Loading...
1985 11 18 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 18, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk APPROVAL Q[ AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on development framework of meetings and discussion of a lighting petition. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman SWenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: A. Approval of 1986 Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services. B. RESOLUTION #85-65: Approve Cooperative Agreement with MnDot for T.H. 101 Drainage Project. C. Ordinance No. 47-BE rezoning property from R-la, Agricultural Residence to P-4, Planned Industrial Development District, Second and Final Reading. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS, M.A. GEDNEY COMPANY: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order with the following interested per- son present: Gedney Tuttle, M.A. Gedney Company Barb Dacy: M.A. Gedney Company is applying for industrial revenue bond financing in the amount of $1,300,000 to finance the purchase of equipment to increase the produc- tion capacity of their existing facility in Chanhassen. They intend to apply for these monies through the competitive pool. We had issued our entitlement application earlier this fall; because that application has been cancelled, our money has been turned back to the state. Before the City can sign the final resolution, the appli- cant must meet all the requirements of our resolution regarding revenue bonds. Staff's recommendation is for the Council to approve the preliminary resolution authorizing the M.A. Gedney Company to make application to the state for the industrial revenue bonds. Council Meeting, November lB, 1985 -2- There being no comment from the public, Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS, M.A. GEDNEY COMPANY: RESOLITION 085-66: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the preliminary resolution for industrial revenue bonds in the amount of $1,300,000, M.A. Gedney Company, subject to all requirements of City Resolution 081-07 be met prior to approval of the final resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Gevinq: I noticed That seems to bug me for some you have a zip code on their. advertisement for the City of that the Chaska name appears on all of your products. reason. I realize that this is a postal address and It seems like we should be getting a little bit more Chanhassen. Is that possible? Mr. Tuttle: I guess I don't know. Is there a post office in Chanhassen? Councilman Gevinq: Yes. The reason I bring this up is because we have got the same situation with the Arboretum. The Arboretum at one time had a Chaska address and they actually come in now to Chanhassen to pick up their mail at the post office so that they can say that their zip code and location is Chanhassen, Minnesota. I realize you are way south of the border there. It may not even be a reasonable request. I Mr. Tuttle: We have just acquired Max's Pickle Company, and on that label we have Chanhassen, Minnesota as the address. We are happy to be here and I would like for it to be all Chanhassen and we will try to do something about it. MINUTES: Amend City Council minutes dated October 4, 1985, page 5, 2nd paragraph, 6th sen- tence, Mr. Boylan: I don't believe that in the past there has been a request to issue a permit on a one year basis. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the City Council minutes dated October 21, 1985 as amended. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated October 23, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented: Check 0023027 through 0023130 in the amount of $BOl,465.66 and check 0025795 through 0025888 in the amount of $175,951.14. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in I favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting, November IB, 19B5 -3- SIDE YARD This item meeting. SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 4071 KINGS ROAD, LUTTERMAN HOMES: was passed unanimously at a previous Board of Adjustments and Therefore, no action was required by the Council. Appeals SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING STUDIO, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND HIGHWAY ~ MOULTRIE COMPLEX: Barb Dacy: The site is located in the southeast corner of Audubon Road and Highway 5. What is being proposed is a facility for producing film and a recording studio to be located in the western part of the subject parcel. The applicant is intending to keep much of the south and eastern area of the parcel vacant at this time, however, they are planning a future addition for office uses sometime in the future. The site is proposed to be accessed by points off of Audubon Road. The first entry, approxi- mately 200 feet south of State Highway 5 and the second entry 350 feet south of that. The southerly entry will be used primarily for the heavier vehicles, such as trucks. The loading dock area is in this area as well. The proposed parking that they have is more than enough to accommodate the proposed use. There is underground parking proposed as well. The proposed landscaping plan adequately screens the loading area as well as proposed berming along the western part of the building to screen the parking area. The applicant is also intending a wall to border certain portions of the building. The only areas that staff would recommend that additional landscaping be proposed is along State Highway 5 in this area here. We are recommending that additional plantings be installed to screen the view of the parking area along the northern portion of the site. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions you have listed in your staff report, which are pri- marily those from the City Engineer as well as number six, that additional land- scaping along the northern border of the site be installed. Councilwoman Watson: I think it will be a nice addition and I like the idea of a recording studio. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to make sure that the berming on the north side of the building blocks the view of that parking lot sufficiently. I don't know what the landscaping materials would be, but I would say that the berm should be at least six feet tall. Could you tell me what the height is? Barb Dacy: The elevation of the parking area is 966 and the tallest point of the berm is 96B. That is part of the reason that we recommended that additional plan- tings be added. There isn't a lot of space there either. Councilman Gevinq: It is a very flat piece of land. There probably isn't very much land that they are going to be able to scoop dirt from and make a berm. I would like to see another couple feet on that berm, if at all possible. Barb Dacy: We could investigate that to see if that is physically possible and then staff would look for year around plantings. Councilman be 45 feet exceed our Gevinq: The other fact that I have here is that this building tall. That is a pretty high structure for our fire equipment. requirements to furnish fire protection for this facility? is going to Will it Barb Dacy: As a normal part of our site plan review, we sent the site plan to the Fire Marshal. He has made no comments. There is adequate fire hydrants, etc. around the facility. Councilman Gevinq: There are lower portions of the building, too, so they would get up onto one part of the building. Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -4- Bret Thoeny: The front is a two-story building, which is going to be 25 feet tall, the rear portion will be approximately 45 feet tall. It is also a sprinklered building throughout. Councilman GevinQ: There is a potential for expanding Highway 5 in the near future and I am just hoping that we are looking far enough ahead with setbacks from the road and those type of concerns. Barb Dacy: We did talk to MnDot and they did not respond. More importantly, our staff did speak to MnDot and they reviewed the plan and they said that the 40 foot setback is acceptable to them and that was enough space to work with. They also looked at that access point as well and reviewed that whole intersection area. Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed that the construction material is a creamed colored metal porcelain panel. We have never permitted a metal building before. What is the durability of this material? Bret Thoeny: It is a 20-year panel. very durable. It is a factory made porcelain panel. It is Councilwoman Swenson: I am a little bit concerned about this drainage, Bill. To direct the drainage to the north, will this be taking drainage away from Riley Creek? Bill Monk: No. Councilwoman Swenson: I am concerned with all of this water that is coming down from all of these developments and going through our chain of lakes and swelling them and making sure that we have proper egress out of the other end of the water. Bill Monk: Right now water that comes off of Audubon Road and falls in this area drains across the site and then brings it down to the creek to the southeast. As they fill this in and build this complex, there will be a need to regrade this ditch and rework this area so that the water can be handled in the ditch and follow the existing ditches to that same point instead of going across the site. So there will be a rework of the area and a change in grading pattern, but the water will go to the same creek and eventually get away to the southeast. I am just talking about that there will be a need for a culvert here and a culvert here and a reworking of this front area so that the water, instead of trying to cross the site, can be handled in the road ditches instead. Councilwoman Swenson: Even though I note that the site plan picture and the lighting and accessories indicate that the roof top, the trash and transformer will be screened, I would like to have that a part of the recommendation so that we don't have any buildings going up when it isn't done. We will definitely get the Watershed District permit on this, is that correct? Bill Monk: Yes, that is correct. Councilman Horn: I am just curious what kind of recording will go on at this facility? Bret Thoeny: Pop music. Councilman Horn: Will there be musical videos? Bret Thoeny: We will be doing some music videos and productions. This will be strictly production work. The actual record will be made somewhere else. I I I I I I Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -5- Mayor Hamilton: I noticed that you had secured underground parking. Are there any facilities for someone to live on the premises? Bret Thoeny: No. No living facilities. Councilwoman Swenson: Will this generate noise beyond the building? Bret Thoeny: They have guidelines on that and we will conform to those guidelines. Mayor Hamilton: Will this facility be available to the school system at all for the kids to tour? Or don't you normally do that? Bret Thoeny: It is going to be operated by a private individual, but that certainly can be discussed. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the site plan #85-9 as depicted on the plan stamped "Received October 16, 1985" for a 46,150 square foot production complex for recording, video and film at the southeast corner of Audubon Road and Highway 5 sub- ject to the following: 1. Culverts (18" minimum) be placed under the access drives. 2. Grade the existing ditch along Audubon Road to direct water flow to the north. 3. All bituminous surfaces be lined with concrete curb. 4. The pond be graded and silt fence installed during the initial construction phase. 5. Final drainage calculations be approved by the City Engineer and Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Additional landscaping along the northern border of the site above the parking area. 7. That all roof top equipment, trash enclosure and transformer will be screened. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to comment on item #6 in your recommendation to revise that 6th item slightly so that the additional landscaping along the northern border of the site be heightened to the berm as established at a four foot level. I want that berm to be at least four feet if possible. Maybe this recommendation should be a recommendation to staff, that if this is at all possible that we work that out. Councilwoman Swenson: Is it your intent to screen the building all together? Councilman Gevinq: No, but I think a two foot berm is worthless. Bret Thoeny: Highway 5 at one point on the west side is higher and the parking level is lower. You say four feet at one point and at another point it will be eight feet. Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -6- Highway 5 is sloping down quite rapidly as it goes to the east, and if the four feet is desired above the Highway 5 road grade, that is fine. If it is I above the parking area, then it would be quite a massive mound there, that might not be attractive. Councilman Gevinq: I will remove my recommendation to amend the motion and leave it with just the plantings. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUEST WAIVER QI PLATTING. ROBERT EIDE: Barb Dacy: The request is for the applicant to ask the Council to waive the platting requirement for all subdivisions in the Urban Sere vice Area. The Eide property is 60 acres. What is being proposed is a split for a 5 acre parcel for Robert Eide and a retention of the remaining 55 acres by his father. The Council and staff have discussed the pros and cons between platting and metes and bounds divisions in the past. Our present subdivision ordinance reflects those discussions and requires that" all subdivisions within their service area be platted. Therefore, staff is recom- mending that the subdivision ordinance be upheld, however, if you do decide to waive the ordinance requirement for platting, we would recommend that a condition be imposed that any further subdivision of the property be platted and the platting include this particular parcel. Robert Eide: I don't know if my father is going to accept the condition. listing the property so that it can be divided, so if somebody would want and want to buy 30 acres instead of the remaining 55 that would be left. He is to come in Barb Dacy: The requirement to include your particular parcel of the plat would just mean that you would have to be a co-signer on the plat. Robert Eide: Just so that he can still split off another portion. Councilwoman Swenson: You plan to build a house on there? Robert Eide: Yes, I do. Councilwoman Swenson: Is there a sufficient solid ground on that corner to put a house on. That is all marsh land down there. Robert Eide: No, it's not. The 500 feet of road frontage on Lyman Boulevard takes you up the hill. Councilwoman Swenson: Are you going to face the house on Lyman Boulevard? Barb Dacy: The true access would be from Lyman Boulevard. You are right, there is that significant wetland area. We haven't even looked at the details of the sub- division yet. Councilman Horn: What is the difference in cost to the applicant between a metes and bounds and a plat? I would assume that this would be part of another plat anyway. Barb Dacy: It could in the future, given the entire parcel of 60 acres. a significant cost to plat as opposed to just a survey. It would be . l1li I I Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -7- Councilman Horn: My point is if we just make this division now, then it would be a significant difference, but what if it were part of the overall plat of the 60 acres? Would this portion be somewhat insignificant just as another portion of an overall plat? Don Ashworth: Yes, it would. $1,000 to $1,500 was the cost estimate before. When we looked into the fUlly developed areas we felt that platting should be required because the parcel probably will stay that way forever. In this instance, the like- lihood of this parcel staying this way is very remote. If a replatting occurs, which I think that it will, it would be more prudent cost-wise to indlude this parcel in the plat at that point in time. The cost then would be very minimal, but the staff had to present what the ordinance was. Councilwoman Watson: I would prefer to see it platted. We subdivided in the Urban Service Area. This is in the Urban that it is a subdivision and we have required others in the think this should be platted as well. plat property that is Setvice Area and I feel past to be platted and I I Mayor Hamilton: I think metes and bounds is a rather inadequate way of reducing your parcel of property or outlining it. It's just not a good way cif doing it. A survey is the best way and it should be platted. I know it is expensive, but it is there forever and it is the best way to do it. FIRST SENTENCE AMENDED 12-18-85. I Councilman Horn: I would assume that part of the problem is that you would be tied - I to the sale of the rest of the property before you could make a move on this. Would it be possible to allow metes and bounds with the condition that when it is platted that this would become a platted parcel? III Berb De,y, Thet ie o"r re,om.end.tion. Councilman Horn: So we have allowed metes and bounds at this oint? I Barb Dacy: If you do label the plat on the platting requireme t that when the pro- perty is platted that this will become a part of the plat. Councilman Horn: So that is your recommendation. Barb Dacy: Our recommendation is to uphold the subdivision platting, however, in the alternative should you decide to our recommendation. Councilwoman Swenson: If this were included as a part 5 acre lot wanted to come out of there, how would that the property of the development, if at all? ordinance and require the W.if" it, th.t wo"id be of the whole 60 acres and this I .ffe,t rhe o,er.ll density of ownership we would just eva- Barb Dacy: It being the 5 acre parcel under separate luate what is being proposed. Councilwoman Swenson: On the basis of what's left? I Councilman Horn moved to waive the platting requirement and allow a division by metes and bounds to create a 5 acre lot out of a 60 acre tract locat~d at the corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard, owned by Richard Eid~ with the stipulation that when the remainder of the parcel is divided up that it bel under platting requirement. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson for ~urpose of discussion. Barb Dacy: Correct. Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -8- Councilwoman Swenson: Robert, you said your father is only considering 30 acres now. Robert Eide: He will subdivide any portion, it depends who comes forth to buy what- ever portion they want to buy. If someone has enough money to buy 50 acres, he will sell 50 acres, if they have enough money to buy 30 acres, he will sell them 30 acres. Councilwoman Swenson: held up. I feel the same way Councilman Horn does, I hate to see it . Don Ashworth: There is no holdup either way. Councilman Horn: Either that or he pays for the platting. Councilman GevinQ: It's going to have to be platted sometime anyway, in the future or now. My preference is to have it platted. I would not vote in favor of this pro- cess. Councilman Horn: It would be an insignificant cost if it were platted as part of the overall parcel. Otherwise, he is going to pay $1,500 now and when the rest of it is platted it will be another $1,500. Councilman GevinQ: I have been familiar with this piece of property fO~'a ~ongtime and Mr. Eide will sell any piece of it at any time to any buyer along the line. He has been trying to sell it for years. The only way he is going to be able to sell it and get it through this Council is to plat it. Councilman Horn: I agree for the majority of it, but this, I think, is a little dif- ferent case. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Horn. The following were opposed: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Geving. Motion was denied. Richard Eide: So I have to plat the whole 60 acres to be able to purchase five acres. Councilman GevinQ: Your father does. Richard Eide: Explain to me the reason behind this. My father is not going to deve- lop it, I am not going develop it. Shouldn't the person that is going to buy the land and develop it, shouldn't that be the person that will plat it? Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. It would probably make it easier to sell if it was platted, for one thing. We don't want it metes and bounds. It is harder for us to control it and to know what is going on with a metes and bounds. Councilman Horn: The other difference though, is that it would be foolish for him to plat it at this point before he sold it because he is not going to develop it. The person that develops this is the one that is going to come in and plat it. If you plat it now and sell it that way, the guy .is just going to want to change it anyway. Councilwoman Watson: If it sells for a piece here and piece there, somewhere along the line the thing has got to be platted. Councilman Horn: I think there is a little difference between another developer coming in and a family member coming in looking for a place to build a home. I I I I I I Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 1-9- Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that is my feeling also. I Councilman Geving moved to deny the request for waiver of the platting of a five acre lot out of a 60 acre tract at the corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard, I owned by Richard Eide, request from Robert Eide. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Counc~lwoman Watson, and Councilman Geving. Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Horn opposed. Motion carried. I REQUEST FOR WAIVER QI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY SALE 7995 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. SCOTT CRAIG: Mayor Hamilton: Who can participate in the Timber Bay Camp? from these sales go to support your Timber Bay Camp, is that OF CHRISTMAS TREES. The funds that correct? I come Scott Craiq: Yes, this is a ministry for youth in conflict in high school. I Mayor Hamilton: I am not opposed to this as long as we have a condition that sets out when everything is to be cleaned up and hauled away and set ~ specific date. I think the last time we had Christmas trees here they were still there in July and they become quite a hazard at that time. If we were to say they should be gone by the first of the year, does that give you enough time? Scott Craiq: The folks that are been in it for eleven years now. it up, so it will be cleaned up. backing my lot and teaching me all about it have They know what needs to be don~ as far as cleaning Councilman Horn: the profits will anything. I assume that there is no other expense to you from this lot. go to your organization. You don't have to rent this lot or All Scott Craiq: No. Councilwoman Watson: If we don't require that they have a conditional use permit, there is no fee then, is there? It is the conditional use permit that is the reason for the issuance for that permit, correct. Barb Dacy: That is correct. Councilwoman Watson: Is there any potential cost to the City? Councilman Gevinq: None, except other than what the Mayo.r menti10ned if we had to go in to clean up. I would rather give them a temporary conditional use permit for $25.00 with the understanding that one of the conditions be that' it be cleaned up, and when it is cleaned up the money will be refunded. Councilwoman Watson: A refundable one if it is, indeed, cleaned up properly and there is no expense to the City, then we will certainly give the money back in its entirety. Councilman Horn: Wouldn't it be the legion's responsibility to ,clean it up. I Don Ashworth: We can have the condition - if you waive the requirement, then there are no c~sts. The ordinance speaks to the temporary type of us~s, it states that those shall occur in the form of a conditional use permit. That should go back I through the Planning Commission through a regular hearing process. The Council could consider (this evening) waiving the fee or setting it at $1.00 and recommending that Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -10- the applicant go through the process. You would allow the applicant to be starting his use in advance of the Planning Commission looking at it and before the Council would. That would be one mechanism to make sure that you were totally in line with your ordinance. The secondary form would simply be to waive the conditional use per- mit in its entirety. If that were the case, it would not go to the Planning Commission nor back to you. Someone could, hypothetically, challange your action, but I doubt it for something like tree sales for a youth group. I Mayor Hamilton moved to waive the conditional use permit for temporary sale of Christmas Trees, 7995 Great Plains Boulevard, Scott Craig. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ACCEPT PETITION AND AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO 184TH STREET ~ PARK ONE: Bill Monk: The City has received a petition from the owners of Park One to construct 184th Street from 77th Street down to TH 5. The Council is very aware of this pro- cess. It should be a big benefit to the area at this point. I am recommending that the Council accept this petition and authorize preparation of a feasibility study breaking the project into segments consistent with the owner's development plan and allow staff to proceed to put this in order for consideration as a construction pro- ject in the future. Councilwoman Swenson: What agreement have we come to with Eden Prairie on this? Bill Monk: We have come to no firm agreement with the City of Eden Prairie and we would be proceeding right now to build all improvements within Chanhassen. If, during the study and before the project would come to the Council for final approval, I something can be worked out, we would bring it back at that point. But right now all construction is anticipated within Chanhassen. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we going to build half of the road then? Bill Monk: What we would do is if we were to build it all in Chanhassen we would build it in such a way that it could function with anything that Eden Prairie might do within their boundaries. Those are the things that we would look at as we go through revising the study. Mayor Hamilton: Have you talked to Eden Prairie? Bill Monk: Eden Prairie has come a full circle on this thing. Two years ago they didn't want any part of it. Right now they seem somewhat anxious to put it in. To seem anxious and to be ready to commit to construction, I am not sure that they are at that point yet. We are in a position to build this logically with or without Eden Prairie going ahead at this point. Councilwoman Swenson: There is no way that 184th Street is going to go any farther because of the railroad tracks. I realize that the tax increment district is going to pay for this, and it seems like a logical thing to do, but I really have problems running a public street to a dead end. What it is really going to accomplish is giving The Press the opportunity of connecting to 77th and going around their building. I have always had problems with this because it is as far as it is going I to go. I would also have problems denying it because I can see that it would be beneficial to the industries there. As to whether it is going to be beneficial to the general public or not, I am not quite sure, other than by making their businesses more successful. I I I Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -11- Councilman Horn: unbelievable with is awful. You have an access too. Right now the access to that whole area is the sharp turn they have to make coming into West 78th Street. It Mayor Hamilton: Is there a possibility that we could go underneath the railroad tracks at some point? Bill Monk: The City of Eden Prairie is doing some preliminary explorations with the railroad at this point for Dell Road to come across. Whether we will ever get involved with that crossing at this point is not known because we don't need it, except that it does hook up to Dell Road. That is a future consideration, but at this point the main thing is to go from 77th Street down to Highway 5. That is what we are contemplating at this point. Councilwoman Swenson: What is the ton age on this road? Bill Monk: 77th Street as it was built is only a 9 ton road, 36 feet wide, this would be the same. RESOLUTION 885-67: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the I petition from the owners of Park One as submitted and authorizing a feasibility study for improvements to 184th Street in Park One. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1986 BONDING: Don Ashworth: The Mayor and myself have written numerous letters to Frenzel and other legislators asking for their consideration to not affect the taxable bonding or exempt bonding that occurs for city governments. The allowance to carry out construction of facilities such as this one after you have gone back and received voter approval, that tax exempt feature is a significant one. We have put sewer and water around almost everyone of our lakes, everyone of those projects involved assessments against individual properties. I think all of us have become concerned with those assessments or the amount of money associated with those assessments. But without question, we would not have been able to carry out the task of placing sewer and water around everyone of our municipal lakes without being able to sell those bonds as tax exempt bonds. Our ability to be able to continue that in the future is severely being questioned by Congress right now. We have several projects that are on the boards for this next year. For Lake Drive East, I included the entire schedule for you. In each and everyone of those instances we are anticipating that those projects may go forward. Under the ruling that is being considered by Congress right now, none of those projects could go as tax exempt bonds or meet the tests that they are currently establishing. I don't think any of us are overly concerned with what happens with industrial revenue bonds, but I think as long as all cities are treated fairly or equally, I don't think businesses are going to be hurt one way or the other. When you get into public improvement bonds, such as we have traditionally carried out in the past 20 year period of time, it could severly affect our ability to carry out those type of programs. In addition, tax increment bonds are being con- sidered for exemption as tax exempt. The ruling is that if there is more than five percent benefit to private ownership, then the bonds are being treated as. taxable I bonds. Special assessments, by their nature, are benefiting an individual property owner or a group of owners, therein lies that five percent rule, because it repre- sents a group. Tax increment district similarily represent a group and would be potentially deleted. I have no specific advice to you because, although, a number of I cities are putting together last minute issues and trying to beat the December 31st dead line, they may not be serving themselves as best they could. In other words, you Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -12- will see such a glut of municipal bonds hitting the market starting the first week in December and ending on December 31st that supply and demand will push those bond sales and the net interest rate of those up to the point where they may very well exceed taxable rates as they are today or after the first of the year. I cannot see making a recommendation to hurry up and jump into the market in light of that fact. My memorandum does discuss a desire to move ahead with the equipment certificates to seek your authorization to negotiate a sale on those. In talking again with Juran and Moody, it was their position that, again, recognizing the number of issues that will be coming into the market in the strong likelihood that true public improvement bonds, in other words there is no benefit to anyone group, will in all likelihood stay tax exempt. What that means, as an equipment certificate there is no benefit to an individual or to any type of group under any type of conditions. Therefore, the conclusion is that type of an issue will continue to be tax exempt after the first of the year. You are better served to wait until sometime after the first of the year when the rates will, in all likelihood, be lower. There is no action on this item tonight. I did want to make sure that the Coucil was aware of what other cities are doing, what impact we may have back on our city, and the real threat that this issue may stay as a threat for all of 1986 without being resolved. Councilman Horn: Would you classify the public improvements, such as streets in that catagory or are those considered to be beneficial to a private individual? I Don Ashworth: If you assess more than 5 percent of the cost of that street improve- ment to a property or to a group of properties, it is no longer a tax exempt issue. If, on the other side, you install a street and it is a 100 percent general obliga- tion issue, it would remain as a tax exempt issue. One problem with that is you have no legal authority to do that. The only way that you can carry out the construction I of streets within levy limits would be either to take that to the vote of the people or to assess at least 20 percent. You can't legally do it unless you assess 20 per- cent and if you do assess 20 percent it is no longer tax exempt. Councilman Horn: Or have a referendum. Don Ashworth: Or have a referendum. If you have a referendum, you could do it. Councilwoman Swenson: Does Minneapolis work on a general obligation bond for their streets? Don Ashworth: A number of years ago some cities established a revolving fund. The City of Chanhassen has done this to a smaller degree. Right now the City of Chanhassen is levying a 2-mill levy for street construction, that or street reconstruction. That amount of money is used to carry out a 5 to 8 year program where we go in and carry out the resurfacing of all of our streets. Rather than bonding for those 2 mills, it is just a current levy amount. There is no such thing as being able to bond for something. I know of no mechanism where you could sell bonds for a ten year period of time, redo streets and be able to levy a tax to repay that, unless you went to the voters and asked them, "can we do this." This City Hall went to the voters with that same question. Carver County went to the voters asking if they carried out a resurfacing program for all roads in Carver County and to to that they would drop their operational budget and they would levy each year for the next 15 years, $500,000 per year, to repay that bond issue. Councilwoman Swenson: So it is sort of a capital improvement fund then. Don Ashworth: Right. I I I I Council Meeting, November 18, 1985 -13- LIGHTING PETITION: The City Engineer stated that an accident happened sometime ago that spurred this petition from the residents on Frontier Trail. He stated that he is working with NSP as economical as possible for putting some lights on existing poles on Frontier Trail. Councilman Horn asked if this type of thing is a general obligation or if it was assessable. Bill Monk replied that if a couple of lights were put on the exis~ing poles, it would be taken right out of the general obligation street lighting fund,. He stated that if you were to put lights all along the entire length, then you would be talking about residential input from the individuals in that area. He felt at this point that it was a very minor installation so it would be general obligation. DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK MEETINGS: City Manager, Don Ashworth, alerted the City Council that a consultant for the City, Fred Hoisington, was at a public meeting in Hopkins submitting a document regarding the City's population projections in comparision to those included in the development framework proposal. A copy was submitted to all City Council members for review and comment at the next regular City Council meeting. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by: Kathy Sundquist