Loading...
CC Minutes 2001 11 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Boyle STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Tom Scott, Teresa Burgess, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Bruce DeJong, and Jerry Ruegemer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Rich Slagle Ann & Ron Kleve Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7411 Fawn Hill Road 7307 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Jansen: Are there any members of the council with items that you would like to have removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion? Is there anyone in the audience that has items on the consent agenda that you would like to see removed from the consent agenda for a separate discussion. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I do not have one to be removed but if you'll notice the handouts that were at your location when you came in, there's an adjustment to the resolution that is being adopted for Quinn Road and a resolution for Crestview Road adjusting the assessment interest rate, and also it adds some language that the attorney's office asked us to add onto that so when you adopt this, if you could adopt the revised resolutions instead of the ones in your packets. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council, if you'd like to take a moment to read those two revisions. If we're comfortable leaving that on the consent agenda at this point we can do that. So Teresa, do you need us to then revise this, the motion? Teresa Burgess: I believe you need to. Mayor Jansen: As amended? Teresa Burgess: As amended. Mayor Jansen: So I'm seeing item l(d) would be as amended. Teresa Burgess: l(d) and l(c). City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mayor Jansen: And l(c). We were also handed by the Finance Director an amendment to the call outstanding bonds so whoever does make the motion, if all three of those could be as amended please. With that, if I could have a motion to approve the consent agenda please. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to, based on astute information I just want to double check on a point on the resolution. I'd better pull it for discussion. Mayor Jansen: If you'd like to just clarify with staff, that'd be fine. If you've got a question right now. Councilman Ayotte: Well the period of performance for both assessments. For the one on Quinn and the one on Crestview. Do they remain to be at an 8 year period? Teresa Burgess: They remain at 8 years. However, there is one parcel on Crestview that has been extended an additional time period for their payment. They've been given 20 years. That is the home that is an affordable issue, and so to keep that home in the affordable housing market we have extended 20 years. Two parcels on Crestview have been deferred. One for disability and one until development or 8 years, whichever comes first. Mayor Jansen: That was in the original proposal, correct? Teresa Burgess: That was in the original proposal. No, I take that back. The deferments are new. They have been added. Quinn Road, we have deferred the assessment on the outlot until the time of plat or 8 years, whichever is the sooner. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to pull them for discussion. Mayor Jansen: If you would like to make, what? You're wanting to pull item (c) and (d)? Councilman Ayotte: l(c) and l(d). Mayor Jansen: Okay. I need a motion for the consent agenda please. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to make a motion to pull l(c) and l(d) for discussion. Pull from the consent agenda. Mayor Jansen: And would you like to make a motion to approve the remainder please. Councilman Ayotte: And a motion to approve the balance. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With (e) as amended? With (e) as amended correct? Councilman Ayotte: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. If I could have a second please. Councilman Peterson: Second. City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #2001-71: Approve Construction Plans & Specifications for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, Project No. 00-11. Resolution #2001-72: Call for Assessment Hearing for Dogwood Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Project 00-01-1. e. Resolution #2001-73: Call Outstanding Bonds, as amended. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 22, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated October 22, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 23,2001 Resolution #2001-74: Receive Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearing for Kings Road Extension. k. Approve Addendum to Telephone/Voicemail System Bid. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Why don't we move the consent agenda items then to the end of the agenda, which is our typical. Councilman Labatt: Let's just do it right now. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I do have to leave part way through the meeting so if we could do them sooner. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Ayotte, if you'd like to discuss those two items please. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, and just, Teresa please feel comfortable in coming in on me in case I have a piece of misinformation but as I've read the packet, and I'll start with the Quinn Road situation, that the period of performance or the payment plan right now is for an 8 year period. Going from an 8% down to 6.5% interest rate, correct? And as I've learned today, and earlier that the typical cost for a linear foot, although I know we're not going on a linear foot cost, ranges between $50 and $60 and this project came in around $69. Teresa Burgess: Typical assessment is $50 to $60. Typical cost would be $100 to $120, because you're dividing it by 2. Councilman Ayotte: Assessment. So, and then there will be to some measure, when water's introduced, in some measure there probably would be disruption to the neighborhood again. Understanding that when City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 water's brought in, we're probably going to re-do a road. But we probably have some measure of disruption to the neighborhood. Teresa Burgess: Yes. Substantially less than we had at this time. This trench was 20 to 30 feet deep. Water will be 7 to 8 feet deep, and so we will be able to maintain traffic. Councilman Ayotte: I understand. Now I know there's an argument back and forth for economy of scale. That this is a short run, 200 feet, something like that and that it is, it was a small project. And there's probably some amount of some cost impact with respect to another start-up cost for when we bring in water. Teresa Burgess: There is that potential for cost. Typically mobilization is pretty directly related to the size of the project. The larger the project the more mobilization cost. Bringing in new equipment for the watermain, they probably would have trenched twice anyway. So probably not that much of a difference. A minor amount. Councilman Ayotte: But it's arguable. Teresa Burgess: It's arguable, yes. Certainly, there's that argument that could be made. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. See the concern I have is that with this particular project and with Crestview, even though we've come down in interest, and thank you Bruce. I think that's great, but I would like to see the payment plan, how much adverse affect is there to the city by having it longer than 8 years? And what is doable? What are the rules with having it longer than an 8 year period? Teresa Burgess: Do you want to answer that Bruce? Well, can I answer the first question first. You brought up the economy of scale, so if I can answer that one first. That will give me time to think about the 8 years. The economy of scale, we actually tried to put this onto a larger project originally. We tried to add it onto Century Boulevard as a change order. It was more expensive for us to put it on that larger project than for us to do this as a small project on it's own. So economy of scale, I understand that that comment was made by a contractor's personnel. The city does not have anything to do with what that contractor said and I don't know where he got his information. But the city did try to put this with a larger project. In fact we tried twice. We tried to put it with Century and it was more expensive. We tried to put it with BC-7 and 8 and they didn't have the proper equipment and couldn't do the project. Now as far as the 8 year, the problem we run into with the 8 year is this is being funded out of actual cash balance. This is not being bonded. And so what happens to the city then is we draw down our cash balance. We don't have the ability to do these small projects anymore because we don't bond those. We may sit in a position eventually of saying, sorry can't do it. Or having to bond these tiny projects and not getting as good a payback as we should on those bonded projects. That would be probably the worst impact of extending it. The other thing, and Bob you and I had talked about it earlier, if you give a longer period to Crestview and Quinn, you need to seriously consider a longer period for the other projects, and the other projects are substantially larger and then you're talking about substantial dollars. And that's not a requirement that's legal, but it is something the council needs to seriously consider for consistency throughout the city. Councilman Ayotte: I understand that with the consistency. However, the concern I have is that with us going with the smaller projects, and I think from now on we ought to take a look at a different way of handling the smaller projects so we don't come into this particular situation. The brunt of the cost associated with these smaller projects is still with our residents and to me I have a problem with it and I City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 would like to know, even though, since we have the cash up front, is there anyway that we can extend the period of performance further than 8 years? Mayor Jansen: At this point you are talking about a policy decision that currently is in place, as far as the 8 years. We have had some conversation around the issue of how we go about changing that. Now it's noted within our packets that the fees associated with these projects are consistent with what would be anticipated for these types of improvements. And then the subsequent increase in valuation of the property due to them. As far as establishing a precedent here on these two projects, without looking at the big picture, I don't know that council would be doing their diligence to do that. And again I'm going back to prior conversations around that policy, and the amount of financial burden that the city would then be impacted with were we to go in that direction. Councilman Ayotte: Can we table the vote until we have the opportunity to revisit the policy so we do not penalize the residents for possibly us considering a different circumstance? Mayor Jansen: I guess what I would want to remind council of is that we did visit that policy discussion, and we are not going in the direction of revising that currently. Now as far as delaying these projects, you're now bearing the burden of the cost of the projects by the city, instead of proceeding under our typical policy. I don't know if Todd you'd like to comment, or staff. Todd Gerhardt: We were trying to get this certified down to the County. Teresa Burgess: We have to have it certified down to the County by the end of November. And so we only have one council meeting left. We can certainly try to turn it back around. I'm not sure what type of information you're going to need to feel comfortable to move forward with it. If you're looking for us just to analyze these two projects or to analyze all of them for a longer time period. Councilman Ayotte: What I'm saying is, these two projects because they were small jobs, the residents are taking the brunt of the situation. Certainly the city's not at fault and we're certainly within our legally we're fine to go ahead and approve and 6 ½% s sure as hell better than 8%. But nonetheless there's a burden on the residents, in my opinion, and whether or not the policy is discussed at this point or not, the fact still remains and I believe that the residents are bearing the brunt. My question is, what is the adversity of pushing it out, the period of performance longer for these two projects? If we can't answer that question, and we can't defer it until past November, what are our choices? Todd Gerhardt: Well I don't believe staff is going to deviate from the 8 year policy. This has been the policy that the council's reviewed. That staff has implemented for the past 10 years. In changing the policy you're going to be treating these individuals different than the individuals that you've treated before. And that's what's bad about this because you're going to be treating other people differently than what you'll be treating these individuals. That's why we're sticking in recommending the 8 year, 6 1/2%. Changing the interest rate is in line with where the rates are today and we can research it but it's going to come back at 8 years is going to be our stance. Mayor Jansen: And I would actually like to compliment staff on having worked with these residents to try to answer their questions and reply to the concerns that came to us. You've provided us the information from the consultant responding to the cost questions. Responding to whether or not there's a fairness involved in the cost of the assessment that they're bearing. And also looking at the individual situations because your original proposal was that there be no deferments. And now you've taken the position that City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 there are parcels that do deserve to have at least some things taken into consideration as we're reviewing that. So I will of course recognize Mr. Ayotte's comments, Councilman Ayotte's comments and I can appreciate the points that you've brought up here. Staff has done an excellent job of documenting the response to those concerns. Councilman Ayotte: Is it reasonable to request, certainly not for these two in particular, but that we revisit how we source select and deal with these smaller projects and what we can do to avoid this sort of situation in the future? Teresa Burgess: My recommendation is that that be done as part of the feasibility study as these small projects come in and we look at if they're economically feasible. That they be looked at at that time. What are those assessments going to be, and that was done with both of these projects. They were still approved. They were determined to be feasible. But that we take a close look at those assessment amounts and revise our feasibility study process for these smaller projects that do have higher assessment values. Todd Gerhardt: And as a part of that, we will have them sign waivers to the assessment hearing so that we don't get into this issue where somebody comes in and petitions the city to make a public improvement, and then after the fact says we can't afford it. So we shouldn't be going down this road. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. With that ifI could have a motion please. I'll make the motion to approve item 1 (c) and 1 (d) per the staff recommendation. If we could have a second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items per the City manager's recommendations: Resolution #2001-75: Approval of Assessment Roll for Crestview Circle Utility & Street Improvement Project 00-05. Resolution #2001-76: Approval of Assessment Roll for Quinn Road Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 01-02. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I have been asked to make a visitor presentation on behalf of a neighborhood. You'll see in the packet that was at your table when you came up, there's a petition from Brenden Court. They had come through with a petition for no parking. They are now coming through with a revision to that petition and they requested that I submit that petition to you this evening. It will be on the council agenda for the 26th of November. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. So noted. Anyone else that would like to approach the podium. State your name and address for the record please. City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Terese Berquist: Hi. My name is Terese Berquist and I am President of the Sunrise Hills Civic Association. I'm here this evening representing 51 families. I'm here about the driveway issue that is in your work for this evening, Section 120-1122. I must state that I don't feel very well prepared to speak this evening because I just found out yesterday that this was on the agenda. Possibly for passing this evening. Just a little bit of background. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Mayor Jansen: If we could keep comments to 5 minutes, that would be appreciated as the standard. Terese Berquist: Okay. Okay, we have a beachlot as part of our homeowners association and there has been a proposal to, proposal by the city to put an access road across our beachlot. We have been working with the city and the city I believe has been working with us, but there is some language in the driveway proposal that's possibly going to be passed this evening that concerns us. My first reading of Section (j) says, separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. And then this evening when I get here under Unfinished Business it says, permit one driveway access per lot. And that's, to me that's very unclear. Does that mean the city can come in and has the right to put an access across our beachlot to access the utilities? Is there anybody here that can tell me if that's what that means? Mayor Jansen: If you would go ahead with the rest of your questions, and then possibly we can, I don't know if staff can manage to address your issues here this evening or when we get to that item on the agenda. Thank you. Terese Berquist: Okay. We believe that we've been working with the city and working back and forth and hope to resolve this issue of access to the utilities. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, including the possibility of some pipes needing to be replaced that may even outdate our lift station so I will hope that the city would not be making any improvements on the city's behalf to the lot that would not be improvements to our, from our point of view. Going to letter (i). This concerns a driveway turnaround and I would just like to say that I think maybe that letter (i) is in there for access to Sunrise Hills lift station, maybe as well as a few other areas. I have seen the Vac truck back up the Sunrise Hills driveway, and not turn around so I know that's a possibility, and I just want to, I'm hoping that the city engineer who you know was addressed in that part of letter (i), will keep in mind the expenses of future tumarounds and not recommend disturbing any more green space than necessary. Regarding letter 0). Because what I read seemed very vague and not explained what I'm asking, but maybe that could be eliminated. If it's not eliminated I'd like to know the intent behind that and I would also like to know if down the road there are additional plans to make additions to that, to give that statement more guts. And then regarding letter (c). It refers to driveway surfaces within the MUSA. I'd like clarification on whether or not the grass paved surface material would be considered %ther hard surface materials". If it's not considered hard surface material, could it be added? Could grass paved surface be added to letter (c)? The reason I'm asking that is it's my understanding that the city was looking to use grass pave applications if a test area proved workable within the city. Appreciate your listening. Thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. When we get to that item on the agenda, I know that Teresa was taking notes and we will certainly address those issues as they come up. Terese Berquist: Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to address the council under visitor presentations. City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Mike Gorra: And I would like to address a little bit on your assessment hearing. Mayor Jansen: We in fact have that under public hearings and when I call that agenda item, that will be the perfect time to come up and address that issue. Thank you Mr. Gorra. With that, I will close the visitor presentation portion of the meeting and why don't we move onto the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT; LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 4TM ADDITION. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. There's a minor change on this item. It's vacation of landscape easement only. The drainage and utility easement will remain intact. With that, on October 22, 2001 the City Council approved Site Plan #2001-12 for a. Mayor Jansen: Sharmin, I'm sorry. If you can pull your microphone a little closer. It's just not working well. It is turned on isn't it? Okay. Thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: On October 22nd the City Council approved Site Plan Review #2001-12 for 20,785 square foot office building. Dell Professional Building. One of the conditions of approval stated that site plan approval shall be contingent upon the City Council approving vacation of landscape easement. The city has a landscape easement over the south, east and southeast comer of the site. The applicant has requested the city vacate their interest in this easement. Staff reviewed surrounding properties to see if landscape easements existed on similar projects. CSM, located at the opposite comer of Highway 5, did not provide a landscape easement. The applicant will provide adequate landscaping that meets ordinance requirements. This can be achieved without a landscape easement. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation of the landscape easement. Thank you. I'll answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Before we open this for the public hearing, are there any questions for staff at this time council? My only question involved the Highway 5 corridor study and this comer as well as the CSM comer were noted as entryway focus positions for the city. In fact it's called the community gateway element. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Jansen: As far as any plans for that currently, and just from memory sake, CSM has really just put up a building designation or a property designation, correct? It doesn't say anything about Chanhassen or an entryway? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, but during conversations with them they've always stated that they will work with the city should we decide to put a gateway entry monument sign out there. They will not oppose it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Looking to this flip side of the highway then, to Highway 5, will there be the same amount of room or positioning then for a similar situation were the community to decide to put some sort of a monument on that side of the road? City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes there will be. Mayor Jansen: So it will be comparable space? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that, we will open this up for public hearing. If there's anyone present who would like to address the council on this item, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing. Council, any discussion of the item? Then ifI could have a motion please. Councilman Boyle: I'll make the motion the City Council approve the vacation of the drainage, or excuse me. Utility easement with the stated conditions. Mayor Jansen: Excuse me. Yep, we're just making it the landscape easement. Councilman Boyle: You're right. Mayor Jansen: Vacation of the landscape easement. Councilman Boyle: Revise my motion to say landscape easement. Mayor Jansen: Vacation of the landscape easement. Councilman Boyle: Right. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Resolution #2001-77: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the vacation of the landscape easement shown on the existing conditions survey and as described in Attachment #1 for Lot 3, Block 1, and the northerly 75 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Park One 4th Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT 97-6. Public Present: Name Mike Gorra Scott Craig Mike Burton Address 1680 Arboretum Boulevard Excelsior Lundgren Bros Construction Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor. The assessment hearing for tonight is the Trunk Highway 5 improvements, known as Project #97-6. MnDot did this project and in conjunction with the Highway 5 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 improvements, they built West 78th Street. Those projects were paid for with a combination of state, federal and city funds. However in addition to that, the city also requested MnDot to install watermain and bike path. The bike path was paid for with federal funds, but the watermain is an assessment project. And that's what we're here to discuss this evening. We have received in addition to the one assessment objection that you have in your packet, we have received additional ones to date so my recommendation has been changed from, in your packet it says I'm requesting that you adopt a resolution. My recommendation this evening is you hold the public hearing. Close the public hearing and table the discussion of the actual assessment hearing and we will do as we did with Crestview and Quinn, respond to those individuals that submitted objections. Make the appropriate adjustments or responses and place it on the consent agenda for November 26th. This project did have an assessment roll that was prepared as a preliminary assessment roll. There have been significant changes...that it tried to assess twice. And what I'm referring to is that it would have, in the assessment roll it had collection for trunk and lateral, and that is something that had been done in the past but legal counsel reviewed it and stated we cannot do that and then come back and collect lateral and trunk connection fees, or trunk and hook-up fees. And that is something that the city has done in the past. So we have revised this assessment roll in keeping with the legal counsel's recommendation, and so these will be, these parcels will never be charged for lateral connection fees at the time of connection unless they exceed the number of units that are shown on the parcel, the city does have the legal right to charge connection fees at the time of connection for any parcel in excess of what was included in the assessment roll as long as there is a city share of the project. This project does have a city share and we will track that as additional parcels come in. With that I'll answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, we will open this up for the public hearing. If there's anyone present this evening that would like to address the council on this item, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Mike Gorra: Okay, I guess it's my mm now. Mayor Jansen: Yes, thank you. Mike Gorra: Mike Gorra, 1680 Arboretum Boulevard. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Mike Gorra: I've kind of got two parts to my little speech here tonight. First one is, the first hearing that you, that the City Council held last summer, and I think it was July 24th, I didn't attend that. I did get a packet in the mail but the packet didn't mention the watermain assessment. All it gave was just the information on the new construction. And I think the person I talked to up at city hall was Dave, was it Dave Hempel at the time, gave me all the information I needed and I didn't think that it was even necessary to attend that because I knew you were going to build a road there. I thought now was the time to put the water and sewer in and I shouldn't have any argument with that fact. I didn't know about the watermain. But I can't remember whether it was a week later or 2 weeks or 2 months later, another packet came in the mail. That was addressing the properties to the west of me on the same assessment rolls. And in this packet there was a statement in there of preliminary costs for the lateral and the watermain cost. And the watermain for my property was, I think it was $452,000 and that's the first I knew of that, so I did attend that meeting and I was told then, at that time that I should have attended the first meeting and the only thing I could now was come to this meeting you people are having this fall so that's why I'm here. Mayor Jansen: Okay. 10 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mike Gorra: The second reason I'm here is the way the costs were, have been attributed to the property. ...use, it's based on a number of acres. I think in my case 60 acres, and multiply times the zoning times the units allowed per acre, and that's how the $452,000 is arrived at but I'm kind of objecting to the fact that I should pay for this in advance. Who knows what we're going to put on that property. Who knows how many units are going to go there. Who knows if there's even going to be multiple dwellings built there. I don't think it's proper to assess somebody a year, 2 years, maybe 10 years in advance before we actually submit a plot plan what we're going to do there. In fact I've been up before the council several times the past few years on what I am actually thinking of doing for that piece of property was 134 acres before the taking for the road. Now it's 126, and I had planned to put in a, my first choice was to use the property for, even though I am a developer of multiple dwellings, a possible golf course. And I've had 2 golf architects look at it. One a few years ago, and he, everybody's seen this one. I'm not going to bore you with this. It's 18 holes and on Highway 5 is a multiple dwelling for assisted living for the elderly. But that's kind. Mayor Jansen: We actually have quite a few new council people if you'd like to go ahead and show that. For their benefit. I don't know that everyone's familiar. Mike Gorra: Just pass it around or. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Or you can just put it under the, is the color rendering the same as the black and white? Mike Gorra: Well you can't really see that much. The lines are the length of the holes. Anyway, there's 18 holes. This is the multiple dwelling for assisted living for the elderly. That would be the club house. Anyway, the guy that laid out 18 holes. It fit but it was, it wasn't perfect. At any rate, time moved by. The city came and took 8 acres for the frontage road. And I had another golf architect draw this plan. This was last year when we knew what was going to be taken and here he also has 18 holes. It's a little easier to see. This has got it colored. This here would be the club house. And he utilizes the whole piece of property. There is no room for multiple dwellings this time because the acreage was smaller. The only problem with this plan is, it's still a little too tight. You can get 18 holes on 126 acres but it's not, I'm not comfortable with this. It's a little too tight. The greens, the fairway's a little close together. It's a little close to my house here. It's a little close to the frontage road, and there's a couple here, at least one that you have to back track to get to the next tee box. So I don't want to do something that I'm not comfortable. I've been up here trying to get the city to lease me some property to the east there but I guess that's not an option so I forget that. Mayor Jansen: That's our Lake Ann Park, correct? Mike Gorra: The woods at Lake Ann Park. Mayor Jansen: To the east, okay. Mike Gorra: Anyway... he's in the process of developing a 9 hole course which I really never really in favor of. I'd much rather, I know a golfer would much rather have an 18 hole but I would think it would be better to have a nice spacious 9 hole and a nice driving range rather than a tight 18 hole and tight driving range so that's what we're looking at now. And so...thinks that we're going to need maybe 90 to 100 acres at least for the 9 holes and standard driving range. So that cuts me down to 26 acres when this 11 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 assessment's talking 60 acres. And until we're through with this, we don't know if it's going to take the whole thing, or maybe less than 100 acres. So what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not contesting the price per unit or the total cost completely, but I am contesting trying to get me to pay for it in advance when I don't really have a set project decided for this property yet. And in fact I'm almost certain that this property is not going to be built in multiple dwellings like the assessment plan is projecting. The other question I had is, where did that cost come from for the watermain for $452,298? Based on a construction cost, that's almost 3 miles ofwatermain. I only live a mile and a half from Chanhassen. I mean where's this watermain coming from? Why should I pay for 3 miles of watermain? It just doesn't seem to fit. Mayor Jansen: We can have staff answer that question for you. Mike Gorra: That's it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Mike Gorra: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. Appreciate your coming in this evening. Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to address the council on this agenda item? If so, please come forward and approach the podium. Okay. Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing on this agenda item. Teresa, would you like to go with your recommendation that we table this so that you can get back to the property owners with their answers? Teresa Burgess: I would Your Honor. I have several that I need to respond to and they do take some research. I didn't receive many of the applications for contention until today. I can answer real quickly a couple of the issues Mr. Gorra brought up. First of all with the issue of not assessing. That is a council policy that would need to be changed. We have traditionally assessed properties that are adjacent and receive benefit. In fact it's not possible to develop until you have these utilities. We have only assessed the southerly 60 acres. The reason for that is we believe only the southerly 60 acres receives benefit directly from this project. The remainder of the property does not receive benefit and so that was not assessed. The number of units that were used, zoning actually allows for 4 units per acre in this area. We've only used 2 units per acre to allow for things like green space, larger spacing. Some of our developers like to use large lots. Streets. Utility easements. Allowing for all of those things. We felt that there could be substantial decrease in land available for development so we've gone with 2 units per acre. I will certainly respond to all of Mr. Gorra's comments in the staff report for the 26th, but if the council's comfortable with it I'll respond to all of the issues and put it on the consent agenda for the 26th for adoption at that time. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions or comments for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: That interest rate carries, the lower interest rate would carry across the board. Teresa Burgess: Those would also be at 6.5 and I believe Mr. Gorra's property is actually green acres. That is something that needs to be recorded down at the County. If he's filled out that paperwork, that would mean that his assessment is deferred until the time that he pulls it out of green acre status, but that is something the County does. Not the that the City does. Mayor Jansen: That would include the 60 acres? 12 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Teresa Burgess: That would include all of it I believe. But that is a County issue. That's not a City issue. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, if I could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Jansen: A second? Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to table the assessment hearing for Trunk Highway 5 Improvements, Project 97-6. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if I could clarify for anyone that's listening at home or in the audience. Just as with Crestview and Quinn, the public hearing has officially been closed on this. Any contentions received after this evening would not allow them to go to District Court, but they are allowed to make any comments that will be taken into consideration. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR BC7 & BC8 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 00-01. Public Present: Name Address Susan McAllister Jay Rubash Mike Burton Bruce Geske 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard HTPO Inc. Lundgren Bros Construction 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard Teresa Burgess: In a parallel project with the Trunk Highway 5 and West 78th Street to bring out water, the City also pursued a sanitary sewer improvement project. This is not on the same alignment as West 78th SO it had to be done on a different project and was done strictly by the City. The assessments for this project were originally calculated the same way as the Trunk Highway 5 and West 78th Street ones. They have been revised in keeping with legal counsel advice. I've also received a number of objections to this assessment, and so my recommendation this evening is that the council hold the public hearing, but table adoption of the actual assessment roll until I've had a chance to respond to those objections. With that I'll answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, I'll open this up for the public hearing. If there's anyone present that would like to address the council on this item, if you would approach the podium. State your name and address for the record. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Welcome. 13 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Susan McAllister: Good evening. I have some handouts that might simplify the reason why I'm up here actually, and it's a little more self explanatory and it would be good if you, it was a historical assessment done on my farmstead. Miss Rosie's Farm and I would recommend kind of holding onto this assessment because I know I'm going to be back here again for other issues so. The reason I'm obviously here is because I am objecting to the proposed assessments for my property. The reason being is that my farm has been designated as a historic property. I plan on operating it as a historic property, and I believe that this, you know I'm not going to plan on subdividing it at all. So I guess the reason why I'm here is because of the fact that it talks about the farmstead and I might have to get technical assistance on this so bear with me. I do, I have had to rely on the SHPO, State Historic Preservation Office quite a bit lately. Since this report became known. But it talks about how my farm is eligible under the farmstead and I think I'd highlighted some different areas for you to refer to but the definition of a farmstead, out of the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, copyright 2000 2nd and revised updated edition, farmstead. A farm with it's buildings. And then the definition of a farm is a tract of land usually with a house, barn, silo, etc on which crops and other livestock are raised for livelihood. Then there's another definition from the Web ster's 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged copyright 1986. Farmstead. The buildings and adjacent service areas of a farm broadly a farm with it's buildings. And then there's another definition of farm. A plot of land devoted to the raising of domestic or other animals. Or to devote land to agriculture. So you know keeping that in mind, they're talking about the farmstead I believe as the land and the buildings so I plan on running it as a historic farm, so I don't plan on subdividing it whatsoever. And if there's any questions I might be able to answer some but I probably would need technical assistance from the State Historic Preservation Office on this one. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I think more your issues has to do with whether you're 1 residential unit or the proposed 6 in the assessment, correct? If I'm hearing you. Susan McAllister: Right. Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Great, thanks Susan. If there's anyone else here who would like to address the council on this item. Seeing no one, I will close this to the, for the public hearing portion of the meeting. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Otherwise staff's request was that we table this for a response back to all of the applicants. If I could have a motion please. I closed the public hearing, correct. Yeah. Councilman Boyle: Motion to table. Mayor Jansen: And I need a second please. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table the Assessment Hearing for BC 7 & BC 8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Project No. 00-01. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALE, LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, CROSSROAD PLAZA ADDITION, (550 & 570 WEST 79TM STREET). Public Present: 14 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Name Address Scott Schmitt Brian McCarty Kraus Anderson Realty Welman Sperdes Architects Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. Before you is a purchase agreement to buy the land located directly east of Applebee's. It's 1.8 acres of commercial property. The proposed purchase agreement is $8.80 per square foot, which would be as a total purchase price of $705,000. We have earnest money of $10,000. Scheduled closing is June 15th of 2002 and the purchaser is Kraus-Anderson. Has until March lst of 2002 to get a signed lease agreement with Northwestern Book Store or some other retail tenant. If they do not have a signed lease agreement, they can either move ahead on the closing by June 15th, or terminate the purchase agreement. Scott Schmitt from Kraus Anderson is here tonight to give you an overview of the proposed project and I have attached the economic status of what we purchased the property for and a couple different assumptions based on taxes, building permits and a land only. If you'd like I can go through that. Mayor Jansen: If council would like staff to run through the costs on the projects, otherwise we can just move forward with the consultant comments or Kraus-Anderson comments. Todd Gerhardt: Okay, at this time I'd like to introduce Scott Schmitt from Kraus-Anderson and his architect. Mayor Jansen: Good evening, welcome. Scott Schmitt: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the council. Thanks for hearing us. The project before you really was, if you recall, some of you are on the Board of the EDC. We started out on that project with Northwestern Book Store and because of some layout issues they re-directed us and asked us if we would, if we'd possibly be able to pursue the site that you see here, and I believe you've got a copy of it in your packet. And so really that's what's driving this is a transaction with Northwestern Book Stores. And what is going to happen is this area over behind the, this would be the west side of the property would be the area the Northwestern Book Store would occupy and because there's more land available, we've accounted for the eastern half to be some smaller multi-tenant retail buildings. It's really pretty straight forward. Really a pretty straight forward project. You can see the orientation of the building as it lays out to the Applebee's and the Tires Plus. The front of the building would be facing the north, and then you would just landscape around the back and side, earlier as to what the overall project would look like. As to the timing of the purchase agreement, we're simply tying that to Northwestern Book Store's needing to get through the Christmas season. Get through the Christmas audit and then they can make a decision as to whether or not they can sign a lease. My intention isn't to tie up a piece of property to see if I can ~pull it off". I really am just interested in the Northwestern Book Store transaction and if that becomes a reality, we'd like to move forward and we've moved forward on a speculative basis on the rest of the property. And in the meantime we would be marketing it in the open market to find other tenants, and should Northwestern Book Store go away and we have other tenants that it becomes viable, then at that point we would also like the option to move forward. It would suit us all so, that's really all I have to present. If you have any questions about the uses of the plan, I can answer them. Otherwise Brian McCarty from Welman Sperdes is here to answer any architectural or layout issues that were technical to the site so. 15 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay, appreciate that. Actually you answered my one question with your last comment about still looking and marketing for other tenants for the building, in case something were to potentially fall through with the Northwestern Book Store. Scott Schmitt: Right. This site combined with the potential of moving forward on the Chanhassen bowling alley site, marketing them in conjunction with the demand that's in Chanhassen and the desirability from a lot of tenants, there's a lot of confidence that this has got a good likelihood of moving forward regardless of whether or not Northwestern Book Store goes. The depth of the bays, or of this section here, may change or there may be some configuration changes if Northwestern Book isn't the tenant because we're really catering to them so, but you're right. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for that comment. Obviously this evening we're not doing a site plan review, though it's always appreciated to see what in fact visually might occur on this property. Does council have any questions for Mr. Schmitt at this point? Any other questions or comments for staff? Councilman Labatt: Just one from me. So June 15th of next year is the closing date. If they don't have agreement by June 15th they can terminate the purchase agreement, correct? Todd Gerhardt: If we don't close by June 15th, we would terminate the purchase agreement, and I would think Kraus-Anderson would do the same. Councilman Labatt: What it says here though, March 1st and you.., with Northwestern Book, right. If they don't get a signed lease or, they can either move ahead on the closing on June 15th or terminate the purchase agreement on what date? On March 1st can they terminate? Scott Schmitt: Maybe I could help on that. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. The intent behind it is that the March 1st or 15th, I don't recall which one it is. Councilman Labatt: March 1st. Scott Schmitt: March 1st is for the, is when we have to remove that leasing contingency. And then at this point it's a matter of process to get back in front of Planning Commission for technical review, City Council approval and by, and to get all those government approvals in line for the intended uses, that's why the June 15th date is there. It's not for additional time, anything other than getting through that, the public process and the technical review because we'd have to go back to Planning Commission. Like you said, this isn't a site plan review at this point so we'd do it at that time. Mayor Jansen: So after March 1st you would be coming before, well working with staff and coming before the Planning Commission with an alternative plan is what you're saying and that potentially could take til June then. Scott Schmitt: Correct, yeah. Well no. I mean I'm hoping it's this plan. Mayor Jansen: Sure, sure. Understood. 16 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Scott Schmitt: So yeah, but if the tenants change it could be, it could change again. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Does that answer your question? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, it does. But my question is. Mayor Jansen: Does the city also then have the right to terminate the purchase agreement? And I would think there would be some provision that if they've come into the public process to work through a new site plan, that we certainly wouldn't be terminating the purchase agreement with that underway. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. I think that if again, going back to the intent, I'm not the attorney on this and I just know how I need to have things work to make them work smoothly. I think the intent is that if we waive that contingency then we're going to be working toward that closing and I don't think it would be really in anybody's best interest to try to terminate anything. Although if we didn't remove it, then we would probably be terminating it anyways so it would go away. How the technicalities of the contract work, I guess that's a question for the city attorney but that's sort of the intent behind what we're trying to articulate. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. We'll give them a minute to go through the language to see. Tom Scott: I'm sure I'll do that in a minute. Someone else in our office drafted this document so I'm... Mayor Jansen: Okay. We don't have our usual attorney sitting with us this evening. It's falling on Mr. Kelly without his prior review of the document. Tom Scott: I can take a minute and do that and get back to that. Scott Schmitt: Should I just keep talking? Mayor Jansen: We can move onto the next agenda item and then come back to this if you would like. Tom Scott: That would be fine. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. If you want to take citizen input at this time. We have not done that, and. Mayor Jansen: Okay, that would give you a minute. Okay. Why don't I go ahead and I'll open this up for the public hearing. If there is anyone present that would like to comment on this agenda item, please step forward to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. I was going to say, you know Vernelle, Gerhardt's trying to get some time here. Councilman Peterson: Not that much. Mayor Jansen: Not that much time. Sorry. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on this agenda item and why don't we give you an opportunity to take a look at the contract. We will just, let's suspend discussion of this agenda item and come back to this after we've covered agenda item number 6. 17 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 8, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES IN THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. Mayor Jansen: Of course we're pulling Mr. Gerhardt away from his one review. Staff report please. Councilman Labatt: That Steve knows how to ask tough questions doesn't he? Under State Statute the City Council must hold a public hearing when approving a tax increment financing district. I have Mark Ruff from Ehlers Associates here tonight to go through the tax increment financing plan and budget for Presbyterian Homes. This project is 161 rental units of senior housing and we are creating this TIF district to allow for 33 of those units to be affordable for seniors. And at this time I'd like to introduce Mark Ruff to through the project budget. Mark Ruff: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. As background, the city's action this evening is consider creation of a tax increment financing district. For those people not familiar with tax increment financing, it's a methodology by which cities and counties can capture the increased property taxes from a new development to use to help pay for certain site costs, land acquisition costs, housing affordability costs, as the city manager mentioned. There are various types of tax increment districts which have different restrictions, depending both on when the year they were created as well as what the use of the property is. This particular piece of property is being proposed for senior housing. The type of tax increment district would be a housing district, meaning that the city can create a tax increment district as long as certain affordability requirements are met. In this particular case the developer and the city have tentatively agreed to 20% of the units being affordable for those at 50% or less of median income. The housing district has a legal maximum of 25 years. The tentative arrangement with the developers of this property being the non-profits, both locally and together with Presbyterian Homes, which is a regional developer of senior housing, is that there would be up to 7 years of tax increment financing assistance on a pay as you go basis. And by that I mean that the city would not issue bonds in this case. That the development entity would issue their own or have their own financing, primarily probably through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. That the city would have no responsibility for paying any of the obligations should taxes not be paid or a default, or any other way took place. The term of the assistance is based upon a review by our firm and staff of this developer's proforma that says that in order to get their financing they need to have a certain debt service coverage level, and after 7 years their debt service coverage will be sufficient to pay for both the affordability and the increased taxes at that time. The estimated amount of tax increment on an annual basis is approximately $185,000 per year. The budget for tax increment in the plan includes total costs, assuming that this tax increment district runs for 25 years. The City Council does have the option at the end of that 7 years to shut down the district. Have the taxes go back to the regular taxing jurisdiction, or it has the option of utilizing the tax increments from this district on other affordable housing developments within the city. This plan merely gives you authority to do that. It doesn't bind you to run the district for a certain length of time. Nor tonight is there any action being taken to finalize the specific agreement with the development. That agreement will come before the City Council and the EDA at a later date. So I think the purpose again is to just review the tax increment plan. As a part of putting the plan together, we did send the tax increment documents to the county and the school district as well as the local county commissioner. The Planning Commission has reviewed the plan and finds the development to be in general conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. So with that I would be happy to answer any further questions or to highlight any of the findings required in the resolution. There are 4 findings which we did briefly go over at the EDA meeting and the City Council previous meeting as well but I would be happy to review that if the City Council is interested. 18 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Does council have any questions or comments for Mr. Ruff? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate your presentation. At this time I will open this item up for public comment. If there's anyone present who would like to address the council on this issue, if you could come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record please. Seeing no one, I'll close this to public hearing. Council, any comments? Discussion. Otherwise, if I could have a motion please. Councilman Ayotte: I'll make a motion that we recommend as staff has outlined a resolution, Attachment #5 to adopt the modifications of the redevelopment plan and establishing tax increment district No. 8. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And a second please. Councilman Boyle: Second. Resolution #2001-78: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve the resolution (Attachment #5) adopting the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and Establishing Tax Increment District No. 8. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Are we ready to come back to item number 5? Tom Scott: Yes we are Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Mr. Kelly. Tom Scott: I believe the question was what would be the impact if on March 1 there was not a lease in place? Mayor Jansen: I think if you could please, maybe bring your microphone closer. Tom Scott: There we go. Now I'm in business. I believe the question was, if on March 1 if there was not a lease in place with Northwestern Book Store, what would be the status of the purchase agreement? The way it's structured right now would be is that the purchaser would have the option of either terminating the purchase agreement at that time or else notifying us that they would like another 60 days, which would take it til May lst to attempt to get the lease in place or terminate the purchase agreement at that time. It would not give us the option of terminating it at that time but it would be the option of the purchaser to either do it at that time or indicated they wanted another 60 days which would take it June 1. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd, any comments? Todd Gerhardt: No. That's basically what we've done is allowed Kraus-Anderson to market this property in the next 6 months in trying to develop this property. Staff's been doing this for the past 8 years and it gets difficult when you deal with retail, multi-tenant spaces like this to try to market a piece of property if you don't have control of it. And what we're doing is giving Kraus-Anderson a 6 month option to try to find tenants to fill this multi-tenant space. 19 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. So not dissimilar to what we're moving forward with with the bowling alley site as, we've obviously identified a need for retail and entertainment in the downtown core. This would be providing us yet another site to expand our current retail and entertainment. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. And I just want to make one clarification that everybody understands that the earnest money is not, it is refundable. If for some reason we do not close on the property, they get the earnest money back. However staff was able to negotiate if they do soil borings or survey work or a Phase I environmental, that we will have access to those if they should decide not to close on the property. So that's what we were able to negotiate as a part of not having the earnest money. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any more questions for staff? Okay. And I guess I would like to compliment Mr. Gerhardt on his efforts on this property. As he mentioned, staff has had the property for what, 8 years that you've been looking at proposals and being selective about what we actually bring into our downtown and our core and this proposal is certainly one that I think our community would be able to embrace and I certainly hope that everything will come to fruition as you've projected or that at least one of your options will come through. You've certainly done some nice things in the community. The Lake Susan Apartments being Kraus-Anderson and we certainly appreciate your coming into Chanhassen and proposing another project. With that if I could have a motion please. Councilman Boyle: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the purchase agreement with Kraus- Anderson for the sale of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the purchase agreement with Kraus-Anderson for the sale of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. UPDATE ON ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT. Public Present: Name Address Janet Carlson Ed Kling 4141 Kings Road 4169 Red Oak Lane Mayor Jansen: Staff report please, and then I'm sure we have Deanna Bunkelman with us here this evening, correct? Or no. Ed Kling: She actually couldn't make it tonight... Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Council members, I received Deana's renovation working plan today and I want to compliment Deana on her efforts here the past month. It's a very detailed project. I am a little curious on 20 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 how the bids came in from the 2 different contractors. I think you were going to get some quotes on the lumber and some of the other materials on the project. What I would ask the City Council to do is to direct staff to sit down with Deana and Todd Hoffman when he comes back to go through the work plan and delineate out what's staff role in this project would be. What Deana's role would be in there. And put together kind of a joint powers agreement. This is an unusual project where you have a group of residents that are actively out soliciting money for a capital improvement project and then taking the lead on this. My concerns are our liability from the city's standpoint and also that we have somebody coordinating the project from a city level too. And so from that staff would like direction from the council to work with Deana and the city attorney in drafting a joint powers agreement. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Peterson: How much time do you think you'll need? Todd Gerhardt: I would hope that Deana or the group is available, that we should be able to get this back on our next council meeting. Councilman Peterson: Do you still want to demolish if you don't. If you don't end that meeting with a confidence level that it can be executed, do we still want to demolish this year? Todd Gerhardt: Well again I think the big thing in that is how some of these costs come in and the group's effort to raise money. It was my belief that the neighborhood was the fund raising group for this project. That they would go out and solicit funds and have a say in how the building was going to be designed and used, and that the city would then ultimately maintain it. My only concerns in that is a liability that we have a group of residents working on a city project and they're kind of taking the lead on it so I want to make sure that it's clear and that we have the liability side of this project covered. Mayor Jansen: Okay, so in that joint powers agreement it would be more sitting down with the residents and making sure that everyone's roles are well defined and we know exactly how the project would proceed if it does proceed under their ability to finance and fund raise to finance the project. Correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I wanted to make it just clear that, you know what everybody's roles are as a part of this project and that the city's general liability insurance would cover the construction if anybody got injured or hurt out on the project. Even the fund raising effort of this. Who takes the responsibility for that and if there's money short or missing or whatever there might be, I mean there could be a lot of issues involved in this so. This is a unique project. I don't think the city's ever been involved in one where a neighborhood has come in and built us a building before. The closest project I can come in with is when the Lion's I think came in and built the pavilion out at Lake Ann. I believe it was the Lion's, correct Jerry? That built the pavilion. Jerry Ruegemer: Who built it or paid for it? Todd Gerhardt: Built it. Jerry Ruegemer: I think that was. Councilman Boyle: American Legion. 21 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Todd Gerhardt: Legion? Okay. Jerry Ruegemer: That was quite a while ago. Before my time. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Mayor Jansen: So it's just hammering out the specifics at this point so that all parties are clear as to where we're going, because actually and again to piggy back what Mr. Gerhardt said, I was very impressed with the document that Deana pulled together for us. Raised numerous issues as far as some assumptions, as well as just some questions in general as to what the scope of the project would actually be, and so then allowing staff and the residents to sit down and maybe really be able to discuss all of these issues and questions and make sure that the project is moving forward with everyone on the same page I think is an excellent opportunity to make sure we've got everything coordinated properly. Any other questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah Todd, if you could also, one of the concerns I have, and she brought it up. Deana brought it up under questions and issues but maybe it should be an assumption. The laterals, water and sewer and all that business. Now if we go ahead and do a good job and the residents take, do a good job of taking care of the round house, and then we incur a significant expense because of utility that, that's an known at this point and that really has to be addressed. The other places too with respect to tax deduction. That's a pretty big assumption there. Can you shed any light on that particular point? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, that one's, that's the easiest one out of all this. I've talked with Deana twice about it. She can either establish her 5013C and that's the IRS regulation for. Councilman Ayotte: The residents would be involved with the establishment of the. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, they would establish their own 5013 C for tax deductions, and that's an administrative responsibility that would fall back on the neighborhood. Or the other option is Bruce has agreed to establish a round house fund here at the city, and it would be a tax deduction if somebody wanted to donate money towards the project to the city of Chanhassen and they would get that benefit of the write- off. So, and I've talked with Deana. Have not heard back from her on which of those two options she was going to go through. I think she told me that she had an accountant that lived in the neighborhood that might be able to put the paperwork together and so those are some of the things that I think we need to tie up and get a better handle on and who's just coordinating what. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. I think we do have a couple of the coordinators here this evening and I want to afford you the opportunity to make any comment that you would like to. Though you may be hearing what you needed to hear this evening as far as our moving this to staff and asking you to come in and work with them on really hammering out the specifics at this point. But if there are any comments you'd like to share with us, certainly step forward and approach the podium. Ed Kling: Good evening. My name is Ed Kling. I live at 4169 Red Oak Lane. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Ed Kling: Thank you. Some of the, obviously Deana has done quite a bit of work on this and I've been trying to keep up with her on this. She's been moving pretty quickly. Really what we wanted to do tonight 22 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 was to come to you with a plan that we feel is a workable plan with the amount of time we've spent on it. We've seen quite a bit of response from our community. People who are willing to donate time and money. We do have individuals who have already suggested avenues to gaining access to funds through individuals that live in the community if they can see a workable plan and I think we have that here. What we really want to do today is show you that we've got a workable plan and move this project forward. We did have a couple of questions that we did want to have answered. One is, at some point we'd like to find out is the electricity still connected to the building? And is the sewer still connected? Those would be two things that if they are, then that would be items that we would not have to fund. But our main goal is, in this project is to secure the asbestos paint on the outside. Do that as soon as possible. We are getting, in the process right now of getting bids back. One was due today. As well as Mr. Gerhardt's awareness of the lumber bids and window bids. Those are items that are on our way right now. We're expecting those either yesterday or today. So the first thing we want to do is secure the building of any hazardous materials, and then to correct the outward appearance of the building and that seems to be the biggest thom in anybody's side as far as the neighborhood goes. I don't think anybody's really too disappointed in the fact that if the building looked good, I think we wouldn't have any complaints right now and if it was a functional building I think people would be, you know we have to look into the future a little bit to see what this building can be. So what we really want to do is secure the outside of the building and then we can have time to work on the inside. We feel we have a workable plan. Our goal we feel is measurable, attainable and, measurable, achievable and realistic and that's the 3 elements of a working goal. So at this point if we can get an opportunity to meet again and really hammer out some of those details I think we'll have some progress. I know we'll have some progress as far as getting this project off the ground but the idea of liability is one that we need to discuss. And then coordinating at a city level, that's what we also want to discuss as well. So at this point we'd just like to request to move the project forward and have another opportunity to take the project forward. I guess at this point, is there anybody who is, is there any reason that we can't go forward with the project? Mayor Jansen: Well at this point I guess what staff is suggesting is that now that we have all of this detail in hand, and there are numerous questions and issues that we need to resolve and make sure that everyone's on the same page with the, as you mentioned, the liability and the legal issues so I'm hearing that we will probably move this to staff and your group to meet and really hammer out those issues so that we can be sure that we do have a project that is going to move forward and everyone's coordinated in that effort and knows exactly what needs to be done and achieved and a joint powers agreement certainly would make sure that we've got a clear definition of everyone's roles and the liabilities and expectations. So certainly appreciate all of your efforts on this. I know you mentioned that Deana has certainly been out on a lead on this but I think you've attended every meeting here at the council and we certainly appreciate that. Knowing that there is a co-coordinator working on this. It's a big project. Ed Kling: Well I have a feeling that seeing the work that she's done so far, I have a feeling I'm going to have a little bit more involvement in the, she's more the brains. I'm more of the brawn. I might be able to come I'm sure. Mayor Jansen: This will take some brawn. Ed Kling: I've been involved in different projects and I've worked on projects like this doing renovating. I worked with a friend who's a remodeler and so I've been involved in a lot of, get your fingers in the dirt and do the job. I've done work on my own and remodeled my home. Built a deck on the back so it's the type of thing that, it doesn't scare me so I don't see this being a very, a project that we can't handle. I've 23 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 been involved with a friend of mine who's a painter for about 20 years so I've been involved in a lot of these projects so I'm very confident we can do this. Mayor Jansen: Very good. Excellent. Any questions or comments for Mr. Kling council. Okay. Thank you again for coming this evening. Ed Kling: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks a lot. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gerhardt, do you need a motion to have this directed back to you or just a consensus? Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Jansen: Everyone comfortable having staff meet with the residents at this point to hammer out the specifics? Okay. Great. Thank you. If you'll coordinate that with Deana and her group for as soon as you can possibly arrange to get that accomplished. Todd Gerhardt: And we'll get you a tentative budget too on this with their numbers that come in. Mayor Jansen: Excellent, thank you. Thanks for being here this evening. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO PERMIT ONE DRIVEWAY ACCESS PER LOT. Public Present: Name Address Therese Berquist 7107 Frontier Trail Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. On October 22nd the City Council tabled item on this action and directed staff to prepare language dealing with the location of the driveway on the property as it relates to side property lines. The main change in this ordinance in summary is, the first 20 feet of the driveway will have to maintain a 5 foot setback unless the property owner enters into an encroachment agreement. The rest of the ordinance remains the same as before. Earlier there were some questions raised regarding the driveways, and at this point I would like to mm it over to Teresa to answer those questions. Mayor Jansen: Alright, thank you. Thank you for staying Teresa. Teresa Burgess: The issues, and I tried to take notes. I apologize ifI missed them but the issues that were raised were specific to the beachlot in Sunrise Hills. Just to give the council a little bit of background. In the spring of this year we had an incident on that beachlot where we needed access to a lift station that was malfunctioning. Our equipment is relatively large. We made very deep ruts and so following that, and since NSP had done it the previous year, we thought that it would be reasonable to acquire easement and try to do something to avoid that continuous maintenance cost of repairing 3 foot deep ruts. Our proposal to that neighborhood was to go in and do what's called grass pave, and you heard Therese Berquist mention 24 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 that product. That's a very expensive product but we felt it was reasonable if we could get the easement donated. We are still in negotiations with that neighborhood. We have not made any progress so we have gone back to a standard easement acquisition. We had tried to do it a little bit out of the norm. We are going to a standard easement acquisition. We have had a surveyor draft up the easement that we would like to acquire. We will make an offer. However, we're still open to the idea of grass pave if we can work with the neighborhood and I know that Councilmember Boyle had called earlier today. He's been getting some information from the neighborhood as well, so if the council members have more interest in that, I'd certainly be happy to share it with you, but we are just trying to acquire an easement for access to a lift station so that we don't have this continuous maintenance cost of repairing the ruts in the beachlot itself. As for the issues that were raised on the actual amendments, this amendment was not intended to be directed towards the beachlot. The separate driveways serving utility facilities, the intent of that section is to eliminate or reduce any hardships to the property owners. We do not want to end up with a situation where a property owner cannot have an addition, cannot have a driveway because we already have a utility easement access, or that we have to use their driveway and so we're driving up close to their home when they prefer us to be further away on a large lot. It's really intended for the property owners. We acquire those easements. We can't be in an area without that easement, and so we need to have the flexibility if the driveway doesn't work, we need to be able to move to where we can get into a utility access without telling the property owner you have to move your driveway to where our utility access is. In addition, the city is not able to place an access on a property, just like you can't build on your neighbor's property without an easement. The city cannot build on anybody's property without the proper easements in place. The only difference is that the city does have the authority and ability to go through condemnation, but we still need to go through that entire process and acquire the easement and that requires us to work out a negotiated settlement or to go through that condemnation proceedings. We are still trying to negotiate on the beachlot. It is our intent to try and settle that, but if necessary that is an option that would have to be decided by the council. Elimination of (j) in my opinion would lead to hardship for property owners because we would have locations where we would require property owners to relocate their driveway to match our easement. That is something that sometimes we can't go where they want to have their driveway, due to grades. Due to issues of location, and that means they would be stuck with our location. In some cases we can use their driveway. We always try to use their driveway if it's possible, but it would cause hardship in those few cases and at a minimum a variance for each of those cases coming through. The intention was to avoid that when it was reasonable. The turnaround issue that was brought up. The city, it is standard practice to put a turnaround at all the utility stations. It makes it much easier for us to get in and out. It means that we're there less time. It also means we can park 2 pieces of equipment down there instead of just 1 if we need to have more than 1 vehicle down there. Quite often when we're serving a lift station or a well, not only is the city there, NSP is there. I guess they're Xcel Energy now. They need to be down there because a lot of times it's an electrical related issue, so we need to be able to get multiple pieces of equipment in. The turnaround allows us to do that, as well as turning around the equipment. In the case of the beachlot, if we can work out to using the grass pave, it would be in grass pave. If not, we would look at is it appropriate to have one, but the intention in this issue is not, that turnaround doesn't apply to the beachlot. The beachlot is an access easement. That's a separate negotiation. In this amendment the intention of the turnaround is for driveways that come out onto streets that are busy. An example would be Highway 101. As you drive 101 you see all those driveways. Those people back out onto 101. It's a very dangerous situation. They're going the opposite direction of traffic. The intention is if they could turn around and be coming out forward, first of all they had better visibility. Second of all, they're going the same direction as traffic as they come out of their driveway. So that is the intent.., section of the amendment. Section (c). The question was raised if grass pave counts as a hard surface. No it does not. Grass pave is not qualified as a hard surface and adding it as a hard surface, I would recommend against that. Allowing that as a hard surface would allow anyone that wants to to use that product. It's not appropriate for all uses as driveways 25 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 and while it's very expensive and most people probably wouldn't use it, we would end up with it in places that are totally inappropriate. Instead what will happen is if it is used on the beachlot, it will require a variance. This is appropriate since it's a one time situation. The city would like to use it in other places but again in those locations they are either not driveways, which means they do not fall underneath this amendment, or the city will apply for a variance just like any other property owner. Any developer that wants to use grass pave and can show a good reason for it can again apply for a variance, and if appropriate it would go through. But the locations where this is appropriate are very minimal and should not be allowed just across the board. Mayor Jansen: Great. You addressed all of the issues that I had written down that were raised as questions. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: How would you enforce a 5 foot setback, a 10 foot setback irrespective of that distance? We've got so many people already with existing structure, how would you go about it? Teresa Burgess: The existing one, I believe all of the existing ones are grandfathered. They are allowed. It then becomes an issue of catching them. Construction generally brings the attention of the city. We get calls from neighbors. We rely very heavily on that. We also hear from our inspectors who are out in the field. Our building inspectors are out continuously moving around the city looking at new homes. Our street and utility department are both out continuously. Our parks department are out continuously. When they see activity that doesn't look appropriate they call the engineering department or the planning department, whichever is appropriate, and report that and it's checked up on by one of our technicians. And so we would continue to use that same methodology. We right now catch a lot of these in the act of being installed. However there's nothing to stop them from doing it. We stop. We talk with the property owner. We remind them that there's a utility easement and if possible we negotiate an encroachment agreement. This will give us the teeth to require an encroachment agreement. Councilman Ayotte: I see the encroachment agreement. I also see however that with folks who already have an existing condition, and folks that want to introduce what they want to do and not have to adhere to constraints that other owners have not had to deal with is going to cause us a burden and a workload. Is that true or false? Todd Gerhardt: Well there's definitely going to be some argument amongst people. And it's not a perfect world. It's not a perfect situation. I mean the encroachment agreement allows us the opportunity to view these driveways. To make sure that we still have drainage through this area, is the intent behind the encroachment agreement. I'm assuming that the driveways that are out there today, we do have proper drainage and that either most of them are within 5 feet or fairly close to that setback. So those will be the arguments that we have that we'll try to state to these people. Mayor Jansen: Well and after our lengthy discussion at the last meeting over this ordinance I appreciated staff coming up with the recommendation that we do put that encroachment agreement in place so that at least our engineering department does have the opportunity to review the drainage. So this has come back to us as we had directed after the last meeting. Councilman Ayotte: I agree with the encroachment agreement portion. I'm just wondering with the setback issue, people are more likely going to understand that if a structure that they introduce is going to have an adverse affect to drainage, that it's arguably something that they have to address. People who have a setback of 4 feet, vis a vis 5 feet, that will be the issue. 26 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Todd Gerhardt: Well they can always come through the variance process. It's something we don't like to do and I think how we came to the 5 foot was kind of a compromise. I think was at 0. Other people had suggested 10 so I think we came to a compromise of 5. And so. Mayor Jansen: And the 5 being to enforce the issue of the drainage which was what was being expressed as being the concern of what would happen with these driveways right on property lines. But as far as the setback, the way that it's worded in here is affecting the parking pads, if in fact there's going to be a parking pad up by the house. The setback is stating where that will begin so that we don't have a driveway coming all the way out to the curb. Otherwise it's the encroachment agreement to protect the drainage. Todd Gerhardt: But from Bob's comment, I think where he's going with this is that not all properties drain between properties or between garages or between houses. But we need to establish some type of rules out there so we can enforce it and so that's how we came to the 5 foot. Councilman Ayotte: And your point about a variance is a very valid point. That gives people an opportunity to work through an issue. Todd Gerhardt: Well and the difficult part in that is that somebody's got to show a hardship and the need for a third car garage. Because you have 4 teenagers, I don't know what planners look at these days. If that's a hardship or not. Councilman Ayotte: Trust me, it's a hardship. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. 1 is a hardship but it's, I don't know how they would view that. Councilman Boyle: Todd, refresh my memory a little bit please. We currently have a 10 foot setback in code right? Mayor Jansen: No. No, we do not. Councilman Boyle: We do not? Oh, I thought it was. Teresa Burgess: We have no setback at this time. Mayor Jansen: There is none. Councilman Boyle: Zero setback. Mayor Jansen: And engineering has no review on these encroachment agreements. So we're adding the ability for staff to be able to review these. Councilman Boyle: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Any other questions or clarifications? Councilman Peterson: Todd you may want to just talk about the 10 feet versus 5 and what the impact of that is. 27 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Todd Gerhardt: Sure. In town we have a lot of homes that sit around in that 15 to 18,000 square foot area so that limits your side yard for you. And if you go with the 10 foot side yard setback in a lot of our newer developments, you've basically eliminated that option of that individual having a driveway in a side yard. We believe that the 5 feet, you could still accommodate for that driveway in the side yard, but if you go with the 10 foot, I think you've opened up the case for some variances to come in and the planners have told you that the variances are not a way to manage these things. If you're processing a lot of variances, it's a method of having you look at your ordinances and seeing what you need to do to eliminate the paperwork and the red tape. So that's what we tried to do with the 5 foot to come to a compromise to still allow those driveways in the side yards, and still keep a distance from the neighbors yard as a part of that. And again, the reason we are allowing for the side yard parking is that we don't allow for the parking in the streets and when you have teenagers and you've got 3 cars, 4 cars and you park it behind your 2 car garage, it's very frustrating that somebody's always got to get out and move that car. So I've got 3 in my neighborhood that have side yards driveways and they're paved, and it works. So I guess that's my theory beside the 10 foot side yard is that you would eliminate it in a lot of neighborhoods. Mayor Jansen: And though this has become a primary focus of the conversation I believe as this came forward and a great deal of the discussion was around the fact that this will limit the number of driveways per lot. At this point there can be multiple and what we're accomplishing here is getting it down to 1 driveway per lot and I do think that that is very conducive to maintaining the integrity of our established neighborhoods. Though we have control over our new developments as they come in, we certainly don't have anything in place currently on our established neighborhoods to ensure that. Council, anything else at this point or are we ready to move forward with a motion? Councilman Ayotte: I guess that means yes. Councilman Boyle: But just one more question Todd. If between the 5 and the 10 foot setback, do you really anticipate there would be that many more variances? Todd Gerhardt: I guess I'd have to send that over to Sharmin. At our last meeting we had a couple that would have to come through that were just approved. Sharmin A1-Jaff: You will have 3 variances that will come in, and this is just by going over a couple of areas in Chanhassen. We did not go over every single subdivision or vacant parcel of land that's in the city. And I know you looked at these at your last meeting. This is in Big Woods. We have a storm pond and a very narrow path to allow for a driveway to get through. This will force a variance situation. There is about 10 feet to build a driveway. Councilman Boyle: But would that not force a variance either way? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. Councilman Boyle: No. If you did a 5 foot, it would not force a variance is that correct? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Then we would work with the applicant. Through an encroachment agreement they would be able to put in the driveway. It would be specific circumstances when situations like this would not have to come in through a variance. 28 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Councilman Boyle: What I'm trying to get to, do we anticipate a lot of situations like this? I mean. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are only, there are 2 here that we expect to come through. Councilman Boyle: 2? Sharmin A1-Jaff: 2. Mayor Jansen: And the city manager's opinion offered at the last meeting is that it then also puts a large number of the current properties in non-compliance and we now take them out of conformity with code and ordinance and that's why we moved in the direction of what staff would like is the ability to be able to review that placement whereas right now we don't require an encroachment agreement. Councilman Boyle: That portion I agree with. Teresa Burgess: IfI may. The difference between the 2 of going with the, part of the reason for the encroachment agreement is our easement is 5 foot as well. Going to 10 foot we cannot say encroachment agreement is what's required. That will mean if you go to 10 foot that all variances will be a variance approved by the council. The ordinance amendment builds in the ability to do these with an encroachment agreement instead of a formal variance, making it so if it is a reasonable application for them to come through and do this, this is what they need to do. That we're able to assist the property owner without a lot of red tape. We're trying to do it in a manner where the city can still protect itself and it's citizens and do the right thing without making life a headache for the property owners. Trying to assist them to do what's appropriate. We don't want to have boats parked in the street. We don't want to have them parked out in front of people's houses, and that's where the majority of these come in. Is things like boats. Trailers. And to fit something on the side lot, that 5 foot does make a different. That's really, you only need about 8 foot to have a parking stall, and so if you go from a 5 foot to a 10 foot you really have put them in a situation where they may not be able to fit that boat versus if you were to give them the extra 5 foot and maybe they've got another 3 or 4 next to their garage, it will fit. Councilman Boyle: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: To highlight what you just said. Essentially council does not need to see an encroachment agreement, but does need to see the variance. Teresa Burgess: Correct. Council approves encroachment agreements, but they would be negotiated at staff level and be put on the council agenda as a consent item instead of going through the entire planning commission process for a variance. It just comes to the council as an encroachment agreement for approval. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I just wanted one point of clarification. Sharmin you highlighted on one of those plans where it would go right up against the property line and anything within 5 feet would have to come in for a variance then, correct? Teresa Burgess: No. It would be covered by the encroachment agreement. 29 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Teresa Burgess: Which, ifI could add. IfI could say again so everybody hears me. Encroachment agreements are negotiated by staff but approved by council so they would still come to council for approval. You'd still have the ability to say no, we don't want to do that. But it takes the load off of the variance process. These property owners don't have to go through the whole process. Todd Gerhardt: So that gets back to Bob's point for the flexibility, as long as it doesn't impede the drainage. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that I'm going to make a motion that the City Council approve the staff recommendation for the amendments to Chapter 20. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Jansen: And I have a second. Mayor Jansen moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code: Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways. The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria: Driveways shall be setback at least 5 feet from the side property lines, beginning at 20 feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum grade of 10% at any point in the driveway. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer. In areas outside the MUSA, driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer. On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway right-of-way line shall be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for 30 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than 10 feet. f. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. g. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to the following criteria: 1. The driveway shall not interfere with any existing easement; and 2. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the Engineering Department; and 3. The location of the driveway must be approved by the City Engineer to ensure that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties. h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street. i. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road, or collector roadway as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and onto city streets where this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this requirement will be stated on the building permit. j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. All voted in favor, except Councilman Boyle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: I unfortunately had the flu for the last Planning Commission meeting so I was not in attendance so I do not have an update from that meeting. I don't know if anyone else has anything else that you would care to share from the commissions. Councilman Labatt: Did you watch it on TV? Mayor Jansen: No I didn't. I was in bed. Councilman Labatt: You could have watched it on TV and still reported back. Mayor Jansen: And called in, right. Councilman Boyle: It's a good thing to watch when you're in bed with the flu. Mayor Jansen: Oh yeah. Anything under administrative presentations. Mr. Gerhardt. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. 31 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Todd Gerhardt: Just wanted to make sure that everybody knows the November 19th, I had sent out an e- mail a couple weeks ago regarding a tentative meeting on the 19th. We will not be meeting on the 19th. That didn't work with everybody's schedule so we'll try to fit it within our current schedules. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, just trying to get through all of the budget presentations at this point. Councilman Peterson: We've got one left don't we? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: The 26th. Councilman Peterson: No, one budget presentation left. Isn't just admin left? Who's left? Todd Gerhardt: Admin and finishing the capital plan. And then. Mayor Jansen: And MIS is part of your's, correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. And I don't know how quickly we can get through the capital plan. We are planning on a December 3rd public hearing on the tentative budget, and then considering approval of the budget in our first meeting in December. Mayor Jansen: And the December 3rd is not a regular council meeting night so please make sure you've got it on your calendars. Todd Gerhardt: That was part of my e-mail. Mayor Jansen: For the public hearing for the budget. If you'll make sure that you have your December 3rd marked for the public hearing on the budget. That's not a typical Monday night council meeting. Todd Gerhardt: Was it 6:00? We wanted to stay with the same time that we used last year as a part of the notice so that was the same date we used last year. Councilman Peterson: So on the 6th. Councilman Labatt: No, December 3rd at 6:00. Councilman Boyle: The 3rd at 6:00. Mayor Jansen: Got it? Councilman Labatt: It's not the 6th at 3:00. Councilman Peterson: Who's on first? Mayor Jansen: It is a Monday night, right? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. It is a Monday night. 32 City Council Meeting -November 13,2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. First Monday night in December. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim All 33