Loading...
CC Minutes 2001 11 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Cub Scout Pack #337, Den 8 presented the Colors for the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Boyle COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Beth Hoiseth, and Sgt. Dave Potts PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen Donald & Virginia Coban John Siegfried 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 8821 Sunset Trail Carver County Commissioner PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: We do not have any public announcements, but before we go onto the consent agenda, we do have one agenda amendment as we go to do the approval of the agenda. We will be deleting item number 4 under our public hearings, which is a public hearing for the Kings Road street and utility improvements, Project #99-20. The recommendation from staff has changed to denial on that project since the report was published and so we are removing that item from discussion and from the agenda so there will be no public hearing on that project this evening. So do we need a vote then on the amended agenda? Roger Knutson: You could do that, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. If I could have a motion for the amended agenda please. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve deleting agenda item number 4. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to amend the agenda to delete item number 4, public hearing for Kings Road Street & Utility Improvements, Project 99-20. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the following consent agenda items per the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Approve Water Service Connection to 23040 Summit Avenue, Ted Rix. Approve Adjustment to No Parking Zone on Brenden Court. Resolution #2001-79: Adopt Assessment Roll for BC 7 & BC 8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 00-01. Resolution #2001-80: Adopt Assessment Roll for Trunk Highway 5 Improvement Project 97-6. Resolution #2001-81: Receive Feasibility Study; Call Public Hearing for Pedestrian Trail Adjacent to Highway 101, Project 97-12-3. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 13,2001 - City Council Minutes dated November 13,2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated November 6, 2001 - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 23,2001 j. Approving Resolution Decertifying: 1. Resolution #2001-82: Hennepin County Tax Increment Financing District. 2. Resolution #2001-83: National Weather Service Tax Increment Financing District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: We'll have the separate discussion of l(g) at the end of the meeting then. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: Under visitor presentations, we again have our, have to make sure I say this right. Our Cub Scout Pack #337, Den 8 here this evening to receive their Citizenship Awards. And we thought it would be nice if we could bring them to the front of the council and have all of council congratulate them on their citizenship badges. So we have with us Bruce Feik. If you would bring your troop forward we would certainly appreciate it and join us at the front of the council desk. Mayor Jansen handed out Citizenship Awards to the following Cub Scouts: Taylor Parsons, Hunter Feik, Cory Parsons, Patrick Smith, Matty Hart, and Jack Dungess. Mayor Jansen: Thanks for coming and joining us this evening. We appreciate your bringing the flags in for us. That was very nice. Something special that we can certainly use every council meeting. And congratulations on your citizenship award. Thanks for coming in. Continuing with our visitor presentations, the council has allowed for public comments at this time. If there are any city issues that City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 anyone would like to bring to the council's attention at this time, you can approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, we will move on with our law enforcement update. LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. I don't have any specific comments on the attachments I included with the memo. Just have 3 items to share with the council. The first one though I don't see a representative from the fire department here, and they have not contacted me, but I'm not sure they're going to be here. The last I heard there was a power pole down across Highway 212 that was tying up several of our officers along with the fire department so they may not be available this evening. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Under the miscellaneous items, you may have heard about this in the media. The juvenile traffic violator that died in a car crash at Highway 5 and 41 on November 2nd about 11:30 p.m. The juvenile was pulled over by a South Lake officer after the officer witnessed the juvenile speeding and making an illegal mm on the southbound Highway 41 from Highway 7. The male initially stopped for the officer but as the officer was approaching the violators vehicle it took off at a high rate of speed south on Highway 41. When it reached Highway 5, a car northbound on Highway 41 made an illegal left mm through a red light in front of this high speed vehicle and the two collided. The juvenile driver of that suspect vehicle did die at the scene. Two passengers were treated and released as well as the passenger of the other vehicle involved. And to make matters a little worst than that, as officers were out directing traffic at the scene of this accident, one confused motorist in particular pulled over to the side and was subsequently arrested for a DWI so it was kind of a bad evening. Our patrol shift assignments are being completed for this coming year. Six of the 10 deputies currently assigned to Chanhassen are returning, and just for council's information or some of the deputies you may know. Mike Douglas and Ben Gerres will be working the day shift this next year. Jason Bruening and Bob Zydowsky the evening shift. And Mike Felt and Larry Lasard on overnight shift. All current Chan deputies returning next year. Due to some reassignments, a few of the Chan deputies will be in a little bit different role. Deputy Dewitt Meyer currently works the overnight shift, will be working as a corporal roving throughout the county so he will be in and out of Chan, just taking a slightly different assignment there. Deputy Scott Tautges from the evening shift is going to become one of our School Resource Officer and Deputy Pete Anderly lives in the western part of the county so he bid a shift out in that part of the county a little closer to home. Have some newer returning deputies to Chanhassen. Deputy Eric Kilson who works the western part of the county. One of our veteran officers is taking a shift in Chanhassen this coming year. Deputy Kyle Perlick who was a former Chan deputy went into the School Resource Officer program, is coming back to patrol now and he'll be coming back to Chanhassen. Corporal Jim Gamblin, again a former Chanhassen deputy will be filling in one of our open shifts in the county which happens to be in Chanhassen this next year until our new hires get trained in and we plug some of those holes. And I think council is aware that the sheriff's office has been in a constant hiring mode over the last couple of years and it appears we're getting caught up so it looks like if everything goes well in 2002, we'll have all of our shifts filled for the first time in a couple of years. And one of our new deputies, Brian Strandberg who completed field training recently will be working in Chanhassen full time this coming year. And the last item I have for council is that Chanhassen Crime Prevention and the Sheriff's Office will be hosting a robbery seminar for local businesses, and this was a suggestion that came up in conversation between a chief deputy and Councilman Ayotte, and just kind of took it from there. The program got mostly coordinated by Beth Hoiseth and we'll be discussing some security and safety precautions the businesses can take as well as what a business can City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 expect from the sheriff's office regarding responding patrol officers and then the subsequent investigation that follows. Any questions or comments from council this evening? Mayor Jansen: Very good. Any questions for Sergeant Potts? Councilman Ayotte: Just one, and thanks a lot for reacting to that. The response time and what the deputies have been doing to take care of business has just been astounding and to take this one extra step for education is great. There was some discussion to possibly involve some of the victims and participating in the seminar. Is that where they might be able to add to the discussion on, has that been? Sgt. Dave Potts: That was going to be part of our discussion at the actual seminar. Some of those businesses chose to attend and participate, yeah. Councilman Ayotte: Alright, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I see that Beth Hoiseth is here with us as well. I don't know if you were intending to come up or not but we do have the Crime Prevention Safety Education sheet attached so if there are any specific questions for either Sergeant Potts or Beth Hoiseth on those issues, we have both of them here this evening. Good to see you Beth. Beth Hoiseth: Thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, Beth has a presentation for the council a couple steps down on your agenda. She's here for that tonight. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Sgt. Dave Potts: Hopefully I'll be staying ifI don't get called away. Mayor Jansen: Well on an evening like this we won't be surprised to see you go out the door but thank you. Thanks for being here this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR DOGWOOD ROAD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 00-01-1. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor and council members. This evening is the time set for the public hearing for the Dogwood Road sanitary sewer improvement. This project was actually part of the BC-7 and BC-8 utility improvement, however it was done as a separate feasibility study and therefore requires a separate assessment hearing. This project was done to address a failing mound system that was maintained and operated by the city to serve 3 properties. There are only 3 properties proposed to be assessed. I have received 3 objections from the property owners. However their objections are mainly to keep their options open with the ability to contest at District Court. We are not recommending any changes to the assessment roll as it presented to the council. I do not require additional time to respond to those unless something comes up during the public hearing. With that I'll answer any questions and turn it over. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, then we will open this item for the public hearing. If there's anyone who would like to step forward and address the council, approach the podium and if you'd please state your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate it. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Arthur Adamson: I'm Arthur Adamson, and I'm the et al of Janet Quist. If you see there are 3 properties here. One for Martin Jones. One for Quist et al and Lundell. My wife and I, my wife's Janet's sister and so we're part of that property. A couple of things I want to say first of all we've discussed with Teresa a lot of this stuff and she's been more than helpful. She's answered every question that we've asked and more than helpful for us. Another thing, we don't object to the sanitary sewer. We've got some problems up there. We don't want this thing to leak into Lake Minnewashta. We're very sympathetic. The only thing is, as we understand it, we're being assessed for a line from, I don't know how long you know but it's approximately a third of a mile, wouldn't you say from the top of the hill down to the mound, and the 3 of us are sharing a cost in that line as I understand it. And there are some 3300 feet of lakeshore here that's going to have to be eventually on a sewer. We're approximately 300 feet, a little more than 300 feet of the 3300. Now what we want to know is, if we pay for that line coming down there, if other people have to tie into that line, do they owe us any money for our payment of that line? And we're somewhat concerned, and in all fairness. We have, we don't know the exact cost of the project. Maybe Teresa can fill us in on some of that. Initially it was about $40,000 a piece so when we were hit with that it was, it kind of woke us up and Teresa's developed a method whereby I think we can have a smaller line put underground. Maybe you've explained that Teresa and they understand that but for about half of that cost so we're looking at approximately $20,000 a piece. Is that right? A little bit more. And so our question is, does the city get any help from state or federal government for sewer lines that come in? Or is the city paying any portion of this current cost? Mayor Jansen: We will be addressing, we can address your questions once we have all of the comments in and we can have Teresa in fact then speak to that for you a little bit. Arthur Adamson: Okay. I think the initial one was like we were paying $40,000. The total project was going to be a million 3 and the city was going to pay about $260,000 of that million 3 roughly. And we just don't have any figures. We would like to know. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Arthur Adamson: Another question. Down the road, other people are going to have to hook in and we'll have to put another sewer in and you'll have to put these questions to Teresa. She'll be able to answer that but we'll be required to tie in again. We've already tied in once and by the way we have been assessed for that mound once back in 1985 through 1991 we've paid assessments to it already. We have from our house to the current mound put in already, and as I understand it, those charges won't have to be done again if we use that area. The question is where the other new sewer is going to be put in and so we may have some additional costs and we'd like to know what they would be. If it's at all possible or what percentage we would have. We understand that there will be a new road put in on the south end of this project. 78th Street. I don't know if you're familiar with that and there will be quite a few lots along that and they'll have to have a sewer. Will they tie into our sewer? It's kind ofa U and we're in the bottom of the U and will they have to be put in? Also, when will the other people have to hook up to a sewer? That's the end of my comments. Maybe you can help us out in it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Teresa I don't know if you'd like to maybe answer those questions at this point or would you like us to get all of the questions in for you at one time? Teresa Burgess: IfI can just have a couple seconds, I can answer them now in case there are, they answer other people's questions or trigger more questions. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Adamson. Teresa Burgess: Okay the first question I have written down is do they get reimbursed if others hook in later to the sanitary? No. The city did contribute to the cost of this project. It was approximately $1.3 million for the entire project and the city did contribute to the cost of the project. What they are being assessed is a combination of both their hook-up, which is to pay for things like lift stations and use of the city trunk lines and their lateral. Because they are connecting immediately we have assessed their hook-up charge to them right away. The lateral charge, which is what normally gets assessed to a property, in this case is $19,122 and the sanitary is $1,300 for a total of $20,422. The original assessment for this property, just for comparison purposes, was proposed to be $40,535.15. We have seen significant cost savings due to both the efforts of the consultant and the contractor in trying to push those costs down. And we're very happy to be able to report that cost savings. But no, they do not get reimbursed if others hook in later. The over sizing was paid for by the city that would accommodate those future hook-ups. Any federal or state assistance in the cost. This project was paid for with a combination of local funds, which would be City of Chanhassen, and assessment funds. There were no state or federal assistance in the cost and to my knowledge there are none available. If you have significant issues you can qualify for grant and loan programs. However Chanhassen does not qualify under any of those programs and so we did have to fund this out of assessments and our utility fund, which is funded through user fees. Can they be assessed again for new sanitary? I assume that you are referring to the project that's proposed along the lakeshore on Dogwood? Is that correct? Arthur Adamson: Either or. The lakeshore or the road. I don't... Teresa Burgess: No. That project is still under study. The properties in question, if they were to re- divide and create additional lots, would be eligible for an additional assessment for the additional lot. However there are 3 homes. As long as it stays 3 homes, they don't gain any additional benefit by the new sewer line. They already have access so they would not be assessed for sewer, for sanitary sewer. The other project that's being considered does include water and roadway improvements. Those properties could be assessed for water and roadway, but not sanitary sewer. The new road, West 78th Street. Will those properties down in that development area tie in? Those properties, we are still in the process of studying West 78th Street. This council has approved doing a feasibility study but they have not received that report yet, and at this point it is put on hold while we continue the report on Dogwood Road and looking into sanitary sewer and water along that route. Those properties will eventually tie into sanitary sewer, but at this time we do not know how many properties and we do not know when. It will depend on when the properties are subdivided and the council has not even seen a preliminary plat at this time. They may connect into West 78th if that is determined to be a feasible project. Otherwise their only alternative would be to connect onto sanitary sewer running down to serve the Dogwood neighborhood. When will the rest of Dogwood tie in? That feasibility report is still under consideration. We are hoping to have meetings with that neighborhood in January to see where we are on that project. If they feel it's economically feasible, since they will be paying the assessments. They at this point, we are not aware of any failing septic systems on that stretch. If there becomes a failing septic system, then they would be given a time line based on the environmental impact of their failure to correct that problem and typically that is when we put these projects into high gear is to address that type of issue. Otherwise they are not required to hook in until they are ready, which would mean the neighborhood really drives the time line of the project. And so I believe I answered all the questions. If I didn't, please let me know if I missed one or misunderstood a question. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Arthur Adamson: If they do, if they are required to tie in... will we have to pay anymore? ... money for it. Teresa Burgess: No. They would, you cannot be assessed unless you receive benefit. You already have sanitary sewer. Now I know we had discussed if that new sewer line comes down along the back of your lots, what you have right now is, it's a remnant of the old mound system. We've picked it up at the mound system and carried it away from there. So certainly it would be a better system if you fed directly out from your old system out into the new sanitary system instead of running through your tank and then running into our system. However, you don't have any more benefit. You still have sanitary so there would be the potential of hooking up to the new system from your property to the new system, but you would not be assessed for that. You would just be responsible for your share, for your cost to connect your house to the sanitary system. There would be no city assessment to your property. They would not pay you because they are paying for the stretch of lateral that comes to their house and then by paying those trunk fees, they are in effect reimbursing the city for what we have paid towards the project construction. The city by upsizing has provided capacity in that line, and we paid for the difference in size between the pipe it would have taken to serve your property and the pipe that we actually installed in the ground. Mayor Jansen: Does that answer your questions sir? Arthur Adamson: I believe so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to address the council on this agenda item, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on this item. Council, any questions for staff? If I could have a motion please. Or if there's discussion. Councilman Ayotte: The only point I'll make on this, and yeah their assessment has been dealt with, is the need for us as a council at some point to look at the policy and to consider short run sewage lines, water lines, and the effects that they have when we take a splintered approach. I just want to bring that back that at some point I really think we have to take a look see at that and procedurally what do we do to avoid some of the things that we've encountered recently with this sort of situation. Mayor Jansen: Okay, certainly. And because these are older properties that are just receiving new services, it of course is, as you put it, maybe giving an appearance of being splintered but it is in fact just services getting out to older properties that are on mound systems and wells at this point. If I could have a motion please. Councilman Boyle: I would like to make a motion that the final assessment roll dated November 19, 2001 for the Dogwood Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project Number 00-01-1 be adopted at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 6.5%. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Roger Knutson: Mayor just to be clear, you're adopting the resolutions attached to our packet? Mayor Jansen: Yes. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Resolution #2001-84: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the resolution for the final assessment roll dated November 19, 2001 for the Dogwood Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project Number 00-01-1 be adopted at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 6.5%. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Jansen: Moving on, we have deleted agenda item number 4. The public hearing for the Kings Road street and utility improvements so we will move on. UPDATE ON ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: Mayor and City Council members. Per the direction of the City Manager I'm working on, currently working on the establishment of a joint powers agreement between the Roundhouse Renovation Committee and the City. Tom Scott from the attorney's office and Deanna Bunkelman representing the committee and I will meet this Friday. Councilman Ayotte: Will or will not? Todd Hoffman: Will, meet this Friday to discuss those particulars about who will be responsible for what in that project and then we'll bring that back to the council for your approval. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. At this point, you're still in the process of really accomplishing what we had talked about in the last meeting so we appreciate the update. And what, anticipate hearing back from you then at the next meeting in December or? Todd Gerhardt: First meeting in December and included in that will be some budget estimates. How money will be spent and who's going to be in charge of what as the project moves ahead. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll get more information at the next meeting. UPDATE ON RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSING TASK PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Cec Meistel 174 Lakeview Road East Beth Hoiseth: Good evening Mayor and council members. Actually I'm here to give you an update on the conduct on premise status. The research I've been doing. I've reviewed ordinances and spoken with city representatives from 8 communities, and the cities...they're in various stages... For instance 3 of the communities are very new with the program. They've just adopted the ordinance this year, and what I found by reviewing these ordinances are, they're very similar. In fact most of the communities have modeled their ordinance after Minneapolis in the ones that I've talked to. And the Minneapolis ordinance pretty much states that a licensee or the property owner is legally responsible for criminal behavior, nuisance issues on rental property. And if there have been more than 3 police responses within a year's time, that license could be revoked or suspended. And as I stated in my report, there are some distinctions City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 from the numerous cities. One of the communities doesn't license their rental properties but they have a conduct on premise for all properties. And instead of of course, obviously they can't revoke a license but what they do is they have these service fees so they send out an invoice for service fee. If there have been more than 3 violations in one year. And then there's another community that has developed their own crime prevention program, and it's used as an incentive for the properties to get involved in their crime prevention. People lowered the licensing fee if they're involved in the crime prevention program. And new properties are required to participate in crime prevention but the existing ones are grandfathered in. And again talking to those representatives from the city about how conduct on premises is working for them, they say the majority of the complaints that they receive are usually resolved after the first warning violation has gone out to the property owner or the occupant. And the conduct on premises is not a cure all. It does have it's issues but it is a very good problem solving tool that, not only for the city because then they have the means, you know effective means to conduct and combat the problems but also it helps landlords. Landlords can rely on the city for some legal backing on problem tenants. Where I plan to go from here is, we're in the process of developing a guide book and developing a task force or committee which was made up of landlords, city, county staff and perhaps residents, and we seek the input from landlords because we need to know how we can develop a workable ordinance that we can all deal with. And I've already spoken with a couple of landlords who are very interested in participating so that's our goal is to get that up and running within the next month and start researching this as a group as to, you know unique Chanhassen issues and addressing some concerns as far as enforcement and legal issues. Are there any questions? Mayor Jansen: I just had one actually on your list of individuals that would make up the task force. When you say county staff, specifically. Beth Hoiseth: Carver County Sheriff's Office because they're going to be a big part of this. They're going to be the ones who will need, well will be the ones responding to the complaints and we need to work as far as how we're going to enforce that and document the events. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So some of our officials that are actually having to be out there and enforcing what you're putting together. Beth Hoiseth: Correct. Make sure it's comfortable for the sheriff's office as well. Mayor Jansen: Very good. I would also like to hear council comments on whether or not we would like to have a council liaison as a part of the task force. We've done that on numerous of the task forces, just so you at least have a contact from council for input. Okay. Beth Hoiseth: Absolutely. Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte, you had a question for Beth? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, the guide book is intended to assist the people who are property owners to... adhere to the license requirement, is that the intent of the guide book? Beth Hoiseth: Actually more of a work book just to lay out some of the examples that are already out there. You know some examples of ordinances and terminology and that type of thing so they're more educated and prepared. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: So the guide book is a tool to help develop the license? Beth Hoiseth: Correct. To see what's already out there and then kind of a starting base. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So the guide book has a beginning and end life. At the end of the life of the guide book we will have constructed the license ordinance? Beth Hoiseth: We will have developed a workable plan that we will recommend. Todd Gerhardt: The guide book is to give everybody that's on the task force examples of what other communities have done. Definitions of terms so everybody's on the same page and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and everybody running around getting their own examples of ordinances or things like that, we thought we'd get the horse in front of the cart here and share that information with everybody and try to make this a short task force timeframe. Mayor Jansen: And so then the task force goal or mission is to draft the ordinance and bring forward a proposal to council then for consideration as far as an ordinance. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Proactive ordinance that the landlords feel as if they can live with and that the residents feel comfortable with. Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Any other questions? Gary. Councilman Boyle: Beth, you're going to try to do this in 30 days? I mean in a month. Beth Hoiseth: To coordinate to actually have a task force developed. Not to have it complete but to actually schedule a meeting and get the guide book in place. That type of thing. Councilman Boyle: ...thank you. That's all. Mayor Jansen: As far as any estimate on how long you think it might take a task force to pull this together. Todd Gerhardt: My guess would be 2 to 3 months, depending on how active the task force is. You can forget about December, beginning of January so you're probably looking at the end of March would be my guess that we'd have something back to you. Do you think so Beth? Beth Hoiseth: I think so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. It seems like a pretty focused effort and especially if you've already done most of the research as far as pulling together the comparable ordinances. To then be bringing forward just recommendations to council on some of the alternatives, I wouldn't think that would take too extraordinarily long amount of time. Todd Gerhardt: And the landlords in Chanhassen are well educated in these ordinances so they're familiar, most of them. Our property managers in other communities that have such ordinances so they're going to bring a wealth of knowledge to the task force and tell their stories of other communities so I would think it would go fairly quickly. 10 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Councilman Boyle: I received a couple of calls from landlords that weren't quite that enthusiastic about this after reading Thursday's Villager. You do have some opposition. Beth Hoiseth: Oh, yes we expect that but once we have an opportunity to explain the entire plan, hopefully they'll come around. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just briefly comment on that. When Plymouth started their process maybe 18 months ago, almost 2 years ago, there was plenty of landlord opposition. By the time they got to the end of it, the only folks that showed up were landlord representatives that came to the council meeting and they all unanimously supported it. Beth Hoiseth: I have had some real positive comments regarding that the city is there to back them up with their problems and reliable, responsible landlords look for that. Mayor Jansen: And part of what I would suggest is that we have the individuals who are calling us directly, if we can pass that information onto staff so that they can address some of the questions that are being posed to us. They will be much more capable of maybe putting some of the concerns to rest, or at least incorporating those concerns into the process as you're going forward and drafting the ordinance so I would just suggest that we all keep forwarding that information to staff. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and I'm hoping that this is going to be an ordinance that the landlords can use as a tool for marketing their business and saying that they do have crime free housing and they work hard and show them a copy of the ordinance and use it as a marketing tool for their business so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? Comfortable with the task force concept for going forward and bringing forward the recommendations. Okay. Council interested in having a liaison on the task force? We don't necessarily have to decide that this evening. Ifthere'd like to be some discussion. Councilman Boyle: Why don't we discuss that a little bit. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We can do that, certainly. Thank you very much. Appreciate the update. REOUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A PRIVATE STREET; 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD; POWERS CIRCLE, ARILD ROSSA¥IK. Public Present: Name Address Mark Kelly Arild Rossavik Virginia & Donald Coban George Bizek 351 2nd Street, Excelsior 8800 Powers Boulevard 8821 Sunset Trail 8750 Powers Boulevard 11 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is a 3 part request. The first part is to change the guide plan for new property from residential large lot to residential low density. In essence it would permit the increase in density on this property from 2 ½, a minimum lot size of 2 ½ acres to a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The second part of the request would be a rezoning to RSF from Agricultural Estate district, which is a 2 ½ acre minimum lot size. And the third part is a preliminary plat for a 6 lot subdivision with a variance for a private street. The crux of this review is the proposal for the land use map amendment. This did go before a public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 6th and they recommended unanimously that the city deny the proposed amendment and consequently denial of the rezoning and the subdivision. Their comments were that they believed the project was premature and there's no compelling reason to make this change. Staff agonized over this. As you can see from the map, this property is located within the large lot subdivision. The property to the north is part of the Oakside Hills development, as well as those properties to the south. While it's separated from that development, it's still part of that neighborhood. We believe that changing this one lot would change the character of that neighborhood and therefore staff is recommending denial of the land use map amendment. Given that, the rezoning would be inconsistent with the current land use of large lot residential and the platting of the property would be inconsistent with that. The subdivision itself shows that by not changing the property to the north as part of a development proposal, we need to revise this plat to maintain conforming status on that property. As currently proposed, and if this was approved, the house to the, or the garage to the north would not meet required setbacks and then would become a non- conforming use. Were these 2 properties to come in together, then we may be more favorably predisposed to recommend a change in the land use. Again, the Planning Commission felt that over time this area may be a good one for transition but currently it's premature. We're recommending denial of the amendment and the proposed development. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Bob Generous: I have none at this time. Councilman Ayotte: When you're talking about the physical characteristics, and when I looked at the report, can we make the statement that if it were approved, that it would have an adverse affect on drainage and you talked about the character of there and so forth, but can we specifically state that there would be an issue with respect to that and from an environmental standpoint, would there be an environmental impact? Bob Generous: Right. Well as part of our review we did look at the subdivision and we made recommendations were the council to approve it that we think would mitigate the potential negative impacts. At least from a drainage standpoint. And for preservation of some of the natural features. However, again we're intruding this more intensive use in a large lot area and that we believe is in conflict with what our comprehensive plan directs us. Councilman Ayotte: So the statement is that there would be an environmental impact and it would have degradation on the property for drainage? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. 12 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: But what staff is saying is that they've proposed conditions that could mitigate that. Correct? Okay. This is not a public hearing. However, if the applicant is present and would like to make comments, you are certainly welcome to at this time. If you could keep that to approximately 5 minutes, it would be appreciated. We of course have attached to our packets the verbatim minutes from the Planning Commission meeting so we have been able to review those and taking those into consideration this evening. If you could state your name and address for the record please. Mark Kelly: Thank you Mayor. My name is Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney in Excelsior. 251 Second Street, Excelsior, Minnesota. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rossavik. You've heard from the city staff and I'm presuming you've had an opportunity to review their comments on this matter. The issue appears to turn on only one thing. The question of whether this development is inappropriate at this time. Curiously enough the city staff has acknowledged that in so many ways this project is presently meets the expectations of the city in these regards. In particular it is pointed out that the proposed use will be compatible with present and future land uses in this zone. The proposed use will not tend to, or actually depreciate the area so therefore there should not be any negatives on the neighboring properties. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services that will not over burden the city services in that area, or it's capacity and will not create traffic issues for the city. The staff had noted only that the proposed actions in their opinion might be found to be inconsistent with the official city comprehensive plan. In support of that, they have cited a couple of phrases from the comprehensive plan. One, the idea that the comprehensive plan incurred is low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community to reinforce the character and integrity of the existing family, single family neighborhoods while promoting establishment of new neighbors of similar quality. The staff then concludes that this would be in contrast with that proposal. This is a document that I believe Mr. Generous put together himself. You'll see that the lot in question to be rezoned is highlighted in a very dark line, and on the west, east and north of this property are all low density, single family residential housing. And slightly to the north of it along Powers Boulevard, medium density housing. None of the housing along Powers Boulevard has berms or other kind of features intended to reduce the impact of the high density traffic and on the collector street which is Powers Boulevard. I would also note that you'll see that the indication is that County Road 18, south of that would have medium and low density housing in the near future. We would ask that the City Council approve the change in the map and approve the subdivision so that we might then continue to work with staff on the issues that they had highlighted regarding the platting process. Those are largely engineering issues that can be answered through the normal engineering process, and planning process that make this proposal work. A couple other things I would want to note. The drainage for the area right up here, see the development on high ground, which is all low density housing, now directs the water onto those Flamingo Drive and the like up in that area. So the ravines that are in the west end of this property, well in particular the southwest area and westerly edge, no longer are representative of the amount of volume of waters that were at one time directed through that land. This property is quite isolated. The only neighboring property that to the north will not be affected by the simple rezoning of either of these properties, or both of them collectively. It will not precipitate or require the northerly property to be redeveloped. The continued use of that property as is can continue indefinitely and the commercial use of that property can also continue. The situation here is, we are concerned with the suggestion that city staff would support the proposal if only the neighbor were to join. Clearly we would like a single standard to be applied to this situation and not a double standard. One in which yes, the development is entirely reasonable apparently in the eyes of the city staff were this request to be joined in by our neighbor. Unfortunately our neighbor withdrew his support for this request, but that doesn't mean that this property shouldn't go forward. It's quite clear that this development will add additional single family homes on 15,000 square foot lots, not dissimilar to that which is planned for here in the southeast of the property, as well as what's already built on the other areas surrounding him. The character of the area will not change 13 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 and the neighboring property to the south will have a great deal of buffer in terms of space between these homes and it's most northerly boundary which is a split rail fence along that property. Mayor Jansen: If you could begin it wrap up, I would appreciate it. Mark Kelly: Thank you. We would like to make sure that the council has, if I may approach the council. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Mark Kelly: Have copies of, these are photographs of the area.., and we'd like one included in the record. Those are photographs that you see of this blue striped area in an attempt to inform the council as well as the record here, as to the character of the area. You'll see that it illustrates the neighboring properties. They do not have berming. You can see how the, with the lay of the land is, there are no issues regarding trees or anything of that sort. Clearly the trees that are at risk are a few pine trees. Those can be restored if they are to be impacted by a building pad. The remaining vegetation is largely scrub. With those comments the only thing that I would point out is that the city should be consistent in the way it applies the ordinance in this case and not adopt a standard that clearly indicates from the city staff that this is entirely timely. That this could go forward at this time, but apparently is not being approved by the city staff at least for reasons that involve exclusively whether our neighbor joins in this even though my client owns 59% of the property at issue. We'd invite any questions you might have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Mark Kelly: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any questions? Thank you. As I mentioned, attached to each of our packets were the extensive minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where there was a great deal of public input taken and I am making the assumption that everyone had the opportunity to read those comments this evening so I will not open this for any additional public comment, but would now look to council for comments or any discussion. Councilman Ayotte: The fact of the matter remains that it's up to our decision, not based on what the neighbors do or do not want but what we currently have in terms of zoning. There is, as staff has accounted for, the potential for adverse affect on the area from an environmental standpoint, and that's been made clear. And that there would be additional resources that would have to be utilized by this city to respond to the introduction of a denser area in that area. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to go along with the staff's recommendations that the Planning Commission had recommended based on those points. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments? Discussion? Councilman Peterson: I think the only comment that I have is I, I didn't read the minutes but I watched it on television so I accomplished it a different way. Mayor Jansen: Good for you. Councilman Peterson: Tells you what my life is like I guess. I don't know. One comment that the commission talked about, and Bob brought up earlier was that it may be premature that this area may develop. Down the road would be more appropriate. I guess I'm not in agreement with that, because that 14 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 essentially says that every large lot will be subdivided, and I'm not even close to begin to say that. That's part of the integrity of the community. Even the survey talked about the open spaces and the large lots and the benefit of that so I just wanted to make a special note of that comment, that I certainly don't agree with that in this particular development or others, large lots should be expected to be subdivided. So. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. I would echo that same comment. Again, I'm looking at this area and what the city has subsequently surrounded it with and from the map that was shown, I'm seeing the two park areas and the city worked very hard to accomplish those park areas as they did the PUD to the north. And it was a great deal of what was accomplished with that PUD was to create more of this open space, and I see this large lot development being consistent with that goal of accomplishing that open space and that park area. It certainly then preserves the integrity of the tree line that abuts the park and creates more of that buffer to that, so rather than comparing it to some of the other examples that were given, I just, I don't picture this area eventually expanding into that many homes so I'm not making the assumption that this will eventually mm into any denser development than it is currently. And so with that I guess I am supporting the staff recommendation and appreciated the amount of comment that the Planning Commission put into this agenda item as far as taking public comment and sharing with the council their comments on this. One of the points that was made is that we do need to have a very compelling reason to make any changes to our land use, and as I look at this, that's the first thing that I look for is what is the compelling reason and I don't see a good cause for making a land use change like this in a developed area. So with that, if I could have a motion please. Councilman Ayotte: I'll make a motion, shall I read verbatim? To follow what the staff recommends to city council. That is that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Lot Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. The City Council denies the Rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council denies the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision #97-12 creating 6 lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the Land Use designation and Zoning requirements. Roger Knutson: Does that include adoption of the Findings of Fact contained on pages 10 through 13 of the planning report dated November 26th? I suggest that it should. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And with that addition to the motion, do I have a second? Councilman Boyle: I'll second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Lot Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. The City Council denies the Rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council denies the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision #97-12 creating 6 lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the Land Use designation and Zoning requirements. And that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact contained on pages 10 through 13 of the planning report dated November 26, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. 15 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS TO PERMIT FOUR STORY BUILDINGS WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET AND THREE STORIES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET; AND AN AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE A FORMULA FOR CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND VICE VERSA; VILLAGES ON THE PONDS I, LLC LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I had a map of the Villages development. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the design standards for Villages on the Ponds. Under the original PUD the development proposed in Sector I, which is the core of the Villages, that the building that could be 3 ½ stories or 3 stories with a loft and 50 feet. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to 4 stories. It's directly in response to a proposal that will come later tonight for the Presbyterian Homes project. Additionally we're looking at providing that building heights within this sector could go up to 3 stories and 40 feet, which would be consistent with the Highway 5 standards. Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 6th and they did recommend approval of the amendments subject to some qualifications. One was that the building height for the building located in the northeast comer of Sector I be limited to 2 stories. The second one was that the buildings that have frontage on the main street, or that have pedestrian access must have a majority of commercial space, except for the Presbyterian Home project and that's due to some topography that it'd be impossible for them to meet that. Additionally the amendment looks at creating a conversion for moving from one type of land use within the development to another, which is some of the flexibility we've talked about before. The overall project was reviewed under an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and we were looking at the use of the traffic generation for the project to keep a threshold that the development would not exceed. By comparing the ratio of that we were able to come up with some... Again, we simplified that and reduced it down to one conversion factor for each use. The proposed design standards for the amendment that we have in the packet would provide us with the guidance for telling, letting staff know and any developer know what the conversions would be for the project. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for the building height and for the conversion table. The final thing was the applicant was requesting an amendment to permit the signage in Sector I to no higher than 20 feet if it was architecturally integrated. Staff believes that this area was designed for more pedestrian effect and we believe that if they want to go higher they should come through a variance process rather than having the amendment for everyone. So with that we were recommending denial of the sign permit. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff'? Councilman Peterson: No questions from me. Councilman Ayotte: No. Councilman Boyle: I have no questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any discussion or we can go to motion. Councilman Peterson: I would make a motion we approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development standards for the Villages on the Ponds, amending Section (d) as noted in the staff report. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second? 16 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: i'll second that. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds, amending section d as follows: d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent. 2. More than one (1) principle structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. The maximum building height shall be for Sector i - four stories (residential with street level commercial or office)/50 feet, (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to three stories/40 feet) except for the lot on the comer of Promenade Pond and Great Plains Boulevard shall be limited to two stories/30 feet, Sector ii - three stories/40 feet; Sector iii - three stories/40 feet; and Sector IV- four stories/50 feet. Building height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, and other architectural and roof accents. The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g. pedestrian passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelling Total Square Retail (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Units Feet Sector i 114,500 83,500 0 160 198,000 Sector ii 60,000* 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector iii 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0 TOTAL 174,500 97,500 100,000 322 372,000 *Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel. Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic loads. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses. 1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 17 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority of the street frontage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: And again I appreciated the extensive review by the Planning Commission and all of the comments that were shared during that public hearing. Moving on we have agenda item number 9. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF A 4 STORY BUILDING WITH 90 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, AND A 3 STORY BUILDING WITH 73 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILDING AREA OF 254,100 SQ. FT. WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AND APPROXIMATELY 9,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL AREA; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND MAIN STREET; VILLAGES ON THE PONDS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS; SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor. I just want to show within the Villages project, this site is located in this area. It's bounded on the north by Lake Drive, on the east by Main Street and on the west by Market Boulevard. The proposed development is for 2 buildings. It's Presbyterian Homes. They would have 90 independent living senior apartment buildings on the building located adjacent to 101 which is the building on the left in this project. This is a 4 story building. There would be only apartments in this unit. It does not have direct pedestrian access to Lake Drive. The only concern we had on this building really, well there's 2 of them. One is the required setback from the wetland which is located in the northwest comer of this site. We are working with the applicant to verify the edge of this wetland. There may be some revisions just to a portion of that building to make sure they meet the 40 foot setback. The other issue we'd like to work with them is to create additional articulation in the building through the use of different window treatments, including the use of window boxes, shutters, different window types to help give more individual attention to the units. So people could actually go by and say that's my unit and know that it's different from the rest of them. We also are working with them, we're somewhat concerned with the color palette that they have. We believe they should use a little bolder colors in it to give us a little more differentiation. We do have their sample palette, and if you look at it and you can't really see the, distinguish the different uses so we're working with them to come up with greater colors. The primary building elevation, materials for both buildings would be brick on the lower levels and then a vinyl siding on the upper levels. One of the recommended conditions of approval would be that we permit the use of EFTS in order to achieve that darker color if we can't do it through the use of the vinyl siding. Building TT is the one that's on Lake Drive. It's an L shaped building and Main Street. The northern part of it, that on Lake Drive, the first floor elevation, the entire length of that would be for commercial type uses. We've worked extensively with the developer to get this. To have them provide that. Originally when they came in, that area was proposed for their senior restaurant. Instead we want to have lease type space and so they made a design that works for that. On the back part of that elevation they would have some of their administrative offices. The faCade greatly meets the requirements for the Villages concept. We wanted to get a northern European flavor and they do have a lot of articulation. They're going to work with staff again on color for this building and the samples. These buildings do have underground parking for each of the units. There's also surface parking. They're in excess of their parking requirements based on the 18 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 design standards for Villages on the Pond. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in our staff report with the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did vote unanimously to recommend approval of the site plan. Councilman Ayotte: Did? Bob Generous: They did, yes. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Are all the points that you brought up with respect to architectural issues and so on and so forth, are all contained in your recommendation? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: So there's nothing that you've mentioned that's not written? Bob Generous: No. And they assured staff that they're right now they're at almost at a schematic stage and as they get into more detail, they'll be able to bring it out. Councilman Ayotte: They'll be able to assimilate all that? Councilman Boyle: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Go ahead, any other questions? Councilman Peterson: There really isn't, to reinforce the fact that to change the design of that one wall so that the articulation or different windows and the size, I mean we've got a building opposite of 101 that we didn't achieve that goal and I think it's even more important that we have more careful attention to that so I applaud you catching that and here and I'll stand behind you and push you forward if I need to. Councilman Boyle: Is the plan that's in our packet have, is this the design you're talking about? The windows you're talking about or is there something different? Bob Generous: There would be additional articulation in the windows, such as the use of planter boxes outside some of the windows or shutters on sides or user of different window types. Half round on top just to give a little more definition. Councilman Boyle: Okay. Thank you, I missed that part. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. I guess I would just also want to echo what Councilman Peterson said and commend you on the additional conditions that you've added to this as far as catching some of the articulation, working with them on the color palette to give it a little bit more variety. Love the underground parking to try and get some of this surface parking maybe tucked in underneath the buildings is a great addition over in that area. And I believe the changes as you've worded them in the conditions is that it just has to come through for the Planning Director approval, correct? So we're not slowing the 19 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 project down at all. They don't want to come back in and go back through the process so I think you've done an excellent job and with the Planning Commission revisions I think they've caught a great deal of the issues that I would have found concern with. So I think it's an excellent proposal. Councilman Boyle: I agree. Councilman Peterson: This is going to be the centerpiece of that development so I think it's even more impetus for us to do the right thing, and I think we are. Mayor Jansen: Yep, I agree. Councilman Peterson: I will miss the walkway on the original rendition though with the tower going across. I thought that was really neat. Mayor Jansen: Would have been our first skyway, right? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and it certainly addresses a key housing need in the community so I'm sure I'm expressing the council's extreme pleasure in seeing this come in for our senior community that I recall receiving my first petition as I got onto council 3 years ago from our seniors looking for assisted living facilities here in Chanhassen, so I think the project will be very well received by the community as a whole. And I'm judging by the fact that Vemelle Clayton isn't here this evening that she either got snowed in and is watching us on television. Kate Aanenson: We expected them to be here. I was frantically looking for them so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And Mr. Eckloh also gave extensive comment at the Planning Commission so I appreciate that they were at that meeting. We were able to read their comments even though they're not here this evening and thank you for working closely with them on the project. If I could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: I'm assuming that our motion, usually it reads the council adopts. This one hasn't been changed from Planning Commission so we're doing the same thing, right? Kate Aanenson: It should say council. Councilman Peterson: I would recommend that council approves Site Plan #2001-13 prepared by KKE Architects dated September 14, 2001 subject to conditions 1 through 57. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second? Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan #2001-13, plans prepared by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, dated September 14, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 20 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outlot F, Villages on the Ponds, to a block and lot designation. Pedestrian connections shall be provided from the interior parking lot to both Lake Drive and Main Street. 4. The applicant shall make the following corrections to the landscape plan: Add 9 grey dogwood. Plant 13 Redtwig dogwood instead of 6. Substitute 2 Green Mountain sugar maples for 2 Emerald Queen Norway maple. Plant 7 Black Hill spruce instead of 6. All changes pertain to the landscaping proposed along Highway 101. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping or vine type plants to be planted in areas where the garage elevation of the building is exposed, including the southern end of Building I and the southern end of Building II, on the west end of Building II, and adjacent to the retaining wall. Shredded bark mulch shall be placed under the line of Japanese tree lilacs proposed along the terrace facing Lake Drive. A strip of sod shall be laid along the sidewalk. 6. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Additional fire hydrants may be required on the inner parking portion of the project. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire hydrants. A 10-foot clearance space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Fire lanes and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire land signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1, 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. 10. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) is required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 11. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. 12. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 21 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Submit design specifications regarding vehicle access over the underground link connecting the two buildings. This tunnel design should support the imposed loads of Chanhassen's largest fire apparatus. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. The inner courtyard area should be designed for fire apparatus access drive-through. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The proposed ;building areas are over the allowable area permitted for Type V One-Hour construction, area separation walls will be required to bring the building areas in compliance with the code. Building # 1 is not permitted to be four stories high if constructed of Type V One-Hour construction. The proposed 13R fire sprinkler system cannot be used for area and/or number of story increases. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) must be installed on the domestic/fire suppression water service. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained or established around all wetland basins. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of city staff and shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the required wetland buffer setback for structures. 22 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. The rate of discharge from the proposed development shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed development. Existing drainage and utility easements should be vacated and new drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Deleted. Erosion control blankets should be installed on all areas with slopes 3:1 or greater. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. The monument sign located in the northwest comer of the site at the comer of Lake Drive and Market Boulevard must, at a minimum, identify the Villages on the Ponds development. The applicant/developer shall install site furniture throughout the project including benches, planter boxes, tables, chairs, etc. The applicant/developer shall work with staff to prepare a final color pallet with greater differentiation in siding colors. The number of vinyl siding colors is limited to four colors. Since the siding areas are for accent only, EFIS or stucco would be an acceptable alternative in order to achieve bolder colors. The applicant/developer shall work with staff to incorporate additional window types such as bay, half-round, round, and Italianate as well as window accents such as plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, trellises, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit stormwater pond design calculations for the 10 and 100 year storm event. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos: 2202, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301, 5302, and 5313. The minimum drive aisle width is 26 feet. Revise the plans to comply. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regularity agency permits. Retaining walls must be designed by a registered engineer and require an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. The two proposed rock construction entrances are required to be a minimum of 75 feet in length. 23 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 45. Public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public storm sewer line. The minimum easement width shall be 25 feet. 46. Add a storm sewer schedule to the plans. 47. On the utility plan revise CB 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 to CBMH 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14. 48. Plan and profile views are required for all of the public storm sewer. 49. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 50. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. This easement shall cover the pond up to the 100 year high water elevation. The easement over the existing pond will have to be vacated as a condition of site plan approval. 51. Type iii, heavy duty silt fence shall be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). All silt fences shall be removed upon completion of the project. 52. Connection to the public utility lines will incur hook-up charges against the lot. The 2001 sanitary sewer hook-up charge is $1,322 per unit. The 2001 water hook-up charge is $1,723 per unit. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. 53. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading. 54. Add a legend to the plans. 55. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls, access aisles and driveway widths. 56. Ground air conditioning units, utility boxes, and meters shall be screened with landscaping and/or with the same building materials used on the main structure. 57. The uses located on the first floor of building 2, along Lake Drive, shall be commercial type uses, open to the public and not directly related to the Presbyterian Homes operation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Great project. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. Mayor Jansen: We've received a letter from Len Simich, the Executive Director at Southwest Metro Transit noting that my term is expiring. And i didn't see in the memo, for those of you who are interested in grabbling this position. It is, the meetings are once a month. The fourth Thursday of every month 24 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 starting at 6:00 and we've been running until 8:00 approximately. There are 2 committees that the commission has set up that also there's a budget and personnel committee, as well as a development committee that's taking care of the development of the site around the transit commission. I happen to be a member of the development committee at this point. The commission is made up of representatives from each of the member cities, as well as a rider representative from each of the cities. And I'd have to say it's one of the more pleasant volunteer opportunities that I've participated in over the last 2 years. Just that contact with the different communities as well as having input then from our whole transit perspective on these issues. So I would say that this is an excellent opportunity for whoever would like to step up and take over the term. The next term would begin in January of 2002 and go until December 31st of 2004. Is there anyone interested in volunteering for the position? Councilman Peterson: Is it your desire to go off or is it your desire to stay on or other? Mayor Jansen: I've served on the commission for 2 years and I would say that after the year term I felt that carrying on into a second year would certainly be a plus for Chanhassen in that there was continuity. I think at this point, you know definitely to have another council representative on the commission would not be a negative as far as some turnover right now. And like I said, I have appreciated being able to serve on the commission so it's not as if I'm looking to leave that position but I would encourage any of you to get involved on this if only because of that additional contact and one other perspective on another issue in the community. Councilman Ayotte: One of the things, knowing where the water treatment is leading, that's going to take a lot of my time. I'm not as concerned on my time as I am with the scheduling and so forth. So that certainly has an impact. I don't think I could really respond until I know how that lays out and what the requirements are going to be for that activity. And I really have to focus on that because obviously that's pretty critical in near term. So I'd like to see where that falls out first. I wouldn't mind. I'd enjoy it but I want to see where that falls out first. Councilman Peterson: I'd maybe recommend we wait until Steve comes and see if he has any desires. I mean I don't want to raise my hand if he says that he would want to do it. Mayor Jansen: Did you get any feedback from Councilman Labatt by any chance? Todd Gerhardt: Not on this item, no. Mayor Jansen: I didn't think about that before he had to leave for work. Okay. Okay, if we tabled this until our next council meeting. If you would maybe check and make sure that Councilman Labatt is going to be there. Will everyone be present for the December l0th council meeting? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Councilman Boyle: As far as I know, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So then we would have a full group to make that decision. Councilman Ayotte: I'm wondering too, we've got the issue with the task force for the licensing. The possible involvement there. We've got the water treatment activity that I'm involved with. We've got the 25 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 transportation activity. It may be a good idea to kind of bring it all together and address all of these opportunities at one time, or no? Mayor Jansen: Well they're not all coming open, as far as consideration for needing to fill a position. This is actually a position that we do need to fill for that January time period. The others are task force commitments that are just internal so I think it's a little different consideration actually. Councilman Ayotte: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So why don't we table any action on this until the next council meeting when we can have the conversation with Councilman Labatt here. Todd Gerhardt: Steve will be back the 8th is what he told me. He's out from the 2nd to the 8th. He should be at the 10th, but I will call and verify. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Thanks. Do we need a motion to table or? Roger Knutson: It'd just be appropriate so the record, somebody reading the minutes could figure out what happened. Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion to table please? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Commission to the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: We had one issue at the Planning Commission that led to some interesting conversation around one of the proposals that came forward from staff. I think we've all grown accustomed to receiving the staff reports with most of their recommendations having been met by the time it comes up to say Planning Commission or Council. They were faced with a project where what staff had pulled together was a long list of recommendations and conditions that they could support the approval of that particular project with those conditions attached, and there was a little confusion and it led to a little discussion on the part of some of the Planning Commissioners as to why a report would come forward like that. So I was able to then have a conversation with everyone and express on staff's behalf that they work very hard to bring proposals forward that they can support, and if there are conditions that they can put within that report, they certainly will do that to try to move it to an approval so it was I think a very positive conversation on the commission part and again another one of those learning experiences as something comes through a little differently and I would compliment Kate on how she handled that discussion in the course of the public hearing on that issue. But that was the only thing that came up at the Planning Commission. Any other updates? 26 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Councilman Boyle: I don't have one. Councilman Ayotte: Nor I. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. Kate Aanenson: This report is really for your edification. At your last council meeting where you were discussing in the capital improvements plan, the request from the Community Development Department for funding, $10,000 for the Carver County Community Demographic Partnership. And this is a spin-off that is being led by Waconia Ridges as part of their quality of life and they worked hard with the County and it's a pretty exciting project because we'd be the only community, only county in the State of Minnesota that's working as an entire group or all of our data is being compiled together. The school district is very excited. I'm meeting with them, Barbara Luckerman from the University who does their study. They missed the mark a little bit on project, their 112 district projections and some of the household trends are changing and we're trying to track some of that data too and looking at the make-up of households. So with this program, not only is the Carver County participating but so are all the school districts in the county as well as individual jurisdictions. While each individual jurisdiction collects their own data, this will be put on a database that we can all extrapolate the information. Whether it's crime statistics. Right now we're tied into the Carver County for the Recorder's Office, we want to find property owners. The intent of this is not to get individual names but to get data. When we can find out household information where we can do programming specifically. Where are the children and where do we need to provide recreation programs. For us, programming some of the things that we would do out of the planning department would be where are the seniors. Where do we need to be looking at for Meals on Wheels? Some of those sort of things. We are just really excited about this because it gives us a lot of the information that we can do a better job of providing services and the like. So I really just provided this to give you information from the census was putting this together. This is their bailiwick. They do this throughout the metro area. Some of the uses that they saw for it. Again, Chaska and the City of Chanhassen obviously so as the two largest communities in the city are taking the lead on this, but again it would also not only be, our concern was that if we didn't have District 276 in it, the information wouldn't be as valid for us because we're also trying to provide planning for the two different districts, and that is a concern when we're looking at specific needs and households and how those changing demographics, 276 has signed on as to be a partner. To supply the data which was a concern for us so really this was just to give you more information on that, and I know as you work through your capital improvements, I'll be happy to answer more questions as that goes on. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. You've noted an annual expenditure then of $5,000. Is that for the maintenance and update then of that data? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Right now we're looking at that coming through the Community Development Department but really this is data that we'd be using, every department would be using that so we'd be working that through the different departments. Each department contributing to that annual upkeep of that database. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Very good. Todd, any comments? 27 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Todd Gerhardt: No. I support it. This is something that I think we can link up as a part of our web page and have this information available to residents. I think it's a great program. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff? Councilman Boyle: I have none. I think it's very timely and appropriate. Mayor Jansen: Yes, and thank you for partnering up with the on this and participating. Appreciate that. Okay, there is no action required on this item. Moving on, oh! Anything else? Mr. Gerhardt under Administrative? Todd Gerhardt: No. Just the agenda item removed. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for the reminder. CONSENT AGENDA: (G) APPROVAL OF PROSECUTION CONTRACT WITH CARVER COUNTY. Mayor Jansen: We removed agenda item l(g) for separate discussion. Councilman Ayotte, that was your motion. If you would like to begin the discussion. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, thank you Madam Mayor. As we have with other services that we've purchased, it would be good in order to properly represent Chanhassen and being good stewards of their tax dollars, to close the loop with our contract with the County Attorney. What I mean by that is, it may be helpful to periodically receive information on the activities associated with Carver County Attorney as it affects the City of Chanhassen. Much as we have from the Carver County Sheriff's Office where Sergeant Potts provides information on a periodic basis. I was wondering if it would be appropriate, and I like to open it up for discussion to see whether or not we could add to the language of the relationship under the contract we have with the County, and to also couch what additional costs it might bring. A quarterly report or a periodic report that would include fine revenues to date. Number of cases handled. Presented for charging. A breakdown of specifically since this is a large concern for Chanhassen at this point but there may be others, DUI's. The verdicts. Guilty. Not guilty. And any reporting that might be associated with drugs and controlled substance cases. And the reason why we bring those out obviously is because it seems, it appears based on the Carver County Sheriff's reports that we get, that that is a large run. I'm not saying limit it to these data elements but using these as examples. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any comments council? Councilman Peterson: I would agree. I think it's reasonable to get some kind of report back that shows activity level. Councilman Boyle: I agree also. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Mr. Gerhardt. How would you like us to handle this as far as the contract? Do you need time then to work out that condition with the Carver County Attorney's Office? Do you need us to table this for you to get that accomplished or? 28 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Roger Knutson: If I could suggest stepping in. There would be two ways of doing it. One is discuss it and then bring it back. The more efficient way maybe, just put it in here. Approve it. That's what your desire is and if he doesn't like it, then you have to bring it back for your next meeting but I'd just point out, like from the perspective of our office, we have software that can tell you anything you want to know and a lot more that you don't want to know. It cuts it up every which way and everything that ever happens is. Again, I don't know what kind of software they have. Councilman Ayotte: Well, and I think it's a really good point. That's why I think we ought to approve it. It's my feeling that we ought to approve the contract and to have whatever language added loose enough so that we can work towards the construction of a report that would have meaning, both to the County Attorney's office and to the City. Mayor Jansen: With that if you would make a motion. Councilman Ayotte: I would like to make a motion to approve the Contract with the County Attorney's office and to further move that we establish a reporting procedure between the Carver County Attorney's Office and the City of Chanhassen, preferably on a quarterly basis. And that the contents of the report would be worked out between the City Manager and the County Attorney prior to the next council meeting. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Ayotte: Don't ask me to repeat that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I don't have a problem with that. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the Prosecution Contract with the Carver County Attorney's Office and establish a reporting procedure between the Carver County Attorney's Office and the City of Chanhassen, preferably on a quarterly basis, the contents of the report to be worked out between the City Manager and the County Attorney prior to the next council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Any discussion around the correspondence? Everybody wants to see if we could manage to drive home this evening safely. If I could have a motion to adjourn. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 29