Loading...
1993 02 22CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR HEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL HEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, and Councilwoman Oockendorf. Councilman Wing arrived to the meeting during discussin of item l(a), Stone Creek First Addition. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-3aff, Todd Hoffman, Scott Hart and Steve Kirchman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Item l(b) was tabled from the agenda for 2 weeks; delete item 3(c) from the agenda; and under Council Presentations Councilman Mason wanted to discuss the Council Work Session on March 3, 1993. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended, and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENBA: Council#oman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the follo#ing Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Stone Creek First Addition, 8400 Galpin Boulevard, Hans Hagen: 1) Final Plat Approval c. Approve 1993 City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for Construction. d. Reso~#tiqn ~r93-11: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Upper Bluff Creek Project 91-17. e. Approve Agreement to Provide Sanitary Sewer and Water to Lot 1, Block 1, Minnelowa Addition, City of Shorewood. h. Approval of Chanhassen Safety Manual. i. Approval of Bills. j. City Council Minutes dated February 8, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 3, 1993 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 11, 1993 m. Authorization to Expend $3,243. of Surface Water Management Program Funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Heeting ~ February 22, 1993 F. ESTABLISH ~993/94 LIgUOR LICENSE FEES. Councilman Senn: On l(f). I guess I was, with interest, saw the fact that we had two types of liquor licenses. Restaurants and non-restaurant which appears to really be unusual these days because most cities have gone to a basis where liquor licenses are only allowed with restaurants. In fact, I think where food constitutes 50~ or so of the gross receipts. Is there, I guess this comes back to I guess some previous discussions that have occurred over the last few weeks. I've heard a lot of complaints about Filly's and this, that and the other thing. Liquor and conduct and all that sort of thing. Is there a reason why we haven't looked at effectively an ordinance change to accomplish that? Mayor Chmiel: I think between the restaurant and non-restaurant basically, is that dealing with the Legion? Todd Gerhardt: I don't think so. Councilman Senn: I assume that would be a club license. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well yeah. That is basically under club license but they also have a restaurant. That's one of the questions. Todd Gerhardt: I can't think of a non-restaurant. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess maybe we can't give you an answer on that one right now. Councilman Senn: Well let me I guess just follow the line of questioning through. Under the rates here then, where does it accommodate for example a wlne and beer 11cense? Mayor Chmiel: That is established by the State. We have to follow that accordingly. Councilman Senn: So that's a standard $2,000.00 fee, etc? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Same thing for the off-sale intoxicating and all those right on down through. Councilman Senn: Okay. In terms of the rates and the fact that we aren't asking for any rate changes, in terms of the restaurant for example. I mean do we know how many ue have in each of these categories or classes? Mayor Chmiel: Total numbers? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I would say yes. They probably do have that. As to the ones that I could think of right off hand, would probably be Ahn-Le's. Pauly's. Councilmar, Senn: Well I guess, let me get to the point and I'll quit dilly dallying around I guess. I'm uncomfortable I guess wlth voting on settlng these rates. I've by no means done a study but I guess my 11mited knowledge ls that, City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 I'm going to say there's probably half a dozen cities I'm aware of have a flat rate license of $7,500.00 regardless of the size. And here we are startlng at $5,880.00 and these are just about all the clties by the way that neighbor us also. So I just, not havlng any real background history or understanding of what went lnto determining these rates and how our rates compare to other rates, I would say I'm just a little uneasy about saying, you know these fees look like good rates to me. Mayor Chmlel: Well, I did have discussions on these today. We do go by the square foot area as opposed to many others. If we establish a $7,500.00 fee and they were to be over 6,000 square feet, that means we would lose a revenue of $5,600.00 because it runs roughly $12,600.00 for that license. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that Don but how many 6,000 square foot restaurants do we have versus 3,0007 Mayor Chmlel: That has been calculated by each one so we know exactly, but we don't have that information in front of us. Todd Gerhardt: We can pull that out Don. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. There's no real rush on this because as I see, this does not take place until May i for '93 and it goes through ApriI 30th of '94 so yeah, there isn't any real rush. If you'd ltke to pull that, get that kind of information, we can do it. Councilman Senn: Thank you. I'd appreciate it. Elliott Knetsch: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Elliott Knetsch: I would also just comment that if we propose to increase rates, we have to hold a public hearing on that. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Thank you. Item 1(1). Councilman Senn: Are we going to table item 1(1)? just. Do we need to table that or Mayor Chmiel: Yeah we should. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Nason seconded to table establishing the 1~)3/~)4 liquor license fees for further information. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 L. F~NAL PLAT APPROVAL, GATEWAY EAST, LOTUS REALTY. Councilman Senn: Now these are the properties basically involved in that, I don't know in prevlous information or actions ue got regarding easements and the road and Brown's property and all that, is it not? Paul Krauss: Yes, that's correct. Thls lsa long tlme comlng Councilman Senn. It came out of actions to acquire the Hanus building. The city now owns the back part of the Hanus buildlng whlch uas fllled with junk, uhlch we've cleaned up. Clean up the right-of-way issues through there. There was also some land that was swapped. It uas taken off the Hanus parcel, as I recall and put on the Rapid 011 parcel. The whole area was really a mess and it was a condition of these approvals going back 2 years ago I think, that this whole area be replatted once and for all and clean it up. Councilman Senn: Okay, and as far as this plat goes nou, who owns what property Ln the plat? Paul Krauss: Who owns what? That's a good question. Maybe the Assistant City Manager can relate that. I don't have that plat in front of me. Todd Gerhardt: Lot 1 ls owned by Gary Brown. Lot 2 ls the Rapid 0il. Lot 3 is the HRA. Outlot A is the HRA. And the Outlot A to the north would be the HRA and then of course the West 7gth Street right-of-way. Councilman Senn: And who's our applicant then? I mean is the City the applicant on thls or what? Todd Gerhardt: Lotus Realty. There was monies escrowed as a part of the purchase of the Hanus building to make sure that the property was platted. Before thls you had a sliver between what was the Rapld 0il slte and the car wash, which uas basically a non-conforming lot. Plannlng had concerns and made sure that monles were escrowed to make sure that that non-conforming lot dld not exist. So until those monies released, they had to come in ulth this plat. So those monles were enough to make sure that the plat uas recorded and dld away with those non-conforming. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the city in effect is doing the platting? Todd Gerhardt: We're insuring that the plattlng occurs. So it's not our money. It was Lotus Realty's and Gary Klrt's money that uas escrowed. Councilman Senn: From the sale of the building. Todd Gerhardt: Rlght. Councilman Senn: And so thls is really klnd of an after the fact thing for the parcels there, where the Rapid 0il and all that's already been bullt? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Yeah. Just to catch up on that portion of it, you're right. Todd Gerhardt: They were all sold on metes and bounds descriptions and this is a plat that matches those metes and bounds descriptions when the Rapld 011 slte City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 was sold off. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to. Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the Final Plat for Gateway East, Lotus Realty as presented. All voted in favor and the ~otion carried. I(A) STONE CREEK FI'RST ADDITION. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Hagen had a, we maybe should have pulled item l(a). Mr. Hagen, representing Hans Hagen Homes has a point of clarification on Stone Creek regarding an administrative split. As you recall we, the Council declded not to approve the administrative lot split and he's requesting that, he was hoping to have the development contract in place tonlght. He's hoping to pull a permit for a model home and he'd like to have approval to record it, even though the development contract isn't here in place tonight. That's what we were meeting briefly on before the meeting started. So he'd like to have a minute to speak on that issue. It's part of issue (a). l(a). Mayor Chmiel: Being that we've already voted on it, all we have to do is rescind that for the time being and have Mr. Hans Hagen come forward wlth that. Hans Hagen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What we are requesting this evenlng. The consent agenda dtd approve the final plat of Stone Creek First Addition, or would have had it gone through. What we are requesting is that, coincidental wlth that, that you approve a metes and bounds description of the outline of the plat. So basically you have all seen the plat and this survey actually covers the outline of the plat. We can't record our plat unttl the developer's agreement is approved, and that will not go on until the first meetlng in March. We would 11ks to start construction. We can't start construction until we buy the land. And we can't buy the land until we get a spllt. So (a), you have approved a plat, and subject to my signing the developers agreement you will then have a separate parcel. So what I'm asking for tonight is a lot spllt that covers all. of the property that is described in the plat you approved. With that lot split, your attorney can record this at the County. Then we can close on the property because we know what we're buying and the seller knows what they're selling. And then we would record a mortgage on that property. That will establish prlority and then we can get a butIding permit. And as a matter of practiCe under these circumstances, the staff will glve us a bullding permlt provided everything has been complled with here. the action I'm asking the Council tonight to take is to approve a lot split that encompasses all of the property that is in the Stone Creek First Addition. Can I answer any questions or have I confused everybody? City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: No. No. I just wanted to ask Elliott. Is that...thing to do? Elliott Knetsch: I did have a chance to discuss that with Mr. Hagen and I did, I was the one who suggested that it be brought to you in thls fashlon as an addltion to item l(a). So you have approved the plat. Basically as he stated, what they are requesting wlll enable them to proceed wlth construction. I think it's appropriate for the Council to do that if you think it's rlght. Since we do not at thls tlme, you know temporarily do not have an administrative lot split ordinance, all he's asking for is the City to put a stamp on there that says, we've seen thls and we thlnk it's okay. That's the only requirement for the lot split stamp that the County wants. So unless you have a problem with it, I thlnk it would be appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And if we record it, that would elLminate that given problem? Elliott Knetsch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: It's nice to see that Northwest Airlines is on time. Okay. Any discussion from Council. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded that we approve a lot spllt for all property in the Stone Creek Addition and that this also be recorded by the County. In the County by our Attorney. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a lot split for all property in the Stone Creek First Addition so that it can be recorded at the County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hans Hagen: Thank you very much. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. AWARD OF BIDS: 1993 G.O. TAX INCREHENT BONDS. Dave MacGilivray: Good evening. We would like your consideration of a resolution awarding the sale of $5,675,000.00 taxable general obligation tax increment bonds, Series 1993A. We recelved a copy of the resolution late this afternoon from the bond counsel flrm, Holmes and Graven. I don't believe lt's in your packet. I gave Todd my coples so there is a copy for your revie~ if you'd like to see it. Proceeds of this lssue would go to fund the acquisition of various land parcels in the city's redevelopment Tax Increment District No. 1, whlch ls in the downtown area. We took competitive blds in our offlce at 12:30 this afternoon. In general the market continues at what we would call historical low levels and as I go over the actual blds, I'll polnt thls out. These are taxable municipal bonds and by that, bond holders of these securities, the lnterest pald to them ls includable in thelr lncome for federal and state tax income purposes. So it's a lot different from your traditional municipal bonds for bulldlng streets and public buildings, etc. where that tax interest City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 exempt from such taxation. It is taxable because ultimate the majority of the bond proceeds wi'11 be used for land which be conveyed to prlvate parties and the federal government created this category basical-ly in 1986. 6otng to the yellow sheet, I belteve does everybody have one of these? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Dave MacGilivray: These are the results of the bids that were taken this afternoon. The best bld or lowest interest cost is listed first. Park Investment Corporation. They bid a rate over here on the rlght hand side, true interest rate of 6.3242~ and then they go in increasing order of tnterest costs or a lower deslreablllty, about a month ago when we first structured this issue at market rates then in existence, we were expecting a rate of 7.12~ so this is 8/10, 80 basls points under the market of about a month ago. The market has certainly come down but certainly hasn't come down by 80 basis points. But it ls events of the last week and the State of the Union, all of a sudden municipal bonds are even a hotter commodity than they were before and they were pretty hot for the last 60 to 90 days. What this means, traditionally if we were to have sold these 2-3 years ago, this rate would have been 9~ to 10~. There's usually a 2 to 2 1/2 percentage polnt difference between taxables and tax exempts so it shows you where the tax exempt market is right now. This reduction from the estimate, the 6.32 means a reduction in lnterest cost under the estlmate of: about $200,000.00 so we're at about a total interest cost of $2,300,000.00. Now we're about $2,100,000.00 so we brought those interest costs down by about $200,000.00. One thing you should note that's a little different from some of your others, thls lssue was.insured at the purchaser's option. The purchaser being the underwriter. This is a standard clause we put in most all of our bond transactions and the lssuers have the optlon of buying a bond insurance. In this particular transaction they took that option. Had it insured.by AmBac. What that means is thls bond issue recelves a AAA, the hlghest market grade rating from the National Credit Eating Agencies. This issue was rated by Moody's, you know the rating agency you use. Your rattng was confirmed at BAA1. Not a lot of fanfare so your rating has basically stayed as is, despite the fact that you're golng out for $5.6 milllon dollars of general obligations bonds. With that we would recommend award to Park Investment and we'd be glad to take any questions. Mayor Chmlel: Very good. Any questions? With that, I would ask for a motion to approve the 1993 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Re~o~ution ~93-12: Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to award the bid for the 1993 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1993~ to Park Inuestment Corporation wtth an interest rate of 6.3242~. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That is a good rate. I do remember those from a few years ago and that category of 9~ and 10~. So that's great. Saves the city City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 some money even though we have to spend some. Next item. INTeRPRETATiON OF CONDI. TZONAL .USE PERHIT VA~.IOITY, CUP ~¢-li FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIUE, JEFF CARSON. Sharmin A1-Jaff: In 1988 the City Council approved a contractors yard by approving a conditional use permit application. The contractors yard was supposed to have a building...parking area, a driveway that would lead into the building. The existing buildings on the site were proposed to be demolished and removed off the site. There were 20 conditions attached to your report that weFe the conditions of approval. One day before the permit was to expire, the applicant appIied for a building permit. Staff issued the permit. However... construction or development taking place on site. The zoning ordinance reads, if substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void. Over the past two years staff has not noticed any construction taking place and we are interpretting the ordinance to read as the conditional use permit as void. The applicant is contesting our interpretation and is in front of you today to get...interpretation. We are recommending that you find the conditional use permit as void. If you have any questions regarding the inspections, with us today is Building Official, Steve Kirchman. He'll be here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant, Jeff Carson here? Jeff Carson: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Jeff Carson. I represent the applicant, Mr. Harry Llndbery who is present tonight. Mr. Lindbery did indeed, I should also indicate that we were before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments from 6:30 to 7:30 and I wlll be repeating myself and I apologize to Councilmember Senn. In case you don't know, they recommended the interpretation as Sharmln has indicated. That the permlt be volded. Mr. Llndbery did receive his conditional use permlt and I trust that the packet of information ls before the Clty Council that was submitted by the applicant, which includes a brief memo and some exhibits. It ls our underlying contention that the conditional use, that the applicant has lndeed used the premlses slnce 1988 as a contractors yard. And I put the definition of a contractors yard in the flrst page of my memo to show that the definition of a contractors yard does not requlre a building at a11. In fact the use of the property, as Mr. Lindbery has made it slnce 1988, is exactly that. Storlng of materials for construction, contracting. That's his business. It is true that the original application contemplated a bulldlng and although we debated at the Board whether or not without a building this application or this applicant could construe or would be permitted to say that he was operating his property lawfully all these years. A literal reading of the conditional use permit doesn't state that you have to have thls building. That is thls property, whlch is approximately 40 acres, could be used without a building. Nevertheless, the applicant, and I outline. I don't thlnk I'll go through it agaln in all the deta11. He did lntend to bulld a building, and to that end he obtained a building permit, as staff indicates approximately a year after the issuance of the conditional use permit. A dispute arose and we're having a hard time getting a handle on that, or pinning it down. But in my materials I submitted to you, I gave you a packet of information about the floor heating. It's a heating system if you wil1 that the applicant wanted to put in this building. The idea was, and he obtained the building permit and City Council Heeting - February 22, 1993 he bought the shell of the building in 1989, and he's spent $36,000.00 doing that. Obviously intending to put that building on the property. He got into a dispute with the building official, which is at issue about that but he did. That's his statement. Over the type of heating to use. He manted to put the tubular heating in the floor and pour the cement. Probably at the time state- of-the-art. The building official told Hr. Lindbery, no. I'm not familiar mith it. You can't do it. That stalled the project and it never frankly got back on track. There mas a period of time during this process mhere Hr. Lindbery mas literally out of, physically unable to move formard personally himself on the project. He crushed his leg and mas out of active participation for a year on the building project. So these periods of time came and went and they are significant periods of time and that mas my reading of the Board of ~ppeals mas, too much time has gone by. You could have and should have come to the City a long time ago. You didn't. Why didn't you, and my ansmer to that mas everything in hindsight is almays clearer and it's better and certainly ! agree. He could have and should have come to the city the moment that a dispute arose about anything. ! mould point out that the staff was actively, at least morking on this project over 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use permit. The reason I raise that is that the interpretation that the staff is making is substantial completion of the building after one year mas not met. Therefore, you voided your permit and that's that. In the exhibits that ! handed you, there is activity from the Building Department, and I mould refer you to exhibits 6, 9 and 10 ! believe. What it shoms is that the Planning Department is, at that time dealing mith the permit. In fact Exhibit 10 ~ believe is. the cover sheet of the conditional use permit itself. ~nd then the right lower corner it indicates somebody's doing some research on an issue-as of 10/23/90. Significantly greater than 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use permit. Hy point being that I feel, based on what happened in 1992, that that's simply the convenient, if you will, ansmer today. That is, mell let's see. What's happened here. Time has elapsed. You're out of business. I would also point out that in 1989, when the City merit through the process of removing contractors yards from the Zone ~2, mhich is mhat me are, they had appropriate hearings and those hearings mere predicated by published notice but, and ! believe it's Exhibit 11, is a front page of a Planning Commission Hinutes mhere one of the Commissioners looked around the room. This was the hearing to decide on mhat recommendation the Planning Commission mas going to pass to the Council. There's no contractors in the audience. There's nobody that's a holder of a conditional use permit if you mill, and the question mas raised. Why isn't anybody here? Were they notified? The answer is no. You don't have-to notify people if you're changing the zoning. You just have to publish. Technically that's probably correct. But the other portion ment on to say, what about, these people mho are operating today? ~nd the ansmer mas, they're.non-conforming and therefore they're not going to be effected adversely by this action. Hr-. Lindbery mas not notified of the change in the zoning and he mas not notified by staff frankly that he was running out of time to complete his project at any point in time. Then in the summer of 1992 mhat happened mas, part of his contractors yard activities involved the storage of large and rather unsightly construction box units that he mould rent out to other contractors to store their equipment in on site. ~nd instead of putting them do~n, around behind the berm on his property, mhich he now knows he should have, he put them up closer to the road and they could be seen. So mhat happened mas, staff sam them. Wrote to Hr. Lindbery. He wasn't responsive and that has led to the presently pending criminal charges in District Court, mhich me are having to address. He City Council Meeting - February 22, I993 has since corrected the problem, by his perception at least, and put the boxes that he uses in his business behlnd what we consider to be a berm. An adequate berm. In other words, you can't see them from the road and that's the problem here. The upshot of it of course was, staff was looklng at this application and at the whole property as a whole. In 1992 they determined that this violation or this voidance of the permlt had existed and thus reached that conclusion. Now the applicant can't, that takes us up to about mid-1992. That ls from that point forward until today we're in an actlve dispute if you wl11, including the crlmlnal charges. The polnt was made at the Board of Appeals that a lot of time seems to have elapsed between the issuance of the permit and let's say mld-1992. And I don't disagree. There's a reason for what happened. It may not be adequate in the minds of everyone but it's what really happened in the real world in thls case. He dldn't get the bulldlng done. He got into the dlspute with the Building Inspector and he dldn't follow through and he didn't come to the Clty and ask for an answer as to what he was golng to be requlred to do. And here we sit. The zoning has changed. We're told he's not in a non-conforming status. He wasn't at the meetlng where the zoning changed so he can't be in a position to do anything with this property other than use as agricultural, if indeed the use as a contractors yard ls prohibited. It is our hope that you will, given all the circumstances, permit Mr. Lindbery to continue hls operation by conditional use permit. He would 11ke lndeed to construct the building. As I indicated, he's got more than $36,000.00 in actual monies spent for the permlt and the shell and the MnDot approval process. He's ready, willing and able to complete the project if he can get the appropriate approvals from city staff, whlch we believe we can do. And by denylng hlm hls opportunity to go forward, you're simply saying that the land is not going to be used anymore by this individual for the work that he does, whlch is operate a contractors yard. A couple of points were argued, debated at the hearing. Mr. Llndbery has used the property durlng this perlod of tlme continuously as a contractors yard. Obviously he did not build the building and so those parts of the permlt that relate to construction haven't been met. That also was a finding at the hearing of the Board. I would hope that you would consider this. There's some equltles here. There's some technical polnts. There's some questions about what does the Code mean, and keep in mind that he wasn't given a publlc hearlng. He wasn't told that hls conditional use permit ls in violation or any of that. It was just during this criminal process he was advised that lt's vold. It doesn't exlst. And I'd 11ke to thlnk that given the hlstory and the relative difficulty of interpretting exactly what that permit means, I think there are differences one mlght brlng to the interpretation of the law as it relates to this permit and I would hope that you give Mr. Lindbery the advantage at least to make it right. I don't see that the city ls any the worse off if he does. Clearly he is going to be in serious economic difficulties if he's told he has to vacate the use of that property. I thank you for hearlng us, a second time. If I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions? Mark, do you have any questions at this time? Sitting on the Zoning Appeals. Councilman Senn: Basically at zoning appeals, my tact I think was a little different than staff's and City Attorney's I guess. I have a hard time making the connection between the conditional use permlt and the argument that no construction has occurred on a building. The reason I have that trouble is that in the conditional use permit, the conditional use permlt lacks any reference to 10 City Council Meeting - February 22, lg93 a slte plan and lacks any reference to a building. Other than some vague ones such as a building must be sprinklered. That type of thing. Yet I don't have much sympathy for the applicant because what I see as a conditional use permit, even though contractors yards activities may be very vague and arguable for many hours, conditional use permit I don't feel is. It says the conditional use permit based on Exhibit A, the condition on Exhibit A, and any violations of the terms of the permit means that lt's terminated. And basically went through the conditions, the 20 conditions of whlch a majority have never been met. Forgetting whether buildlng lsa reference point or not a reference point. And I don't have a problem at all denying this permit on the basis that no construction has occurred. Also, that the applicant is in violation of a majority of the conditions of the conditional use permit. I do have a hard time basing some form of denlal back on whether a bulldlng exlsts or does not exist. I guess that's why it ended up here before us because I have that problem. Again I would strongly recommend denlal but I think we ought to call it for the reasons it is, rather than the reasons that don't really exist in any documentation because quite honestly I think the applicant concurs that documentation on this is pretty poor. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, in looking through some of this as well. The conditional use so stipulates or even implies. I'm not sure what part of the law leans towards that but...conditional use shall be in compliance within one year from date of issuance, and if you're not, your compliance from that timeframe, that permlt ls void. And construction of a building had not taken place. Whether it's so stipulated within there or not, that was still part I think of the conditions as it indicates. Councilman Senn: Oon, I guess in. Mayor Chmiel: I understand you're not. Yeah, right. No, I understand that. I'm just clarifying that for the record more than anything. Okay. Michael, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: Well, Mr. Carson certainly presents some compelling reasons but I'm confused as to why all the foot dragging on the applicant's part and why thlngs just haven't happened. I guess I can only speak from my experience but if something goes wrong, it's just common nature for me to go up one step higher and find out what the problem is and what can be done about it. It seems to me if that isn't done, I'm not, it doesn't set with me. I don't understand. Jeff Carson: Not having been there myself I can't, but let me do this if you would permit this. Mr. Lindbery is here and he does have, at least a response to that. It may not satlsfy you but it does involve issues relattng to his attempts to deal with plumbing and the things that he was dealing wlth. If you'd permit him to just address you for a couple of minutes. Do you want. to do that Harry? Would you permit that Mr. Nayor? Thank you. Harry Lindbery: Well, where we run into one problem is we wanted to, we put in the pileasters for the building, the columns where the beams. We're building a bulldlng wlth no posts. It's 70 foot wlde and 100 feet long. And we wanted to take the building engineer said we should take from these columns, run rerod lnto the floor. That way, if you get stress on the top of the building, because due to it's, on a shape like this, it wouldn't push out and push these columns 11 City Council Heetir~g -- February 22, 1993 out and that's why if they're tied into the floor. And ue had a problem with the plumbing man. He wanted us to put in tug separate systems as far as drainage from the building. One from the sanitary where we would have a toilet in a lunchroom for the fellows. And then another one for the floor drain. So we told him we would. We vent and bought the flammable waste. We had that already but ue wanted to put it inside the building and then ue had it there and wanted to hook it up. He said, no. You can't hook it up. You've got to put it outside the building. So we took and put it outside. Then ue got a concrete saving company to bore a hole through the footing around the building and we put it on the outside. Then we says, can ue hook up the floor drains to it nov? He says, no. Now you have to go down to the State plumbing department and get their okay. So the plumber Z had hired, and myself, ue vent down there. The State plumbing man, he said geez. He says, how come you want it this way outside? He said, when you'd have about 50~ of the time that would be froze up because he says we've got winters here and he says, I'll never approve that. He says, put it on the inside. And I says, well that's the way ue wanted it. then, he changed the plan. Then we went back to the city man. We asked him and we wanted to put radiant heat in the floor. He says he isn't familiar with that. He says put unit heaters up in the ceiling. And ue says, they aren't as efficient and this here, when you heat the floor, it stays heat because if you open the door, the floor's warm. Your air rushes out. When you close the door, your floor is still warm. And I think you have a thing on that radiant heat. Well, what he didn't, he says he wasn't familiar with it. He wouldn't allow it. Then in 199~ Z did have an accident. I ,as on a loader, front end loader and it's got a vinyl seat. And Z slipped and hit a lever and I got my leg between some framework on the loader and it crushed it. Hy insurance company doctor, he wanted to whack it off below the knee. That's where it came, the bone come out both sides and Z took and got a specialist and I went with him. He put a rod, J.t was about ~5 inches long and about the size of your finger and he cut both sides open and he put it all back together again and he made me stay off of it. So that kind of tied up the building. But ue had drivers going in there and going out of there with different supplies during this time so we didn't abandon it. z vas ~aid up for a while and our other fellows, they didn't want to go ahead and stick the building up but we've had the building all bought. All paid for and everything and as soon as the frost gets out of the ground, I'd like to take and put my rerod in the floor. First put the plumbing in. Put the rerod. Pour it and then so it would hold the columns in and then put the structure up. And it's out on 2~2 h~ghway. We don't use any city streets or anything like that so Z mean, Z don't think we've ever bothered anybody. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, do you have any? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I'd don't want to be completely blunt about this but I'm having trouble buying some of the arguments Hr. Carson's put forth on, particularly when you say we've never informed of the zoning change. I guess as a business person, you need to keep up on city ordinances, particularly when you gun a piece of land and ignorance doesn't prove innocence. However, I do understand the complications in building. But it kind of sounds like you're complaining because you got caught. Jeff Carson: No. If I may respond to that Mr. Mayor. I'm complaining I guess, if that's what I'm doing, about the timing and the rationale for it. The reason this really came up vas the units that he vas storing for other contractors that 12 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 he rented. The City continued to deal with him really long after the 2 year period was up. There wasn't any time clock on him at that point. In October of '90, they were st111 dealing wlth thls project. Had he been informed, had the contractors, the people that had contractors yards been informed that they no longer would have been able to operate a contractors yard in an A2 zone following the passage of an ordinance, I think it would have made a difference ls what I'm saylng. I'm not saying that, well. I'm saying that there can't be that many contractors yards in the city and it would seem to me appropriate to notify those people with contractors yards in those zones that are being zoned out, that that's under consideration. Now the answer to that was, when one of the Plannlng Commissions addressed it, was the people who are operating are non-conforming. They won't be effected by the change and so there's no need to bring them ln. Had Mr. Llndbery been lnformed that he's about to lose his rlght or he has a certain period of time after which he cannot operate his yard, any of that, I submlt that he would have resolved it right away or got the extension. Whatever the code would have requlred at the time. What's happened here ls that for reasons unrelated frankly, he's nOwlbelng told that, by the way, your CUP is vold and I think that, yeah. You can look at it one way and you can look at it another way but I'm trying to bring a sense of fairness to it. I know the city rezoned that property for a reason. They don't want contractors yards in the A2 zone anymore. That's the underlying message and that's the city's priviledge. But I think as tt effects adversely people who are there and operating, there has to be some kind of a glve and take. That's why, if it seems like complaining, perhaps it is. But I think this could have happened differently and we wouldn't be here. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: Mr. Carson, just a beginning question. Are there other employees involved here? Does he have a staff? Is this a company? Jeff Carson: He has employees, yes. I don't know how many but he does have other employees in this business. Councilman Wing: You're not alone on this? Well this was permitted in 1988 and I don't know what's changed since then, except the zoning. The agricultural zoning. In 1992 terms, what does a contractors yard mean or not mean to the city? And specifically in this area. I guess the first thing I'd 1tko to address ls just a concern for your c11ent Mr. Lindbery in that the clty wants to get away from contractors yards. They're not in the best interest for the city. They haven't been in the best lnterest of the city and they've been moved out rather effectively over the last few, well since I've been here. And one of the real palnful ones was the Carlson property out on the west end of the clty where he's had all sorts of problems and just as he gets everything resolved and gets thls bulldlng up, residential's comlng in and lt's costly residential and they're simply not going to tolerate this type of land use. So the pressure's going to be put on. The complaints are going to come up and my concern for you is that you're going to get, if this was granted, you'll get all your buildings up and everything established and spend these dollars and all of a sudden in will come a plat for a residential area of $400,000.00 homes. They're going to take one look at you and do everything in their power to start movlng you out. And then you're going to wind up an island down there and my concern is for your own personal flnances in the future. If lt's granted and if the dollars are 13 City Counci], Meeting ,- February 22, 1993 spent to put this in, is it in fact in your best interest, even in the short term, if suddenly residential moves in down there and it becomes a very unattractive land use that simply won't be tolerated. So I have that concern by approving this, and having you invest this money on this contractors yard, you may be right on the edge of development that just won't tolerate it and the pain and the hurt that you could be caused, I just wanted to bring that up as an issue here because I think it's significant for your own thinking and planning. But at any rate, the permit back in 1988, there's cons£derable dollars invested here. $1,200.00 for a permit and $3,500.00 for a building and MnDot and there's been a lot happening here and I think there's an awful lot of investment in this expired permit if you will. And although it's maybe not the direction we want to go, I don't know if the use and the conflict down there has changed since '88 to '92 and this is Mr. Lindbery's business and it apparently meets the use and there's a real loss for him if this isn't continued. $o I see the permit continuation as a real minor issue and a real minor variance. I see the conditLons of the permit as the 1ssue here and resolving those. So my preference here would be to give an extension, and I'm golng to just pick an arbitrary number of 6 months. Not that's got no valldtty any more than 2 months or I year but an extension of 6 months which allows staff, number one to review the conditions for being reasonable and is £t still the direction we want to go, and either changing those downward or leavLng them. And then have 6 months to comply with those or it exp£res without any further discussLon. Z think that m~ght be fair to resolve the issue and the conditions as a comprom&se here because there's too much money invested and 1f Mr. Lindbery wants to take the risk of that ~nvestment with what's changing down there, I won't address that. That's his business but Z have no problem with a continuation to allow staff to rev&ew the conditions, their reasonableness and then allow compliance of fairly accelerated way...on the other hand it doesn't throw the dollars in th~s permit that were expended over the years. And if there is a conflict, the city and staff and any inspections, we've gone over this time and time agaLn where the former inspections group and the former planning group didn't follow through and things weren't documented and so there's some oray areas here that I'm not will&rig to absorb so I would prefer to give Mr. Lindbery the benefit of the doubt. But £t would have to comply with the conditions and that would have to be in an accelerated manner. Harry Lindbery: Hay I ask a question? Hayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone. Harry Lindbery: Would that be for the building to be totally complete because we have about 3-4 feet of frost and that won't be out of there until probably about May 15th. Councilman Wing: I would move that 6 months after start of construction. Paul, I won't get into this. I don't know. It's just the numbers are arbitrary. Harry Lindbery: Then there's no problem. After the frost was out, 6 months. Councilman Wing: That could be a point. Harry Llndbery: Sure, because no problem wlth that. 14 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: I'm not allowing to allow continuation of this unless it's complied with. And it's complied with in an accelerated method but I won't go beyond that. I'd have to allow staff and Council to address that suggestion. Harry Lindbery: Well I just wanted to put out the thing. Oo you have any objection to our radlant heat? Councilman Wing: No. That's what I've got in my house. Harry Lindbery: Well, your plumbing man wouldn't let us put it in. Councilman Wing: Well I don't know anything about that. Maybe there were reasons. I can't address that .... the polnts are well taken. He asks the questions that can be handled elsewhere. I'm just bringing up the big issues here. Jeff Carson: I think he misunderstands the posture of the question at this point though. Councilman Wing: I'm trying to compromise on his... Jeff Carson: Yeah, and I think he's obviously willing to do that and that's really all we can ask of the clty. Councilman Wing: I have one concern is that I saw Paul start to, he was leaning forward in bls chair. Zf he was golng to confront me here, I wanted it done now. Paul Krauss: Well, don't take it as a confrontation. But we're here tonight because of an interpretation issue. We've interpretted this to have never occurred, therefore it's void. And the Board of Adjustments was looking to act on that and that's the question before you tonight. In taking the action that you've outlined, by granting an extension of something that we think is void, you've therefore said it's still valid. And that's an important point. Now you can do that, although I think the ordinance provides that that has to come through the Planning Commission. And then for action by you. But I guess we're real concerned though with some of the fundamental issues here. You know we're often accused of having large amounts of malice and forethought to any number of individuals around town when you know we usually respond to an issue that crops up and the issue in this case was that there was a bunch of trailers all over the front of the lot, and we couldn't figure out why. And we had letters that we sent out to the owner, which were refused and we sent them certified. They sent back to us. We knew that a building had been started years ago and was never finished. We knew that the conditions were never satisfied and apparently, according to the testimony by the attorney tonight, the applicant and his attorney are under the impression that they can go ahead and do anything' that they classify as a contractors yard without satisfying the conditions. We take some exception to some of those assertions. You know when you pass something, a package of conditions, whether or not it was before our watch here, as in this case, or whether or not we wrote the staff report, we have an obligation to make sure those things are fulfilled. And when we went out there, we found out that just about nothing was fulfilled. You know yes, there are a whole different set of issues that I don't think are necessarily appropriate 15 City Council Heeting- February 22, 1993 tonight, as to what the Planning Commission and you might ultimately want to do with that area. A1ld yes, the thinking has changed an awful lot since the mid 80's when contractors yards were put down there. We have results of that policy with the cold storage, metal warehouse buildings that were gouged into the hill. I mean there's a lot of odd ball uses down there. I guess I'd defer to the City Attorney, but if in fact you're looking at granting some sort of an extension, I think that you have to be aware of the implications, an extension to what. And I think you have to probably procedurally do it a little differently. Elliott Knetsch: I don't think at this time you have the power to grant an extension. I think what you're saying Dick is that you had a vaIid permit. He made some use and made some purchases based on that permit, so that constitutes use under our ordinance and that never really lapsed. So he in effect does have a permit and now we should look at what are reasonable conditions on the permit. That's Z guess what Z hear you saying and if that's what you're saying, that's fine. Z mean all we're asking for is staff and the City Attorney's offices, if you don't agree uith staff's interpretation, then the permit is still in existence and at that point you can take action to revoke the permit for non- compliance with the terms, or you can work with the applicant, given the fact that time has changed and their indicated willingness to work with you and hammer out some new conditions that are satisfactory to both sides. Councilman Wing: It just amazes me when you're educated how smoothly you can explain these tilings. That's where, there's enough expenditure here that I consider him to have the permit. And I'm comfortable with that. But I'll be rea]. blunt and say, put up or get out. And there's the rules. You haven't complied. You either comply or you're out of here. It's black and white. And then it's a big, I consider this to have been a permit. There has been expenditures made, and it never expired. I guess, is that the proper wording for my statement? The conditions of the conditional use, they haven't been complied wit. I guess that would be my issue tonight and I would expect immediate compliance. Total compliance or, in that case then we get into the non-compliance lssue. Then what happens? Elliott Knetsch: Well, if the permit's there and it's not being complied with, then you have the option of havlng a hearlng to revoke the permlt for non- compliance or, if the appl[cant agrees to new conditions, you can put new conditions on. Councilman Wing: So then my 6 months would come in. 6 month restriction on compliance. Is that right? Elliott Knetsch: I guess I think that could be appropriate if you treat it as, in effect treat this as a hearing on whether or not to revoke the permit and say well you haven't done all these thlngs. We could revoke your permlt but we're going to take a less drastic step and say, we're going to let you keep the permlt as long as you do these thlngs wlthin a certaln tlme. I thlnk you could do that. Councilman Wing: Well I don't want to belabor this any more. That's my position and I'11... 16 City Council Meeting - February 22, lgg3 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I too have been looking at this rather closely and I see the time to extend the permit has really expired. In lieu of all the letters that were sent by the clty and not received, nor accepted, I Judge that as a portion that does bother me some. It should have been addressed at that given time. Jeff Carson: Your Honor, I might add. Those letters related to a violation of the permit. Mayor Chmiel: But nothing was answered. Jeff Carson: No, I just, the purpose of the letters was not to tell him to get going. It was to tell hlm that something that he's doing with the property is in violation. Mayor Chmiel: And that there were several things in accordance with the £xhibit A contained within that as well that had not been complled with. It seems like there's nothlng that has worked through this always straight through. I feel uncomfortable with it. I don't like to do things or business that way, nor do I expect people to do buslness that way back to the city. So it'd be my position at this time to request a motion in regard to this proposal. Can I have a motlon from the floor. Or discussion. Councilman Mason: Could I discuss for a moment before we make a motion7 Mayor Chmlel: Sure. Councilman Mason: I share some of Councilman Wing's concerns about the applicant. However, hearing what Councilman Senn said earlier about the fact that we have a list of 20 1rems that need to be complied with and my understanding is that very few of them have in' fact been complied with. And I guess if~ I personally would like to hear from Mr. Kirchman for a moment or two about that. Because my feeling is that has more bearing on this right now. If none of this stuff has been complled with, my feeling ls to hold the public hearing to revoke the permit and see how that comes out. Which is what we have to do, right? Elliott Knetsch: Staff's taken a position. This is sort of technical...and I think Hark and I kind of crossed wires on it at the Board of AdJustments and Appeals too. We're saying, as staff, that the permit has either, is void per no construction within one year. Or alternatively, that it expired because there was no use made of the property pursuant to the permit. So the use was discontinued. Therefore the permit expired. That's what staff has, that's staff's position. That's what we've informed the applicant. So under that line of reasoning, whether or not he complies with the 20 conditions in the permit is not relevant because the permit is, we're not saying he's violated the permit. We're saying the permit's gone. However, if you would accept the applicant's position that they did use the property. There were deliveries or whatever use constituted a contractors yard, and the start of the building and so forth, then you would say no. We don't agree with staff. We think the permit is still there. Then the question is, what do we do with the permit. Do we move to revoke it for not complying with the conditions? Or do we look to give them additional time to comply? 17 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding you right then, the action tonight can only relate to whether a permit exists or doesn't exist? Elliott Knetsch: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the action of whether the thing is void because of non-compliance cannot be addressed tonight? Elliott Knetsch: Yes. That's right. We should address that separately. If we get to the point where there is a permit, let's consider revoklng it and we should hold a public hearlng on that lssue. And that would dlscuss whether or not the terms were complied with or not. Councilman Senn: Well Z'd make a motlon then that ue belleve the permlt is still there and that we schedule a public hearlng for revocation of the, or to conslder revocation of the CUP for non-compliance. Councilman Wing: I'll second that because it's my position. For discussion at any rate. Mayor Chmlel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Staff is saying nothing's happened withln a year. And you're representing Mr. Lindbery saylng thlngs have happened? Jeff Carson: Yes. Councilman Mason: That's essentially what's going on right now. Jeff Carson: Work that would be defined under the contractors yard, definition in your code, yes. Steve Kirchman: I mlght, if I may? Councilman Mason: Please. Steve Kirchman: I can maybe shed a little bit of light on that. I made my last inspection, a bulldlng inspection on october 22nd of lggO and I asked that Mr. Llndbery come in and apply for a heatlng permlt and a plumbing permlt and then he could go ahead and continue with what he wanted to do on the building. I asked that he meet wlth the Plannlng Department and Building Department to clarify some issues. He didn't come in so I periodically made trips out to the slte to make sure that there was no construction actlvlty on the bulldlng continuing. That was my primary purpose. But durlng those visits, at no time dld I see any type of actlvlty that could be construed as being used as a contractors yard taking place, until I made a note to the effect that the containers and the round concrete pipe were on the slte. And that date was, well one second. Let hie find that inspection. Okay, that date was. 18 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Sharmin Al-Jail: June 8th of '92. Steve Kirchman: Okay, June 8th of '92. So at no time before that, between 10722/91 and that date when I noticed those, was there any construction activity or any activity taklng place that could be construed as a contractors yard. Now, I only went out to the site maybe 2 times a year. It's way down there. I'd stop when I had time so I wouldn't have seen if there was any activity at but there were no new structures. Nothing gone. No tracks out at the area so, and that's all I really have to say as far as the conditional use permit. Councilman Senn: I don't doubt at ali what Steve's saying. In fact I think he's probably 100~ right. Again, I think our basic problem is in the original drafting documentation of the CUP and the lack of any action for 3 years. I think it's a lot cleaner. A lot simpler to simply get past that issue and say it st111 exlsts. Then go, the real lssue ls the fact that I don't care what excuse in the world you.come up with, I can't figure out one that justifies 4 to 5 years of no actlon on a CUP wlth 20 very definitive conditions whlch have not been even, I mean I can maybe find a couple that have been complied with out of 20. To me, from a clty's position, that's a lot more cleaner arguments than getting into a lot of semantics, especially when you've got a poorly written CUP in the first place and even poorer documentation over 3 years to back it up. Councilman Wlng: 1'11 just tack onto Mark that I think it gives the applicant time to thlnk about the fact that maybe 1988 was a good time to invest dollars down there. Maybe 1992 is not as good a year to invest dollars down there considering what may be coming hls direction. Or, I don't know what date it is. 1993. Jeff Carson: Zf I may Your Honor, one of the problems of course is that the hearing itself would simply be a pretext. I mean the deciston about everybody's feeling as to what has happened or not happened with respect to certain 1rems on that list is pretty clear. You'll do what you'll do but it seems that everybody's made up thelr mind about that issue and I hope that the applicant has some opportunity. I 11ked what Counctlmember Wing was saying that, maybe there's something, some common ground here that if the applicant and staff got together and who knows what those conditions would be. They might be more stringent. Zt mlght be less energenlc a projeot. There's a lot of possibilities but when I say pretext, I mean it's simply, you're going to have a hearing so that you have a hearing. Simply do what you're feeling now, it seems. Councilman Wing: I think the items need to be reviewed. Maybe the building isn't needed. Maybe it's use has changed a little bit from what you decided. Maybe it's going to be an attractive contractors yard, but you're going to have to put up or get out. That's my position. Jeff Carson: Well, that's not unfair. Councilman Wing: I'm supporting you. Jeff Carson: That's not unfalr. I have no problem with that. If the City says to the applicant, you've got this much ttme to do this much work to stay in business but it never, that was never said before. You can say what you will. 19 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 You can say that Mr. Lindbery is difficult and all of that but I really don't think he ever was of the mindset that this was what was going to happen. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council finds the Conditional Use Permit ~88-11 for a contractors yard on property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive is still valid and to schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of CUP ~88-11 for non-compliance. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Jeff Carson: Thank you for your time. What then will happen? Mayor Chmiel: This will get scheduled and staff will get in contact with you and let you know when thls comes back before us. Jeff Carson: Thank you. Does that come before the Planning Commission? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You go before Planning, it comes before us. Item number 3. ABRA AUTO SERVICE CENTER. SOUTH OF HIGHWAY_5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND CHANHASSEN ESTATES AND EAST OF THE EMISSION cONSROL TESTING STATION: A. SITE PLAN REVIEW. fOR A 6,494 SG. FT. BUILDING. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE FACILITY IN THE BH DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address A1 Beisner James Benson Vernelle Clayton Donald Hagen Tom Kotsonas Gerard & Llndsay Amadeo 7549 Mariner Point 15034 Cherry Lane 422 Santa Fe Cr 4501 Hunters Ridge, Hinnetonka Chan Estates 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: On item number 3, which we're coming to. I guess just so there's no pre-tense that we are again leading anybody down the path or down the road, I'd like to make a motlon that thls 1rem be tabled untll after our Counc11 work sesslon next month. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. For what specific reasons? Councilman Senn: In that the Council work session is to specifically further dlscuss and seek understanding as well as potential actlon on a moratorium involving Highway 5. 2O City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: The date of the work session? Councilman Senn: Is scheduled for March 3rd. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I guess I did not anticipate that. However, given some of the comments I have tonight and the concerns and the phone calls I've received, I think that this applicant may be better served if this was handled in that work session and some issues dealt with that maybe would save us a lot of trouble tonight. I think he might be in a better position to address this after that work session. Councilman Senn: Does that mean you're seconding that? Councilman Wing: I am seconding that. Mayor Chmiel: Motion's on the floor to table until after March 3rd and be brought before Council on, that would be the 8th of March. I think that would probably not throw too much off one way or the other. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Yeah. I would like to ask the City Attorney what are our optlons if they are already meeting all the, it's a conditional use permit. They're meeting everything that we're asking them to meet. How will we be served by delaylng thls further? Elliott Knetsch: Well the conditions are as requested by staff. Council may agree wlth those conditions. May have other conditions so Z don't know if what staff is suggesting ls acceptable to Council for conditions. Mayor Chmiel: By discussions I'm hearing here, there may be some other real . concerns. Councilman Mason: Well I understand that but we have approved, rightly or wrongly the Goodyear operation and I understand that there are community members that feel very strongly about this. I klnd of feel unfortunately 11ke what's been done is done on that site and I think quite honestly the City, had we acted originally when our City Planner suggested gettlng a task force golng, I thlnk we could have avoided a lot of this. Unfortunately we didn't and I guess I'm not happy with an Abra Auto Service center going in there. Oon't get me wrong. My contention is that after the work session, we're st111 not going to have any options. So if we're just putting these off to grasp at a couple of straws, I don't think we can do it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and just to clarify some things that were in the paper, a letter to the editor taking that this is the same old Council that they had seen before, I stand to that person to be advised thls isn't, and I objected to that rather strenuously. I do feel though that those people, if they are in compliance, just 11ke anybody else would like to build anywhere else, they're in compliance with the requirements of the City Code, we cannot stop them. That's to be understood. There's no way that we can do thls~ nor would I tmpose the City under any circumstances to be put to a suit because of that. And I just want that understood. But discussions on the floor is as such and if there are any other discussions. 21 City Counci]. Meeting ,. February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: Well I can go down a limt of 1,000 questions and 1,000 items that are going to take half the night to answer here and may still approve it. But I believe thls ltem ls so significant and the lmpact on the city and lt's continuation of the strip development and the movement of the auto industry out of downtown, I thlnk it needs to be addressed at a workshop. I think the Council needs to sit down and go over thls with the attorneys and go over this wlth plannlng and set some expectations, and I won't questlon lt's approval. It may be our only option but lt's certainly going to be with better faith and people are golng to know where thls Counc11 stands once and for all and I want to know about the lot behind it. What's going to happen. I want to know about buffering for the neighborhood. I've got a lot of questions. Thls lsn't the time or place to do lt. We have not had the tlme as Councll to sit down and review this 1rem and lssue and thls ls I thlnk a tremendous lmpact on the clty. I don't thlnk it would be to the benefit of the applicant to move on this tonight. I thlnk lt'd be very unfalr to hlm. Councilman Senn: Don, I guess you know I feel quite the same way and I can't dlsagree wlth a lot of the thlngs you're saylng but I guess I have a lot of questions of our attorney as to how and why other cities passed even specific moratoriums agalnst this type of use and get away wlth lt. I mean like I say, I'm gettlng so much conflicting information on this lssue, or these lssues, that I agree with Dlck, we really need to get it 1nrc a sesslon where we can get all the issue~ on the table and look at them. Mayor Chmlel: True. I guess one other thlng that I look at too is that it's our responsibilities to provlde the kinds of needs for the community, for the residents of this community for whatever this mlght be. Whether it be a grocery store or a gas statlon to provlde those conveniences for these people withln our community. I'm not saying that the need ls not here. I think some of those needs are basically here and that's why you grow as you do grow within a community. I thlnk we have to look down the road a long way to determine those basic needs for thls community and that's the only thlng that I'd just like to impose upon your mlnds ls that there lsa need for thls wlthln the community. Thank heavens I never had the opportunity to look for those needs but I've had kids drlving cars that have had those needs and had to look for something close to home. Councilman Senn: Well Don I think one of the issues is we want to look, just to go on the tail end of that. Maybe you do need it but I think that's part of the questlon we need to look at. If we're going to have lt, where does it go. mean the east part of Highway $ at this point is an atrocity. In my mind and a lot of other people's mlnds. It contains so many gas stations. So many, I shouldn't say so many. That's all it contains. Councilwoman Oockendorf: We're all saying the same thing. Let's put it in a work session and deal wlth it. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor to table this particular item to our work session and be brought before Council back on March 8th. Paul. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like the toplc of this work sesslon is something that, I mean I'm glad it's going to happen because I think we could have started a long tlme ago. The thlng I'm concerned wlth ls we're tosslng out City CounciI Meeting - February 22, 1993 a lot of ldeas that have been tossed out, this is probably the third or fourth time. ~nd they're valid ideas but we have somebody who submitted an application here almost a year ago and we still haven't processed it. We've continued it several times because they didn't satisfy what we felt we needed. They continued it once. One time we didn't have a quorum. It's been continued because we dldn't like the architecture. We continued it because we thought we might do a moratorium. Then we put it back on the agenda. Now we're continuing it to have another work session. I'm not sure. I mean it's really hard to define what the statutory requirements are for processing an application. But it's pretty clear this one's not working nearly as smoothly as these things are supposed to. And I honestly don't know at what polnt, is there a 11ne here where the thing's going to be approved if we don't act and have we crossed it or are we on the verge of crossing it? I don't know the answer to that. Councilman Wing: Paul, if it's a mistake, it's a permanent mistake. Whether lt's legal or not. If it's a mistake, lt's a permanent mistake and I want to make sure that if we pass a permanent mlstake, that we gave it our very best. That's a11. Because thls ls on my shift and lt's golng to be there with fenders piled up outslde 20 years from now and who knows what else is going on. Councilman Mason: No, no outside storage. Councilman Wing: If you want to run this tonight, we can beat it to death but this is the first time the Council's getting a chance to look at it and it's come up through the ranks and I've got a feeling that if the Council looks at tt tonlght wlthout havlng resolved this in a qulet little work session. I mean it's a public meeting. Anybody can attend that work session, but at least when it goes to the Council next time, it will be pretty definitive on where we're going to go probably. And I think that short delay for that applicant is really in hls beneflt at thls point. It wtll save him a lot of embarrassment and questions and if's and bur's and why's and where's and I want 3 more trees and we argue all nlght long. By the way, I don't see a landscaping report in there either so I would have stopped it tonight for the landscaping report. I'm not...lO mlnute perlod here going to, if the landscaping's my key figure, I'm not going to decide it tonight in a 10 minute ttme period' .I need time to study it and I have not seen it so that would have shut it down for me tonlght alone. Sharmin Al-Jaff: You saw it with the Goodyear application. It's the exact same landscaping plan. And we are requesting additional landscaping. Councilman Wing: Okay. I did not understand that. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wtng seconded to table the Abra Auto Service Center Site Plan Review and Cond/tional Use Perm/t unt/1 after the City Counc/1 work session Harch 3, 1993. A11 voted /n favor except Counc/lman Hason who opposed and the mot/on carr/ed w/th a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: I believe you gave your clarification. 23 City Council Heeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Hason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not. I just agree with what Paul is saying. PRELININARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SXNGLE FANILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 HINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS. Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to develop 36 acres of property into 33 singIe famiIy lots. This property is currentIy owned by Hr. Boiey. It's part of a iarger parcei that's aiso in Victoria. If I can expiain the limits of the property here. ThLs area here is in the city of Chanhassen. This is outiots. Exemptions...from the property... so these are actuaily ~n the city. Hayor Chmiel: Outlots are not within the city of Chanhassen? Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and this ls also part of Victoria. So there ls a...clty line that spllts the back of those lots. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net denslty of 1.37 units per acre. There's two wetlands on slte and the rolllng topography has some significant views from the property and some treed areas also. The three tree areas located along Hlnnewashta Parkway on Lots i and the backs of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot C. At this tlme the area, Outlot C ls being left out. It seems to make sense that the property to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out, that the access be galned from Victoria's slde and ue thlnk thls makes good planning sense too in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I mentioned, the Victoria clty 11ne, the Clty Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself did meet with Victoria. They had concerns about the lot 11ne splitting the subdivision and thelr preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that lnto two different jurisdictions. It's our contention that we have other circumstances in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in the city. We have this across the street actually utth Victoria. The church and those homes part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel 11ke, as far as the lot remnants it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted lnto the subdivision. Councilman Senn: Just so I understand what you're talking about. Thls is the line right here? Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these. The homes would actually fall into the city so it's the back portion of the lot that would actually fall lnto the clty of Victoria. CounciZman Senn: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot wouldn't be? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: And that 11ne goes rlght there? Kate Aanenson: Correct. So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a lot remnant. Although in uorklng we've asked Vlctorla and obviously thelr 24 City Council Heeting - February 22, 1993 approportlon is a part of the puzzle on this. They would have to give because the backs of those lots do fall in their jurisdiction. They do have to give approval for the subdivision. Again, we feel that this area here itself may also make sense to be in part of Chanhassen and we're looking at that issue itself as far as annexation. We do have services in Minnewashta Parkway to provide services. We've asked Victoria to look at how they plan on servicing this area and providing access. There is a significant amount of wetlands to the west, including Tamarack Lake and a wetland surrounding that. What we're looking at is how access would be provided to this area... The Shoreland regulations, Lake St. 3oe is classified as a natural environment lake. All the lots abutting the lake, the riparian lots do meet the 40,000 square foot requirement with the lot width. There are 12 lots that do not meet the 125 foot lot requirement and we did recommend variances from that. The Planning Commission did have concern with giving a blanket variance. What does that do to further projects that would come forward. So staff did address an intent statement reflected in condition number 14 as to why we felt that those lots that are not abutting the lake, why they should be under the 125 foot lot width. We feel it doesn't effect the density in any way and it's really...to the subdivision. It's not going to give less lots. The wetland regulations, as I mentioned there's two wetlands. One adjacent to the lake and the other one is right here. This one was left off the wetland inventory, although we have gone out and looked at a wetland special...went out and inventoried it. All the lots abutting the wetland do meet the setback requirements which is 40 feet under the natural classification. This is one of the few natural wetlands we have in the city as part of the new wetland regulations. As you recall, we require re-vegetation and have a 20 foot average so it can meander 10 to 30 feet, which all these lots can meet that. As a part of that we haven't come up with a vegetation requirement but we will be looking at it before it comes back to final plat. One of the concerns that we did have, in looking at the grading issue, and the trees. The amount of grading going towards the wetland. When you first look at it, at first blush it seems like a lot of grading back towards the edge of the wetland but upon further investigation it was determined that actually this area was farmed right up to the wetland already and going back and requiring the re-vegetation actually is going to improve'the situation. And the other issue is that you get a positive flow, to have the run-off run back towards the street. The fill is, this is the edge of the wetland. You bring the fill in and they wanted to get a positive, this is-a 1~ flow back in the street to actually get into the storm water system into the pre-treatment ponds so we can pre-treat it before it goes into the wetlands. So at first blush again as I mentioned, it appeared to be a significant amount of grading but then upon further investigation it makes good planning sense and drainage sense. As I mentioned earlier, this can be serviced from utilities from Minnewashta Parkway. There's also a trail as a part of that project that's being put in by the city. I mentioned earlier that we're looking at maybe stubbing, depending on what Victoria does, there's two accesses going to the property. Off of Minnewashta Parkway, this property is developed in that format. Otherwise, depending on how this lays out...provide access to Victoria to the west. Parkland, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this. They're recommending that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication. As far as trails; they're also recommending that they accept trail-fees. Landscaping. I mentioned that there is some trees that will be moved'as far as the grading. Mostly in this area right in here. 'Councilman Wing had brought up an issue too that the views looking across the wetland...pretty much'is my 25 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 understanding is looking across the wetlands to Minneuashta Parkway on the backs of these lots. In meeting with the applicant, we'd recommend an additional condition of approval, that being number 17. That ue work, before ue come back for f£nal plat, to come up with an appropriate landscaping plan on the riparian lots to try and soften that look across the wetland. As I mentioned, the Planning Commission was concerned about the intent of giving blanket variances on the lots that did not meet the shoreland width requirements and ue did add that in the condition of approval of the intent. Items (a) and (b). It doesn't effect the density and that's only the lots that are not abutting the lake. One other item of clarification would be condition number 4. There seems to be a couple different interpretations as to what the flood elevation is between the Watershed and the DNR and Bonestroo, our consulting engineers have given us a different number. So we'll be working with the applicant on that to determine what that elevation is. So based on that, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval also with the conditions in the staff report. I've highlighted in bold the changes that the Planning Commiss£on did make to the report. Councilman Mason: And there will be one more condition about the landscaping? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 17 you need to add. Correct. Mayor Chmlel: 17. Landscaping. Kate Aanenson: Landscaping. Additional on those lots, the riparian lots. Councilman Senn: The lssue is what, the people on the other slde don't want to be able to see across...? Kate Aanenson: No, I thlnk Councilman Wing brought that up and he can articulate a little bit better. It's my understanding that the view, this person...across the lake and that we've taken down some trees in thls area so you're not looking right at the grass going up to the back of the houses. Maybe puttlng in some cluster of trees. We do have a requirement in the landscaping ordinance that requires that each new home you have to put 1 tree ln. But that may, normally we require it in the front. We want something in the back so when you look across the lake up towards the house, that there's something to break up the line. Klnd of soften it. Councilman Senn: Do those trees exlst on the other side then? Kate Aanenson: Are there trees on the other side? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe Dlck can explaln hls. Councilman Wing: Well, looking across Lake St. Joe, what you kind of have is the Sound of Muslc. Mary could be up on the h111 slnglng because lt's pretty wide open and lt's just sort of an open knoll if you wi11. And if you come into Chanhassen. Mark where I was really comlng from here, as you come lnto Chanhassen from the east, just prior to our city border, there's a large swamp. Wetland down there and then rlght stralght across ls all these 11ttle monopoly City Council Meeting - February 22, lg93 houses and that's lt. I mean you go from thls wetland right to this stark nelghborhood. No trees. No vegetation. Nothing. Well I don't expect Terry to come in and landscape or buffer or block those homes. They want their vleus. I do on the lake where I live. But Z thought there's just one specific area, actually lt's lots 7, 8 and 9 are the only ones that are golng to be effected. Because there's trees off to the south and there's trees along the north border that w111 probably, some of those will probably stay so my thinking was just to break up the impact because it's such a touchy environmental area to, I've got to let Terry declde what he's golng to do but my thought was to put in 3, 4, 5 pine trees with a couple hardwoods clustered in one spot and another one may be here and another there so that the lmpact across the lake doesn't go stralght into this hi11. Straight into the backs of these homes. That there's some buffering. Environmental buffering between the homes and thls area. And if you were to drive out there, you'd see what I'm talking about immediately. Very stark and I thlnk we deserve to have it buffered a little bit in the plannlng process, but not blocking views. Not buffering the homes from the area. Just strategically placed trees that are going to glve some buffering to the lmpact of this development on Lake St. Joe. Councilman Senn: Okay. So I mean that's not being interpretted then by staff as some kind of solld landscaping wall so these people can't look at. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. No, that's why we're leavlng it klnd of open just to work with the staff to come up with an appropriate and you'll see it when we come back for final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Does the applicant wish to say something? Briefly. Rlck Sathre: Your honor, I'm Rick Sathre ulth Sathre-Berquist, 150 South Broadway in Wayzata. I'm the engineer and planner for Lundgren Bros on this project and Mr. Forbord, Terry Forbord is here from Lundgren as well. He's asked me to just briefly show you one sltde and just to reiterate that Lundgren Bros are contract purchasers of all of the Howard Boley property, whlch is a little strange in it's boundary configuration and does 1ie in both cities. We w111 be pursulng approvals in Victorla as well. I've got an overhead that shows the homes. Councilmember Senn was interested in seeing how the homes related to the boundary 11ne between the two citles. Here's that municipal boundary right here. You can see the houses would be comfortably in Chanhassen and the Vlctorla part of those lots would be the backyard space or a portion of the backyard space. We think it's a good way to deal with that very strange strip of land. What else could we do? The staff's done a terrlftc job ulth the report. We're in agreement with the condition that's being added to work on softening the vlews of those rlparlan lots. We want the development to look very nice. These lots are very large and the homes will be very nice in this subdivision. Lot areas range from 20,000 square feet up to about 121,000 square feet. It's a little unusual for any city but' Chanhassen as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you would have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Rick, let me ask a question in regard to the proposal and the ghost portion as to what mlght go within the city of Victoria. I don't have any real problems or too many concerns with the part that's within Chanhassen. But I would take a positlon that the clty of Chanhassen ls not in a positlon to provide water and sewer for those areas within the city of ¥ictoria. 27 City Council Heeting- February 22, 1993 Rick Sathre: We understand that you would prefer not to extend utilities into an adjoining city. Hayor Chmiel: Right. I just want that put on record so everyone is aware of that. In the event that this becomes annexed into the city of Chanhassen, I don't have any objections to that. But I think what ue have to do as far as the city's concerned, we have to watch the total amounts of sewer addage that we're going to need for our own city or we're going to find ourselves in a position like Chaska running out of area for that, as they have presently. Their sewage treatment plant no longer can facilitate any additional building. So ue made an agreement between Chaska and Chanhassen. We're going to connect into our intercept but in the same token the city of Chanhassen is getting something back from that in areas that ue can go closer to their facility, ua're able to connect into their sewage system to be provided into their sewage treatment plant. So I just want that understood. We have to get something for something and I think we have to be careful on what ue do with that. Hark. Councilman Senn: I guess two questions on two separate issues. One is, I see number 16, the existing dock on Lake St. Joe on the Boley property should be removed. Is there something implied in that? Kate Aanenson: Well there was a discussion with the Planning Commission, since those are riparian lots, that maybe each homeowner would want to put a dock in. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the few natural wetlands that ue have in the city and our concern is that we'd be coming in with a wetland alteration permit on each one of those lots. And I think the intent is that they have access on Hinnewashta Parkway where there is an access and that would be the desired intent to use that access. Hr. Boley has a dock right now and that be taken out and then encourage the residents to use the parkway and go over and use that public access on the lake. Councilman Senn: So we are not, are we or are we not negating their right then to put a dock in on their property? Kate Aanenson: Well, they'd have to go through a wetland alteration permit and the only ua/ they could get one is a significant space between the vegetation and the lake. The only way we could do it is under a boardwalk and I think that would be a chance to not allow those. Councilman Wing: If you could go and look at this, this is a low area. A very lntense, steep, muddy swamp area and to put a dock out there, I don't know what you'd accomplish even when you got out there. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Councilman Wing: And there is no fishing in the lake either by the way. Councilman Senn: There is good fishing in that lake. That's what I'm wondering about. How do you get to the flsh Wlng? Councilman Wing: There is a State access on the lake. 28 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Because people like you keep saying there isn't any there, that there's plenty of fish there. Paul Krauss: Actually we've heard that that lake is 80 feet deep. Councilman Wing: I have a 75 foot anchor line and last summer we never hit bottom. Scared the daylights out of me. Paul Krauss: And I've heard that there may be some fish in there, although I don't thlnk lt's ever stocked. Mayor Chmiel: Sorry I brought it up. Councilman Wlng: ...but you see no, there are no ice houses out there because they're not getting anything during the winter but during the summer and spring... Councilman Senn: I'll go diving there this summer and flnd out. Second question. Is there some, I don't know, this split up lot situation. My concern ls, I mean is there any way that we can put some type of a governance or, I don't know what the right words are. Stipulations or something as it relates to covenants or whatever on the property so that the back part of the properties don't all of a sudden not meet Chanhassen rules and become whatever, we can pursue whatever we want to do and do whatever we want to routine versus meeting the same rules that the front part of the lot has to meet. Paul Krauss: Whlch standards are Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you take these lots that are...split between the cltles, as ! envlslon lt, okay yes. You've got the front part of the lot which operates under one set of rules, i.e. Chanhassen. Let's say Victoria has no rules on the back half and all of a sudden we're in World War III because our residents are fighting with each other over uses, sheds, this, that and the other thing. Can we put, I guess my question is, to avoid that situation, can we put some sort of covenants or whatever on those properties through the development process which says, the residents have to assure or make sure, I mean again. I mean we can't effect the land because the land's in Victoria. Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Senn: But we could make it a stipulation of the front half, for them to stay in compliance on the front half, they have to meet our rules on the back half. Paul Krauss: I'm sure sooner or later somebody's going to come up with something that we would not favor back there but it's hard to know what it might be. Councilman Senn: You know it's going to happen. Paul Krauss: To the extent that our regulations are more restrictive than Victoria's, presumably something 11ke that could occur. If Victoria were more restrictive than us, then it really wouldn't matter what we said because the 29 City Council Meeting - February 22, i993 land's not annexed. Their ordinance would still prevail. In the form of covenants though, it presents something of an enforcement problem because then the only recourse we have is a legal one to...against the property owner. I suppose it's possible. Z would defer to the City Attorney on that. I haven't heard about dolng it but thls situation ls odd enough that maybe lt's worthwhile. Councilman Senn: Do you understand what I'm saylng? See my polnt? Rick Sathre: Sure. Sure. At least this isn't as bad as the Sofitel or whatever it is. Where the kitchen's in one city and the rest ls in another. Councilman Senn: I understand...situations unfortunately. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros puts restrictive covenants on thelr projects and they would apply the same standards to the lots that lie in two clties to the lots that lie only in Chanhassen. Those covenants haven't been worked out at this point but they govern certainly additional restrlct use of the property and we'ii be working on that. Councilman Senn: I guess in my mind, Lundgren Bros does a good job of that. I guess I would just like to be assured or make sure that when they do draft that, and maybe this comes back to staff, that that in effect be considered and be put in there so we don't run lnto that problem in the future. Rick Sathre: You know thelr interest is not to have neighbors be bad neighbors to each other. Councilman Senn: Unfortunately we have to live with it longer. Rick Sathre: That's true. Mayor Chmlel: Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a question of staff. Just being a novice at thls. There seems to be a lot of open lssues. I realize that thls ls preliminary approval but Z guess it's also a question to my fellow Council members. Mayor Chmiel: Well, being that it's strictly preliminary as yet, and until it comes back and finalized, then we can have our full say as to what we really want. But the only reason I brought up the issues on the sewer and water ls I thought we'd best put that up right now and take our position and say that's where lt's at. Paul Krauss: I don't know if it will put your mlnd at ease, Councilwoman Oockendorf, but apart from the unusual configuration with the city line here, it's actually a pretty slmple plat. I mean the klnds of issues that are outstanding at this point are pretty standard and are generally worked out in due course. Kate Aanenson: Like I said, the utilities are there. There's no pending gettlng service to them. 20 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was looking at the...of the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Right. That was just the one, we had that analysis, preliminary it looks like lt's an ag urban and that house, under those circumstances would meet it. There's no re-vegetation. The other issue is the storm water and they wait until they get preliminary approval and come back with those calc's and make sure the pond's the right size. But actually this one is pretty straight forward. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have any questions? Councilman Wing: Well, first off Colleen. Where it says preliminary, it means the next tlme you see it ls flnal and then we get into these debates. Now ls the time to, rather than debating it now so that it doesn't even get to us wlthout this done. Number 14, lot width requirements. I don't favor a varlance on that. That condenses the project down and I don't like the appearance of that. And I happen to like the other 25 foot lot width and I'd like to stick with that. That's the...I'd like to see this without that variance; Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussions? Councilman Senn: Now that requirement picks some kind of an average point though rlght? Because of the cul-de-sacs and all that sort of thlng.. Kate Aanenson: Measured at the 30 foot setback line is where we measure that from. So if you're on a cul-de-sac and you measure where the house sits back. The width. Mayor Chmlel: The homes being located within the cul-de-sac and setback requirements. Kate Aanenson: You can go back another... Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it's only going to be, where does the footprint go from that polnt? Once, well we don't kno~ yet but that probably shows some of them there. It has to be a 30 foot setback from the road in itself. Kate Aanenson: For the property line, right. Councilman Wing: For the boundary line? Councilman Senn: Which I've seen several already come through where we, I mean that's a fairly standard condition on cul-de-sacs. Is that they don't... Kate Aanenson: Well curvature. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Make sure I understood that. Councilman Mason: So Councilman Wing, why are you against that? repeat that. If you'd 31 City Council Heeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: It's just condensing down these, as I drive around and look at these, I don't like those lots that come in like this and suddenly your frontage is reduced down to nothing and then densities and the appearance of those lots are awkward and I don't like them. I'd like to see the full front footage on all these as much as we can. Councilman Mason: Now according to this, the density is not going to be changed to the project by this. Councilman Wing: No, but I'm looking at some of these lots and lnstead of coming in and focuslng on the driveways and mailboxes and everything, it spreads this whole thing out and makes the denslty look less. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. We just looked at too, they're still exceeding the gO foot whlch would be our standard. Even the ones they're requesting variances on I guess. Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. I'm not sure I heard you. You're talking about Lot 13 that has the neck on it? Councilman Wing: Just item 14. Variance to the lot width requirements. Rick Sathre: Alright. So it's all of them. Councilman Wing: It's not 14 thru 25... Kate Aanenson: Right, We'll. probably be showing the setback. Rick Sathre: What we're really asking for is, we're fully complying with the area requirements. In order to meet the wldth requirements we'd have to add more blacktop and that doesn't seem to serve any good purpose. Councilman Senn: I like the area requirements I see on these lots. Some of them we've been seeing lately come all the way down to the mlnlmum or whatever we said. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motlon for the preliminary plat review. Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Hason: Second. Hayor Chmiel: Other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat ~93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated 3anuary 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the publlc improvements. 32 City Council Heeting - February 22, 1993 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain ail necessary permits from the Watershed Oistrict, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, HPCA, Health Department, and HWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the pre-developed runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed Oistrict to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibilty of consolidating the two storm water rentention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Hr. Ismael Hartinez, as outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Hanagement Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of the slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas distrubed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed. rock in accordance with the City's Best Hanagement Practices Handbook. All acess polnts to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. ?. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension £ndicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be altgned perpendicular to each other. 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of 33 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Victoria through one of the phases of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. COnlpliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentatlon staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be revlewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by 1ts classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Varia~ce from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement wllJ. not affect the denslty of the project. c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied withln the metro area. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Bole/ property shall be removed. 17. Additional landscaping shall be added on riparian lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AHENDHENT CONCERNING TRAIL AND LAND. DEDICATION, £IRST READING. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. In light of all the talk about controls and gaining more control, I'm pleased to bring to you two issues this evenlng. Unfortunately on 1rem 5(a), the amendment to the subdivision code, lt's not that we're gaining a whole lot of ground. It's simply that we're solidifying what has not been in the ordinance to date but what we have been asklng developers. So the following explanations are given for those proposed amendments. Belng to subparagraph (a), simply a clarification. Addlng tra11 fund to description. Previously it said park fund. Subparagraph (j), the existlng subparagraph fails to address those situations when land in lieu of dedication fees or a combination thereof is desired as a part of a commercial/ industrial development. The standards of 10% of market value or 10% of gross 34 City Council Meeting - February 22, lgg3 land is consistent wlth current practices. An example of thls would be the Opus development, the Gateway uhlch came in. They were looking at a combination or strlctly a land dedication lssue. Subparagraph (1) clarifies the establishing of trail dedication fees. Previously when the trail fee was specifically named in the ordinance, in order to change that fee you needed to amend the ordinance. What this does is pull it out, reference that the fee uill be set by resolution and then subject to annual fees by resolution each year. Adding to subparagraph (t) ls an important addition. The desire to see a functional trail system in Chanhassen is high. Subparagraph (t) puts lnto action the clty's comprehensive trail plan by seeing to it that trails represented under thls plan become reallty. There has been a time honored argument that trail x does not need to be constructed because at present when you find when that subdivision is coming through, the trw11 segment which is adjacent to this development whlch ls on the City's comprehensive plan, did not make any sense. I do not believe that that argument holds water any longer. We're becoming well enough defined and developed. Our Highway 5 corridor trail spine w£11 be developed from Powers Blvd to Hlghuay 41 shortly. We should be making those north/south connections up through that trail spine. What tn fact has occurred is a short sighted looking 2 to 3, 4 years down the line has wielded great harm upon the future's non-motorized transportation system. Incremental improvements in and of themselves do not amount to anythlng buying those over a 5 or 10 year period of time and the city u111 have a nice trail system. As such it is recommended that the approval of the first reading of the subject ordinance be approved thls evening. Hayor Chmlel: Any discussion? I'll call for a motion. Councilman Hason: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the f/ret reading of the amendment to Chapter 18, Sectton 18-79 of the City Code Concerning Parkland Dedication Requirements as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. B. APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1993 PAR1( AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES. Todd Hoffman: Item 5(b), as previously explained is married to the proposed ordinance amendment whlch you just passed. As such, the approval of the 1993 park and trail fees has been postponed until this time. For reasons expressed in my remarks concerning the ordinance amendment, the Clty's park and trail fees are in need of revision. The attached park dedication survey completed in December of last year shows that at 8 of the 9 cities surveyed have fees higher than Chanhassen's. As you look through those cities, tt's clear that they're not the same population. In fact, most of them, if not a11, are hlgher population than Chanhassen. Please remember that park fees are not set on the basis of population but on how much land costs in your city. How rapid development is occurring. We need to recoup those costs through park fees so we can go out and purchase property which satisfies the lntent of this subdivision section which says, as your city develops you need to acquire enough property to satisfy thelr recreational needs of those developments. Land values are the driving force as I've stated. I went through and demonstrated a case study in 35 City Council Meeting -- February 22, 1993 your packet. The result of which are backed up by the recent survey of other cities. An increase in the city's park and trail dedication fees is warranted. Therefore in the absence of any questions which Z will have answered by the City Council, it is recommended that the 1993 park and trail dedication fees be established as followed. Residential single family or duplex units at 9600.00 per unit. Multi-family and apartment units at $525.00 per unit. Commercial/ industrial property at 93,000.00 per acre and the trail dedication fee being one-third of the cost of dedication fees. Mayor Chmiel: We've not raised this, as you've indicated, since December of '919 Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Which is basically a year plus a couple months~ Todd Hoffman: And additionally pointed out the rate increases are somewhat conservative when compared to the case study. If you go ahead and look at the survey, in establishing our commercial/industrial fee we use the land value of 930,000.00 per acre. That is somewhat low in most instances. If you look to Burnsville or Apple Valley scenario, they're upwards of 940,000.00 to 965,000.00 to 9?O,O00bO0 per acre. We referenced the purchase by Target of land in our downtown area for over $200,000.00 per acre. You see that that cost is not... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: In looking at basically what you put together here, I don't think there's any question that it's justified to raise the fees. As far as the case study and the basis we're using for doing that, I guess I agree that land value is one methodology that should apply was in that equation. But I don't think it should be the only one. I look at this and I also say to myself, well look at the uses and look at the pressures these uses are going to put on the system and I look at it and say gee, $600.00 per unit for single family but only 9525.00 for multi. Then I look at it even further and say geez, $3,000.00 an acre for commercial/industrial. I mean that's like one house every 8,000 square feet which we don't allow. I mean it seems to me that we're kind of over burdening commercial property who is probably is the lightest pressure or use as it relates to the trail system. At the same time that we're not treating multi probably on an equal basis with single family. I mean and again, I'm looking at it more from, here's what you've got. Here's what's pressuring it versus just a pure land value scenario and I guess I've got some problems I guess with that being pure part, or the only part I should say of the equation. Todd Hoffman: Councilman Senn, you're absolutely correct. Philosophy plays a very bit part in establishing of these fees. If you go through the survey which you have, you'll see the different philosophies which led to their fee being higher in this particular category or lower in this particular category. I'd welcome input in that regard from the Council so this year we can make any necessary amendments and make necessary changes in the future. Your neighboring city Eden Prairie feels very strongly about the equality of single family versus multi-family. In fact, I think there are $840.00 per unit for any housing dwelling unit. Commercial/industrial is usually looked upon as a different use. They put some very heavy uses onto our ballfields with their commercial leagues. 36 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mens and women's open type of softball leagues. They also bring a lot of employees into this city. I don't know what the statistics are but we employ a large number of folks in the city and hopefully they're out making use of the trail system and who are in fact out making use of the trail system during their .work time hours. When you think of an employee, whether they're a 1, a 2, a 10 or a lifetime employee at a certain company, you try to create an environment, a work environment such as Chanhassen has, where they can feel comfortable coming to work. They have some feeling of open space. They have some feeling that if they want to partake in recreation after the workday, they have that available to them so the city has maintained that commercial/industrial segment of our - clty. It does bear a large part of the responsibility for creating those open and recreational spaces. That's been some of the philosophy to date. And again the number of case studles, as I've indicated, are numerous. You can cut thts thing a 1,000 different ways and come up with always somewhat different figures. But certainly facts and figures and numbers which are... Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Wing: I move approval. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second. Resolution ~93-13: Councilman Ring moved, Counciluoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the resolution approving the 1993 Park and Trak! Dedication fees as follous: Residential single family or duplex units at $600.00 per unit. Hulti-fam~ly and apartment units at $525.00 per untt. Commercial/ industrial property at $3,000.00 per acre and the trail dedication fee being one-third of the cost of dedication fees. Al! voted tn favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Mason: Two things about the workshop. The direction I'd like to see us take, and one of them's already been touched on, is task Highway 5. I think some people have claimed that Council has not taken leadership on this task force and I thlnk I would be inclined to agree at this point and I thlnk we need to take a strong look at that. Along with that, Don Ashworth mentioned at the last HRA some sort of 2002. Some sort of vision for the city. I think we as local government, clty government have a decislon or have to think about whether we want to be caretakers of Chanhassen or whether we want to be leaders of Chanhassen. Now Z prefer to be a leader and I think if we do, I would 11kw to see the Council doing some sort of visioning on what do we foresee happening in the year 2002. What do we want the city of Chanhassen to be like? Not just next year, but in 5 years and 10 years. So I guess those are the two things I'd like to have us take a real strong look at. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was hopeful that the letter that was written back to Jim Andrews would have been in our administrative section with the letter indicating that but I'm sure, I think I showed that to everybody. Councilman Senn: I guess, you know one concern I get is I thought this one work session we set up was really relating to the moratorium lssue on Highway 5. I think we've set this thlng up to go before the Planning Commission whlch has a finite period which we're running which I believe is 2 hours. I think to take 37 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 those 2 issues on, probably each one of them is deserving many more than 2 hours. Councilman Mason: And that's fine Mark. I just, I agree with what you're saying. I think the two issues are hand in hand. And I'm fine with having Highway 5 be the major thurst but I want us to keep close to the front this idea of what the future's going to bring. Because that's a real good point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's why we're discussing that. Why we brought it up in the first place is we all are trying to get that vision in place because I think it was you Mark that articulated in the Council race that unless we define a vision within the next couple years it will just happen and we won't have... Councilman Wing: We've already decided if we don't do it in within the next months, it's going to happen. Councilman Senn: Don, we never got back to this last meeting and maybe now's the appropriate time but I'd still really like to see us set up a regular work session schedule. Mayor Chmiel: Something was to be set up by staff. Councilman Senn: We were going to set it up I thought at the end of last meeting and we never came back to it. I'd like to really see, since everybody's here tonight, if we could pick some kind of a common time to go ahead and start doing this on a monthly basis. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think Wednesday the 3rd was just an abberation. We just picked that because it worked well for us but on an ongoing basis, that's not going to work for me. Councilman Senn: Well that was a quick pick because we wanted to try to not to stack staff up. Or ue wanted to stack staff up I should say, on a given night. Mayor Chmiel: We could either make that something either prior to each Council meeting. Start at 5:30 and have discussions on different things. I'd like to thumbs down on that one. Or we can estabIish an additional Monday of each month. Councilman Mason: Well that does, the trouble with that is it does bring staff in another night. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't necessarily have to bring staff in though. Councilman Mason: Well, there will be at least 1 or 2 staff people at every one of those. Councilman Senn: But let me make a point on that. We could set it for Monday night and we could move one of the temporary task force or commissions to meet that same night which does the stacking we're talking about. The temporary things are going to go away. I hope this doesn't go away. I hope this is a permanent meeting. We can move things in and out around it because now we've 38 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 set that Monday night as a meetlng time and stuff, and then we could move something else around it again. I agree with what staff has brought up at past meetings. We want to stack it as much as possible so you're not running back here every night of the week. Councilman Wing: Well let's back up. I think we've decided, at least a majority that we want a scheduled Council work session. At least monthly. No less than monthly. Let's just pick a tlme. Let's concentrate on that, whenever it is. Mayor Chmiel: You know, Colleen says thumbs down but I think to try to justifiably do thls, if somehow we could do it prior to a Council meeting. Really because then it eliminates that need of staff belng here another nlght. God only knows they're here probably about 3 or 4 times during the week. Rather than maklng it 5, I thought we could at least try something in that particular vein. And maybe starting it at 5:00. Have a 2 1/2 hour work session prior to the Council meeting. Councilman Senn: That's a long attention span for a night. Mayor Chmiel: It makes a long night, I agree. Councilman Senn: I'd really rather see a separate Monday. Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my concern with that is that we'd end up talking about that night's agenda as opposed to talking about. Councilman Senn: Well Dick had suggested I think last time we talked about this. I thought you were kind of even suggesting it almost as an additional thlng that we maybe meet a half hour early or something and revtew agendas. Councilman Wing: I'd like an opportunity because I can't get a hold of staff during the day. To be here at 7:00 and go right down the agenda with speclfic concerns, answers, questions, clarifications from the attorney. Things I'm going to bring up that I may not even have to mention at the meeting then, and would resolve the problem. So if we met at 7:00 prior to each one to review, quick revlew of the agenda, 11kw Golden Valley does. Their meetlngs are over right now because they resolve lt. The questions are asked up front. Councilman Senn: That's the regular Council meeting? Councilman Wing: Regular Councll meeting. Councilman Senn: I like that idea too in additlon to what we're talking about as a regular work night basically. Paul Krauss: Minnetonka always, well Minnetonka had regular meetings, work sessions on an off night. It's a good format to throw things out really. They also got together a half hour ahead of time in a different room and ate a sandwich and schmoozed a little bit, which was great because you get to meet and lt's not, the TV cameras aren't on and all that. But I think we run a problem City Council I'leeting - February 22, 1993 when we start thinking that we're going to be talking about what's on the agenda that night, because as soon as we have more than 2 of you in a room and we talk about what's on the agenda, we've probably violated the State 1au. Mayor Chmiel: All we'd have to do is have the newspaper come in and make them apprised of that. Councilman Senn: Everybody expects it to be a public meeting. It just takes us out of this and let's us ask some speciflc agenda questions. I would have loved to do that on several 1rems tonlght. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, if you have it regularly scheduled as a meeting and it's open to the publlc, you don't have an open meeting violation. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I feel real awkward sometimes kind of stating opinions and gettlng questions that I'd klnd of 11ke to hear for example what the City Attorney says before time. I don't mlnd any of that being public but again, lt'd be nlce to have an opportunity to do it wlthout. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Yeah, the formalities. Councilman Wing: I think we'll run smoother with that so that's one side of it and I would, as a matter of fact I'll so move that we meet at 7:00 for a quick prevlew and a qulck questlon and answer perlod. And if thls falls, it can be repealed rapidly. Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Councilman Hason: I didn't think that was under Council Presentations. Councilman Senn: Work sessions. Councilman Wing: Although I might say Hr. Hayor, if you would allow me, because I was late and I dld try desparately hard to get here, if you would allow me to add to a Council Presentation. That's what Z wanted to brlng up tonight so I would have to ask your permission to present this. In whlch case then a motlon would stand. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Whlle we're on lt, how about those late fees? What do you think? Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk it's legitimate to allow that to go. We can try that at ?:00. The only problem is, whoever's golng to be sitting on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals won't be there. If there's something golng at that same tlme. Councilman Senn: Hove that up a half hour. Councilman Wing: That's right. That ends at ?:00. Councilman Senn: Of course we could just make it a half hour long and they'd go the length they should. 4O City Council Meeting - February 22, lg93 Hayor Chmlel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to have the City Council meet at 7:00 prior to each regular City Council meeting to review the agenda and ask questions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: That will be at 7:00 on March 8th. Councilman Wing: And subsequent meetings. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, review of agenda. Councilman Wing: Before you go, I'm very concerned about staff burnout and their evenings away from home. They're stretched now so whatever we're going to do, it really has to take staff carefully into consideration I think. Councilman Senn: I agree Dick. I think we should go with the Monday night and I thlnk again we should take some of the temporary things, the task force types of things and move them to that nlght so we cluster them. I agree with the. concept totally. It's just that, Z think we should set that as a regularly scheduled thing that we're going to look at with some permantency and we can plan on our schedules and as task forces go and come, or whatever they can plug in around the more permanent times. To accommodate staff so they do that. Councilman Wlng: The only reason I'm golng to shake in my boots...Monday nlght, is that for the next year I have a strong commitment over at the Fire Department. Councilman Senn: On every Monday night or what? Councilman Wing: Well, every Monday night but on off Monday nights in particular so I fight to get Mondays off. Mayor Chmiel: ...save every Monday night that we have, which is our second and fourth. Councilman Senn: So I'm trying to get hls scheduling problem. Councilman Wing: Okay, the last motion was 7:00 on Council meeting nights. Scheduled Councll meetlng nlghts. Councilman Senn: Just regular meetlng nights. Not work session ntghts. Councilman Wing: Now we're looking at an actual work session to deal with heavy issues such as the Abra and Highway 5 Task Force, etc, etc. Councilman Mason: Well so how about, yeah. How about doing it before a Planning Commission. Either first or third Wednesday. Councilman Senn: That's tough for me. See Mondays are easier for me. Mayor Chmiel: That would be March 3rd. 41 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Sennr That's bad for you too? Councilman Mason: Mondays are. Plus the nice thing about doing it before a Plannlng Commission or before an HRA or whatever, is we have to be done by a certain time. That will I think keep us on task. Councilman Wlng: HRA nights might be a good nlght. That's a Thursday nlght once a month. Mayor Chmlel: That'd be the 18th. Councilman Wlng: How much time do you think we need Mark? Based on what you've felt so far. I mean these thlngs get pretty light. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I mean, the work sessions, I'd like to really see them scheduled ina ~Jay they don't come up agalnst something because, you know deal like it's an extra Council night. If there's that many J. ssues coming at us that fast, we can put i or 2 on the agenda and if one of them takes 2 hours. I don't mind giving it. I mean I'd much rather be in that situation than being sitting up at thls table wlth the 11mited information you have otherwise. Mayor Chmiel: okay. Let's poll or let's find out what day may be good. Dick has suggested. Councilman Senn: Well Mondays are bad for Dick and I hear Mike saying Mondays are bad for him. Mayor Chmiel: How about Wednesdays, which is Planning Commission night or a Thursday? Which is a Thursday evening on the llth. Councilman Wing= Could HRA be shoved ahead a half hoL~r- if we ran into a tlme constraint? Mayor Chmlel: No. I'd suggest that we'd have a hard time getting a forum. Councilman Sennr How about if ue do Wednesday but don't necessarily just leave it as an end with the Plannlng Commission. I mean if we need room availability, we can go to another room or go upstairs or something. I mean Z hate to confine us to that klnd of a time perlod and then have no way out of it. Paul Krauss: In fact, do you really want to hold the meetlng here or do you want to hold it upstalrs where lt's a 11ttle more... Councilman Senn= I'd rather have it outside of the Council chambers. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. No, Z'd say keep it upstairs in a courtyard room. Councilman Senn: ~nd then if there's somebody needs to run down for the Plannlng Commission or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Well I have it written down here for 5:30. Councilman Senn: That's the 3rd. 42 City Council Meeting - February Mayor Chmiel: Now do we want to continue with that each month? Councilman Senn: Do you want to do 5:30 or would you rather wait and come later after you can get home and eat or whatever? I mean again, there's generally not a reason for us to be at Planning Commission is there? Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily unless you have an interest ulth what's golng on. Councilman Wing: Staff has a requirement to be there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5:30 I guess I could. It'd be sometimes tough for me but I'll just deal with that. Mayor Chmlel: Now, are you going to be satisfied with once a month or do you want to have it twice a month? Councilman Mason: I would 11ke to start with one. If we need more we oan add it but I don't want. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Because everything comes in right after Counc11 so those would be the discussionary kinds of times when you're going to have it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what week of the month? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be, we would do that one then at 5:30 on the 3rd and the one that would follow that would be April 7th. Councilman Mason: I'll be out of town. Councilman Wlng: Well none of us are golng to make them a11. Councilman Mason: Well that's true. Councilman Wlng: I'd also be content if we'd by motlon require a monthly work session to be specified at a specific time. The last meeting of the month for the next month. We would have to specify when we're golng to meet. Then we'd know the issues. Mayor Chmlel: My suggestion, before we go to that recommendation. Let's try these and see what happens and then after that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good ldea. Councilman Senn: Yeah. And I think staff understands that what we'd really 11ke to see at those work sesslons is any major 1rems that are comlng down at US. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Paul Krauss: But you don't necessarily want to see, let me clarify that. You know I've heard a lot of comments that there's concerns that if we've been working on a subdivision and the Planning Commission's been tossing something around, if it's Goodyear or whatever, that it's been in the hopper for 6 to 8 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 months. You want to have everything that you get be previewed or just major issues? Mayor Chmiel: I think possibly major issues more so than just. Councilman Senn: Projects. I don't think, I mean if there's a major project coming in that you guys thlnk we ought to know about ahead of time... Councilman Mason: And I think this gets back to that vision kind of thing too. I mean my personal feellng ls, I mean the nltty gritty day to day stuff isn't, that's not our purview for that. Hy personal feeling is more looking at the big picture klnd of thing. Mayor Chmiel: When you're establishing a precedent and making sure that's going to be the best For what... Councilman Wing: You know what I'd like Mike, if we in fact can do that over the next few months and get these ordinances where we feel we want them and this task force completed, we may, some of these meetlngs we mlght meet every other month. Councilman Mason: I would hope that would be the goal. 'Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll go with that for right now. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the agenda for the 2rd is? Mayor Chmiel: The agenda for the 2rd would be the work session. Councilman Senn: It'd be Highway 5. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be Highway 5, yep. Councilman Senn: And then we're going to do thls, okay so then in effect lt's going to become the first Wednesday then of the month? Mayor Chmiel: Plannlng Commission. Councilman Senn: I guess that's my question. Is that always the same as Planning Commission? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what we're shooting for right now. Without establishing a precedent. Councilman Wing: And on the 3rd it's Highway 5 but also Abra. We tabled Abra tonlght so Abra should be item number 1. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That should be number 1. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern for saying that is I can see us sitting in a room and you know we just start talklng and we don't have any real agenda. City Council Heeting - February 22, 19~3 Councilman Senn: The work sessions I'm used to going to is yeah, like Abra's an issue but the real issue is Highway 5 and our vision for that and it gets back into issues of what do we want to have happen on Highway 5 and do we want a moratorium and can we have a moratorium and what are the legal issues involved with that? Then ! think last but not least, when you get done with all that, you come back to an issue of Abra. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we look at. Councilman Wing: But it has to be dealt with. Mayor Chmiel: With that Abra portion and with Goodyear, I think there's only one other lot in that particular stretch that would be of any concern so. Councilman Wing: But I want to know about that now. Councilman Senn: I understand Dick. Boy I'll tell you, there's a lot of people that are concerned about lt. Nayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, no question. Councilman Wing: I think I'll save this comment on the task force. Mike, I wanted to tag along on your comment. My feelings are that we put aslde this moratorium, whlch I've never had more hostlle phone calls. Mlnnewashta Parkway was hostlle but these people said, wake up Council. Come on. And the newspaper editorial I 11ked. Both Trlppler's Trips and that one from that nelghbor over there. Mayor Chmlel: Don. The one I commented on. Councilman Wing: Yeah. I didn't take that personally. He's saying. Mayor Chmiel: I did. Councilman Wing: Mr feelings, let me just back up real quickly because I'll cover this more in detail at the meetlng. But when Highway 5 came up and this corrldor study came up, I felt we should spend what was estimated then, between $25,000.00 to $50,000.00. Bring a professional group in. Engineers. Planners. The whole thing and sweep thls thlng through and get it done right now. And we said, well we can do it 1n-house and we can do this and one of the, the woman sittlng next to me said, oh we have to be patient and government moves slow and I said yeah. It moves slow alright unless you make some decisions and want to be leaders and get moving, and I didn't appreciate our position at a11. So we chose to do it in-house. Now we're saying, we really kind of need some professional help and we need some technicians and thls thlng's too big and Paul I think has said, it will pull us down. I think Paul has got to be funded. I think he's got to brlng ina landscape architect if he needs lt. Engineers if he needs it. He's got to bring in specialists wherever he needs it right now to get the job done. That's number one. Fundlng. Number two is I thlnk that we should instruct staff to pull back and put a moratorium on staff for Lundgren Bros and whatever else ls comlng through this city right now, we can assign one part-time person, Kate or Sharmin to deal with planning but staff goes 90~ to thls project until lt's completed and they have a moratorium on their projects City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 and their outside work and their evenings. Whatever happens until this is completed. If we're golng to do it in-house, then let's turn them loose and get it done but we can't be runnlng the clty and developing and expanding and growing and expect them to come in and functlon reasonably on thts. And they're gettlng kllled on it and it's not rlght. Hayor Chmiel: I think that you're making some good points. Councilman Senn: Save it for the work session. Councilman Wing: I will. Okay, but I was just telling you where I'm coming from. Mayor Chmiel: But the problems are trylng to allocate those additional dollars for those kinds of things within and I think where we initially started it I think was the rlght lntent. And it st111 ls moving and it wasn't golng slow as some people may think, but it does take time to pull all ~hose things together. The only problem belng with that ls that that...too blg. Too many people on lt. Councilman Wing: Oh, I'm not convinced of that. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I understand. I've heard, I mean there's been a bunch of people calling on that too. Councilman Wing: I just want you to know where I'm coming from and I'll be a little more organized... Councilman Senn: Here's another great one for a work ses~lon. Our next 1rem on the agenda. ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SCHOOL/RECREATION ACOUISITION, HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CITY HANAGER. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on to the, hopefully the last item on the agenda. Belng that Don ls i11, and probably wlll be there for a few more days in his bed, you'll see this next week. I hope you're feellng better Oon. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sure he's watching. Councilman Senn: He's certainly a sick man if he is. Mayor Chmiel: School/recreation property acquisition, Highway 5. But I'm hopeful that most of you have had an opportunity to look at this, just as a background. I thlnk we've been looklng at thls particular site for the last 4 or 5 years. We originally had looked at that site for a high school, and because of all the exlstlng problems that are there, would not accommodate the total amount of acres that was needed for it. We then came to the conclusion that that slte would be used either for a junlor hlgh or a grade school. Grade school is the thing that's going to come in. One of the discussions that we've had, and we've had meetlngs wlth the School Board on several occasions. Between the Clty of Victoria, Chaska and Chanhassen and East Union, and have had a lot of discussions back and forth but the need's basically for wlthln the community 46 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 again is going to be for an expansion of the grade school portion, and that's what we're looking at and it's existing location now is for that. But then in addition to that, somehow I want a commitment back to the School Board that the next junior high school is going to be located within the city of Chanhassen. Now we're talking two different kinds of things. We're looking at what Chaska is doing and is looking for. Their site which was pulled together by Frauenshuh Companies. The School District are the ones that basically employed them to go out and start looking. And the area that they're looking at is just in and adjacent to Chaska's boundaries and Chanhassen boundaries. Proximity of close, it's right there. They looked at the potential of costs on that per acre and they're looking at roughly about $15,000.00 per acre plus $2,000.00 additional costs for utilities. And so they've gone out and looked at that particular part and the area that they're looking at is County Road 17, and I believe is that 14 or 15 that goes through there. Todd Gerhardt: Pioneer Trail and Audubon. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. No, no. For the Chaska School Site. High School. Okay, that's 17 and. Todd Gerhardt: Pioneer Trw11. Mayor Chmiel: Pioneer Tra11. Okay. So that proximity ls at least movlng it a little closer into Chanhassen. 8ut that's neither here nor there because they don't know whether or not the referendum will go through. If the referendum doesn't go through, nothing's going to be moving ahead one way or the other. So as we look at some of these other thlngs, the Hlghway 5 Partnership, who are the owners of that school site for the elementary. And by the way, Oennis Oirlam is here from the Hlghway 5 Partnership. Looked at thls to be developed almost 5 years ago. They were ready to move on it but we weren't because of the MUSA line and the extension and water and sewer and so forth. And a lot of the comprehensive plan was also there and some of these things were not fully incorporated in lt. The Partnership right now ls finding this type, maybe we'll buy, maybe we won't isn't acceptable. They've had some offers for that property as well from what Z understand. From developers for residential development within that particular area and I sort of feel sometimes 11ke that's sort of a push or a shove to us as well. Saying I have them but I thlnk lt's legally binding. Just like going to buy a used car. It was only driven by this lady to church on Sundays. But what I'm trying to get at basically is that we're looking at this option of establishing this referendum which may fail tn 'g3 and the School Olstrlct would need the optlon of havlng additional tlme to represent the referendum to the public potentially in 'g4 and '95. And even though that gulde plan shows the property to be school, the underlying zoning ls · residential. Once one of the two purchase agreements are signed, as I mentioned previously, that could go one way or the other. But in light of this, Don and I have been looking at this with our Clty Attorney's office and they're seeing the acquisition process. More than half that site ls anticipated basically for recreational use. And the City and the parcel is approximately 42 acres with the elementary school requiring 20 acres, if I remember exactly. I think that was so indicated. The site of course would be the. home for that future expanded recreational uses including the gyms, that the city can also use. within to free up some more of that space that Todd is saying ls needed within the community. So they're looklng at the different costs for thls and Z think that some of the 47 City Council. Meeting - February 22, 1993 thlngs that I'd like to just quote Don on saylng in hls overall proposal, as he says, I think the proposed settlement reached by Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs lsa very reasonable one. If you've looked at the proposed purchase price. I look at the price and I think it's a little blt high yet but they're dolng the negotiating and I'm not and I'd love to do the negotiating but I don't think they'd let me. If the City is taking the bull by the horns, we will assure that we'll have thls site under control and available for a school whenever the referendum is passed and he's suggesting that the approval be contingent upon staff reaching an agreement with the School Dlstrlct wherein they would enter into a purchase agreement similar to the one that was proposed by the Frauenshuh Companies that would guarantee the purchase of the School Oistrlct once the School District does pass a school referendum. The site was identified in our last update of Tax Increment Dlstrlct No. 2's development plans and he's indicating that the approval of the proposed purchase agreement ls basically recommended. And I'm hopeful that you dld have an opportunity to look and read what they're looklng at wlth those two different optlons for those prlces on that property. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Do we have the money? Mayor Chmlel: Yes. We have the money. I just had to make sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Technicality. Councilman Senn: I guess I really sympathize with Highway 5 Partnership and I don't thlnk, you know you should be able to kind of sit out there and keep saylng, forever that they should have to, what would I say, do nothing wlth it or wait on us one way or another. At the same tlme though, it is set that there ls going to be a referendum now in '93, ls it not? Mayor Chmiel: End of March. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'd much rather, glvlng the proximity of that at thls point, await the referendum to see the action. Now if the same, the rest of what I'm golng to say, if that referendum falls, then I thlnk we need to very definitely consider an actlon where elther we go or we don't go or call it off but secondary to all of that I guess ls, to me in thls thing there's a real big leap of faith here. I mean that leap of faith ls, we're not just talking about 20 acres for a school. We're talklng about another 22 acres for recreation that's being defined in a way I'm not sure I'd at all agree wlth, let alone we should be considering purchasing 22 acres of land for. I'd really 11ke to see a lot more discussion on that and thought on that before we would proceed with anything at least described in those context for recreation, 11ke additional gymnasiums and ali that sort of thing. Again, I guess part of that is I have a real problem ulth the Clty ownlng and developing a lot of gymnasiums next to Chaska Schools. I would say there's a fair number of people in the city that would have a problem with that, 11ke over half that are in the other school district. Mayor Chmiel: Well it doesn't effect them because the referendum does not effect those people per se. 48 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: We're not talking referendum though. We're talking about 22 acrs~ for rscrsation that you'rs talking about the ctty developing and the city developing with clty dollars, which lsa whole separate issue from the School District coming in and building an elementary school or whatever. So I'd really 11ke to see us wait agaln on the lssue of acquisition until that referendum comes. But then I think we should also really deftne this issue before. Mayor Chmlel: We're st111 ina bind where they can of course proceed and sell that property as well. And that would also put us back in a bind not being able to get another school withln that particular area. That has been defined for a school site. So that would present a given problem in itself but that's. Councilman Senn: Well you know, I've talked to Dennis about it and stuff and I mean is March that big a deal at this point? I mean if there's going to be a referendum in March, and you feel there's a commitment, that at that polnt something's golng to happen one way or the other, does that make you nervous at this polnt glven the fact that it's February? Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the mic and just answer his question. Oennls Dirlam: We've been holding off wlth our PUD submission for quite some time waiting for something to happen on the school site issue. And we've gone back quite a few years with the ownership of the property and when it was put in the guide plan, it was then it was a lot of thought went into it at that time. That thls was golng to be the school slte and so we've basically been waltlng for that as owners for something to happen and you have some of the history in there about what's been going on the last 2 years wlth, there being purchase agreements drawn up. The city was obviously serious at that time and thought it was the appropriate thlng to do. And now we're being pushed by residential developers who want to come in and develop it and the market conditions aren't now always rosey and we feel that we have .to selze the opportunity. If it wasn't the city, we wouldn't be waiting for this particular body to do something on lt. We would have sold it one of those other two and negotiated our deal and gone on our merry way. But because it is the city, we feel an obligation to come to you and Z guess we're not trylng to pressure you. We're not trying to hold your feet to the fire but I guess that's what it ends up coming down to. It's economics for the partnership and we need to seize the opportunity one way or the other. And this isn't really anything new. In December we sat down wlth Will Hoeg and sald, we know the clty or the school dlstrlct or whoever ls serious about this piece of property. We need to know, do you want to do something and let's get on with it. And there went quite some tlme where we didn't hear anything for them and we told the realtor, apparently they're not interested. Let's go ahead and let's get on wlth it. And so that's what we've done and I guess we don't want to wait another 30 days and we don't want our buyers to go away in the next 30 days. Our purchase agreements now are probably 3 weeks old and that's getting to be pretty old to respond to them. Councilman Senn: Well Dennis, I understand that but I'm just saylng, if you had a flnite end at this point, I mean would you mtnd waiting until the end of March if you're told that at that point you're either golng to be taken out of this halfway, never knowing yes or never knowing no routine? City Counci]. Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: But the point being is that maybe we still want that property. Councilman Senn: Maybe we do, maybe we don't Don. I'm not prepared to make that decision tonight in any way, shape or form. This is the first time I've seen a major issue like buying 42 acres out on the. Mayor Chmiel: Right. This isn't the first time this Js brought up, nor is it the first time we've discussed this. This has been discussed for the last 2 years plus in looking at this particular location. Councilman Senn: As a school? Mayor Chmiel: As a school. Councilman Senn: I understand that, but we're now talking about a lot more than a schoo], here from what I'm reading. Councilman Wing: Well hopefully. Councilman Senn: But I mean again, I mean there's a lot of definition in this that has nothing to do with the school. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I think we have to look at the overall picture. Not just facing one specific segment of the community against the balance of the community. I think we have to look at it, what's going to be good for everybody. Councilman Senn: Don, I understand that but I'd like a chance to talk about that and discuss it rather than just decide it. Mayor Chmiel: Well, we can keep going with this as we continue. Michael, do you have any other questions or concerns? Councilman Mason: Well yeah. I don't like the idea of saylng that one half of the community is golng to like it and one half lsn't. Mayor Chmiel: No, that was the intent. I said we have to focus it. Councilman Mason: No, no. No, and I agree with that 100~ Don. I'm a little concerned about why, the elementary school needs 20 acres. We're saylng we need to buy 42 of it. Todd Gerhardt: You know the site itself really, there's a creek that runs through there. You can't just cut off. It's not a pure'20 that you can. Paul Krauss: And there's also, the east/west collector road or the access boulevard runs through it so when you eliminate the wetlands and the creek corridor and the roadway, you've just lopped off about 10~. I'm sorry, about 10 of the 40 acres. Councilman Senn: The price is definitely too high. Mayor Chmiel: That was one of the points I brought up. 5O City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Mason: I see the need for the city to act on this. Whether I am for additional gyms or not, I have a little trouble, because basically I am but I have a little trouble with us essentially being directed as to what ue would use that remaining land for. Does that make sense? I mean there are other options out there and I'm not saying we wouldn't end up wanting it for more recreation. But to some extent I share Mark's concerns about kind of feeling like I'm getting backed into a corner here. Ultimately I think Highway 5 Partnership has been very patient and although I again kind of agree with Mark. Does it make any difference until the middle, end of March? On the other hand, I think like Don, like you said, ue need to balance that issue with whether we want the City in control of that hunk of land or not and of course that certainly does get into another bigger larger discussion. And I personally, and again maybe this comes back to the leadership or the caretaker routine. Are we market driven? Are we not? Is that the issue? Isn't it the issue? I don't know. We could probably talk about this for a couple hours. But I see the need for the city to act on this. I too am concerned about the price. But I do see the need for the city to act on this. Councilman Senn: Could I ask one question? I mean you seem to have the history on this. Okay, Bon Ashworth has the history on this and he's not here. It seems to me that if, out of fairness to Highway 5. Okay, yeah we're talking about 40 acres and yeah, we're asking them to hold up on it or whatever. Then why don't we give them an option contract? Why don't we give them some money and option the thing? I'd rather throw that money away than jump into a purchase of 42 acres, not even understanding what we're going to do with the 42 acres or use it for. And that helps them take care of their carrying costs or whatever on that land in the meantime while we get this resolved, or wait for the referendum or whatever. I mean to me that seems like the better avenue to take than to jump on a purchase that I guess I just feel real awkward jumping on at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Well, the only thing I see is, from what the developer's could come into and say they would definitely give a given price and they will pay so much. Whether our option would even be accepted. Councilman Senn: But that's all in the option contract. That means the same thing as negotiating a purchase agreement at this point but you're negotiating an option contract. The difference is we give them some money up front for the option and they get it. We're not giving them nothing and asking them to wait. To me again that seems more reasonable to, at least if I were in their shoes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the idea being, in the interlude time we can discuss what we want to do with the land? Councilman Senn: Yeah, and the referendum too. I mean again the option price should be something that works out because I mean in reality, if they want to go sign a purchase agreement and sell it at this point, just to clear through city processes, we'll have this all resolved. So I mean if we uant to take the attitude that we can resolve it that way ourselves before they get through, I mean I'm trying to turn around, and see their viewpoint too which is, they deserve something for the wait. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. 51 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'm reminded of what I heard on the news tonight with...and the City of Minneapolis. They've been very patient. We've been telling them for years and years, we're going to buy it and we're going to build a school. Although of course there hasn't been a contract there but personally I want to see a school go there. I think it's a good use of that land and I don't see it as two parcels. A 20 acre school and 22 acres of something else. It really is one piece J.f you go out and look at the ]and. The price you know, I guess I don't have an opinion on. I don't know enough about, if that's fair. I trust that it is. If we buy it now, we don't have to, from what I understand, I mean we don'[ have to decide that that extra 22 acres is going to be gymnasiums. I mean that's not part of the purchase right now so I'm comfortable with the way it is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Let me just ask a question. Dennis, in looking at this with that option in hand, what would be your opinion as to what Mark indicated? Dennis Dirlam: Well, we certainly aren't going to get anything done development wise for days. 60 days. Whatever that is. My biggest concern is that ue lose a buyer [hat we have in hand. I guess I can't give you a definite answer tonight. I would have to talk to the other partners but you know, I don't like the idea. Again, I think it's been not by all these Council members but it's been studied alo[. It's been studied by staff and it was recommended in the guide plan and it went to a committee at the school system. A 27 member committee. They came up with the same site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you think you'd lose a buyer because a buyer wants to move now to get something built there? Dennis Dirlam: I think so, right. Councilwoman Oockendorf: And 30 days does make a difference. Dennis Dirlam: It does make a difference at this time. It's crucial, right. I think timing wise, Paul to get something done and in the ground yet this year, whlch I'm sure they'd want to do, we need to get going. Councilman Senn: How can they do that? Councilman Wing: But that's the point. If that happened and that occurred and the mood of this Council right now, I'd support you and we'd slam a moratorium in so fast, they'd get nowhere. They're going nowhere and they'd better know if you sell lt, I'm going to vote for a moratorium right now because I won't tolerate any more movement unt11 our task force ls done and that's going to be 6 months. So you've got, I mean that's where I'm at. Councilman Senn: See Dick I was, when we talked moratorium I was ali for exempting the big PUO's and stuff because we could really get the controls there but what I'm hearlng ls, you know, that's not a compromise so I agree wlth you. At that point I'm in the position of slap tile moratorium on now and stop it a11. Councilman Wing: Yeah, no movement at ail. I'm not going to deal with another one of these. If it was winding down this task force to see what that's golng to do. 52 City Council Heeting - February 22, 1992 Councilman Senn: If you're seeking a compromise, I'm not sure it's there. Councilman Wing: I'm frankly rather startled at Councilman Senn would have the audaclty to tonight late question a document such as thls. So we're buylng 42 acres and not knowing what's going to go on it. What we're going to do. How we're going to pay for lt. I think it shows short slghtedness on bls part, and it certainly emphasises the word work sesslon. I mean thls should have been at a work sesslon before it got to Councll so we understood the ramifications, the history and the background. For Instance, Todd. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to walting for the referendum? Todd Gerhardt: The one disadvantage for waiting for the referendum is that if you were to purchase it today, you are going to have to carry the property. So you will have carrying costs until the School Oistrict passes the referendum. Until lt's declded thls ls the spot. They will not have the monles in hand to reimburse you the $17,000.00. But again, with Dennis having a purchaser in hand and them making application for a subdivision for that property, you are in the position then to try to decide you know, a moratorium. 6pprove the subdivision as ls and let houslng go in there and look for another slte. Or three, that you have to force, your hand's being forced that you'll have to go through condemnation to acquire the slte. Councilman Wing: Why couldn't you discuss the option contract? Is that an optlon? Todd Gerhardt: Only if the seller is willing to do an option. We have talked about options in the past and that hasn't been in their interest. Councilman Senn: Dick, at the same time this could become a falrly long term carrying clause though too, if we buy lt. Because if that referendum isn't passed in '93, the next question is, when's the next referendum? It's generally not the next year or two. Mayor Chmiel: ...next 6 months. Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. Host of them I've seen take a little longer cool down perlod than that. Councilman Hason: Eden Prairie has run school referendums year to year. Councilman Senn: For the same request? Councilman Hason: For the exact same request. Haybe scaled down but I mean lt's essentially. Councilman Wlng: Intervlsionary process. At least since you and I have been here, I think that the decision of Park and Rec and land use and open space was to control that land regardless, if I'm not mlstaken Hike. ~nd Park and Rec has discussed youth investment. That's ice could go out there in the future, if we chose to. Gymnasiums. I mean there's some disagreement what might go or not go but the point is, the school would be there and we would tie possible city athletlc facilities and needs and encourage the school to put those in. So we City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 may have indoor ice. We may have gymnasiums. Swimming pool. Whatever the case is out there. Todd Hoffman: A majority of them would be outdoor. Ballfields and those type of things and that marriage has been discussed since day one in that way. Councilman Senn: Well what is it? I mean along with the School District? Councilman Wing: The Park and Rec. Councilman Senn: I mean is the school, let's say the referendum passes in March, Is the School District going to come in and buy all 42 acres as a result of that referendum? Todd Hoffman: 20 acres. Councilman Senn: They're going to buy 20. So even if they come in and buy 20, we're still talking about buying 22 acres out there. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Senn: Work session material. Councilman Wing: Do we have the time to, I mean this is another issue for that nlght that's significant. Could you and Don deta11, or you and Don and Don, deta11 the hlstory and the ramifications of thls thing. And Park and Rec should be there that night. You. You. Not Park and Rec. Be there that night to dlscuss where thls, how thls has culminated into thls funnel at thls point. Then maybe we can make a ratlonal decision. Councilman Senn: I want to see visions but I just, to me you know, this doesn't seem like a vision. This seems real slngle pointed. But agaln, I don't have the hlstory but if lt's golng to be recreational use, I don't think I have a blg problem with it being recreational use as long as somebody can glve me the hlstory as to how we arrived at that decision. But when you start saylng put gymnasiums on it right now, I have a real problem with that. That's a lot more speclflc than the vlsion. You're rlght down to facilities planning. Todd Gerhardt: We're not saying that it's going to be gymnasiums. Those are things that have been talked about. You, as the economic development body would make the decislon of how the remaining plece of that land would be purchased and developed. Tonlght we are solely in front of you with the purchase of the 42 acres. Again, the site lends itself to a 42 acre site. There's certain pieces that, what Z'11 go back to the Hlghway 5 COFFidoF. PFeserving some of those windows and Fooms along there. If you were to leave some of those, it would be a real questlon on how some of these sltes would develop. The second thing ls, as you wait, the pFice is going to go up too. It's just land ls trading unbelleveable out there. It's golng from hand to hand. Councilman Senn: Todd, I understand it but I mean, I'm not blind. It says here the slte would be the home of future expanded recreational uses, including additional gyms above and beyond what might ordinarily be bullt by the elementary school. I mean somebody polnts back to thls 6 months from now, when 54 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 this comes in all pre-decided and said, oh you approved it back then you know for these gymnasiums. Geez, that's what it says there. Todd Gerhardt: Make a motion. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess what I would like, z have some trouble purchasing the property but quite honestly I agree with what's being said here. I want a school at that site and if it takes a couple years, I guess I'm willing to say, so be it. The motion that I would 11ke made tonight does, just for the sake of the community and movlng on this, ! think the remaining acreage has to be left open for discussion. Be tt wide open spaces. Be it recreation uses. Whatever. Just because I think that allows everyone a whole lot more freedom on · the lssue. Z like the idea of it going towards recreational use. I'd like to leave it at that. Paul Krauss: I don't want to hang you up at all and I don't want to give you the whole extensive history here, but if there was ever a vision of what should happen on Hlghway 5, that's it. I mean we've been talklng about that for 4 years. It was a real, it's considered klnd of a lynch pin piece in the comprehensive plan. Where there was a desire not to isolate Tlmberwood and residential land to the south. To bridge Hlghway 5 with residential land uses so that you didn't have wall to wall industrial parks. I mean I remember putting the dot on the map and then it stood the test of time and a lot of public hearings and it was kind of complimented when we went through the process with Morrish who's saying, well the Bluff Creek corrldor is kind of key and that's where you want to brldge it. Well it just so happen to connect the north side of the town with our school site. The idea of the recreation component on the school was something that's been, no there was never an offlcial vote on it or agreement but I think the Mayor can attest to 3 1/2 years ago we went down to the School Olstrlct as a group and we started talking about that. It's a vision that, it ls 27 people in the School Oistrict meeting for a year and a half bought lnto. What you ultimately do with the rest of the land ls really I think your's to decide. I mean you might even sell it back off for development for that matter. But you'd have the optlon to do so. I just want to emphasize that whatever you do, it's a real important piece for what happens on the corridor and that that's been the subject of extensive and proactive study for years. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I want control over that. Councilman Senn: Well I appreciate that but agaln, maybe the other four people have seen it. I haven't. I mean I would love to see that background and I would love to understand the basls on which we're forming that klnd of a decision. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just very uneasy looking at what Z see in the staff report and connecting A to B. You bring up issues over price and talk about geez, we're buying really 30 useable acres, not 40. You bring up other lssues on price 11ke, I see nothlng in here like if we sell if to the School District, what are we going to sell it to the School District for? The same thing we bought it plus our carrying costs? Paul Krauss= I believe that's in there. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Todd Gerhardt: $17,000.00. Councilman Senn: But we're buying it for $23,000.00. Todd Gerhardt: We uouId...anything up and above the $17,000.00 so there are incentives on the city to get that school located on that site. Counciiman Senn: So we're subsidizing it right up front and we may be subsidizing it a lot more? Todd Gerhardt: If you want to see expanded recreational uses on that slte, you would have to provide additional assistance. Councilman Senn: Agaln, I guess enough sald. I'd just like to see all that before I start votLng on buying 42 acres. Mayor Chmie].: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: The bad news is, even a work session, I went into Oon's offlce. The other Don. You don't have an offlce. And I had hlm walk me through this from A to Z plus I was at the Park and Rec. I've been to all these meetlngs over this whole declsion process, lndludlng the Comprehensive Plan discussions and he related the school's position and our position and the owner's positlon and our options and why this ls important to do thls. So when I walked out I said, hum. Good deal. So when I saw this, although very incomplete and sort of, I sort of had enough background to say, Don's sort of in the driver's seat here and I was comfortable with Todd and Oon making thls declslon and Don havlng been lnvolved here. It's true. You haven't been here the last 3 or 4 or 5 years involved in the process to see how ue got to this point. So then do the older members of the Counc11 slmply vote thls on wlth you kind of golng, I'm not sure what's fair to Mark and Colleen at this polnt. Counclluoman Dockendorf: I've been following it just because it effects me personally. Councilman Wlng: It's your backyard. councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's my backyard. Thank you. But I don't want to go to a slmple majorlty vote ulthout, I mean I'd rather have consensus and if it's golng to take some more background for Mark to look at it. Councilman Senn: I thlnk it would be neat if Don would come in and glve that thing he gave to you. That's maybe all I'm really asking for but I guess 11ke to understand ita lot more than I do now. Councilman Wing: I guess this is, from the City Manager's standpoint, maybe at thls polnt the history on the Counc11 really does lnvolve a formal presentation rather than just. Mayor Chmiel: Well he probably would have given that formal presentation thls evenlng and glve you all the speclfic reasons as to why it should be located where it ls. But due to circumstances beyond hls control, he's flat on his back in bed. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: I'd like to see Mark maybe keep trying, if there's a possibility to get into the offlce and hash out some of his concerns on a one to one basls so it doesn't get embroiled in an open discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and this is some of the things that the work sesslons would completely eliminate. We could have been slttlng at home for the last hour. But it is true. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, make a motion that I can second would you? Councilwoman Oockendorf: We have one on the floor. Councilman Wing: Do we have one? Mayor Chmiel: No. No, Michael didn't make a motion on that. Councilman Senn: When do we table it then? Councilman Wing: I'll second the tabling, pending it being on the work session on the 3rd. I mean lt's golng to be a busy night. It might be a long nlght. Z'm sorry, but I think this has got to be back on the. Councilman Senn: Maybe this should be part of the Highway, I mean we're looking at Hlghway 5. This is part of the corridor. Let's look at it. I haven't got a problem wlth lt. Z have no problems wlth it being a school. I just really want to understand the past and my biggest problem is that one sentence in there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if you can discuss it with Don prior to the our work session, maybe it uill be a slam dunk. Councilman Mason: Well it seems to me the motion can be made deleting that one sentence. And I don't. Mayor Chmlel: That's a good polnt. Councilman Mason: And I was involved in some of those comprehensive plan meetings with all those people from all over the city and it was agreed upon that that was an ideal place for the school site. And whereas I think I hear- where some people are comlng from about belng in the background, I mean absolutely. This has been in the hopper for a long time and my feeling is, we either, I mean well. Z thlnk we should. Councilman Senn: I beg your indulgence for a couple more weeks so I can just slmply understand it is what I'm asking I guess. Councilman Mason: And I'm not sure we have that indulgence right now. You know, but yeah. Mayor Chmlel: We have a motlon on the floor wlth a second for tabllng. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman #Lng seconded to table actton on the purchase agreement for the school/recreation acquisition untO! the next Council meeting. Councilman Senn and Council#oman Dockendorf voted in favor. Councilman Nason, 57 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Uing and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Wing: Mike, have you got another solution or suggestion here? Councilman Mason: Well no I don't and. Mayor Chmiel: What about leaving those additional gyms7 You know when they say additionaI gyms, it's pIuraiized and with the normaI grade schooi they do have, you've got two gyms in the existing elementary schooi presenting. Councilman Senn: Not built by the City of Chanhassen? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The gym is what I'm saying. I'm trying to see if this is what it was intended as. And it may not have been. Councilman Wing: We know it's going to be a school and I think staff has said we need to buy it right now. Maybe that's the issue and what goes in there. How it's developed. I think the recreational aspects are irrelevant at this point and not even worthy of discussion. Councilman Senn: But I hear everybody saying that they're very comfortable with the School and they understand the reasons why we want it for a school. I haven't heard that same consensus on the other 22 acres. Councilman Wing: As Paul's just said, it's one parcel. You don't divy it up. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. Councilman Wing: It is one parcel. Councilman Senn: I understand that. One parcel's great but I mean that's not necessarily justification to. Councilman Mason: What I heard Paul saying was based on the Comp Plan and Bill Morrish and this, that and the other thing, that segment of land, that portion of land, is a gem. A lynch pin. Whatever you want to call it to the whole corridor. And for us to be in control of that excess 12 acres, 20 acres, whatever so we can leave it to be one of these windows so we can leave it wide open and have nothing but trees growing on it, seems to me to be a worthwhile position for the city of Chanhassen to be in and I do not necessarily go along with building gymnasiums there but I do go along with it being some sort of recreational open space area. And if by the good graces of this Council it decides to put a gym there, so be it. But by no means is that a done deal, as far as I'm concerned. That's where I'm at. Councilman Wing: So you would take the purchase agreement, excluding the future expanded recreation. You're excluding the sentence there. Councilman Mason: Now what sentence am I excluding here? Councilman Wing: It would be at the top of the page. The site would be the home of future expanded recreational uses including gyms above and beyond what 58 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 might... You would delete that entire sentence. Mayor Chmiel: Where is it showing the elementary school, on the back page? On page 3 of that. Councilman Mason: I would strlke, uses including additional gyms above and beyond what might oridnarily be built with an elementary school. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you want recreation. Councilman Mason: The site would be the home of future expanded recreational uses. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Wouldn't that preclude if we do decide that we should sell that to a developer? For whatever reason. Councilman Mason: Well I can 1lye wlth that being open space. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Hey, so can I. Councilman Wlng: I'm golng to second that for discussion. Councilman Mason: There, I made the motion. Councilman Wlng: I think that Mark has the optlon to get in and talk to Don and hash this out and if he really is deeply concerned, I would have a close ear to his comments and he can, he has the right to call a speclal meetlng, which I would support. If it came to that. Mayor Chmlel: If he's in the positive. If it's in the negative, you would have that right. Councilman Wing: Okay, if he asked me, I would probably call a special meeting if I felt the need. If him and Don absolutely could not come to terms on where we were golng here and if he could tell me that bls polnt was sound. So I will offer that to Mark just because I think he has some valid points. Mayor Chmlel: You're offering that as a friendly? Councilman Wing: I'm just offerlng that. Mayor Chmlel: Amendment to Mlke's motion. Councilman Wing: I don't think tt's necessary. I'm just telling Mark that I lntend to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Alrlght. Councilman Senn: Okay. So everybody here ls comfortable with the declslon tonight that we're going to purchase the land. We're going to subsidize it at $5,000.00 an acre right off the top, plus potentially pay the balance of the purchase price on 20 acres. Plus pay all the clearing costs, for whatever City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 period of time it takes to carry it. I mean basically it's this blank check everybody's comfortable with that tonlght? Mayor Chmlel: Well, I don't conslder that as a blank check Mark. When you look at all the thlngs that we have discussed and pointed out thus far this evening, I thlnk lt's a reallty that that slte ls needed where lt's at. If we don't act on lt, it mlght be something other than where the school would be located. And if the property owners decide and choose, after leavlng here tonlght to take the proposal from the other developer, we would lose. Councilman Senn: We would? I mean do we have a copy of that purchase agreement? Mayor Chmlel: In all the thlngs that we're saylng that are needed for the corridor with the Morrish study and the other thlngs that are combined, then we would lose. Councilman Senn: Have we seen the purchase agreement for $23,000.00 an acre? Todd Gerhardt: It's for 25. E111ott Knetsch: I wasn't there... Mayor Chmiel: It was at 25 is where it started. Councilman Senn: Not for us. I'm talklng about the prlvate developers that made the offer. Have we seen that offer? OD we know that it's there at $23,000.00 a square foot? I mean do we know ue really have a competition here or? Mayor Chmlel: My understanding is yes. Councilman Senn: I'm hearing understandings but I haven't heard anyone say they've seen the purchase agreement. Dennis Dlrlam: The Council was given both of the purchase agreements... Mayor Chmlel: You're rlght. I do remember that. £11iott Knetsch: And the letter from Gary indicates that he saw a signed purchase agreement. Councilman Senn: But it doesn't say at a price though. E111ott Knetsch: I thlnk it does. Todd Gerhardt: Second paragraph on page 2. First paragraph on page 2. Both offerlng to pay $25,000.00 per acre. You're gettlng it at a discount. Councilman Senn: On page 2? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. First paragraph. About the fourth, flfth 11ne. Sixth line down. 6O City Council Meeting - February 22, 19~3 Councilman Wing: My points are clear though. No matter when we buy it, no matter what we do, we're going to carry those costs. We're going to have those problems. It is going to cost the city. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. No question. Councilman Mason: Well it is and I guess that gets back to that, part of that gets back to that caretaking, leadership thing. If it's important to the clty. Hayor Chmiel: And if those needs are shown where the population within the school presently is as it is, there's no questton tt's got to. I mean they're overcrowded rlght now. Councilman Senn: I understand that Don. I'm not debatlng that. But ! mean do we have a contract with the School that says we're stuck with only getting $17,000.007 Z mean again, I have tons of questions on this that I haven't seen the answers to. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: I think it was a part of Oon's motion in here also that if you were to move ahead and make the motion to acquire the property tonight, that that motion be contingent upon gettlng approval from the School District on having a re-purchase of that property for $17,000.00 an acre for 20 acres and that it also, once a referendum is passed. Is how that would be spelled out to the School Oistrict. Councilman Senn: Once the referendum is passed. So we may never have it. Todd Gerhardt: This community will have to pass a referendum somewhere down the 11ne to provlde school housing for it's klds. You approved another subdivision tonight. There are going to be families here. There's only so many temporary trallers and the School District only has so much money. They're going to have to pass a referendum somewhere down the line. Councilman Senn: I understand that but why would we sell it to them 5 years from now for $17,000.00 an acre? Is what Z'm comtng back to. Z mean if they're going to pay $17,000.00 an acre whenever they pass a referendum, that to me seems to be one hell of a poor market driven deal. Z mean why would we offer to pay $17,000.00 thls year and keep the same offer for $ years, 10 years, or whatever it takes them to pass the referendum. That makes no sense to me. Todd Gerhardt: We could put a condition if you wanted to look at some interest on there. Councilman Senn: I would be a lot happier wlth the then market price. I mean you know. Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that interest should be within... 61 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Todd Gerhardt: We were trying to match up to what Chaska was offering. And I would suggest that we try to continue in matching what Chaska is offering for the High School. And that we don't have apples and oranges out there, trying to keep everything fair and equal. Councilman Senn: It seems like you're going to go out and pass it through so I'm 3ust trying to ask a ton of questiohs right here tonight. I'm sorry if I'm keeping you all but. Todd Gerhardt: I hope I'm answering them. Councilman Senn: You know the 10 acres that's unbuildable is that, the 20 acres we're buying, is all 10 of it on that I suppose? I mean I don't know questions answered 11ke that. I mean are ue really buylng 22 acres of uhlch 10 ls non- buildable for recreational purposes? I mean another basic question. I mean I just heard over here there's over 10 acres of non-bulldable land. Paul Krauss: When we say, if I could clarify that. When we say non-buildable. Councilman Senn: You said wetlands or protected land. I mean that's non-buildable. Paul Krauss: Well there is a, one of the important things that's always been on the comp plan is protecting the Bluff Creek corridor. Gettlng a recreational corridor comlng down through there uhlch lncludes not only land in the flood plain but hlgh land above it. This site does include all of that. Down to where that wetland ls on the corner of Tlmberwood. Zt does lnclude all of the 80 foot wide right-of-way for the east/west collector. Running across the length of the site. Those are not areas that you can bulld on but they're areas that we need to get control over one way or the other. Councilman Senn: Are they all on our 20 acres? Councilman Wing: All on the east side. Councilman Senn: Okay, interesting point. Like I say, I just think there's a lot of questions and answers, but you guys can go ahead... Mayor Chmiel: Well we have a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Would you like to restate that motion? Councilman Wing: Do we have Todd's comments on the record? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Todd Gerhardt: I guess I'd like to ask Don. I mean I'd really like to have an opportunity with Don and myself to slt down with Mark and maybe bring Clough in and brlng him up to speed on this and really table thls lssue for 2 weeks so we can bring him up to speed. I know this is going to add another 2 weeks to your 3 week purchase agreement wlth the Partners but you know, hearlng these discussions, I feel uncomfortable in having Mark not go along with the other 4 and not belng up to speed. And not to make any excuses for Mark, but I mean he 62 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 is new on the Council and I feel that he should have that additional 2 weeks to come up to speed on that. Dennis Dirlam: I too, I think Mark will be convinced and feel the same way that a lot of the rest of us do that it's the appropriate thing to do once he takes a look at lt. We'll do what we can to put those other people off. Today was supposedly our day and we'll just have to see what we can do for another 2 weeks. Todd Gerhardt: I'd appreciate that. Dennis Oirlam: It sounds like it's. Mayor Chmiel: If you feel comfortable with it. Councilman Wing: I'll withdraw my second. Mayor Chmlel: I think you see the direction that Council has gone and I do believe that once Mark is brought up to speed on this, he'll know and feel more comfortable wlth the way it ls. And I too would rather have a full decision, full Council voting in favor. Rather than having a dissenting vote within. Councilman Mason: Well with Todd's comments and with the good graces of the Highway 5 Partnership, I will withdraw my motion. Councilman Senn: Really unnecessary. I mean seriously, if you four are that comfortable with it, I wish you'd go ahead with it. I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just telllng you my concerns. Councilwoman Oockendorf: We want consensus. Mayor Chmiel: I think this Council has always worked together Hark rather well. I want to see this continue because what's best for the city, my old saying is best for the city. And I thlnk this basically is still the best thing for the city. But just to make you feel more comfortable with that position, I would then request that we table this for the 2 weeks and ask that you vlsit with Don prior to that particular time and maybe this could be addressed at our, even our March 3rd meetlng. If lt's going to be a public meetlng, we can then move on it at that time as well. Councilman Wing: I'm requesting that it be on there specific because they're good questions and I think these questions should be answered publtcally... Takes me off the hook if it's a bad move. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the purchase agreement for the school/recreation acquisition until the next Council meeting to provide time for Councilman Senn to get further information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 63