Loading...
101496 CC Reg Min . . . .", CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, McCarty, Shaw, Stover; City Administrator Rurm; City Attorney Tim Keane; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; Finance Director AI Rolek and Engineer Larry Brown. B. Review Agenda Stover moved, Shaw seconded to approve the agenda for October 14, 1996. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 23, 1996 McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 23, 1996, as amended on Page 2, Item No.4, Paragraph 1, Sentence 6, change to read, "and hazards created for children while walking and biking to school." Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes September 30, 1996 Shaw moved, McCarty seconded to approve the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of September 30, 1996 as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. Benson abstained. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Bean readthe Consent Agenda for October 14, 1996. McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the Motions on the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions therein: A. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-90, "A Resolution Approving a Lot Combination and Resubdivision for Mark Sass, Lots 10, 11, 12; Block 11; Minnewashta Manor." . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 2 B. A Motion to Approve a Contract for Services with Abdo, Abdo and Eick to Audit Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 1996. C. A Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to Not Waive the Monetary Limits. D. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-91, "A Resolution Amending Public Hearing Dates and Times for Watermain Assessments for Project Nos. 95-14, 95-15 & 95-16." Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Kate Lynch Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, inquired as to the schedule for rebroadcast of the City Council Meetings and pointed out a consistent schedule has not been followed. Mayor Bean stated the Cable Commission sets the schedule which is displayed on Channel 8 with the meetings being rebroadcast at various times. Ms. Bix further noted Maple Plain broadcasts Planning Commission meetings and she commented she appreciated this idea. Chuck Cochran, 5915 Strawberry Lane, presented signed petitions to Mayor Bean in opposition to the bike path. Mr. Cochran stated he has not heard any compelling arguments in support of a bike path and that most of the residents with whom he has spoken have been opposed to this idea. Mayor Bean noted the petitions would be submitted into the official record of the Council. In addition, he pointed out 120 signatures had been previously received by way of petition in favor of the bike trail. Mayor Bean stated the petitions would be referred to the Park Commission as was done with the previous petitions which were submitted in support of the path. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, presented an additional 53 signatures, for a total of 238 signatures, of residents supporting an off street trail. Mr. Zerby noted this to be a safety issue relative to Smithtown Road rather than a trail issue. Tom Richter, 25340 Smithtown Road, stated he is anxious to see the survey results with respect to the trail. Mr. Richter suggested property owners donate 17 feet of their property for the construction of the trail, stating that if the trail were built, he would use it. 5. PARKS - Report by Representative Dan puzak reported on the September 24, 1996, meeting of the Park Commission (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 6. PLANNING - Report by Representative REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 3 . This item was not addressed. . . 7. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM R-IA TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) FOR WATTEN PONDS CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS - 5370 & 5340 EUREKA ROAD A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding Watten Ponds P.U.D. Charles Dillerud appeared on behalf of the Dahlstrom Abingdon Partnership to address the Council. He pointed out the City has spent a vast amount of time reviewing and considering the request of the applicant. Mr. Dillerud spoke with respect to the developer's perspective and how it relates to the P.U.D. District and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dillerud explained a number of the things the Planning Commission asked the developer to address were at the behest of members of the public who spoke at the various public hearings. Mr. Dillerud displayed a copy of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map which designates the subject area as low density residential, one to two units per acre. He pointed out this site could be developed at a maximum of 18.85 units. Mr. Dillerud stated this was not the proposal since 18.85 units would not fit this site. Mr. Dillerud pointed out the Comprehensive Plan provides this site is planned for one to two units per acre when zoned R-1C. The R-IC zoning exists to the north, east and south. The Comprehensive Plan provides for a change in the zoning district map to R-IC with a highlight that it be recommended for Planned Unit Development due to wetland configurations. Mr. Dillerud compared the lot sizes of the subject development with those of adjoining neighborhoods. In addition, he stated the Planning Commission required the developer to address the issues of custom grading of lots, specific tree preservation, roadway alterations, density, and NURP pond location. Mayor Bean opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Jim Marshall, 5320 Eureka Road, addressed the Council noting he has known Mr. Watten for many years and was aware of the plans Mr. Watten originally had for the property. Mr. Marshall expressed surprise at the plans which Mr. Watten has for the property at this time stating he feels there are too many homes planned for this site. . Mr. Marshall wishes to cooperate with the builder and discuss the mutual lot line and other aesthetics in the area. He inquired how the Council will protect the trees and wetlands from future owners. Renae Dussault, 26365 Noble Road, commented on development which took place on Noble Road which resulted in large homes on very small lots. He did not feel there was any benefit to . the neighborhood. Mr. Dussault asked when tree preservation would be addressed on Noble REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 4 . Road and noted to date there has not been any tree replacement. He stated he is not interested in a P.U.D. or its benefits. Greg Larson appeared on behalf of the Eureka Neighborhood Association, and stated the Association has numerous concerns regarding this project. Mr. Larson stated the opposition to the plan is not directed personally to the Wattens or the developer. He requested the development be completed under current zoning with a one acre lot size. He stated the City and the developer should prove to the residents this development is beneficial. Mr. Larson stated the Association respects the property rights of the developer, however, he felt it would not be unreasonable to expect the developer to abide by the same regulations the present property owners are required to follow. Mr. Larson stated he is opposed to the way P.U.D.'s are used and encouraged by the City. The Association is opposed to the lot size and the setbacks which are a part of the plan. They feel the large houses planned for the small lots changes the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Larson displayed a diagram of the Association's view of an acceptable P.D.D. which showed clustering of the lots. Mr. Larson displayed another diagram depicting the setbacks from the wetlands. Mr. Larson commented the property had been purchased with the full knowledge of the wetlands and the wetland regulations and stated the developer should not be granted special considerations or compensation. It was his belief the developer is in favor of a P.D.D. since it is considerably . more profitable than traditional zoning. Mr. Larson presented a diagram of a proposed project zoned R-IA. He pointed out the Planning Commission was in favor of the P.U.D. because it gives the City additional controls. Mr. Larson commented that legally and ethically, the City needs to explain how the P.U.D. preserves and enhances the present site characteristics and how it creates a more desirable environment. Mr. Larson displayed the criteria for granting a variance stating the developer was not required to meet these criteria even though Shorewood property owners would be required to meet the same criteria in requesting a variance to exceed the lot setbacks. He felt the P.D.D. is a special deal for the developer. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened at 9:34 p.m. Mr. Larson gave a slide presentation and commented the Planning Commission noted one of the benefits of a P.U.D. is the ability to protect trees. He showed slides of the Heritage development and stated the City justified the P.D.D., which justified the reduced lot sizes, based on promises to make this site better. Mr. Larson pointed out the P.D.D. at Heritage was for wetland protection, however erosion control barriers have not been maintained. The P. U.D. provided for the protection of wetlands in exchange for smaller lots and reduced setbacks. With respect to Heritage, Mr. Larson noted wetlands had become playgrounds and lawns. . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996- PAGE 5 . Mr. Larson showed slides of Gideon Woods and commented he felt it needed special protection due to the span of mature maple and basswood forest on the site. In addition, there is a home of state historical significance in addition to Indian burial grounds. Mr. Larson commented that three years ago comments were made at the Planning Commission that white pine and spruce trees no less than six feet would be used to create a buffer around County Road 19. In addition, apple trees and fruit trees would be planted around the relocated Gideon home, however, these plantings have not been accomplished. Mr. Larson was skeptical of the City's ability to save 87 percent of the trees on the Watten property. In closing, Mr. Larson expressed his opinion Mayor Bean had been extremely fair in allowing the public to express their feelings on this matter. Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, stated on behalf of the Neighborhood Association that no one has ever had a personal vendetta against the developer or the Wattens. He noted the Wattens to have been gracious neighbors over the years. Mr. Storlie expressed his opinion the project is oversized and changes the character of Shorewood. He felt the Planning Commission should have required a development zoned R-1A and could have compared this to a P.U.D. Mr. Storlie felt a P.U.D. was the worst possible plan. He felt the Planning Commission, City Council and City Staffhad failed in allowing this P.U.D. . Mr. Storlie commented other options are available to the Wattens such as selling the property, a smaller development with more expensive homes or mote expensive lots. Mr. Storlie felt this plan was developed to allow for larger profits for the Wattens and the developer. He stated it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City Council to protect the community from a development which is destructive and changes the character of the city. Mr. Storlie felt this development had cost him a considerable amount of money for water which has been put in because of the development. He noted his property taxes will also increase as a result of the development. Mr. Storlie did not feel he would receive any benefits from this development. Jerry O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine'Drive, presented a handout listing his calculation of the various lot sizes. He felt the neighborhood had progressed and as time goes on, the lot sizes have become larger. Mr. O'Neill pointed out the majority of the neighborhood has larger lot sizes. Pat Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated the City Comprehensive Plan reflects density and lot sizes shall be the primary consideration in review of development requests. She stated previous discussions of lot sizes have always evolved around averages or means. Ms. Larson consulted with a statistician from the University and pointed out the appropriate way to discuss this. would be as median. It is the correct statistic to use when numbers are skewed by one large value, such as Lot No.7. Ms. Larson felt the property should be developed under current zoning requirements and noted the Comprehensive Plan states a P.U.D. must preserve natural features.. . She stated the wetland and tree preservation ordinances could be enforced without the use of a REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 6 . P.U.D. Ms. Larson commented that a P.U.D. gives away 10 percent in density to the developer and does not consider the lot size. Clay Atkins, 5735 Brentridge Drive, felt there could be better communication and that some brilliant presentations had been made. He stated green strips, clustered housing and protecting nature are more important than property owners opposing this development for their own back yard. Don Willis, 24835 Yellowstone Trail, stated he felt that Mayor Bean, the City Council, City Staff and the Planning Commission are arrogant. He did not feel it was uncommon for developers to be very nice in many ways to governance people particularly in small municipalities. Mr. Willis felt the developer had offered incentives. In addition, Mr. Willis felt Planning Commissioner Rosenberger was arrogant in letters he had written relative to subsidized housing on Eureka Road. . Kate Lynch Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, noted from minutes of the Watershed District meeting that the Watershed District had directed the pond to be excavated in an existing wetland. A sedimentation basin would be put in a Class I wetland which is shallow, thaws out first at the end of the winter, and it provides the first accessible water and nutrients to migratory birds and other creatures. It serves a very valuable purpose in the ecosystem. This is the only wetland on the development of that class. Ms. Bix stressed this is a sedimentation basin which will collect and filter all of the urban run-off that will be collected in the street. It will no longer be a wetland because of the pollutants which will exist. Ms. Bix further noted the Watershed District will be requiring a signed storm water facilities maintenance agreement from the City to take care of the sedimentation basin. Ms. Bix pointed out in their recommendations, the Watershed District placed conditions on the permit that activities including, but not limited to mowing, yard waste, and fertilizer application shall not occur within the wetland buffer zones. Ms. Bix requested the restriction of the activities in the wetland buffer zone be noted in the deed to the property so that when people purchase a property, there will not be any surprises. She stated the managers of the Watershed District did not agree about destroying the wetland, however, upon further recommendation, the motion passed because it met the guidelines. Kathy Thulen, 26390 Noble Road, cautioned if the development is approved, it will not stop there, rather development will continue. Judy Englund, 25555 Orchard Circle, recommended that homes of 1,000 square feet or less be built on the east side of the property which would be consistent with homes adjacent to the property. She further commented on the issue of the loss of the wetland noting she had completed a thesis on mitigation which shows mitigation is not successful. Ms. Englund felt the wetland needs to be enhanced and requested the mitigation policy be addressed. . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 7 . With respect to tree preservation, Ms. Englund stated clumps of trees must be taken into consideration. She also pointed out that shrubs must also be taken into consideration along with tree preservation. Ms. Englund inquired if 78 trees are planned to replace the 52 which are lost, what type of trees are going to be used for the replacement. Jerry Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, stated only the developer had spoken in favor of this development, however, a number of the Council's constituents have spoken against the development. Mr. Bix felt more thought should be given to this issue before making a decision. Carol Grones, 5535 Sylvan Lane, commented on the birds in their yard, and expressed her opinion that new homes, nature and trees do go together and if the development is thought through, it could work for everyone involved. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 10:28 p.m. and reconvened at 10:39 p.m. Mayor Bean inquired if the zoning map had been inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan since 1981. Planning Director Nielsen clarified that it hadn't been, however, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommended in areas where the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan do not match, the zoning should become consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . Mayor Bean asked in the event of a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map, would the Comprehensive Plan be the guiding document. Attorney Keane noted the distinction is that the Comprehensive Plan is the broad policy document that is to guide land use decisions and the zoning ordinance is an implementation device of that policy document and the implementation device should follow the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Bean pointed out, having been a member of the Planning Commission in the past, that the Comprehensive Plan was looked to from a guidance standpoint. In addition, Mayor Bean pointed out if nothing was done in terms of a P.D.D., assuming the Wattens sold the property in one acre pieces, the overall impact to the area would be a difference of four or five homes. Mayor Bean noted many people commented they were not against the development, but were opposed to the number of homes being proposed for this property. In terms of Mr. Larson's presentation with respect to benefits of a P.D.D. to the City, Mayor Sean asked Mr. Dillerud to address the issue of how quickly reforestation would take place in contrast to the Noble Road development. Mr. Dillerud pointed out with regard to Noble Road, the portion most recently put in, the extension from the cul-de-sac to Edgewood is an Abingdon project, however the second piece which went in was not Abingdon and was done under a different set of ordinances with no tree preservation policy in place. Mr. Dillerud pointed out when Heritage was completed, there was no reforestation policy in . place. He further pointed out the current tree preservation policy of Shorewood is different than REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 -PAGE 8 . that which was applied to Heritage. Mr. Dillerud noted the tree preservation policy was not violated in the P.D.D. plan. Mr. Dillerud commented when the City and the developer reach an agreement, a development contract is executed which could also include requirements with regard to tree preservation. Generally this would provide the work be completed within one year. He noted other municipalities require the developer produce a Letter of Credit or a one year guarantee as to the survivability of the planting. Mr. Dillerud stated Heritage and Gideon Ponds are not comparable to Watten Ponds since a tree preservation policy was not in effect at that time. Mayor Bean asked Mr. Dillerud to comment on how the developer would do a better job relative to issues such as erosion control. Mr. Dillerud stated he would not feel comfortable commenting on the slides shown by Mr. Larson without first visiting the specific areas in person. With respect to any potential silt fence policy violation, Planning Director Nielsen had suggested the developer provide an escrow account which would allow the City to either order Public Works to correct the situation or hire a contractor to correct the situation and bill the developer directly. If the developer does not pay the bill, the payment could be withdrawn from the escrow account. . Mayor Bean inquired if Mr. Dillerud could identify a time frame in which the project would be completed. Mr. Dillerud felt it would be reasonable to expect the project to be completed in one year. In addition, Mayor Bean asked if it would be reasonable to expect the homes going in to be comparable to the Heritage or Noble developments. Mr. Dillerud stated at this time the style of home had not been considered, however, the houses could"very well be to the scale of the homes in the Heritage development. With respect to the 87 percent of trees which would be preserved, Mayor Bean inquired what the 87 percent relates to. Planning Director Nielsen stated that figure relates to those trees over 8 inches in diameter or coniferous over 12 feet in height. The 13 percent which are lost are due to houses, streets and utilities. Mayor Bean further inquired what type of trees would be used for replacement. Nielsen stated a recommendation was made to landscape and buffer the new development from Mr. Marshall's property. The trees lost by virtue of the development would be replaced on a lot by lot basis. Mayor Bean asked Mr. Dillerud if it would be acceptable, in terms of the style or design of yard landscaping, to limit the amount of grass area, leaving some yards in a wild state or clearing the underbrush and putting in a sod yard which might mitigate some of the underbrush loss. Mr. Dillerud responded to the extent the developer is not in the buffer zone in the rear of the homes, measures could be taken to preclude this even further than the wetland buffer, possibly through a conservation easement. Mayor Bean noted one area of conflict to be the issue of smaller houses and asked Mr. Larson for any suggestions as to what could be done to limit the size of the homes. Mr. Larson did not feel the size of the homes could or should be limited, however, he felt certain size lots would be more . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 9 . appropriate. He stated his belief one or two acre lots would be more appropriate for the size of the homes being considered. Mayor Bean clarified there is a restriction against the dumping of yard waste into the wetland area. He noted the outlots had been defmed not as an extension of the existing lot, but that it is actually identified as an outlot which is deeded to the City so the City has enforcement ability over anyone using the wetland. Mayor Bean further pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan has existed for a number of years and that a P.U.D. where the City actually enters into a development agreement in which the city is a party and which is recorded against the property, provides the City with better control over that process than allowing the property to be developed on a piecemeal basis. Mayor Bean felt a P.U.D. is worthwhile because of the requirements imposed with respect to custom grading, conservation easement and wetland conservation as well as the ability to limit accessory space. Councilmember McCarty asked for more insight into the ponding issue by the Watershed District. Woody Love addressed the Council stating he is a board member of the Watershed District, however, he was not appearing in that capacity. Mr. Love related that it was actually a motion to call the question which was defeated. He noted the wetland issue had been considered by the Watershed District on two occasions, the second time because of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. . Mayor Bean inquired if the Watershed District felt confident this would be a successful mitigation. Mr. Love affirmed the District expected the mitigation to be successful. He pointed out the two dissenting votes were due to concerns relative to altering a wetland. Councilmember Stover asked where the City's responsibility lies in controlling something after a property owner has moved in. Attorney Keane stated if there are restrictive covenants and a home owners' association, stipulated requirements could be included or incorporated in the development agreement which is filed with each parcel. Councilmember Stover noted the deeds in the Waterford development included notations which the property owners stated in public meetings they had no knowledge of. She also commented the only way to ensure future enforcement is through a P. U.D. Councilmember Benson stated he had heard a lot about the project and noted the public testimony to"be insightful. He commented he had observed success with the use of P.D.D.s and noted them to be a valuable tool. Councilmember Benson felt the Council has listened and adjusted and responded to the various concerns associated with this project. He stated very concise points have been made and he has weighed and balanced them. Benson moved, Stover seconded directing Staff to prepare Findings of Fact approving Watten Ponds P.D.D., 5370 & 5340 Eureka Road, subject to staff recommendations. . . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 10 Councilmember Stover felt the proposal had been presented, debated, scrutinized and reviewed extensively and was done under the Comprehensive Plan and other policies and regulations which have been established since then. Mayor Bean opined that a P.U.D. is the best way to develop this site. He felt the Findings of Fact should provide that each site shall have a custom grading plan and tree preservation plan. The Council would be looking for restrictions on all property with respect to detached accessory space including a prohibition of tennis courts and conservation easements across the wetland buffer zones to preclude any development or any landscaping of any nature into those areas. Mayor Bean noted he would like to see an exact definition of distance, limiting the development of lawns which would preserve as much of the natural undergrowth as possible. He felt a control relative to phosphorous fertilizers should be included. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 11 :48 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :49 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Bean expressed appreciation to the public for their input and the manner in which it was put forth. In addition, Mayor Bean pointed out he is not on Mr. Dillerud's payroll and there is nothing in this decision for him. Councilmember Stover felt this could be stated on behalf of all of the Councilmembers. 8. CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25565 SMITHTOWN ROAD A. A Motion Regarding Safety Concerns Related to Abandoned Property B. A Motion Regarding Request to Abate Charges Levied This matter was considered after Attorney Keane's reports. Planning Director Nielsen commented he had been informed by Ms. Carlson that the property had been secured with the exception of one window. She has spoken with NSP and been advised she can turn the utilities off through a control box which would allow her to turn on the electricity when working on the premises. Mayor Bean asked this be inspected to ensure this has been done. Benson moved, McCarty seconded to table this matter to the next meeting at the property owner's request. Motion passed 5/0. 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING AN APPEAL TO NOTICE TO REMOVE Appellant: Location: John Morrissey 5115 St. Albans Bay Road REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 11 . Planning Director Nielsen stated the subject property is almost entirely wetland area and the Mr. Morrissey suggests because it is wetland area that it is exempt from the requirements of Chapter 501 which address hazardous materials and brush. Mr. Morrissey did not appear before the Council. Councilmember Stover noted the property owner does not live in Shorewood. She inquired if Mr. Morrissey owns the property to either side of the wetland. Nielsen noted the records show him as the fee owner. Councilmember Stover asked if the City would benefit from a wetland easement. Nielsen noted the easement would need to be purchased. Stover moved, Shaw seconded accepting the Planning Director's recommendation that Public Works be directed to clean up the site if the owner fails to do so within 10 days. Motion passed 5/0. 10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENT AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE TO SNOWMOBILES AN ORDINANCE SECTION 802 Mayor Bean pointed out one additional potential change to Section 802.02, Subd. 1 (e) which would be for purposes of allowing snowmobiles in the Freeman Park parking lot on a one time basis for training. Each occurrence would be by specific resolution. . Councilmember Stover suggested the language reflect "for such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training." Administrator Hurm noted on Page 3, Subd. 5, the Council might consider clarifying the speed restrictions. He suggested changing the language to read "on public property within the City" rather than "on any street or highway." Councilmember Stover noted several people in attendance who may want to comment on the snowmobile ordinance and asked if public input would be taken. Mayor Bean felt public input would be appropriate, noting the issues of the LRT, Crescent Beach and Timber Lane access points remain as open issues which need to be addres'sed by the Council. Woody Love, commented that living and working by the trail, he appreciates the effort which has been put into the ordinance, however, the speed limits have not been anywhere near 20 miles per hour and there has been no enforcement. Mr. Love stated he would appreciate the Council considering a sunset provision if the speed limits cannot be enforced this year, that this be the last year of use on the trail. He noted the speeds tend to be lower on the streets. Mr. Love stated his belief that the speed limit is unenforceable on the trail. Mayor Bean noted his agreement and stated he feels the Public Safety Department needs to realize this is an issue and patrol time needs to be spent on the trail. Mayor Bean also noted his . agreement if this situation cannot be controlled, it should be discontinued. . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 12 . Ingrid Schaff was present and noted she would make the same comments as have been previously stated in the record. Shaw moved, McCarty seconded adopting an ordinance amendment and summary ordinance to Section 802 - Snowmobiles with modifications which have been made and with the same concerns and considerations as expressed by Mayor Bean. Motion passed 5/0. 11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE A STREET CLOSURE FOR BIKE SAFETY TRAINING City Engineer Brown expressed concern relative to general safety. He noted it was determined a police escort would be appropriate to keep access open to the homes. Brown stated event coordinators will need to wear traffic vests. In addition, Police Chief Young will be consulted with respect to the officer involvement. Mayor Bean suggested Police Reserve officers could provide the escort. Brown stated this would be discussed with Chief Young and approval would be contingent upon Chief Young's approval. . Councilmember McCarty stated she would be in favor of this. Councilmember Benson was also in agreement. Brown stated this event will be held on Sunday, October 27, 1996, from 1 :00 p.m. to 3 :00 p.m. Councilmember Stover stated for the complete safety of the children involved she would like the police escorts present for the two hour session. Benson moved, McCarty seconded approving a Bike Safety Training on Sunday, October 27, 1996, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. along Smith town Road from Minnewashta Elementary School to Christopher Road with a police escort. Motion passed 5/0. 12. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS This was addressed after Agenda Item No.6. City Attorney Keane provided an update on the Ron and Dee Johnson litigation matter. He explained Mr. Johnson submitted a development plan for approval in 1991 and the City approved a subdivision of his property along Vine Hill Road subject to conditions relative to grading and wetland protection. Mr. Johnson was not in agreement with the conditions and, therefore, brought suit against the City in 1992. In June of 1993, a motion for Summary Judgment was considered on stipulated facts. The City had prepared a field survey as part of those stipulated facts and it was discovered at that time that the Waterford Pond control structure which was created near Waterford Circle created a water backup onto approximately 9500 square feet of Mr. Johnson's 20 acres of property. The City did prevail on all of their claims, however, the District Court Judge did direct the City to . acquire an easement over that portion of the property affected by the water backup. The City REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14,1996 - PAGE 13 . commenced that proceeding. The sole issue remaining concerned the value of the easement which was acquired for wetland purposes. This was a drainage ditch within a wetland and had been wet for a millennia, according to a wetlands expert. The Court appointed three Commissioners to determine the value of that easement and possible damages to the Johnson property. The City's appraiser estimated the value of the easement to be approximately $750. The City offered the Johnsons $1,000. The Johnsons argued damages of approximately $600,000. The Commissioners awarded $2,000 for the easement and $3,000 for consequential damage to vegetation. Mr. Johnson appealed that and the City is currently involved in ajury trial in Hennepin County District Court before Judge Olesky. Mr. Johnson's demand remains in excess of $500,000. Councilmember Shaw asked if this would be covered by insurance. Attorney Keane noted any settlement would come out of the City's general revenue. Attorney Keane also reported on a significant development in the Lloyd and Leanora Bache case. The Baches brought a case alleging the City damaged their property by virtue of the approval of the Harding Acres subdivision along Smithtown Road. The approvals took place in the 1980's. Mr. and Mrs. Bache sought damages on the basis of claims of negligence, trespass, nuisance and inverse condemnation for the communication of water across the Bache property which is . causing them to have a sump pump in operation most hours of the day and night. On a Summary Judgment motion, Judge Christianson dismissed three of the four claims. The judge concluded the claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance are appropriate for dismissal based on the facts before the judge. Because Summary Judgment is not appropriate where facts are in dispute, he was not prepared to issue the same ruling on the inverse condemnation. Attorney Keane stated now that the other claims have been dismissed, the sole remaining claim is the inverse condemnation, which is whether the water going across the Bache property has given rise to the taking of the property for which the Baches should be compensated. This is not an insurable item. Attorney Keane expects the City will be assuming the defense of that suit. City Engineer Brown noted he has directed the contractor to complete the sodding of Smithtown Road. 13. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Bean noted that he has received word that the City will be receiving the Government Finance Officers' Association Distinguished Budget Presentation award for our 1996 budget document. He complimented Finance Director Al Rolek for all his work in preparing the budget. . . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1996 - PAGE 14 14. ADJOURNMENT Shaw moved, McCarty seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:34 a.m. subject to the approval of claims. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: -) .. .') J. ,- J ~':L-001.I-~} .~'L ,-- ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR