Loading...
1993 01 25CH $$EN CZTY COUNCZL REGULAR HEETING 3ANUARY 25, 1993 Mayor Chmlel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MENBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason and Councilwoman Oockendorf COUNCIL HEHBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, and Sharmin Al-Jarl APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: ACCEPT DONATZON FROH THE CH~d~H~SS~N SNOWHOBILE CLUB, HATT EHRY. Mayor Chmiel: Is Matt Emry here? Matt's not here. I'd like to thank the Snowmobile Club for making that donation to the City. The amount is $200.00 and it's utilizing money that they've had that we have for improvements for city parks and recreation facilities. On behalf of the City Council, we thank the Snowmobile Club for providing us with that $200.00. Is there a motion to accept that? Councilwoman Oockendorf: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd just like to add that I'd also like to thank the Snowmobile Club for taking out the ad in the Uillager reminding us all the rules of snowmobile use in our city. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I was very happy to see that after my phone was ringing. Councilwoman Oockendorf moved, Councilman Hason secon~ to accept the donation in the amount of $200.00 from the Chanhassen SnoM~obile Club. All voted in favor and the motion carried. cONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Hanager's recommendations: a. Approve Amended Development Contract for Bluff Creek Estates First Addition, Project No. 92-10. b. Resolution ~93-03: Approve Designations to the Municipal State Aid System. City Council Meeting - January c. Approve Agreements for Acquisition of Easement Nos. 2 & 15 for the Upper 8luff Creek Trunk Utilities Project f. Approval of Accounts. g. City Council Minutes dated January 11, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 6, i993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 15, 1992 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 14, 1993 All voted in favor and the ~otion carried. D. SET DATE FOR X993 TAX TNCREtI£NT BONDS. Councilman Senn: In item (d), there's a number of items as I understand that we're going to bond on. Several of those items relate to, in effect ratifying what has already been done. For example, the taking of the Taco Shop, the taking of the land for Target, etc. However, two items on here that we're going to bond on are items relating to the purchase of property which really hasn't received any real public discussion at this point and that is the bowling alley and the 81oomberg property which is being proposed to be taken for a combination conference center and community center I believe. I would like to see those items deleted from the bond sale. I think the more appropriate time to consider those would be at such time that there's in fact a decision that there is a project. That that project involves a taking and therefore then proceeding knowing in effect what that is versus right now really being undefined. Mayor Chmiel: If I understand it correctly, what you're saying is, he would like that segment of 81oomberg as well as the combination community center/ conference center be removed. Is that what you're indicating? Councilman Senn: I'm trying to find the list in last week's packet which broke down the dollar amounts. Don Ashworth: May I? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Maybe Don can explain a portion of it. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, I found it here. As I understand the breakdown, $313,000.00 ls for the Taco Shop, $1 milllon ls for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, $490,000.00 is for the James property, $2,736,000.00 is for the 8urdick property. In addltlon to that, $850,000.00 is for the bowling center and $1.2 million is for the 81oomberg property. I met with Mr. Ashworth this week and basically came to the understanding that those flrst four 1rems are pretty much, I mean that money has been spent. It's already been spent out of former bond lssues let's call it and now lt's time for reimbursement. So there's not really a whole lot of consideration there. However, the last two items totallng a little over $2 milllon are in fact bondlng for projects that, at least in my opinion, have not etther been defined, planned or publically commented on and I think lt's a mlstake to go to a sale on them. Don Ashworth: Staff has absolutely no problem with that. Again, the primary point ls the reimbursement on the acquisition dollars that have been spent. I City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 might ask the Council to consider in place of the bowling center to add one that would be referred to as miscellaneous acquisition/improvement projects, $750,000.00. That relates to three smaller projects that fail under the same category. At the time we first put out this list with Springsted we didn't have the final numbers on West 79th Street improvements, the bus turn around, Market Square storm sewer, and Hanus acquisition but those four are complete. The total of those is $750,000.00. So we would be deleting bowling center, deleting Bloomberg and adding micellaneous acquisition for $750,000.00. It would be a net deletion of $1,300,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Senn: Don, are those new ones likewise ones that in effect have already been expended? Don Ashworth: Right. Completed 79th Street public improvements. We've completed the storm sewer. We've completed the turn around. Councilman Senn: I wouldn't have a problem with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I think what Councilman Senn has sald makes a lot of sense and I would certainly go along with that. Mayor Chmiel: Right, I don't disagree with that either. Would you like to move that with the addition of that $750,000.00 for the miscellaneous acquisition. Councilman Senn: I'm not quite sure how to word it but I'll just say I move approval with deletion of the $850,000.00 for the bowling center and the $1.2 mllllon for 81oomberg's property and the addltlon of $750,000.00 for the four projects that Don mentioned. Don Ashworth: Hopefully I can have a friendly amendment in that this was originally set for February 8th and we tabled it for 2 weeks and so the new date should be shown as February 22, 1993. Councilman Senn: Fine. Councilman Mason: I second it. Resolution t93-04: Councilman Senn ~oved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve setting the date of February 22, 1993 for the 1993 Tax Increment Bonds deleting $850,000.00 for the bowling center, deleting $1.2 millino for Bloo~berg properties and adding $750,000.00 for mtcellaneous acquisttton/i~prove~ents. All voted in favor and the motion carried. E. PRELIHINARy PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND & O~TLOT. SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE ORI'VE. VI'NEgOOD ADOIT[0N, STUART HOARN. Councilwoman Oockendorf: The reason I asked to discuss this separately is we were just handed this letter from several neighbors in the Vineland Forest area City Council Meeting - January 25~ 1993 who have some strong concerns about subdivision of the lot and I would just ask staff a IittIe clearer expIanation of what their concerns may be and if they've been addressed at the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: If there's a spokesmen here, maybe it'd be better for them to speak to it but I can go through the subdivision itself if that's what you'd like. Mayor Chmiel: And in addition to that, if I could, in looking at the two lots that we're subdividing, we show that it's .86 acres in size and we're going to divide it into .48 acres and .41 which makes that .89 as opposed to the .86. Which is correct? Kate Aanenson: They probably rounded up. I could doubie check that. Just to give you some history on this. This iot was spilt off Edward VogeI's middle of iast year. Since that time a person has picked up this lot, Mr. Hoarn and has requested that it be spiit. Both lots are approximately half acre in size. A little iess than a half acre in size. The concern that the staff had originally, and we still do, is there is some trees in the area. Not all of them are of high quality. We did request the home placement plan the first time and we recommended it the second time. The lots do meet the standards. They are flag lots. They can meet the standards. One of the concerns is the driveway. They showed two separate driveways. This outlot here is under the city's control. We've granted them an easement to go across that. They had shown two separate driveways with that. We would recommend one. Whether there's one home or not, there would still be an access onto that so one of the issues that the neighbors had concern with was the two, or the traffic onto that but we feel like it's really not an issue because whether there's two homes or one, there will still be one driveway access at that point. The engineering department has looked at that and felt that that is really not a bad location sight distance wise. We did want to prohibit, what we felt was the worst condition, going out onto Pleasant View and recommended denial against that. Again the Planning Commission addressed those same concerns as far as home placement plans when they come in. We try to site the home on the lot inasmuch as to minimize tree loss and it's our understanding that the owners have the same concerns. The value of the lot is in with the trees. Just some background too. When Vineland Forest was in, I didn't work on that but in speaking to Jo Ann, we did walk that site with the Forester. There was a substantial amount of trees on that one too and substantial value of trees were lost when that subdivision went in too. Unfortunately sometimes that happens when the subdivision goes in. We do recognize that it's a concern. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any idea of the species of those trees that are there? Kate ~anenson: The ones that are there right now? No, I have not identified those. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Would it be appropriate for any neighbors who may be here this evening to... Mayor Chmiel: Yes it would. Is there anyone wishing to discuss this as well? Please state your name and your address please. City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers and I reside at &500 Nez Perce. One of the things that you can't see on that overhead is, if you look directly to the right of Lot 2 there, there's a house currently on that lot and I think you can just make out maybe the outline of that house. Kate Aanenson: There? Dan Rogers: Come down. There. Right there. The driveway for that lot will very closely meet the corner of the driveway for the proposed development. And I don't 1lye there. The gentleman that lives there couldn't make it tonight but it seems that that could be kind of a difficult sltuation where less traffic would probably be better than more. Kate Aanenson: Staff is recommending that we go back to the original proposal for the single lot split and the driveway be located there. There is a utility box there too so this is not what we're going to recommend. This is what they had proposed. They go back to a single driveway, centered where we save the trees and give separation for the other driveway. Dan Rogers: Okay. I'm not sure I understand.. What I'm trylng to explain no matter what you do for Lot 1 and 2, if there is one driveway or two coming out onto pleasant View. Excuse me, Nez Peroe. That driveway or driveways will converge on the existing driveway for the gentleman who ltves next door making a V at the street. Kate Aanenson: No. No, they won't. Dan Rogers: No? Kate Aanenson: No. We've looked at that. That won't. Dan Rogers: Okay. The other concern ts that a few of us came to the Planning meeting a few weeks ago just to hear what Mr. Hoarn had planned and he wasn't here so we're just interested to hear what he proposes to put on the lots, We're concerned with property values because we made quite an investment in our homes and looked at the area and we're just surprised to hear that that lot would be split into two. That's the basis for our concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes sir. Would you please come to the podium. We do record this and we'd like you to get you on TU too. Stuart Hoarn: Oh wonderful. I'm Stuart Hoarn and I own the property there. Actually my mother and I own it. I do apologize for not being present for the planning Commission meeting. My grandmother tn Tucson chose an inconvenient moment to die and she sends her apologies too. In any case, I will address the question about the driveway being too close there. As far as I'm concerned, ! live on a cul-de-sac now and there are four driveways that come into a tight radius cul-de-sac and we haven't had any great objection to that. ! think there's actually more separation there once that's done between the driveway to the south and the driveway to these two parcels than would be typical in a cul-de-sac. As far as property values. We're not planning to set up any group homes or anything like that, as happened in'my neighborhood in Eden' Prairie, so City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 you all can relax about that. If that's your concern. I'm not sure what the concern is. Obviously if people are involved in lots that are worth 50+, maybe $&o,ooo.o0 apiece, we're not going to put hobbles on the lots. I think the marketplace dictates that. So I guess I don't know if there are any other questions then that people would have of me about what we plan to do. It seems like a simple subdivision to me but. It meets all the requirements. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilwoman Oockendorf: Seeing that the issues have been discussed at the Plannlng Commission meeting, I would move that we would approve the preliminary plat to replat 2 lots. One lot into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant View Road, 3ust north of Nez Perce Drlve, Vlnewood Addition. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Could I just put that friendly amendment making sure as to the size. Whlch is proper. Any other discussion? Counciluoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat to replat 2 lots into 2 lots and ! outlot south of Pleasant View Road and north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn uith staff clarifying the correct lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Gary Carlson: Good evenlng Mayor and City Council. My name is Gary Carlson and I live on Lot 6 of Schmitt's Acre Tracts way up in the northwest boundary of the clty. You gentlemen made the ordinance for non-conforming beachlots. Non- conforming recreational beachlot ordinance and our origlnal plat allows about, right now about 40 odd people to, I've got the exact wording on the original plat here. The property is actually owned by a person that owns that whole remaining stretch of Lake Minnewashta on the northwest corner. I don't know if that's open for development yet but a single gentleman owns that entire area. He owns our 50 foot lake access and the City keeps sending me registered letters as if I'm the non-conforming beachlot. Through the years that this orlginal plat has granted the helrs and asslgns. So there's helrs of Schmltt that have the right to ingress and egress the lake over this 50 feet but I don't own the property. It's owned by the gentleman who owns that whole sectlon on the lake. And with the City Attorney here, you're sending me letters as if I'm a beachlot, whlch I'm not personally. I don't know the 50 other people. So I don't care if you say well, you're non-conforming. How are you going to enforce it against me? 2 or 3 tlmes a year I go over that 50 foot wide strlp in and out from the lake. The City Attorney ls here. I don't know if you're going to ask the owner to come down and request a beachlot or ask me to personally get one or the other 50 people and odd heirs and assigns to get a non-conforming permit. I'd be glad to apply for a non-conforming permlt for myself but then the other 50 people will say, well why didn't you call me. Well lt's not my, I don't know them. don't know their addresses. We all just have lt. It's dated slnce 18, I thlnk the orlginal plat was 18, or I mean 19. I've got it here but it's an old plat. It glves all of the helrs of Schmltt and the asslgns the rlght to lngress and egress the lake over thls 50 foot wide strip. So when I talked to the people at City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 the County they said, well you're grandfathered no matter what the City does. You have the right to go into the lake, Use it the way you've been using it for the 20 some odd years so I just, that's my question. You have the City Attorney and the Council's ail here. Do you want me to get a recreational beachlot non-conforming use permit for myself, and how are you going to be enforce it against me? Is the Sheriff going to be sitting there all summer waiting for me to come down and go for a swim. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have any idea or Roger? Gary Carlson: Alright, well there's lot of the people at the city know how to get a hold of me and I'll be glad to respond. Roger Knutson: I guess all we can say is we'll take a look at the situation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger Knutson: Excuse me, so I can make a note. What ls. the name of your, does your beachlot have a name? Paul Krauss: We've been referring to it as Schmttt's Acres. W£11y Molnau: Your Honor, that seems to be appropriate. I'm Willy Molnau. I live at 8541 Audubon Road and I came here tonight to report a very, very dangerous situation. For years we wanted a trail system from McGlynn Bakery south. Well we got it as far as Heron Drlve but there's about a 2 block area over the bridge. I suggested concrete barriers to protect the walktng people. I'm the guy that put them at jeopardy now because they have to walk tn the middle of the street. The area that is fenced off for walking has got snow this deep. For about 2 blocks the city plows ttl the barrier starts and then they swing into the street and drive the street way over to the south side of the railroad, then they cut in. They do a perfect job of the stuff they do but I have pictures here of people that are trying to walk away from the traffic. You can see by the footprints they sink in about to their knees and I see it every day. People out in the middle of the street. If a truck would come in that 2 block area, they'd either have to jump in front of another car or jump into the snowbank. It's impossible to get away from this. I would suggest we remove the concrete battlers at least for the winter. Then the snowplow can plow it right up to the bridge sidtng. I'm sure this looks like about a 5 foot area. I'm sure even a bobcat. The city has a bobcat wtth a snowplow. I see them out by, well in the area they've got a snowplow and they're plowing all over. I don't see why this couldn't be plowed because it was my fault that these people have to walk in the street. I suggested these barriers. It's perfect in summertime but lt's no good in winter. I wish the Council would immediately. The semi's from the south pass my place, they're going downhill. Going to McGlynn's. I know they're dolng 45 and if there's someone on the brtdge, he has nowhere to go but up, and it's impossible. Someone's going to get killed there. I just wanted to report it. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else? City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUHA DRIVE, CARVER BEACH: A. DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACOUI$~TION OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STORHWATER PURPOSES, B. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F~HILY RESIDENCE., .SHANNON TERRY. Mayor Chmiel: This is something that was just at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. To cover and discuss potential acquisition of this property for stormwater purposes. The other portion of it is the decision was to grant the variances on this with the two variances involved. The 10 foot variance, 20 foot setback and a 16 foot setback from the wetland. Who would like to go through Paul? Paul Krauss: I'll take it Mr. Mayor. We became involved with this property a couple years ago when a potential home placement was being proposed and started to look at acquisition of it at that time. The ldea was dropped and was never, the home was never proceeded with and it was also before we had the surface water management planning effort largely completed as it ls today. As the Mayor indicated, there is a varlance request that has been approved. Now it could be appealed to you on the next 1rem but it has been approved to allow a home to be placed on this lot and the lot's outllned in the black. On that map. This lot is severely lmpacted by wetland. It does have a small area of hlgh ground that is potentially buildable. The variances that have been approved do allow a home to be placed on lt. What we try to do is go in and try to anticipate. We talked to a number of you that, to look at the possibility of, is this lot useful for the city to improve water quality and water protection in that area. Interestingly enough, we had already gone into some significant plannlng effort in thls area because thls ls one of the projects that we wanted to take care of this spring. And it is a part of the drainage system from Carver Beach into Lotus Lake. There lsa real scarclty of area to put sedimentation and water qulaity basins in this area. Now the plan that was devised by Bonestroo Engineering would false, as I recall, False the elevation of thls wetland. These two wetlands essentially work together. I don't thlnk they're really that dlvlded in reallty and eventually they draln down 1nrc the lake. The ldeals to lncrease the size of the dtke here to back more water up and get more retention time because that's one of the last remaining possibilities for intercepting water before it dumps into Lotus Lake and carrying a lot nutrients and sediment wlth lt. Now that was on the program for this year. Potential acquisition of thls property would facilitate, would give us a few more alternatives. There is a fairly significant amount of storm water that does come across this property and a lot more could. If we look ahead to one day needing to rebuild some of the streets in Carver Beach, whlch obviously don't meet anywhere near current standards, and incorporate some drainage provisions. Some curbing and storm sewer, we could force a lot more of the water lnto a potential basln that could be built there. So it does have some short term benefit. It could have more long term benefit to maintaln and protect the quality of Lotus Lake. Now whlle we thlnk it's a useful thlng to conslder acquisition of thls, I honestly don't know where the funds would come from. We do have the surface water utlllty fund out there. For those of you who were in the budget sessions last fall, may recall that I indicated we had 3 projects on tap for thls year and part of it was to fund the potential hirlng of a filllng of an engineering positlon to work this program. Zn part work thls program. That basically flat 11ned our fundlng for lgg3. The program under the current funding level, with the fundlng level City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 that was set 3 years ago when we started out does not provide us sufficient latitude to going out and acquiring properties un[ess we do it at the expense of not doing projects that we had slated for this year. So while ! would encourage you to think about acquisition, i'd also encourage you to look for other sources of funding because it really is not available in the SgMP fund. At least not without making some concessions elsewhere. [ guess that does tt for me. [ can explain in more detail [ think, I can try to explain how this might work if we do get ahold of it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: A coule real quick questions now. Is that, where does the storm sewer empty into the lake? Paul Krauss: Actually it's an overland flow. Charles, you might want to help me on this but what happens is, you've got a line coming from here. It comes in here and then out, there's a double line and out in the dike there... Councilman Senn: That's not where that culvert is? PauI Krauss: Yeah. Councilman Senn: It is where the culvert is? Okay. Second question. If we were to acquire the parcel that's there, can what you're suggesting be done anyway? Or is this plan predicated upon the acquisition of that parcel? Paul Krauss: No. ge had assumed not. ge had gone ahead and designed the program to get the improvement without the use of this parcel, and what that meant is some compromises to this wetland. Essentially what we're doing ts we're raising the elevation of this dike and backing up more water tn here. You're basically sacrificing this wetland for the lake. Now, that may be a reasonable thing to do. acquisition of this property gives us a few more options, ge can actually pre-treat the water before it gets into the wetland and achieve what we'd like to while minimizing damage to the wetland, and probably don't have to build as big a dike while we're doing it. Those kinds of details need to be worked out but Bonestroo has that tn their model and we can juggle that around. Councilman Senn: Okay, but one is not predicated on the other then? Okay. Those are the only questions I had for now. Mayor Chmiel: Michael, do you have any questions? Councilman Mason: First comment, being a Carver Beach resident, and just when is the City planning on putting curb and sewer into Carver Beach? I can hear that phone ringing now. Paul Krauss: I was about to suggest that but. Councilman Senn: Everybody call Hike Mason. Councilman Mason: Is that in the hopper? City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Mason: You know, as many of you know, I live on the top of that hill and my concern about a home being there, and I know this has some impIications as to whether it's a buildable lot or not. I've been down there in a rain storm and I know how much water. All of Carver Beach goes through there. I don't know how ciose the perspective buyer wants to live next to water. I think that's an issue but then we have it platted as a buildable lot so this is, I see this as a can't win situation for everybody. So I think we need to hammer it out. If the funds are available, I would certainly like to look into acquiring it just because, well for two reasons. I think being a member of the SWMP committee, I see some benefits there. I'm also concerned about what's going to happen to a home and a perspective homeowner that builds on that lot. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that, if I could just touch on that. As you sitting in on the conversation, that's why I wanted to make sure that the City does not have a problem or w£11 have a problem at a Iater time by putting in that hold harmless clause. And yOU're probably right. There is a good flow that goes down there without any question. But on the other hand, if it can be a buildable lot yet and they don't have those concerns, I guess I'm still open. Colleen? Councilwoman Oockendorf: Well I have a more basic question. How much money are we talking about? Paul Krauss: We honestly don't know. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Not even ballpark? Mayor Chmiel: I can see the price going up. Paul Krauss: I can't verify it but Sharmin is telling me that the purchase agreement was something on the order of $20,000.00. Now there are two parties lnvolved here now. There is the underlying owner and the people that wanted to build the home, whlch adds some 11ght of complexity to lt. Councilwoman Oockendorf: And in your opinion, is this necessary or it's just kind of convenient glven all the circumstances? Paul Krauss: There is definitely a potential benefit to be galned by having it. Our flexibility does improve. We can work thls project probably a 11ttle better. Do more things. Accomplish a better level of protection for the lake. We have a method of getting it done without it that's probably a little more costly. Well, in terms of construction dollars. Not acquisition dollars. And will result in some more damage to that. Basically lt's a balancing situation where you sacrifice the quallty of that wetland for the lake. Now that's often a reasonable compromise to make but what we're doing is dumping a lot more water lnto that area. Also in the future, there lsa lot of water that comes down the street from Carver Beach and behind the homes and between homes, it's just all over the place. It's just not dlrected very well. At some polnt in the future, there's golng to be a need to direct that somewhere. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Particularly with curb and gutter. 10 City Council Meeting - January Paul Krauss: Yeah. Well, curb and gutter's probably the way to go. There's just too much water flowing around too many homes for it to work forever, and at that point we may need to acquire easements across this property or parts of this property to get the water to where it needs to be. There's always that possibility. Councilman Mason: You're saying that if we move to acquire that, that wetland will be damaged more? Is that what I'm hearing? Paul Krauss: No. No. If it's acquired, we have the potential of damaging the big wetland less. Lowering the impact. Basically you can construct a pre- treatment basin on the area of what is sort of high ground on this lot outside the wetland. Mayor Chmlel: Actually you're saying there would be more retention time there before it eventually goes into the lake. Councilman Mason: Before it goes 1ntb the wetland and then into the lake. Paul Krauss: Right. Mayor Chmlel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: I guess two more quick questions. The property is zoned residential? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Senn: And the person has been paying residential property taxes? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: For quite a number of years I'm assuming? Paul Krauss: Yes. And it also does have assessments against it. Councilman Senn: And they've been paylng those assessments too? Paul Krauss: To the best of my knowledge. Bo we know if the assessments are current? Sharmin Al-Jarl: I don't know. Paul Krauss: We're assuming that they are. Councilman Senn: So if we look at acquir£ng, you not only look at, in effect acquiring the property rlghts of two different parttes at this point but you're also probably looking at issues like that too. Paul Krauss: Well the Clty would basically, yeah. Eat the hook up charges that would have gone against tt. Councilman Senn: It sounds like this gets real expensive real quick. 11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yes. Please just state your name and your address please. Margaret Rossing: I am Margaret Ros$ing. I own this piece of property. I live in Long Lake now. You have questions regarding the assessments and those kinds of things. That property has not been assessed per se. What I was told way back when. I thought I had done my background work. I came into the city. I said, will I be able to get a, if I find a buyer for this property, will they be able to get a permit to build on it. They said because it was split way back in 1984 to give another man part of it, and I was left with the rest and because I'd been taxed on it as a residential lot, that it would be indeed a buildable site. Well, so as far as the assessments are concerned, they have not been paid. The only thing I think that has been paid was a road fee type thing. We were assessed a small amount in the beginning for that. I have not paid the taxes because they are astronomical, so I have back taxes on it. This puts me in a real bind because I've got all these bills coming at me and I have no way of paying for it. I can't sell it. I can't do anything. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place and I would really like to get some input from somebody as to what I can do about this. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Shannon Terry: My name is Shannon Terry. I'm the perspective buyer of this property. I currently reside in Hopkins. I do have one question concerning the issues of the drainage for those two wetland areas there. Do we have any idea what water level's we're speaking of. Is it going to encroach? Is the wetland going to move farther out if that's done in the future as far as redirecting the water fIow through the wetIand or is that elevation going to stay at that Ievel that it is right now? Any idea on that? My concern basically is putting a home there. Is it going to encroach on that in the future and get water backing up closer to the home or is it going to be okay the way it is? Paul Krauss: We asked our consultant that question and informed us that the high water elevation would not be any greater than the wetland edge is today. Now that's one of the balancing acts here is that ue can't really do everything that we'd like to do in that water basin because you start flooding out homes. So that's one of the limitations you have to factor in. To the best of my knowledge this would be about the 1guest home in there. It's the lowest home that sets the elevation. Councilman Mason: Well I'd love for the City to buy it but where are we going to find the money? Mayor Chmiel: Therein lies the big question is the dollars and as Paul has eluded, the fund that I thought ue could probably get something from is depleted. There's nothing in the fund this year period. Unless our wizard of dollars knows areas that there might be a couple of dollars around to acquiesce. Councilman Senn: Don, can we undo what we budgeted the money for and redirect it? Councilman Mason: I was just going to ask as a member of the SWMP committee, if this is an issue. When are we meeting? The 1?th of February? 12 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1992 Paul Krauss: February. Councilman Mason: If this would be an issue that would be worth discussing at that point. Paul Krauss: We can certainly put it on the agenda. Again, what it would mean is, I mean we've been, I don't want to say pushed but we've been asked to get projects done showing success for the program and that's been kind of a primary goal since the program was set up. We now have three projects on tap to do and between the funding commitments for that and part of that salaried position, not the full position, we've wiped out the fund for 1993. So if you do that, you can do it but you're going to sacrifice those other items. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: If ! could respond to both your questlon as well as Councilman Senn's. I don't think it's an issue of whether or not we can undo the budget that has been established. I thlnk it's more so the questton of whether certain funds that we may have done better tn than we originally though that we m~ght have. That lsa possibility. The environmental protection fund, I am fairly well sure it will show a much higher balance than had originally been anticipated for the end of 1992. One of my problems there is that goods or services that may have been received or provided in the end of Oecember, we may not yet have been bllled for and if that bill comes in in February, it wtll reduce that account as of the end of the year. So we're still looktng and monitoring what our cash balances were in comparison to what we anticipated we would be at the end of the year. At the end of 1992. If the Council would like to pursue this, ! would suggest approaching it from two fronts. One in which myself be directed to determine what type of balances we might have and whether or not those mlght approach the dollars needed for thts type of an acquisition. Secondarily, that the Attorney's office was planning to meet wtth the owners and see what type of dollars we're talking about and potentially come back. I think we're all sitting wtth too many if's. Mayor Chmlel: Too many lf's ts rlght. Councilman Mason: I agree. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. One of the things I would ltke looked at though is, you know I think this is a little bit of a situation where you're caught between the rock and the hard place whether you like it or not but at the same time I think we need to look at the overall issue of solving the ultimate problem. You know we've got & of the, what is tt 6 of these culverts or storm sewers dumping into Lotus Lake now. I think our priority is getting those out. If 2 or 3 of those can be alleviated or treated with the same funds that it would take to acquire this one parcel, I think that's definitely something that we should consider tn relationship to the exerctse here. Because what I'm hearing is, while it would be nice, it's not essential and that's what Z mean. Being caught between a rock and a hard place. And ultimately I think that's our goal that we should be working for so I think that's really the light we should put it in in relationship to the cost issue. 13 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: True. I don't disagree with that at all. Plus the fact that, we on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals had approved the variances for this as I mentioned before and ue can either sit back and table this discussion until Don has indicated what balances ue have on hand. As well as determining what the costs are going to be for this property. And so we're right at that one point. Even though there's been action by the Board of Adjustments, we still could table this to find out and determine where we're coming from with this. Councilman Mason: If we do move to table, I think we have to act as quickly as we can because I thlnk we both the owner and the seller, I thlnk all of us feel like we're caught on this and I share both their concerns. My personal feellng ls, and I'm sure Mr. Terry would not be too pleased wlth thls but I thlnk if we can buy it, I think we need to at least take a real hard look at it. But I think in deference to the seller, we need to give out some information pretty quickly. But I'd also just like to comment, I 11ke the idea of seeing lt, not saylng we w111 buy it but seelng if there are any funds and then making a decision based on that. I mean if the money's not there well. Councilman Senn: Given the optlon by the board of building adjustments, is there a timeframe that now that's been passed onto the Council, that the Council must act on it? Roger Knutson: On the acquisition. Councilman Senn: No, not in relation to the acquisition. I'm talking in relationship to the variances. Roger Knutson: Well the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has granted. Their decision is flnal unless someone appeals that declsion here. So unless someone appeals that declsion to you, that varlance has been granted. No further actton is necessary. Councilman Mason: Can ue get the information by the next Council meeting? Don Ashworth: I know that the financial information can be obtained within 30 days. Wlthln 14 is pushlng. As far as potential purchases. Purchase prlce, I don't know. Assuming we can meet uith the owners but whether or not we can obtain any numbers or not, I'm not real sure. Roger Knutson: I think ue can learn what the purchase agreement says but as far as glvlng our own appraisal or judglng what ue think lt's worth, we couldn't do that in 2 weeks. We could try. We could do our best but 30 days is probably more realistic. Councilman Senn: I don't think we're talking about gettlng into full appraisals and all that sort of thing. Mayor Chmiel: No, yeah. And I don't thlnk the potential buyer of that property is Ln any position to start construction now. Roger Knutson: I can do this much. We certainly can come back in 2 weeks from what I would have to do, is meeting with the landowner and saying, let's see your purchase agreement and then I can draft one that's agreeable to them. 14 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Councilwoman Oockendorf: And how long would it take for the city to work up some numbers for where we could get the money from? Don Ashworth: I think I could have a pretty fair estimate within 2 weeks. You know again, there may be some bills out there that I'm not aware of at this point in time. That's my biggest problem. Councilman Senn: Again, I'd also like to see that Paul, plugged back into the plan for those dumps into the lake and the cost that you've estimated in relationship to alleviating or treating those dumps into the lake because again, to me that's the key issue. What's the comparison. Councilman Mason: The SWMP committee will be meeting on the 17th of February so maybe that could be put on the agenda at least for discussion in lieu of what Councilman Senn has said and this could be tabled until the 22nd of February. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that into a motion? Councilman Mason: I would make a motion to table the potential acquisition of sald property until, tabled until the 22nd of February and hopefully by that tlme the SWMP committee will have met and been able to discuss it and Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Knutson can see what they can find out. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table potential acquisition of property located at 692/ Yuma Drive until February 22, 1993. all voted in favor and the motion carried. Paul Krauss: I just wanted you all to be aware, and I think you are, that should we get a request for a buildtng permit from them, between now and then, we would have to honor that because tt's, a varlance has been approved. Now I don't know what the reality is of butldtng on.soils like that in the winter. Zf that's a possibility but that is a possibility. Don Ashworth: My question back to Roger was, any party can make that appeal. In my own mind, which then once it ls appealed it comes back to the City Counctl and I know in previous years there has been at issue was if a Council member was able to make that appeal. In this case I would look at it, if the Council as a whole is asking to look at it, the Council as a whole is in fact appealing that decision. Roger Knutson: Maybe the simple way is to ask the applicant if he'll agree not to pull a building permit until you look at this in 2 weeks. February 22nd, excuse me. Otherwise you'll have a foundation in the ground when we start acquiring your property. Shannon Terry: I don't know. As our situation is right now, our house is sold. We're livlng in temporary limbo hoping to find a lot to build on almost immediately. That's our present situation. This whole process started back in October, we pretty much started looking at the lot. It's been going on this 15 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 far. We were hoping that this meeting we'd find out if lt's a go or not. As far as I was told from our builder, we can start bulldlng anytime in the winter with on effect on it at a11. Once you get down below the frost line, lt's fresh soil again. Again, I'm not answering you. I really don't know what the status ls...verify with the bullder. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I share your frustration. I know we've had, when we bullt in Chanhassen we had thousands of yards of engineered fill put in to butld a foundation for our house and it's a headache. You're asking for a blg heahache that's all I can tell you. Really. Mayor Chmiel: I think with the decision we've come up with, for tabling, I thlnk we can be comfortable with that at thls particular time. The concerns of the lssuance of a bullding permlt, granted it can be done but I thlnk it would behoove the owner, potential owner of that property to just wait and see what shakes out. I think that additional month is not golng to hurt one way or the other, at least in my own opinion. So with that I'd like to move onto ltem number 3. Thank you. REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE EXTENSION FOR JAHES JESSUP, 924~ ~AKE RILEY BOULEVARD: Public Present: Name Address James Jessup Don Sitter Leslie Tidstrom Wlllard Johnson 7021Galpin Boulevard 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard 340 Deerfoot Trail Board of Adjustments and Appeals Sharmin A1-Jaff: On March 13th of 1989 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a varlance request for a front, rear, both side yards setbacks for the construction of a slngle famlly residence. As construction began it was discovered that the parcel was contaminated. The Clty Bullding Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination was from gasollne storage tank used for seaplanes operated from the lake. The tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant has been unable to bulld his home until the parcel has been given a clean bill of health by the MPCA. Four variance extensions were granted by the City Councll for the construction of the new slngle famlly residence. On July 8th of 1989, staff received a letter from the MPCA stating that the investigation and clean-up performed on the subject had addressed the petroleum contamination. It also stated that the applicant could begin construction at thls time. Based upon the foregoing, staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him that he should apply for a building permit and start construction prior to February 10, 1993. The applicant ls requesting a flfth extension. Staff ls recommending that the extension request be denied. We belleve that the applicant had reasonable time to reapply for a bulldlng permit and begin construction. He could have prevented the variance application from expiring by startlng construction ? months ago and a11owlng the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We are recommending denial of this extension. Should the City Council decide to approve this application, the original conditions of the variance approval should be adopted. Staff would like to polnt out that today at approximately 16 City Council Heeting - January 25, 1993 4 o'clock we received a phone call from Fred and Judy Potthoff residing at 9Z31 Lake Riley Boulevard. They stated that they are in favor of extension of this application. They wanted to be on record. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Hr. Jessup here? 3ames 3essup: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come forward and please state your name and your address and give us some good reasons as to why we should grant an extension. James Jessup: Okay. I'm James Jessup currently residing at 7021 Galpin Boulevard. [ appreciate your time and your interest to look at this matter again and assist my family in helping us to make our permanent residence at this address, i'm requesting an extension of the variance due to the fact that it's taken time to revise building plans to meet the additional requirements created by this contaminated soil. i've outlined there some of the issues ['ye had to deal with. It's been a rather expensive situation to deal with myself personally in hiring consultants to do some work. a substantial amount of money. The soils report that was done that you've got a copy of, it shows that all the soil was put in that site is going to have to be removed and compacted again. The estimate for that work alone is for $30,000.00. as Colleen mentioned earlier about engineered fill, that"s what we're looking at on this site again, and so it takes time to do the investigation to figure out what needs to be done. What the footing design's going to be. How we're going to have to change the heating plans for the home. What vapor barriers are going to have to be designed. [t Just takes time to get through those issues. The other side of the coin is that financing for this property 'has been severely complicated. Lenders, once a property"s been contaminated, it's very difficult to find financing for them. and so you know, I"ve got nothing to gain by delaying it. I lose use of the property. I continue to pay the property taxes. I lose the use of it. The expense of the renting to continue on. and so moving as quickly as I can as witnessed by the fact that I"ve had the engineering report done. and so I guess it appears to me as though I've done everything I can do but there are limitations both financially and timewise in terms of how long I've had a chance to act. and so I'm also willing to commit that I won't be back here in front of you next year. Which has got to be good news. So thank you for your time. I can answer questions. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Don Sitter: Hi. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard which is adjacent to the property in question here and thank you for allowing me time to voice my concerns. We've been frustrated at how long this situation has been in question and we would like it resolved. Last year at this time I came before the Board of adjustments and appeals and suggested that hts extension be limited to 6 months. You chose to approve a full year extension with a 6 month review, at the 6 month mark I came into the City and found 3 letters of interest, which I think are all in your packet. The June llth one is from the Mpca to various people, city and Mr. 3essup included, stating contamination levels are below the concern and.the clean-up has addressed the contamination issue. On July 6th we got one from the PCa to the City clarifying their 17 City Council Heeting - January position and specifically ~tating that the property is ready. Construction can begin. On July 9th the City sent a letter to Mr. Jessup mentioning the above MPCA letter and establishing a schedule. One year extension. Stating, "it is unlikely that further extensions will be granted" and stating the consequences, that if you fail to do so, your variance will expire. I believe that the City and we, the neighbors have been more than patient and this has been going on for 4 years. The longer it goes on the more tensions in the neighborhood rise and the more frustrating it gets. Granted there have been extenuating circumstances on this property but Mr. Jessup has had more than enough time to resolve his issues. He could have actually started when he received the letter from the MPCA, which was in June. That's nearly 8 months. As the staff reports, allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. If you remember, Hr. Jessup did not allow anyone on his property to do any testing for something around 2 years. When that permission was finally granted, the above report was shown that there's no clean-up further and necessary. There's nothing that's been done to this property since the spring of '90 when this massive clean-up took place so it's really almost 3 years that we've been waiting for something to get going here. I'm really not sure that he's serious about building on this property and we don't believe one more extension will guarantee the beginning of construction. We'd like to get this issue to move. I'm asking you to please follow your staff's recommendation and deny his fifth extension request. Thank you for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Willard Johnson: Willard Johnson, Board of Adjustment and Appeals. I was involved with this at the start. I questioned the gas tanks at the tlme the Councll granted the variance. I belleved that we were going to have problems. I'm not stlcking up for Mr. Jessup but I just feel he should be entitled to another 6 months, provlded he starts in 6 months. I reallze he's maybe dragged hls feet or something. I'm not sticking up for him one way or the other but I dld questlon those tanks at the tlme. I was assured by oertaln clty staff, none of them present here but the ones that are involved with gasoline. We have no problems. They meet State codes. Then of course he ran lnto problems and that's where it ends now and I'd just, I feel that he should have an extension. Not more than 6 months but provided he starts in 6 months. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Leslie Tidstrom: I'm Leslie Tidstrom. I live at 340 Deerfoot Trail. It's two side streets up from thls Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm frtends of Jessup's. I've known them the whole time slnce they have already been off that property. I've seen them struggle with the complications. The disruption of their home and thelr 3 children. I'm exclted for them. I hope that they can joln the neighborhood. Put up a home. I know lt's going to be a little difficult lot to bulld on but I thlnk we've seen the clty work through the other neighbors and allowing them variances and try to put up garages and make a little bit more of the homes. The cablns that have turned lnto full year homes. And I would hope that you would grant Mr. Jessup the same prlviledge to get those variances and put up an adequate home on this site and I hope that he can become a part of our neighborhood soon. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? You're lucky Hark. 18 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Councilman Senn: That's why you sit on the end right. Councilman Mason: That's why I moved down here. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I've got one question and then comments, but I assume the contamination on the site, Mr. Jessup was not the responsible party? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. I guess the way I look at this is, really the ultimate goal here is to get the site built and get something on it. I guess I can say I've personally experienced the same thing Mr. Jessup has because I've had to deal with contaminated sites and it's no fun. I know in many people which it has bankrupt or set back financially for years, even though there's a state fund to plug into, it takes a couple years to plug into it and then you still pay of some of the bill, which is not a small chunk of change when you talk about cleaning up contaminated parcels. So in that sense I really sympathize with Mr. Jessup, especially since he's not the responsible party. Again, going back to the goal, I think that the issue here is really to go ahead and get something going on the property and understanding, at least myself personally, the financial strain that that has placed the Jessup's in over this period of time. I'll even go one step further and I guess make it short and move that we provide a 6 month and final extension to Mr. Jessup. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm curious what guarantees we have that things will, two things come to mind on this. Why. Staff, maybe you can tell me. It appears as though the letters that were sent to Mr. Jessup, there was no response back from Mr. Jessup about it's okay to build now. Let's get started. That kind of thing. Sharmin Al-Jaff: No. We never heard from him until the variance was about to expire and that's when he contacted us to request an extension. Councilman Mason: I'm curious to know why that happened that way. But I'm not, boy I guess this is rock and a hard place night tonight. Because I hear what Mr. Sitter is saying but I'm not quite sure how the City or the neighborhood would be served by denying it at this point. But then, what's to say he can't keep coming back year after year asking for an extension. I mean what's going on with that property? And I guess I'll ask Mr. 3essup this, and maybe if I shouldn't be asking don't answer but, are you planning on starting building fairly soon? James Jessup= When I get everything ready, yes. The answer is yes. There are, between the soil report and work that has to be done, there's a lot of issues. Councilman Mason: How close do you see you coming in being able to start construction? James Jessup: In '93. I mean I've come before you and said that I would not be here next year. It may take 7 months. It may take 5 months. I may take 8 months. I don't know exactly. I mean Z years ago I thought I was here for the City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 last time. So but I'm willing to commit to, now that the MPCA...that's one of the issues that I didn't have any control over .... now the ball is in my court so I'm willing to act on a timely basis... Councilman Mason: You're saying, in your opinion the ball is in your court now and you're ready to move? James Jessup: I'm moving...but not ready to apply... Councilman Senn: There's a real basic issue I think that Mr. 3essup is eluding to but not saying very directly. Just because the MPCA gives you a letter saying that the contamination has been reduced to sufficient level to begln construction does not mean that it's been taken to a level that a lender is wllllng to put money lnto the property. It's a real complicated lssue. That ls a real complicated lssue, and again if ultimately it's to build, then I think you've got to work wlth who you're working wlth and get it there as qulck as you can. It's very complex. Mayor Chmiel: Normally I'm well aware of this because of my past duties as well and to get a lender to provlde dollars. Since a problem doesn't mean that once the MPCA says this ls done and they've checked it and lt's flne, potentially you could have some of those spills continuing through. What would have to be done ls you'd have to put up vapor battlers to eliminate that. As I told Mr. Jessup, if you were to go through the process of putting in 2 foot of clay within that slte, puttlng a poly liner, you may get somebody to do it but at that cost, he couldn't even afford to do that. So it's really a hard position to really look at when it comes to gettlng dollars from a lender. Not only for the lot but for the structure that's going to go on it. If there continues additional seepage, then there is an exlstlng problem that will contlnue and the only way you can get rid of those soils is to take them out and thinly spread them to allow all those vapors are completely gone. Any other comments? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think all parties involved want to see this resolved tonlght and I guess what I'm seeing is, that we're trying to not intentionally but unintentionally punlsh Mr. Jessup for not movlng quicker. We have to consider the hardships that financing has caused and in one essence this really lsn't a self created hardship. A hardshtp created by the situation and circumstance. So I guess I'm willing to second Mark's suggestion that we extend thls. Because I thlnk if we deny lt, we're just golng to be looklng at it again. Either way we go I think we're going to be looking at it again. If we deny lt, then we're golng to get a new application for a variance. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I would even go as far as going along with that condition because I have wrltten down 6 months as well. But in the event that nothlng ls transpired in that 6 months and Mr. Jessup comes back again for an additional variance, the fees be walved on that additional varlance as well. Because a lot of this really is not his choosing or happening when he acquired that. 20 city council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Councilman Mason: I basically agree with what the 3 of you are saying. I'm concerned about the fact that, I get the, what I'm feeling is that Mr. Jessup isn't letting anyone know what's going on and it's hard to tell whether feet have been dragged or not. It sounds like they haven't been but I can certainly see how the rest of the community there thinks it has been because they haven't heard anything. Z mean they're getting this information that on July 9th MPCA says you can build. Well now I'm hearing it's just because they get that letter doesn't mean it's that easy. Well, I think it's important then for Mr. Jessup as hopefully being a good neighbor in that area, to let those, certainly not to spill any beans but to let people know what's going on so hopefully some of these feelings in the neighborhood can be resolved. I guess Z think that's a pretty important part of this deal. So Z would hope that if this extension does get granted, and it certainly sounds like it will be, that some attempt is made to move as quickly as possible and let people know what's going on. Councilman Senn: In light of Mike's comments, I guess what I'd ltke to do is change my motion not only to approve the extension for 6 months but ask that Mr. Jessup, on a monthly basis, furnish a report to the city staff and the neighborhood as to the progress he's making, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Just telling people how you're moving along. Because then we won't end up back in this argument in 6 months. Okay, because I'd hate to put us back in a position where we're just going to say 6 months and be right back here arguing it again. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe rather than going back to the neighborhood. If he would provide the updating to the city and then the neighbors who have concern can call and do that. Councilman Senn: That's fine. Mayor Chmiel: Airight. Can Z have a motion then? Councilman Senn: So moved. Or do you want me to repeat it? Mayor Chmiel: I think you've stated it and it's probably contained within the Minutes and I need a second. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve a & month and final extension to a variance request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, subject to the plan dated March &, 1989 and the following conditions: 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a build£ng permit. 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot plan wi1! need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property survey by a reigstered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures. 21 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure compliance with intent of and plans presented with variance. 4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance. 5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck. 7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure. 9. Hr. 3essup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by any interested neighbors. lo. If a new variance request is required, that the fees be waived. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKEVIEW HILLS NON-CONFORHING USE PERHIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY. Public Present: Name Address Craig Hertz Don Sitter Suite 1100, 120 So 6th St, Mpls 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard Kate Aanenson: This beachlot went before the Planning Commission a couple of times and there's concerns from the neighbors about this beachlot. It's a little bit different than some of the other beachlots we've been reviewing. A survey wasn't done on this beachlot in 1981 so we had to rely on the information that they could provide. The main concern from the neighbors was the fact that this has a boat launch and it's unsecured. There is an access to the lake on the Eden Prairie side with limited parking and what seems to happen is that, when that gets filled up people go over and use the association or the boat launch access over at the Lakeview Hills Apartments. So concern from the neighbors was access and the fact that it was unsecured and the apartment building are across the street that there is partying at night. They provided and the Planning Commission and the staff felt comfortable with the information of the request that they're proposing and that is that they are going to install a maintenance gate. Security that would be limited to the residents of the association. That would help with the security issue and this apartment complex has been in the city for a number of years, largely pre-dating the 1981 ordinance. So we feel that the dock, having a dock is consistent with the ordinance. They also are recommending that all the boats be pulled away from the dock and be secured back up by the apartment building so there will be no overnight mooring of boats. But they do want to have continued use of a canoe 22 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 rack which we feel is consistent based on information that they've given the staff and the Planning Commission that there probably has been boats stored on the property. But at this point they're willing to just say with the canoe rack and have up to 10 boats stored at the canoe rack which we feel, and the Planning Commission felt was consistent with that. They do want to maintain continued use of the boat launch. There was some concerns about maintenance of the boat launch itself and I have contacted the DNR and do have standards on that and will be providing those to the Association to make sure that they're consistent with the BNR regulations. In addition, because this has a boat launch, we were concerned about milfoil and this beachlot does have a sign down there posting milfoil sign. So the Planning Commission did recommend. We put a chart in there what you need to look at. They do have off street parking, so when they pull the boats down, they can store the trailers on site while they're using them. So what they are asking for at this point is the 1 canoe rack with up to 8 boats. One dock 50 feet in length. The swimming and the other issues, picnic tables are all met by the ordinance. You can have those separate without a permit so what we're really looking at is continued use of the boat launch and the dock with the canoe rack. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Counselor, would you like to approach Council? Craig Hertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm here representing the owners of the Lakeview Hills complex and we handed out a letter written earlier today indicating that for our own business purposes we will promelgate rules that cover the 5 points that the Planning Commission covered at it's last meeting and we'll commit to do those things but we're doing them for our own business purposes and we don't waive our claim that we have the Constitutional right to continue the use of the beachlot. I'll answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? Yes sir. Don Sitter= [ just need to clarify one thing. We talked to the parties after the Planning Commission meeting a couple weeks ago and my understanding was that they wanted 10 boats stored, not on the beach property but in the parking lot of the apartment building. Is that correct? Because [ thought I heard you say Kate that they wanted 10 boats. Kate Aanenson: No. They'll have a canoe rack there that allows up to 10 boats. Sailboats, canoes, that sort of thing. Don Sitter: Okay, but the powerboats would be up on the tar up above? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Don Sitter: Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Hearing none, Colleen. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Doesn't look like much to discuss here. All parties seem happy. 23 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Councilman Mason: Let's do it. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval if nobody else will. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Lakeview Hills Apartments Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot with the following conditions: 1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management); 2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe racks (application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored); 3. All other overnight storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment buildings; 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; 5. Continued use of the boat launch; 6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to the number 11 on the application itself but all other historic information has been agreed to. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. SIGN VARIANCE REOUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WIT.~IN. THE REOUIRED SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. Sharmin Al-Jaff: On March 9, 1992 the City Council reviewed the site plan for Americana Community Bank slte. The plans showed one monument identification slgn proposed at the westerly edge of the slte with an area of 70 square feet wlth no base and a pltched element to lt. The plans also reflected the sign location at 2 feet from the westerly property line. It was an oversight by staff not to notice that fact. However, one of the conditions of approval of the slte plan stated that the applicant must obtain a slgn permit prlor to erectlng any slgnage on slte. On November 18, 1992 staff was conducting an inspection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the bank. At that time we noted that there was a sign base bullt close to the property 11ne. We also noted that the plans reflected a 2 foot setback. However, a sign permit had not been lssued approving the location. Staff informed the applicant that the location of the sign does not conform with the sign ordinance and that the ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the property 11ne. The applicant elected to apply for a sign variance. For the City Council to approve the variance, ue must prove that the literal enforcement of thls chapter would cause undue hardship. There were a number of factors that contributed to this hardship. The oversight by staff to notlce the slgn shown at a setback of 2 feet from the property llne was one factor. However, a condition of approval of 24 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 the site plan noted that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site. Second factor was that the applicant revise the monument sign plans prior to consulting with staff. The original plans did not show a base. Had the applicant applied for the sign permit prior to construction of the base, staff would have pointed out the setback of 10 feet and that the design must be consistent with what was originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council reflecting the pitched elements. Approval of this application will create a precedent in the district. We are recommending denial of this application. Should the City Council decide to approve this variance, we recommend that you adopt the conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just a quick question that I have. On construction of that facility, was the foundation already put in for the sign in the proposed location that they're looking at now? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it was. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Would the applicant care to say anything at this particular time? Kim Jacobsen: I think we would. I'm Kim Jacobsen with KRJ Associates representing the Americana Bank. The background I think is that we have been here before a year ago and dld get the site plan approved. We at that time had no reason to assume that we, I guess had any reason for a variance. Everything went through staff. We looked at it. We came from a different location that was in a PUB. Signage laws as shown by Market Boulevard where the signage is less than 2 feet from the sidewalk ls different in a PUB. An oversight by staff and by us included. We got it approved through City Council at the location that lt's at. We felt during construction and we put it on our drawlng showtng a concrete base made out of the same block that the building was because we felt that the sign at that time would tie ttself to the building better and all through construction we built the base course in the standard of construction when concrete was done, the base was built. It was at the point of ftnal inspection that we found out the base was in the wrong location. In the middle of it we looked at the slgn and thought about the scale. The sign that we had proposed that Sharmin had shown you is about 9 feet in height. So we looked at it and said that possibly we might want to cut that down a little bit. The easiest way to scale it down was to take the roof off. We've got a colored drawlng that does represent the sign that is proposed. We think it's a nice design. We went through design development with it. What you're seeing in the first presentation was a concept. We knew that we wanted a sign. We didn't know what it should look ltke. We were dealing with a building. Before we came to the City Council meeting, within one week before we added Phase 2 onto the project. The HRA decided that it would be mandatory to add this in. The City agreed and through the City Council, HRA, everyone else, we doubled the size of the building. We came with a concept. We thought we developed the concept and we hope you're happy with what we came back wlth. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none I'11, I did ask a questlon of our Attorney. If we had given approval previously with the PUB. The locat£on as to where it is, the proposal is at. 25 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just clarify something. You made an assumption that it was a PUD. According to your planning staff it is not a PUD. It's still in BH, Highway Business District, not PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then as it reads, okay. Alright. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, some of the confusion with that may be that it was originally, thls bullding was originally in Market Square which was a PUD. Mayor Chmiel: That's where it comes from then. Okay, that was my mistake with that. Because if it was, then I think it would have been a useless point even discussing it further. Okay, very good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, there were mistakes made on both sides and I guess that's not my main concern about who was, where it went wrong. What I'm more interested in is what the sign will look like and will it tie in. I'd like to start off by saylng, that they did a nlce job on the building. I thlnk it looks nice in our community. I'd like to follow up by saying, I don't like that slgn. I really don't. The fact of the matter ls that the bullder started the base without a permit, uhlch is a self imposed hardship. It is too close to the drainage and utillty easements. Coupled with the fact that I thlnk lt's too blg and it doesn't fit in ulth what I think would look nicer there. I really llke the orlginal deslgn better and location for where it should be. That's about all I have to say on the issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just looking at the dimensions of that. It appears to be...to the outer portion, 15'6" to the inner portlon with a 22 inch width. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's huge. Councilman Mason: That's a big sign. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: People have built decks and then come before us for a permit and understandably we've been very upset by that. And while as I certainly don't deny that it was an oversight by staff, the ordinance says a 10 foot setback from the property line and they're not 10 feet back from that. That does set a precedent for that whole area and I don't 11ke lt. My inclination right now with what Colleen has said and with my feellngs on it, I at this polnt would deny the variance. That's my feellng. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I'll just ditto what Michael said. How's that? Councilman Mason: You are sick tonight. Mayor Chmiel: He's not feeling well. Thank you Mark... Going back to the construction of that bank. I think we as a Council sort of, at least 2 of us here, sort of pushed them lnto developing the additional space and proceeding more so than what they had anticipated immediately at that particular time. In order to provlde the occupants of that bulldlng with a slgn that ls something City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 that is needed, I'm not sure what the variances is what we have to go by. But all and ail I think we did soft of urge the bank to proceed with the complete construction rather than just partial, which they did do. And this would accommodate the use of those tenants that were going in. I look at one side, how many total tenants will be in that building? Randy Schultz: Don, I anticipate it will be anywhere between 6 and 7 besides t he bank. Mayor Chmiel: G or 7. Okay. As the space shows on the proposal, there shows G slots for whoever's going to be there and I notice that we have a noteable here on that marquee by the name of Miles Lord who is looking to put his office there. Good for Miles and welcome to the city. Even though you live here, it's nice that you're going to put your office here. But I guess I do have some concerns with the appearance of that marquee, as I call it. I looked at one of the ones that staff had come up with, with a little bit of a roof line portion on that sign to soften it. Get away from the squareness and blend into your building a little bit more. I don't know if you've seen that but this is just a little sketch that they had done. Sharmin Al-Jaff: That was prepared by the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Oh was it? Okay. Paul Krauss: With the original site plan. Mayor Chmiel: I still like that concept of it. I know that when everything was accepted and done as a group by staff, and I'm not sure exactly what our responsibilities basically are because of that. But I do have a 11ttle btt of concern of thls being located in and adjacent to our pipes contained within the ground there. In the event that there is a problem, even though we're covering it wlth a condition, it would have tendencies to still have a problem by destroying or damaging that particular sign. It is a little bit close, no question. On one hand we welcome them into the community, and of course we do have variances but variances can be granted for basic needs and we have to be really careful of that. I appreciate the bank in making every effort to work along with what you've done to insure that successful project as you have. Would you like to say something? Randy Schultz: Could I make a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Please, come forward. Randy Schultz: Thank you Don. Members of the City Council. My name is Randy Schultz. I'm President of the bank. I haven't had a chance to meet some of you so. Let me assure from the beginning that we've tried to construct a building here that we thought the community would be proud of and for those of the people who were aware of this project from the beginning, we did very much listen to the concerns of the Planning Commission in the very beginning and changed our building to a design that I think everybody likes and feels is a building that they're proud to see ina main entrance into Chanhassen. I don't have a problem in looking at some klnd of a pitched roof. We thought that by taking off the roof the sign would be shorter and smaller and would not be as large for people 27 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 to think. I guess where I'm coming from on the size of the sign as we see it now and where it's location is, as Don indicated, we were going to come in with a smaller building to begin with and the City encouraged us to go with a larger building. Build the phase 2. They indicated to us that they felt that it would look better on that corner and that we would find the tenants to occupy the space. And both of those comments were right. I think it does look much better. The size of the building on that space as it is and we are seeing some real good interest as far as tenants. I have to tell you though, every tenant we talk to says where's my signage. That's the number one concern. Where's my signage. Are people going to be able to see it from Highway 5 and are they going to be able to see it from Market Boulevard? If you see where the sign is located on our site, it's uniquely situated such that people from Highway 5 are going to be able to see it. It's a two sided sign. People coming down Market Boulevard can see it. About the only other way I see to do that and accomplish both those things is to put two signs, one on each side of the building and make them parallel with the building. We had no idea that we were in violation of any variance. I was totally surprised when Klm came to me towards the end of the building and said, we've got a problem. We're too close to the property line. I don't think we pose a hazard though and I don't think any of you who have been on that corner would believe that we're blocking any view of any traffic or obstructing anything. If there's any concern that there's going to be some damage as a result of some future easements, we'll certainly as a bank say any damage that might result is our cost. We feel it's important for that sign to be where it is. We think it's going to be a very nice sign. We'll make some design changes as far as the roof line, if that's what the Council wants. It's going to be very hard for us to change that sign and still give our tenants the kind of signage they'd like to see to locate in the space. I wish you would consider that and consider circumstances and please consider our request. Thank you. Hayor Chmiel: Let me just throw something out. In looking at the other buildings within our downtown and having the names all over as ue do have presently, this monument sign appeals to me just a little bit more, from an aesthetic standpoint. But it does, and there is a need to show who are in a particular building. Whether that be on the inside of the building or if you have them on the outside of the building. Or as you have a monument sign. I would prefer seeing it on a monument sign. Where yet I'm not sure. But only because of the aesthetics of the building in itself. I think it would look not too good if we were to have signs all over that building. And so with that I'd just like to throw it back. You wanted to say something. Councilman Senn: Well I don't know, maybe I'm Johnny come lately on this issue but one of the things that really concerns me about what I do see in downtown Chanhassen is exactly what you're raising. I know of, I guess I'm going to say this. I know of no other place where multi tenant office buildings have outside tenant identification for every tenant in the building and to me that's setting quite a precedent in terms of the amount of signage that you're going to allow in town. You know if the next building that comes in is 2 times this size, what's the size of that sign going to be to show every tenant in the building on the sign. And I'm really concerned about the appropriateness of that. Normally multi tenar, t office buildings you have inside identification as to where the tenants are. Beyond that you have building identification and you tell people, hey. I'm located in the Americana Bank Building in Chanhassen. And when you 28 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 get to the lobby you've got signage to take you where you need to go. So I don't share the concern of, or the need I should say for that kind of signage outside to the highway and everywhere else. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Hike, you wanted to say something. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I share Councilman Senn's concern about that also. don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm anti Americana Bank. We did ask you to do some things and it looks really nice. Don't get me wrong. I go back to 2 feet out of the ordinance and [ appreciate the fact that no one may have known that. This happens in a home and we've told them, well. You've got to cut it back 2 feet. [ see here that the signs, the attorney's signs or whatever, are going to be 12 inches high. I question a car from Highway 5 going 50 to 60 mph could see those anyway. I certainly, it's an issue on the rural streets or the streets in Chart but I don't know if ! could see 12 inches. A 12 inch sign going down Highway 5. Mayor Chmiel: With those eyes I'm sure you could. Councilman Mason: Well that's true. I do have pretty good eye sight but yeah, boy. [ come back to, ~ share Councilman Senn's concern about the amount of outside s£gnage and this is not, ever since I've been on Council, I've been opposed to people asking for variances after things have been done intentionally or otherwise, and [ guess at this point I'm going to stand by that until I hear something else. Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to reiterate that my former position stands. That you built a beautiful building and I think a sign of this size Just detracts from it. Councilman Mason: Could we get some discussion about signage inside as opposed to the outside of buildings? Mayor Chmiel: I'd like Paul probably just to touch on that. I think they have a certain amount of signage that they can have outside, and I'd like you also to touch on that part too. Paul Krauss: Well, this has been an ongoing issue. It started with the Medical Arts Building, which is probably the one you're referring to...the provision of a sign for each and every tenant in there. The Planning Commission felt fairly strongly that identification was important. I remember Brad Johnson at the time came up with a definition for the building. That it wasn't really an office building. It was a retail office building. I'm not sure what that means but it kind of set the precedent. I'm not sure that there's any policy that's really firmed that up. That issue up besides that discussion. When the Planning Commission, well let me back up again too. Theoretically, and I haven't measured the ordinance against this. I mean we approved this as a site plan package and it had a sign with it and that sign happened to have two tenant spaces. Theoretically they probably could get more signage under the current sign ordinance but this was the sign package that was approved with this site plan and there was HRA assistance here and I mean, it's not a PUB but we sort of 29 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 handled the sign as a separate issue and as a part of the site plan approval. think that some of these lssues may be clarified as to whether or not tenants should get slgnage. Individual tenants in offlce buildings should be slgnage. With the new slgn ordinance that's been drafted up and is on the verge of being brought in to the Planning Commission that actually considered. There was a task force working with Kate Aanenson on it for part of last year who have done a lot of work in that regard. The Planning Commission discussed the same lssues at length and I think they came up with a proposal that sort of split the difference. Relatlve to the setback from the street. Yes, it does set a precedent and posslbly a disturbing one. It doesn't appear to effect the utlllty lines at a11. I mean it does encroach, especially if there's a hold harmless type of agreement but the utility lines are not in the immediate vlclnlty of the slgns so there's no danger of it pushlng down a water line or something else. What they had recommended was that the number of tenant spaces be allowed as had been requested but that the sign revert to lt's orlglnal deslgn configuration whlch would I suppose entall knocking off anything above the concrete, flat concrete in the ground and then buildlng the same slgn on lt. As to whether or not this provides visibility from Highway 5. If the tendency is you're golng to see something thls big from 500 feet away, that's out of the question. We have absolutely no desire to make this thlng or any other slgn in downtown Chanhassen vlslble from Hlghway 5. That's not the purpose of slgnage on our main streets. 8ut that was the Planning Commission recommendation. As say, it sort of spllt the difference and as staff we were not totally uncomfortable with thelr determination on that. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Well we could sit on this one ail night long. So the Plannlng Commission recommends that Clty Councll approves the slgn locatlon variance requiring that the pitched element would remain incorporated in the design. Now if that's done, but it can't go over 9 feet rlght? Sharmin Al-Jaffa: 8 feet. Councilman Mason: 8 feet? Mayor Chmiel: 8, yeah. Councilman Mason: So that in essence will end up making this somewhat smaller rlght? Paul Krauss: The way I would interpret that, and Sharmln you were at the meeting too so correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't just take that sign and add a roof to it. It's that you go back to thls slgn and wlthin that slgn panel, if they wish to split that up for multlple tenants, that would be their perogatlve. Councilman Mason: If we deny the variance, what happens? Mayor Chmiel: They wouldn't get their sign and they'd have to relocate it or put it in another location. 3O City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Paul Krauss: Well yeah. They basically have that sign and they'd have to tear up the concrete that's there and put in a new base for it. Councilman Senn: To put in that sign? Paul Krauss: Right. Sharmin Al-Jaff: You still haven't approved their sign permit. Paul Krauss: But we would for this one because that's consistent with the site plan. Councilman Mason: Well, I don't know. I guess and I certainIy take what Mr. Schultz said, is that they had no idea that they had overshot the variance there. Knowing that each variance is one at a time and yes it sets a precedence but it doesn't mean we have to agree to any other variance. I guess I'll move off of this one and I'm willing to move approval of the Planning Commission recommendation, which then grants the variance for 2 feet but brings it back to Plan ~1, the smaller sign with the pitched roof, which does seem to me to be somewhat of a compromise. Mayor Chmiel: I think it is too. I will second that. Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with that but I guess I'd Just like to reiterate a strong comment that the bank consider extending the fine job they have done with the buildtng and look posstbly not to try deallng with that for a multitude of tenants. Rather some building ldentifioation. Councilman Mason: I guess I'd be really interested to see what the new sign ordinance ends up wlth on lnside and outside signage. That's fine. Councilman Senn: Very much so. Councilman Mason: Well I made my motion. Councilman Mason moved. Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Sign Variance ~92-11 with the following conditions= 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreelng that the city wlll not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while performing maintenance within the utility and drainage easement. 2. The applicant utilize the sign design approved on March 9, 1992 with the site plan approval. 3. The number of tenants permitted to utlllze the sign panel is not regulated by the City. Rll voted in favor and the motion carried. 31 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 FINAL PL~T APPROVqL AND PUD AMENDMENT FOR A CHURCH. LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL. AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER= RYAN CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address John & Eileen Hiltner Randall & Joan Johnson Gary J. Harju Carol & Amy Curie Richard & Effie Taylor Marry & Shlrley Andreasen Scott & Jule Eggen Stephen Kern Dick & Cynthia Walker W1111am & Marilyn Stewart Mark Berger John & Judy McDaniel John Dietrich Wllly Molnau Davld Stockdale 3272 Lakeshore Circle, Chanhassen 8580 Magnolia Trail ~109, Eden Prairie 5985 Mill Street, Excelsior 110912 Mort Hertzen, Chaska 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Pralrie 19330 Vlne Ridge Road, Shorewood 5701 81ueblrd Lane, Minnetonka 6540 Devonshire Orlve, Chanhassen 425 Chan View, Chanhassen 17005 Honeysuckle Lane, Eden Pralrle 15200 18th Avenue No. 6502 Grand Vlew Drlve, Eden Pralrle RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins 8541 Audubon Road, Chanhassen 7210 Galpin Blvd, Chanhassen Kate Aanenson: Ryan Construction is seeking final approval for thelr plat. This plat, just to bring you back up to date was approved, preliminary approval almost a year ago. At that tlme it had 12 lots and 2 outlots. When we put together the PUO we approved it with a mix of 20X office, 25~ industrial and 55~ warehouse and have a total of about 700,000 square feet of building mass. Slnce that time they are looking at selllng off one of the lots for a Jehovah Wltness Church. Slnce we put thls together as a PUD, we 11mlted the uses to offlce, industrial and warehouse so what they're requesting tonight is to amend the PUD to allow for a Jehovah Witness. And then secondly what they're looking for is final plat approval and for the PUD approval. So first, let me address the PUD amendment. Thls lot up in here, Lot i is where they're looklng at locatlng the church. As you recall, this lot was the only lot that had access onto Audubon. For clarification thls is on the west slde of Audubon, just so everybody knows where we are. This lot was the only lot that had direct access on Audubon. What they're proposing now, I'll show the orlglnal a 11ttle blt larger scale. Here's the original proposal...lot and then Lot 2 and 3, approximately respectively 3.3 acres and Lot 3, 4 acres. What they're recommending then is reducing the slze of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2 and 3. Zf Z can address the two concerns that staff had. They really fall into two issues. One, amending the PUD to allow for this type of use. And secondly, how it effects the modification of the subdivision. Flrst the use itself. Obviously thls is an industrial park and it's the City's, I think flrst desire to see that industrial uses be located in here. Although this ls not unusual to see a church in an industrial park, where we have it with a Lutheran Church located on Lake Orlve. Staff could support a church at thls locatlon by the fact, as I mentioned previously, that it is the only lot that has access onto Audubon Road so it's klnd of separated ltself from the rest of the industrial park. The rest of the industrial park would have access vla Lake Drive. A 11ttle blt different orientation wlth that use. In addltion it may provlde a 32 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 better buffer use and also the fact that it's a lower profile building. It kind of reduces the massing and may be blending more than the office use that they were looking at there as far as height and scale. The other concern that we had is that when we put together this PUD we had specific, we call those specific issues as far as signage, building materials. I did pass out, there's some pictures up there you may want to look at but we did relay to the Jehovah Witness that if they were looking at this, that they would have to conform to the standards that we laid out in the PUD, and it's our understanding that they can meet all those standards as far as the design itself. Then the second issue to talk about would be the subdivision modification itself. As Z mentioned previously, the lots would be reconfigured as far as the size. The one concern that we did have was the access of this drtveway point. Mr. mtockdale, who's here tonight, owns the property across the street and it's our understanding that he may be looking at platting his property. I guess our concern there is that we would like to see a T intersection and maybe some modification if he does go forward here shortly with a subdivision on that property. That we do try to tie those driveways in. In addition, they have proposed a separate access on Lot 3 onto Audubon, and staff and the engineering department would recommend that access be gained from Lot 3 off of Lake Drive and not onto Audubon. With that I'd just like to talk about the flnal plat again. Again, this one wlll be modlfled to show the smaller lot. At this time the only lot that they'll be finaling would be this lot here for the Jehovah Witness and the Weather Station lot whlch ls the larger lot over here. The rest of them will be all platted in outlots. There will be three separate motions that are required. One would be the PUD amendment. Secondly, the final plat amendment with those conditions. [f Z could just have you, on the final plat there was a concern from the applicant about condition number 13, whlch is on page &. They had concerns about the assessments on the outlots and we have spoken to them about that and stated that the assessment should be appealed at the tlme of the hearing. The assessment hearings. And the third motion that you'll be looking at tonlght would be approval of the preliminary and final development plan for the PUO and those spell out, as I mentioned earlier also, the bu£1ding material and design. The Plannlng Commission recommended approval of the amendment for the PUD allowing for the church to go in there and again what we recommended is that the church be located only on Lot 1 and no other lots be allowed in, church lots be allowed in that development. And they also recommended approval of the flnal plat and the PUB. Mayor Chmiel: A couple questions that I have. If we allow one church in, how can we not allow any others? Kate Aanenson: We're not stating which church. We're just saying one. In the PUD we're allowing, we spell out what uses we want to go in there. Just like we said, with a mix of offlce, industrial and warehouse. We call out what mix we want in those too. Mayor Chmlel: And that end lot on Audubon would be facing towards the residential? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's why we felt it was. Paul Krauss: Actually it would face to another industrial site across the street. 33 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's where the Weather Bureau's looking to go. Paul Krauss: Directly due east across Audubon from the church site is another industrial site. Residential starts further south. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But, okay. Alright. I'm just looking at that north arrow. The north side of that. To the south you're saying it's going to be there. Kate Aanenson: That's Mr. Stockdale's property. Paul Krauss: Well no. Where this street comes in is the diuiding line. It's industrial here and residential there. Councilman Mason: Okay, well then this map that we have here is inaccurate then? Kate Aanenson: The plat map? Councilman Senn: It has it reversed. It has Chanhassen Lakes Business Park there and Susan Hills is up there. Councilman Mason: Just the opposite Paul. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm. Councilman Senn: That's Lake Susan Hills and Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Councilman Mason: But you know that's right though. The Business Park is on the other side. Paul Krauss: But see, Mr. Stockdale's property is an exception of what was platted in the Lake Susan Hills plat but that's the property that's owned by Redmond. It's the industrial portlon of what was the origlnal Lake Susan Hllls. Councilman Mason: Okay. Alright. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here wishing to address Council at this time? Are you in agreement with what staff had said. Would you please come forward to the microphone please and state your name and your address please? Dick Taylor: I'm Dick Taylor, 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Prairie. Just to be very, very brlef. Thls congregation was formed a year ago last September. We've looked at over 30 pieces of property. Thls one here, since we've been formed we've been meetlng in Mlnnetonka, uhlch ls out of our territory. Thls plece of property happens to be rlght in the middle of our territory so it's a good blend for us. Just to tell you that our meetings, if we had a Klngdom Hall there, our maln three meetings would be Tuesday night and Thursday night at 7:30 and Sunday mornlng at 9:30. So we would not be there durlng heavy trafflc areas whlch would lend for this piece of property, from what I understand. We're just wi111ng to cooperate in any way ulth whatever the City Councll wants and cooperate with the neighbors. We're a quiet group and I think it would lend itself to the property. 34 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: How many members in the congregation? Dick Taylor: Well, there's about 105. We have about 140 that associate there. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Willy, would you like to come up? Willy Molnau: I'm Willy Molnau, 8541 Audubon Road. I guess I am what you call, you put the horse in front of the cart instead of the back. I should have came to a meeting a year ago. Is that map upside down? Kate Aanenson: No. Willy Molnau: Which way is north on there? Kate Aanenson: Here. Willy Molnau: Well every announcement I ever saw, it says located south of Chicago, Milaukee railroad and east of Audubon Road. The sun comes up in the east at my house and everything you're talking about is on the west side of Audubon. So how can you plan a project when you're in the wrong ballpark? Oh really. That's no laughing matter. It says right on here, east of Audubon. Thls man here's business is east of Audubon. How come nobody ever straighten this out? Mayor Chmlel: I'm glad that you caught it. Willy Molnau: I mean Chanhassen is either upside down or you can't even plan something because you guys don't know what you're talking about. You're on the wrong side of the road. Councilman Senn: I'm glad you finally straighten me out. I've been asking Mike here for 10 mlnutes where this is and I've been trying to figure it out. Councilman Mason: Well you know some people say the sun never sets on Chanhassen so maybe that's what's going on here. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Good point. Thank you. Willy Molnau: I'm just trying to help out. Mayor Chmlel: Anyone else wishing to address this? Okay. Mike, you've got everything pulled out there. Councilman Mason: I do. I'm basically okay with everything that's going on here. I'm curious to know the loss of taxes. I mean that to me, I mean it will be something but I don't, I'm curious. How much will we be losing because of that? Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have any idea? Don Ashworth: As a church it does not pay taxes so the only response would be if you would ask us to calculate what a slmilar stzed facility would be paying 35 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 in taxes. I haven't made that calculation but how many square feet are we talking about? 4,000 square feet. Councilman Senn: How many square feet of land. How many square feet of land I think is more the issue. Don Ashuorth: The building's 4,000 square feet. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, 4,000 square feet for the building in itself. The property would be in additlon to that. So you have to figure both. Don Ashworth: Approximately $10,000.00 would be the tax on, if you put in a 4,000 square foot industrial buildlng there, taxes would be approximately $10,000.00. Councilman Senn: Including the land? Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Senn: That's what I wanted to clarify. Don Ashuorth: I'm using $50.00 a square foot. I don't know if I'm hlgh or low. I don't know if land would add that much to it .... so the $10,000.00 ls probably high. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, I think that maybe addresses some of your concerns? Councilman Mason: Yes. Really my only concern. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: To me I guess the only issue is the location of this type of use in a commercial/industrial area and we've got such a short supply of commercial/industrial land. My problem I thlnk ls really taklng it off the tax rolls. Especially in our higher tax areas that we need badly. And I don't really thlnk that's an appropriate use for an industrial park. I know we have the one but I think that was there a long time ago before a lot of our current codes and ordinances were put in place to prevent that type of thlng from happening again and stuff so I would just have a hard time golng along with alloulng it to happen agaln. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you Mark in terms of, I like it. I think it's, as the staff report says, it's a nice buffer between the industrial park and the residential area. And seeing that, I've driven it and seen where it will be and I guess I didn't make that connection from the west side. That shows a little bit of my sense of direction. It will probably be the first thing that you see as you drive south and I think that's nice. 6iven what the other structures in the metropolitan area have been as far as nice brick buildings, I think it will be pleasant to look at when you come in from that road and I think churches and other, churches 36 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 are an important part of a community and I don't have a problem foregoing the taxes in order to allow diverse congregations into our community. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the, the only concern that I've had with this is putting it within the industrial park. As he was mentioning that that would have Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sunday would not provide any or would not cause any problems as far as traffic flow or congestion or some real concerns. Taxes is one of the ones that of course I'm concerned with because that's what we live off of within our city. Not that we are in any position of saying, one way or the other, regarding the site. There are other locations within the city that a church could still be located without any real given problems and we welcome all churches within the community as we have over the years. This is going to require a 4/5 majority vote this evening. And in the event that we choose not to proceed with this project, I would suggest that we also have some Findings of Fact for the denial. I don't want to put us in a very precarious position regarding this. And then again too, that lot, Block 1 and Lot ! as it's indicated, if we were to have someone come in to the community that wanted to build a commercial or industrial building, that can always be extended and given a little more area as well. So we're not just definitely tied down to just what's there now. I'm assuming, or presuming that there's enough space for total parking contained within the site. What's the footprint of the proposed building that would be coming. Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about the acreage? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And if you're looking at roughly anywhere from 100 and some to 140 as a total number. Kate Aanenson: 2 acres. It was reduced down to 2 acres from Councilman Mason: Lot 1 was right? Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just sort of thinking out loud here. Councilman Senn: Well I think from that standpoint, I guess it would be right now, at least at this point my intention to vote no, so Z don't know how the rest of you feel. But if the rest of you feel that you like it, then maybe the applicant should withdraw and bring it back in when Councilman Wing's here and has a chance of getting 4/5 and by then I may change my mind but right now I'm not so inclined. Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate the openness on that. Making the church aware. Yes, would you like to come forward and please state your name and your address as well please. Stephen Kern: My name is Stephen Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor and Council members. Just a couple of points as far as discussing so far. Our meetings are Tuesday night and Thursday nlght and a big concern was, because that one lot had to have a driveway coming onto Audubon, that we were solving a major problem that staff had that of having an office in thatlot, having daytlme traffic because you have a little bit of a rise over the 37 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 bridge and that extra traffic in and out of Lot 1 during the day would be much more of a hazard than our situation, evenings and weekends. The requirements for parking with the building that's been presented, which I have some sheets here that are the actual elevation drawings on three views. If you'd like to see them, I could share them with you now. And also ue have presented to staff complete site plan and within the site plan it already configures to all the zoning requirements, parking requirements. It's a building that would have 208 seats and there's requirement for 3 parking spaces for each every 3 seats. So there's a requirement of 68 parking spaces and this has 72 plus handicap parking. We worked very close with Ryan Construction and RLK Engineering to make sure that those things were addressed. The point that was brought up about being able to locate somewhere else. We've been working with approaching Jo Ann and Kate for the last 18 months. Since we first came to town we immediately pursued land, and ue have discussed specific conversations with Jo Ann and others, 7 or 8 residential sites that looked good but ue were constantly shut down. There were problems uith not being on a collector street. Or some residential areas have strict covenants and so you cannot put any kind of a building other than a very expensive home in that neighborhood. There was one spot on Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard, the southwest corner, which is a little piece of Kerber land left yet. It's 3 proposed lots or so but then as that was looked at, there's some large trees right uhere we'd want the parking lot and they wouldn't want those nice trees taken down. And we came down to the process of elimination that there is nothing else at this time available to us in the city other than this lot. And that's why Bob Morehouse and the Audubon 92 Partnership thought it was a great idea. From the standpoint of addressing our needs in a city that has had a great many restrictions, and ue received copies of all the ordinances that would be applying to a church and there are very many. Very strict and at the same time ue looked at everything that would be required to fit in with this situation here in the Chanhassen Business Center. It uas just interesting too in the staff report, the original staff report on page 6. It was lending itself to a great variety of uses which is uhy here you have a weather station coming in. And it talks about research centers, servicing light distribution purposes, auxilliary services type buildings. So the original presentation uas an industrial park that in a sense uould be very versatile to a lot of uses. And then since our buildings are designed to look much like a dentist office or any other office, we feel it would be an excellent place and if we do end up somewhere else, that would also take a few tax dollars off the rolls but we have a majority of our congregation lives in Chanhassen. Paying taxes. Nice homes and we'd very much appreciate being able to be here in this industrial park. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I guess one of the points that I'd like to just reiterate is, one of the Council has indicated that he would vote no at this particular time. And having one council member absent, it would just automatically deny that. The suggestion was that you uithdrau this at this time and have it put on the next Council agenda when we have our other councilman here. Unfortunately he would have been here this evening but he is a piloting a Northwest Airline plane, which his schedule got a little fouled up. He normally is always here but because of that I think it would behoove your congregation to consider withdrawing at this time and asking that this be put on the next Council meeting. Because if ue go to a vote, it would probably wind up 3 to 1 or 2 to 2. 38 City council Heeting - January 25, 1993 Stephen Kern: Okay. I was trying to persuade the individual council member. Councilman Senn: I'm not sure I'm the only one but. Stephen Kern: ~nd if that'd be the case, then we would go along with that recommendation. Councilman Senn: Mayor, I guess one thing I'd like to see happen too that may go a long way towards satisfying my concerns is [ guess I'd like to see more history on this. I'd like to see what other sites were considered and I'd like to see the reasons why those sites were determined to be inappropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can you make sure Kate? Councilman Senn: I heard some there that sound better to me than this but that's just on the surface so I guess I'd like to get some more specifics on that. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you furnlsh it to the entirety of the Council so we can see those. Paul Krauss: We'll need to get a lot of that information from them because I think we're only aware of 2 or 3 of them. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I haven't worked with them as much as he led so I think we need to get some clarification on that. Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to see that. Councilman Mason: Could I just quick comment? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Mason: I want to thank Councilwoman Dockendorf for her comments. I thought they were very well put about diversity and tf this in fact is the only vlable alternative for them, the polnt raised about trafflc on Audubon Road is a very good one and I thlnk that the church certainly would help that issue out wlth Tuesday evenings, Thursday evenings, and Sunday mornings. And yeah, as it stands right now I would support it but I also think it might behoove to have it pulled from this one and voted on in 2 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. We will so do that with the applicant's request. We can put it on next Councll meeting, yes. And that will be February the 8th. Okay. Councilman Mason: Now, do we then vote on everything else here? Mayor Chmiel: No. If it's being withdrawn. Councilman Mason: Well, just that one portion of it. Kate Aanenson: The rest of the plat. You may want to ask the applicant who's here on that if they would 11ke to proceed wlthout because they're trylng to 39 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 final out the church as one of the lots. If the church doesn't go forward, they may not want to final plat. So there is someone here from RLK representing Ryan Construction. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, why don't we have that addressed. John Dietrich: Councilmembers, Mayor. If the plat for the Chanhassen Business Center, it does not go through tonight, I would also say we would 11ke to come back to the next Council meeting and do everything at one time and try to resolve any final lssues that are st111 outstanding on lt. Mayor Chmiel: That's still going to require a 4/5 all the way through for everything. Roger Knutson: The platting just requires a simple majority. It's the amendment to the PUD that requires it. Councilman Mason: So with that I'd move to table untll the, tabllng Chanhassen Business Center PUD Amendment, Final Plat and PUD approval until the February Council meetlng. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to table Final Plat Approval and PUD Amendment for the Chanhassen Business Center until the City Council meeting February 8, Zgg3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK UTILITIES PHASE II, PROJECT 91-17B. Charles Folch: Attached to your staff report you will find two petitions recelved from Carlson and O'Shaughnessy properties. At the last Council meeting you'll recall that representatives from Opus and the Gateway Buslness Partnership publlcally requested that trunk utilities be extended through the, or to lnclude the Phase II portlon of the Upper Bluff Creek improvement project. These 3 property owners represent the majority of the land that would be effected by thls project. The project would begln at the Phase I's current terminous which would be on Galpin Boulevard through the proposed Hans Hagen property. It would extend north along Galpln and then west through the O'Shaughnessy and Gateway Business Park property. An estimate has been received by Bonestroo to prepare the study at $7,200.00. As consistent with past policy on these types of projects, we would recommend that the parties petitioning for thls improvement project be required to provlde the monles to secure the cost of the study. Staff is empathetic to the Council's concerns in relation to the Trunk Hlghway 5 corrldor situation as expressed at the last meetlng and although staff does believe that this study could be undertaken over the next few months and would be prudent to basically wait to proceed any further in ordering the project untll the results of the Highway 5 corrldor task force study are known. Wlth that, it ls therefore recommended that the Clty Councll authorize the consulting engineering firm of 8onestroo to prepare the feasibility study for the Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utlllty Improvement Project ~91-17B 4O City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 conditioned that the City receive a security of $200.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrom. The appropriate cost splits have been established based on land area of the three petitioners involved. And they have been established at the Carlson property $800.00, the O'Shaughnessy property $2,700.00 and Gateway Business Partnership/Opus $3,700.00. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Senn: Just one quick question. How are all these properties zoned or perceived to be zoned? Charles Folch: At this point I'd have to refer to Paul. Or Paul's out of the room. Gateway Business Partnership is currently, Ithtnk most of it ls zoned ag right now. And so there'd be some rezonlng involved. Mayor Chmiel: All rezoning. We don't know what. Councilman Senn: We don't know what really it is? I mean there's no concept plan or anything in place? Charles Folch: I think the O'Shaughnessy property though is slated for residential. As is Carlson. Don Ashworth: And Opus is business park. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have just one quick question of a completely personal nature. Any plans on bringing it into Timberwood? Charles Folch: Not associated with this project. Staff would not initiate that type of move unless a majority of the people within.Timberwood would request the improvements. Don Ashworth: I don't know if we should leave it as a majority. It's always a tough issue. I mean if you have 3 failures and you've got 22 good ones, you know. It's a tough one for Councils to grapple with. Especially if there's not alternatives. Nothing's being looked at currently. Phil Gravel: There is the capability of servicing that area. And that will be addressed too... Councilwoman Dockendorf: The oldest home I believe is 5 years old. Phil Gravel: So we're not overlooking it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: If hearing none, no other discussions, can I have a motion? Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. 41 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Resolution ~93-05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo to prepare the feasibility study for Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project ~91-17B conditioned that the City receive a security of $200.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The appropriate cost splits have been established based on land area of the three petitioners involved and they have been established at the Carlson property - $800.00, the O'Shaughnessy property - $2,700.00 and Gateway Business Partnership/Opus - $3,700.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AM~NDHENT TO AHEND SECTION 20-1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20-1019, LOCATION OF FENCES, FIRST READING. Councilman Senn: Mayor, before we get into this and...I'm certainly willing to go wlth whatever the Council's pleasure is but having just got this and having about 100 questions and a number of concerns on it, I really would like some tlme to maybe vlslt with staff, whlch I haven't had the opportunity to do, slnce we got the packets and would like to go into some discussion in detail on this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rather than, it has to go through two readings on this. If you so choose, we could move first reading on it and st111 have discussions wlth concerns related to whatever it might be. I had my little questlon mark there too. But I'd like to do some discussions on thls. Councilman Senn: You know if this is a significant issue whether we go with this or not and as one that's going to. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. G 1/2 feet to me seems like a stockade. Don Ashuorth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: It doesn't hurt anything? There's no applicant that's lined up. Paul Krauss: Oh no. No. Don Ashworth: So if we table it for 2 weeks, 4 weeks, whatever, it's not a problem. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we table it for a few weeks. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Hason seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences, for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 42 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTHgEST METRO TRP~SZT' COMM~SS%ON. Don Ashworth: We needed to appoint two last time and we, I did. Didn't catch that. We appointed the other. I think they would prefer seeing someone from the City Council. ~ also know that Bale Geving has previously served. He's made an application before you. ! think he'd be an excellent candidate. He's retired and : think his wife would love to see you. Councilman Senn: On that basis I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I've spent a little time with Southwest Metro and I understand that they would like two Council people on it, although ~ do think that certainly, while Dale is not a Council member now, he was and I think he knows the workings of the city and ~ certainly think he would devote the time necessary to the job. Mayor Chmiel: I would agree with your discussion. But there is another potential of another Council person on Council who could also serve on this and don't know whether you have the time Hark or not. Councilman Senn: Oh, I thought we were talking about Mike. Mayor Chmiel: We have a tad of a conflict with that because that's HRA night as well. Councilman Senn: I think I'm going to have to pass. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I know Richard does not have the time either. So with that ~ would so move to have Bale Geving sit on the Transit, Southwest Metro Transit. Councilman Senn: How about you Colleen? Councilwoman Oockendorf: I am. Mayor Chmiel: She's on. Councilman Mason: I'll second that motion. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Dale 6eving to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: One quick item. I was going to mention something under council presentations. I received an invite from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities cordially inviting you to a reception for the State Legislators from the metropolitan area and Metropolitan Council members Wednesday, February 10th. 4:30 to &:O0 p.m. and it's going to be in the Burlington Gilbert Rooms and Kellian, St. Paul, State Capital. It's right at the St. Anthony/Rice Street exit. I'm planning on going so if anyone else would be planning on going. I know Don will be going. 43 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Councilman Senn: When is it again Don? I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be February lOth. 4:30 to 6:00 p.m.. Program starts at 5:30 to 5:45. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Can we get copies of this? Mayor Chmiel' Sure. Yeah, Don will you make copies of this? Don Ashworth: Okay. I know I marked this in the Administrative Section. It must not have gotten in this particular packet. Mayor Chmiel: No. It wasn't in there. That's why I brought it up. Councilman Senn: I'd like to but I've got a conflict already that night. Mayor Chmiel: But it's good because the more legislators you know, the better it is for the city as well. So with that, if there aren't any Administrative Presentations, I would ask for a move for adjournment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting mas adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim