that part a little more and a little more and a little more. I know under my own circumstance when I bought my home, I was told that we had rights to Lake Ann with a park that we had and it was told that was an association park. Well, I didn't do as I should have done, is gone to City Hall to find out if that was really true. But I was told it was and I believed the real estate agent. And after finding out the city owns that piece of land. It is not an association I piece. It's owned by the City and I even had the City pull out the affidavit showing that they were really the owners, and they were. Going back to, and just a little side step of the story which pertained to me, myself. In going back to what I'm looking at now. In some of the permit issued, that has been issued, and with also a condition of a permit for two canoe racks to be on that parcel. I still am leaning toward the position of Planning Commission's decision as to the 3 boats. And I know if it goes to a vote here it's going to be a 2 to 2 tie and we're lacking one individual as well. But I have also thought there is some difference in what has transpired here as opposed to some of the others. From a consistent standpoint as to how we have concluded some of our decisions. I think that I'm still leaning towards the 3 boats and also the 2 canoe racks that were on that parcel at that time. Even though it 1 indicates that it's 100 feet, of the permit that was issued, by everything that I see here and Dick has mentioned this already, it's a reiteration of it. Is that there has been in 1981, one seasonal dock 35 feet. In 1986, 35 feet and in 1991, 35 feet. 18 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Residents: No, that's not true... Mayor Chmiel: What's the length of the dock that's out there right now? Is it 100 feet now? Cliff Whitehill: I think the aerial survey will... 1 Mayor Chmiel: So there seems to be some kind of discrepancy within it. But I think that all the things back and forth has been held and discussed and I still see that, well let me just hold my vote until I make my decision. And I've thought about this long and hard and I've looked at all the pros and cons to the issues as I've said before. But I still think that there are some, and it's sort of amazing. 3 to 8 is quite a difference from what there was to what other people are saying as well. And it depends upon what day you're really looking at. I think you brought that up before. What day it was. So with that I would ask for a motion in regard to this, both Lotus Lake Recreational Beachlot. Councilman Senn: I have a question first Don I'd like to ask, if'I could. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And I was going to say, we're going to have discussion with it as well. Go ahead. Councilman Senn: For the attorney. I look at this and we have an agreement, it seems to me, with the Association dated 1981 before the ordinance okay. Picking one of the things that the agreement is very specific about, which is the length of the dock being 100 feet okay. This document's then recorded. Okay, through that Association's documents with each property, okay. How can the city simply pass a new ordinance and say it's changing that dock length? Changing that agreement and not even inform the people that they're doing, specifically. I'm not talking about general public notice. I'm talking about an agreement here. Not a general ordinance. I mean it seems to me at that point the burden of proof so to speak is on the city somehow. If it's going to change an agreement it negotiated and signed, it needs to specifically go back and either renegotiate it, reopen it or do something, especially when it's recorded against the properties. And I take that issue and I just follow it through and I say, hey this is one of the poorest things I've ever seen. I mean I can't help the fact that it's poor but I keep coming back to that nagging question that says to me, you know geez. How can we mess with this agreement? Roger Knutson: I think this agreement, and I was not around in 1981 when this was done so I wasn't here. I have no personal knowledge of how they reached these conclusions. I don't even know why they had it. There was no recreational beachlot ordinance at that time. There was a recreation ordinance of some sort. After this thing was passed, the current ordinance, the current version of the ordinance came into play. This is excellent evidence of what people thought was there in 1981. I think obviously you'll decide what weigh that should get. The boat issue wasn't addressed as far as I can tell. Why it wasn't addressed, it's a preety obvious issue, why it wasn't, I don't know. I think when the new ordinance went into effect in 1981 it created new rules. This helps you to decide what the baseline is and what was there except for the one issue, which you saw tonight. The number of boats that can be there overnight on the docks. From the discussion it obviously was something that was on people's minds. It was discussed for a moment at least in the Planning Commission meeting back then. They didn't tell us what the answer is. I think obviously that's your task under our new ordinance is to fill in that blank. How many boats were there. 19 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay, well. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I want to ask Mark how we've violated this agreement. The agreement doesn't address the number of boats. It didn't say they could have 20 or 5 or 3 or none. What have we done to violate this agreement? Other than trying to enforce the ordinance that came in in 1981, which we've done pretty consistently. And that was done. Councilman Senn: Well if you enforce the ordinance Dick, as it came in in 1981, you're in violation of this agreement because according to that they're only allowed to have a 35 foot dock. It's right here in black and white. Yet we have an agreement...separate the issues here and likewise this agreement is silent on the number of boats. Which means they aren't bound by our ordinance as far as I'm concerned. They have an agreement here with us that doesn't bind them. 11 Councilman Wing: So they can have any number of boats they want to. Councilman Senn: But to me they're coming in and saying, we'll settle on 8. To me that's a heck of a compromise. Like I said before, we ought to grab it and run because I think there's some real open ended, I mean legal issues here. If one attorney can stand on one side and tell us for sure this is what the Court's going to decide, but I've never heard somebody do that yet. I 1 mean that sounds wonderful but this is one of those ones to me that seems like it's real ripe for litigation and somebody's going to go in and split the baby. And the agreement just has a big hole in it and I don't think that's something we blame on the neighborhood. I think at this point we have to say hey, we made a mistake. Okay. So let's swallow our mistake. Let's agree to something that the neighborhood seems to be willing to go with and let's get out of the deal without getting into a buncy of litigation and everything else. That's the way I look at it. Roger Knutson: I mean after the fact I think we certainly have the right to enact ordinances regulating the number of boats that can come in. For example, if they had no boats there in 1981...and they come in 3 years later and say, you can't have any. You have the right, subsequent Councils have the right to make changes from what prior Councils have done. To enact new ordinances. Making things more restrictive. Councilman Senn: We can't change written agreements with people. I mean I want to make that clear. At least that's everything I've ever understood. We can change ordinances but we can't change agreements. Contracts. Roger Knutson: It depends on what you mean by, if you want to get into... Councilman Senn: I'm just asking the question. Roger Knutson: That's not 100% true. Planned Unit Development Agreement, signed off by both sides, simple example. It's a zoning document. Can subsequent Councils change that, yes. By amending the zoning. Absolutely. Councilman Senn: Interesting. Councilman Wing: We could go back on the history of this thing. Why it started in the first place and the abuses that occurred that created this lake study committee in 1980, 1979 -1980 -1981. Then we could get into why we had to go to the permit process to begin with and that was battle after battle. 20 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 There are court cases that have been lost for tens of thousands of dollars , over one boat on Lake Minnewashta. We went to this permit process, and to say the public wasn't advised. There were public hearings back then and this group was included as much as any other group. And lake owners were included. This ordinance was enacted after heavy public input and I can assure you it was heavy public input because everybody wanted their little piece. In 1991 we had to face the issue that these, some of the beachlots, and even lake owners themselves, were just taking whatever they wanted to do and running with it and we were forced into a permit process out of outright battles. The number of complaints got so high the City Council had to react. So we're going through the permit process. And then after heavy public input, and numerous public hearings where these chambers were filled with lake owners, non lake owners, interested parties, we as a Council and Planning Commission unanimously agreed to go with the 1981 boat counts. Non - conforming. Conforming. Written this. Written that. I think that that ordinance superseded those, is that not correct, when we decided to go with the 1981 boat count under that ordinance. Roger Knutson: What we basically said is that in 1981 when the ordinance was, the recreational beachlot ordinance was enacted, if you didn't meet those standards as of that date, you were non - conforming and as a non - conforming use you did not have the right to expand. So what we decided to do a couple of years ago, we had constant complaints, is to register what you had there in 1981. So when someone comes in and says over this recreational beachlot they're doing so and so and that's expansion, they shouldn't be doing that. We can look at our files and say, oh. They're okay or they're not okay and then we can go after them or say there's no issue. Councilman Wing: So I don't have any interest in taking away their boats, nor taking away their use. I just don't feel it's fair for me to sit here after 13 of these where we have impacted associations, and do anything other than what was there in 1981 and it does not affect their agreement, written or verbal or handshake or anything else. It's simply we have an ordinance in 1981 that counted boats. Now if they can show that they had 10 boats, Minnewashta Heights came in and had an incredible number of boats documented. We couldn't argue with it. Got it hands down but anyone else that didn't have full documentation, we went with these counts because it's the best we could do and the burden of proof is not on us. I'll disagree with that. The burden of proof is the people coming in and the burden of proof presented to me, and the only reason I went with 3 boats versus 8 is that the burden of proof was 3. And I'm not going to belabor and argue this point. We can go all night on this. I think maybe we should just call it. I'd love to compromise on this. Maybe split it but we can't do that. That is not the question, or I would certainly suggest we do that. Maybe come to grips on this issue. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And yet in my opinion it's not as cut and dried as that. I mean we've been very consistent with the prior ones and we've said I'm sorry people. I know your real estate agent told you this and I've upheld those decisions but in this one it's my opinion that it is different because they've been given a document from the city stating the use. And I think they have more of a footing to stand on. So I can't be so cut and dried on this and I would like to compromise if we could, because I think if any case, this is one to do it on. Councilman Senn: Well whether they go 3 or 8, it's not going to be the end of the world and history isn't even going to note this but I guess I have to know, they're different and they have an agreement. How many boats did that agreement allow them? 1 21 \ I/ 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, it didn't allow any but it did infer that 1 they could have as many boats as would fit on a 100 foot dock. Roger Knutson: To just point out on that. Then subsequent to this permit being issue, an ordinance was enacted which limited the number of boats that they could have. The basic concept is that you can't, this City Council, and no other City Council, can contract away your zoning powers. I mean if for an example, and I'll make an absurb example. They said you could build a glue factory on here and this was all signed up. And the next day or the next year the Council changed it's mind to rezone the property, they couldn't do it unless they'd already started building it regardless of what that document said. Resident: We already had the dock. Mayor Chmiel: Please, hold it down. Thank you. I Councilman Senn: But we do, let me understand. I guess one quick question and that is, we do have a non - conforming use permit on this property now, correct? I Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Roger Knutson: Yes, but it's non - conforming use permit under the existing ordinance. Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand. Okay, but in every other respect it pretty much deals with or meets the issues of the ordinance, okay? I mean I guess what I'd like to do is just simply, I guess to get it off I center. I'd like to move that we amend the existing non - conforming use permit with the neighborhood's agreement to enter an additional item and clarification that no more than 8 boats would be allowed at the dock. Docked or moored or whatever the best legal terminology is. Roger Knutson: Tied up to the dock. Councilman Senn: Tied to the dock. Overnight, right? Is that the way to do it? I Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I'll call a question. Would you like to make, who would like to make a motion? Don Ashworth: Was there a second on the motion? Roger Knutson: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought Mark did. Councilman Senn: Just did. I Mayor Chmiel: No, it's not a motion as yet. You have some clarifications? Roger Knutson: I thought Mark just. I Councilman Senn: I just moved. Mayor Chmiel: No, no, no. Yeah, you moved that but there was other discussions that were still on. And you are making. I asked for a motion to 1 22 1 / 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 a be made. I called for that now so if you'd like to reiterate that, you may do so. Councilman Senn: Whatever I just said, right. Mayor Chmiel: You amend the non - conforming. 1 Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we amend the non - conforming use permit beachlot for Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, with concurrence of the neighborhood to include an additional provision which limits the number of boats to be tied to the dock overnight to be 8. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? If not I'll call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Non- Conforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachiot with an amendment to their agreement which limits the number of boats which can be tied to the dock overnight to eight (8). All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who was silent, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Wing: Can I get one clarification item? What about our dock setback ordinance that we've been so rigid on? It would appear to me that this dock and these boats can't possibly comply with that. We've granted them the authority to operate the site, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Since they, you said it very well. If the existing dock can comply, we require compliance but in this situation since it would not be possible to comply without taking out the dock, we cannot require compliance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does that clarify your question? Councilman Wing: Yes sir. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Councilman Senn: What was the vote? Mayor Chmiel: It was vote 3 with a no vote which would mean it's a yes vote. Thank you. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7500 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS LAKE WOODS, LEANNA FORCIER AND HUBERT V. FORCIER. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.47 acres into 7 single family lots. Currently there is an existing single family home on the site. This residence will be either demolished or used for practice by the Fire Department. 3 of the parcels will be serviced by an extension of Del Rio Drive. It will be cul- de- saced. The other 4 parcels will be serviced off of Frontier Trail. There will be ponds built up to NURP standards. Those ponds will not only service the subdivision. I/ However, it will also help retain the water from the surrounding area before it flushes out into Lotus Lake. So it will definitely improve the quality of Lotus Lake. The site is heavily wooded. It is a fairly young forest and staff requested a preservation easement over what is highlighted right now in red. And the applicant has shown this preservation easement on the plan. The 23 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 applicant is proposing to replace every single tree removed. By the time all trees are replaced, we would have lost 10% of all trees on site, which currently the landscaping ordinance is being changed and what planning staff is recommending through the Tree Board, what they're recommending is that total tree loss would not exceed 30% so this is definitely under the 30% that would be removed with the new tree ordinance. We are recommending approval for this application. However, there are two changes that we would like to make to the conditions of approval. The first one is on page 8. Condition number 11. It should read extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, I/ and also the driveway, shall be in this same general location to minimize disruption and tree removal. And then we would strike out, those two lots shall share a common driveway. We should also strike out the shared portion of the driveway shall be built up to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. What the applicant has proposed is those two driveways be within the same general area with a buffer strip between them, which is acceptable. The second condition would be adding condition number 16 which would read, the applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication. And with 11 that we're recommending approval. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Robert Davis: Good evening Mayor, Council members. Citizens. We've got a smaller group here since the last item. My name is Robert Davis. I'm an architect. I'm at 4010 West 56th Street in Edina. I'm working along with Sunday Engineering in the land planning of this project for the Forcier's. Let me clarify for you some of the items that have been previously brought up, either with staff or at the Planning Commission meeting previously and the direction we have agreed to proceed with. There's 7 lots here and this has been a single residence on 4 1/2 acres, although it was 2 lots legally. There was only one residence for 50 years. So most of it has been fairly heavily wooded. One of the discussion items was the affect on neighbors of putting houses in here that for 50 years has been quite heavily wooded. We feel the 4 affected houses are here, here, here and across the road. One of the discussion items with the Planning Commission was to change a driveway on Lot 5 from this side, because of the effect on the neighbor across the road and the loss of trees to here. And that's the item we just discussed about. A reasonably close driveway with a 5 foot green buffer with 2 1/2 feet on each 11 side of the lot line. That was the direction of. We felt the improvement and sensitivity to the neighbors across the street so the wooded area comes down the road here will look around and the... One of the other items brought up at the Planning Commission was...on Del Rio Drive, on the south side. He specifically called out that he had an oak tree in this property here which he felt was very important and we included that on the tree preservation list even though it's not 6 inches in diameter. Our tree preservation list documents 169 trees 6 inches or larger. One of the other properties here is a minimum setback. The existing residence on the north side of Del Rio and we're 1 moving the asphalt of the cul -de -sac, offsetting it from the center so that we feel we can save a number of these trees that are in the right -of -way but because we're holding the asphalt to this side rather than centering it, we think...saving the trees. The grading and drainage plan shows that retaining wall. The fourth residence is the existing Mason residence here which we feel that by locating the lot and houses where we're showing the, that that gives the most leeway to this party in terms of non -use in the rear of these lots. That house is quite close to the property line but pulling this house up and this way down here, we feel that's a good compromise there. So those are some of the issues and items that have been discussed with staff and modified and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. There was some discussion about the pond. They're shown here. Just a pond. Right now there's a storm sewer coming downhill and curving out this way...off here. We're proposing a storm 24 J 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 sewer off this cul -de -sac to come down to this point too and then a structure 1 which would divert water to this pond. There's an overflow and pump the ponding down here. This overflow crosses out under Frontier Trail and is proposed to culvert under the road. That's in the Bonestroo report that you have. One of the things I wanted to clarify is that in developing this amount I/ of land there's a requirement of a pond...proposal with the city for the additional size of these ponds. They're in effect made larger to provide a better water quality from off the property coming to this system. We just speak a minute about the tree inventory. Do you have a copy of this included? So you have the wording of the replacements. Very simply we're offering to replace either every tree cut with one 2 1/2 inch caliper tree or all tree caliper lost after 20 %. Whichever is more restrictive. And it appears that on...page we would have 40 trees planted and in another case, 43. One of the items is, do you have a copy of the conservation easement? Is that in our packet? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1 Robert Davis: Okay. That is a document change. The granting of an easement for the preservation of trees in these areas and that's shown here. Now the two lines here, and these are labeled and they're called out on your easement as A as a general area here, here, this, this and this. And A is the area that no cutting can take place. We felt as we develop this and talked to people and talked to staff that we didn't want to get into a situation where 5 years from now people start coming back and saying, we want an exception. So we tried to have some foresight here and say, let's give an area close to the building pads that the property owner can cut a tree and replace at full caliper. In other words, if it's a 25 inch tree, he plants 10 2 1/2 inch trees to replace them. But he can do that and we're considering that as a probable buildable area for a family room and screened porch. Some addition. We just felt we wanted some thought here of not restricting this conservation easement line so close to the building pad that you'd come, that people are coming back to here in 5 years saying we want an exception. I think staff is 11 agreeing with us. Mayor Chmiel: We've seen too many of those, thank you. Robert Davis: You had one tonight that you're trying to correct. Is it appropriate for the Council to consider the cost sharing item or is that to be taken up with staff? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a discussionary thing with staff. 1 Robert Davis: Okay. I'd like to just put out an item for your consideration. For your information. We're proposing 2 trees on the front of each lot and the total here is 3 saved trees, removed and new trees. And there's 2 trees proposed in the front of each lot and then there's 26 trees proposed around the pond. I'd like to consider, the owner feels that he's contributing generally to the public in another way. This lot at one time in the process, we started back in February with our first plans here was 107 feet wide. It's now 90 feet wide and that land in effect has been given to allow the pond to get larger. There was we feel one...and I think it's a good donation for a waterfall. Another item which I feel is a community value is the conservation I/ easement which does not allow the cutting of these trees. Obviously you're working to develop...And we are then replanting trees as a third item. We have we feel, and I think staff is saying, a high quality reforestation plan. I'd like you to consider cost sharing of the trees around the pond because the ponds...larger. There's 26 trees in effect going to be replaced in that area 25 1 11 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 and I would take up I guess with staff in the cost sharing that item. I'd like to ask for some consideration. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. If you were to ask my opinion, I don't see any cost sharing by the city in association with those particular ponds. At least that's my opinion. I don't know what the balance of the Council would be. Robert Davis: As far as the tree removal goes? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Richard. Do you have any addition? Councilman Wing: No, I would concur, only because it doesn't look like it's a real impact. It's a nice development and I don't think that impacts the cost of it significantly that I'd feel guilty about not participating. Or no. Councilman Senn: You said it right. Councilman Wing: My answer's no, whatever it is. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree that it is a benefit to the city about the ponding issue. Conservation easements, those are pretty much par for the course. I guess I would agree. The city has very rarely in my knowledge, actually never to my knowledge, undertaken any cost sharing with tree replacement. 11 Robert Davis: Okay, there is a 4 division of the cost sharing in related to the utility of the pond and the culvert under the road, because in some cases we're diverting water from the existing underground storm sewer to this system and then the report indicates that that structure...So I was just taking that one step further and saying that there is already the concept of cost sharing on the ponding and it seems to me since the owner felt they were giving something to the community in terms of land, and the conservation easements over a lot of the area, that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you put a dollar figure on that? Robert Davis: Ah 26 trees. So we're talking half of the 26 or 13 at 2 1/2 11 caliper is $100.00 a caliper inch. Mayor Chmiel: I see some other problems that exist from this. From the standpoint of our sewage lift station that could tax this particular station some as well. That may necessitate us to look at something in the long run 11 with this and so that's some of the reasons I feel that I'm not in any position to supplement that. And there could be considerable additional costs for the city as well. Into this station provided there's going to be problems ...with it right now and I think by taxing this with 7 more units would 1 probably do something with that, if that's something we have to look at. Councilman Wing: We stopped at Colleen. I don't know if Mark is done commenting on that. I don't mean to involve you either. Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I mean if we're over all the issues, I guess I'm not quite prepared to comment on the tree one. I had a real question for Charles, if I could. Does this tie into the sewer lift station 11 that we've been having the problems with? I've seen Mr. Anderson's letters. I've talked with Mr. Anderson. I've seen his pictures. I think there's a very valid concern about sewage flowing into the lake and that's a real concern to me and I think if that is the station, I guess first and foremost I 1 26 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 think we have to have an answer to that before we go any further on consideration for this but I'll throw it into your... - Charles Folch: Sure. To answer the first part of your question, yes. This property would tie into the system which ultimately goes into Lift Station No. 2 located on Frontier Trail. Would this cause a capacity problem for that I/ Lift Station? Under normal flow conditions, no. There's plenty of capacity in the system. In discussing this issue and trying to do a little bit of research over the last 10 years of when we've had failures at this lift station. And actually other lift stations around the Lotus Lake area. Typically what we find is whenever there's a power outage and the lift station's down, it's not able to function or immediately following a heavy rain storm. That probably 6 to 12 hour period where we're probably getting a lot of heavy I and I, inflow into this system from sump pumps, is when that lift station and other lift stations in the area can be exceeded from a flow capacity standpoint. But outside of a power failure in the heavy rain storms, this system has no problem handling the additional homes proposed with this subdivision. We are taking some steps to try to mitigate that. The Council last fall authorized the city as a part of a major sewer improvement project with the city. We are acquiring a mobile unit generater system which will be mounted on a truck so that if there is a power outage at a lift station, we'll be able to drive the truck to that lift station, basically hook up to it and be able to have it operate. Unless lightning hits the lift station and burns things out, then its no good to have a generater but it's not going to help you. And we are trying to do, we are of course doing annual sewer rehab programs to take care of I and I that's coming in through the pipes. Throughout the Carver Beach area and I guess one of the remaining things we'd like to take on, sometime in the near future is address the sump pump connection issue because that's really the heart of what's hurting us following these rainstorms. Councilman Senn: How long, or I mean, I don't like to see raw sewage or whatever you want to call it floating into Lotus Lake, or any lake in the city 11 of Chanhassen. How long does it take us to...take care of the problem? I mean let's say we keep having more years like we had last year and this year, which I think it caused quite a number of times where we had sewage going into the lake, not associated with power outages or whatever. I mean just like you say, simply over capacity caused by the rains and everything. So I mean that's a real concern to me before we answer the question of should we be allowing additional development in the area. Charles Folch: Again, I guess my response to that is, normal flow the system has been designed to handle the needed capacity for the area. There's not a problem with that. I guess it's a matter that, and we are continuing to press forward to do step by step process which is becoming each step more and more expensive but that's the way we're proceeding with it to find ways to solve this I and I problem. Mayor Chmiel: It isn't that we've not done nothing at that particular site. We have also put an expansion on that particular site, did we not Charles? Charles Folch: Yes. Last year we did increase the horse power. Councilman Senn: I understood it from you that the main problems really is I/ sump pumps and I guess my real question, to get to the bottom of the matter is, how can we get the sump pumps out of the system quickly? Charles Folch: Well I guess we'd have to look at trying to do some sort of inspection type program on a city wide basis. Currently what we do is, in our 27 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 building inspection and utility operators have been very cooperative. Whenever they have the opportunity, by either meter reading or doing a permit inspection of a remodeling in a basement, each of the inspectors has done very well at making note as to what connection they have for their sump pumps and I've got probably over 3 dozen letters in a file that over the last year and a half where inspectors have notified a property owner that yes, this is violation of State Codes. You need to disconnect it and the homeowners have complied once they realized what problems this was causing for the city. Other than maybe taking the next step and doing some sort of inspection program or public notification program for the city, that's probably the next big step. Mayor Chmiel: Did we not go through that process through the newsletter informing people? Charles Folch: We did inform them from an informational standpoint. But it was not a requirement. It was not a program set up where we were going to actually physically verify the connection in each individual home. But again yes, there is a problem and it's typically due to following a heavy rainstorm or power outage. But in my opinion there's not a problem with capacity under normal flow conditions. Councilman Senn: Okay. Robert Davis: I'm through with my presentation. I'll answer questions now or later, at your choice. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? If not, do we have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you want comments or questions? Mayor Chmiel: Whichever. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Comments. I think the applicants seem to have been very cooperative. It seems like it's nicely done by staff and by the engineers and by the consultants and everybody else. I'm happy with the lot size. It's a good reforestation plan and I think we just need to hammer out about this cost sharing for tree replacement, and I've already said how I stand on that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I'm going to echo a little bit what Colleen said. I think for a development of this size and what's happening, I've rarely seen better. The applicant's done a tremendous job. Given the job they've done probably under some normal circumstances, I might even be more inclined than usual to do something with the trees around the ponds but I mean it comes back to this real concern about the sewer thing and I would like to see with our approval of this if we do some sort of concerted effort in that area to, through notification or notice or inspection or something, just really beef up our ' effort to do something about that because I think with the sewage going in, I think it's, if that's not the only location, I'm not trying to single this one out but at the same time now we're putting more on it so it's just a good time to address it. ,1 28 11 `I 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: All I'll say is ditto and I'll call a question. 1 Councilman Senn: I'll move approval as per staff's recommendation. And I don't now how this would be done but I guess I'd like to throw some type of a caveat or flavor into it that said we establish prior to completion of the I/ project some type of notification or program inspection to beef up our effort in the area to try to eliminate the overflow problem. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea, I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Subdivision X93 -10 as shown on the plans dated May 13, 1993, with a caveat that the city establish prior to completion of the project some type of notification or program inspection to beef up the effort in the area to try and eliminate the overflow problem, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates ". Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. 2. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 4. Deleted. 1 5. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 6. The applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the City for construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements as detailed in the feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo & Associates dated April, 1993. 7. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. 8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7, Block 1. 9. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final ' plat rights over all ponding and drainage areas. 10. The existing house on the property shall be razed prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary 29 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 permits from the City and State. 11. Extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the driveway, shall be in the same location to minimize disruption and tree 1 removal. The driveway shall follow the utility service alignment. 12. The existing 15 foot drainage utility easement through Lot 7, Block 1 shall be increased to 20 feet wide. 13. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25'. 14. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 to see if adjustments can be made to push the building pads closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce tree loss on said lots. 15. All lots shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staf approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of land dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PRESENTATION OF THE 1992 AUDIT REPORT. Don Ashworth: We have Cliff Hoffman with Deloitte and Touche here to make a presentation in regards to the 1992 audit. Cliff. Mayor Chmiel: Cliff, I want you to know that this was quite a documentation and I really did read this when I wanted to go to bed and it does put you to sleep. No reflection. Cliff Hoffman: I understand that. The document is over 140 pages and as Mary will just cover briefly, that there is a lot of statistical data that covers the last 10 years of Chanhassen. It's a very professional document. This is the highest level that the city has ever been at...and Mr. Mayor, fellow City Council members, I'd like to just very quickly hit the highlights. We do report to the City Council and the Mayor. We don't work for management. I would like to tell you that overall you had a great year financially. There's been a significant improvement in your financial reporting. As Mary Keller who's sitting there will go over in a minute, when you get to your management letter though there are some things that are important that you address. And you need to address them in the context that you're a city of 13,000 marching forward to 25,000. If you're going to stay a city of 13,000 people, I would say that maybe you don't have to get on and address these things but your challenges are more because you are growing. In many ways the activity that we see at Chanhassen as compared to some of our other clients, you've got more going on than cities that have 50,000 in the population. Mary Meyer is the Senior Accountant. She was out here every day on the account and first of all turning to page 1. One of the things that you measure efficiency in government is what's the ratio of the number of city employees you have to the population. The line item I'd like you to focus in on is in 1990 there was 1 city employee for every 260 in the population. That's grown now to 306. Now you could say that that's good. I would tell you that the typical range, what we're seeing in the suburbs that we audit are 200 to 250. So you're stretched even thinner than that. If you consider that you're going to continue to grow, you're going to have to decide where you're going to make those 30 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 ` strategic replacements. Frankly there's only one other city that I'm aware of that has a higher proportion than you do and they're quite a bit more limited on what they do on community development and parks. So anyway, from the standpoint of growing government, much lower than the population, you're doing a great job. Looking at the sewer and water fund, you had a better year than I/ the year before. The City has made the decision not to cover depreciation expense on the system and we'll talk about that a little bit more later. Turning to page 2. If you look at your debt per capita, the City is much higher than the national average at $1,590.00 versus the national average at $595.00. And roughly the debt to value is 3% versus 1.4. One of the things you need to consider though is that almost all of your debt is on improvement bonds that are paid by specific taxpayers. It's not a general obligation of the public as a whole in Chanhassen. The specific projects or specific homeowners that are paying for specific improvements so just looking at the macro numbers you may conclude that you have way too much debt and the city's in a lot of trouble. I don't think you can make that case here. Councilman Wing: Before you go on, maybe it's, do you have that number I/ without those improvement bonds? Cliff Hoffman: That'd be the $169.00. $169.00 per capita. Oh, what the national average is? Councilman Wing: Well, no, no, no. Just if we take these improvement bonds out, where would we stand with other cities. Cliff Hoffman: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. The problem is that the national statistics, they don't take out the tax increment bond so I can't get that number for you. I suspect though from what we see in our other clients, your putting all of your debt in the future development and the projects and you don't see that. You see a lot more of the general city improvements are being paid by the taxpayers as a whole. I can't prove that but I can tell you $169.00 is a very low number. From what I've seen. I would say that's substantially below the national average. I can't prove it. On the water and sewer funding, as you're looking at that page though you can tell that your profit rate, your margin left over is only 9 %. Nationally people charge a lot more for water and sewer. While you had a good year last year and unfortunately the rain isn't blessing you on selling water this year, it is important to stay on top of your sewer rates because as we've talked about in prior years 75% to 80% of the cost in the sewer side is driven by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You can't control that and it's just like a utility can't control a lot of times what's happening in the price of coal and that cost is automatically passed along to the consumer. I really think you need to think of that cost the same way. That the City shouldn't pick up the burden for that. Turning to page 4 of the financial statements. What we're doing on page 4 is taking your audited fund balances and then we're backing off property so we're looking at what is your liquid fund balance. What is your liquidity and...for instance you have a lot of money tied up in water and sewer plant and equipment. So when you back those off, how does the city look this year versus last year. Far right hand column you can see that you have $3,896,000.00 in what we call liquid fund balance. That's versus $3,431,000.00 the prior year. It's a very good year of improvement in a very difficult year of municipal finance in general for the State of Minnesota. And it's important that you show that improvement because I do think as concurrent with better financial reporting and telling your case a little more with the numbers, that that's going to contribute to an improvement in your I/ bond rating. Turning to page 5. Your fund balances in the general fund now are what I would call adequate but not excessive. The City has to run basically for the first 5 months of the year only on about 10% of the revenue 31 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 ' that it collects. Most of the money comes in after the first of the June, so you need a fund balance to have the working capital to get you through the first 5 months of the year. If you didn't have that you would have to do what's called tax anticipation borrowing, which is what a lot of the school districts are into now. That's very similar to using your credit card to buy groceries. It's not a good situation to be in, from the liquidity standpoint and then not paying your monthly bill. Councilman Wing: Along with that last year we discussed that, the little fund that Don's secret drawer where there's cash reserves and the State was more or less disallowing those. But that little fund was what was necessary to carry over from month to month. Have we still got that Don or are we into this position now where, what's the word he used again? The tax. Cliff Hoffman: The tax anticipation notes. Councilman Wing: Yeah, we haven't gotten to that point. We're still protected from that? Don Ashworth: Very well. Cliff Hoffman: Okay, turning to the next page we have a chart, and it's a little better in color up there but in looking at how the city is run, we've got depreciation as a separate piece in green there. The upper part of your chart. Compare that to the revenue. Looking at your utility funds and you can see that the operating revenue and your utility funds covers your operating expenses. Though it's not covering this depreciation so what that means is when the system wears out 30 or 40 years from now, you'll have to rebond and relevy for the whole system. So that's basically, and there are a lot of cities that operate in a similar philosophy to where you're operating right now. But you do need to be cognizant of that. From a rate setting standpoint, you're not setting rates to cover depreciation on the system. I'd like you to skip over a couple pages now and we'll go to the schedule Mary, on the debt service schedule. And I think this best graphically shows what the future of Chanhassen is very likely to be. In green and in yellow on the transparency here, the top two are what we talked about our special assessment bonds or tax increment. It's only the very bottom of the chart are the general obligation bonds. And what this means is that by the, right now you 11 have very little general obligation debt and by the year 2000 you'll have paid off most of the tax increment debt and most of the special assessments will be gone by the year 2004. So the legacy that this city has left to the future taxpayers is tremendous. All that tax base is going to be available for the city, the school district and the county in a very short period of time. So that's a tremendous accomplishment. A lot of times we talk about the skeletons in the closest the government has, that we're not charging today's taxpayers for today's services. Well what you've done is set up a very large schedule of economic development that will pay off in the year 2000. Now as I say that though, there are a lot of tax increment projects around the country that have been done where they shopping centers are totally boarded up. They didn't do a very good economic feasbility study. They put something in an area where the population wasn't growing and so those tax increment districts aren't going to pay off. So what you've done here is the difference is that you're covering your projects with your future dollars so the payoff will be a much stronger tax base when you get to the year 2000. It's really important that you focus on that story as you go down to Moody's. And as you look at, you know if you look after 1996 -97, the debt, there's a huge drop. A huge walk downhill as you will in your future debt. It's considered outstanding anytime that most of your debt, half your debt is going to be gone in 10 years. In your case almost all of it will be gone. And like I said earlier, very little 32 1 1J City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 of it is on the general obligation on the general taxpayers. Provided these tax increment projects pay off. Which you've had a very good history of so far. Briefly on the next page, general fund revenues. Councilman Wing: Can I, you know you've made some real accolades on this page that we just got done with. Can I ask who that reflects on? Does it reflect I/ on our financial staff and our city managers? Mayor Chmiel: No, Council. Councilman Wing: Some of the whizbang here that's done something right. Cliff Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. Some people who would say it's better to be lucky sometimes than it is to be good but I think you've had a I/ good history because there's been a number of projects that you haven't made mistakes. In what you invest in. And the knock on tax increment financing is that if you finance a development that competes with an existing business, what happens then, you take something out of tax increment and you hurt the existing business. They go in. Protest their values. Get a lower value so you get less current dollars and then your payoff isn't going to come for 10 years. So that's, you have to always measure yourself. The if but rule. If but we didn't do this, would this development happen in the city. So it's tax increment financing isn't a pancea that's good for everybody. If you over develop, if you make mistakes of projects and so looking at where you're at right now, the picture does look very good. And as I said earlier, your level of GO debt is...by the general taxpayers is extremely low. But you have to go beyond the macro numer which says you're over the national average. Does that answer your question? Councilman Wing: Well yeah. I was just giggling. I guess it's just you were, staff should be...I guess there's almost room for, with all due respect to Money Bags Chmiel, I think it really speaks highly of staff. I'm really impressed with the report so I'm really appreciative of how we're doing here. Cliff Hoffman: Turning to the slide on revenues. You've got a good news and bad news story here to tell. Back in 1987 25% of your money was inner governmental which is principally state. As you know local government aid has disappeared for you and there's a threat to losing even the homestead credit. Now you're down from 25.2% to 17.1 %. The good news is though if you count investment earnings over 80% of what you bring in for revenue, you're in control of. Either through property taxes and how you set fees for licenses and permits. So the good news in presenting the story to the bond rating agencies is you're in control of your own destiny. You're not dependent on the State. The bad news is that the sales and income tax dollars that you send into the State aren't really coming back to the city of Chanhassen. Turning to the next page. There is quite a change in the expenditure side that I want to talk a little bit about. You've had a large increase on what you spend in public safety. You were at 28.5% and now you're at 35.3 %. Back I/ in '87 though you were abnormally low at 28.5 %. The range we're seeing in our suburban clients is anywhere from 35% to 50 %. The national average is 50 %. Now this is fire and police. What we have found is, if you go from a volunteer system to a full time system, you'll be at 50 %. It's extremely expensive. I won't talk about the merits but I would tell you that you can operate in the 35% to 40% range easily. Once you go from volunteer to full time though you'll be at 50 %. Councilman Wing: I just want to comment that public safety on our report in '83 found the mean for our metro area and our surrounding communities, everybody was spending, the average was 44 %. Shorewood and on and on and we 33 i 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 were at 28% and we decided to spend more money effective that year and we're still under this. How are you doing it? As a member of the Fire Department, you are in deep trouble here. Cliff Hoffman: Not to defend the Mayor, Councilmember Wing. The 44 though is 11 made up averages of full time and volunteer and you really see it polarized. Councilman Wing: We only took the volunteer. Cliff Hoffman: Yeah. You usually see it at 35% or you see it at 50 %. There doesn't seem to be a lot of inbetween. Councilman Wing: Okay. Cliff Hoffman: So the average is probably 44. Also to mention, bigger is not necessarily better in that number. The number I always give is Miami spends 65% and the reason you spend money on parks and recs and community development is you want to have a well rounded city that people want to live in. That tends to reduce how much you have to spend on public safety. By controlling community development. So you need to never forget that focus. Investment earnings. The last 5 years, as you know, staff has done an outstanding job in that area. The key thing though that this does take a lot of time for staff to monitor this performance and one of the things that is in our management letter that Mary will mention is that should there be a rapid rise in long term interest rates, the finance department will need to be on top of that real quickly to make sure that you don't have a loss of principal. And the other thing is, I don't think you can count on this type of rate of return every year. You've had a very good year. In fact you've had a very good 2 years, 3 years, but you can't count on the level that we had in 1992 forever. Last page is off the back of your individual income tax return. The focus that I want you to focus in on is your end of the pie is at the top. Local aids and property tax refunds went from 16.6% of how the state spends it's money down to 5.5 %. A normal year of inflation and health care will totally wipe out what's left for cities. So the long term prognosis for what's going to happen here is not too good. The good news is you've proven that you do balance the budget. You do stay on course. You do charge today's taxpayers for today's services. You are booking things like vacation pay as a current liability. You're not deferring that to future generations to pay. So the 11 good news is your foundation is very good to deal with any potential problems that there are in the State budget. So if there's no question on the overview, I'd like Mary Keller to come up and briefly go through your annual report and then a couple of the management letter comments that we have. I Councilman Wing: Just before you sit down. On the capital outlays. Any idea where we stand with a norm, if you will? It seems like we've got 1% capital outlay in '92 and we're a growing city. Is that abnormally low? Is that an 11 average? Cliff Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. This percentage of capital that's in here is the capital outlay that's in the general fund. And one of the things that you've done, I think that's real good, you've set up an internal service fund this year. At the end of the year and you moved some money out. You're going to start charging now for equipment useage and building some money up. And that's good that management has decided to do that so thatit won't show up as capital in the general fund here but you will be putting money aside from the general fund into the internal service fund. So that's why the number should get pretty low. It's in there for capital. Mary. 34 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Mary Keller: I think that each of you probably received this voluminous report. This is different than the report issued last. You probable noted it was a bit heavier. It has a few more pages and the reason for it is is that the city has applied for the Certificate in Excellence in Financial Reporting which is an award you can get from the GFOA. This report has to be sent in to the GFOA. They have a series of reviewers look at it and determine if you are in compliance with all of their requirements and if indeed you are, you will get a certificate which can in turn serve to increase your bond rating. The requirements they have are very lengthy and that's why this report has been lengthen as well. And you'll notice that there are different sections in here and I'm obviously not going to go through them but there's a section with the introduction, there's a financial and then in the back there's a statistical section which has 10 years of historical data which is all required under GFOA. I don't know who would ever read every page of this. We obviously do and your preparer does but it's quite a feat and quite a task to put this together, as you can well imagine and whenever numbers change, it changes oh like 20 pages in here every time something happens. Or a number changes in the draft. In the introduction section, do you have these with you by the way? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Mary Keller: Okay. I just want to point out a couple of things. In the introductory section. On page 5. These are things that were not here last year. A letter from the City Manager. That's new. And pages 7 thru 15. That's the transmittal letter where your Finance Coordinator and Treasurer have talked about the operations of the city as well as talking about forward looking projects. That is a very key element in the reviewers mind. When the GFOA reviewer looks at it, they pay very close attention to what's in the transmittal letter. This is a well written letter. In the financial section, on page 17, is our opinion. And this is the second year of clean opinion. Last year was also clean. The prior year, for a few years in the past before that, there was a qualification on here because there were not adequate records for us to be able to audit the general fixed assets. That has been cleaned up. Has been taken care of. We no longer have the qualification. On page 20 and 21. Here's your balance sheet of all your funds. If you go over to page 21. Halfway down the page. Right above the double underscores you'll see that your total assets now are $96,500,000.00 relative to about $95,500,000.00 last year. You do have a nice increase. And another new category that's on here that you've heard Cliff mention too is that you now have an internal service fund. That's also new in this report that was not there last year. And on page 23, one other thing to point out. Your total revenues for your governmental fund types and your expendable trust fund. This does not include your sewer and water funds. Look at your total revenues. They increase from 13 1/2 million to 18 million. That's a substantial increase. And your expenditures also went up. Almost by 10 million. That's largely due to your capital projects. The footnotes to the report which begin on page 28 and run for many pages are very similar to last year. There's one in particular I would like to point out and that is on pages 36 and 37. On page 37 particularly, we are required to assess the credit risk of your investments as of the end of the year. Depending on what you have invested in, and a criteria established, we determine if they're risky investments or not. And if you look halfway down the page you see they're all classified as U.S. Government obligations and they all fall in credit risk category number 1 which means they are the lowest credit risk. However, if you look at the very last paragraph on that page, we do make reference to the fact that during the year the city did invest and repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements. Had you had those at the end of the year, they would have been displayed on this page as being in credit risk category 3 because they are riskier in 35 i II 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 II nature. The rest of the report is just individual statements for every fund that you have. And it goes on and on and on in the statistical section. Anybody have any questions on this report? l Mayor Chmiel: I was hopeful you weren't going to go through each page. I didn't want to go to sleep here. Mary Keller: You already did that once right. II Mayor Chmiel: It's good reading. Any other questions? Mary Keller: If you'll take out the management letter that was handed out to II you tonight. It's the loose leaf. I just want to highlight a few things here. This is the letter where we make observations and recommendations regarding the operations of the city. Things that we have noted when we have been out here doing our audit field work. The first page is just our general II page. Pretty much boiler plate. If you turn to page 2, I just want to highlight a couple of the more important observations we made during our audit. The first one deals with personnel, and this is pretty interesting. We cite that the number of personnel within your finance department here has II not changed very much, however the city has grown in size by quite a bit. Right now you have 3 people in finance and particularly one person is relied upon to have all the knowledge and skills to record everything in your accounting records. Now, look at the background. Your population has increased over 102% in the last 10 years. Your assets have more than doubled II and your revenues have gone from $3.3 million to $18.1 million. Those are substantial increases. We also make reference to the fact that you have a number of capital projects as you're well aware of. More than most cities of your size or cities that even are much larger than you and you also have a II detailed fixed asset system to track all the fixed assets. With all of this development going on, we believe that it would make good sense to have an additional person added to the finance staff. They really are pretty stretched. We can tell you that having been out here for as long as we have. II Why is everybody looking here? Councilman Senn: Does that mean we can load our audit fees by that amount? II Mary Keller: But we also in our recommendation cite what we think a candidate should have. You obviously want someone that has significant government experience, and preferably a CPA. As the city continues to grow, and operations continue to expand, it takes more and more time to roll everything II up and to keep track of everything and have good records and be able to produce this report. The comment on the bottom of the page regarding a management fee, I won't go over. You can read that later. On page 3, we have a couple of comments on reconciliations. I would like to cover the second II one. This is an internal control issue. Technically the utility clerk is responsible for doing some reconciliations with the subsidiary ledger and the general ledger. That person did not do those reconciliations during fiscal '92. Those reconciliations were performed by the finance coordinator which is II better because the utility clerk also has access to cash. Cash receipts and posting those. If she does have the access to cash receipts and also does the reconciliations, we've got a problem with internal control. So in the event that the finance coordinator no longer does this and it does roll back to the II utility clerk, which I believe is where the responsibility is to lie, we may have what is called a reportable condition in internal control. So our recommendation is to shift that responsibility to somebody else. We have one comment on CBDG funds. That's pretty minor. And on page 5. Pages 5 thru 7 I are all prior year comments that we will repeat in subsequent years if the situation warrants it. The first one is on the investments. And Cliff eluded 36 II II 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 to this earlier as far as the types of investments the City is investing in. And we go into the background and the goals that the city should have. As far as complying with State Statutes, which you do. Looking at the maturities of investments to make sure you've got cash available when cash is needed. And maximizing the investment earnings which you obviously have done. But we do caution you to be aware of what can happen, particularly if interest rates rise. You need to be able to react quickly. The next comment on the deferred comp plan, that's a repeat from last year. I won't go into that. And on page 6, the comment in the middle of the page. I think you're all familiar with this regarding the Chanhassen Bowl. Their delinquency on their payment on their debt. The city did receive the 1991 payment in '93. The City has not yet received the 1992 payment. Just so you're aware that that continues to be past due together with property taxes. And the other two comments you can read too at your leisure. Does anybody have any questions regarding these? Any of the comments? Councilman Wing: Can I ask a layman question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: I'm trying to get this down to my level, which is quite a bit below everybody else here on financial matters. If I had to be a taxpayer, based on what I've heard tonight, should I be relatively proud to be a taxpayer in Chanhassen? That seems to be what it comes down to. Mary Keller: Oh absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Councilman Wing: Thank you. That's something quotable for the newspaper. If I had to be a taxpayer, should I be proud to be paying taxes in Chanhassen. The answer was correct, yes. Mayor Chmiel: A reiteration. I don't know if anybody's proud in paying taxes but. Cliff Hoffman: Just a couple more overview points. It doesn't take the effort to produce the report every year like this. When you have to come up with 10 years of data and come up with the format and the first time that staff writes the transmittal letter is the most difficult. It's always easier to do something, so if you wonder why I go through the bother, this could have a significant impact on how the city is rated. It's kind of, the rating agencies will never tell you that getting the Certificate that they'll move it a certain point. They all tell you behind the scenes that it is something that's important from a criteria standpoint. Less than 2% of the governmental units in the country have the certificate. So what you're going for is a standard far beyond what anybody else is achieving and I think you should take this as a very good report. That the City is being very efficient. That you're doing a good job but also there is a little bit of a warning there saying that you are growing. You've got a lot of projects going on. It's I/ time to relook at what investments you're making in people if you're going to have that future growth. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sorry if I missed it earlier but our current bond rating is B, what is it? Mayor Chmiel: AA. Cliff Hoffman: BAA. I/ Tom Chaffee: BAA1. 37 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: BAA1? Mayor Chmiel: Right. We've just upgraded it 2 years ago. Or is it 3 now? 11 Time goes by quickly. 2? We're looking to get an upgrading again shortly hopefully if and when we receive this. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you think it is currently where it's at because of the debt equity ratio? Cliff Hoffman: High debt per capita. I'm sure they're looking at that. They're not focusing on where, they've heard too many horror stories with tax increment projects around the country. You've got to get them out here to look and to see and then produce the count. It's hard with a qualified opinion, what you had 2 years ago was not only on general fixed assets but it was also on your utility funds. And so it creates a taint that you really don't want. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and with the clean record of the past 2 years, great. Councilman Senn: Could you explain your observation recommendation on the Market Square one? You kind of skipped over that. Mary Keller: Oh that's where, Market Square Management Company manages that mall over there and the City is to get a return on their profits. Councilman Senn: I'm confused. On your recommendation it says company's to verify the financial position of the management company. Mary Keller: Right. Councilman Senn: Isn't that financial position of the city's investment? I mean we're not investing in the management company are we? Mary Keller: No, you're not investing in the management company. It would actually be more the position of the mall but the management company would have all of that information. You have the authority to ask them for audited financials. That has not yet been done so we encourage you to do that to make sure that you are getting an equitable return. Right now they're sending you monthly drafts but no one looks at them. They're not audited so who knows. Councilman Senn: So we're getting a return? Mary Keller: No. Councilman Senn: We aren't getting a return? Mary Keller: You've got one more. It's just because it's written in the ' agreement that you have that right, I would encourage you to ask for that. Don Ashworth: The terms of the agreement allowed them, and I believe it was just the one year. If they ended up with a loss that they could convert the interest payment and add that to the principal amount. But it was only during the anticipated timeframe where you kind of, you end up with not full tenants and not full receipts. Councilman Senn: How long does that go on though? 1 38 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Don Ashworth: Well again my recollection was it was only for the one year period of time but I don't recall. It's limited, I know that. Councilman Senn: So all those letters on that issue coming through in our Adminstrative Packet that said that we're basically forgiving the interest and tacking it on as principal, that's over and done with now? Don Ashworth: No. They just elected. They had an election process with, they could go through if they were not achieving the revenues that were originally projected. But again it was only as a start -up type of a thing and that was in writing as a part of the original agreement. So it wasn't something we modified later. Councilman Senn: So we're beyond that period then you're saying? Don Ashworth: They did it for the first year. Whether or not they have that 1 ability for the first 3 year period or not, I'm not sure. I was thinking it was more limited than that. But I don't recall. Todd Gerhardt: That document's that thick. It's a big book isn't it Mary... , Mayor Chmiel: We can just check that out and see. Cliff Hoffman: I'd like to reiterate that we do work for the City Council, the Mayor, and not management so if any questions come up during the year concerns and future audits, that you be sure to notify us directly. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate you coming in and providing all this good data for us. Hopefully it will put us in a better rating for bonding as we did the last time when we invited them here to see what was here. And it does work out better than going to New York and sitting down with them. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? If I could take a couple of minutes. I really would like to thank our accounting staff. Tom, Betty, Jean. I'd like to thank our auditors for again providing advice during the course of the year. I'd like to reiterate some points that I don't know were necessarily brought up. This is at least the fifth year where actual revenue exceeded budgetary revenue by at least 3% to 4 %. This is the fifth year where actual expense was 3% to 4% under the budgeted expense. That's one area that has continued to keep our fund balances in a healthy position. In fact even allowing for fully funding any type of sick leave, deferred compensation. Any of those types of programs. Secondarily, we finished this year, I don't know if you had a chance to go through the capital project funds, special revenue but every one of those are in a far better position than they were a year ago. We, to the best of my knowledge, have the ability to take on a project and to know that we have the funding to complete those. I do not know of one financial arena that we have not improved on and again I thank all those people. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Appreciate it. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could make one comment. Mayor Chmiel: Why certainly. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I found the letter on page 7 to 15, all I needed to read. It was wonderful. Very succinct and concise and gave me all the information I needed. Mayor Chmiel: Good. 39 1 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I mentioned before was the Chan Volunteer Fire Department. Consideration for adjustments to the fire pension plan. Just sort of as an update. We, Don and I, have sat down with them, with the Fire Department, and just last Saturday again. This was not the first time we've sat down with them. We've been doing this on an interim 11 basis between 6 and 7 months of working to hopefully coming up with a conclusion for this pension plan. It's taken a lot of time and a lot of effort on everybody's part. Sitting down to do this participation and discussion. And we sort of have come up with a solution to what we're looking at and also this, rather than being an every year, 2 year affair, we're putting this on a 5 year basis. And we should be, we should have the association going back to it's members to discuss this. To come up with a conclusion and then you have to have two readings on this as well. If they're in acceptance of what has been proposed so maybe with that I'll just let Don reiterate some of the other discussions that we've had previously. But I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that it's not just done over a short period of time. It's been done over several, several months. Trying to come up with a conclusion. Don Ashworth: This is an arena that in previous years has been a very difficult one for whichever City Council has had to carry out those negotiations. I recall various times that the discussions were very heated ' and we even had firemen that were alleging that they may bring in their pagers so I've been very happy with this year's negotiations. Albeit I must state that the real big issue has been whether or not a modification of pension benefits would be made retroactive to firemen who have already retired. And that issue has, the current firemen recognize that there's only so many dollars available. This is not the Federal government. We're not going to just simply run this thing in the hole, which therefore means that you're talking about potentially reducing the benefits available to a current firemen. And that has I think caused the most anguish between the firemen themselves. I think the solution we've come back with is a good one. You'll be getting a copy of a memorandum that I have prepared that we use now as an outline Saturday morning going through some of the issues. I'm very happy that the Fire Department has, appears, because we haven't had the final vote, r that appears to be open to some of our suggestions. Means by which we can assure that that fund stays solvent and that we can continue to provide increases over to the department and stay competitive. So again I would go along with Don's point. I'm really happy with the progress. Again, you'll be getting that memorandum in the near future. It should appear on your agenda for either the 23rd or first, probably the first meeting in September. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any questions you might have? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL SALARIES, 1995, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: Actually there was a goof up between Karen and I. I had intended to do this polling of Council members as it dealt with the National ' League of Cities and I think I've contacted each of you asking that you kind of be prepared for that. In the meantime Karen misunderstood a note. This item should have appeared in the Administrative Section so that you were aware that this survey had been completed. But since we're talking about it not becoming effective until sometime in 1995, I don't think that we need to really rush in and do this right away. 1 40 1 It City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 It Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are we talking about A or B? I'm sorry. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That would be B. Don Ashworth: Oh, I'm sorry. I did jump to B. Councilman Senn: You may as well finish it. Don Ashworth: So again, that item B was really supposed to just show up in 11 the Administrative Section. Unless the Council wants to do something. Councilman Wing: I'll move a large increase. Councilman Senn: You have to specify an amount Dick. 1 Councilman Wing: I won't get out of this one. PROJECT SCHEDULE, NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CITY PROGRAM. • 1 Don Ashworth: Project schedule, new Chanhassen Elementary. I did receive today a note from Mark who is concerned with how the memo had gone out from Todd Hoffman. What I'd first like to do Mark is maybe catch you after the Council meeting and see what you would suggest but I would, my initial thought would be to take exactly the memo that you sent to me, put a little note on the top saying, total agreement doesn't exist as to what conclusions were reached and then basically send each of those commissions your memorandum to me. But you can think about that and we can talk about it later. In, as it deals with this project schedule, of course there is Todd's memo. But each of you should have received a Park and Recreation Commission agenda and you should have received that last Friday. Inside of there is the report that I was referring to earlier. This is what we were charged $2,600.00 from HGA and I don't know if they call this, it's called "New Chanhassen Elementary School Program and Preliminary Concepts ". You may want to look at that. That is . going back to each of the respective commissions and their recommendation will be coming to you and we're anticipating that that's going to be on for the 23rd of August. Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could just make one comment on the memo, or just a clarification. I was not at that July 19 meeting. Mayor Chmiel: That's right, you weren't. Alright. Glad you corrected it. Okay, with that, any other discussions? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 41 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1993 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 Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul STAFF P g , Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Scott Harr and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman ' Wing wanted to comment on Market Boulevard; Councilman Mason wanted to make a motion to reconsider Colonial Grove; and Councilman Senn had some questions regard the 1 Administrative Packet. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RECOGNITION OF AMERICAN LEGION POST 580. 1 Mayor Chmiel: We have a public announcement today. I'd like to do this with the American Legion for recognition of award and if Ozzie Chadderdon would come forward here with me. I'd like to present you something. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the generosity of the Chanhassen American Legion Post 580 to our community. Over the years the Legion has been most generous in helping our public safety and fire department purchase much needed emergency equipment. These contributions have assisted us to purchase, among other things, smoke detectors for our detector give away program, emergency rescue...that can lift cars and heavy equipment off of victims, radios, gas detectors and lighting equipment. Particularly in the financial times that require cities to be very conservative, it is through the concern and generosity of our American Legion Post that we are able to continue to provide the finest public safety services to our community. On behalf of the fire department and ' public safety department, and all the residents of the city of Chanhassen, let me thank the American Legion Post 580 for their contribution that make Chanhassen a safe place to live. It gives me great pride to present to you, Ozzie, this recognition and I'd like you to take this 1 back to the home of the Legion members and thank them from the city. Ozzie Chadderdon: Thank you very much. We do many things in other areas also for the community such as scholarships, we sponsor a lot of softball, we're entertainment for many people, and we hope that we can continue to do this. This gambling deal with the State is so ' rugged that it's really tough. Last Friday we met, four of us for an hour and a half, to try and straighten out things that the State didn't like and I said after the end of that, I said God is it worth it. But I guess it is. Thank you very much. 1 1 1 ' 1 .1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: I Jim Andrews: I'll be very brief. Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor. Last meeting I presented a letter to the Council which was written in the heat of the moment. I would like to ask the Council to consider the intent of the letter which was to establish a policy 1 regarding commission and citizen and employee involvement when dealing with city issues. Thank you. I Councilman Wing: Can I just ask that Jim bring that back on as an agenda item to the Council under different circumstances and then talk formally about that. I Jim Andrews: Yes sir. 2A. DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COMMISSION, NATALIE ROSSINI AND SUSAN 1 HURM. Mayor Chmiel: We called on you last week but you weren't here. That's alright. It's nice I to see you this evening. I Susan Hurm: We needed a little more time to get organized. Thank you. Natalie's going to be handing out a packet that has all the information that we're going to be tallcing about tonight...This is our agenda, to keep us on track. It has a list of everything that's in the I packet. Our first Youth Commission first annual...They labored many hours over this. Natalie Rossini: Okay we're going to start on page 2. I'm just going to walk you through I here and give you some follow -up on some of the things that I mentioned the last time we met in April, and some of our goals... The first thing I'm going to, I told you I'd come back and talk to you. Well I have. We're going to be updating this youth directory...and really I would like to get some volunteer opportunities from the Chanhassen area for the Chanhassen children and youth. So we're asking that anyone that knows of opportunities ...or other organizations that would bring them to our attention. The purple form is what you would fill 1 out and send to us... We would definitely like to see the Chanhassen...The next one that I was going to brief you on is the leadership...And then if you turn to page 6. The form on Growing up Female that was with the League of Women Voters and what we did, they have come to us again to ask if we would help them present their results of the survey that they took a couple years ago and I think I described it before but we're going to, this project would involve production of the...I plan to serve another year on that. I think our next I meeting will be in September. We haven't met because, I think our last meeting was in...In the rest, page 8 thru 15, those just are summaries of all the youth commission minutes for the 1 year. The youth commission's goal for '93 -94, the big goal is that we're going to kind of do 2 I 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 ' 1 a needs assessment, and that's on page 16 of the annual report. And we're not sure yet how we're going to collect the data so we need to get out there and find out what youth feel is I needed and some of the suggestions at their brainstorming session were doing surveys or...possibly talk about it during parent/teacher conferences...The other thing was communication. We had a problem trying to get our members in place and so if we can I backtrack a little bit on page 4. We've got kind of a schedule so that we know when we should be recruiting. When we should have our members in place and we'll be working with Todd on that so that we can get our youth and our adult members in place...all our members. I We've added one member and...and as a result of that, it's on an every 2 year term now and we'd like, we can use the same form that they're using throughout District 112 for that application form and that is also...we've added a new member or new position to our Youth I Commission. And on the gold sheet, it talks about the letter of understanding and on the back side, at the very bottom...and the reason is because we felt that since we're...so we have a youth serving in that position now. The person who is the youth representative for that, and the commission would like the Council ...youth and a community education counselor...And we are coming to you to ask you if you could make a motion to accept this new position. And what we're doing is we're going out to all... It will be changed from 13 members to I actually 14 members. So I don't know if you'd do that now or if you don't agree with that or. Mayor Chmiel: Did you say from 13 to 14? Natalie Rossini: Yes. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I'll wait until you complete your presentation. I Susan Hurm: I think we're done. Natalie Rossini: I think so. That was one... 1 Mayor Chmiel: I can see that since April of '92 through June of '93, having 22 meetings, I that's going some. That's really neat to see that there's consistency and follow through in going through with this. And it's a feather in your caps that you've followed through with this and we appreciate that very much. Is there any other questions that the Council may I have? If not, I would like to entertain a motion for that new position from 13 to 14 members. Adding one. Councilman Senn: Can we do that tonight? I thought on Visitor Presentations we weren't I allowed to take action. 1 3 1 1 .1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well, in this particular case I think we probably could. Only being that this is going to strengthen what they're doing and getting somebody on board as quickly as they 1 possibly can. Councilman Mason: I'd be happy to make that motion Mr. Mayor. I Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? I Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to change the Youth Commission from 13 members to 14 members. All voted in favor and the motion 1 carried unanimously. Natalie Rossini: Thank you. I just had one more question. Other than the Youth I Commission, do you have any other...that are used that you know of? Or would you like any more? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Let us think about it to see if there's some additional that we. I Natalie Rossini: I wanted to know if you had anybody else that comes and talks to you about... I Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Natalie Rossini: Well thank you very much. I Mayor Chmiel: Thanks for doing a good job. I 2B. EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, DAVID DONNA, 881 VINELAND COURT. I David Donna: Thank you Mr. Mayor. My name is David Donna, 881 Vineland Court. Before I get started, I have some handouts that I'd like to pass them out. Sorry I did not get these to you earlier but I just learned at 11:30 today that I was on the agenda for this so I 1 spent most of the afternoon putting this together and my artwork shows. Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't look too bad. 1 4 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 n Thank you. I was at the previous Council meeting David Donna: Tha y p g where the Council decided not to change the determination to extend Nez Perce onto Pleasant View and after that I talked with Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn. I talked with Dave Hempel who's on the city staff. And after a lot of discussions with each of these people, Councilman Wing suggested I make this presentation so I'd like to thank the Council and the Mayor and staff for giving me this opportunity. I'm aware that the Council and the staff has already spent a lot of time on this issue and may even be fed up with the whole issue. I'm also aware though that the Council and staff want to do the right thing. Make the right decisions and I'm hoping that this desire to do the right thing that will help us to keep an open mind and consider other alternatives. In talking with Mr. Wing and Mr. Senn and Mr. Hempel it's clear that the current plan for the extension of Nez Perce will create more traffic on Nez Perce and more traffic on Pleasant View. In addition, when the Troendle and Owens development are completed there will be more traffic on Lake Lucy. That's something that hasn't been discussed before. With more houses we're going to have more traffic on all the roads in the area. It's also clear that with the current plan, the people on Lake Lucy are very happy. They see that as the best of all evils so to speak. Some traffic will be taken away from that road. The people on Pleasant View are upset, as the Council knows. The people on Nez Perce are upset. The people on Vineland are upset. Just to put things in perspective. In Vineland, I live on the cul -de -sac. I don't live right on Nez Perce so this really isn't directly affecting me but I do see the kids in the neighborhood that play on Nez Perce, that travel on Nez Perce, and so I can take somewhat of a step back from the whole situation because of where I live. But I also see the impact on all the neighborhoods in the area. What's upsetting people the most, and that's everybody. The people on Lake Lucy. The people on Pleasant View. The people on Nez Perce, is traffic and people see increased traffic and the danger that comes with it and that's why this is such a hot issue. Right now the increased traffic, when I say right now, I mean under the current plan of the city. The 1 increased traffic will be focused on the Nez Perce/Lake Lucy part as it goes into Vineland Court and then that will carry through to where Nez Perce and Pleasant View will meet so we've got one corridor, two spots of which the traffic will be increased. The first option that I've given you, and Sharmin could you please it on your overhead. This would continue somewhat with the city's current plan. There's a little modification. Again, that may be more of my artistry than anything else. But we would also have a third entrance into these three developments. The three developments being Vineland, Troendle and the Owens development. And that third entrance, or exit, is down at the outlot. Now the advantages of this over the current plan are a couple. First of all, instead of focusing the traffic on just two points of ingress and egress, there would be a third point at which the traffic would be dispersed to. The second advantage is that the majority of people on Lake Lucy really won't see an increase in traffic. The people on Vineland, coming off of CR 17 will still go east on Lake Lucy to get into Vineland. But anyone that's going into the Owens development, and possibly some going into Troendle, who may be coming up from the south on CR 17 and 1 5 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I now that we've got Festival and Target, we're going to have a lot more traffic coming up from that direction. Those people would just come in the short distance on Lake Lucy and I then go up into their development so again the majority of Lake Lucy will not see an increase in traffic. A third advantage, and I apologize because this is not technically done but looking at the different maps that are being presented at the Planning Commission and here and there, 1 if I'm counting right, if I'm figuring correctly, this will give the Owens development as many and possibly one or two more lots than are currently in the plats that the Council or the Planning Commission approved last week. So I don't see this as being a detriment to that I development. A fourth advantage of this alternative, and I think this is one of the most important is that this is a compromise. As I said before, we've got a lot of people upset and one group of people of happy. With this no one is going to be completely in love with it, if I you will. You know a lot of people aren't getting exactly what they want and everyone's giving up a little bit more than they are giving up now. And so I see that everyone is I affected but also everyone also benefits and I think what we have here is a more equitable distribution of the traffic that would affect all of these neighborhoods concern with this extension. Now there are also some disadvantages. The first, there's been discussion about I the grade at the outlot. I talked with Mr. Hempel. Unfortunately he's not here but he told me that he's looked at it and that it can be done. I mean the grade is not something that would prevent this from going through the outlot. The second disadvantage, and I think this I is the major disadvantage of the two is that if the outlot is used as a road, you've got the two houses on either side who now have a road going along side their house. It's hard for me to response to that. I sympathize with those people. I'm not sure if they have children. Let's I assume they do. A lot of people in this area have small children and no one wants to see any more roads than there are. At the same time, that is an outlot. It was there when the houses were built. Maybe they didn't believe that a road was going to go through there but while I I sympathize with those people, I also sympathize with the people that are on the corner of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy that have small kids. I sympathize with the people up on Peaceful Lane, where it's going to go through. And the other people on Peaceful Lane and Nez Perce 1 who have all voiced their concern about this. So I think there's a lot of sympathy that can be given to a lot of people under any scenario. As far as the outlot, again there's been discussion about putting a stop sign. Some things like that. Things can be done to slow the 1 traffic down and I think everybody in the neighborhood would be in favor of that. The second option is the, what I call the three cul -de -sac option. This in my mind is the most desirable because it creates cul -de -sacs. I like cul -de -sacs. They're quieter. And in talking I with Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn I had the distinct impression that many people on the Council favored cul -de -sacs. I think also that Councilwoman Dockendorf was in favor I of cul -de -sacs, at least before she got on the Council. The advantages of this option, or first of all there would be no north/south travel. This would benefit all the families on Pleasant View, the families on Nez Perce. In addition it would benefit the people on Lake Lucy. 1 Again, the majority of the only traffic coming off of CR 17 and going to the east will go by, 6 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 for the most part, a couple houses before it goes into the Owens Addition. Any traffic that's going further is going to be traffic going to Vineland, which would be traffic that would go that way in any event. A third advantage is that you're looking at this, and again from my unexperienced eye, I think that more land and trees could be saved than with other proposals. And a fourth advantage again, and a fourth one is that this is a compromise. I think that this proposal is something that is more accessible to more residents and has detrimental impact on fewer residents than anything that's been considered so far. As far as the disadvantages, again we've got the grade and I don't think that's an issue. We've got the people who have got their homes next to the outlot. I think that this is a better plan for them over the first alternative because here the people on those two houses really only have the traffic that's going into the one cul -de -sac. They wouldn't have any other traffic going through that outlot. A third advantage, or disadvantage. I'm not sure exactly what this is. An advantage or disadvantage. But there's no longer a connection between Nez Perce and Pleasant View. And the reason I'm not sure if it's an advantage or disadvantage is I get mixed views talking with the different people on the Council and different people on staff. On the one hand I hear that we want a connector with the north/south traffic that follows. On the other hand I hear that we don't want anymore traffic on Pleasant View and Nez Perce and we don't want a connector that's convenient for people to travel. If you clearly don't want to increase traffic on Nez Perce and Pleasant View, than I think this is a solution. If we want a connector, no one's been able to tell me why we want a connector. The Planning Commission last week, I understand that there's going to be discussion tonight about an Environmental Assessment for the development on the Owens parcel. I also understand that there's a lawsuit pending and I understand that both of these things will take time and that 1 nothing can be done with respect to the extension or the final planning of the Owens until those things are concluded. So if the Council would just ask the staff to take a serious look at these alternatives, I don't see that it would cause any delays in what's in the works right 1 now because a delay is already upon us. And if the staff comes back and says, these things can be done or they can be done with minor modifications, I'd be willing to contract the 111 residents on Lake Lucy, Pleasant View, talk with Frank Beddor and see if some type of consensus or agreement can be...Given the animosity that surrounds this whole issue, I don't think we're ever going to get everyone to agree on one plan but I'm willing to do what I can to try and get a lot of people to agree from the various neighborhoods and all I ask from you the Council is that you give fair consideration to what I think are viable options to the current plan. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Again, I'm not an engineer. I'm not a planner. This is a concept and I hope you accept it as such. I think the staff can work with it and possibly improve upon it. And if there are no questions, I'd like to thank all of you for your time. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any questions by Council? Thank you once again. r 7 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 I 2C. COURT MACFARLANE, COLONIAL GROVE BEACHLOT. Court MacFarlane: Good evening Mayor, City Council. My name is Court MacFarlane and I 1 live at 3800 Leslee Curve which isn't anywhere near Lotus Lake. My lot is part of the Pleasant Acres Beachlot Association and I was a member of the Lake Study Committee that drafted the first beachlot ordinance. That's going on 12 to 14 years ago. And I was here at I your last scheduled meeting on August 9th. I didn't have this kind of information at that time so I couldn't react to what was in it very well at that time. But I think Mr. Whitehill was so successful to confuse the issue, how many boats were or should be allowed on I Colonial Grove Beachlot, to the point that you had no choice but to give in to their request. There was so much confusion as to the content and intent of what went on then. Why wasn't I anyone associated with the Lake Study Committee contacted for their input as a means of clarifying what was going on at the time? I kept hearing attacks on the validity of the city's inventory of the then existing beachlots. That inventory was ordered by the City Council at a I regular Council meeting on August of 1980. Therefore doesn't that then become part of the official city record and therefore part of the official city business. I saw the inventories at the time and being the liberal that I am, when it comes to the use of beachlots in our city, I I would have certainly said something if I had seen any kind of discrepancy in the inventory from what I had personally seen on the beachlots. As a committee we toured all of the lakes in the city in a group and viewed firsthand all of the beachlots. It was also noted that these I inventories were unsigned. I talked with Bob Weibel today. He was the city staff person assigned to work with the lake study committee and later the wetland or environmental protection committee during that period of time. It was his comment that in his experience it I is not normal city practice for a staff person to sign off on reports or minutes. Not when they are part of official city business. Another point I'd like to make is that the lake study committee did not do it's work in a vacuum and that's probably my most important point. I All beachlots were informed of our deliberations and recommendations. Not only of that but the lake study committee recommendations for outlots were required by City Council action also on August of 1980 to be included in the restrictive covenants and/or development 1 contract for Colonial Grove because their restrictive covenants were silent on overnight storage of boats. If you would just follow me through a few points on the conditional use permit for Colonial Grove. In paragraph 1.03 it says because establishments from said 1 recreational areas predates the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area constitutes a non - conforming use. The expansion of which is prohibited. And then it goes on in paragraph 1.06. The purpose of this permit is to memorialize both I those recreational uses which may be conducted by the applicant from Outlot A, and those activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A. And then it goes 1 on to talk about swimming and buildings, mooring buoys, airplanes...Some are allowed. 8 I 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Some are not allowed. It was silent on dockage of boats. Overnight dockage of boats. It has always been my understanding that if a particular use is not spelled out in a conditional use permit, then that use is a non - permitted use. There may have been several boats tied up to their dock when inventoried but I believe none were permitted by the permit. The question of why the dock is identified in the permit as 100 foot dock can be explained in two ways. If you notice it's also written in there by hand. That dock at times of high water had to cross emergent aquatic vegetation to get to open water. Also conversely the dock in times of low water had to extend further into the lake to reach water to a depth of 4 feet which is permitted by the ordinance. Both reasons can explain why the number was hand written on the permit. Sometimes it's longer. Sometimes it's shorter. I think the person who went out, when they drew up that initially, no one knew how long exactly. They had to write it in later. A couple of other concerns I have of what occurred 2 weeks ago has to do with the documentation provided by Mr. Whitehill. One is the reference to 9 boats being permitted at their dock. As I read it, this came from their Association Minutes and not from any city records. I'm sure if you went back and looked at the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association Minutes you'd see references to a lot more than 8 boats which were permitted today by conditional use. Because over the years we added boats because no one was watching out for how many boats were down there. We were pulled back to 8 because that was what we were identified as having back in 1981. The second concern has to do with their...affidavits. I think the affidavits that are identical to one another and prepared by someone else to be somewhat suspicious. They are not spontaneous and obviously prepared by someone else who could easily steer recollections to their own. In Mr. Whitehill's own words to the Planning Commission, this is obviously prejudicial to their own point of view. In a matter like this, the burden of proof should be on the requesting...and why should the City have to defend it's official records. No one challenged them at the time they were prepared. And if they did, they were heard and they were adjusted if need be. I guess what 1 I'm asking from you is that, I think you should revisit the matter in fairness and to reconsider your action of the last Council meeting. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess I'm going to, I considered this a dead issue until tonight but after 1 the meeting I did receive a phone call from a Colonial Grove resident who had stated he had signed an affidavit improperly. Under duress and it wasn't accurate. And based on that information, which I have tonight and I chose not to embarrass Colonial Grove with 2 weeks ago, I'm going to second Mr. Mason's motion if he chooses to reconsider this. Because I think what happened to you was fair and what happened to Pleasant Acres was accurate. What happened to this group was inaccurate and unfair and I'm going to have to ask to reconsider your's if this one should fail. 1 9 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: On what? Mayor Chmiel: On exactly what's been said. ' Councilman Senn: You mean on a motion or? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, Richard is saying basically that if Michael will bring back his motion, Richard will bring back the other motion and what's fair to one is fair to all. And what I'm entertaining is there any other discussion before there may be a second to this. ' Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm missing because he was seconding a motion I never heard. ' Councilman Wing: No, no. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. No. He just stated. Councilman Wing: I'm just saying that if there's an effort to reconsider this under Council Presentations, I'm going to support that based on this testimony or the testimony I've had. I have loose ends here and I have numerous comments out of the Minutes that I want the staff and City Attorney to address. I want to know what these agreements were we had with them. It has nothing to do with it. I want to know how many boats were there in '81 and I want us to stick on that line. I want us to make a determination of that and if it means recalling it, ' then so be it. Or there's 13 others that should be recalled and brought back because we're not being consistent. This was not a different group. I'm going to ask that directly of staff. If that's the case, then this is a different issue. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Are you looking for information to be gathered per your request prior to bringing this up for reconsideration? 1 Councilman Senn: I'm hearing there's more information. It'd be nice if that were shared for I guess one thing. Secondly, I mean if we're going to talk about reconsideration, then I think we have to look at it in the broadest sense of the word and treat everyone the same and maybe bring them all for reconsideration. 1 Councilman Wing: I don't think that's true. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think that's, yeah. When I made my decision at the last 10 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 ' Council meeting I found out afterwards additional information that I wish I had known beforehand so I would hope that if we do reconsider it, and I would support a motion to do that, that those people who do have additional information would come forward and share it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And if reconsideration is considered, those voting in the positive for that particular motion can bring this back on the floor. Councilman Mason: And it's my understanding because I was in absence, I can make that motion to reconsider, which I will be doing under Council Presentation. Councilman Wing: Before we leave Visitor Presentations, I'd just like to make another comment other than this. The people from Nez Perce are here and David Donna has made a presentation and suddenly it was just silence. What's the Council's pleasure? What's our intent with this? Where are we going with his request or his suggestions? I think there was this dead silence and maybe they're waiting for the Council to say, oh! Or let's or let's not. Mayor Chmiel: Well basically what we've done right now is that this is under Visitor Presentation. That's a little different from the first one, being the school and what the school district and they wanted to get somebody on board as quickly as they can. And that was no real major decision making or changing one thing one way or the other. And normally we do take it into reconsideration the following meeting. But in this particular case, this is something that would have to be brought back up for further discussion by Council and then reconsideration given if it's the desired point. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay. So 2(b) would go on the next agenda? b Mayor Chmiel: 2(b) would go on the next agenda. y () g g Councilman Wing: Alright. And the neighborhood would be notified. 1 Mayor Chmiel: All those affected would be notified. Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not sure that, I don't know how this is going to work out but I'm 1 not sure that David Donna would be the mediator between all the neighborhoods and Mr. Beddor. That's the only thing I have. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? 1 11 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I would like to suggest staff prepares a written response to the suggestion. We would put that into the next packet but I would like to know that the Council favors one way or another before we notify the entire neighborhood that we're going to be reconsidering or not reconsidering. So in other words, I'd like to prepare a report back to you. You said, based on this report I think you should be thinking about reconsideration so therefore we should notify everyone that we're going to be doing that. Or you say no, I don't think there's ' sufficient information here to consider reconsideration. Mayor Chmiel: From that report I think is where we have to go from. You're right. Any ' other discussions? If not, we'll move along with the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel: I have a request to pull item 3(c) at this time. Are there any other items that would like to be pulled? Councilwoman Dockendorf: F and G. Councilman Mason: Ditto. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I have those. Councilman Senn: B, D, E and H. Councilman Wing: Well and I want to talk about A, and based on this, I'd like to move that the Consent Agenda be moved in the agenda to the final item this evening. I don't think it's ' right if we're going to pull every item, that we hold up the public hearings and the other people that are in the audience while we discuss the consent agenda at length. Mayor Chmiel: Well I sort of agree with that. Normally the consent agendas are given for us to review and any questions that we have can normally be answered by staff during the time period of from when we get our agendas and move accordingly. And I think it's that individual's responsibility, whether it be mine or anyone else, to make sure that we follow through with that process. The reason we have a consent agenda is these items are not too discussionary and I feel oftentimes should be addressed either on Friday or Monday. And I'm not pointing directly at you Mark because I may have had one other one besides the one I have but Colleen pulled that one as well. 12 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 E. Councilman Senn: Well Don you know, in response to that I'm going to say the same thing I said last meeting. When you get packets on Friday night and all you have is Monday, that's I not fair to the Council. You don't even know what's on the agenda. You don't have any back -up information and there's no way you can get through all that and necessarily contact everyone in a single day of Monday unless you drop everything else you're doing between I Monday morning and Monday night. Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree but when the copying machine sometimes breaks down, they I break down. Councilman Senn: Well that's fine. I got it over the weekend so I mean it's worst yet so. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And once in a while I think it just takes a little extended effort upon each of us to accomplish that as well. 1 Councilman Senn: Effort was made. Councilwoman Dockendorf: While I agree with you Mr. Mayor, the ones that I pulled I I believe really are discussionary items. I was uncomfortable with them being on the Consent Agenda. 1 Councilman Wing: I think that's an issue. Councilman Senn: Ditto. I Councilman Wing: Well I've got a motion to move it. I don't care where we move it to. I 1 just don't want to hold the audience up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen, you pulled item f and g? 1 Councilman Wing: I pulled a. I Mayor Chmiel: A? Item 1 or 2 or both of those Richard. Councilman Wing: I just had a question of Planning. 1 Councilman Senn: The only ones that haven't been pulled are i and j right? 1 Mayor Chmiel: i and j. I would like a motion to approve items i and j of the consent agenda. 1 13 1 1 •' City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be happy to. 1 Councilman Wing: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following 1 Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: i. City Council Minutes dated August 9, 1993 1 Planning Commission Minutes dated August 4, 1993 j. Revision of Conditions of Approval for Lot 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court, 1 Ken Lund All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I A. TROTTERS RIDGE, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 1 CONTRACT, PROJECT NO. 93 -18. I Councilman Wing: I forgot to ask you today. On Trotters Ridge, Nancy Mancino called and I called engineering. I thought that on collector streets we had setbacks, bermings, etc, etc to separate neighborhoods from the roads and on Trotters the house seems to me to be right on I the road. No berming. No landscaping. Was that resolved? Did Nancy's question, was that answered? Because she was going to contact me with a resolution to that. I Paul Krauss: Trotters Ridge does incorporate... Councilman Wing: But the house is about 30 feet from the road and it's built. Something's 1 wrong. I mean it just doesn't look right. Paul Krauss: No, but the home is the existing home there is internal. I Councilman Wing: No. I think. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's nothing new built there. Councilman Wing: Nothing at this point? I Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Maybe you're looking across the road. 1 14 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 i 1 Councilman Wing: Excuse me. Disregard my comments. I had it answered. (a) can be moved at any time. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to move that? Councilman Wing: Yes sir. Move (a). I Councilman Mason: Second. 1 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Final Plat and the Construction Plans and Specifications and Development Contract, Project No. 93 -18 for 1 Trotters Ridge. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. B. CALL ASSESSMENT HEARINGS: 1 1)._ UPPER BLUFF CREEK TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT NO. 91 -17A. 21, LILAC LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 91 -4. 1 j LONE CEDAR LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90 -9. Councilman Senn: On (b), there was no preliminary assessment rolls attached with it. They 1 might be available for tonight. Haven't seen them you know basically as of yet. I'd really like to see that preliminary roll which generally gives us a breakdown of what the city's I paying, residents, what others are paying. That sort of thing before we would take an action on setting the hearing dates. To see if there's any discussion on it. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, would you like to. 1 Charles Folch: The action tonight is technically a formality. We have to go, we have to _ I follow State guidelines for any type of assessable project. Unfortunately there's a certain amount of lead time. Approximately 3 weeks between calling a hearing and actually having the hearing. And we can certainly get this information to you earlier than the next Council, if I you so desire...this is still a formality where we call the hearings and we get the information at a later date. We have to kind of get that lead time in order to be able to schedule these things this fall. So that's where, we're racking up projects this summer also. So we can I certainly get the information to you earlier and distribute it earlier than the next Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That Lone Cedar Lane Improvement Project 90 -9. Was that a '94 or I y P Project project? 1 15 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Charles Folch: That was completed actually earlier this spring. 1 Mayor Chmiel: But that was to go for '94 for the assessment, is that correct? Charles Folch: No. That was a planned assessment... I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, in '93. Okay. 1 Councilman Senn: Alrighty, so moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. I Resolution #93 -71: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to call the following Assessment Hearings: Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility 1 Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 91 -17A; Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91-4; and Lone Cedar Lane Improvement Project No. 90 -9. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I C. CONSIDER VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK HOURS FOR OAK I PONDS, PROJECT NO. 93 -9. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This item basically we've handled a I number of these recently here. The developer did distribute a notice...the neighboring properties...notifying them that this issue was coming up before you. We did receive a number of calls today from residents of Saddlebrook and I feel it's important to make a I clarification on this issue. The developer has requested working hour extension for Saturdays only. He'd like to work 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 -7:00 at night. The ordinance right now only allows them to work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00. Staff feels comfortable, given the I closeness of proximity to the neighborhood, not allowing 7:00 a.m. but maybe allowing them to start at 8:00 a.m... The clarification that we need to make and it's a policy that we enforced on similar requests such as this in the past is that...conditional in nature. That is if we were to receive complaints from residents in the area during this work extension, and these problems and complaints cannot be mitigated properly by the developer or adjusted accordingly, that this work extension can be revoked basically and that's what we've done in 1 the past. If problems can't be mitigated, we certainly will bring the issue back to you for revocation. And that's what we needed to clarify. It is conditional. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they're willing to go from 8:00 to 6:00? 16 1 1 i . City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 is 1 Charles Folch: That's what the... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, because 7:00 I think is unreasonable. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd be consistent with that 8:00 because we moved on that the last I time with one of the other developments. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I really, I don't want to see it. If there are problems with I it, I don't want to see it come back to Council. That's just a delay. I mean just staff take action. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to see it just snipped right at the time and staff have that 1 authorization to do that. So with that I'd move item (c). Councilman Wing: Second. 1 Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve a variance to the 1 construction work hours for Oak Ponds, Project No. 93 -9 on Saturdays to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK I TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE II); AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT NO. 91 -17B. 1 Councilman Senn: Charles what's the, for the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility, what is the 1 funding formula on that or who's paying for what? Charles Folch: 100% assessment. , Councilman Senn: 100% assessed? All to. Charles Folch: The benefitting properties. Basically on the location map, all the abutting 1 properties to this project which are basically run along Galpin Boulevard. From the east side of Galpin, north of Stone Creek and basically going from that point north to...Trotters Ridge Addition... Councilman Senn: Are there some future projects too will also be paying? 1 Charles Folch: There is a future, actually this one was scaled back. This Phase II was actually...project comprehensively. At that time it was thought that this project would go 1 17 1 i i City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I from the starting point and actually extend farther north along Galpin and then head back towards the west towards TH 41 to Pemtom and Opus properties. Well timing of both those 1 big developments is being delayed and so probably Phase 2B will occur next year as they come on line but the timing of their developments. But we have enough properties that are adjacent to this...project which will be assessed and the revenue generation is a balance. Councilman Senn: Okay. So we don't go to those other projects in the future and assess 1 back for part of this trunk leading to them? Charles Folch: I'm not, basically we've established trunk unit assessments in the city 1 whereby what it does is it keeps uniformity across the board for assessments. People who are typically upstream running on a smaller trunk pipe don't pay a smaller cost than the people I who are downstream that have the bigger pipe going through the property pay a bigger cost. That's not a fair way of doing it so about 2 years ago the City Council approved the uniform charge per trunk unit, sewer and water which is $970.00 for sewer and $1,275.00 for watermain. And that's what's being assessed on a per unit residential...basis to the properties I which are defined in the service area for each segment of these improvement projects. So everybody's paying their fair share and uniformed. 1 Councilman Senn: Alright, move approval. III Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. I Resolution #93 -72: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the plans and specifications for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement I (Phase II); and authorize advertising for bids, Project No. 91 -17B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 E. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, LAKE ANN IRRIGATION PROJECT. Councilman Senn: I think the last time this came up I was the one who asked that we wait I and I think what, Todd wasn't here to answer the questions or whatever at the time. I see some of the questions were addressed in the memorandum. I think it said the original estimate was $60,000.00 and the bid was $50,000.00 so we're still under what the original I estimate was. Todd, the only other question I had basically that you haven't answered here is, and this is a 10% or greater increase in the overall budget of the project. That's pretty 1 significant in terms of an increase. I don't think the issues really, that there was a $60,000.00 18 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 r estimate up front and $50,000.00 bid. I mean we have a $50,000.00 bid. Missing 10% is pretty significant. Todd Hoffman: Councilman Senn, to address that I would agree with you. It's not an issue that we had money to spend because we had budgeted $60,000.00. The budget was $60,000.00. The original bid was about $45,000.00. Now with the change order, we're up to just over $60,000.00. The project was bid on a very tight time line. We were trying to get in the ground last fall so there were a couple of things which were missed. As you can see from the breakout of the expenditures there, there's a variety of...included. I think it is about $1,600.00 in improvements which were mandated by our Inspection Department. The addition, almost $2,000.00 in addition to the irrigation... with Field 2, it was changed from an adult softball to Little League field... What this does is put an irrigation zone out into the outfield behind the backstop in the event that in the future when other fields become available, that we change that back to an adult field, we're ready to go and we don't have to go in and do a subsequent contract at that time to include irrigation. So I understand that it's in excess of 10 %. I don't think that it's out of the question to consider... 1 Councilman Senn: The $3,400.00 is really a redesign issue. I mean what made us think in the first place that we had room to put it in the building and then find out later that we don't have room to put it in the corner? Todd Hoffman: You're correct, it is a redesign issue. It's an issue which I've discussed with the Legion and the Athletic Association. When this was approved, the building was not being used. It sat vacant for 3 years. It was not being utilized. No organization in the city was providing concessions out of there. Now this year the Athletic Association has come in and 1 is providing that service. Some communication with the CAA and the Legion, it was felt that if we take up a third of that space, that's going to hinder operations within that building. The other thing that came to my attention is if they need an overflow. The water should overflow...interior of the building with concession items and that type of thing stored in there and you have an overflow situation...I would agree with you. It is a design issue. At the time I was comfortable that it could go inside the building but because of the reasons stated in my memorandum, I'm no longer comfortable with that situation. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the original design was predicated on the building still being 1 inactive basically? Todd Hoffman: Correct. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? 1 19 1 1 '1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Councilman Senn: No. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to move that? Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution #93 -73: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Change Order No. 1, Lake Ann Park Irrigation Project. All voted in favor and the 1 motion carried unanimously. F. CONSIDER APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A 3 YEAR CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WITH THE CITIES OF VICTORIA. I GREENWOOD, TONKA BAY. EXCELSIOR AND SHOREWOOD. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ah, let me see. I didn't get a chance to talk to you today Scott about this issue. I've talked with the City Manager and a couple other people on staff and on Council just about staffing in general and I know that this issue is, it relates to it. What you're asking for here is that we add an additional 30 hours a week for a CSO to do animal control so we can hire it out to different cities in the area. My question to you is, how are we, and it's not again directly related to this issue but how are we doing on other staff issues? I've heard some concerns in other areas that we may need to add, I think you're looking at an additional, or adding a detective to staff. Is that true? Scott Harr: Well, the City Manager and I are meeting with the Sheriff to discuss the possibility of buying additional time from the County. Be it for patrol time or be it investigative time or some mutual agreed upon alternative to keep up with the law 1 enforcement needs. Internally our biggest needs are animal control support for our CSO support. Not just for animal control but for the CSO and related duties...secretarial support staff. It's one of the things I'll be presenting in the budget. Beth and Carol take in excess of 200 phone calls a day. We cannot provide the customer service that we wish when we're backlogged as it is. Our permit turn around time, complaints that people make about animal control issues or code complaints, and that brings us back to the reason that I'm recommending that if the city...service with 5 other cities, I would like to have the Council to permit me to recommend additional help because the customer service level...can't be met with the people that we have now. The other cities are very understanding but they're also in r need of the service and at the last meeting that the City Manager attended, along with Bob Zydowsky and myself, we were asked to come back and recommend additional assistance. 1 People, our CSO program and the animal control program is moving along as well as it has 20 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 been an improvement to the... Councilwoman Dockendorf: My real question is, is this going to do it? Should we look at right now hiring a full time animal control specialist? Is that what you really need? In addition to the secretarial support. Scott Harr: Well it's difficult when I know that this city is reluctant to increase budgets. And I promised my staff that I'd do everything that I could to get the additional secretarial support position and CSO position and if to do that I need to compromise on what would be the ideal, that...recommending the 30 hours per week. As I said in my memo, I think the full time position has a lot of merit to it. Anyone involved in public safety will tell you that one of the most frequent calls involves animal control. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we are making a profit out of it. I mean it's marginal but we do make money on that, leasing it out to other cities. Scott Harr: Yeah, and I think that the primary benefit to a full time animal control office would be that we would be able to support the program internally even beyond what it is now. We have nobody on our staff that their thing is animal control. We have Bob Zydowsky who plays a number of roles and we have community service officers who go frankly, when they leave here to become a police officer, not an animal control officer and we're seeing the results of animal problems both from the complainant sides and the pet owner's side. I think a lot of benefit could be received by everybody if it was a specialist 1 position. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So if we approved the additional 30 hours for a CSO, could we also look forward to you presenting in your '94 budget a full time animal control specialist? Scott Harr: No, I'm really looking for one or the other. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think that what we've been doing in the past has been working very well and having another CSO on hand would help considerably. The bottom line that I still see is, I don't want this to cost the citizens of Chanhassen more dollars than what we're providing services for other communities. I guess my concern is that as long as we are still making money on this, and what we are doing was we were providing additional hours even for ourselves. Now all of a sudden this whole thing is starting to start turning and finding that everybody is being strapped and not being able to make all those specific calls because of all the complaints and I know that all communities are growing, as well as our own. But I guess the bottom line is, if we are still coming up with those dollars in hand, and it's not costing the residents of the city of Chanhassen any dollars, I still think it's a good program. 1 21 1 1 .1 i City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I Don Ashworth: In submitting this we are looking for a continuation of the contract with the other communities. I continue to believe that it is a good deal for our city. I'm sure that we I will show you that as we start the budgetary process. Our first meeting in September is setting budget work session dates. Those will be for October and November. The two options that Scott is referring to will be a part of those budgetary hearings and again what 1 we're looking for this evening is approval for continuing the contract with the other cities. Councilman Senn: You know, turn it around and...take a little more of a global view of this 1 thing. It seems to me, you know you go ahead and talk about a 30 hour add or whatever and then you say, well what happens, that's a new 30 hours. Now what happens to the old ones. It just seems to me that that's not really approaching the issue very straight forward. Hooked I at the issue and it seems to me that we really ought to just go hire a full time person and we ought to have their benefits and their vehicle and everything. We ought to take all those costs and we ought to add them together and that's the cost we ought to charge back to the 5 I or 6 other cities that were paying. It's still going to be a bargain. They can't find it any cheaper anywhere else. Now they say why aren't we paying something even though we're I utilizing maybe half of that person for animal control. The answer's real simple. We have a lot of costs that go into that contract that aren't figured to that person such as Scott's time, other administrative time, other support services and everything else. So here we have a, it I seems to me a fairly clear situation where we could take this one full time person, all the costs associated with him, divvy them up over the costs of the city. Make the employment and the contract contingent upon those, and proceed with it and there's no cost to the I Chanhassen voter. Or resident or whatever, and to me clearly you have a reasonable split at that point because again we're still paying a good chunk of the cost but it's just being paid not directly associated with that person. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. The only problem is, is that if we go into a 3 year contract, and we hire this person and we provide them with I the cost to each of those respective cities, and they don't want to go along with it, well that's the time that we snip the umbilical cord. But I think that that should be something that could be looked at. I Councilman Senn: I mean could we contact the cities upfront, or first establish what the new rate would be and then contact the cities upfront and ask them if they're still going to 1 participate or not. And then if they say yes, then proceed with the, come back in. Proceed with hiring the person and going forward based on those cities paying the cost. And again when you put that budget together to show the other cities, I think you should stick in the I other costs that Chanhassen are paying that's not being included in the cost back to them directly to that person and the vehicle and the benefits or whatever. And then I think also when we hire that person, they ought to, I mean they really ought to know that their 22 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 employment is tied to that contract. And so it's not something that comes back at least without deliberate action in the future so that it could be anything different from that. Scott Harr: And Councilwoman Dockendorf...clarify an issue too. An animal control officer would be able to help support the CSO program 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and that's the benefit that we get. Any left over time. Scott Harr: Not just do animal control issues but assist in...most important but most time I consuming is we're delivering 50 to 100 packets a week...Helping at accident scenes, that sort of thing. 1 Councilman Wing: Mark, would this person have to be full time or could they be part time? And I say why get into the benefit issue. Could we have the same program on your suggestion but with the part time 30 -35 hour person. Does he have to be full time? Councilman Senn: I may be incorrect but I thought once we get over 30 hours, that's full 1 time. At least it is in the private sector. Councilman Wing: Well but assuming we stay at 30 hours then. 1 Councilman Senn: Well I mean if there's a magic mark there, I don't. I Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get an answer. Don Ashworth: Personnel policy generally speaks to 32 hours. If you're over 32 hours, 1 benefits are provided. You can actually go less than that as it deals with vacation, sick leave but generally 32 hours is considered full time. Scott Harr: And my only concern there is if we were looking for a specialist, it might be more difficult Councilman Wing to look for 30 hours with no benefits. That's a good I position for a part time CSO who's a law enforcement student who needs to devote time to studying but I think we might have difficulty if we were looking at that position part time with no benefits. 1 Don Ashworth: We've spent a lot of time in previous years documenting that the price per hour we're charging back to the other communities is more than our cost. We are reaping a benefit by the contract. Scott and I have talked. I know that he is looking to additional personnel but I think that that issue should really be a part of the budgetary process, the budget work sessions. Again, as far as the contract is concerned, I can assure you, assure the I 23 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 City Council that the amount we're charging back to the other cities is more than our cost. Councilman Senn: But Don what I'm asking is for something greater than that. What I'm saying is let the other cities pay the full cost of that person, and I don't think that's being unreasonable because again we are paying the other costs not associated with that person and I'm not sure those are being cranked into the equation. When you say that we're making a profit, you're saying we're making a profit based on what we're paying that person. And half of this vehicle will, well to me it ought to be 100% of the vehicle and it ought to be every 1 hour we pay him for. And then we throw in Scott's time and other administrative time and your time and everybody else's time associated with animal control, etc. 1 Councilman Senn: I want to support Mark in that position. One of the comments in here, which is stressing the system, Chanhassen or contractual cities? What's happening here is there's a lot of crossover and there's a lot of inefficiencies occurring. And I think Mark's idea of hiring whatever we want to hire and then dedicating him to the contract portion 100 %, charge back 100 %, whatever those hours are. 10, 20, 50, 100 hours, I don't care. And then when all that's charged back, there ought to be a little profit in it for the city of Chanhassen. I want to be in the driver's seat on this issue and this isn't the Excelsior Fire Department those people are dealing with, and I don't want to get into that type of mentality. We're providing a service. It will be a first class service which is the efficiency of right now I think is in doubt because of this crossover. You can say that 90% of the time's here. I can say well I see him across the road 90% of the time. Argue back and forth. Could you even provide accountability for their time because a crisis occurs here. Another crisis occurs here and then the packets have to get delivered so I really like Mark's suggestion of charging one person out to that contract and then maintaining our CSO program individually and independent except if there's a crisis or need for those people to help. It seems the only efficient way to do it. And management fees are part of the program. If they want to do it on their own, go do it and if it's efficient for them, then maybe we can contract back and they can take our's over someday. But right now they've got a goldmine here and it's more than I think they deserve. Oh, bad statement. Let's retract that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be happy to move on this only to say that we should extend our 3 year contracts with these cities and once we get in, we can deal with how we're going to fulfill that contract in the budget session. Mayor Chmiel: That's right and I don't disagree with that. I think that's right. 1 Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? 24 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I 1 Councilman Senn: Yes. Okay I don't want that in any way in effect to assume to renew it on the existing basis. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, it's not. Councilman Senn: It's not an approval to renew it on the existing basis. I want to understand that very clearly because I'm not going to go for that. i Councilman Wing: Yeah, I want to look at the issue you brought up seriously before we approve it. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I don't want to not... Councilman Senn: Why don't we table it... I Mayor Chmiel: That's what I was just going to suggest. Table it for 2 weeks and I don't I think it's going to make any difference. And come back with something that we have a little better handle on than what we're jumping around on right now. Okay? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Done. I Councilman Wing: Second. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. We table that item. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the 3 I Co , g year contract for animal control services with the cities of Victoria, Greenwood, Tonka 1 Bay, Excelsior and Shorewood. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. RECEIVE AND ACT UPON PETITION TO UNDERTAKE AN I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE NORTH TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I pulled this one because, I know my reaction to it and I wanted 1 to know what the rest of the Council felt about it because I haven't talked to anyone about the issue. And I wanted to clarify for the citizens of Chanhassen exactly what we spent on this issue because you know I've been accused of being smug on it, and I haven't been smug. I take this issue very seriously but I can tell you right now I'm pretty livid about it, and sorry for members of the audience, the issue is again Nez Perce and the city is being asked to 1 2 5 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 spend $43,000.00 on an Environmental Assessment report. To get some background and hopefully I can do this succintly as how I've seen the process take place. A completely different Council several years ago decided to extend this stone's throw of a road. It went through numerous commissions, planning, park and rec, etc. We were ready to go ahead with it and finalize everything earlier this year and this Council, which is different from the one that approved it in the first place, and the other commissions which were different from the commissions that approved it in the first place, agreed that we needed to go through it. The opposing party didn't like our decision. Didn't like the decision of the prior Council. Brought it up for reconsideration. We spent additional time, additional money, looking at the issue again. We decided not to reconsider our decision. As of this point we've spent literally tens of thousands of dollars in staff time, in lawyers fees. Right now we're being asked to spend $43,000.00 on Environmental Assessment to relook at the issue. In addition the city's being sued. So we're going to spend what's going to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars on this stone's throw of a road because certain parties cannot accept the decision of several commissions, and at least two different Councils. And I don't know what to do with it. We're being asked to approve this expenditure of $43,000.00 in addition to the tens of ' thousands dollars we've already spent and will be spending on legal fees and I want to find out what everyone else thinks about it. I'm ticked off. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Colleen. Maybe if I could just step in on this. At no other time have we really gone through a process of going through an EAW for completion of roads through the city, and I don't know if this is the time to do it or not. Maybe what we ' should do is go out for some additional proposals other than one that we have gotten to make that request rather quick to see if we can get a better cost factor on that EAW. To me an EAW is not that hard to complete. I have done some EAW's and it's not the long tedious point or long tedious time to do. If it was an EIS, well then $45,000.00 would be too less, or too little in dollars. But I don't think I've ever seen a EAW go for as much as what I see here. What I would suggest is that maybe the information that was brought to us previously in discussion, from Dave Donna which staff is going to look at within the next two weeks, maybe we can come back with some of those suggestions that he had made and come up with a conclusion and then look at what we get within, well I would say it would probably take us a month or so Don to pull some of that together. Don Ashworth: I'd say so. Mayor Chmiel: And at that time, I think we still have enough time to respond to the complaint that we've been served action on and go from there. Mark. Councilman Senn: Don, you know with your comments on the bids, I agree 100 %. I think we really ought to go out and get 5 or 6 bids. When you start talking about a $41,000.00 1 26 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 • 1 contract instead of you know, just talking to one party about it. I was the one person who basically opposed accepting the previous approval and said we should relook at the issue. 1 However I have a real hard time justifying public costs like this. If that's in fact what the cost is. I mean if the cost here...for an EAW, I have a real hard time accepting staff's recommendation that we proceed with that EAW. You know to me we have litigation going 1 on and that's real obvious and we have some other items on that tonight. Whether we go ahead or don't go ahead with an EAW, that litigation is still going to proceed and I guess I disagree with the assumption in staff's memorandum too that effectively the EAW will render 1 the litigation moot. I don't believe that at all. I believe the litigation will continue whether it be, regardless of what the EAW says. At least that's the impression when we get from where everything has gone so far. It just seems to me that, you know and I think Colleen's comments are real true here in terms of what building public cost and I think that building public cost is ridiculous and I think with what Mr. Donna came in with earlier, and everything else, I still would like to, instead of sitting here and even consider approving another $40,000.00 on top of what I'm sure is probably already $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 in legal time on this issue, maybe we should really just again maybe look at sitting back and looking at available options and just take a good look at the situation once again. And I don't know, that may lead to the same conclusion but to me that's a more worthwhile process than going out and spending all this money that we're spending. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think maybe, once staff does look at this, and I think we're a little premature to come up with a decision on this. I think we need some of that additional background as well and at the same time go out and look at it and see what those costs might be. They could be half. They could be a third. They could be a quarter. And what I understand is the supportive position that you're probably looking at with this litigation, and I think can we talk about that part Roger? Roger Knutson: Just one comment. You have 30 working days after the receipt of that petition to...to make a decision whether to order an EAW or not. I believe this is your last meeting... Mayor Chmiel: Of course we could call a special meeting. Roger Knutson: Yes, you can call a special meeting. It's 30 working days. The petition was received on July 30th. Don Ashworth: Can you order the EAW without having selected a firm? 1 Roger Knutson: Yes. 1 27 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Don Ashworth: In other words, without entering into a. 1 Roger Knutson: Oh absolutely. If you just want to order the preparation of an EAW and do that, all you have to do is strike the second paragraph of the resolution. Councilman Senn: You mean to order an EAW now knowing the cost and not knowing the contractor? Roger Knutson: You could do that. I'm not suggesting that...the rules say you have 30 days. If you don't want to go with an EAW or you do, you've got to make that decision within 30 1 days of receipt of the petition. Councilman Senn: Well if we're actually going to go back and get staff to look at what Mr. Donna suggested or even in any way blink an eye at the issue again, I mean is it feasible to get the applicant who filed the petition to agree, I don't know to hold it off or to provide some type of mechanism which doesn't put us under that type of a tight timeline right now to act. Roger Knutson: The rules don't provide anything for any such mechanism. I suppose theoretically...everyone who signed the petition withdrew their name. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's the mechanism that would have to happen. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask one other question. I don't know what the legality would be on it. If we were to proceed with this EAW, and it does go to court, can the person initiating the suit against the city pick up those costs as a condition within? 1 Roger Knutson: It's possible. Not likely but possible. Councilman Senn: Kind of like recovering...attorney fees. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger Knutson: ...the cost of the or the suggested cost of this I learned around noon today and I fell on the floor. It was a shock. Don Ashworth: May I ask another hypothetical? Y YP 1 28 r 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 f Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Don Ashworth: If the City Council ordered the EAW this evening and they did it under the 1 premise that they believed that we could get this completed for a number far less than what is here, if 30 days from today comes along and it's still $40,000.00, could they then cease the process and just say, we no longer want to pursue the EAW process? Roger Knutson: There is no way of going back on the rules. Don Ashworth: So once they have said it, they must complete it. Councilman Senn: Regardless of the cost? Mayor Chmiel: Yes unfortunately. 1 Roger Knutson: We just went through a process where I'm just...involved in another city was interested in where the cost of an EIS was going to be over a million... 1 Councilman Mason: And what happens tonight if we choose not to do an EAW? Roger Knutson: I've been informed by a representative of the applicant that he'll just amend his current lawsuit and slap that on as well. Councilman Senn: Let him just do that. Roger Knutson: If the decision is not to do the EAW, then we have to have detailed findings , saying why not...prepare those for you. Then you need a special Council meeting in the next two weeks to adopt those. Councilman Mason: I'm going to be around the next two weeks. Councilman Senn: Why don't we do that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not ready to move on it. Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be the way. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I just wanted to add another comment then just to be on the record , with this. The EAW to me was an excuse and an attempt and an opportunity to help clarify some issues and answers for some of the newer homeowners that have moved in that weren't 29 1 .1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 aware of the situation or claimed they haven't had a chance to speak. But when I see the $43,000.00, then I look at this committee you and I have sat on for the last year, the Highway 1 5 Task Force and I realize we didn't staff that much to do in an entire city wide task force study and we're talking about an EAW for a 100 foot stretch of road. Something's terribly wrong and the decision's made and whether people like it or not, this is a done deal. The road's in and done. It's platted that way and I was hoping to answer whatever questions we could but you reach a point where you can't penalize the rest of the city at this level so I think this idea or suggestion is probably a good one. Roger Knutson: Just so you understand what's happening here. A lot of the information that's on all of the, would be useful in the lawsuit that has been brought against us so 1 although it won't be dollar for dollar the same, because of this lawsuit which I can't wave a magic wand and make go away. You'll have to hire consultants, whether it's Barton - Aschman or someone else, to respond to the lawsuit and they will be looking at similar issues at a similar price I assume. Councilman Wing: That's the other thing I wanted to mention and I failed to and Charles, if you could just clarify this. In my looking at this and talking to engineering and Barton - Aschman and everybody involved. Planning. I said what will we gain from the EAW. What will we learn that we didn't learn when Mr. Mason and myself were on Council going through this issue and the public hearings before and the answers have been nothing. They've semi been answered. We've been through the issues that the EAW will bring up so that also frighten me off a little bit is will there be new information that would in fact support Pleasant View's position or Lake Lucy's position that would have a significant impact on our decision, it appears not. And if that's not the case, then I'd like to be told. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We did have a statement from our attorney, as he's indicated. Is there any motion to follow that direction? Councilman Wing: Are you taking any audience comment? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to move that you prepare Findings of Fact to deny the. Roger Knutson: ...based on the fact that there's no apparent significant environmental harm that will be caused by this project and I'll detail that based upon the discussions. Your records and you'll have to have a special meeting though. It won't take very long. 1 30 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 Councilman Senn: I would like to, if I could just a point of clarification. I mean in terms of the Findings of Fact, I mean can a Findings of Fact simply be that this consideration isn't worth the economics that we're seeing? Roger Knutson: Economic consideration is not one of the factors... 1 Councilman Senn: So it's not one? Mayor Chmiel: No. Unfortunately, it never is. ' Councilman Senn: So cost, costing taxpayers, we're not supposed to give a hoot about I 1 guess. Roger Knutson: I disagree with that. 1 Councilman Senn: Well I'm just saying what the process may think is what you're saying. Roge r Knutson: That is correct. Councilman Mason: I'll second Councilman Senn's motion. 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion by Council? Councilman Mason: I'd just like to make one quick comment. I thought Colleen said it all very well. It seems to me that the issue is not we versus they. Us versus them. Lake Lucy versus Pleasant View. I personally never have and never will feel that that is the issue here. What I'm seeing happening now is, it seems to me 1, 2, maybe 3 or 4 people are doing what they can to change a process that I believe Richard said has been a done deal. And I think it's one thing to get in an argument, get into a discussion in the political arena. You lose. I mean I've certainly taken my shots on this Council and whatever and I think it's too bad that the thousands of citizens of Chanhassen are now being asked to bear the burden of this. And that's it. Councilman Senn: Don I'd like to make a comment too on my motion because I just...with what Mike is saying along the last lines there. You know quite honestly I still, if another decision were put in front of us to reconsider this I would still vote the same way to reconsider it. And probably lose by the same 4 -1 vote again. And I feel strongly that that's something we should do but I also feel equally as strongly that there's no way we should pay this kind of cost out of the citizens money to go ahead on this type of an EAW. And again, if we weren't being litigated, I mean I could see a whole different thing but when you're 1 31 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 paying attorneys fees and now you're saying let's pay EAW fees on top of it and just double the money so to speak, that's just ridiculous. Mayor Chmiel: Okay good. We'll move on. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact to deny the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the extension of Nez Perce north to Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. H. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Senn: I had a question on page 5 I guess it is. On page 5 there's a $6,440.55 C q Pg g expenditure for payment to the Independent School District for fees for service regarding...to the School District for Hammel- Green - Abramhamson invoice regarding Chan Elementary Community Program. Last month we approved, and it was listed as part of the Entertainment Center but when we clarified the issue it was really the same issue but this was paid directly to Hammel -Green and that was for I believe $3,000.00 some odd dollars. After $10,000.00 now on an issue or on a contract that at least, as I understand it, I heard. I don't know. Maybe it appeared one night when I wasn't here but I never saw the Council approval of any contract like this and that was clarified at the last meeting that this was a City Council issue, not an HRA issue. And again, I mean with last month's deal being the Entertainment Center clarification there, this one still being $6,000.00. Now we're $10,000.00 on the issue, I mean I thought when we go ahead and do studies like this, there's a Council action upfront approving the contract and what we're heading into. At least as far as I can find, there's no authority to even do that and I have a real problem with this expenditure just continuing to mount as a result of that. So I was just wondering what was up with that. Don Ashworth: I'll prepare a report and have that into your next packet outlining what the costs have been and what they're likely to be and what has been approved or what hasn't been. I can't answer your question. Councilman Senn: Okay. The other question was on page 8. What was the Swenson Associate's fee regarding for the James property? That's an appraisal? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 Councilman Senn: And now that's the city's expense? I mean it's under a city account, not the HRA. $7,500.00. 1 32 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Todd Gerhardt: ...should be under HRA. Don Ashworth: What was the acquisition Todd ?... 1 Councilman Senn: Well, I'd move approval of the accounts with the deletion of the $6,000.00 some until that report comes and also moving the $7,500.00 out of here and having it properly reclassified. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Wing: I'll second that. 1 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the accounts with the exception of the check listed on page 5 in the amount of $6,440.55 to Independent School District #112 and on page 8, reclassifying a check in the amount of $7,500.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 1 A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY OF HOPI ROAD LOCATED EAST AND PARALLEL TO NEZ PERCE DRIVE, TJO ADDITION. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 50,443 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6661 NEZ PERCE, TJO ADDITION, TODD OWENS. Public Present: Name Address , A.W. Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. This is, and I'm going to open that public hearing at this time for item 4(a) which is vacation of a portion of right -of -way of Hopi Road located east and parallel to Nez Perce Drive. TJO Addition. And I will handle each of these separately with a motion. Unless there may be information in the entirety of both items (a) and (b). One is related to the other so I think maybe we should cover both portions of that as the public hearing segment then. Then item (b) would be the preliminary plat to subdivide 50,443 square feet parcel into three single family lots on property zoned RSF and located at 6661 Nez Perce, TJO Addition. Todd Owens. 1 33 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Sharmin Al -Jaff: Mr. Mayor, I'll just point out some things...That's why we had the condition of approval...The applicant has 50,443 square feet and is requesting to subdivide that into three plots. The area that is... Those three parcels are heavily wooded with mature trees. Lot 1 will contain an existing home. Structures meet the required setbacks. Lot 3 will have access off of Nez Perce. Lot 2 has two options. The first option is getting access off of Hopi Road. The second access would be off of Nez Perce by using a private driveway easement. Staff is in favor of gaining access for Lot 2 off of Nez Perce mainly because we will lose quite a few less trees via this access. The applicant is preserving a majority of the trees on site and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here at this time with your proposal? Is there anything you'd like to add to Sharmin's report? Todd Owens: No. I'm just here to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time. Please come forward and state your name and your address. Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions that Council has regarding staff or the applicant? : I have question Senn: ave a qu stio n for Sharmin if I could. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Mark. Councilman Senn: Looking at the plan and the point that you're, I'm having a little bit of a hard time figuring out now, where does this come out on Nez Perce? Councilman Mason: You know where the Counselor Realty sign is... Councilman Senn: Okay. All I guess I wanted to get to is. Sharmin Al -Jaff: ...access to Lot 2. Councilman Senn: Well Lot 2, as I understand is you're talking about providing access in off of Nez Perce through some type of a easement agreement I assume. 34 i r 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. So by this driveway coming out at Nez Perce at that point, does 1 that not then for example, wherever it was, preclude what Mr. Donna showed earlier? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. 1 Councilman Mason: No it wouldn't Mark. Councilman Senn: In terms of his option 2? Councilman Mason: No. Because that's right here. Or no, it's like right here. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay, that's all. Alright. 1 Councilman Wing: I don't want to get off the driveway. It's not my turn but as long as we're on the driveway. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: That was the neighbor's, most of the concerns of the neighbors that had g been involved in this whole process is on the Nez Perce, it's a blind road. Blind comer. Narrow road and we're putting another driveway in there, and I remember we talked, the 1 Planning Commission discussed this. Is that an appropriate place for the driveway? Is there a better place to put access for these lots? Should they all come, well I guess the grade wouldn't allow them all off of Hopi but what's your position on this driveway placement? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Dave and myself were out on this site last Thursday and it was the most appropriate spot for it based on...What we can do to improve the situation. Councilman Wing: A stop sign where? Sharmin Al -Jaff: At the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce as you turn onto Vineland. 1 Councilman Wing: Oh I see. A city stop sign, not this developments? Okay. Councilman Mason: I think it's a fine place for a stop sign in my opinion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think a 3 way stop sign. 1 35 1 r 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 i Councilman Wing: I wish the people from Vineland were here. We could vote on it and we'd all be heroes. i Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well and it is a condition. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It is a condition, number 9 which I would reword to say, not evaluate the need but it is well, I'm sorry. You do have to evaluate it. Okay. We need to evaluate it. Councilman Senn: How about ask you to evaluate it and then put in the stop sign. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. But I would say not just a stop sign but a 3 way stop at that intersection. Mayor Chmiel: I think Charles would be more than happy to put 4 if he had to. Right 1 Charles? Charles Folch: I'm sorry... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Y Y Y Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seriously. I'd like to word that to say the need for a 3 stop signs. Councilman Senn: Evaluate and install? Mayor Chmiel: I think that might eliminate a lot of problems yeah. 3 way. Councilman Senn: Roger, can we do that? Say evaluate and install? Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And how about a couple of Children at Play signs. No actually Charles, while we're on the issue. What does it take to get a Children at Play sign? Councilman Wing: Oh, not this again. I'm leaving. Councilman Senn: No, give him a half hour. 1 36 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Succintly, what does it take? 1 Charles Folch: In fact I've got a number of boiler plate letters that I should provide for you in your staff report that we send out to residents when we get this type of request. It's basically not...something by the Manual of the Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why do we see them around? 1 Charles Folch: It used to be used in the past but what they've found was, doing studies with that and a number of other signs, it creates...is that type of sign really did not, according to the studies, did not affect the behavior of a driver. It did not affect their speeds. It did not make them any more cautious. And what they also felt was more dangerous is that it gave parents a false sense of security by having that sign in the neighborhood. So from a liability standpoint, they basically removed it from. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. What if a private citizen wanted to erect a sign on the city right -of -way on their lawn? Charles Folch: You need a P ermit to put anything like that in city right -of -way and to be honest with you, we'd be very concerned about giving a permit. Councilwoman Dockendorf: O ka y. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? Seeing none. 1 Councilman Senn: Are we bound by the Minnesota blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, unfortunately we are. Trying to get stop signs in this town is absolutely next to impossible unless you know somebody within MnDot. And that doesn't help either because the Governor won't even do it. So with that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move approval with the change to condition 9 saying that the need for a 3 stop signs. Mayor Chmiel: For a 3 way stop. 1 Councilman Senn: Just evaluate is all you're saying then? 1 37 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: At the intersection at Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. 1 Charles Folch: An evaluation? Councilwoman Dockendorf: An evaluation. Councilman Senn: And installation Charles. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think it's, yeah that's almost true. I'd really look at that rather hard and long. Councilman Wing: Well and I think we have so much testimony now requesting that, asking that, we don't even have to bring the public back. r Chmiel: I'm getting to a point where I'm getting g g p g g calls constantly on people speeding. People concerns in the neighborhoods and we just can't get all these CSO's or Sheriff Department or our own people out there in time. And it's just getting to be more and more and more and it's becoming repetitious. So we've got to start looking at some of these things real strong and start slowing these people down. Councilman Wing: Did I second that? Anyway, I second that. 1 Charles Folch: ...that intersection according to the Manual and we'll come back... 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Yes. Todd Owens: Can I ask a question of that? Does that need to be tied to this or does that 1 delay our process any... Mayor Chmiel: No. It's something that we'll do and it doesn't really stop you from proceeding with his project, is that correct? Staff. Charles Folch: No. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Well if we have to notify... 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well that'd be the last of the portion there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're just calling for an evaluation as a part of this. Did my 38 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 motion include A and B? If not, I meant it to. It did. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And the second accepts that? 1 Councilman Wing: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat #93 -16 for TJO Addition and Resolution #93 -74 for vacation of a portion of Hopi Road as shown on the plans received August 16, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat approval is contingent upon the vacation of Hopi Road being approved by the 1 City Council and at least 20' x 137.58' of the vacated right -of -way is combined with the subject property. 2. The applicant shall be permitted to remove only the trees as shown on Sheet 2. All other trees located on the site must be preserved and protected with snow fence located 1 1/2 times the drip line. Lot 2, Block 1 Tree Number: 10 -19, 26 -30, 35 Lot 3, Block 1 Tree Number: 46 -47, 66 -69, 72 and 73 Shared Driveway Tree Number: 41 and 44 1 Staff will work with the applicant to address the specific trees requiring removal, depending on the chosen access. The percentage of tree loss shall remain approximately the same as was first proposed. 3. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted to the City for review and approval at 1 the time of building permit application. 4. The city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed 1 the sewer and water connection and hook -up charge in the amount of $8,544.91 (1993 balance). These fees shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time. 5. Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access easements obtained before installation. 6. The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's Storm Water Management 1 39 1 r 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I Fund. The fees shall be calculated by staff in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. I 7. Full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting of the TJO Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application. I Current park and trail fees are $600. and $200. respectively. 8. A Professional Engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to 1 design the foundation for the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3. 9. Staff shall evaluate the need for a 3 way stop sign at the intersection of Lake Lucy 1 and Nez Perce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I AWARD OF BIDS: 1993 SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 93 -7. Charles Folch: Last week we took bids for the sanitary sewer rehab with the program for I Chanhassen in 1993. I have to commend our consultant engineer who his estimate...As we pointed out, only two bids were received... The low bid came in at, came in from Insituform Central with a base bid of $368,820.50. I also should point out that we did add an alternate I to that bid proposal which included realigning a...sanitary sewer pipe...Twin Cities & Western Railroad south of Park Road. Last year we proposed to reconstruct it and had a bid of $100,000.00 which was rejected. This year...half at $56,000.00 so we did, Instiuform has not performed any services in the city to date but we did do a reference check on them and it had nothing but rave reviews. So therefore I would recommend to the City Council to award the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Rehab Program, Project No. 93 -7 to Instiform Central with a base bid of 1 $368,820.50 along with the alternate bid repair work of $56,160.00. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Question Mark. I Councilman Senn: Charles. I understand where the budget's coming from on the 368 and we're up just a little bit there, no big deal. Where is the 56,160 coming from on the alternate? I Charles Folch: That's actually in the budget. We have about a $1,400,000.00 budgeted to work with on construction projects this year. In working ahead to try to keep the other 1 projects, the base projects as well...incorporate the alternates and still keep within our original proposed budget. So we have factored that in and the amounts of the base bid and the alternate have been budgeted for 1993. I 40 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: Okay but this uses up the entire budget then? Charles Folch: For 1993, that's correct. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should really, as Don had pointed out, take the engineer's estimate. He had the lowest bid. Councilman Senn: Or we go to the other guy and see if he'll do it for the same thing. Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor for approval? Is there. Councilman Mason: So moved. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Resolution #93 -75: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 93 -7 to Insituform Central with a base bid of $368,820.50 along with the alternate bid repair work at $56,160.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BID FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PICK -UP TRUCK. ' Don Ashworth: Actually this is amended to be two vehicles. In the 1993 budget we had an administrative vehicle in there. As you're aware, the City Council at the beginning of the 1 year looked at basically all of the vehicles and authorized Harold in public safety to prepare that the specifications in all of them except for this one. I kind of held off trying to ascertain the need and also were we going in the best direction. I had kind of hoped to see a 8 -9 passenger vehicle that could be used by City Council. Could be used when we have people in from other communities. Larger groups. Hopefully an upscale type of a vehicle. As can be seen from Charles' memorandum, we have really been, placed a strain on our staff in terms of the number of vehicles that are available for those people. A couple of those vehicles simply just are not reasonable vehicles to take out on the road. That Escort wagon out there. I don't know if you've seen that but I think it's in the category of the old Ford where the gas tank dropped out of that one when somebody was driving down the road. Mayor Chmiel: Is that the one you were pushing? 1 Don Ashworth: And that blue sedan wasn't any better. To think that we would buy some 1 41 1 r 1 I City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 type of a luxury vehicle and then I would come to find that Park and Recreation had used it as a part of the fishing contest at Lake Ann, I think we'd have some major showdowns in that I area. In looking at the excellent bids that are available for both the Taurus and the, well the other larger. Like Scott's. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Crown Victoria. Don Ashworth: Crown Victoria, okay. And also what really is needed for the Park and I Recreation Department is a smaller type of a pick -up. Something like Todd Hoffman drives. Camper on the back side of it. I don't know if I'd take his out of town either. Anyway, we can purchase both vehicles for the amount of money that was actually budgeted for the one. I I asked Todd to take quotes on those. These are off of the State bid package so you do not require other alternative bids associated with that. We're recommending both the acquisition of a new Taurus as well as a pick -up type of vehicle with the camper top. I Mayor Chmiel: Yes Mark. 1 Councilman Senn: A number of things struck me as I read through this. Maybe I'm not as enlighten as the rest of you who have been around longer but you know I read through it and I saw an issue like well geez, Charles' predecessor had one but Charles doesn't have one. I I read that geez, we have vehicles that are straining or you know kind of staff's needs for vehicles or whatever. Do we have a policy that relates to who has cars? Who doesn't have cars. When should we be, I mean who do we pay mileage to. I mean to me, for example in I the private sector we rarely give cars anymore. We simply pay mileage, and especially on management people and stuff. I mean if you get right down to it where it's a function of their every hour jobs or whatever, I mean I don't know. Again that becomes part of a policy I on who you do or who you don't give cars to and who you do or who you don't pay mileage to, etc. So I guess if there is one, I'd like to see it and have a chance to study it. If there I isn't one, I think it's something we should really look at and consider before we go any deeper into this. And the last comment is, it's all well and good to buy 2 vehicles for what we budgeted for 1 vehicle but it's also going to cost us 2 times to operate. And that's a I separate issue from the budget which is there for the capital expenditure. That's double the cost basically and that's a longer term and ongoing cost and I think again that's something that we would need to look at in relationship to an ongoing policy. Again, maybe that 1 policy's there but I haven't seen it. Don Ashworth: The Mayor asked me if we were getting rid of 2 vehicles and the answer is I yes, indirectly. Harold has a green Ford Fairmont that 2 years earlier, later. The earlier model vehicle than the blue one so he would actually get rid of the green one and take the blue one. The Escort wagon I believe we were just going to get rid of. It would appear as I 42 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 though there's enough questions that, and this isn't something that has to be acted on this evening. I guess what I would like to do is that, mark down the two questions that Councilman Senn had raised. Can I add to that list if other Council members have questions to make sure my report is complete? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. Well first a comment and then a question. 1 For a lot of the things where we need a van type vehicle, I think Southwest Metro is very amiable to using their mini van types. And my second question is, couldn't we get at least 20 1980 Ford Fairmonts instead of these two vehicles? Councilman Senn: But who gets to drive them. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was something we had talked a long time ago to look to see and to answer who drives what and who gets paid what and who gets mileage and who doesn't. And I think Don did a study here some time ago to see if it would behoove the city and be in a better position to provide new vehicles to the employees and let them lease them back from the city and go through a process of that. And pay total numbers of miles driven on their own personal time as opposed to what's done for the city. And I think we looked at that and it didn't, wasn't too equitable if I remember. I don't know if you have anything more to add to it but there were different things that we had looked at to see how we could come out of this without having to buy new vehicles time. And I might add, when it's time to normally buy a new vehicle, it's at that point where the need is there. Some of those they get to a 1 point where it's more in the shop than it is running and it takes more time for Harold to have these things running than it pays to even keep them. And then there's enough mileage on them that it's time to put them to rest or to sell them to somebody else that wants to do that. 1 Now there's one other thing that you're saying with the smaller vehicle that we have. If we have that one, we will sell that and accrue dollars back to offset some of these other costs 1 that we have presently, right? Don Ashworth: Well again, I'll have to go through...and Charles, the report itself but I'm confident that the operating costs for the two older vehicles, whether it's just replacing transmission in one and axle in the other, I mean they're to the point where you just have continuous cost associated with keeping those two vehicles and I think that's going to more than offset any additional operating costs you might pick up. But again, I should work through that with Charles. I would recommend tabling of this item and I'll put it back on to the next agenda. 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah Don, I mean again. If it was just me I guess I don't know what the rest of the council feels but it just seems to me that if we had an inventory and we had a 1 43 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 policy, these issues become very easy to deal with when they come before the Council and it seems to be right now we lack, or at least the Council lacks that information and also policy and I think that's something that we should have in place. I don't know how the rest of the Council feels. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think you're right, we should have a policy in place but I'm really to move on this tonight. I don't have a problem with this acquisition. 1 Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, if I could just add one thing. If these vehicles are bought through the Hennepin County purchasing...The reason you do not have any other quotes in front of you tonight is that there are no other vehicles out there that you can buy at these discounted prices and there's a real question if we can even get these vehicles. Those...at our next meeting I know that they will not be there... Don Ashworth: Well then if that's the case, then I can respond to the questions. Take home policy, there's only one vehicle that goes home and that is with our Public Safety Director. It is a marked squad vehicle. He cannot use that for any other purpose other than basically just ' driving to and from his home. That is not true as it deals with our, if you are one of our sewer and water operators and you are assigned the task of being on call over the weekend, ' you take that vehicle home with you but I mean, I'm not really worried about that because large green trucks don't really get used for wrong purposes. That's really it. If employees use their vehicle, they are reimbursed mileage. 1 Councilman Senn: Well Don what I don't understand is in the memo here it was stated that the previous person to Charles had a car provided by the City and now Charles doesn't so 1 what I'm saying, to me there's no clarity in what is being said. Don Ashworth: And the City Council from approximately 4 or 5 years ago really questioned ' that take home privilege by that individual and we finally staff wise just said, it's not worth the number of questions that are coming up on whether or not this vehicle is being used properly or not. Charles was aware of some of those questions and just said, I'd just as soon not deal with them. I'll just leave the car here. Councilman Mason: So it sounds like we have two issues here then. One may be revisiting 1 what our policy is. Two, the city needs vehicles because of the two dogs that are currently almost out of existence. I mean, right? 1 Don Ashworth: And I think Charles' frustration, and I haven't asked the question head on but if you knew that you had a vehicle available to you, you would not, you're not seeking take home privileges, correct? 44 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 , 1 Charles Folch: That's correct. My only point, to point that out is that vehicle was specifically reserved and assigned to the previous City Engineer during the daytime basis. I I mean that's my main focus. I get called out to the job site. I get a resident that calls on a project, I need a vehicle to be able to go out and address that and I can't be fumbling through and trying to find a car to use. You know I really need that vehicle reserved for my purposes while I'm here at work. Not necessarily to take home. That's not my intent. Councilman Senn: No, and I'm not saying that it is but at the same time, we get the expense I approvals through and we're paying everybody mileage and, or I mean we're paying a number of people mileage. I'm just saying, it'd be nice to have some clarity to that policy is to who has cars, who doesn't. Who has cars available for use. Who uses their personal cars. 1 What mileage we pay them, etc. Don Ashworth: And I can put that report together. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen made a motion. Was there a second to that? I think you 1 said you were ready to move on it. Councilman Mason: I'll second. I Mayor Chmiel: It's moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I think Mark asked a good question. I think the policy and it's review 1 and any changes necessary maybe ought to be done before we buy new cars and make approvals for new vehicles. Staff's pretty conservative on vehicles but we keep adding them and I think Mark's questions are really valid. I think we'd be better served by answering those questions first and then with that information moving on additional purchases. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But as I understand, this is replacing, not adding. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no. This is replacing vehicles for vehicles. It's not an addition. 1 Councilman Mason: And if I might add, that's why I'm going along with the motion. If it was in addition to, I would have... 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's where I'm. Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question of clarification? I ou said we were only I thought C q g you rid of one vehicle. Did I misunderstand? 45 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I Don Ashworth: I don't know what we're doing with the wagon. 1 Charles Folch: The old blue and the old green...will go and Harold will try and band -aid old blue to get a couple more years of his use out of it. The Escort Wagon. 1 Mayor Chmiel: So long as we're replacing the other and we're still replacing the other as well. 1 Charles Folch: It appears that that would likely be the route we would go is to replace that... Councilman Wing: Ooh, then I want to tag on Mr. Senn a little more and say, maybe we I ought to have a replacement changeover policy. I mean we've got some dogs out there. Some real dump of cars that the Fire Department doesn't even want to use. We'd rather use I our own cars. But if we're getting to that point, maybe the city ought to be reviewing replacement on a more frequent basis with planned mileages or planned years, whatever the case is. How many vehicles do you need? What's the process to change them over and 1 maybe you want to keep with newer vehicles. On the other hand, you've done well nursing. Don Ashworth: Both these were scheduled to be replaced 3 years ago. If you go back in the 1 budget 3 years ago, you'll find those pulled. Councilman Mason: I think I can make a connection here with this issue and the hiring of I CSO's and as the city is growing, are internal services keeping up with the external demands, and I think maybe this is some stuff that will be coming out in the budgetary process that's coming up. So with the understanding that these are replacement vehicles, I'd like to call the 1 question. Resolution #93 -76: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to . 1 authorize a budget amendment to allow monies which had been pledged for a singular vehicle to be pledged to the acquisition of a pick -up (with camper top) for usage by the Park and Recreation Commission and a Ford Taurus which can be shared by the I Planning and Administration. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1 Councilman Mason: Could I, quick comment. We'll still be getting some kind of report here? 1 Mayor Chmie: Yes. Yes. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE 1 46 r City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6301 CHURCH ROAD, CHURCH ROAD ADDITION, GREG REED. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: We have before you a preliminary and fmal plat. The preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask a question? Why are we having the preliminary and final all at one time? Sharmin Al -Jaff: It's an extremely simple subdivision and typically we do have them both at 1 the same time, just like the one before, TJO. Mayor Chmiel: Clarification is all I wanted. Thank you. Can I have a motion? Oh, go ahead. Councilman Wing: If this a simple, is sim le and I guess I know about it because I was at Planning. The issue is the fire hydrant or sprinkling. What's the decision on that? Sharmin Al -Jaff: At this time? Councilman Wing: If this is the fmal plat, what is the decision on sprinkling versus the fire 1 hydrant as per the Fire Department request? Sharmin Al -Jaff: The final plat is only, is platting the Lot 2, 3 and 4 and out as an outlot so you're really not adding anything. At the time when they come in... Councilman Wing: The what? 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: Should I read the. Councilman Wing: For me, frankly yes. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Sharmin Al -Jaff: The preliminary plat proposes to subdivide the acreage into 4 parcels. Lot 2 contains an existing home and have frontage off of Church Road. Lot 1, 3 and 4 will take, excuse me. Lots 3 and 4 will gain access off of a private driveway off of Church Road. Lot 1 will have access off of 62nd Street. All 3 parcels, or all 4 parcels meeting the minimum 1 requirements. The one issue was fire hydrants for Lot 1. The Fire Department felt uncomfortable with servicing this parcel. If a fire hydrant was located here, it would be difficult to pull in a fire truck through here and then go over probably snow covered areas to 1 47 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 get to the fire hydrant and then service the structure. The fire department recommended either sprinklers in the home or add a fire hydrant in this location. Both those alternatives are I fine with the applicant so at the time when they come in to plat those three parcels, they will provide either /or. However, at this time they are proposing to just have Lot 1, for the final plat and the rest of the acreage will be platted into an outlot. And that's why you have two I sets of conditions. Staff is recommending approval of both preliminary and final plat with the addition of one condition to the final plat approval. Condition number 3 would read, a 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted along the frontage of Church Road. 1 Mayor Chmiel: 20 foot you said? Sharmin Al -Jaff: 20 foot wide. I Councilman Senn: Okay, so on the basis that they're platting only Lot 1 and the rest as an outlot, for now the sprinkler versus. I Sharmin Al -Jaff: Is not an issue. 1 Councilman Senn: It's a non issue. I Sharmin Al -Jaff: Because we won't allow them to build on Outlot A until they've platted. r Chmiel: Okay, good. Is Greg Reed here this evening? I Mayo C y, g g guess he isn't. Was he g g pretty much in agreement with what was being proposed? Any discussion? If hearing none, I I'll call the question, or request a motion. I Councilman Senn: So move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. 1 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat #93- 15 for Church Road Addition as shown on the plans dated July 7, 1993, and subject to 1 the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the flag lot standards in the RSF district. I 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the city with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper installation of the public 1 improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat. 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in full at the rate then in force, upon building permit I 48 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 application. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted along the frontage of Church Road. 1 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. MnDot, Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC. ' 5. The developer shall construct the public utility improvements. Upon completion and acceptance, utility improvements lying within public easements on Lot 3 shall become city property except those utilities (sewer and water) lying north of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3. Those utilities shall be owned and maintained by the property owner of Lot 1. The individual house services outside of the easement shall be privately owned 1 and maintained by the property owner. 6. The construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be in 1 accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 1 7. In lieu of constructing on -site retention ponds, the applicant shall provide the City Storm Water Management Fund with a cash contribution in the amount to be determined by staff in accordance with the City Storm Water Management Plan. 8. The applicant shall name the private driveway and City shall install the appropriate 1 street signage. The cost of the sign shall be billed back to the developer in accordance with the development contract. 9. A cross access or driveway easement including a maintenance agreement shall be drafted for Lots 1, 3 and 4. 10. The City will not permit open cutting all the way across Church Road for extension of utilities. The applicant will be required to extend the existing water stub across from Meadow Lane on the east boulevard of Church Road along the private into the development. 11. Access to Lot 1 shall be via the private driveway access off of Church Road unless a home fire sprinkler is installed in the home. Lot 4 shall have no access onto State Trunk Highway No. 7. 1 12. The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City's private driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7 ton design. 49 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 I 13. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook. I 14. All drain tile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage through the site. and also approve Final Plat for Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plan dated August 17, 1 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 1 shall have a rear and front yard utility and drainage easement of 10 feet and 5 1 feet on the side. 2. Connection to the city water will be required when the well on the property (Lot 1, 1 Block 1) fails. I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: Don, if I could add a caveat to that. Would it be possible to ask the, my I only issue on this when I was reading...really this issue of fire hydrant versus sprinkling for a residential structure. And I had some real pull and tugs going on on myself over that stuff. Can we maybe ask the Fire Department to kind of give us some thoughts on that? To me it's I simply an issue that requires a fire hydrant to be extended. I have a little problem with us starting to require residential sprinkling. But again, maybe that's an incorrect way to think on my part but I'd rather hear it from kind of the people who know what they're doing and it'd 1 be nice to ask the question before this becomes an issue rather than as or after. Mayor Chmiel: Well and I think they're just taking a precautionary portion... as I think they I probably should but they're taking a precautionary position. If the extension of a hydrant is not there for that person, how do they provide that amount of safety and sprinkling would be the only way. And it's not mandatory by any means of the imagination but it's from a 1 standpoint of protectiveness for that individual. But I think we can request some information back from the Fire Department. 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think that'd be helpful...understanding what Sharmin said. The applicant was agreeable to do either and I guess what I'm saying, I'm not sure we want to put ourselves in the position to leave it an either or. Maybe we want to have again specific 1 requirements. 1 Councilman Wing: We do. 50 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: Do we? Do you have one then? Councilman Wing: I think the idea of giving 2 options were his choice because there's 1 basically no water to the property. So if he chooses not to use a hydrant connection, and he'd have to put in the tanks, the pumps, to sprinkle the house in a non - hydrant area is what I he's doing. Long term, I don't think that would be. We're encouraging sprinkling of houses and we're hoping it will become the norm because it clearly, it's got some insurance ramifications and there's no question it saves lives. In this case, I think if this came back for I a final plat, we'd want to talk hydrant. Councilman Senn: The hydrant? 1 Councilman Wing: I think so. I think if the Fire Marshal was here, he would specify that would be his first choice. The sprinkling is an option. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Richard. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: We already voted. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I know. I'm just throwing it out. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sorry. MILLTRON I CS FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13,653 SQUARE FOOT I ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 33,453 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION CONTROL), ON 1 PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, MILLTRONICS. I Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is the third...since 1987. The addition is going to be a mirror image of the existing building. Parking is being added. Basically...meets all of the requirements of the I ordinance. However, there are two variances. The first one is a watershed variance. The watershed requirement...creek. The creek runs just south of the site. In this location is an improvement to the 100 foot setback...and we're requesting that the applicant revise the plan to eliminate this area completely. The second variance is a DNR variance. The DNR does not allow more than 25% hard surface coverage on a site. However, with that ordinance they anticipate that the site is going to be 50 feet from the creek as well as there would be I absolutely no improvement to the water. This is not the case here. The site is set 100 feet from the creek, which is double what the DNR requires. We also have two ponds downstream to treat the water. And when we presented those solutions to the DNR they felt 1 51 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 ' comfortable recommending approval of the variance and there is a memo enclosed within the report to that effect. We are recommending approval of this proposal with conditions outlined in the report. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Just one quick question. I read in here too that the amount of chemicals on site are minimal and are stored in a building in 1 or 2 gallon containers. Are those stored in a self contained area with those respective containers with at least termed as 1 foot of free board in the event any of those may burst or all burst? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Sorry, I don't... 1 Mayor Chmiel: I just think it's a good cautionary thing to do so in the event of any kind of spill that it would just automatically stay within it's own self containment and that can be a steel liner, plastic liner, depending upon the thickness. Okay, is there anyone here from ' Milltronics who would like to address this? If not, bring it back to Council. Any discussions? 1 Councilman Senn: The only thing I'd like to see is...the plan shows a fair amount of existing vegetation there which is all going to be basically destroyed during the construction. Is there anything that we can shown as vegetation that's going to remain in place? It seems to me ' this building... so I'd like to see some new, and at least greater amounts of vegetation added to the north side with a combination of both some coniferous and some deciduous. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin. In reference to Mark's question, what is the requirement by the City for the screening within that particular area? 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: ...meeting the requirements of the landscape ordinance. However, staff is recommending that 5 additional trees be planted along the north side. r Councilman Senn: But wasn't that still assuming that the existing vegetation was going to stay when I talked to you? I mean really that's all I'm asking. That there be some 1 replacement in there too... Sharmin Al -Jaff: ...so if you wanted additional trees... Mayor Chmiel: I just want to make sure that what we're doing is not putting undue burden and my concerns are that, if they're going to do an adequate job of screening with the 1 additional 5 trees more than you requested, how many more should be there over and above what you've indicated...to meet Mark's thought that he has proposed. 1 52 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: The majority of the trees that will be removed are basically scrub trees. We would need to replace some with...trees. Staff felt comfortable with 5 additional trees to do the screening along the north side. However if you wanted to, I don't know, double it. Mayor Chmiel: Richard, you look like you'd like to say something. 1 Councilman Wing: Oh, I was just stretching. Although good corporate citizens don't ever balk at a few more trees in Chanhassen. That's my opinion. Good corporation citizens would never question your request, whether it's required or not. I guess I would go along with Mark's suggestion that maybe change that to adequate screening, whatever that might be and if it's more than 5, so be it but I would leave that to your discretion. I think you've pushed for screening and trees diligently and I don't know if that satisfies or helps you at all Mark. Councilman Senn: Well I'd really like to see a combination there. I mean what you asked for was 5 over building trees and I'd like to see maybe 5 overbuilding trees and then some interspersed maybe some pines or something like that that g P Y P are more of a year round screening. Councilman Wing: That's a good idea. Councilman Senn: And they're more down breaking up the back side of the building wall or 1 whatever versus the, I mean that's not the cute side of the building so to speak. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, would you like to make a 1 motion? Councilman Senn: Sure, I'll move approval with the addition of additional landscaping to 1 staff's, how should I term that Sharmin? Mayor Chmiel: With staff's expertise. Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan Review #87 -9 with a variance to the hard surface coverage, as shown on the plan dated July 14, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1 53 i 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1. No outdoor storage of trash shall be permitted except at the location indicated on the plans. ' 2. The applicant shall submit grading plans to city staff to determine if a retaining wall is required along the north property line between the proposed building and adjacent to 1 the north. 3. The Surface Water Management Fee currently charge to the parcel will increase accordingly when the site expansion is completed. 4. Provide 5 additional overstory trees from the city's approved tree list along the north 1 portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re- established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site, especially along the creek. The site should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb line with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the parking lot. In this specific area, the two rows of sod should be required as well as seed and erosion control blanket on the slopes toward Riley- Purgatory Creek. 1 5. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. 6. Delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, the applicant ' shall add shrubbery along the south side of the parking lot to eliminate runoff and erosion and to control parking along that side. 7. The design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed district setback. 8. The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly parking lot shall be sodded and the curb shall be extended around them with the exception of the triangle located to the southwest of the parking lot. This triangle shall remain bituminous so it will not impede drainage. 9. If rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be required. ' 10. Additional landscaping will be required per staff's approval. P g 54 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING 1 SEXUALLY ORIENTATED BUSINESSES. Mayor Chmiel: It's been a long time coming. 1 Paul Krauss: ...Planning Commission. That was done. There were a couple of things raised I at the Planning Commission that were left unresolved and one question that Councilman Senn raised as well...But basically the approach is establishing a license for these types of uses. A fee for that license. An annual fee and a setback requirement that establishes a minimum separation between sensitive land uses and these types of uses. It's your obligation to provide some place where these things could...if they wanted to. Again, we don't have anybody banging down the doors trying to get into Chanhassen with these things but this is the kind of I thing that could happen at anytime and we've seen communities that have gotten stuck without any tools...so we're recommending that it be approved. The areas that warrant a little more discussion is...Councilman Senn asked about fee structure, and I've asked the City I Attorney to either respond to that tonight. The current fee structure we would recommend is $500.00...year. The item the Planning Commission came up with was, that the physical separation standard apply to public facilities as well as those that were listed. The public 1 facilities being libraries, senior centers, whatever... With that I guess I'll pass it back over to you and possibly Roger...fee structure. Paul. Roger, o you have any infinite words of wisdom? I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you a g y y Roger Knutson: I'm not going to bore you with a lecture on...the general rule, subject to an 1 exception, is that fees...cover your administrative and enforcement costs of the ordinance and they're all...may be a good idea to...together with Scott Harr and discuss with him what he i thinks it will cost to enforce this on a case by case basis...and we'll get back to you in the second reading with a suggestion on what an appropriate fee would be. Mayor Chmiel: And that would be with an ongoing kind of thing as well. In other words, 1 we're going to have those places and we're going to have to do a little more reviewing of it over those period of years. I Roger Knutson: I mean the practice has always been to set fees by resolution which is kind of a good practice because these get changed. Annually you will update it to experience... 1 Councilman Senn: Because this could run into thousands right? 1 55 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's what I put down there and that's why Councilman Wing went. I had $10,000.00. I thought it was reasonable. Councilman Senn: It's even too cheap then. One other question about sensitive uses. I don't find any or I mean maybe I'm missing something here but where is our list of all the 1 sensitive uses? Roger Knutson: Sensitive? ' Paul Krauss: Well the uses for which the setback applies. 1 Roger Knutson: They're towards the end. Councilman Senn: I looked for it. I just must have kept missing it. It wasn't maybe a big enough list, I don't know. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we walk a pretty thin line between having to have it somewhere and not wanting it anywhere. Mayor Chmiel: We're not looking forward to getting one of these but this is something that many cities had problems with and they darn near put it anyplace they wanted to. 1 Roger Knutson: Bottom of page 12, Section 10 -162. Councilman Wing: I think I should take the advocate's position here. This is just. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: For fun or what? 1 Councilman Wing: No, it's seriousness. What if I happen to like this type of stuff and believe we should have it in the city. What are you guys going to do then? I may represent the majority of this community. But I move approval. And this is just first reading? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1 Councilman Wing: What position are we at on this by the way? 1 Mayor Chmiel: This is our first reading. 56 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 f 1 Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Wing: Well this has gone a long way. A lot of work's gone into it. A lot of 1 discussion via prior Councils and I'll approve the first reading. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilman Mason: Yep. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: One question I guess. Have we stretched, you know to all possible limits 1 the definition of sensitive areas? Mayor Chmiel: The only place I'd like to put them would be in the industrial park. I Councilman Senn: Well I mean that's kind of what I'm coming back to. I mean is there, are I there court established definitions as to what are and what aren't sensitive areas? Have we pushed it to the max? I mean how does our ordinance relate to that? Roger Knutson: There's more than one way regulating ulating this type of business, as I think I g Paul's cover letter points out. There is called the war zone. Put them all together. Put a fence around them and put a lot of policemen there. St. Paul tried that. When you decide 1 where that area is going to be, folks around there...next to them. You're at war with a war zone. Another approach on community use is minimum separation from various things. And what the court looks at is if you give these businesses a reasonable opportunity to come into I your community, and you have to be very, very careful and the courts are very sensitive to what a reasonable opportunity is. If you, and it'd be very easy to do. You could say, they have to be 500 feet from this, 1,000 feet from this and 700 feet from this and all of a sudden, although it looks like you can have them, you can't. And then you have nothing...strike down the ordinance. Can you push for more? Perhaps, yes. But then you have to do a real study...put it in the darkest corner of the darkest industrial park. Councilman Senn: Well that was my next question. I mean have we taken a map and drawn I this out 500 feet? Roger Knutson: I have not. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we have a motion on the floor with a second to have Roger have some discussions with Scott to come up with that fee. I think that $500.00 is very 1 57 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 minimal. 1 Councilman Senn: And we'll have that back before second reading? The results of that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve first reading of City 1 Code amendment to Chapter 10 of the City Code regarding sexually oriented businesses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CITY PROGRAM OPTIONS. I Don Ashworth: For item A I would like to have Todd Hoffman present the report. 1 Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. In regard to my portion of the presentation this evening, I apologize if I'm not as lively as usual. I've been under the I weather the past couple of days. A condition which my doctor attributes to stress and stress related... As you are aware, the city's participation in building a school in the city dates back for some time. We all...participated with the district as they put forth an effort to pass a I referendum to fund the construction of a new high school and a new elementary school. The elementary school being located at Highway 5. The intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd in Chanhassen. In designating this site it was the city's intention to participate at some I level in the development of the school and the school grounds. At present approximately 20 acres is assigned to the school and 20 acres is assigned to the city in the park district. The firm of HGA was retained by the city to develop a city program and preliminary concepts for I the school site. These concepts were initially presented to the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, on Monday, July 19th of this year. Direction from the Council that evening was to review this issue independently with the Park and 1 Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. Review by the Park and Recreation and Planning departments and commissions did take place on Tuesday, August 10th and Wednesday, August 18th respectively. I will be happy to provide the Council with additional 1 information regarding those meetings if you so choose. Actions taken by the Park and Recreation Commission on the 10th was a motion made by Vice Chairperson Andrews and seconded by Chairman Schroers to recommend the City Council proceed with the I development of Option No. 2 as the preferred program for the school property. All voted in favor that evening and the motion passed unanimously. Planning director has provided an update that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their August 18th meeting, as I 58 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 support and...proposal as presented. From time to time the Cou ncil has asked for pp ort from it's various commission members. I believe we have 6 of 7 Park Commissioners present with us this evening...ask questions of them. We also have present Mr. Dave Lescheck and Mr. Bob Rothman with HGA and John Gockel, the Construction Manager for the School District in this regard. These gentlemen will provide the Council with a presentation in this regard. In regard to the city's program and the preliminary concepts that have been developed to date. Prior to that presentation however I would like to bow to Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss to provide their...in this regard. And lastly, staff is requesting that the Council reach a conclusion in this regard this evening. I would be happy to discuss with you the reasons why we need to move forward with this issue and would be...the city program in this regard if the Council wishes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions? Richard. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think some good points were brought up at the Park and 1 Rec Commission and the one that most concerned me was funding. If we use TIF dollars to do this project, what are we foregoing? And there are a couple of things that we may be foregoing, whether or not we get the ISTEA funding for the Bluff Creek underpass. But it is my understanding that that district will be refunded by additional dollars when the office park expands. Is that correct? 1 Don Ashworth: If you see additional expansion, the numbers will get larger, meaning there'd be more increment available for potential new projects. One of the discussions Todd Hoffman and I had was right now there haven't been other projects that emerged so this is really the only one that I'm aware of that's going to be in front of you. And our discussion was, the idea of the field house was very interesting. One in which I think the community 1 could benefit from but are you better off in trying to take a bird in the hand or wait a few years to take and go for something larger. And I guess our conclusion was, you're probably better off. You've got the money. They're doing the construction now. This is the time to 1 do it. Go with the smaller program and do it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And I wasn't specifically saying build onto this current project but other projects that we may have in that district. But again you're saying if additional expansion does take place within the district, that the TIF fund will be refunded by those monies. So we're not completely blowing our wad on this project I guess is what I'm saying. 1 Don Ashworth: Right. Although that district is also a shorter duration and if someone will have to come in within the next year, two at the most to see those dollars significantly grow. , 5 9 1 I City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any others Colleen? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No questions at this time. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. 1 Councilman Senn: I guess, I don't know. Maybe it's just hashing a old dead horse but I guess I've got to hash it anyway. I really don't have a problem with this kind of joint use or discussion if we're talking about outdoor uses such as fields and stuff like we have at central I park. I don't see a real big issue with that. I think it's a big leap to jump the city into a building situation attached to schools. I think that's a real policy consideration for the city. I And I guess in my mind that's not one we just act on as an administrative item on the agenda. I think that's something we should really have a public hearing on and make an open decision on. Aside from that, again I'd like to really advocate taking a little bit more of I a global look at this thing. When this issue came up, words quickly started coming out with, we have to forget about the community center. Or we have to put the community center on hold. It's in more memorandums we received tonight and stuff. You know this economic 1 development district's boundaries can be altered. They aren't set. I mean they can be altered anytime we want to alter them and maybe that's something we should look at and revisit the entire issue of the community's needs and the potential community center and where we use I those bucks. We heard from staff that we're short on TIF funds in the downtown district, and that may impact or potentially impact whether we can do a community center or not. We haven't really looked at ways, I mean are there ways to expand the boundaries of the I economic development district. I don't know, maybe something as crazy as, you know you draw the line in such a manner that half the building's in one district and half's in the other and maybe we still want to look at a community center or something. It just seems we ought I to really take that type of at least study or look at things before we proceed with that type of a decision and adding onto the building out there. Especially under any pretense that it's going to, will replace the need for a community center one way or another. More closely 1 associated with downtown and again we really just look at the policy issue of adding, using city funds to add onto school buildings. And I understand the issues that we can, I mean the point's made that we're going to program those buildings as community programming 100% I of the time and stuff and I just have a hard time I guess accepting that that's an assured and that that's going to be assured forever with this kind of decision, especially when there's no joint powers agreements or anything in front of us that tells us what protections we have in 60 1 1 i City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 relationship to that at this point, and yet we're being asked to make a decision so, that's just my views. That's it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I'm not going to beat a dead horse. I think just on that last position of working with the school district as we have, we've worked with them before and we've worked everything out as a city and I expect we're going to do that again. And I don't see that as a real given problem. So with that I'd like to call the question on this. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, would you like to hear at all from HGA in this regard, or have you heard that before? Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably, well let me ask Council. Would you like to hear more on that? Councilman Wing: I'd like to see the reviewed. 1 ro Cou g proposal Todd Hoffman: They do have copies of the latest version of the program 1 Councilman Wing: I'd like to see it and I don't have it in front of me here. That's why I was curious because I happen to agree with Mark. I was happy here with the land and 1 assisting the land use and purchase of and paying that down. Then I kind of for some reason were thinking we were bowing out and we weren't going to be building the school. But I don't know. I have concerns about HRA priorities and expenditures. I'm not sure this is where I would want the money either so I'd like to hear more about it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1 Councilman Wing: Although I'm not taking on Park and Rec Mark, I'll tell you that. Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the factors that I see with this is, there are a lot of people who have looked at this. A lot of people have considered it and I respect their opinions on it because they deal with in on an everyday basis. We deal with it every once in a while and I know where they're coming from and they're looking to see what's going to be best for the city. We look at it from the best of what are our expenditures and I think expenditures in this particular case have been, should be put to sleep as far as I'm concerned. Councilman Wing: Would you allow the time to have that proposal reviewed? I'd like to see it. Mayor Chmiel: Be more than happy. 1 61 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Councilman Mason: While they're getting ready, I'd just like to make the quick comment. I was at that July 19th meeting and we were asked to make some decisions that night and I was one of the many I think that said look, I want to hear what all the commissions have to say before I get my two cents in. And this has been pretty unanimous all the way down the road and I don't think I like spending city's money or TIF's money anymore than anyone else does but the cry for recreational facilities of any kind int his city, wherever they may be, I see as a paramount issue. So I'll listen. Mayor Chmiel: Who's on fast? Dave Lescheck: My name is Dave Lescheck. I'm the architect for Hammel- Green- Abrahamson and what Todd has passed out to you is an abbreviated version of the new program for the new facility here in Chanhassen. There are four parts to this abbreviated program which I'll review with you. In it has the community program areas, the school program areas so that you can compare one versus the other where it's referenced. Budgets and a schedule. The first page, page 5 entitled ISD #112 Area Summary, that is the space... description for the new elementary school facility. Indicated below that are the area summaries for both Option 1 and Option 2 and as Todd has mentioned, Option 2 is the preferred option at this point. And as you can see that the original building is approximately 90,000 square feet and by choosing Option 2, the city is basically committing another 21,000 square feet to this building. 9,600 square feet of which is the physical education option and then another 5,000 square feet of community programming. Those are further delineated as you go through the program. Page 11 is the physical education program for the school. This is what normally would be provided in an elementary school or facility of this type. What you see there is a gymnasium of approximately 4,800 square feet and some smaller accessory spaces that would accompany that. And this has been included in your packet as referenced because if you turn the page, you'll find physical education program, the community program Option 1 and you can see that the gymnasium has grown significantly in size. This option is 1 not the preferred option but we've included it just for you reference to see how this program started is by putting together a menu of spaces which was then reviewed. Coming up with both Option 1 and Option 2. Option 2 being that which was preferred by this Board. The Option 2, which is on page 15, indicates that the gymnasium now has shrunk to 10,800 square feet but it's available to the community. Whether the school's in session, when it's available to the community is either one full court basketball surface or two 3/4 court 1 surfaces. After hours another full court basketball court becomes available or two more 3/4 courts become available. There's seating provided for approximately 200. There's an aerobics room. Locker rooms. A fitness room. A separate entry and community storage. ' All of that makes up Option 2, the preferred option. The 9,600 square feet is in addition to the school district's 5,750 square feet that they have already programmed into the building. The next page, page 23 is the Chanhassen community program. This program includes a 62 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 4,000 square foot space that would be useable with the four separate spaces. Whether they could be available for craft shows, social receptions, scout meetings. Along with that would I be additional storage, a janitor's closet, additional toilets and again an entry of some sort. One of the advantages of having this is that it has been identified that the school's kitchen facility should be in close proximity to this space so that again the community would have that available to them to use in association with this program spaces that we would be adding to this facility. So you can begin to see that there are some real advantages to getting on board with the school district. The next page, page 29 is the ISD 112 program exterior I activities and again this is included as referenced in your packet. This again would be what would normally be provided for an elementary facility of this type. One softball field, one soccer field, parking, a bus drop off, playgrounds, that is what would normally be provided. I The following page indicates those additional exterior activities or fields that have again or will be programmed into this site. The 20 acres for instance that Todd has already mentioned. You see 4 more soccer fields as well as 4 softball fields. Additional parking. I More...another soccer field... Also it would be connected to the city's trail system. On the following page, page 45. This is the budget sheet that has been put together for this project. If you see the ISD 112 Project Budget, approximately $9 million. Further below you have 1 the Chanhassen Project Budget Option No. 2 for an additional $2 million approximately. These numbers have been established using the same numbers that we have or are using for the school district at this time. On the next page, you have a schedule for this project. It is a 1 proposed scheduled of the formal review process that we would be anticipating occurring with the city. You can see ISD 112 listed at the top. City of Chanhassen listed directly below it. I We of course realize that there would be ongoing, informal project meetings which would be scheduled with the community staff people involved with this project so as to facilitate the implementation of this community program into the entire building project. And as you can I see, we are currently in the schematic design phase of this project. This project is scheduled to be opened in the fall of 1995. That is part of the reason why you may feel that this project is really being pushed in some manner when it comes to this project. The school's desire for additional classroom space is great at this time and they would like to see this project be on line for 1995. That is the more or less a brief review of the document that you have in front of you. If you have any additional questions, I'd certainly attempt at I answering them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. 1 Councilman Wing: Representative Workman pursued gymnasiums. I remember every time he brought up the gymnasium I fell asleep. I could care less. I have no need nor does my I family for gymnasiums. However, we're runners. What happened to the track? Everything we've talked about from the downtown right on through had a track and now it's deleted in Option 2. Why did Park and Rec delete and/or running track which really serves the 1 63 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 community at large, especially the women that don't play basketball. Todd Hoffman: With the city's inability to look at Option 1 which included a much larger gymnasium. You would have been able to put the track up, second level on the mezzanine and you had sufficient distance to justify the expense... Downsizing the gymnasium or if you downsize this track or whether it would be to such a point where people would not utilize it and just because a short distance... Don Ashworth: How short would the track be? I mean are we kind of on an edge type of thing? 1 Councilman Mason: You could get dizzy and fall over. Dave Lescheck: The initial discussions were that the curves would become so banked that it 1 would be almost impossible to run that track. Councilman Mason: You'd really have to go fast on those comers. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a 4 uestion about the layout of it. Is that still, I mean if we approve the pieces of it, are we still open to shifting where things are? I mean we talked about should the hockey facility be up near the road or should it be closer. I mean do we still have the ability to move things around? 1 Dave Lescheck: I think at this time, again we are in schematic phase and there certainly, as I mentioned during the schedule, we would be working with your staff to make sure that their portions of the program are in fact what it is they want...At this point that schematic site plan, there still are a number of variables, whether it be location...Highway 5, the proposed relocation of Highway 5...Galpin as well as the collector streets themselves which they really haven't been determined at this time. So I think when you're looking at that schematic plan, you need to keep in mind that it is just that and the real intent there, correct me if I'm wrong. 1 Bob Rothman: It's still considered the concept plan. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's still a concept, okay. Dave Lescheck: Yeah, is that we have got...the 4 soccer fields, the 4 softball fields at this point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. So whether we terrace those or whatever this facility is up here and the tennis courts are here is still all open? 64 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Dave Lescheck: That is correct. Don Ashworth: I think it should be recognized that the School Board has a number of 1 questions similar to yourself so they want to be assured that the gymnasium, what they're buying for a gymnasium is on their property. That the school is on their property. Your question such as electrical service and I would see that, I guess I visualize this as we own a park out there. We're going out and we're putting a gymnasium on our property along with these supportive type of uses. The school is building a school and a gymnasium. Their gymnasium will happen to be right next to our's. Since we can influence their decision, we don't really want them to build a gymnasium like they built over here. We don't want a 15 foot high ceiling, singular gym that can only be used by an 8 to 12 year old. We'd like to have the gym have the additional height and the additional width and the additional length so you can break it into two 3/4 courts that can be used by adults. So in the evening we would have 4 courts. But I would support the Mayor's position and that is that we faced a number of issues with the School District over the years and we have resolved those to the benefit of both parties. Regardless of what the issue was. I have no question in my mind that we can figure out how to make sure that we're paying the electrical service cost for our part of the building and they're paying their part for their part of the building. That we work out an amicable arrangement in regards to maintenance of the overall piece of property, because quite truthfully the School District has no means to mow 42 acres of grass. I mean they're just not going to be able to do that. So there are a number of issues that we will have to work out but we've worked them out at the elementary school. We'll work them out at the new one. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I just have one additional question and that is to share facilities. Separate entrances. How all that works. Is there some examples that we can look 1 to where we've seen this kind of arrangement before so we know security and all those other things? Dave Lescheck: I think the one example is Delano. Their new elementary school or recently completed, I believe they've been in there a couple of years. They have a community, well they have expanded their gymnasium to accommodate the community as well as incorporate some meeting rooms into that same wing of the building and I believe you could go to their facility and visit and take a look to see how that's been handled. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, so this is kind of new ground but we're not on the. Dave Lescheck: No, not necessarily. HGA, a little background on HGA is that we, Bob and 1 I we belong to the educational segment. The firm's a large firm is broken into segments of building types. Our's just happens to be education and we are probably what, a regional firm. 65 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Meaning that we do work in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota and what we find is that this is not something new to schools. Schools are becoming more aware of the fact that I facilities cost significant dollars to build, especially with the advent of technology into the educational process and I believe that they are looking for ways to expand the use of their building. This building, for instance, a portion of the program that you do not have is their I ECFE program which is a program that states that a service...that the services offered through this program, by the way the ECFE program indicates it's an Early Childhood and Family Education and this program states that the services offered through the ECFE program must I be available to the community 7 days a week as well as...so this building is intended to really be a community type of facility. That was the desire of the School District when they began to put this building program together. And they felt that if they could bring the city of 1 Chanhassen on board, that they'd only expand on this idea or this concept and make it truly just that. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay so we do know, sorry to cut you short but we do know how to deal with those issues? 1 Dave Lescheck: Yes. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: No comments. No questions. I Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. Not on the layout. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thanks. I Larry Schroers: Mayor and City Council. I'm Larry Schroers, 1020 Carver Beach Road and Chairman of the Park and Rec Commission. I think that very briefly I could address a couple of Mr. Senn's concerns regarding the development and...to replace the community center at I all. We see this as an outstanding opportunity to address some current needs in a timely manner, particularly in regard to organized youth activities, which is something that we need right now and something that we'd be able to capitalize on and be made to benefit the city. I And this would also give us more diverse opportunities at such time as the community center becomes a reality by having these current facilities in place and in existence, we would be able to take a better look at what other options and maybe it will build into a community I 66 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 center at that point in the But we certainly expect this to take e p lace of a community center. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Councilman Senn: I have a question for the Chairman of the Parks and Rec Commission, if I could. As far as the Parks and Rec Commission goes, if you knew that this district's boundaries could be expanded, okay. And given other priorities that Parks and Rec has, and given potentially so that there will or won't be enough funds available for a community center in the other district, is that something you looked at? Considered in your priority scheme? Were you aware that the boundaries of this district could be expanded? Larry Schroers: Yes, we were aware that it could be expanded and from our point of view, hopefully would happen and there would be more tax increment financing money available for the things that we need but in terms of priorities, facilities for organized youth sporting activities is a number one priority and a community center is more like nice to. We would like to have it but the more urgent need is to facilitate the needs of the youth programs in the city. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Larry. Any other? 1 Councilman Wing: What do we have to do with this tonight? Mayor Chmiel: That was my question. If we continue to pursue this, that's what I'm, that's what I was curious as to where and what direction. Don Ashworth: Yes, Mr. may. Mayor if I ma Y Y Mayor Chmiel: Don. 1 Don Ashworth: The HGA and the School District have a concern as to whether or not the City does wish to see this program element added to the overall school project and whether or not they should be moving into the specific design stage with the understanding that these program elements would be added to that overall work effort and knowing you haven't seen the master plan yet and you don't have a specific building to look at and have you adequately addressed the security issues and all the rest of those things. But is the city supporting the overall idea of incorporating these program elements with the assumption that they will come 111 up with a specific design element and bring those back to you and show you how security works and how ownership, how we own one part of the building and how the School District owns the other. All of the questions that you basically have been asking, you will get 1 67 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 responses to. But are you generally in support of this work effort to attempt to present this final plan because if we're not, then they need to know that so they can just go ahead with 1 developing a master plan for an elementary school. I guess that's. Mayor Chmiel: That was my concern. We're going what direction and I think that's what 1 we're going to come up with right now. As Don has indicated, we either continue to pursue the options as presented, or we say whoa and stop. And I think we all need to know that there is the additional needs here and the other questions that were posed have already been 1 answered, as far as I'm concerned. And it looks like this is something that is not new but it's innovative and I think we should try to pursue that particular position. So with that, I would call a question of whether or not for us to continue to pursue the options as presented by the 1 Independent School District 112 for the new elementary school. Would there be a motion to continue. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to make that motion to continue pursuing the option. Councilman Mason: I would like to second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? 1 Councilman Senn: This only pertains to pursuing the issue. Mayor Chmiel: That's what we're looking at. The program and preliminary concepts as to what's coming through. Councilman Senn: So there will, I mean again. I look at this beyond just an administrative issue. I think there's a significant policy issue here that really needs to be exposed for some public input. And if this is kind of matter of facting or precluding the expenditure of $2.5 million on the project, I want to be real clear that this isn't that because I think if we're going to spend $2.5 million on this project, I think first of all under State law we're required to have a public hearing just as we did on spending the million dollars for the land or 700 after the school portion came in. But I mean if that's all we're talking about is pursuing or looking at or studying I guess a concept, I guess that's what I want to understand. Is that what we're talking about or are we talking about something beyond that? Don Ashworth: So long as staff and the consultant continue to bring back responses to you and how we can overcome security issue. How we can ensure that the two pieces. I think staff would like to have the assurance that the Council and the School District wants the assurance that you're not going to pull the rug out from under them and say oh. Well I never understood that we were going to spend $2.5 million. Or I never understood that we were 68 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 hi divided into four 3 going to try to build 2 gymnasiums which are 4's. I think that if staff and d / HGA and the school district continue to resolve the issues that you've presented and then you were to take and say, oh no. We really didn't mean it. I think the School Board would be very disappointed. Staff would be and I think the consultant. Councilman Senn: Okay but that doesn't answer the question of public input. I mean I think I we need to get public input before we make the decision. If you're saying we're going to be leading the school district down, then I think we ought to stop right now and get the public input before we, in your words, lead them on. Don Ashworth: If the Council wants to have that officially out of the way, and I think that Councilman Senn is correct. The Economic Development District Todd has been modified to include the land acquisition. Have we shown in that plan modification the actual improvement of this site to include for example the gymnasium? 1 Todd Gerhardt: I'm trying to remember. I do not think so. I think it just highlighted public improvements and land acquisition. 1 Don Ashworth: So that there were no further, so there weren't questions on this, the best action we should be then taking tonight is in addition to the generalized support, actually calling for the public hearing and if we can get that taken care of in 2 weeks, we do it in 2 weeks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we should. Councilman Wing: I think that when we authorize the pursuit of this, we're authorizing 1 major expenditures. I mean you're pulling out $3,000.00 here and $7,000.00 here and blowing fuses, if I can just use that word. I mean it's not like this is going to be $10,000.00. This is going to be tens of thousands when we start pursuing this and my recollection of all the meetings I've attended is we had land acquisition. I wasn't building a school at that point. Councilman Mason: But we're not building a school. Councilman Wing: Noo, but we're building. 1 Mayor Chmiel: We're building the additional facilities...budget. Councilman Wing: Yeah, we weren't involved in structures. And now we're crossing over HRA. Here's the City Council sitting here saying well, let's do it. There's the HRA saying, 1 69 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 well we don't have the money or we do have the money and we've got all these TIF districts and are we incringing on HRA's ground here a little bit? Mayor Chmiel: No, this district's an Economic Development District. It's governed by the Council. Councilman Wing: No issue at all involving the HRA. Councilman Senn: No, this isn't an HRA district. Councilman Wing: So we're not going to get into TIF and the HRA? Senn: Well it's TIF. Don't get that wrong. Se . g g Councilman Wing: But under an economic district. That's where I'm losing this. This goes over my head. Okay. Alright, that wasn't clear to me. That wasn't clear to me. I thought this was all TIF through McGlynn's but you're saying that that entire district then is an economic district, right? Is that what you said? 1 Councilman Senn: Right. Councilman Wing: I didn't understand that. So then I'm lost on that issue. So forget that HRA and pardon me Mike. I was staring at you. Let's pursue this but let's get the public hearing going. Councilman Mason: The public hearing, yeah. I mean we have to do it. I think we, as leaders of this community need to understand that we have an opportunity here that will not present itself again. And I think, I don't, obviously we need public input and I'm not in any way trying to preclude that but I, sometimes I think this Council gets so distraught over, well I can't even find the words. It's getting too late. But there's an opportunity here that we can share in what I see as a very beneficial project for, obviously for the school. What we're going to do I don't see benefitting the school. I see it benefitting the city of Chanhassen and we're not raising taxes by doing it. I mean this is some arguments we've gone over so much. So fine, I say move ahead with it. I say do the public hearing. Let's get rolling on this. We've been dragging our feet long enough. I mean how many questions can we ask and how many times can they be answered in 10 different ways. r Councilman Wing: Okay, okay. What can I do to cooperate? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion? 70 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. Councilman Senn: You know and I thought MnDot had been trying to talk to both counties 1 into taking it but neither one wants to take it. I mean MnDot has said very clearly they have no plans to do anything with TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: Well and not only that but you've got Eden Prairie who owns half of it and we own half of it. Councilman Senn: Well I mean the State owns all of it but that gets back to the issue of the cities and the counties and what's what. But again, and MnDot's plan, policy, everything else is designation of the highway is that nothing's going to happen. I mean are we going to work to try to change that? Councilman Wing: That's not true. Something's going to happen. You're not going to tie 1 the Crosstown freeway into TH 101 and then not do something. Something is going to happen. 1 Councilman Senn: Call MnDot and ask them. They'll tell you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well but they just put curb and gutter up near Excelsior Boulevard so they're doing something. Councilman Senn: That wasn't MnDot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're probably right but. 1 Don Ashworth: Well that's part of the meeting that the Mayor had called with MnDot and again the new commissioner is very interested in what they have done along the entire stretch 1 of TH 101. He gave instructions to both Evans and Erickson to come back at this meeting. Tell them what they have done and what they would recommend to do now with this bottom section. Mark may very well be correct that they come back and say, we can't do anything but Dick could very well be right, that they come back and say, we've got to do something. So I'm looking forward to the meeting of the 26th. Councilman Wing: They maybe don't have to do anything but clearly that road's not going to handle the terminus of a major freeway without something, whether it's done by Eden Prairie, Chanhassen in coordination or the State or the County, but I think these need to be resolved. The other issue that Todd I want to have upfront here right away is I'd like to know the complete history and cost of the existing trails in Chanhassen. For instance, Minnewashta 1 73 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Parkway. And whether we put that into a per foot basis or what but when this comes out I want to know, because of the complexity of this one, the entire city shared in the cost of all these trails and I have no problem with that and if I've paid $8.00 per foot on Minnewashta Parkway and Mark paid $8.00 per foot on Minnewashta Parkway, I'm happy with that but this is going to be $14.00 or $20.00 per foot, or $40.00, then maybe Minnewashta Parkway people don't want to participate fully and maybe then if this trail is really important to the primary users, that there's going to have to be an assessment back to the neighborhoods that are going to connect to downtown with this. Or a willingness to support that. If not, my neighborhood doesn't want to pay $40.00 per foot for trails that are going for $8.00 a foot elsewhere and then the funding becomes, anyway. These are separate issues. I just want to make sure that the cost of this trail can be compared to the costs of other trails as we discuss this and I have no point or ax to grind there. I just want that information. Councilman Senn: And when we look at the cost too, and I guess one question I do have on ' the report is, I've never seen a project in my life with a 40% in direct, in contingency in it. Never, ever anywhere. And that raises $380,000.00 real quick to $533,000.00. I'd like to see that justified and I'd also love to see it compared to what was used in relationship to the other trails within the city. Mayor Chmiel: John, does that include possibly right - of-way costs as well? John Horn: Right, and left the contingency fairly high in this case because there's a lot of other things that could factor into it including right -of -way and a lot of meetings and a lot of coordination with MnDot. Things like that. That's why we left it fairly high. Councilman Senn: Okay but I'm just curious why you did because when I read back through your report, I don't find anywhere in it that says we need to acquire right -of -way. John Horn: Our intent is to try to avoid acquiring right -of -way but again further discussions with MnDot and this recommended separation, we'd like to try to avoid acquiring right-of- way and it may be a possibility that we might have to acquire some in some areas...MnDot's really the big determining factor in here. We met with them and they gave us some general guidelines. I guess we...work with us but they're also going to have some criteria that...and I guess we don't know exactly what those are going to be until we get a little further along with the design costs. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: Where are we going from here with this? 1 74 i 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: I think we're waiting to sit down with MnDot the later part of this month to find out exactly what position they're going to take and I think once we find that out, then we can probably bring this back and discuss it at one of the other Council meetings. And I think it's the 26th is that we're meeting and I didn't put it in my book. Councilman Senn: What, I mean you know I understand they've done and good idea to have 1 a meeting but I have a real hard time imagining much is going to be accomplished in one meeting on anything with MnDot. Probably will take quite a number of meetings. Mayor Chmiel: We're going to get preliminary information is what we're going to get. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but I'm just saying, 3 months ago we went through 1 public meetings and we, had our consultant stand up in front of them and say that we'd have a study done in 6 weeks and we've got a lot of people out there wondering what the heck is going on. Now 3 months later and they haven't heard a word back on what's happening or anything else and I think we've got to do something here to disseminate some information or do something so these people know what's going on. At this point they kind of feel like, geez we were told 6 weeks. It's 3 months so you know, we've been had again or whatever. There's a fair amount of sentiment developing out there that they're just being ignored again. If that's wrong, I think we should get the information out and let them know that they're not and exactly what's happening. We have a list of all those people that attended the meetings. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if we'd have had the newspaper here it might have gotten in the 1 newspaper. But being that it's not, it's a little difficult to do that. Councilman Senn: Well, we can get the city to do something. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if the city can until we know exactly what MnDot's going to do. You know, whether you put the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart, that's • really what it boils down to. Councilman Senn: We asked all their input into the study. Why don't we let them know the 1 study's done and disseminate the study or something. Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we can put an article in the paper. 1 Don Ashworth: We've held a meeting with the neighborhood preliminarily, right? Would it be in order to have another meeting with all of those people to have you go back through the report again? 1 75 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 John Horn: We did have two meetings on it. I think it probably would be a good idea to have a neighborhood meeting. We could pin the preliminary plans on the wall. People could come in and say I live here and they could see back across where the trail would fit on that property and it would give us an opportunity to get out some of the information... Mayor Chmiel: And I think that's where that contingencies come in. If we can find out from those people whether or not there's going to be right -of -way cost by them. I'd love to see those people dedicate it but I know where some of those people are coming from as well who live in and adjacent to that so. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: One of the concerns I would have in calling for that neighborhood meeting. The first question I would ask when I got into that meeting is how much is this thing going I to cost me, and I guess I went through the report and I really didn't find where we tried to identify what the cost, how's this thing going to be paid for and I don't know if that's something that we simply ask BRW to try to do or come up with some funding alternatives in advance of calling for this type of a meeting. But I would feel, I think that we would get beat up pretty bad if we didn't have cost information or how this thing might be paid for. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know I agree with Don. I'm not sure a public meeting is the, or neighborhood meeting's the way to go but I think we really need to disseminate the information. Let people know where it sits and why it sits there and what the plan is from this point or whatever. I mean geez, we don't even know whether we're talking 380. Something less than 380 or 530 or something more than 530. You've got a totally bogus 40% in contingency...foggiest idea what it even means. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it could be done through the newspaper and I don't know how we contact Dean and ask him. Give him this information and ask him to write an article but I think it can be done that way. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Councilman Wing: Tell him to write an article. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, tell him to write an article. Councilman Wing: Place the article on the front page. 1 76 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 Don Ashworth: Then in the meantime should we be pursuing this cost side before it comes back to City Council? I mean again normally for public improvement project you would go through a public hearing stage but again, you can't hold that type of hearing if you have not identified what the potential assessments are back to individual property owners. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the 3 questions we wanted to hear before it comes back 1 is what's MnDot's position on it. What the costs are going to be and what else were they Mike? 1 Councilman Senn: Well we don't know the costs. I mean you're going to have to run the costs different ways and then compare it to the other. I mean if this project's 300, how's that compare to the other trails or if this one's 400. Or if it's 500, I suppose you can just pick some benchmarks and go from it I assume...Dick had asked earlier. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So really cost and where MnDot sits. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I think we'll get that information in the paper. We'll get a little more information back from MnDot on the 26th and maybe we can put this back on the administrative presentation the next time. C. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, CITY MANAGER. have Ashworth: You have the memorandum from Todd. If yo u a ve an y questions, if y ou would ask those of Todd. Otherwise I was wondering if I could get a potential date from City Council members for a potential meeting date. Councilman Senn: ...list of things to be discussed is, does that all entwine or somehow bring us to the discussion too of the 1994 park acquisition and development, capital improvement program that's been disseminated but I mean we haven't really technically received, looked at or done anything with at this point. Don Ashworth: You could include that so you've got direct input from the commission but that will be presented as part of your budget work sessions that will be coming up in the end of September, more really October - November. On your next City Council agenda you will have an item on there to set the public hearing date for Truth in Taxation and you will also set the specific work sessions that you want to hold with each of the staff members to hear what the Planning Department's proposing to do. How many people Scott Harr needs. What the Park and Recreation needs are. So you could it in either or both. 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: What date? Let's see, Park and Rec will be meeting, their meeting is on the 28th? Hoffman: Correct. 1 Mayor Chmiel: At 7:30. Councilman Senn: The other option would be is if we have to have this special meeting. Kill two birds with one stone and do it at the same time. Mayor Chmiel: We could do it that day providing we can get all of the Park and Recreation members there. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that special meeting is going to be coming up pretty quickly couldn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: In 2 weeks or whatever he said. Mayor Chmiel: It could even be before that too. We don't know. But I was thinking that if we were to, how long does it normally take us to go through the process of this? Is it an hour? Two hours? Todd. Todd Hoffman: Two hours I would say minimum. Mayor Chmiel: So if we would look at the 28th tentatively at 5:30. Would that be a problem? Todd Hoffman: I can ask the commission members present this evening if they would like to meet. Councilman Mason: 8 hours. Todd Hoffman: 7 hours... Jan Lash: As I recall, at our last meeting we said we would prefer an off night. Off from you and off from us so we didn't feel rushed of having to finish... 1 78 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 out a particular cutoff time where you're going to switch from one method to the other but you didn't have to totally do the battle today. People are a little more willing to say oh, okay. Weill can get in on this one and there's going to be a change in 5 years and they're willing to buy off on that. If we would have had to face that issue today and say, we're going to choose one route or the other, I think we would have had a major confrontation and we would have been forced to choose between a group of firemen sitting on this side of the room versus a group on that side of the room, and I think we averted that type of a showdown. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and just to let you know Don, I called an old associate who's an...consultant and she thought that was fine. There are no legal constraints in that manner as far as grandfathering people in. Don Ashworth: Good. Councilman Senn: The agreement you have now is what, a tentative agreement reached between you and? 1 Don Ashworth: The negotiating committee for the Fire Department for the Relief Association and Don and I representing the negotiating committee for the City. 1 Councilman Senn: What's the next step on their part? Do they take kind of a straw poll or something? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they have to have two different meetings on this. 'r presenting this package to the evening. department tomorrow evenin Don Ashworth: They're p e g p g p g Councilman Senn: For a straw poll or what? 1 Don Ashworth: Yeah, to see if they have general agreement from the firemen as to this settlement. Councilman Senn: Okay, then if they have that general agreement on the settlement, then that information as well as this proposal comes back to us then for an action after that? Don Ashworth: Right. I would anticipate coming back to you saying, we have tentative agreement with the fire department. We now would like to take and get a similar agreement from the City Council. Asking you to vote at that meeting. Then they would go back and there would be secondary vote where they would actually ratify it and then it would come 1 81 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 back here for final vote by you. Councilman Senn: Okay. So tonight's purely advisory basically? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Informational. Just to keep you posted on where it's going right 1 now. E. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, COUNTY ROAD CONSTRUCTION, CITY 1 MANAGER. Don Ashworth: I just want to make sure that the City Council continues to be aware of the fact that we're continuing to pursue the goal of working with the Counties to get some of these county roads constructed. They're the worst roadways we have in this city. This 1 provides a vehicle by which we can get the job done and we're continuing to proceed in that fashion. Mayor Chmiel: Again, no action required on this. Just purely information. Councilman Senn: But Don, one question if I could though I mean. I went back and looked at some of the information that we had some months ago on this and there's major differences between that and this. I mean can we get more detail and explanation on this as to what. 1 Don Ashworth: Would it be possible for you and I maybe to meet or have lunch or something? If you could show me what you had, I can explain how it's been, see it really hasn't changed. What has changed is our ability to take on as much as we had outlined. Some of this includes their normal maintenance program. The $23 million versus the technical agreement between the two cities and the county is for $16.5 million. So they're doing $7 million worth of maintenance that they've shown, and rightfully so, in their 5 year capital budget because the County Commissioners want to know how much money are you, meaning the County Engineer, proposing to spend over the next 5 years. The answer is $23 million. How much of this involves the joint power agreement between Chanhassen, Chaska and the County. The answer there is $16.5 million. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay, but from the last group of numbers you went through when we were talking about this under the TIF issue and the joint deal before, I mean the dollars have gone up. At least in the numbers I have and I guess it just turns around and raises a j question. I mean here we hear our TIF dollars are going down. Well then doesn't our TIF dollars on this go down like everything else? That's what I'm not following. 1 82 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 Don Ashworth: Well there's, the next time you see this there is, it does show in there I think $400,000.00 per year for '96 thru 2000 and I have asked our fiscal consultants to change that to $200,000.00, which I think is the number that you're referring to that was in the previous report. And that should be modified to make sure that that stays similar to that previous report. The other monies though, and the reason that they do not change is those are all post 2000 dollars. Meaning after the year 2000. Those are dollars that we had no choice on. So in other words, if City Council comes up and says oh, I'd like to do some extra projects. I see we have some money in 2001. I'm sorry, but you can't spend it. The most that could occur with those dollars is we will receive the full tax increment in the years 2001, 2 and 3. We can only use those dollars to pay debt that had been incurred prior to 1989. The remaining dollars then have to go back to the city, county, school district. What this agreement basically says is if both the city and the county are agreeing to take those dollars and to dedicate them for county road construction. And so they're not, they never were in the forecast of available TIF because they never were TIF dollars that were available to you. 1 Councilman Senn: But those could be TIF dollars paying debt on other city projects, other than just roads? 1 Don Ashworth: If they were converted, true. Councilman Senn: Alright. Well I'll sit down with you to sift it out Don. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. 1 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Wing: Charles is gone. Don, Market Boulevard has been the number one complaint I've had on individuals consistently to the point where I went out and drove it and then subsequently have been startled more and more where I come, it's going to be the major egress into our city. Major, it's now our central entrance to the business district. Comes to, it's 4 lanes down on Highway 5 and then it moves to 1 lane, 2 lanes and back to 3 lanes. Then a turn lane. Then there's some yellow markers that say you shouldn't be here but why am I here and then I can't, that road. It's another West 78th Street in the making and what I'm asking for specifically, and this comes with considerable thought but I'm tired of the abuse I'm taking. I want to know the traffic counts for this road past and the future, especially with the retail coming in. But I want to know who designed it. And I want to know what the design criteria was and I want to know who approved it. I want to know the reason for the various lane shifts and if it's going to meet the needs of the city at the year 2000. I think now is the time to bring it north from Highway 5 at the same level it is south of Highway 5 and connect it into West 78th Street. I guess the only real issue is the tracks 1 83 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 by the bank. But to have a 4 lane road coming into 2 lane road back to a 4 lane or 3 lane road. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You don't know what it is, that's the issue. Don Ashworth: I approached Charles on this issue approximately a week ago, 2 weeks ago. He told me he would go out in the field and do a study. I think I'm going to take and call Strgar. Strgar was not involved so I don't know if it's BRW or Barton- Aschman... Councilman Wing: Okay but on like West 78th Street, somewhere I want the buck to stop and someone, I want people accountable and if they want to defend themselves, I want to call the people that specifically have complained to me and make sure they're here and let the residents of the downtown area say this is a bunch of hooey. Don Ashworth: What I don't understand though is, TH 101 should have been up in the priorities more than Market because what's happening is with the signal in place, you have two vehicles side by side. They both get the green light. They both head for the railroad tracks and there it turns into one lane. Now all of a sudden you look at the guy on the right and you're trying to figure out, am I going to get ahead of him or is he going to get ahead of me. But it's the same issue on both of those roads. Councilman Wing: I agree. I agree 100% and somewhere we got sold a bill of goods and I just want to know who it was because I want to publically embarrass them, to the extent of my legal ability. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colonial Grove, Michael. Reconsideration. Councilman Mason: I would like to make a motion to reconsider the vote on Colonial Grove and that if now is the time, I'll explain my reasons why. If not, we'll wait until another time. Mayor Chmiel: What you'd like to do is put it on the next agenda? Councilman Mason: That's correct. Oh obviously we can't discuss it tonight. 1 Councilman Wing: Yeah, I'm going to second that motion based on the phone call I received. Along with staff's phone call. I plan on having the lake study groups here. If we have to reinvent the wheel, we'll get 50 people here again to talk about where this came from, why it came from and I want to make sure that staff and the legal staff makes it clear what the issue is. And the issue is number of boats. Not agreements. Not development agreements. Number of boats in '81. I want to stick with that issue and the lawyers made 84 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 1 that clear. That was the only thing we were to discuss and the boat count I think will speak for itself. 1 Councilman Senn: What's the, I mean earlier I heard references to new information or other information. I mean obviously we don't all have that. What is it? What are we talking about? Mayor Chmiel: I think, you can indicate it but I think we're going to get this information in your packet. Councilman Senn: Well I mean I'd like to know what it is before I vote for a reconsideration or not. I mean to me that's got something to do with whether you vote for it. Councilman Mason: I heard since I was out of town when that meeting was held, and I'm not, incidentally I'm not asking for reconsideration because it voted 8 boats or 3 boats. Quite honestly 5 years from now nobody's going to care whether it's 8 boats or 3 boats there. I have heard things like people have been brow beaten into making decisions. I have heard 1 things, staff people have been called stupid and ignoramus' and I quite honestly think that this vote may have been conceived in quite honestly less than honorable circumstances and I want to see what I can do to get to the bottom of it. That's why I'm asking for 1 reconsideration. Councilman Wing: And I'm going to second that motion. 1 Councilman Senn: But that's no new information I guess is what I'm just trying to get at. Again, I heard new information. Councilman Mason: Well I think that is new information. This is the first time in my brief tenure on Council that I have heard some of the allegations, and they be false and if they are, so be it. If they're true, so be it. I have never heard this kind of rumblings under the surface before and I, that is why I'm asking for reconsideration. Councilman Wing: And I think the gentleman this evening pointed out the facts and the issues. He wants this steered back to what our job was tonight. It wasn't to prove that they're different. It was to follow the staff and the lawyer's recommendation. We had one job to do to. Determine the number of boats and we never discussed it. All we talked about was how different they are. And we had these agreements and we can't go on back agreements and then we talked about affidavits. But we had 7 affidavits that said there were 3 boats or less. We had 5 affidavits that said there were 8 boats. Those affidavits were all generic. One of those individuals called City Hall and said I signed it under duress and out 1 85 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 of, to be a good neighbor. It's not true. It's not accurate and I apologize for signing it. The other affidavits were personal and they stated, not to the best of my recollection. They stated there were 3 boats or less. There was a complaint against the group in 1981 that the boats there were there illegally and that was subsequently upheld and should have been removed so our job, I want staff and Council to clearly make it clear that our job is not to discuss 1 development agreements but to go along with all the other ones and look at the number of boats. 1•f you can show me there were 8 boats there, 8 boats go. If the preponderance of proof is that there were 3 boats, it has to be recalled and your comments about public use, and agreements I think are irrelevant and I want staff to clearly define that. Those aren't issues we're dealing with. I don't know where you're coming from on these issues. You had no rights to even discuss them or bring them up. And it shows you don't understand the history of this and we'll have enough people there that night to make sure you understand what happened in 1980, 81, 84, 86 and subsequent. So there's no question that there's people here that do care and that the Council, the public hearings that occurred in '91 and '92, that... the people aren't showing up because they're tired of trying to defend themselves and they're counting on the Council to be consistent and follow thru on this and we weren't on this one. That's my feeling. That's why I'm going to support Mike's recall plus the affidavits in at least one case were not signed in honesty. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's my reason for reconsideration. Because I made my decision based on the affidavits and to learn that they may have been forced, concerns me. Councilman Senn: But Dick, one of the things that I have a real hard time in that...coping with and still have a hard time coping with and that is that nobody can establish the number of boats and even a CUP which was issued in the same year that the ordinance was passed, doesn't address it. Now don't you find that really unusual? I mean wouldn't a CUP that came in place after the ordinance, under the ordinance specifically addressed as an issue, and yet there's nothing in their CUP about it? Councilman Wing: Where do we get 8 boats? What was the only evidence indicating 8 boats? The only evidence that came out of 8 boats. Councilman Senn: I don't know, the 100 foot dock. The affidavits. I don't know. A number of different things came out. I mean things came out both ways on that. Councilman Wing: But the lake study committee that was there and the city and the staff and Y all our reports stated that that wasn't the case. That they did not have that number and the 1 neighbors have subsequently stated that wasn't the case. Councilman Senn: But we've already brought in, but again this was again part of the 86 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 hearing and we already. Mayor Chmiel: Well I just, yeah. I just think we're arguing things back and forth here .and I think this can be done at another time. Whether it be or not we'll find out from the condition that we call for the question on this. Did you want to say something Jim? I know you stayed here this long. Jim Andrews: ...issue itself or rather the timing for the reconsideration and that would be that I would ask that you please allow adequate time. You're basically asking both sides now to provide certified, verifiable proof and I don't think 2 weeks provides adequate time for either side to respond. I also make that request being that the season's nearly over and that a delay 1 of perhaps a month is not going to have any impact on this year's use nor next year's planned use. Mason: I certainly don't have any Ma y y trouble with that. Mayor Chmiel: I think that gives everybody the timeframe a nd at least they'd be notified immediately after I call the question for this reconsideration. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council reconsider the motion on the Colonial Grove Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Don Ashworth: Did I understand the attorney is supposed to call Cliff Whitehill? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Mike, Admin packet. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: I mean excuse me, Mark. Councilman Senn: Question on the letter from Charles Welling dated August 13th, 1993 regarding the joint powers agreement. I mean it seems the joint powers agreement has already been executed. I wasn't aware that we authorized one but I have a number of questions on it that relate to are we being treated the same as everybody else is on Eurasian 1 Milfoil issue because I've read different things and how different cities have this, that or the other thing. I mean do we have that information? Don't we normally...powers agreement to sign? 1 87 1 r 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Don Ashworth: Yeah and I'm, this is one that Scott had put through. 1 Councilman Senn: I've never seen it come through. Don Ashworth: No, no. I mean who's signing it? I didn't see it in the packet. Councilman Senn: Let's see, Don Chmiel...but the agreement's with Todd Hoffman. No, ' it's in care of Todd Hoffman. Don Ashworth: Okay. I'll have Todd verify his report. Councilman Senn: Okay. The second thing is. There was a lot of correspondence back in here regarding to the condemnation of Mithun and Beddor. Now the Beddor thing. I think this is...understand. That's the same issue that relates to the Nez Perce? Roger Knutson: That's correct. 1 Councilman Senn: Extension. Okay. What's the Mithun one? Todd Gerhardt: The land out in front of City Hall on West 78th Street... Councilman Senn: Oh, that's for the widening of the road you mean and stuff? Todd Gerhardt: Widening of the road and also the acquisition of the... Councilman Senn: Okay. Last one. This letter from Cliff Aichinger of July 21st asking Paul to I guess volunteer for another outside city thing which follows...I have a real objection to this because I mean, 6 months ago we asked, you were gone so 5 months almost to this day we asked for an ordinance to come out applying to deal with the issues of auto related uses and they're too busy to do it. Yet our staff is sitting here volunteering to go do all this stuff 1 on work hours. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know about that. I think that broadens their aspects and broadens the city's as well. And I don't think that you know it's taking away that time. Well it is taking away from certain...but I think it shows that our staff is doing one bang up job because there aren't many people that they ask to serve on those particular committees. And I say, good for him. 1 Councilman Senn: Well I think it's great Don but at the same time we've had two big 88 1 1 II, City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 i 1 discussions now on work sessions about the priorities of the Planning staff. And I thought we made it real clear from the Council's standpoint what those priorities were to be and now a new priority is being added and the old priorities we set haven't even been met yet. And I mean I see people shaking their head. I mean that's true and I mean all I'm asking for is some accountability as to again, we've asked these things. Directed them to be done and we set the priorities and yet they're kind of being ignored. Mayor Chmiel: I still think it brings a certain amount of insight back to the city as well. 1 Councilman Senn: Well, and maybe they can do that and maybe they can use it as a filler in less busy times but. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have something? Don Ashworth: You're talking about this Urban Wetland Management Coalition? Councilman Wing: It could be anything. 1 Councilman Senn: It could be anything. It's just, this is an example. Don Ashworth: There's absolutely no question but that Chanhassen became a major player as this whole wetland regulations were going through the State legislature and I can honestly say that it was because of Paul's efforts in making other communities aware of what it was that the legislature was doing, and they were doing it at the expense of the suburban areas. They were doing it at the expense of the Chanhassens. And right now Paul is looked to as being an expert in that whole arena. Yes, I would like to see his time put more into a lot of issues but the whole wetland protection arena is a major one to our community. Councilman Senn: I'm not going to disagree with anything you're saying. That doesn't 1 unfortunately deal with the issue. I mean I really would like to see the issue dealt with in terms of that. I mean we'd really like to see some kind of an update on the stuff that we asked to be done that hasn't been done stuff. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have specifically the thing that you're concerned with at this time? 1 Councilman Senn: Well the longest example is for 5 months those requests on the auto uses. We asked them in March and there's been absolutely, or at least I've seen no...nothing on 1 them. Yes there's others but that's an example... Mayor Chmiel: And that's a high priority as well? 1 89 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Councilman Senn: Well the Council directed that it was. I mean I can pull the Minutes if you want me to and show you that we directed it to be a high priority and told to get it 1 done... Mayor Chmiel: Don't have to get excited. Okay, can I have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90 1 0 , PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ' 8/12/93 1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brian Beniek,! m Don Chmiel, Dave Dumer, Dave Johnson Eldon Berkland, Bill Bernhjelm, Craig Blechta STAFF PRESENT: Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer Sgt. Julie Boden, CCSO Chairman Beniek opened the meeting at 7 PM. Mayor Chmiel motioned, Commissioner Blechta seconded, to approve the 6/10/93 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Gary Delaney, owner of the Bluff Creek Inn, expressed his concerns regarding heavy truck traffic and speed on Bluff Creek Drive. Resident Robert Steffes also informed the Commission of the unsafe conditions for children waiting for the school bus, biking and walking along Bluff Creek Drive. The Commission stated that the Bluff Creek Drive is a state funded road, which does limit the City on what action can be taken. The residents would like commercial truck traffic to cease, the speed limit<lowered, and more patrol in the area. Mayor Chmiel mentioned the possibility of changing the street to a parkway. He will check into what losses the City would incur if this occurred. The Commission will meet with 1 the Public Safety Director regarding options, tonnage restrictions, commercial truck restrictions, and have this item on the September agenda. ' Paramedic Daryl Radde presented an overview of Waconia Ridgeview ambulance service statistics and activity for the City of Chanhassen. Questions and answers followed the overhead presentation. He thanked the City for the donation of two opticoms for the ambulances that service Chanhassen. FIRE DEPARTMENT Chairman Beniek reported the opticom lights on Highway 5 will be operating soon. All the fire rigs are now fitted with the opticoms. Discussion followed on the critical stress debriefing with the firefighters that assisted at the 1 double fatal on July 4. Commissioner Berkland commended staff for having this debriefing. 1 1 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF 1 Sgt. Boden reported on the rescheduling of duty assignments to assist with the increased calls. Chief Deputy Castleberry received an award from President Clinton today for the double rescue in the Chaska flood. Deputy Potts recently returned from the Canine Regionals in which he and Ben placed 4th. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Officer Zydowsky reported on the newly hired Building Inspector, Jerry Mohn. Support Staff Carol mentioned the positive comments Public Safety/Building Inspections has received for being opened Thursday evenings. • PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1 Officer Zydowsky reported on the increase in traffic and weed complaints. Calls of raccoons in garbage cans in Lake Ann Park are also increasing. Mayor Chmiel discussed the possibility of senior citizen volunteers to help with complaints. Discussion followed. Director Harr has considered budgeting for an additional part -time CSO for 1994. Mayor Chmiel mentioned the letters received from the animal control contract cities commending Public Safety for their services. Commissioner Johnson reported he was unable to attend the last Highway 5 Commission meeting. 1 Commissioner Bernhjelm reported on the forthcoming appointment of a site selection committee for a southern location of an additional fire station in the City. NEW BUSINESS 1 Commissioner Dummer questioned if all avenues have been tapped for private funding to augment public safety services. (Are funds available other than the Legion & City?) The Commission will meet with Director Harr to seek other avenues of income. Commissioner Johnson reported of a traffic hazard (an orange sign) when turning left off of 1 Laredo Drive onto West 78th Street. Officer Zydowsky will look into it. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Dave Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor 1 and the motion passed. 1 1